What do you think?
Rate this book
The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review
The extent of Christ’s atoning work on the cross is one of the most divisive issues in evangelical Christianity. In The Extent of the A Historical and Critical Review , David L. Allen makes a biblical, historical, theological, and practical case for a universal atonement. Through a comprehensive historical survey, Allen contends that universal atonement has always been the majority view of Christians, and that even among Calvinist theologians there is a considerable range of views. Marshalling evidence from Scripture and history, and critiquing arguments for a limited atonement, Allen affirms that an unlimited atonement is the best understanding of Christ’s saving work. He concludes by showing that an unlimited atonement provides the best foundation for evangelism, missions, and preaching.
848 pages, Paperback
Published November 1, 2016
42 people are currently reading
168 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
February 8, 2017
Here is an encyclopedic treatment of the oft debated topic of the extent of the atonement. In particular, it’s a refutation of the limited atonement. To be sure, it’s focus is the atonement and not the totality of the Calvinistic system. This book really serves two distinct purposes. On the one hand, it makes a case for a universal atonement, while on the other hand, it presents an exhaustive history of what has been believed on the subject in the past.
The historical research done is mind blowing. I can hardly believe the volume of pages of reading that would’ve had to have been done to pull it off. No matter which side of the issue you are on, you must appreciate all the historical research that has been marshaled into one place for us.
Though I agree with the author in holding a universal atonement position, many things I learned here were a surprise to me. I already knew that there was no known precedent for the limited atonement in the church fathers, so my surprise came in the Reformation era. The biggest shock was that John Calvin himself did not hold to a limited atonement. In fact, we can find no historical proof of it before Beza. I was further shocked through the next several chapters to find several Calvinistic theologians that I knew did not hold to a limited atonement even if they did the other elements of Calvinistic theology.
Mr. Allen, in my view, presented some compelling exegesis and logical argumentation throughout the book. I felt he was honest with what his research uncovered. If the theologian he studied made any statements positive toward a limited atonement, he readily admitted it. After reading this book, it will now be an encyclopedic resource for me when I want to look up a theologian to remember his position on the limited atonement.
After he completed his historical review, he reviewed in-depth the most popular, common, new title presenting the limited atonement, “From Heaven He Came and Sought Her.” I felt he answered it beautifully, without superficiality or generality, and was quite successful. His closing chapter on why an unlimited atonement is important made an excellent conclusion.
The only negative thing that I noticed in this fine title is that I fear it is more likely to rile than persuade his opponents. At times, he would take his opponents to task for being over-the-top in their statements and would turn around and be overly harsh to them on the same page. Remember it seems that way to me, and I was on his side as I read.
Still, this book is a tremendous resource. It offers outstanding history and makes salient points that may be tough for those who hold to a limited atonement to answer. I highly recommend it.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.
The historical research done is mind blowing. I can hardly believe the volume of pages of reading that would’ve had to have been done to pull it off. No matter which side of the issue you are on, you must appreciate all the historical research that has been marshaled into one place for us.
Though I agree with the author in holding a universal atonement position, many things I learned here were a surprise to me. I already knew that there was no known precedent for the limited atonement in the church fathers, so my surprise came in the Reformation era. The biggest shock was that John Calvin himself did not hold to a limited atonement. In fact, we can find no historical proof of it before Beza. I was further shocked through the next several chapters to find several Calvinistic theologians that I knew did not hold to a limited atonement even if they did the other elements of Calvinistic theology.
Mr. Allen, in my view, presented some compelling exegesis and logical argumentation throughout the book. I felt he was honest with what his research uncovered. If the theologian he studied made any statements positive toward a limited atonement, he readily admitted it. After reading this book, it will now be an encyclopedic resource for me when I want to look up a theologian to remember his position on the limited atonement.
After he completed his historical review, he reviewed in-depth the most popular, common, new title presenting the limited atonement, “From Heaven He Came and Sought Her.” I felt he answered it beautifully, without superficiality or generality, and was quite successful. His closing chapter on why an unlimited atonement is important made an excellent conclusion.
The only negative thing that I noticed in this fine title is that I fear it is more likely to rile than persuade his opponents. At times, he would take his opponents to task for being over-the-top in their statements and would turn around and be overly harsh to them on the same page. Remember it seems that way to me, and I was on his side as I read.
Still, this book is a tremendous resource. It offers outstanding history and makes salient points that may be tough for those who hold to a limited atonement to answer. I highly recommend it.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.
June 14, 2017
"Tour de force" is more than appropriate for this exceptionally helpful book. 809 pages of text (791 plus an 18 page Preface/Introduction) and thorough Subject, Name and Scripture Indexes.
In the Preface, Professor Allen credits two men that have helped scores of men like myself with their painstaking websites on classic Calvinism:
David Ponter: www.calvinandcalvinism.com
Tony Byrne: www.theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com
Their research is the underwater portion of David Allen's atonement-iceberg.
Far too many Calvinists (some dishonestly, some ignorantly) portray the history of Reformed theology as a monolithic stream of uniform thought. And even where the genuine diversity is acknowledged, when it comes to the issue of the extent of the atonement, the classic, moderate position is often dismissed, ridiculed and almost always caricatured (A.A. Hodge speaks of the unlimited atonement view within Reformed Theology as "not heresy, but an evidence of absurdly confused thought and disordered language on the subject").
There are three basic views on the extent of the atonement:
- Arminianism believes that Christ suffered equally for the sins of all mankind.
- Moderate Calvinism holds to an unlimited atonement for the sins of all men and a designed limitation in effectual application. An unlimited atonement and a limited redemption (though terminology varies among various theologians).
- High Calvinism and Hyper Calvinists believe that Christ died only for the sins of the elect. Expiation/propitiation and redemption are limited by design and effectually applied only to the elect.
This book is largely an historical survey of the numerous theologians that have espoused and defended an unlimited atonement, primarily from within Calvinistic circles. Additionally, the typical arguments of High Calvinists for "limitarianism" (a great label) are repeatedly examined, explained and refuted. I think the case is thorough and convincing. But the more important point, in my opinion, which this book will go a long way in establishing is that the doctrine of unlimited atonement has a worthy and honorable heritage. It's encouraging to see Carl Trueman endorsement on the back of the book. He writes, "While David Allen and I disagree on the matter, this work is an irenic and learned contribution to the topic which carries the historical, and thus doctrinal, discussion forward in an extremely helpful way. I am thus happy to recommend this work of a friendly critic. It deserves wide readership and careful engagement."
Truly, this book is an encyclopedic resource to which you will turn again and again. I was introduced to a wealth of information and to numerous works by a plethora of expositors who ably defended God's love for a world of sinners, and the sending of His Son to die for everyone.
Of striking interest to me (among so many good things) is the evolution of the High Calvinist revision of the famous "Lombardian Formula." Though the truths precede him, Peter Lombard (1096-1164) explained the distinction between the extent of the atonement and the application of the atonement in the language that Jesus' death was sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect. Historically this statement meant that Christ's death paid the price for the sins of the world, but the benefits of it were only applied, through faith to the elect. Up until Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Calvin's successor, the Lombardian formula was universally received. But theologians like Beza and John Owen consciously revised the formula to espouse merely a "hypothetical sufficiency." The death of Christ would have been sufficient for all, if God had so intended it (John Davenant made much of this revision in his, "Dissertation on the Death of Christ"). A.W. Pink writes, "The Atonement, therefore, is in no sense sufficient for a man, unless the Lord Jesus died for that man" - completely rejecting the formula.
John Owen's famous "double-payment argument" and "trilemma" are refuted by numerous reputable Reformed theologians: Zachary Ursinus, John Davenant, Edward Polhill, James Fraser, Thomas Watson, Timothy Dwight, Edward Griffen, Ralph Wardlaw, Charles Hodge, W.G.T. Shedd, Robert Dabney, Neil Chambers, etc.). Many also refute the common defense of limited atonement from texts asserting that Christ died for "the church" or "His sheep" by showing that this involves the negative inference fallacy, "the proof of a proposition does not disprove its converse." Allen, relying on Robert Dabney writes, "One cannot infer a negative (Christ did not die for group A) from a bare positive statement (Christ did die for group B) any more than one can infer that Christ died only for Paul because Paul said in Gal. 2:20, 'Christ gave himself for me.'"
A terrific chart on page 766 lists notable representatives of the various views on the extent of the atonement. Among those who hold to an unlimited atonement and yet a limited redemption are: John Calvin, Zwingli, Martin Luther, Ursinus, James Ussher, John Davenant, John Hall, John Daille, John Preston, Richard Baxter, Henry Scudder, Arrowsmith, John Bunyan, Stephen Charnock, John Howe, George Swinnock, Isaac Watts, Experience Mayhew, Jonathan Edwards, David Brainerd, Andrew Fuller, Erskine Mason, J.C. Ryle, Thomas Chalmers, Ralph Wardlaw, Owen Thomas, John Brown, Henry B. Smith, Edward D. Griffen, Charles Hodge, Robert Dabney, Andrew Robertson, Leon Morris, A.T. Robertson, Broughton Knox, August Strong, Bruce Ware, etc.
A few favorite quotes:
Henry Smith: "The sincerity of God is at stake. 'He offers to all a salvation which he has not provided for all.'" (pg. 361)
Lewis Sperry Chafer: "Men cannot reject what does not even exist. And if Christ did not die for the non-elect, they cannot be condemned for unbelief." (pg. 394)
Kevin Bauder, "Those who reject [a strictly] limited atonement do not object to what it affirms, namely that Christ died to provide salvation for the elect." (pg. 545)
Ken Keathley, "It is much easier to reconcile the verses that seem to teach a limited atonement with those that teach an unlimited atonement than vise versa." (pg. 595)
Erskine Mason, "Its necessity does not arise from the number of sinners, but from the nature of sin. The very nature of sin requires an infinite atonement in order to its honorable remission. Such an atonement as Christ offered, was indispensably necessary to the pardon of one act of sin - and as the sun must be what it is, whether it lightens one man, or every man who cometh into the world, so it makes no difference as to the nature or availableness of the sufferings of Christ, whether one sinner, or a race of sinners, is to be saved by them. There is no more waste or unnecessary expenditure in the one case than in the other...There is no more waste in preaching, than there has been in making an atonement which is not received." (pg. 340)
Allen's book also contains a lengthy review, chapter by chapter of the recent title defending a strictly limited atonement, "From Heaven He Came and Sought Her" - pgs. 657-763. He recognizes some helpful information here and there (noting especially the chapters on Dort, Amyraut, and Owen; with some good things in places elsewhere) but mentions these specific critiques of the historical section:
- "There is no reckoning with the major debates within the Reformed tradition from [the 17th century] to the present."
- There is no acknowledgment of the many within the Reformed tradition who did not hold to definite atonement..."
- "Also glaringly absent is any treatment of the rise of hyper-Calvinism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries or acknowledgment that one cannot become a hyper-Calvinist without a commitment to definite atonement and its corollaries."
- "Finally, the historical section fails to indicate clearly the fact that the Hypothetical Universalist position within Reformed Theology antedated both definite atonement and the Amyraldian disputes."
David Allen is not a Calvinist, and some will likely write the book off for that mere reason. But his book is an exemplary model of fair representation and honest history. He is intimately acquainted with the Moderate Calvinist position and has given the church a lasting and useful resource.
I urge all my fellow Calvinists to procure this book and take the time to carefully work through its pages. Do not engage in caricature and foolish dismissal of the breadth of our Reformed heritage. You will be the better for having read this excellent book.
In the Preface, Professor Allen credits two men that have helped scores of men like myself with their painstaking websites on classic Calvinism:
David Ponter: www.calvinandcalvinism.com
Tony Byrne: www.theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com
Their research is the underwater portion of David Allen's atonement-iceberg.
Far too many Calvinists (some dishonestly, some ignorantly) portray the history of Reformed theology as a monolithic stream of uniform thought. And even where the genuine diversity is acknowledged, when it comes to the issue of the extent of the atonement, the classic, moderate position is often dismissed, ridiculed and almost always caricatured (A.A. Hodge speaks of the unlimited atonement view within Reformed Theology as "not heresy, but an evidence of absurdly confused thought and disordered language on the subject").
There are three basic views on the extent of the atonement:
- Arminianism believes that Christ suffered equally for the sins of all mankind.
- Moderate Calvinism holds to an unlimited atonement for the sins of all men and a designed limitation in effectual application. An unlimited atonement and a limited redemption (though terminology varies among various theologians).
- High Calvinism and Hyper Calvinists believe that Christ died only for the sins of the elect. Expiation/propitiation and redemption are limited by design and effectually applied only to the elect.
This book is largely an historical survey of the numerous theologians that have espoused and defended an unlimited atonement, primarily from within Calvinistic circles. Additionally, the typical arguments of High Calvinists for "limitarianism" (a great label) are repeatedly examined, explained and refuted. I think the case is thorough and convincing. But the more important point, in my opinion, which this book will go a long way in establishing is that the doctrine of unlimited atonement has a worthy and honorable heritage. It's encouraging to see Carl Trueman endorsement on the back of the book. He writes, "While David Allen and I disagree on the matter, this work is an irenic and learned contribution to the topic which carries the historical, and thus doctrinal, discussion forward in an extremely helpful way. I am thus happy to recommend this work of a friendly critic. It deserves wide readership and careful engagement."
Truly, this book is an encyclopedic resource to which you will turn again and again. I was introduced to a wealth of information and to numerous works by a plethora of expositors who ably defended God's love for a world of sinners, and the sending of His Son to die for everyone.
Of striking interest to me (among so many good things) is the evolution of the High Calvinist revision of the famous "Lombardian Formula." Though the truths precede him, Peter Lombard (1096-1164) explained the distinction between the extent of the atonement and the application of the atonement in the language that Jesus' death was sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect. Historically this statement meant that Christ's death paid the price for the sins of the world, but the benefits of it were only applied, through faith to the elect. Up until Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Calvin's successor, the Lombardian formula was universally received. But theologians like Beza and John Owen consciously revised the formula to espouse merely a "hypothetical sufficiency." The death of Christ would have been sufficient for all, if God had so intended it (John Davenant made much of this revision in his, "Dissertation on the Death of Christ"). A.W. Pink writes, "The Atonement, therefore, is in no sense sufficient for a man, unless the Lord Jesus died for that man" - completely rejecting the formula.
John Owen's famous "double-payment argument" and "trilemma" are refuted by numerous reputable Reformed theologians: Zachary Ursinus, John Davenant, Edward Polhill, James Fraser, Thomas Watson, Timothy Dwight, Edward Griffen, Ralph Wardlaw, Charles Hodge, W.G.T. Shedd, Robert Dabney, Neil Chambers, etc.). Many also refute the common defense of limited atonement from texts asserting that Christ died for "the church" or "His sheep" by showing that this involves the negative inference fallacy, "the proof of a proposition does not disprove its converse." Allen, relying on Robert Dabney writes, "One cannot infer a negative (Christ did not die for group A) from a bare positive statement (Christ did die for group B) any more than one can infer that Christ died only for Paul because Paul said in Gal. 2:20, 'Christ gave himself for me.'"
A terrific chart on page 766 lists notable representatives of the various views on the extent of the atonement. Among those who hold to an unlimited atonement and yet a limited redemption are: John Calvin, Zwingli, Martin Luther, Ursinus, James Ussher, John Davenant, John Hall, John Daille, John Preston, Richard Baxter, Henry Scudder, Arrowsmith, John Bunyan, Stephen Charnock, John Howe, George Swinnock, Isaac Watts, Experience Mayhew, Jonathan Edwards, David Brainerd, Andrew Fuller, Erskine Mason, J.C. Ryle, Thomas Chalmers, Ralph Wardlaw, Owen Thomas, John Brown, Henry B. Smith, Edward D. Griffen, Charles Hodge, Robert Dabney, Andrew Robertson, Leon Morris, A.T. Robertson, Broughton Knox, August Strong, Bruce Ware, etc.
A few favorite quotes:
Henry Smith: "The sincerity of God is at stake. 'He offers to all a salvation which he has not provided for all.'" (pg. 361)
Lewis Sperry Chafer: "Men cannot reject what does not even exist. And if Christ did not die for the non-elect, they cannot be condemned for unbelief." (pg. 394)
Kevin Bauder, "Those who reject [a strictly] limited atonement do not object to what it affirms, namely that Christ died to provide salvation for the elect." (pg. 545)
Ken Keathley, "It is much easier to reconcile the verses that seem to teach a limited atonement with those that teach an unlimited atonement than vise versa." (pg. 595)
Erskine Mason, "Its necessity does not arise from the number of sinners, but from the nature of sin. The very nature of sin requires an infinite atonement in order to its honorable remission. Such an atonement as Christ offered, was indispensably necessary to the pardon of one act of sin - and as the sun must be what it is, whether it lightens one man, or every man who cometh into the world, so it makes no difference as to the nature or availableness of the sufferings of Christ, whether one sinner, or a race of sinners, is to be saved by them. There is no more waste or unnecessary expenditure in the one case than in the other...There is no more waste in preaching, than there has been in making an atonement which is not received." (pg. 340)
Allen's book also contains a lengthy review, chapter by chapter of the recent title defending a strictly limited atonement, "From Heaven He Came and Sought Her" - pgs. 657-763. He recognizes some helpful information here and there (noting especially the chapters on Dort, Amyraut, and Owen; with some good things in places elsewhere) but mentions these specific critiques of the historical section:
- "There is no reckoning with the major debates within the Reformed tradition from [the 17th century] to the present."
- There is no acknowledgment of the many within the Reformed tradition who did not hold to definite atonement..."
- "Also glaringly absent is any treatment of the rise of hyper-Calvinism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries or acknowledgment that one cannot become a hyper-Calvinist without a commitment to definite atonement and its corollaries."
- "Finally, the historical section fails to indicate clearly the fact that the Hypothetical Universalist position within Reformed Theology antedated both definite atonement and the Amyraldian disputes."
David Allen is not a Calvinist, and some will likely write the book off for that mere reason. But his book is an exemplary model of fair representation and honest history. He is intimately acquainted with the Moderate Calvinist position and has given the church a lasting and useful resource.
I urge all my fellow Calvinists to procure this book and take the time to carefully work through its pages. Do not engage in caricature and foolish dismissal of the breadth of our Reformed heritage. You will be the better for having read this excellent book.
September 14, 2018
David Allen has written an excellent volume, a thorough exercise in historical theology.
One of the book's greatest strengths is how Allen has explicitly demonstrated that Limited Atonement (or any of its synonyms) is a later theological development when compared to Universal Atonement.
Another extremely helpful aspect is how Allen implicitly showed that a conviction on the co-extensive nature of the extent and the application of the atonement will be significantly weighty as to coming to a conclusion on the extent of the Atonement. This is a particularly helpful insight that should aid evangelicals in charitably debating this subject.
I am in agreement with Allen and therefore found his chapter on why belief in universal atonement matters to be an excellent exercise in theological reflection.
This book is encyclopedic and will be of great value to anyone looking at specific individuals in church history and their thoughts on the subject at hand.
My hope is that Allen will work on a volume "The Extent of the Atonement: A Biblical and Exegetical Review" as this would be a great complement to what he has written in this present volume.
One of the book's greatest strengths is how Allen has explicitly demonstrated that Limited Atonement (or any of its synonyms) is a later theological development when compared to Universal Atonement.
Another extremely helpful aspect is how Allen implicitly showed that a conviction on the co-extensive nature of the extent and the application of the atonement will be significantly weighty as to coming to a conclusion on the extent of the Atonement. This is a particularly helpful insight that should aid evangelicals in charitably debating this subject.
I am in agreement with Allen and therefore found his chapter on why belief in universal atonement matters to be an excellent exercise in theological reflection.
This book is encyclopedic and will be of great value to anyone looking at specific individuals in church history and their thoughts on the subject at hand.
My hope is that Allen will work on a volume "The Extent of the Atonement: A Biblical and Exegetical Review" as this would be a great complement to what he has written in this present volume.
July 25, 2018
I've read a couple from David Allen now, and I always come away dissatisfied. The present book is 1200 pages on the atonement. More than you could ever ask for, but it doesn't scratch the itch. The reason is, 1000 of those pages are a historical survey of other people's opinions. I want to know what the Bible says. Allen never quite gets around to a rigorous exegesis of the disputed texts.
Notes:
(1) "The extent of the atonement answers the question, for whose sins was Christ punished? There are only two possible answers: (1) He died for the sins of all humanity, (a) with equal intent (he died for the sins of all as equally intense there salvation) or (b) with unequal intent (He died for the sins of all but especially the sins of the elect). (2) he died for the sins of the elect only (limited atonement), is the only attempt there salvation (12)
(2) The "application" of the atonement answers the question, when is the atonement applied to the sinner? There are three possible answer to this questions . (1) it is applied in the eternal decree of God. This is the view of many hyper-Calvinists. (2) It is applied at the cross to all the elect at the time of Jesus's death. This is called "justification at the cross" and is the position of some hyper-Calvinists and a few high Calvinists. (3) It is applied at the moment the sinner exercises faith in Christ (13)
(3)What is it, preciesly, that those who affirm limited atonement as defined ab mean by the term? this can, I think , be summed up in three propositions: (1) Christ sufficient ered only for the sins of the elect--that is, he was punished for the sins of the elect alone. (2) only the sins of the elect were imputed and /or laid upon Christ (3) Christ only laid down a redemptive price and /or ransom for the elect alone. in addition to these three propostiions those who affirm limited atonement utilize four key major assumptions/arguments in support: (1) the sufficiency of the -death of Christ for all the non-elect is only a Hypothetical sufficiency of value. (2) the double payment argument, that sins cannot be paid for twice (only by Christ on the cross and again by unbelievers in hell is parentheses, is the key theological argument used to support limited atonement. (3) Christ only died for those whom he intercedes (John 17) (4) the atonement and the application of the atonement are coextensive: those for whom Christ died are those who must be saved due to the effectual nature of the atonement
(4) Personal note: I'm less interested in what theologians across the ages have thought than what the Bible says
(5) It is logically inconsistent and even incoherent to make this claim on the definite atonement scheme for the simple reason that nothing can be sufficient for someone when it does not exist for him or function as a grounds for the indiscriminant offer the gospel to him (1076)
(6) "How is it that in every single atonement passage that uses the word "world," most Calvinists inform us that the world must be restricted because in some other contexts it is restricted?" (1101)
(7) What constitutes a valid offer? (1) the one offering sincerely desires to give something. (2) the one offering possesses that which he offers (3) the one offering desires that the thing offered be accepted (4) the recipients of the offer are able to fulfill the condition of the offer. (1170)
Notes:
(1) "The extent of the atonement answers the question, for whose sins was Christ punished? There are only two possible answers: (1) He died for the sins of all humanity, (a) with equal intent (he died for the sins of all as equally intense there salvation) or (b) with unequal intent (He died for the sins of all but especially the sins of the elect). (2) he died for the sins of the elect only (limited atonement), is the only attempt there salvation (12)
(2) The "application" of the atonement answers the question, when is the atonement applied to the sinner? There are three possible answer to this questions . (1) it is applied in the eternal decree of God. This is the view of many hyper-Calvinists. (2) It is applied at the cross to all the elect at the time of Jesus's death. This is called "justification at the cross" and is the position of some hyper-Calvinists and a few high Calvinists. (3) It is applied at the moment the sinner exercises faith in Christ (13)
(3)What is it, preciesly, that those who affirm limited atonement as defined ab mean by the term? this can, I think , be summed up in three propositions: (1) Christ sufficient ered only for the sins of the elect--that is, he was punished for the sins of the elect alone. (2) only the sins of the elect were imputed and /or laid upon Christ (3) Christ only laid down a redemptive price and /or ransom for the elect alone. in addition to these three propostiions those who affirm limited atonement utilize four key major assumptions/arguments in support: (1) the sufficiency of the -death of Christ for all the non-elect is only a Hypothetical sufficiency of value. (2) the double payment argument, that sins cannot be paid for twice (only by Christ on the cross and again by unbelievers in hell is parentheses, is the key theological argument used to support limited atonement. (3) Christ only died for those whom he intercedes (John 17) (4) the atonement and the application of the atonement are coextensive: those for whom Christ died are those who must be saved due to the effectual nature of the atonement
(4) Personal note: I'm less interested in what theologians across the ages have thought than what the Bible says
(5) It is logically inconsistent and even incoherent to make this claim on the definite atonement scheme for the simple reason that nothing can be sufficient for someone when it does not exist for him or function as a grounds for the indiscriminant offer the gospel to him (1076)
(6) "How is it that in every single atonement passage that uses the word "world," most Calvinists inform us that the world must be restricted because in some other contexts it is restricted?" (1101)
(7) What constitutes a valid offer? (1) the one offering sincerely desires to give something. (2) the one offering possesses that which he offers (3) the one offering desires that the thing offered be accepted (4) the recipients of the offer are able to fulfill the condition of the offer. (1170)
February 10, 2017
David L. Allen (Ph.D, University of Texas) is dean of the School of Preaching, distinguished professor of preaching, director of the Southwestern Center for Expository Preaching, and George W. Truett Chair of Ministry at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Allen has authored numerous articles and chapters in multi-authored works, as well as several expository commentaries and monographs. Most recently, Allen has released a mammoth tome focused on the extent of the person and work of Christ in the atonement.
It is important to note at the outset that Allen is a well-known and longtime critic of Reformed theology. More specifically, Allen has been outspokenly opposed to the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement for as long as I can remember. That said, as readers look to approach The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review, it is reasonable to expect that Allen would produce a volume firmly situated within such conclusions. I am here to report that the theological outcome of this volume comes as no surprise! Where the surprise will surface for most readers is in the historical/theological depth with which Allen guides the reader.
The Extent of the Atonement is divided into three major sections: (1) the extent of the atonement in Church history, (2) the extent of the atonement in the Baptist tradition, and (3) the extent of the atonement: a critical review. The first two major sections are somewhat self-explanatory in their content. Allen surveys nearly every significant historical and modern figure that concerned themselves, intentional or not, with issues related to the extent of the atonement. The third major section offers a lengthy, chapter-by-chapter and point-by-point review of the widely praised From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective. For those who have previously interacted with this work, the cover price of the present volume is well-worth a glimpse into Allen’s engagement with those authors.
There is much to be praised about this volume. For starters, I was happy to see the threefold emphasis that Allen placed on the atonement being aligned in its (1) intent, (2) extent, and (3) application. This is an important aspect of the conversation that, unfortunately, gets overlooked far too often. It is here that the extent of the atonement is rightly positioned within its proper soteriological framework. Second, the level of historical depth and analysis from an Arminian perspective is unparalleled in the market today. Lastly, while I found myself disagreeing with Allen’s analysis more than I found myself agreeing, I appreciated the evenhandedness of his interaction throughout.
There are also a few hesitations or shortcomings about this volume. At least two are worth mentioning at this point. For starters, despite spending nearly a decade researching and writing on the topic, Allen still seems to misrepresent the Reformed understanding of limited atonement in places, especially in the case where exegesis is the driving force of the conversation. Second, I failed to find anything, by way of an argument against limited atonement that was breakthrough or revolutionary. That is, I was honestly unable to find anything in this volume that hasn’t been discussed or addressed elsewhere by both sides of the conversation. Still, it should be noted at this point that the level of detail of Allen’s work, including the different directions of approach, is in a caliber of its own.
The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review by David L. Allen is a massive theological achievement. To say that Allen is exhaustive is an understatement. It is theologically informed and pastorally sensitive. Allen has done his homework (to one degree or another) and presented the reader with a tour de force through the theological trenches of the atonement. For whom did Christ die? Allen contends that Christ died to make salvation possible for all. Those who agree with Allen’s conclusions will now possess a significant work to interact with and refer to often. Others will likely leave unaffected. Nonetheless, placing theological persuasions aside, David L. Allen has written an unavoidable book for anyone who would seek to approach the subject of atonement. While Allen and I don’t see eye-to-eye on the matter, I have to admit; this book was much better than I initially anticipated. It comes highly recommended!
It is important to note at the outset that Allen is a well-known and longtime critic of Reformed theology. More specifically, Allen has been outspokenly opposed to the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement for as long as I can remember. That said, as readers look to approach The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review, it is reasonable to expect that Allen would produce a volume firmly situated within such conclusions. I am here to report that the theological outcome of this volume comes as no surprise! Where the surprise will surface for most readers is in the historical/theological depth with which Allen guides the reader.
The Extent of the Atonement is divided into three major sections: (1) the extent of the atonement in Church history, (2) the extent of the atonement in the Baptist tradition, and (3) the extent of the atonement: a critical review. The first two major sections are somewhat self-explanatory in their content. Allen surveys nearly every significant historical and modern figure that concerned themselves, intentional or not, with issues related to the extent of the atonement. The third major section offers a lengthy, chapter-by-chapter and point-by-point review of the widely praised From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective. For those who have previously interacted with this work, the cover price of the present volume is well-worth a glimpse into Allen’s engagement with those authors.
There is much to be praised about this volume. For starters, I was happy to see the threefold emphasis that Allen placed on the atonement being aligned in its (1) intent, (2) extent, and (3) application. This is an important aspect of the conversation that, unfortunately, gets overlooked far too often. It is here that the extent of the atonement is rightly positioned within its proper soteriological framework. Second, the level of historical depth and analysis from an Arminian perspective is unparalleled in the market today. Lastly, while I found myself disagreeing with Allen’s analysis more than I found myself agreeing, I appreciated the evenhandedness of his interaction throughout.
There are also a few hesitations or shortcomings about this volume. At least two are worth mentioning at this point. For starters, despite spending nearly a decade researching and writing on the topic, Allen still seems to misrepresent the Reformed understanding of limited atonement in places, especially in the case where exegesis is the driving force of the conversation. Second, I failed to find anything, by way of an argument against limited atonement that was breakthrough or revolutionary. That is, I was honestly unable to find anything in this volume that hasn’t been discussed or addressed elsewhere by both sides of the conversation. Still, it should be noted at this point that the level of detail of Allen’s work, including the different directions of approach, is in a caliber of its own.
The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review by David L. Allen is a massive theological achievement. To say that Allen is exhaustive is an understatement. It is theologically informed and pastorally sensitive. Allen has done his homework (to one degree or another) and presented the reader with a tour de force through the theological trenches of the atonement. For whom did Christ die? Allen contends that Christ died to make salvation possible for all. Those who agree with Allen’s conclusions will now possess a significant work to interact with and refer to often. Others will likely leave unaffected. Nonetheless, placing theological persuasions aside, David L. Allen has written an unavoidable book for anyone who would seek to approach the subject of atonement. While Allen and I don’t see eye-to-eye on the matter, I have to admit; this book was much better than I initially anticipated. It comes highly recommended!
December 5, 2023
A very interesting book demonstrating the various streams of thought *within* the reformed tradition regarding the nature and extent of the atonement. Allen demonstrates convincingly that the early reformers did not share the same view of limited atonement that Beza and subsequent reformed theologians such as John Owen held. Although they certainly did believe in particular redemption, Allen shows that they also held a view similar to hypothetical universalism, according to which view the sin of the entire human race was expiated in the cross of Christ, though the application of that redemption was limited to those who received it by faith. This book is especially helpful in showing how the two streams of thought—which he calls "strict/high calvinism" and "moderate calvinism" continued to exist side-by-side in the reformed churches, and how both the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confessions were carefully formulated to leave room for both views. Allen shows how the evolution of the reformed view of the atonement from Beza onwards led to an unnatural reading of the biblical texts that speak of the "world" or "all men", in marked contrast with the straightforward way that Calvin and other early reformers deal with such "universal" texts.
The author himself holds to a moderate Arminianism, so the book should be read with discernment, bearing that fact in mind. He is not an objective third party, nor even properly a representative of one of the two streams of Calvinism which the book focusses on. Nonetheless, the book is a helpful contribution to a better understanding of the diversity within the reformed view of the atonement. Today, "limited atonement" in the sense that Beza and Owen understood it is widely regarded as the only reformed view of the atonement, despite not being the view held by Calvin and virtually all of the early reformers.
The author himself holds to a moderate Arminianism, so the book should be read with discernment, bearing that fact in mind. He is not an objective third party, nor even properly a representative of one of the two streams of Calvinism which the book focusses on. Nonetheless, the book is a helpful contribution to a better understanding of the diversity within the reformed view of the atonement. Today, "limited atonement" in the sense that Beza and Owen understood it is widely regarded as the only reformed view of the atonement, despite not being the view held by Calvin and virtually all of the early reformers.
February 7, 2017
This is a monumental, exhaustive, authoritative work on the extent of the atonement, answering the question "For whom did Jesus die?" Dr. Allen dives into the historical positions on the issue, not only demonstrating how significant individuals in every stage of church history have believed, but how those individuals written views have been taken out of context to recruit them for the opposition's perspective. The historic survey is not only in-depth, it is practical in setting the stage for further discussion. Understanding the history of the atonement arguments helps point out flaws in the conversation today, as things are taken for granted that shouldn't be, or positions are defended with indefensible arguments that have already been answered. Allen then goes into the views on the atonement within the realm of Baptist history, with special attention to the rise of limited atonement recently with his own denomination. Then, there is a one-hundred page review of a recent popular work on limited atonement, "From Heaven He Came and Sought Her" (given away at the 2014 T4G) that Dr. Allen systematically takes apart and argues against on historic, theological, logical, and exegetical grounds one chapter at a time. The final chapter is about the significance on one's view of the atonement, and why universal atonement is not only biblically and rationally justifiable, but why limited atonement is not even a serious option. The content of the book is overwhelmingly helpful, and the spirit in which it is written strikes the perfect balance between Christ-like generosity and unwavering convictional fidelity.
November 29, 2023
This book took me almost 7 months to read because it’s a deep and academic read that had to be done in small bits at a time. But the reason I undertook this reading that goes outside my normal realm of learning is that I was an almost Calvinist (aka Reformed). I found the teachings of reformed leaders during 2020 when many evangelicals went the way of the world in social justice views and distorting the one true gospel. As I listened and heard the beliefs of those in the reformed camp, I was almost convinced on all 5 TULIP points- until someone shared a quote from John Owen stating that Jesus did not die for the sins of the world, but only died for the sins of the elect (those who were chosen before the foundations of the world and those who He purchased at the cross). I immediately heard alarm bells going off because Scripturally that is not what is taught. The limiting of the atonement in intent, as reformers do, is contradictive to what God has shown us in His Word through all of the OT and NT. The limit of the atonement is confined to the application- the benefits of the atonement are linked to the application of the atonement, which is by grace through faith. It would take another 700 plus page book to write a detailed review, and this author does a tremendous detailed job in showing the historical beliefs of many saints of the past few centuries, and he clearly shows Scriptural counter points that show the illogical fallacies reformers have to jump through to justify their theology. This issue that the book discusses is very much approaching Scripture with your theology versus filtering your theology through Scripture.
May 10, 2020
It's an astounding breadth of scholarship -- the historical survey is remarkable. Allen's at his best when engaging complicated positions or theologians he disagrees with. A downside to the breadth is that the book can be a slow read at times (when it's a series of short quotes from an author just certifying his opinion on unlimited atonement). The treatment of From Heaven He Came and Sought Her is likewise thorough (though it's been too long since I've read it for me to comment too specifically) and his conclusion wraps things up clearly.
The book is massive, which -- in this case -- is part of its value. It can also feel repetitive as a read, though. Allen focuses on a few recurrent issues: the confusion of extent, intent, and application; the failure of the double payment argument; the flaw of the triple choice argument; and the negative inference fallacy. All of which make for a compelling case, but would read much differently in an essay or book focusing on the theology without the historical context (it seems like some of his other work might do so more directly). There's also little specific exegesis -- more a refutation or confirmation of others' work, which is what is appropriate to this particular text.
In short, if you're interested in the historical theology, it's worth it, but it feels a bit much if not.
The book is massive, which -- in this case -- is part of its value. It can also feel repetitive as a read, though. Allen focuses on a few recurrent issues: the confusion of extent, intent, and application; the failure of the double payment argument; the flaw of the triple choice argument; and the negative inference fallacy. All of which make for a compelling case, but would read much differently in an essay or book focusing on the theology without the historical context (it seems like some of his other work might do so more directly). There's also little specific exegesis -- more a refutation or confirmation of others' work, which is what is appropriate to this particular text.
In short, if you're interested in the historical theology, it's worth it, but it feels a bit much if not.
April 9, 2019
Thorough. Allen argues for his understanding of unlimited atonement in a clear fashion. He engages nearly every major author from the church fathers to the church in the USA today.
At times repetitious, this book is instructive and helpful. If you are not sure about this essential doctrine and have many hours to read, it is an important work on the subject.
I was exposed to many theologians that I knew little or nothing about. My library has been expanded because of works he references....
Did I mention it might be a little repetitious? While sometimes it makes sense, at other times it feels a bit much. I did enjoy his writing style and look forward to reading some other books of his.
At times repetitious, this book is instructive and helpful. If you are not sure about this essential doctrine and have many hours to read, it is an important work on the subject.
I was exposed to many theologians that I knew little or nothing about. My library has been expanded because of works he references....
Did I mention it might be a little repetitious? While sometimes it makes sense, at other times it feels a bit much. I did enjoy his writing style and look forward to reading some other books of his.
January 23, 2019
Much of what Allen writes takes into account Baxter’s opposition to John Owen’s discussion on the atonement, but unfortunately Allen does not take into account Baxter’s errors but falls prey to the same errors. It is still a good read to see what this view says and how this view tries to treat opposition. But if you’re looking for something to further the discussion, you will be disappointed with this book.
September 21, 2024
David L Allen again hits a home run with his clarity, careful thought, and biblical handling on the subject of the atonement and especially it's universal applicability. John 3:16 means what it says, and human beings stand with great personal responsibility before God who loves mankind.
October 7, 2019
It took me forever to make my way through it, but I'm finally done. One of the best treatments of the Atonement I've ever read!
February 4, 2020
A largely helpful survey of the relevant literature and thinkers. It helps that I already agree with Allen's main point (universal atonement), but still.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews