My most recent book, another debate-book, just released:
Andrew David Naselli and Mark A. Snoeberger, eds. Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement: 3 Views. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015. 
31-page sample PDF (front matter + introduction)
I explain more about the book in this 5-minute video:
This book presents a point-counterpoint exchange concerning God’s intention in sending Christ to die on the cross. All of the contributors recognize a substitutionary element in the atoning work of Christ, but they disagree over the nature and objects of that substitution.
One can scarcely think of a question debated more passionately than the one our little book addresses. Some of our readers can even now reflect on some acerbic quarrel about the extent of Christ’s atonement in which Christian restraint was wanting. So when Mark and I first floated a project that deliberately convened participants with conflicting perspectives on this topic, we wondered fleetingly whether the project might be a dreadful one. Our fears proved unwarranted as grace prevailed. We encountered some bumps along the way, but overall the project was delightful.
Our original band of three essayists morphed a bit and ended finally as a band of four:
Carl Trueman, Paul Woolley Professor of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, brought his sprightly voice to the debate as champion of a definite atonement. He argues that Christ’s atoning work secured the redemption of his elect alone. While infinite in value, Christ’s death was intended for and applied strictly to those whom the Father had elected unconditionally in eternity past.
Grant Osborne, long-time Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, crafted an initial essay in defense of a general atonement, then, after some serious health difficulties, handed the baton to his colleague at TEDS, Tom McCall, Associate Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology, who capably contributed responses to the other two positions. They argue that Christ’s atoning work provided atonement generally for all mankind. The application of that atoning work is conditioned, however, on each person’s willingness to receive it.
John Hammett, Professor of Systematic Theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, rounded out the group with an apology for the multiple intentions view of Christ’s atonement. He argues that Christ’s atoning work had multiple intentions. Of these intentions two rise to the fore: (1) the intention to accomplish atonement for God’s elect and (2) the intention to provide atonement for all mankind.
Contents
Endorsements
“At one theological institution where I studied, we spoke of a certain style of debate: thesis, followed by antithesis, followed by personal abuse. This book does not adopt that style. The first obligation in serious theological polemics must be understanding both your own position and your opponents’ positions as thoroughly as possible, the more so if the topic is sensitive. That is the first strength of this book. The second is that it shows how, in debates over the extent (or intent!) of the atonement, the principal options are not two, but three, and how this third position, often connected with Amyraut, turns on the difficult notion of God having more than one will. In one sense this book breaks no new ground; it does not intend to. But I know no book that handles this subject with more scrupulous attention to fairness and accuracy in debate.”
—D. A. Carson, research professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; president, The Gospel Coalition
“The extent of the atonement has been debated by Christian theologians from the early Reformation through contemporary evangelical theology. This volume offers compelling presentations by outstanding representatives of three leading views— definite atonement, general atonement, and multi-intentions views of the atonement. The multiviews format of this book allows readers to come to a more well-informed understanding of their own perspective.”
—Steve W. Lemke, provost, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
“Here is a first-order discussion of a second-order doctrine. The contributors to this volume agree that the question of the extent of the atonement falls short of being placed in the top tier of doctrines central and non-negotiable to the Christian faith, yet they also rightly see the importance of this doctrine for faith and practice. Hence, the discussion here is spirited yet charitable, firm yet gracious. The quality of the discussion throughout is simply superb, as exegetical, historical, and theological considerations are put forth with clarity and scholarly acuteness. I strongly recommend a careful reading of this book, in light of the continued controversy surrounding this doctrine, and for the sake of our souls, as we seek to understand better the glory of Christ’s atonement for sinners.”
—Bruce A. Ware, T. Rupert and Lucille Coleman Professor of Christian Theology, Chairman of the Department of Christian Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
The intro was so good that I ordered the book right away. Thanks, Dr. Naselli! It’ll arrive in time to help me prepare my Sunday lessons on definite atonement.
I did have one question/criticism for Mr. Snoeberger. He seemed to want to include R.L. Dabney (and possibly Charles Hodge as well?) under the rubric of the multiple intentions view (p.15-16n1). I have been reading both Dabney and Hodge on this topic, and their presentations are almost identical. And it is certainly true that they saw multiple effects streaming from the atonement, which they concluded must stem from multiple intentions, since God does nothing by accident.
But does this mean that they were hypothetical universalists who held the multiple intentions view? Based on what I’ve read so far, this seems hard to maintain. After all, John Murray, whom Snoeberger cites as a defender of definite atonement, affirmed all the same multiple intentions that Dabney and Hodge did. Indeed, if Kevin DeYoung’s recent review of Crisp’s Deviant Calvinism is accurate, Dabney explicitly rejected hypothetical univeralism. DeYoung quotes Dabney as follows:
“To say that God purposed, even conditionally, the reconciliation of that sinner by Christ’s sacrifice, while also distinctly proposing to do nothing effectual to bring about the fulfillment of that condition He knew the man would surely refuse, is contradictory. It is hard to see how, on this scheme, the sacrifice is related more beneficially to the non-elect sinner, than on the strict Calvinist’s plan” (Systematic Theology, 520).” http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2015/01/30/a-more-generous-calvinism-2/
In short, it seems that multiple intentions are not a distinctive feature of the multiple intentions view. Rather, they have long found a place in robust versions of definite atonement like those of Hodge, Dabney, and Murray (not to mention Piper).
Have I misunderstood or misrepresented Mr. Snoeberger?
Great question, Justin (Mark Snoeberger here). Many advocates of a definite atonement will agree to multiple intentions (common grace, the postponement of final judgment, the grace of the gospel call, etc.). But what sets off the multiple intentions view in our book is the idea that one of Christ’s general intentions is to offer his life as a satisfaction for the sins of all people without exception.
Having read Hodge and Murray, I don’t see this as one of their “intentions,” so I keep them in the definite atonement camp.
Dabney, though, does not seem to be cut from the same cloth. He complains that the word “atonement” is too vague for his liking. The atonement, as he understands it, can be divided up into impersonal aspects (expiation/satisfaction) that are unlimited, and personal aspects (redemption/reconciliation) that are limited: “When men use the word atonement, as they so often do, in the sense of expiation, the phrases, ‘limited atonement,’ ‘particular atonement,’ have no meaning. Redemption is limited, i.e., to true believers, and is particular. Expiation is not limited” (p. 528).
While Dabney escapes some of the criticisms leveled against Amyraut, I’m not sure he has imbibed particular atonement in its fullest sense.
Hope this helps.
Mr. Snoeberger,
Thank you for your helpful response. I now have the full book in front of me (it came today), and I can pursue all the Dabney quotes. Thanks again!
M. Snoeberger:
To my mind, attempting to maintain some sort of “multiple intentions” view of the atonement appears tenuous at the outset. Its proponents affirm all save one of the five soteriological points of Reformed-Calvinism. That said, of course one’s priority should be in maintaining scriptural fidelity. This, I believe, is what has motivated proponents of some form of Amyraldianism or “four-point Calvinism” of the past and present (e.g., N.F. Douty, R.P. Lightner, B.A. Ware). Still, I cannot shake the level of instability inherent to such a view. If God is believed to have unconditionally elected some to salvation, the logical corollary is limited/definite atonement: Christ died savingly exclusively for those unconditionally prechosen to inherit the benefits of Christ’s redemptive work. The two go hand-in-hand.
Conversely, if we are to presuppose that salvation is genuinely conditional in nature, election to salvation must be conditional as well (from our perspective as well as God’s). The logical corollary to conditional election is unlimited/universal atonement: Christ died for all humankind (i.e., all persons without exception) with the aim that only those who persevere in repentance and faith should be finally saved. In other words, Christ’s benefits may be received by all, but neither a positive or negative response to the good news is divinely determined or guaranteed (as in Calvinism). Arminianism thus maintains the universal scope of Christ’s death and the particularity of salvation. Universal salvation is not inevitable because Christ did not die exclusively for persevering believers. (Note: I am addressing the evangelized only. The exclusivist-inclusivist debate is far too thorny to even touch upon in the context of the present discussion.)
Somewhere in between these two systems of thought lies Amyraldianism (or Amyraldism), which attempts to simultaneously uphold unconditional election and universal atonement. In a way, this interpretive model functions as a kind of hybrid or amalgamation of both Calvinism and Arminianism. In the end, however, it ends up being more Calvinistic than Arminian, for unconditional election has no place in Arminian thought.
I still greatly look forward to obtaining and reading a copy of Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement: Three Views (Nashville, Tenn.: B&H Publishing Group, 2015).
J.D. Gallé
19 February 2015
“Universal salvation is not inevitable because Christ did not die exclusively for persevering believers.” I unintentionally botched this sentence in my above post. What I was intending to say is that, from an Arminian perspective, universal salvation is not inevitable because Christ did not die to infallibly secure the salvation of all persons. The non-Calvinist’s logic is fairly straightfoward: While God desires the salvation of all and wishes that all repent and come to a saving knowledge in his Son, unbelievers remain estranged from Christ and consequently the benefits of his redemptive work. If salvation is indeed conditional, then there is absolutely no problem in affirming unlimited/universal atonement and the limited or particular application of Christ’s propitiatory/expiatory sacrifice. Universal salvation need not be affirmed or considered the logical corollary of universal atonement from an Arminian understanding of salvation.
Postscript: To erase all doubt, my personal understanding of salvation is thoroughly Arminian.
J.D. Gallé
21 February 2015
Hey Andy, this looks great! I’ve been waiting for a book on differing atonement perspectives to come out ever since reading the massive tome by the Gibsons (From Heaven He Came…). Will this be available on Logos?
Spencer, I’m not aware of current plans to add it to Logos, but I hope it becomes available there in due course.