I commend this book for its comprehensive and fair scrutiny of the many objections brought against the doctrine of penal substitution in recent years. Even those who, like me, would disagree with the authors’ belief that a doctrine of particular redemption (or ‘limited atonement’) is a necessary part of this doctrine will be grateful for this useful contribution to the current debate with its careful demonstration of the weaknesses of so many of the common criticisms made of the doctrine.

I. Howard Marshall, Emeritus Professor of New Testament Exegesis, University of Aberdeen