Some thoughts on the extent of the Atonement

I have just started reading Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement. I am only in the foreword and already there are lots of things to digest. I would like to write about it as I read as a way to articulate my thoughts. So here I offer some preliminary thoughts. The three views discussed are: 1) Definite Atonement (limited atonement or particular redemption), 2) General Atonement (universal or unlimited atonement), 3) Multiple-Intention View of the Atonement (Amyraldism or hypothetical universalism). 

Definitions:
1) Definite Atonement: Christ's atonement is particular in intention and efficacious in character. Thus, we say 'Christ died for his people.' This view is generally held by Calvinists and is currently the view I hold to. There are four major concerns: 
     a) Penal Substitution - individual sinners need to be punished.
     b) Divine Justice - God cannot punish sin twice, ie. if Christ died for all, no one should enter hell.
     c) Language of Efficacy - categories of the atonement: propitiation, expiation, redemption, reconciliation are regarded as efficacious (actually achieved) rather than provisional (having the potential). 
     d) The Unity of God's Purpose - Trinitarian purpose of salvation. The Father elects a people, Christ dies for them, the Holy Spirit regenerates them (and enables them to persevere as well). 

2) General Atonement: Christ's atonement is universal in intention and provisional in character. Christ intended to provide atonement for all, but did not intend to apply atonement to all people without exception: application is instead the purview of faith. Major concerns:
     a) Exegetical Concerns - this emerges from a plain reading of Scripture. 
     b) Theological Concerns - God's love is infinite; Christ's death doe not itself save, it makes salvation possible for those who actualise it by faith; humans are free to choose. 
     c) Evangelistic Concerns - one can really say 'Christ died for all.'

3) Multiple-Intention View of the Atonement: Christ's atonement has both universal and particular purposes and has elements that are alternately provisional and efficacious in character. This is clearly a middle ground. This view maintains that Christ intended (1) to pay the penalty for the sins of all human without exception, thus making possible both the salvation of all and the free offer of the gospel to all, but (2) to secure the salvation of the elect alone. Thus, a 'universal atonement' and a 'limited redemption,' and 'sufficient for all but efficient for the elect.' A distinction here from Definite Atonement is that DA would argue that it is 'sufficient and efficient for the elect.' Concerns are mainly trying to affirm the nice bits of both extremes. 

A few thoughts:
On the surface, DA seems pretty harsh: God's choice seems arbitrary; human agency seems to be disregarded; can easily lead to a fatalistic determinism; evangelistic language issues (one can't really say 'God died for you' since we don't know that). 

GA sounds pretty acceptable, but seems to diminish God's work by emphasising a human response (faith) as a necessity to receive salvation. Thus, the cross doesn't save, it might save, with the individual as the ultimate determining factor.

This is the first time I've encountered the MI view. I'm not sure how we reconcile 'sufficient for all but efficient for the elect.' If it were sufficient for all, should not all have an equal chance of being saved? Anyway, I'll have to read more about this. But this book is already proving to be really exciting.