What do you think?
Rate this book
Works of John Owen #10
The Death of Death in the Death of Christ
The 18th century was a wealth of knowledge, exploration and rapidly growing technology and expanding record-keeping made possible by advances in the printing press. In its determination to preserve the century of revolution, Gale initiated a revolution of its own: digitization of epic proportions to preserve these invaluable works in the largest archive of its kind. Now for the first time these high-quality digital copies of original 18th century manuscripts are available in print, making them highly accessible to libraries, undergraduate students, and independent scholars.
The Age of Enlightenment profoundly enriched religious and philosophical understanding and continues to influence present-day thinking. Works collected here include masterpieces by David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as well as religious sermons and moral debates on the issues of the day, such as the slave trade. The Age of Reason saw conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism transformed into one between faith and logic a debate that continues in the twenty-first century.
++++
The below data was compiled from various identification fields in the bibliographic record of this title. This data is provided as an additional tool in helping to insure edition identification:
++++
Source Library: British Library
ESTCID: W020103
Notes: With a list of subscribers at end.
Imprint: Carlisle, (Pennsylvania) : Printed by George Kline, M,DCC,XCII. [1792]. Collation: xv,[2],18-320,[8]p. ; 8°
312 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1647
468 people are currently reading
3071 people want to read
About the author
John Owen
1,359 books413 followersJohn Owen was an English theologian and "was without doubt not only the greatest theologian of the English Puritan movement but also one of the greatest European Reformed theologians of his day, and quite possibly possessed the finest theological mind that England ever produced" ("Owen, John", in Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, p. 494)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 151 reviews
July 17, 2017
The Doctrine of Limited Atonement.
For those who are not familiar with this doctrine, it seeks to answer this question:
For whom did Christ die?
There are some points to ponder for sure but I have never seen anyone but old theologians wrestle with this question. (I couldn’t even name one New Calvinist who has grappled with this question—understanding the fact that my perspective is quite finite.)
In that context, I wasn’t sure if the polemic nature of John Owen’s work, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, wasn’t somewhat outdated. Besides, is this a hill for us to stand and die on when it comes to theological issues?
Initially, no—not really. The fact that idea of that Christ died for the possibility of salvation and the idea that Christ to save His people from their sins could fall under the and-also truths and not necessary squarely as a either-or truth. In other words, Christians holding to either doctrine and understanding can still have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, faith in Christ and love of God and still are saved to Him forever.
However, those who have planted themselves firmly in the Arminian camp (knowingly or unknowingly) will, from time to time, especially in my lifetime, would try to contest the doctrine of Limited Atonement—the doctrine that states that the work of Christ is perfect, as though the Evangelical world would have to take sides.
And that is where points of Biblical theology, doctrinal truth and overall, logic must be given as a response in order not to simply contests contentions but rather, to challenge the contender with deep thinking in order to esteem the glory of God.
I was a very young Christian (by all accounts, still am) when I started wrestling through theology just a few years ago. The thing that troubled my mind was, “How can the tenets of Calvinistic soteriology stand up beyond a millennium only to challenged so close to my lifetime?” (Close to my lifetime being relative as those challenges were brought up not 500 years ago.) In other words, the truth of theology, after carefully being worked out and confirmed by our Apostolic and Patristic fathers, were trying to be undone by the uplifting and glorifying of the free (albeit undeniably very limited) will of man. That made me dive deep into Calvinistic theology—a theology I have once written off as bullshit.
My introduction to Calvinism came in the form of Wikipedia page bulletpointing each of the doctrines of grace after a late night conversation talks of Calvinism and lots of eye-rolling. That’s was it. No great book like Packer’s Knowing God or Piper’s Desiring God. I never grew up in a Reformed church. I was and still am faithfully attending a Spirit-filled, non-denomination church in the suburbs of Dallas/Fort Worth. Because Calvinism apparently dismissed my personal (stressing that it was my) golden idol of free will, Calvinism was still crap to me. However, for some reason, my interests have been piqued.
It was in around the same time I started to seriously read the Bible for the first time as a Christian. I would say that I was saved for no more than a month when all of this came together. Here’s the thing: as I was reading the Bible is where the doctrines of grace started becoming obviously apparent:
“Hmm, that is total depravity.”
“That is irresistible grace.”
“That’s unconditional election for sure.”
“Crap, that’s obviously limited atonement!”
Over and over again, what started as a basic whisper of an introduction to Calvinism made the passages jump off the page.
From what I believe by the Spirit alone, by the will of the Father alone, by the Word of God alone, my mind was able to grab a hold of the Calvinism and make them my own.
Yes, Limited (or to use a more modern vernacular, perfect, definite, precise, complete) Atonement was the one that I most struggled with the longest. It wasn’t because I struggled with that Christ died on the cross for the possibility of us being saved because that is completely illogical and in a way, antithesis to the attributes of God himself but rather, there were still many passages, most of them Johannine, that suggest that Christ did die for the world.
Still, I was convinced of the truth of Scripture and if I take Proverbs 25:2 to heart and push through any mystery of God using the truth of God, I shall be rewarded with God. I was going to push into this truth once and for all.
That is where this book and John Owen comes in.
This is not an easy book. Don’t turn your nose at the 300 page count. I did the same thing and thought, “Psssh, I can burn through this.” Then you get to Owen’s text itself and the publisher decided to use 7 point font.
It took me six months to read through this book. Often, I would read the left side of the open book, read the right side of the open book, close the book and then dwell on it for a while.
Those words were thick, heady and weighty. In the weight of those words, Owen takes all the offenses of opponents of Christ’s Perfect Atonement and turns them on their head.
For example, John 3:16.
There is a book out now called Whosoever Will. The one of the main premises of this book is that John 3:16 is in the defense of the possibility of salvation by God.
But let us actually look at the all-time famous verse:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
It is not ‘whosever will’ but ‘whosever believes’.
In other words, It is not ‘the gospel is the power of God in salvation for those who believe and do not believe’ but rather ‘for those who believe’. (Romans 1:16)
It is not ‘for our sake and the sake of the unbelievers, that God made Christ to be sin who knew no sin so that in him we might be the righteousness of God’ but rather ‘for our sake—the sake of those believe’. (2 Corinthians 5:21)
But what about 1 John 2:2?
1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
If that was the only passage in that epistle, then you would have a strong case. But it is not. Look at verse 3:
1 John 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.
By cherry-picking John’s verses, we can easily make the case that salvation is possible and that possibility rests on us. But when we take in the words of John (inspired by God, 2 Timothy 3:16), as a whole, we can easily see that John is not even contending for the possibility of salvation for all of mankind but laying out actual marks of the Christian.
Hear me out: what I am not contending is the apparent opposite, that is, “Joe, are you say that there are some people (many people if you believe Jesus 1) who have no possibility of being saved?”
No, what I am adamantly, vehemently, boldly, loudly, and passionately contending for is this:
The only way somebody is saved is by God alone for salvation is of the Lord alone and He alone is mighty to save. 2
One and done.
We are not going to sit here and try to determine who is elect and who is not. If Salvation is of God alone then Election completely is on God alone. The Doctrine of Predestination and Election is this absolute truth, “God predestines those destined to death into life.” and “God elects.”. That’s it. No, not because’s or maybe’s or hopefully’s. He choosing of His people happened before the foundation of the earth was in place. He didn’t choose out of some jacked-up game of “Duck Duck Damn”. Instead, He chose His people out of the overflow of His unmatched love because He is Love. This is a love that is not defined by our broken minds in a fallen world within the context a darken culture. This is the absolute truth and the standard bearing of what love actual is—defined by God alone.
Those who would rail against God, say blasphemous and traitorous things against God until their last and final breath, they will then be judged once and be hated in that judgment just like Esau. 3 and not a moment before their dying breath.
But, for as long as they draw breath on this earth, I know that God saves. How can I say? Because God is the only one who saves. Because the weight of any person’s salvation rests on not that person but rather rests on the person of Jesus Christ and his perfect, definite, complete, and satisfactory work, I will continue preaching, teaching and discussing the precious gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ with all of the world—both believers and non-believers alike—until He comes and gets me or I drop dead in the ground.
John Owen’s magnificent book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, did not just solidify one little doctrine for me, it changed the way I read Scripture, which has, in turn, not only secondarily solidify my theology but has primarily exploded my heart in doxology and has only infinitely fueled my heart for evangelism. For that, I owe him a debt of gratitude and praise to my sweet God in his mercy and provision for my soul.
For those who are not familiar with this doctrine, it seeks to answer this question:
For whom did Christ die?
There are some points to ponder for sure but I have never seen anyone but old theologians wrestle with this question. (I couldn’t even name one New Calvinist who has grappled with this question—understanding the fact that my perspective is quite finite.)
In that context, I wasn’t sure if the polemic nature of John Owen’s work, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, wasn’t somewhat outdated. Besides, is this a hill for us to stand and die on when it comes to theological issues?
Initially, no—not really. The fact that idea of that Christ died for the possibility of salvation and the idea that Christ to save His people from their sins could fall under the and-also truths and not necessary squarely as a either-or truth. In other words, Christians holding to either doctrine and understanding can still have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, faith in Christ and love of God and still are saved to Him forever.
However, those who have planted themselves firmly in the Arminian camp (knowingly or unknowingly) will, from time to time, especially in my lifetime, would try to contest the doctrine of Limited Atonement—the doctrine that states that the work of Christ is perfect, as though the Evangelical world would have to take sides.
And that is where points of Biblical theology, doctrinal truth and overall, logic must be given as a response in order not to simply contests contentions but rather, to challenge the contender with deep thinking in order to esteem the glory of God.
I was a very young Christian (by all accounts, still am) when I started wrestling through theology just a few years ago. The thing that troubled my mind was, “How can the tenets of Calvinistic soteriology stand up beyond a millennium only to challenged so close to my lifetime?” (Close to my lifetime being relative as those challenges were brought up not 500 years ago.) In other words, the truth of theology, after carefully being worked out and confirmed by our Apostolic and Patristic fathers, were trying to be undone by the uplifting and glorifying of the free (albeit undeniably very limited) will of man. That made me dive deep into Calvinistic theology—a theology I have once written off as bullshit.
My introduction to Calvinism came in the form of Wikipedia page bulletpointing each of the doctrines of grace after a late night conversation talks of Calvinism and lots of eye-rolling. That’s was it. No great book like Packer’s Knowing God or Piper’s Desiring God. I never grew up in a Reformed church. I was and still am faithfully attending a Spirit-filled, non-denomination church in the suburbs of Dallas/Fort Worth. Because Calvinism apparently dismissed my personal (stressing that it was my) golden idol of free will, Calvinism was still crap to me. However, for some reason, my interests have been piqued.
It was in around the same time I started to seriously read the Bible for the first time as a Christian. I would say that I was saved for no more than a month when all of this came together. Here’s the thing: as I was reading the Bible is where the doctrines of grace started becoming obviously apparent:
“Hmm, that is total depravity.”
“That is irresistible grace.”
“That’s unconditional election for sure.”
“Crap, that’s obviously limited atonement!”
Over and over again, what started as a basic whisper of an introduction to Calvinism made the passages jump off the page.
From what I believe by the Spirit alone, by the will of the Father alone, by the Word of God alone, my mind was able to grab a hold of the Calvinism and make them my own.
Yes, Limited (or to use a more modern vernacular, perfect, definite, precise, complete) Atonement was the one that I most struggled with the longest. It wasn’t because I struggled with that Christ died on the cross for the possibility of us being saved because that is completely illogical and in a way, antithesis to the attributes of God himself but rather, there were still many passages, most of them Johannine, that suggest that Christ did die for the world.
Still, I was convinced of the truth of Scripture and if I take Proverbs 25:2 to heart and push through any mystery of God using the truth of God, I shall be rewarded with God. I was going to push into this truth once and for all.
That is where this book and John Owen comes in.
This is not an easy book. Don’t turn your nose at the 300 page count. I did the same thing and thought, “Psssh, I can burn through this.” Then you get to Owen’s text itself and the publisher decided to use 7 point font.
It took me six months to read through this book. Often, I would read the left side of the open book, read the right side of the open book, close the book and then dwell on it for a while.
Those words were thick, heady and weighty. In the weight of those words, Owen takes all the offenses of opponents of Christ’s Perfect Atonement and turns them on their head.
For example, John 3:16.
There is a book out now called Whosoever Will. The one of the main premises of this book is that John 3:16 is in the defense of the possibility of salvation by God.
But let us actually look at the all-time famous verse:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
It is not ‘whosever will’ but ‘whosever believes’.
In other words, It is not ‘the gospel is the power of God in salvation for those who believe and do not believe’ but rather ‘for those who believe’. (Romans 1:16)
It is not ‘for our sake and the sake of the unbelievers, that God made Christ to be sin who knew no sin so that in him we might be the righteousness of God’ but rather ‘for our sake—the sake of those believe’. (2 Corinthians 5:21)
But what about 1 John 2:2?
1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
If that was the only passage in that epistle, then you would have a strong case. But it is not. Look at verse 3:
1 John 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments.
By cherry-picking John’s verses, we can easily make the case that salvation is possible and that possibility rests on us. But when we take in the words of John (inspired by God, 2 Timothy 3:16), as a whole, we can easily see that John is not even contending for the possibility of salvation for all of mankind but laying out actual marks of the Christian.
Hear me out: what I am not contending is the apparent opposite, that is, “Joe, are you say that there are some people (many people if you believe Jesus 1) who have no possibility of being saved?”
No, what I am adamantly, vehemently, boldly, loudly, and passionately contending for is this:
The only way somebody is saved is by God alone for salvation is of the Lord alone and He alone is mighty to save. 2
One and done.
We are not going to sit here and try to determine who is elect and who is not. If Salvation is of God alone then Election completely is on God alone. The Doctrine of Predestination and Election is this absolute truth, “God predestines those destined to death into life.” and “God elects.”. That’s it. No, not because’s or maybe’s or hopefully’s. He choosing of His people happened before the foundation of the earth was in place. He didn’t choose out of some jacked-up game of “Duck Duck Damn”. Instead, He chose His people out of the overflow of His unmatched love because He is Love. This is a love that is not defined by our broken minds in a fallen world within the context a darken culture. This is the absolute truth and the standard bearing of what love actual is—defined by God alone.
Those who would rail against God, say blasphemous and traitorous things against God until their last and final breath, they will then be judged once and be hated in that judgment just like Esau. 3 and not a moment before their dying breath.
But, for as long as they draw breath on this earth, I know that God saves. How can I say? Because God is the only one who saves. Because the weight of any person’s salvation rests on not that person but rather rests on the person of Jesus Christ and his perfect, definite, complete, and satisfactory work, I will continue preaching, teaching and discussing the precious gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ with all of the world—both believers and non-believers alike—until He comes and gets me or I drop dead in the ground.
John Owen’s magnificent book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, did not just solidify one little doctrine for me, it changed the way I read Scripture, which has, in turn, not only secondarily solidify my theology but has primarily exploded my heart in doxology and has only infinitely fueled my heart for evangelism. For that, I owe him a debt of gratitude and praise to my sweet God in his mercy and provision for my soul.
February 27, 2024
Owen este și va rămâne, cât va fi lumea aceasta, un teolog de înalt calibru, cu totul imbatabil în argumentare biblică, cu adevărat un „Prinț al Puritanilor", așa cum a fost numit. Tratatul de față, pe tema ispășirii limitate, vine ca un răspuns necesar la multiplele atacuri ce au fost aduse de către ceata arminienilor, respectiv a universaliștilor, asupra doctrinelor harului. Astfel, ea se prezintă a fi o carte polemică.
Are o structură foarte clară care ajută mult la asimilarea ideii de ansamblu de către cititor. Nu este grea, ca să te încurce inutil, da nici ușoară, ca să te adoarmă. Este scrisă în mare parte la un nivel pastoral, iar pe alocuri intră ceva mai adânc în detaliu.
Pe scurt și fără prea multe detalii, ca să stârnesc puțin interesul, Owen începe cu o prezentare generală a definițiilor anumitor termeni cheie care apar regulat pe parcurs, apoi explică bine legăturile care există dintre legăminte, mai apoi exemplifică natura planului divin în răscumpărare, urmate în final de o sumedenie de argumente textuale, logice și filosofice asupra subiectului. Așadar, oricât de sceptic ești, vei fi pus pe gânduri foarte serios dacă treci prin ea.
Cu siguranța această carte rămâne una de maximă influență pentru mine și pentru parcursul meu teologic. Mi-a reformat gândirea pe care o aveam în mod radical față de ingeniozitatea și perfecțiunea de execuție a planului de mântuire realizat de cele trei Persoane ale Treimii, față de conceptul mistico-spiritual al mânturii și despre imensitatea jertfei lui Cristos.
Imediat după ce am terminat-o întâia dată, am rămas șocat de faptul că eu până atunci aveam o înțelegere atât de precară, atât de superficială a lucrării ispășirii lui Cristos la cruce. Îmi venea să plâng de tristețe că atâția ani am fost orb, dar acum eram plin de bucurie că am prins adevărul de picior. Owen mi-a dovedit cât de glorios este Cristos și cât de păcătos eram eu. Ce plan perfect are Dumnezeu în istorie și ce rațiune limitată și coruptă am eu.
Văd ca o minune faptul că o avem în limba română disponibilă. Cei de la Asociația Magna Gratia au realizat o traduce excelentă. Din păcate, au tipărit-o într-un tiraj foarte mic, așa că doar câțiva „aleși" au reușit să pună mâna pe o copie fizică.
Dacă vrei să afli răspunsul la întrebarea: pentru cine a murit Isus pe cruce? Pentru toți oamenii din lume, în mod absolut, care au trăit dintotdeauna, sau, El a murit doar în dreptul celor aleși, adică în dreptul Bisericii răscumpărate?, îl vei afla cu siguranță citind aceată carte, iar mai apoi inima ta, mintea ta și sufletul tău vor găsi odihnă la umbra adevărului, sub copacul Scripturii.
Miza este una uriașă, desigur. Personal cred că moartea pe cruce a lui Isus este punctul culminat al întregului creștinism și momentul de maximă tensiune al învățăturii biblice, care din acest motiv, cred că merită să îi acordăm toată atenția.
Are o structură foarte clară care ajută mult la asimilarea ideii de ansamblu de către cititor. Nu este grea, ca să te încurce inutil, da nici ușoară, ca să te adoarmă. Este scrisă în mare parte la un nivel pastoral, iar pe alocuri intră ceva mai adânc în detaliu.
Pe scurt și fără prea multe detalii, ca să stârnesc puțin interesul, Owen începe cu o prezentare generală a definițiilor anumitor termeni cheie care apar regulat pe parcurs, apoi explică bine legăturile care există dintre legăminte, mai apoi exemplifică natura planului divin în răscumpărare, urmate în final de o sumedenie de argumente textuale, logice și filosofice asupra subiectului. Așadar, oricât de sceptic ești, vei fi pus pe gânduri foarte serios dacă treci prin ea.
Cu siguranța această carte rămâne una de maximă influență pentru mine și pentru parcursul meu teologic. Mi-a reformat gândirea pe care o aveam în mod radical față de ingeniozitatea și perfecțiunea de execuție a planului de mântuire realizat de cele trei Persoane ale Treimii, față de conceptul mistico-spiritual al mânturii și despre imensitatea jertfei lui Cristos.
Imediat după ce am terminat-o întâia dată, am rămas șocat de faptul că eu până atunci aveam o înțelegere atât de precară, atât de superficială a lucrării ispășirii lui Cristos la cruce. Îmi venea să plâng de tristețe că atâția ani am fost orb, dar acum eram plin de bucurie că am prins adevărul de picior. Owen mi-a dovedit cât de glorios este Cristos și cât de păcătos eram eu. Ce plan perfect are Dumnezeu în istorie și ce rațiune limitată și coruptă am eu.
Văd ca o minune faptul că o avem în limba română disponibilă. Cei de la Asociația Magna Gratia au realizat o traduce excelentă. Din păcate, au tipărit-o într-un tiraj foarte mic, așa că doar câțiva „aleși" au reușit să pună mâna pe o copie fizică.
Dacă vrei să afli răspunsul la întrebarea: pentru cine a murit Isus pe cruce? Pentru toți oamenii din lume, în mod absolut, care au trăit dintotdeauna, sau, El a murit doar în dreptul celor aleși, adică în dreptul Bisericii răscumpărate?, îl vei afla cu siguranță citind aceată carte, iar mai apoi inima ta, mintea ta și sufletul tău vor găsi odihnă la umbra adevărului, sub copacul Scripturii.
Miza este una uriașă, desigur. Personal cred că moartea pe cruce a lui Isus este punctul culminat al întregului creștinism și momentul de maximă tensiune al învățăturii biblice, care din acest motiv, cred că merită să îi acordăm toată atenția.
August 12, 2011
How does one even begin to review a book that exhausts a single subject to the point of no returning to the traditions one once held to? Is it an understatement to say that Owen is passionate about what he believes? Obviously, if you have read his work you know the answer. If there is one subject, just one doctrine, that could be called either the most hated or most cherished (depending on what side of the fence you stand) of all others, it is particular redemption. And if there has been one doctrine that has been cast aside or left unspoken about (even by some who would claim to be apart of the Reformed community), it is certainly limited atonement.
However, our love for limited atonement is not just merely in the fact (though definitely amazing in itself) that God is a personable Being who hasn't just selected a plan for salvation, but has gone a step further, making His love for us something unique and intimate by molding a people unto salvation; but our love for limited atonement stretches further. As Owen makes vividly clear, this doctrine is cherished because it declares what the Bible teaches, and that is Christ's blood saves men ABSOLUTELY. Potential (or unlimited) redemption is a hoax at best; complete and utter heresy at worst. I tend to lean toward the latter. Christ came to do the will of His Father, and to do it completely. He left nothing wanting - nothing for man to attempt to do on his own. To say the life-blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ can only save me to a certain extent and then needs support of man is blasphemy. If men would read the Scriptures and learn how holy God is and how depraved man is, there would be no misunderstanding of the substitutionary atonement of our blessed Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus.
Owen exegetically deals with every single verse that our opponents use, along with the verses that we use to support a definite atonement. Owen emphasizes the true substitution of Christ. His detailed analysis, firm logic, and sound biblical exegesis, force all to understand Scripture as it was meant to be understood.
However, our love for limited atonement is not just merely in the fact (though definitely amazing in itself) that God is a personable Being who hasn't just selected a plan for salvation, but has gone a step further, making His love for us something unique and intimate by molding a people unto salvation; but our love for limited atonement stretches further. As Owen makes vividly clear, this doctrine is cherished because it declares what the Bible teaches, and that is Christ's blood saves men ABSOLUTELY. Potential (or unlimited) redemption is a hoax at best; complete and utter heresy at worst. I tend to lean toward the latter. Christ came to do the will of His Father, and to do it completely. He left nothing wanting - nothing for man to attempt to do on his own. To say the life-blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ can only save me to a certain extent and then needs support of man is blasphemy. If men would read the Scriptures and learn how holy God is and how depraved man is, there would be no misunderstanding of the substitutionary atonement of our blessed Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus.
Owen exegetically deals with every single verse that our opponents use, along with the verses that we use to support a definite atonement. Owen emphasizes the true substitution of Christ. His detailed analysis, firm logic, and sound biblical exegesis, force all to understand Scripture as it was meant to be understood.
December 26, 2025
“The Death of Death” is a monolithic work of Reformed Scholasticism, and ought to be the definitive authority in the Reformed vs Arminian debate on the extent of the atonement.
John Owen is often cast aside as being too difficult to read, and thus his thought is largely unknown in the Church today. Yet, the more I read Owen, the more I love him and the God he saw.
In this work, though his writing is somewhat scattered and unorganized, he presents his defense of particular atonement against the Arminian view of universal atonement. I have never read a theologian who deals with theological and biblical questions with more assiduous detail, precision, and skill. He covers everything, and then some. His exegesis and argumentation was so thorough, textually derived, Christ-centered, and Trinitarian framed, and he patiently dealt with every single objection and argument that were present in his day.
This is a long and difficult book, no doubt, but the payoff is glorious. I was so helped in my thinking on this subject, not only in solidifying my theological position, but also in clarifying my reading of numerous biblical texts which “seem” Arminian (John 3:16; 1 John 2:1-2, 1 Timothy 2:4-6; and a host of others that include “the world” or “all”). Owen takes every biblical text one by one, not imposing his system into the text, but skillfully exegeting the passage in context and showing the deficiencies of the Arminian interpretation.
In short, every Christian who is seriously thinking on this issue must go to Owen. There are very few who speak to the issue with such authority and clarity. But lest any think Owen is a dry, wordy, and overly-scholastic professor whose eyes never left the page, I have personally experienced afresh through this godly man the beauty of reformed theology and the glory of the gospel.
John Owen is often cast aside as being too difficult to read, and thus his thought is largely unknown in the Church today. Yet, the more I read Owen, the more I love him and the God he saw.
In this work, though his writing is somewhat scattered and unorganized, he presents his defense of particular atonement against the Arminian view of universal atonement. I have never read a theologian who deals with theological and biblical questions with more assiduous detail, precision, and skill. He covers everything, and then some. His exegesis and argumentation was so thorough, textually derived, Christ-centered, and Trinitarian framed, and he patiently dealt with every single objection and argument that were present in his day.
This is a long and difficult book, no doubt, but the payoff is glorious. I was so helped in my thinking on this subject, not only in solidifying my theological position, but also in clarifying my reading of numerous biblical texts which “seem” Arminian (John 3:16; 1 John 2:1-2, 1 Timothy 2:4-6; and a host of others that include “the world” or “all”). Owen takes every biblical text one by one, not imposing his system into the text, but skillfully exegeting the passage in context and showing the deficiencies of the Arminian interpretation.
In short, every Christian who is seriously thinking on this issue must go to Owen. There are very few who speak to the issue with such authority and clarity. But lest any think Owen is a dry, wordy, and overly-scholastic professor whose eyes never left the page, I have personally experienced afresh through this godly man the beauty of reformed theology and the glory of the gospel.
January 22, 2014
In this outstanding volume John Owen shows from the Word the design, intent, extent, God’s will and purpose of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, as well as application and effect and power of it for all for whom he died. He explains the wholeness of salvation; explains how Christ’s sacrifice and intercession of Christ before the Father and application of it are all connected. A few chapters are spent explaining diverse words and phrases by which Christ’s sacrifice is described, such as redemption, reconciliation, satisfaction, merit, dying for us, etc. It is one of the best volumes on atonement that I’ve read.
December 20, 2018
This is an incredible book. I'm not sure if I would suggest it for reading from cover to cover, but perhaps a reference guide for any and all arguments an Arminian or Amyraldian might bring at you.
I was pleasantly surprised by the ending of the book in which the Owens takes time to consider the consolation and comfort that the doctrine of Limited Atonement truly brings to God's elect.
I was pleasantly surprised by the ending of the book in which the Owens takes time to consider the consolation and comfort that the doctrine of Limited Atonement truly brings to God's elect.
February 13, 2019
Re-reading this in 2019, especially Packer’s introduction & analysis.
=============
This book is not for the casual reader. This is not a book that my wife would enjoy reading or profit from reading. However, for those of us that are compelled to penetrate theological issues and problems with great intensity, this is a must read. If you have never read Owen it is slow going. He spent 7 years writing this book.
For whom did Christ die? What was His intent on the cross? Owen masterfully answers these questions. He is especially helpful in dealing with all of the texts that "contradict" his position. J.I. Packer's "Essay" and "Analysis" are worth the price of this paperback. In short Owen argues four possibilities regarding God's intention and accomplishment at Calvary. He defends position #4: (1) The Father and Son have failed in their saving purpose (not all are saved) or (2) All will be saved (3) The Father and the Son do not intend to save anyone with certainty but only to make salvation possible or (4) The Father and Son intended to save some absolutely and only those will be saved.
=============
This book is not for the casual reader. This is not a book that my wife would enjoy reading or profit from reading. However, for those of us that are compelled to penetrate theological issues and problems with great intensity, this is a must read. If you have never read Owen it is slow going. He spent 7 years writing this book.
For whom did Christ die? What was His intent on the cross? Owen masterfully answers these questions. He is especially helpful in dealing with all of the texts that "contradict" his position. J.I. Packer's "Essay" and "Analysis" are worth the price of this paperback. In short Owen argues four possibilities regarding God's intention and accomplishment at Calvary. He defends position #4: (1) The Father and Son have failed in their saving purpose (not all are saved) or (2) All will be saved (3) The Father and the Son do not intend to save anyone with certainty but only to make salvation possible or (4) The Father and Son intended to save some absolutely and only those will be saved.
Want to read
December 13, 2021April 20, 2021
A thorough and in-depth look at the efficacy and sufficiency of the death of Christ. Owen uses a deep knowledge of Scripture to evaluate the arguments of universalism and other false teachings regarding the death of Christ. Well worth the effort required in order to read through this book.
March 18, 2025
DBU was built on a massive hill overlooking Mountain Creek Lake in southwest Dallas. The campus was gorgeous- Edenic even. But that hill made getting around a chore. In the spring of 2017, I lived in an apartment at the bottom of it, so I did my best to avoid the climb. I stacked all my classes onto Tuesdays and Thursdays and kept them in the same location so I wouldn’t have to trek back and forth. That semester, I had three classes twice a week in the basement of the chapel. I’d post up there for the day between classes and then meander home in the evening.
Because of that self imposed imprisonment, I read more than usual that semester. And of all the books I read, the one that left the biggest impact was John Owen’s "The Death of Death." As a relatively new convert, this book drew me deeper into the faith than I had ever been. Every word was a goldmine revealing the sovereignty of God. Every argument a portal into intimacy with the risen Christ. It was paradigm shifting. And for that reason alone, I’ll always have a kind of nostalgic love for it.
That said, this time around, I wasn’t impressed. It dragged on and on. The argument could have been made in 40 pages, and we would have said it was a wonderful read. But the next 300 pages repeated the same points over and over again. By focusing solely on limited atonement, at times it read like a 17th-century caged stage Reddit post.
That’s not to say "The Death of Death" isn’t an important book. Owen was nothing if not thorough, and in an era when theological precision was a matter of life and death, sometimes literally, his exhaustive argumentation made sense. This wasn’t a book for casual reading; it was a doctrinal defense, a battle hymn against Arminianism in a time when the stakes felt high. And maybe that’s why, for all its weight, it doesn’t land the same way today. It’s an ironclad case for a theological system that, at least in the circles where I move, is already a given. The Reformed tradition doesn’t need a 360 page bludgeon to defend limited atonement anymore; it needs books that help us live into the doctrine, not just prove it.
That’s why, on this read through, I found myself longing for more of what Packer did in his introduction: taking doctrinal depth and funneling it toward worship, toward joy, toward the sheer wonder of a sovereign God who actually saves. Owen’s precision is valuable, but it doesn’t always lead to praise. And theology that doesn’t lead to praise is missing something.
That said, there were some helpful pieces. Owen’s discussion on the words “world” and “all,” particularly in John 3:16, was insightful. But the highlight of the book was J. I. Packer’s phenomenal introduction, added by Banner of Truth. You can find it on Packer’s personal website if you don’t want to purchase the book. Honestly, his introduction might be better than the book itself. It was pastoral rather than argumentative and made the entire case in just a few pages.
Would I still recommend "The Death of Death"? Maybe, but with caveats. If you’re a theology nerd who enjoys wading through dense prose to see a master craftsman build an unshakable argument, then sure, read it. But if you’re looking for something that will move you to love Christ more, I’d say start elsewhere- maybe with Packer’s introduction or something that translates Owen’s conclusions into doxology rather than debate.
For all my complaints, though, I’m still grateful for this book. Not because I loved this read through, but because it reminds me of a season when I did. And maybe that’s the best thing about books like this not that they hold up across every stage of life, but that they mark the moments when they mattered most.
Because of that self imposed imprisonment, I read more than usual that semester. And of all the books I read, the one that left the biggest impact was John Owen’s "The Death of Death." As a relatively new convert, this book drew me deeper into the faith than I had ever been. Every word was a goldmine revealing the sovereignty of God. Every argument a portal into intimacy with the risen Christ. It was paradigm shifting. And for that reason alone, I’ll always have a kind of nostalgic love for it.
That said, this time around, I wasn’t impressed. It dragged on and on. The argument could have been made in 40 pages, and we would have said it was a wonderful read. But the next 300 pages repeated the same points over and over again. By focusing solely on limited atonement, at times it read like a 17th-century caged stage Reddit post.
That’s not to say "The Death of Death" isn’t an important book. Owen was nothing if not thorough, and in an era when theological precision was a matter of life and death, sometimes literally, his exhaustive argumentation made sense. This wasn’t a book for casual reading; it was a doctrinal defense, a battle hymn against Arminianism in a time when the stakes felt high. And maybe that’s why, for all its weight, it doesn’t land the same way today. It’s an ironclad case for a theological system that, at least in the circles where I move, is already a given. The Reformed tradition doesn’t need a 360 page bludgeon to defend limited atonement anymore; it needs books that help us live into the doctrine, not just prove it.
That’s why, on this read through, I found myself longing for more of what Packer did in his introduction: taking doctrinal depth and funneling it toward worship, toward joy, toward the sheer wonder of a sovereign God who actually saves. Owen’s precision is valuable, but it doesn’t always lead to praise. And theology that doesn’t lead to praise is missing something.
That said, there were some helpful pieces. Owen’s discussion on the words “world” and “all,” particularly in John 3:16, was insightful. But the highlight of the book was J. I. Packer’s phenomenal introduction, added by Banner of Truth. You can find it on Packer’s personal website if you don’t want to purchase the book. Honestly, his introduction might be better than the book itself. It was pastoral rather than argumentative and made the entire case in just a few pages.
Would I still recommend "The Death of Death"? Maybe, but with caveats. If you’re a theology nerd who enjoys wading through dense prose to see a master craftsman build an unshakable argument, then sure, read it. But if you’re looking for something that will move you to love Christ more, I’d say start elsewhere- maybe with Packer’s introduction or something that translates Owen’s conclusions into doxology rather than debate.
For all my complaints, though, I’m still grateful for this book. Not because I loved this read through, but because it reminds me of a season when I did. And maybe that’s the best thing about books like this not that they hold up across every stage of life, but that they mark the moments when they mattered most.
May 18, 2018
The The Death of Death in the Death of Christ was written by John Owen to both argue for a Limited/Particular Atonement (the L in TULIP) and against the alternative view that Christ died for "all the sins of all people". In his rejection of a general atonement, Owen contends with both the Arminian view and the 4 point Calvinist (Amyraldianism).
The book is long, repetitive, and can be a challenging read. The challenge comes in part because it was written in the 17th century and, if one is not used to reading material from this time period, it can take awhile to get used to the grammar and style. Another challenge (at least for those less familiar with debates within soteriology, particularly between the Calvinist/Arminian camps) is that this is a rather detailed and advanced theological work on the atonement.
To be fair, Owen warns readers off in the opening lines of his preface:
I read (and re-read) this work because theologians like John Piper, J.I. Packer, and R.C. Sproul cite this as the "definitive" work on the limited atonement (the idea that Christ died for "all the sins of some people but not others"). As I read through it I found that many of the ideas and arguments put forth by Owen are still used by contemporary Calvinists.
Throughout the books (it is broken into four), Owen makes heavy use of Scripture and reason to build out a logical argument for his view.
Book I introduces the reader to the work, describes the characteristics of a wise agent, and the purpose intended and achieved by each member of the Trinity in effecting a limited atonement.
Book II argues against a distinction between Christ procuring spiritual blessings (forgiveness, adoption etc) and His effectual applying of them. Owen only understands grace as irresistible or effectual so many of his arguments don't even take the concept of prevenient grace into account.
In this book Owen shows he understands where limited atonement ultimately leads, contending that God does not love all people (something not all Calvinists would embrace):
Book III presents 16 arguments for limited atonement and against a general atonement, and Book IV offers Owen's refutations of various objections to a limited atonement. A fair amount of space deals with passages that state Christ is offered to the world.
For those who are already committed 5 point Calvinists or lean toward that view, Owen's arguments will probably be seen as tight and irrefutable.
For those who don't agree with the L (or the other precepts of TULIP), they will find a writer who is quite sure his interpretations are correct, belittling those who disagree, and know that reasonable (and in this reader's view often better) alternatives exist. Owen regularly describes opponents as holding "absurd" and "blasphemous" ideas. Agreeing with him, J.I. Packer, in a preface included in many versions of the work, goes so far as to call a general/universal atonement "unscriptural and destructive of the gospel".
The book is long, repetitive, and can be a challenging read. The challenge comes in part because it was written in the 17th century and, if one is not used to reading material from this time period, it can take awhile to get used to the grammar and style. Another challenge (at least for those less familiar with debates within soteriology, particularly between the Calvinist/Arminian camps) is that this is a rather detailed and advanced theological work on the atonement.
To be fair, Owen warns readers off in the opening lines of his preface:
If thou art, as many in this pretending age, a sign or title gazer, and comest into books as Cato into the theatre, to go out again, — thou hast had thy entertainment; farewell!
I read (and re-read) this work because theologians like John Piper, J.I. Packer, and R.C. Sproul cite this as the "definitive" work on the limited atonement (the idea that Christ died for "all the sins of some people but not others"). As I read through it I found that many of the ideas and arguments put forth by Owen are still used by contemporary Calvinists.
Throughout the books (it is broken into four), Owen makes heavy use of Scripture and reason to build out a logical argument for his view.
Book I introduces the reader to the work, describes the characteristics of a wise agent, and the purpose intended and achieved by each member of the Trinity in effecting a limited atonement.
Book II argues against a distinction between Christ procuring spiritual blessings (forgiveness, adoption etc) and His effectual applying of them. Owen only understands grace as irresistible or effectual so many of his arguments don't even take the concept of prevenient grace into account.
In this book Owen shows he understands where limited atonement ultimately leads, contending that God does not love all people (something not all Calvinists would embrace):
We deny that all mankind are the object of that love of God which moved him to send his Son to die
Book III presents 16 arguments for limited atonement and against a general atonement, and Book IV offers Owen's refutations of various objections to a limited atonement. A fair amount of space deals with passages that state Christ is offered to the world.
For those who are already committed 5 point Calvinists or lean toward that view, Owen's arguments will probably be seen as tight and irrefutable.
For those who don't agree with the L (or the other precepts of TULIP), they will find a writer who is quite sure his interpretations are correct, belittling those who disagree, and know that reasonable (and in this reader's view often better) alternatives exist. Owen regularly describes opponents as holding "absurd" and "blasphemous" ideas. Agreeing with him, J.I. Packer, in a preface included in many versions of the work, goes so far as to call a general/universal atonement "unscriptural and destructive of the gospel".
July 4, 2024
It took me forever to finish this book. I’m not sure why, because I loved every second of it.
March 19, 2017
The title is the best that I've ever seen: The Death of Death in the Death of Christ! Such a beautiful and glorious truth contained in this title!
Even though this work was written over 400 years ago, still it is one of the best, if not the best, treatment on the subject. No doubt that this book is extensive and detailed. John Owen is known to be verbose, and sometimes he is very difficult to read. But when one takes the time and effort, one can truly benefit from his insights.
This work is set out to prove Particular Redemption and refute Universal Redemption. But one should not think that this work treats only of the question of particularity or universality of redemption, but of redemption en toto.
Any theologian, lay or professional, should not dismiss the doctrine of Limited Atonement (never so called in the book) out of hand without giving Owen a serious hearing. This is an extensive case, but surprisingly Owen thinks it "to be as brief as possible" (p. 292). This is a work filled with God-fearing and awesome theology.
Even though this work was written over 400 years ago, still it is one of the best, if not the best, treatment on the subject. No doubt that this book is extensive and detailed. John Owen is known to be verbose, and sometimes he is very difficult to read. But when one takes the time and effort, one can truly benefit from his insights.
This work is set out to prove Particular Redemption and refute Universal Redemption. But one should not think that this work treats only of the question of particularity or universality of redemption, but of redemption en toto.
Any theologian, lay or professional, should not dismiss the doctrine of Limited Atonement (never so called in the book) out of hand without giving Owen a serious hearing. This is an extensive case, but surprisingly Owen thinks it "to be as brief as possible" (p. 292). This is a work filled with God-fearing and awesome theology.
August 10, 2021
There is no doubt that I enjoy Owen more than any other Puritan. Owen intrigues my mind by expanding on systematic and biblical theology in a persuasive way that does not shy away from objections made to his thoughts. Throughout this book he answers many objections to the doctrine of definite atonement and clearly describes why it is so important for Christians to defend the doctrine as it pertains to Jesus’s role as the great and final propitiation. In order to defend his view, Owen articulates how the doctrine is taught throughout Scripture, and points out how the opposite view leads to a universal salvation that is not seen in Scripture. While the majority of the book focuses on defending definite atonement, Owen does spend the final pages objecting to universal salvation.
February 5, 2017
John Owen's defense of scriptural redemption is unmatched. I picked up this book to better understand definite atonement, and while the end goal was reached, my affections were stirred greatly by Owen's breakdown of all that Christ accomplished with his death. On a side note, Packers introduction may be the best defense of Calvinism that I've read.
April 11, 2009
Excellent.
November 13, 2010
This was a classic Owen work on the defense of election in the death of Christ. The main premise is that Christ only died for those whom the Father gave him.
April 11, 2023
As to be expected with Owen, dense, tortuous, comprehensive, rich.
January 21, 2021
This is a 16-hour marathon on Audible. Should not have listened to it at work, haha. It needs to be read as a physical copy, annotated, chewed upon... but anyway, I finished it, haha. And this tome is incredible, even if Owens totally plagiarized my blog post on Limited Atonement (which you can read here: https://andrewanmark.com/2017/10/27/j...).
Owen’s treatise here is the definitive argument for the reformed doctrine of Particular Redemption. To say it’s comprehensive is an understatement—you will be immersed in one argument after another. The format is incredibly structured and academic. And it’s funny to hear common Arminian arguments that “Jesus died for everyone” and think, wow, Owens answered your argument centuries ago!
Here is an amazing truth: that Jesus, by his death and resurrection, sealed not an offer of salvation for everyone, but a real, accomplished salvation for his elect, whom he knew and loved before the foundation of the world!
But by the end, the debate is pretty much over. My biggest question at the end was Owens’s frequent appeal to the argument that universal redemption means Christ died for Old Testament sinners who were already in hell. I see the point, but wouldn’t the modern evangelical dispensationalist just point to the different dispensations of old and new covenants? I’m not sure. I’ll have to do some more digging.
Owen’s treatise here is the definitive argument for the reformed doctrine of Particular Redemption. To say it’s comprehensive is an understatement—you will be immersed in one argument after another. The format is incredibly structured and academic. And it’s funny to hear common Arminian arguments that “Jesus died for everyone” and think, wow, Owens answered your argument centuries ago!
Here is an amazing truth: that Jesus, by his death and resurrection, sealed not an offer of salvation for everyone, but a real, accomplished salvation for his elect, whom he knew and loved before the foundation of the world!
But by the end, the debate is pretty much over. My biggest question at the end was Owens’s frequent appeal to the argument that universal redemption means Christ died for Old Testament sinners who were already in hell. I see the point, but wouldn’t the modern evangelical dispensationalist just point to the different dispensations of old and new covenants? I’m not sure. I’ll have to do some more digging.
June 29, 2024
Am crezut ca nu voi înțelege prea multe și îmi va fi greu o sa termin, dar m-am înșelat.
Singurul regret e ca nu am citit-o mai repede și am avut, până sa citesc această carte, o gândire atât de precară asupra lucrării de ispășire a Domnului Isus.
Owen analizează și obiectează excelent argumentele aduse de cei care susțin universalismul, argumente care acum mi se par atât de slabe și defectuoase, n-au ce căuta pe fața pământului.
Analizele făcute de Owen sunt clare, bine argumentate cu Scriptura. Acesta aduce multă lumină asupra unor pasaje din Biblie, care după atâta timp sunt la fel de răstălmăcite de susținătorii universalismului.
Această carte este în special pentru cei care doresc să cerceteze Scriptura, pentru cei care au un interes pentru teologia biblică și pentru cei care doresc să se gândească mai profund la credința creștină. Pentru cei care nu se mulțumesc cu puțin din Hristos, ci vor să descopere mult mai mult din frumusețea lui Hristos, a Evangheliei și a lucrării Sale perfecte.
Această carte este și pentru cei care cred ca o doctrină sănătoasă și corectă nu este esențială în viața unui creștin și în Biserică (sau mai rău, se supără numai când aud cuvântul “doctrina”); este pentru cei care se împietresc citind două rânduri din introducere.
Asa cum spune și J. I. Packer “Prejudecata este un lucru atât de pasional și noi ne regăsim apelând la mândrie, gândindu-ne ca nu avem nimic de învățat dincolo de elementele teologice pe care le stăpânim deja”.
Singurul regret e ca nu am citit-o mai repede și am avut, până sa citesc această carte, o gândire atât de precară asupra lucrării de ispășire a Domnului Isus.
Owen analizează și obiectează excelent argumentele aduse de cei care susțin universalismul, argumente care acum mi se par atât de slabe și defectuoase, n-au ce căuta pe fața pământului.
Analizele făcute de Owen sunt clare, bine argumentate cu Scriptura. Acesta aduce multă lumină asupra unor pasaje din Biblie, care după atâta timp sunt la fel de răstălmăcite de susținătorii universalismului.
Această carte este în special pentru cei care doresc să cerceteze Scriptura, pentru cei care au un interes pentru teologia biblică și pentru cei care doresc să se gândească mai profund la credința creștină. Pentru cei care nu se mulțumesc cu puțin din Hristos, ci vor să descopere mult mai mult din frumusețea lui Hristos, a Evangheliei și a lucrării Sale perfecte.
Această carte este și pentru cei care cred ca o doctrină sănătoasă și corectă nu este esențială în viața unui creștin și în Biserică (sau mai rău, se supără numai când aud cuvântul “doctrina”); este pentru cei care se împietresc citind două rânduri din introducere.
Asa cum spune și J. I. Packer “Prejudecata este un lucru atât de pasional și noi ne regăsim apelând la mândrie, gândindu-ne ca nu avem nimic de învățat dincolo de elementele teologice pe care le stăpânim deja”.
July 8, 2019
"There is no denying that Owen is heavy and hard to read." – Packer
March 23, 2024
Many convincing arguments, severely underwhelmed and disappointed by his handling of 2 Peter 2:1 and Hebrews 2:9.
January 23, 2026
An incredible book that not only strengthened my theology but also gave me tools to talk to other people about this.
July 20, 2025
John Owen’s Death of Death has long been considered a historic theological masterpiece on the nature of Christ’s atonement. I got my version with the introduction by J.I. Packer and while I want to keep my reflection focused on Owen’s thoughts, I will briefly mention that I think this intro is worth reading because Packer always has an extremely insightful diagnosis of modern evangelical culture. Packer argues that Owen’s understanding of the atonement is really central to the gospel and is missing in modern Evangelicalism. The modern emphasis on making a decision to accept Christ vs the old emphasis on Christ’s accomplished work and command to repent often fails to produce “deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship, and a concern for the church.” Packer suggests this is because the former “fails to make men God-centered in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts.” He sums it up saying it is “too exclusively concerned to be ‘helpful’ to man and too little concerned to glorify God.”
So, what is this older emphasis on the accomplished work of Christ that Packer and Owen advocate for? Since the Synod of Dort, it has been known in the Calvinistic acronym of TULIP as “Limited Atonement”, however it has often been perhaps more clearly labeled as “Definite Atonement”. This is to say that Christ’s work on the cross had the definitive effect in and of itself of saving elect sinners through Christ’s full and complete atonement for their sins. As Packer says in the intro, “its saving power does not depend on faith being added to it; its saving power is such that faith flows from it.” This is contrasted with the other common conception (aka unlimited atonement or universal redemption) that Christ’s work on the cross created the potential to save all sinners and that full justification remains waiting to be actualized until some sinners make a decision to put their faith in Christ. If the former is true (which Owen asserts and I concur), then it can accurately be said that Christ’s atoning death was on behalf of a “limited” number of elect sinners, not every individual sinner as is claimed by the latter.
Owen’s thorough writing is an attempt to end the debate and champion a definitive atonement. Packer states in the intro that Christian assurance is at stake in this debate. Is the knowledge that Christ died for me a sufficient ground for inferring my eternal salvation? Owen himself poses the question: “What good will it do me to know that Christ died for me, if notwithstanding that I may perish forever?”
The book seemingly exhausts every possible argument for this view of an effectual atonement and attempts to dispel every argument against it. Owen seemingly leaves no stone unturned. It’s a long read and Owen is very verbose. However, if you can persevere through the difficulty and length of the reading itself, the content is greatly edifying.
Owen strongly sets the rules of his method in his opening to the reader by insisting on the supremacy of scripture in the matter. Owen asserts, “God is dishonored by that honor which is prescribed to him beyond his own prescription … [and] assigning to God anything by him not assumed is a making to ourselves, a deifying of our own imaginations.” In these assertions, Owen is insisting that the only arguments he recognizes as valid are those that can be textually supported.
In summary, Owen sees a great dilemma for proponents of universal redemption that cannot be scripturally overcome: either Christ fails in His saving intention to save every sinner or every sinner regardless of their faith is saved. If Christ’s atonement is potential rather than definitive, then Christ is unable to save all of those he intends to save. If Christ’s death is definitively effectual and still on behalf of every man, then everyone is saved and no one is going to hell. Owen argues that Christ’s sacrificial death is specifically for those whom God has elected before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) and has its effect of saving those exactly as the triune God intends.
I think it’s worth quoting Owen at length in laying out the issues: “God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved. If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of their sins? You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.’ But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death?”
Much of the book is spent addressing misconceptions and false arguments about Christ’s redeeming work and I would simply be rewriting the book to try to describe them all. However, Book IV addresses probably the most common passages used to argue for a universal atonement when Jesus’s ministry is referenced in relation to “all” or the “world”. Owen’s rigor is evident throughout the entire work, but here he particularly provides a master class in analyzing textual context with these passages in Book IV to uncover the true authorial intent. In short, it is unquestionably evident these words are equivocal in the biblical text, which is to say they are not univocal (having the same meaning in every context). Consequently, their meaning cannot simply be assumed by how we ourselves would presume to understand the term, but their meaning is in each individual text dictated by its textual context and authorial intent. When dealt with according to these hermeneutics, these passages do not propose a universal atonement. However, I’d like to spend the rest of this reflection contemplating what Owen puts forth, rather than simply what he rejects.
As I subtly alluded to before, Owen also emphasizes a unified trinitarian intent to save sinners and here he has tremendous thoughts to contribute. The Trinity is united in its intended scope of salvation while each person has distinct operations. The Father sends the Son for the elect and hands down the punishment for sin. The Son is the agent in redeeming those whom the Father sent the Son for and atoning for their sins. The Holy Spirit effectuates the fulfillment of the Father’s will through the Son by the Spirit’s working in the incarnation, resurrection and continual sustenance of life and holiness. The Holy Spirit likewise indwells and sustains with spiritual life those whom the Father elects and the Son atones for. Having recognized this union, Owen shows that to deny a definitive atonement introduces disunity into the triune being of God by suggesting that Christ intends to save those who are other than those the Father or Holy Spirit intends to save. I will also add, this kind of disruption, if maintained, inevitably divides God into 3 beings (Tritheism) and consequently also leads to subordinationism (one person submitting or being inferior in will to the other).
Owen also provides great insight in what it means for Christ to be our great High Priest as is explained in the book of Hebrews. Owen argues according to scripture that a faithful priest must offer sacrifice and intercession on behalf of others. If he omits either, he is not a faithful priest. He cites 1 John 2:1-2 that Christ serves both as our advocate (intercession) with the Father and as the propitiation (sacrifice) for our sins. He argues if Christ serves in this priestly office, He must perform both duties to intercede and atone, “for he will not exercise any act or duty of his priestly function in their behalf for whom he is not a priest.” Owen suggests that those who hold to universal atonement must either deny that Christ intercedes with the Father for those whom He died for (which denies His full priesthood) or that the Father rejects Christ’s intercession for some. The latter, again, I would suggest necessitates subordinationism and disunity in the Trinity and Owen believes it explicitly contradicts John 11:42.
Owen points out that if it is true that intercession and sacrifice are inseparable in the nature and scope of the High Priestly office, then it seems the matter is quite explicitly settled in scripture when Christ during his High Priestly Prayer in John 17 says “I am not praying for the world but for those whom you (the Father) have given me.” Here Jesus intercedes strictly for believers that they would have perseverance, sanctification and unity granted from the Father.
So too in John 10:15 does Jesus say explicitly, “I lay my life down for the sheep.” The sheep in this passage are unquestionably representative of believers and in the preceding sentences the sheep are contrasted with wolves, thieves and robbers. There is no mention of Jesus generally laying down His life for these wolves, thieves and robbers; rather he specifically and exclusively states that He lays down His life for His sheep. Likewise, Ephesians 5:25-27 specifies whom Christ gives himself up for by specifying, “Christ loved the church, and gave himself for her.”
Thus it is fitting that Christ’s sacrificial ministry, or oblation (Christ’s offering and dedication of His whole life) as called by Owen, is concluded with the words “it is finished” (John 19:30). The work of atonement is brought to completion for all the Lord’s sheep (believers) and thus there is no more fear of condemnation (Romans 8) and believers have confidence to “enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus” (Hebrews 10:19). It is the blood of Jesus (His sacrifice) mentioned in Hebrews 10:19 that produces the effects of communion, nearness and full assurance of faith spoken of through Hebrews 10:22.
Owen also profoundly observes this sort of complete and effective atoning work of Christ on behalf of His chosen children is necessary by the very nature of the New Covenant or else it would functionally be no different than the Mosaic Covenant. He cites the New Covenant promise of Jeremiah 31:31-34 emphasizing that God says He will put His laws in their minds and hearts Himself. God Himself promises the effect of this covenant unconditionally. This is also true with the nature of Christ’s atoning death as the grounds for instituting this New Covenant. The redeeming fruits of this death are effectuated by God alone as a pure act of grace for His chosen children with whom He has covenanted. Owen states in explanation of all this, “Is it not as easy for a man by his own strength to fulfill the whole law, as to repent and saving believe the promise of the gospel? This, then, is one main difference of these two covenants, — that the Lord did in the old only require the condition; now, in the new, he will also effect it in all the federates, to whom this covenant is extended. And if the Lord should only exact the obedience required in the covenant of us, and not work and effect it also in us, the new covenant would be a show to increase our misery, and not a serious imparting and communicating of grace and mercy.”
These are a sampling of what I thought were the strongest points touched upon by Owen and mixed with a few of my own affirmative contributions. In sum, not only is a limited and definitive atonement necessitated by the scriptural text itself, it is also necessitated by the nature of the Trinity, the nature of the High Priestly Office, and the nature of the New Covenant. All of these doctrines are scripturally affirmed and must coexist together without contradiction. Thus Christians ought to have full assurance that their salvation has been secured forever in the death of Christ, that death truly has been defeated, and praise God all the more joyfully for the great unbounded and unconditional love with which He has loved us. Indeed, Jesus paid it ALL (emphasis on all sin past, present and future)! If the judge Himself has paid such a price of redemption, who then is left to condemn us? Is this not the meaning of the triumphal declaration of Romans 8:31-39?
In conclusion, this is Owen’s gospel presentation: “The state between God and man, before the reconciliation made by Christ, was a state of enmity. Man was at amenity with God; we were his ‘enemies’, (Colossians 1:21, Romans 5:10) hating him and opposing ourselves to him, in the highest rebellion, to the utmost of our power. God also was thus far an enemy to us, that his ‘wrath’ was on us (Ephesians 2:3), which remaineth on us until we do believe (John 3:36). To make perfect reconciliation (which Christ is said in many places to do), it is required first that the wrath of God be turned away, his anger removed, and all the effects of enmity on his part towards us; secondly, that we be turned away from our opposition to him, and brought into voluntary obedience. Until both these be effected, reconciliation is not perfected. Now, both these are in scripture assigned to our Saviour, as the effects of his death and sacrifice.” Owen argues it is this true gospel that is powerful in evangelism (contrary to critiques of doctrinal opponents) because it is in this understanding that people are assured “there is enough in the death of Christ… to heal all their diseases and deliver them from all their evils.”
It’s hard to overstate how much Owen has to say on the topic in this book which is what makes it a theological landmark. However, it can also make the content overwhelming and difficult to track with for many readers. Owen also seems very fond of run-on sentences and in my opinion doesn’t excel in the overall structure and organization of his writing. For these reasons, I think there are likely plenty of more concise modern works that can communicate similar arguments a lot more effectively and I would recommend those books over this one for most readers. However, for lovers of church history who crave engagement with some of our greatest ancestors in the faith and their greatest works, Owen’s Death of Death is sure to be on the list and serves as a nearly exhaustive reference on the issue.
So, what is this older emphasis on the accomplished work of Christ that Packer and Owen advocate for? Since the Synod of Dort, it has been known in the Calvinistic acronym of TULIP as “Limited Atonement”, however it has often been perhaps more clearly labeled as “Definite Atonement”. This is to say that Christ’s work on the cross had the definitive effect in and of itself of saving elect sinners through Christ’s full and complete atonement for their sins. As Packer says in the intro, “its saving power does not depend on faith being added to it; its saving power is such that faith flows from it.” This is contrasted with the other common conception (aka unlimited atonement or universal redemption) that Christ’s work on the cross created the potential to save all sinners and that full justification remains waiting to be actualized until some sinners make a decision to put their faith in Christ. If the former is true (which Owen asserts and I concur), then it can accurately be said that Christ’s atoning death was on behalf of a “limited” number of elect sinners, not every individual sinner as is claimed by the latter.
Owen’s thorough writing is an attempt to end the debate and champion a definitive atonement. Packer states in the intro that Christian assurance is at stake in this debate. Is the knowledge that Christ died for me a sufficient ground for inferring my eternal salvation? Owen himself poses the question: “What good will it do me to know that Christ died for me, if notwithstanding that I may perish forever?”
The book seemingly exhausts every possible argument for this view of an effectual atonement and attempts to dispel every argument against it. Owen seemingly leaves no stone unturned. It’s a long read and Owen is very verbose. However, if you can persevere through the difficulty and length of the reading itself, the content is greatly edifying.
Owen strongly sets the rules of his method in his opening to the reader by insisting on the supremacy of scripture in the matter. Owen asserts, “God is dishonored by that honor which is prescribed to him beyond his own prescription … [and] assigning to God anything by him not assumed is a making to ourselves, a deifying of our own imaginations.” In these assertions, Owen is insisting that the only arguments he recognizes as valid are those that can be textually supported.
In summary, Owen sees a great dilemma for proponents of universal redemption that cannot be scripturally overcome: either Christ fails in His saving intention to save every sinner or every sinner regardless of their faith is saved. If Christ’s atonement is potential rather than definitive, then Christ is unable to save all of those he intends to save. If Christ’s death is definitively effectual and still on behalf of every man, then everyone is saved and no one is going to hell. Owen argues that Christ’s sacrificial death is specifically for those whom God has elected before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) and has its effect of saving those exactly as the triune God intends.
I think it’s worth quoting Owen at length in laying out the issues: “God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved. If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of their sins? You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.’ But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death?”
Much of the book is spent addressing misconceptions and false arguments about Christ’s redeeming work and I would simply be rewriting the book to try to describe them all. However, Book IV addresses probably the most common passages used to argue for a universal atonement when Jesus’s ministry is referenced in relation to “all” or the “world”. Owen’s rigor is evident throughout the entire work, but here he particularly provides a master class in analyzing textual context with these passages in Book IV to uncover the true authorial intent. In short, it is unquestionably evident these words are equivocal in the biblical text, which is to say they are not univocal (having the same meaning in every context). Consequently, their meaning cannot simply be assumed by how we ourselves would presume to understand the term, but their meaning is in each individual text dictated by its textual context and authorial intent. When dealt with according to these hermeneutics, these passages do not propose a universal atonement. However, I’d like to spend the rest of this reflection contemplating what Owen puts forth, rather than simply what he rejects.
As I subtly alluded to before, Owen also emphasizes a unified trinitarian intent to save sinners and here he has tremendous thoughts to contribute. The Trinity is united in its intended scope of salvation while each person has distinct operations. The Father sends the Son for the elect and hands down the punishment for sin. The Son is the agent in redeeming those whom the Father sent the Son for and atoning for their sins. The Holy Spirit effectuates the fulfillment of the Father’s will through the Son by the Spirit’s working in the incarnation, resurrection and continual sustenance of life and holiness. The Holy Spirit likewise indwells and sustains with spiritual life those whom the Father elects and the Son atones for. Having recognized this union, Owen shows that to deny a definitive atonement introduces disunity into the triune being of God by suggesting that Christ intends to save those who are other than those the Father or Holy Spirit intends to save. I will also add, this kind of disruption, if maintained, inevitably divides God into 3 beings (Tritheism) and consequently also leads to subordinationism (one person submitting or being inferior in will to the other).
Owen also provides great insight in what it means for Christ to be our great High Priest as is explained in the book of Hebrews. Owen argues according to scripture that a faithful priest must offer sacrifice and intercession on behalf of others. If he omits either, he is not a faithful priest. He cites 1 John 2:1-2 that Christ serves both as our advocate (intercession) with the Father and as the propitiation (sacrifice) for our sins. He argues if Christ serves in this priestly office, He must perform both duties to intercede and atone, “for he will not exercise any act or duty of his priestly function in their behalf for whom he is not a priest.” Owen suggests that those who hold to universal atonement must either deny that Christ intercedes with the Father for those whom He died for (which denies His full priesthood) or that the Father rejects Christ’s intercession for some. The latter, again, I would suggest necessitates subordinationism and disunity in the Trinity and Owen believes it explicitly contradicts John 11:42.
Owen points out that if it is true that intercession and sacrifice are inseparable in the nature and scope of the High Priestly office, then it seems the matter is quite explicitly settled in scripture when Christ during his High Priestly Prayer in John 17 says “I am not praying for the world but for those whom you (the Father) have given me.” Here Jesus intercedes strictly for believers that they would have perseverance, sanctification and unity granted from the Father.
So too in John 10:15 does Jesus say explicitly, “I lay my life down for the sheep.” The sheep in this passage are unquestionably representative of believers and in the preceding sentences the sheep are contrasted with wolves, thieves and robbers. There is no mention of Jesus generally laying down His life for these wolves, thieves and robbers; rather he specifically and exclusively states that He lays down His life for His sheep. Likewise, Ephesians 5:25-27 specifies whom Christ gives himself up for by specifying, “Christ loved the church, and gave himself for her.”
Thus it is fitting that Christ’s sacrificial ministry, or oblation (Christ’s offering and dedication of His whole life) as called by Owen, is concluded with the words “it is finished” (John 19:30). The work of atonement is brought to completion for all the Lord’s sheep (believers) and thus there is no more fear of condemnation (Romans 8) and believers have confidence to “enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus” (Hebrews 10:19). It is the blood of Jesus (His sacrifice) mentioned in Hebrews 10:19 that produces the effects of communion, nearness and full assurance of faith spoken of through Hebrews 10:22.
Owen also profoundly observes this sort of complete and effective atoning work of Christ on behalf of His chosen children is necessary by the very nature of the New Covenant or else it would functionally be no different than the Mosaic Covenant. He cites the New Covenant promise of Jeremiah 31:31-34 emphasizing that God says He will put His laws in their minds and hearts Himself. God Himself promises the effect of this covenant unconditionally. This is also true with the nature of Christ’s atoning death as the grounds for instituting this New Covenant. The redeeming fruits of this death are effectuated by God alone as a pure act of grace for His chosen children with whom He has covenanted. Owen states in explanation of all this, “Is it not as easy for a man by his own strength to fulfill the whole law, as to repent and saving believe the promise of the gospel? This, then, is one main difference of these two covenants, — that the Lord did in the old only require the condition; now, in the new, he will also effect it in all the federates, to whom this covenant is extended. And if the Lord should only exact the obedience required in the covenant of us, and not work and effect it also in us, the new covenant would be a show to increase our misery, and not a serious imparting and communicating of grace and mercy.”
These are a sampling of what I thought were the strongest points touched upon by Owen and mixed with a few of my own affirmative contributions. In sum, not only is a limited and definitive atonement necessitated by the scriptural text itself, it is also necessitated by the nature of the Trinity, the nature of the High Priestly Office, and the nature of the New Covenant. All of these doctrines are scripturally affirmed and must coexist together without contradiction. Thus Christians ought to have full assurance that their salvation has been secured forever in the death of Christ, that death truly has been defeated, and praise God all the more joyfully for the great unbounded and unconditional love with which He has loved us. Indeed, Jesus paid it ALL (emphasis on all sin past, present and future)! If the judge Himself has paid such a price of redemption, who then is left to condemn us? Is this not the meaning of the triumphal declaration of Romans 8:31-39?
In conclusion, this is Owen’s gospel presentation: “The state between God and man, before the reconciliation made by Christ, was a state of enmity. Man was at amenity with God; we were his ‘enemies’, (Colossians 1:21, Romans 5:10) hating him and opposing ourselves to him, in the highest rebellion, to the utmost of our power. God also was thus far an enemy to us, that his ‘wrath’ was on us (Ephesians 2:3), which remaineth on us until we do believe (John 3:36). To make perfect reconciliation (which Christ is said in many places to do), it is required first that the wrath of God be turned away, his anger removed, and all the effects of enmity on his part towards us; secondly, that we be turned away from our opposition to him, and brought into voluntary obedience. Until both these be effected, reconciliation is not perfected. Now, both these are in scripture assigned to our Saviour, as the effects of his death and sacrifice.” Owen argues it is this true gospel that is powerful in evangelism (contrary to critiques of doctrinal opponents) because it is in this understanding that people are assured “there is enough in the death of Christ… to heal all their diseases and deliver them from all their evils.”
It’s hard to overstate how much Owen has to say on the topic in this book which is what makes it a theological landmark. However, it can also make the content overwhelming and difficult to track with for many readers. Owen also seems very fond of run-on sentences and in my opinion doesn’t excel in the overall structure and organization of his writing. For these reasons, I think there are likely plenty of more concise modern works that can communicate similar arguments a lot more effectively and I would recommend those books over this one for most readers. However, for lovers of church history who crave engagement with some of our greatest ancestors in the faith and their greatest works, Owen’s Death of Death is sure to be on the list and serves as a nearly exhaustive reference on the issue.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 24, 2021
A very thorough handling of the purpose of Christ’s death on the cross. His main thrust seemed to be arguing for limited atonement against universal atonement. Even if this is not a topic of interest for you, there is much to be gleaned from this treatise.
“the Father and his Son intended by the death of Christ to redeem, purge, sanctify, purify, deliver from death, Satan, the curse of the law, to quit of all sin, to make righteousness in Christ, to bring nigh unto God, all those for whom he died, as was above proved: therefore, Christ died for all and only those in and towards whom all these things recounted are effected;”
“The sum of the whole reason may be reduced to this head, -- namely, if the fruit and effect procured and wrought by the death of Christ absolutely, not depending on any condition in man to be fulfilled, be not common to all, then did not Christ die for all; but the supposal is true, as is evident in the grace of faith, which being procured by the death of Christ, to be absolutely bestowed on them for whom he died, is not common to all: therefore, our Saviour did not die for all.”
“the Father and his Son intended by the death of Christ to redeem, purge, sanctify, purify, deliver from death, Satan, the curse of the law, to quit of all sin, to make righteousness in Christ, to bring nigh unto God, all those for whom he died, as was above proved: therefore, Christ died for all and only those in and towards whom all these things recounted are effected;”
“The sum of the whole reason may be reduced to this head, -- namely, if the fruit and effect procured and wrought by the death of Christ absolutely, not depending on any condition in man to be fulfilled, be not common to all, then did not Christ die for all; but the supposal is true, as is evident in the grace of faith, which being procured by the death of Christ, to be absolutely bestowed on them for whom he died, is not common to all: therefore, our Saviour did not die for all.”
September 3, 2018
Worth your time, but it will take your time. The old English and complexity of arguments and answers will demand your full attention. There is no comfort in a general ransom, as it is false. True comfort only comes from believing in the substitionary atonement and understanding that Christ died for his Church-the believers.
As Owen says: "He died not for believers as believers, though he died for all believers; but for all the elect as elect, who, by the benefit of his death, do become believers, and so obtain assurance that he died for them."
Or the words of Augustine: "Christ will possess what he bought; he bought it with such a price that he might possess it." or "He that bought us with such a price will have none perish whom he hath bought."
As Owen says: "He died not for believers as believers, though he died for all believers; but for all the elect as elect, who, by the benefit of his death, do become believers, and so obtain assurance that he died for them."
Or the words of Augustine: "Christ will possess what he bought; he bought it with such a price that he might possess it." or "He that bought us with such a price will have none perish whom he hath bought."
December 31, 2025
A great defense in favor of Calvinism: Election, Reprobation, & Particular Atonement! Owen also addresses the use of anthropomorphic language and objections that arise against that high doctrine of predestination because of the misuse & ignorance of words found in the scriptures.
Example paraphrase: When Rome went to tax the whole world, it must not be understood to mean the whole world without exception, but rather the whole world as relating to the Roman Empire.
A must read for all Calvinists as well as skeptics that want to understand the theological/biblical defense of Calvinism & Particular Atonement.
Example paraphrase: When Rome went to tax the whole world, it must not be understood to mean the whole world without exception, but rather the whole world as relating to the Roman Empire.
A must read for all Calvinists as well as skeptics that want to understand the theological/biblical defense of Calvinism & Particular Atonement.
August 23, 2012
Let's be honest. Owen is not easy to read. He is as verbose as anyone you will ever read. But there is perhaps no better presentation of what the cross of Jesus actually acheived than "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ." It is worth the journey. It is worth the work. Also, J.I. Packer's introduction has, rightly, become a classic. There may be no better defense of the Doctrines of Grace than Packer's introduction to this book!
February 13, 2009
I realize this is considered one of the best books in favor of limited atonement, and to the extent that it deals with this issue, it succeeds. But the exegesis is often sparce, and the covenantal aspects of many of the same passages he quotes are left out. Good on the decretal end of things, but poor on the covenantal end of things.
January 25, 2018
Intéressant en raison de son influence historique, mais Owen commet plusieurs erreurs de logique qui font que sa défense de cette doctrine importante n'est pas imparable et parait excessive en certains endroits.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 151 reviews