“The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” by John Owen

As promised in my earlier post about Reformed theology, I have been exploring the Internet for more information on John Owen’s Book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, and found several good resources. The most thorough and comprehensive summary of his book that I found is an article titled “John Owen’s Argument for Definite Atonement in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ: A Summary and Evaluation,” written by Andrew David Naselli, and published in Volume 14, Number 4 (Winter 2010) issue of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (SBJT 14.4 (2010)). The entire volume is devoted to Puritanism, containing six articles and one editorial on the subject by various authors, including the one mentioned above. The entire journal volume can be downloaded in PDF format from here, and the individual article by Andrew David Naselli can be downloaded separately from here. It is still a lengthy, 22 page article, typeset in small print, and not ideal for giving a succinct rebuttal to Owen’s main argument; but it is well written and informative, and recommended reading. I found several other less detailed summaries of his book on the Internet which present his essential argument more succinctly, which are more suitable for giving it a concise, succinct rebuttal. I found one article which summarises his core essential argument as follows (emphasis added):

“The most important point of this work is what is often missed in the present debate over unlimited vs. limited atonement. Owen’s thesis is that Christ’s death on the cross actually saved. The current debate focuses much on whether his death was for the elect or for the world, but I believe that the question is answered when it is framed in the matter of determining whether Christ’s death actually saved or only made salvation possible. As Scripture shows, and Owen proves, the primary (sole?) emphasis is on the actual accomplishment of salvation. Those for whom Christ died are saved; they are regenerated, justified, sanctified, etc. Christ’s work is perfect and that which he sought to accomplish has been fulfilled.” (Link)

That expresses Owen’s core argument. But it contains a logical fallacy, known as the False Dilemma fallacy, also known as the fallacy of the Excluded Middle, False Dichotomy, and Bifurcation. The fallacy is defined as follows:

“The False Dilemma fallacy occurs when an argument offers a false range of choices and requires that you pick one of them. The range is false because there may be other, unstated choices which would only serve to undermine the original argument. If you concede to pick one of those choices, you accept the premise that those choices are indeed the only ones possible. Usually, only two choices are presented, thus the term ‘False Dilemma’; however, sometimes there are three (trilemma) or more choices offered.” (Link)

Thus the argument as outlined above is false, because it presents a false dilemma. His argument is that if Christ’s Atonement made salvation possible for all, it therefore follows that he did not actually save anyone in particular, which is not a valid logical deduction. It ignores another option presented in scripture. The third option is that the Atonement of Jesus Christ (A) makes salvation possible for all without exception; and (B) it actually saves all those who choose to believe and repent of their sins. In order words, the Bible includes the element of human choice in salvation which Calvinism denies, and Owen excludes. Just because the Atonement made salvation possible for all, it does not logically follow that it did not actually save anyone in particular. That is simply not a logical conclusion. It made salvation possible for all; and at the same time it also actually saved all those who chose to believe and repent of their sins. The hidden fallacy there is that redemption must be unconditional for it to be “actual” or “real,” which is unbiblical. Calvinism is deterministic, whereas the Bible is not. Pretty much all the summaries presented by the other (Reformed) theologians contain the same fallacy, hidden in various ways. Another summary given by J.I. Packer for example expresses it in these words (emphasis added):

“Scripture describes the end intended and accomplished by the Father and the Son through the Son’s death as the full salvation (actual reconciliation, justification, sanctification, adoption and glorification) of the Church.”

That statement contains a hidden False Dilemma fallacy. The question is, what constitutes “the Church”? The biblical answer is, “the Church” consists of all those who have chosen to believe and repented of their sins. Calvinism denies that volitional element in human salvation enshrined in the Bible, therefore Packer tries to hide it. He then continues his argument as follows:

“The view that Christ’s death was a “general ransom” for all implies either that the Father and the Son have failed in their saving purpose, or that all will be saved, or that the purpose of Christ’s death was not to save any particular person absolutely.”

That is a false dilemma (or trilemma). There is a fourth option presented in the Bible, involving the element of human volition and choice, which he tries to hide or ignore. The fourth option is that the purpose of Christ’s death was to save absolutely all those who would choose to believe and repent of their sins. The redemption is made available to all; but We decide whether we want to partake of it through faith and repentance or not. He then continues:

“Since this third alternative, which the advocates of a “general ransom” embrace, is dishonouring to Christ and harmful to faith, Owen will oppose it.” (Link)

That is another false dilemma, or a continuation of the previous false dilemma. The third alternative he presents is NOT what “the advocates of a ‘general ransom’” embrace—at least, I don’t. The true biblical “third alternative” is the fourth option I presented above.

Another admirer of Owen’s work has expressed his theology in these words (emphasis added):

“Owen so clearly explains what Christ actually did on the cross; that He actually, purposely, and eternally secured salvation. Christ did not “offer a wonderful plan for our lives” as some say, but He became our substitute, paying for our sins (whose names were written in the Lamb’s Book of Life before the foundation of the world).” (Link)

The same False Dilemma is again presented here. It presents a false dichotomy, ignoring the third option presented in the Bible, that Jesus on the cross actually, purposely, and eternally secured salvation for all those who would voluntarily choose to believe and repent of their sins. The scope of the redemption is unlimited, but its application is limited by individual choices. Unlike the Bible, Calvinism is deterministic, therefore it tries to eliminate the option requiring human choice.

I found one website, however, which provides several summaries of Owen’s essential argument, as expressed by several theologians including John Owen himself, which can be seen here. Edwin Palmer for example, quoted on the site, expresses Owen’s theology concisely as follows (emphasis added):

“If the death of Jesus is what the Bible says it is – a substitutionary sacrifice for sins, an actual and not a hypothetical redemption, whereby the sinner is really reconciled to God – then, obviously, it cannot be for every man in the world. For then everybody would be saved, and obviously they are not. One of two things is true: either the atonement is limited in its extent [i.e. not intended to save everyone] or it is limited in its nature or power [i.e. defective, insufficient to save everyone]. It cannot be unlimited in both.”

That is a false dilemma. There is a third option. It can be (and is) unlimited in both—and limited only by the choices that we can and do freely make. The Atonement is unlimited both in its extent (i.e. intended to save anyone and everyone who chooses to believe and repent); and also unlimited its nature or power (i.e. able to save anyone and everyone who chooses to believe and repent). It is unlimited in both—but limited only by the choices that we freely make. We limit ourselves by the choices that we make in whether we obtain salvation through it or not.

The argument employs the same logical fallacy; a False Dilemma; that if the Atonement is not “limited,” then it cannot be “actual,” and therefore must be “hypothetical”. It equates a universal or unlimited Atonement with “hypothetical,” and a limited or definite Atonement with “actual”—based on the false premise that a sin atoned for must necessarily be absolved, remitted, and forgiven unconditionally—ignoring the biblical necessity of conditionality in the salvation process based on repentance and faith. That is a false dichotomy. It can be (and is) “actual” (and unlimited), without it being “hypothetical”. It is fully “actual” and “actualized” in the life those who choose to believe and repent; without rendering it in any way “hypothetical”.

His argument boils down to saying that if the Atonement is unlimited, then salvation must be universal, which does not logically follow. It is based on the (hidden) false premise that all sins atoned for by Jesus Christ must necessarily be absolved, forgiven, and remitted unconditionally, which is not biblical. It overlooks the role that human will plays in the salvation process—faith and repentance—which the Bible affirms, and Calvinism denies. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is unlimited in both its extent, as well as in its nature or power; but we have the freedom to deny ourselves the salvation it offers by the choices that we voluntarily and freely make.

An analogy will be helpful. Let us suppose that five men are stuck at the bottom of a pit, and can’t get out. A man walks past and decides to rescue them. He sends down a ladder, and invites them to climb out. Three of the men trust the rescuing man and his ladder, and climb out to safety. The other two don’t trust the man and his ladder and don’t climb, and are not rescued. How does that render the work of the “rescuer” any less “real,” or only “hypothetical”? It doesn’t. The Calvinistic counterpart of that analogy would work like this: five men are stuck at the bottom of a pit, and can’t get out. A man walks past, and decides to arbitrarily rescue two of the men, and leave the rest stranded. So he sends down a ladder to the bottom of the pit, climbs down, ties up the two men whom he has arbitrarily chosen, carries them out to safety, pulls up the ladder, and abandons the remaining three to destruction—and he does so entirely by an arbitrary decision. That is the Calvinistic model of salvation. And the author of that paragraph considers this second model to be “actual” and “real” salvation; while he considers the first model to be only “hypothetical”.

Another (shorter) quote from J.I. Packer presented on the site expresses it most concisely of all, in these words (emphasis added):

“Calvary not merely made possible the salvation of those for whom Christ died [i.e. the “elect”]; it ensured that they would be brought to faith, and their salvation made actual.”

The same false dilemma is again presented here. It ignores a third option: that Calvary not only made possible the salvation of those for whom Christ died (which is everyone); it also ensured the salvation of those who by their own will chose to believe and repent, and made their salvation actual.

Calvinism turns the biblical doctrine on its head. The Bible makes faith and repentance a condition for salvation. Calvinism makes it a consequence of salvation. The Bible says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Calvinism says, “He that is saved shall believe and be baptized!” When the Bible says, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” Calvinism says, “You will only repent if you are already saved!” Calvinism is the antithesis of the gospel message of the Bible. It turns it on its head. It turns it around to its opposite end. It is the logical antithesis, the opposing expression of it.

John Owen himself, however, has expressed his theological reasoning best of all, found on the same website, as follows (emphasis added):

“The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

“(1)  All the sins of all men

“(2)  All the sins of some men

“(3)  Some of the sins of some men

“In which case it may be said:

“A) That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so none are saved.

“B) That if the second is true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.

“C) But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

“You answer, because of unbelief. I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not? If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins.”

That is his main argument—which all the others have emulated as the ultimate expression of Definite (Limited) Atonement. If that reasoning can be refuted or falsified, his entire theology is falsified, and his book is made superfluous and redundant; because everything else he has said in support of his theology is an adjunct to that argument. What makes Owen’s own presentation of his argument particularly intriguing is that he appears to be aware of the False Dilemma fallacy that his argument is susceptible to, anticipates it, and tries to get round it. But he does so by committing another logical fallacy so glaringly obvious that none of his followers subsequently have been willing to repeat it. The logical fallacy that he now commits is a fallacy of circular reasoning known as Begging the Question. The logical fallacy of Begging the Question is defined in a Wikipedia article on the subject as follows:

“In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. It is a type of circular reasoning: an argument that requires that the desired conclusion be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy’s presence is hidden, or at least not easily apparent.” (Link)

That is the logical error that John Owen is committing. His argument can be summed up in a series of logical steps as follows:

1. All sins that are atoned for by Jesus Christ must necessarily be absolved and remitted, and therefore be forgiven (unconditionally).

2. Unbelief (and impenitence) are themselves sins.

3. If Jesus atoned for all the sins of all men, then he also atoned for their sins of unbelief and impenitence.

4. Therefore if Jesus atoned for all the sins of all men, then all men’s sins are remitted and forgiven, and therefore all men are redeemed from all their sins (unconditionally), and all must be saved.

That is how he presents his argument, which is circular and “begs the question”. Premise #1 is an assumption that needs to be proved, not just presumed or taken for granted. The Bible does NOT teach that “All sins that are atoned for by Jesus Christ must necessarily be absolved and remitted unconditionally”. The Bible makes salvation and redemption conditional on faith and repentance. You cannot now go back, and rebuild that conditionality criterion (the absence of faith and repentance) back into the original argument as a sin already atoned for and paid for, and thus by so doing to cancel out the “conditionality” criterion. That is circular reasoning, and renders the argument invalid. That falsifies his theology completely, and renders his entire argument (and book) invalid. I am sure some readers will be wondering how that argument alone can invalidate a 300 page book? The answer is that everything else he has said in his book is an adjunct to the validity of that argument. For example in his book he spends a lot of time analyzing and examining the scriptural passages relevant to the subject, and drawing his own conclusions from them. Andrew David Naselli devotes 3 pages of his article (pp. 67–69) to discussing Owen’s scriptural argumentations. They may appear to be impressive to the biblically uninformed; but those who know their Bibles well can see that his interpretations are forced, and are an attempt to read his theology into the Bible, rather than obtain it from the Bible. He has already predetermined what his theology will be, and then attempts to shoehorn it into the Bible by any means possible. For example he dismisses those verses in which Jesus is portrayed as having died for the sins of all men, or for the sins of the whole world, or even for the sins of those who are not saved, with very dubious and questionable argumentation. One obvious theological mistake he makes for example is that he confuses “Atonement” with “intercession”. The Atonement is universal, and covers the sins of all men; but intercession is not. Jesus atoned for the sins of all men without exception; but he intercedes at the throne of grace only on behalf of those who choose to believe and repent. Just because intercession is not universal, it does not follow that Atonement is not universal. They are two different things. J.I. Packer, who appears to be absolutely enamored and besotted with Owen’s book, in his introductory essay (quoted on several sites promoting the book, such as here, here, and here) praises it in glowing terms in these words:

“It is safe to say that no comparable exposition of the work of redemption as planned and executed by the Triune Jehovah has ever been done since Owen published his in 1684. None has been needed. Owen’s interpretation of the texts is sure; his power of theological construction is superb; nothing that needs discussing is omitted, and no arguments for or against his position have been used since his day which he has not himself noted and dealt with. Owen’s work is a constructive broad-based biblical analysis of the heart of the gospel, and must be taken seriously as such. Nobody has a right to dismiss the doctrine of the limitedness of the atonement as a monstrosity of Calvinistic logic until he as refuted Owen’s proof that it is part of the uniform biblical presentation of redemption, clearly taught in plain text after plain text. And nobody has done that yet.”

Well, I think that I have just done that! See also an earlier post I wrote on limited Atonement nearly four years ago here. I hope that this brief analysis will spur others well versed in scripture to write a more comprehensive rebuttal to Owen’s heretical book (which is what it is), and put it to rest once for all.

It is also a very abusive work towards those of a different theological point of view. Packer describes his book as “polemical,” which is an understatement. I describe it as “unchristian”. If he is right, and knows that he is right, and has a convincing argument to put forward, and is confident about it, he would have no need to be abusive towards those of a different persuasion. People who act in that way, it is usually because they are not sure of the truth and validity of their own argument, and try to make up for it by employing that kind of abusive rhetoric towards those of a different persuasion. John Owen has an agenda. His motives are not sincere. His aim is not merely to know, discern, or disseminate truth; but to defeat those whom he considers to be his theological adversaries by any means possible—even if “truth” is sacrificed or compromised in the process.

I will conclude this post with the following summary of Owen’s argument given by Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834–1892), who was a very influential and colorful British Baptist preacher and theologian of his time. The quote comes from the same site where the last few quotes were given (emphasis added):

“We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men.

“Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They certainly [say], ‘No, certainly not.’ ”

Wrong! That is not what I would say! That is not how I would answer that question. My answer to that question would be, that “Christ died to secure the salvation of all men who chose to believe in him and repent of their sins”. If all men on earth, and throughout the rest of the universe, chose to believe and repent of their sins without exception, the Atonement of Jesus Christ would be sufficient to secure the complete salvation and redemption of every one of them without exception. If they are not, it is entirely their own choice; and nobody is “predestined” to salvation or damnation. He then continues:

“We ask them the next question: Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, ‘No.’ ”

Wrong again! That is not how I would answer that question either. My answer to that question would be, that “Christ died to secure the salvation of any (and every) man in particular (and in general) who chooses to believe and repent of his sins”. If anyone is not, it is entirely his choice, and nobody is “predestined”. He then continues:

“They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, ‘No. Christ has died that any man may be saved if’—and then follow certain conditions of salvation.

“Now who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody.”

Wrong again! Very wrong! Christ died to infallibly secure the salvation of anyone and everyone who chooses to believe in him and repent of his sins. He then continues:

“We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, ‘No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.’ ”

Wrong! He is the one who limits it. Christ died to secure the salvation of anyone who chooses to believe and repent of his sins. That includes anyone and everyone in the universe who chooses to, decides to, and wants to; and no one is predestined. He continues:

“We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it…

I would rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of men be added to it.”

That sums it up very nicely! Calvinism is deterministic. The will of man has no role to play in anyone’s salvation or damnation. Everything is predetermined and predestined; which is contrary to everything that is taught in the Bible from start to finish, from the beginning to the end, from Genesis to Revelation. When Jesus says, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:3, 5), that is an invitation to a volitional act. When he says, “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46), that is an invitation to a volitional act. When he says, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 7:21), that is an invitation to a volitional act. His Sermon on the Mount is an invitation to a volitional act. His parables and preachings, and everything he taught and instructed others to do to be saved (e.g. Matt. 25:31–46) were invitations to a volitional act. That is what is enshrined in the Bible from start to finish, from the beginning to the end, from Genesis to Revelation.

Calvinism is a negation of everything that is taught in the Bible from start to finish, from the beginning to the end. It is an evil abomination. It is the most corrupt, evil, damnable, abominable, perverse, pernicious, perfidious, demonic, Satanic heresy that has ever arisen in Christendom since it came into existence. It is worse than the Arian heresy of the fourth century. The Arian heresy denied the divinity of Jesus Christ; Calvinism turns God into an evil monster barely distinguishable from the devil. And it has persuaded an awful lot of deceived and misguided people to believe it.

The core essential element of Owen’s argument is that all sins atoned for by Christ must necessarily be absolved, remitted, forgiven unconditionally; whereas the Bible makes that conditional on faith and repentance. Hence Owen (and others in agreement with him) have been employing logical fallacies, hidden in various ways, to obscure, cancel out, or eliminate that conditionality element enshrined in the Bible. That is because faith and repentance are volitional acts; whereas Calvinism is deterministic; therefore it tries to avoid all elements of human will and choice in the salvation process. Whether you are saved or damned, you have no control or choice in the matter; all has been predetermined and predestined beforehand. That is the abomination of Calvinism, which is 100% unbiblical, and is anything but.