You can count on John Owen to bring some light and clarity into a debate. The following lightly edited quote was sent in by a reader and is really helpful:
“That which we affirm is that our sins were so transferred on Christ as that thereby he became responsible to God and liable to punishment in the justice of God for them. He was perfectly innocent in himself; but took our guilt on him, or our liability to punishment for sin.
He may be said to be the greatest debtor in the world, who never borrowed nor owed one farthing on his own account, if he became guarantor for the greatest debt of others . . .In order to declare the righteousness of God in this setting forth of Christ to be a propitiation and to bear our iniquities, the guilt of our sins was transferred to him in an act of the righteous judgement of God accepting and evaluating him as the guilty person—as it is with a guarantor in every case . . .
If this be not so, I desire to know what is become of the guilt of the sins of believers. If it were not transferred onto Christ, it remains still upon themselves, or it is nothing. It will be said that guilt is taken away by the free pardon of sin. But if that were so, there was no need of punishment for it at all—for if punishment is not for guilt, it is not punishment.”
This is from page 200 of volume 5 of Owen’s “The Doctrine of Justification by Faith Through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ Explained, Confirmed and Vindicated.” (!!)
My reader said slightly cheekily, “I love the way Puritans give the game away in the title to their books. At least you know where he would be coming from in a discussion with Bishop N. T. Wright without having to read his book!”
It is now almost a week since I made the decision to stop comments here on the blog. In the next few days I will also be deleting all the old ones. I have to say that, so far, I have not missed them. It’s not so much that I don’t want interaction with my readers—that, in any case, continues in other ways. Rather, I’m glad that the immediacy of that interaction is less, and its constant demands on my time have abated. Having one less demand on my time is so welcome!
Previously I felt constantly under pressure to monitor the stream of comments coming into my inbox to determine which ones should be approved. Part of the nature of these comments was that the majority of them seemed to disagree with the original post. I think this is partly because those who read a post and like it are unlikely to say so in a comment. I know that I myself am more inclined to respond to something that I dislike online. It is this argumentative aspect of comments that has bothered me somewhat. I genuinely believe that, for me at least, removing comments is a way of taking a step away from being quarrelsome.
I came across the following verse this week which made me think that I have done the right thing—at least for me in my situation.
“So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.” (1 Timothy 2:22-26)
* * * * * * * *
If you miss making comments, you can always pop over to one of my reader’s blogs who has begun an interesting discussion on Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ views of guidance. He said to tell you that he would welcome your opinions! Or, you could go and read Alistair’s transcription of what Driscoll really said about God hating sinners and join in the conversation over there.
UPDATE
In response to this post Rick asks, “Are Blog Comments Unscriptural?” whilst Dave Warnock collects the posts from those who think I should not have stopped publishing comments.