There are some well-known writers and speakers who think it uncool to talk about Jesus taking the hit for us. Is this merely a weak "gospel"? Or is it rather another "gospel" altogether?
Titus 2.1 (ESV) warns, "But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine." The word "sound" could be translated "healthy." If there is "sound, healthy" doctrine; there is unsound, unhealthy doctrine.
Any doctrine taught by anyone that takes away from the substitutionary death of Jesus is at best unhealthy. Jesus lived the life that we could not live; and died the death that we should have died. That is the gospel, and it is of primary, first importance (1 Corin 15).
Ponder this observation:
“To use the magnificent words of B.B. Warfield, ‘Jesus dies on the cross, but not of the cross.’ The cross was the means by which He died, but not the reason why He died. He died through being crucified, but not because He was crucified. He was nailed to the tree, but that wasn’t the cause of His dying.
The cause of His dying is precisely because He is there as the substitutionary atonement for the sins of His people. He dies bearing my sins in His body to that tree, so that I might live; so that through His condemnation at Calvary, the Judge in heaven will say to the sword of justice as it hangs over my head for my sins, ‘Do not slay my son. Jesus has been crucified. He has been put to death’; and I am now pardoned through His dying, justified by His blood, saved from the wrath to come.”
- Iain D. Campbell
1 comment:
Thank you. Sometimes I need that reminder that it was ON and not OF. I too quickly get caught up in life and take it for granted.
Post a Comment