Blood does not save, love does.

[Axehead]

We should look at the whole counsel of God and not isolate verses to create a theology.

How were these verses missed?

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

This verse demonstrates that the Love of God and the Blood of Christ are eternally linked.
Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

 

[shnarkle]

You posted: "I would probably not be able to defend against some scripture being used literally."

With regards to the scripture referring to salvation by "blood", i would agree to a certain extent that a literal interpretation is lacking. The fact is that the blood refers, by the figure Metonymy; to Christ's atoning sacrifice of his life. Were it the case that the fluid itself was all that was necessary to attain redemption, Christ would never have had to undergo the ordeal of crucifixion in the first place. The whole sacrificial system points to the sacrifice of Christ. Were it the case that the transgressors were only required to supply some blood from their unblemished animals, perhaps this would be the case with the only blood that could remove the stain of sin in our lives as well. The fact is that a sacrifice was required. This was all because of God's love for fallen humanity.

 

[aspen]

His blood saves us because of the nature in which it was freely given. Psalm 51 reminds us that God does not want sacrifices of animals - He wants a contrite and broken heart, which is exactly what Christ gave to Him in our place. It was the perfect gift because He gave up His life through pure love for God and us.

 

[Wormwood]

But why is Jesus being butchered and murdered on a Roman cross an act of divine love? I do not think, apart from penal substitution, that an inhumane murder of an innocent man can be construed as "love." My standing in front of an oncoming train is in no way an act of love toward another....unless I am pushing them out of the way of the train and taking their place on the tracks.

 

[aspen]

But why is Jesus being butchered and murdered on a Roman cross an act of divine love? I do not think, apart from penal substitution, that an inhumane murder of an innocent man can be construed as "love." My standing in front of an oncoming train is in no way an act of love toward another....unless I am pushing them out of the way of the train and taking their place on the tracks.

Well technically He laid down His life for us, but humanity believed we were murdering Him. We didn't like His message of love because it threatened our authority. It reminds me of when we thought it was better to have an earthly King instead of God back in ancient Israel. We think our authority trumps Gods. The reason His death on the cross is important is because it models what a Christian is suppose to do which is to give everything for our neighbor.....even our lives if necessary. Also, I believe God was communicating to us how He was affected by our actions in the Garden and throughout time - Jesus is the heart of God broken for us.

Just like children who have a disordered attachment to their parents, we have a disordered attachment to God - we are not equipped to parent ourselves, but we fear / do not trust our Heavenly Father and therefore try to parent ourselves with the skills of a toddler.

 

[Wormwood]

I agree that this is part of what the cross is about. However, being murdered by Romans on a cross makes no sense apart from substitution. The cross is not merely a moral example. In my mind, allowing one's self to be butchered by a mob is no moral example of anything if there is no substitution at work. Again, standing in front of a train as an example of selfless love seems silly if he did not really "become sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God."

 

[aspen]

I agree that this is part of what the cross is about. However, being murdered by Romans on a cross makes no sense apart from substitution. The cross is not merely a moral example. In my mind, allowing one's self to be butchered by a mob is no moral example of anything if there is no substation at work. Again, standing in front of a train as an example of selfless love seems silly if he did not really "become sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God."

I am not sure why you are discounting my description of the cross? There is no greater love than a man laying down His life for another, according to the God / Man who actually did it! Jesus is the heart of the Father, breaking for us - I think God wanted us to understand how He felt about our Fall - and He succeeded - the very act split history. Nothing silly about that.

 

[Wormwood]

I am not discounting it, nor am I suggesting it is "silly." I am just saying that we cannot understand the cross as love if we do not understand it as substitution. Yes, Jesus laid down his life "for another." In essence, he took our penalty and suffered in our place. I guess what I am objecting to is this statement:

The reason His death on the cross is important is because it models what a Christian is suppose to do which is to give everything for our neighbor

I would not say this is "The" reason his death on a cross is important. I would say it is "a" reason. Jesus did not die primarily to "model" morality for us. Jesus died to free us from sin and take our place. While he certainly models selflessness and love to us in this act, I do not think he did it just so people would see a good moral example. All of the prophecies and declarations of Jesus about his suffering refer to substitution and trusting God, not modeling morality. So again, I am not saying Jesus didn't model love and godliness at the cross. I am just saying I don't think that is primarily what took him to the cross. In fact, I think if Jesus was primarily interested in modeling love and morality, he would have been better served spending his whole live cleansing lepers and healing the lame. There was a purpose to the cross that went beyond showing what it means to live an outstanding moral and selfless life.

I think this gets back to the OP. "Blood does not save, love does." Well, technically, blood was required to save us...and love was necessary for Christ to willingly shed his blood. Separating blood and love in the act of salvation is like separating the cross from the resurrection. One without the other is incomplete.

 

[aspen]

I am not discounting it, nor am I suggesting it is "silly." I am just saying that we cannot understand the cross as love if we do not understand it as substitution. Yes, Jesus laid down his life "for another." In essence, he took our penalty and suffered in our place. I guess what I am objecting to is this statement:



I would not say this is "The" reason his death on a cross is important. I would say it is "a" reason. Jesus did not die primarily to "model" morality for us. Jesus died to free us from sin and take our place. While he certainly models selflessness and love to us in this act, I do not think he did it just so people would see a good moral example. All of the prophecies and declarations of Jesus about his suffering refer to substitution and trusting God, not modeling morality. So again, I am not saying Jesus didn't model love and godliness at the cross. I am just saying I don't think that is primarily what took him to the cross. In fact, I think if Jesus was primarily interested in modeling love and morality, he would have been better served spending his whole live cleansing lepers and healing the lame. There was a purpose to the cross that went beyond showing what it means to live an outstanding moral and selfless life.

I think this gets back to the OP. "Blood does not save, love does." Well, technically, blood was required to save us...and love was necessary for Christ to willingly shed his blood. Separating blood and love in the act of salvation is like separating the cross from the resurrection. One without the other is incomplete.

Ok, I can live with that

I tend to think of God as One, yet three - heart, mind, and will.

Like a good father, He revealed His mind in the OT (although, his heart and spirit were always present) by laying out His beef with us regarding our betrayal.

Like a good father, He revealed His empathy for us by experiencing our pain due to our betrayal and His response to our betrayal, which was to show us His broken Heart on the Cross.

Like a good Father, He provided His Spirit to help us deal with His broken heart through the cultivation of our empathy and helping us to respond with love and fidelity towards Him and ourselves (us and neighbors).

Basically, the meaning of life can be seen as a marital fight between God and His Bride. He had an incredible way of expressing how He felt about our infidelity.

Hope that clears up my post rather than making things more confusing.

 

[StanJ]

Jesus saves us IF we accept Him as our savior. What He did on the cross was redeem mankind from sin. Redemption is NOT salvation.

 

[Phantasman]

Don't want to upset anyone, but if you follow things through, this has to be the conclusion. All things are done in order to bring people to "participation in the divine nature". The divine nature is LOVE. God is LOVE. Anything that preceeds this "result" is only a "tool" to enable this result. That one of (the main "tool") the "tools" is the very nature of "suffering God" as exhibited in the body of Christ is obvious, along with the other things that are said to "save" - faith, hope etc ("we are saved by hope"). To claim that the blood of Christ was "special" is wrong other than it may have been genetically different. The blood denotes the suffering and death of the son, and by logical extension, the effect on the Father. What it all means is that God himself, through his son, has demonstrated, revealed, his very nature as one who has forgiven and forgives. The cross was his forgiveness to the world, just as it was his love to the world. Christ on the cross may also be said to have wresled, encountered, resisted, opposed, fought and destroyed in his flesh (body) sins attempts to conquer his righteousness, through the whole gambit of sinful possibilities. He conquered, and so the legal aspects of the law of sin and death were met. Death could not hold him, his righteousness survived.

If people start to use scriptures to object to this position, they must realise that this position has been derived from those very scriptures, and in any case I would probably not be able to defend against some scripture being used literally. Also I have no desire to argue the point, but am willing to look at what may be presented. Although I have padded this out, the main issue is obviously that Christ's blood should not be looked to as the magic ingredient of salvation, just as other things may also be held high in this regard, they are not the answer. It is man answering and responding to the love of God that brings salvation through the means that Christ is seen to have provided.

An older post. But a good one, IMO. Jesus came with a sword. To separate the physical from the spiritual. People see blood (a physical thing) as important. I don't believe it is. Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Jesus words were all spiritual. His flesh is the word (truth) he taught, the blood is the Holy Spirit. He could not give the Holy Spirit until he had resurrected. One must see the difference between the physical and the spiritual. It's why Jesus would exclaim "let him who has ears...listen". We all have (physical) ears. He was referring to spiritual.

Same with water baptism. There is no power in water. It's the spiritual commitment made that creates water baptism, the change of the old man to the new. Rituals mean nothing, except to those who seek physical signs.

 

[StanJ]

An older post. But a good one, IMO. Jesus came with a sword. To separate the physical from the spiritual. People see blood (a physical thing) as important. I don't believe it is. Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Jesus words were all spiritual. His flesh is the word (truth) he taught, the blood is the Holy Spirit. He could not give the Holy Spirit until he had resurrected. One must see the difference between the physical and the spiritual. It's why Jesus would exclaim "let him who has ears...listen". We all have (physical) ears. He was referring to spiritual.

Same with water baptism. There is no power in water. It's the spiritual commitment made that creates water baptism, the change of the old man to the new. Rituals mean nothing, except to those who seek physical signs.

Actually Jesus came to CONNECT the two. He died and shed His physical blood so the righteousness required by the LAW would be fulfilled and that all could claim that sacrifice for themselves as a REAL atonement for sin. Hebrews will give one a good understanding of this whole process.

 

[Phantasman]

Well, two things. Hebrews first.

The author of Hebrews is unknown. My study shows Hebrews was probably written by a catholic sympathizer. The pastorals (Titus, 1,2 Timothy) as well as Hebrews are accepted by many as Pauls writing. I don't buy it for these reasons.

1. Hebrews is the only letter glorifying the priests and high priests. The word "priest" is used dozens of times, and in the positive. All of Pauls other letters (except Timothy), the Acts of the Apostles, and all four Canon Gospels refer to priests in the negative, against the Father and Son, the group who were responsible for crucifixion. The Catholics have reinstated the priesthood, the very group who was fooling the Jews.

2 The first Canon Bible was created by Marcion. Marcions followers rivaled the Catholics in numbers for many years. The Bible was all 10 letters of Pauls and a revised Gospel of Luke. Truly Pauline in source, as Marcion trekked hard and long to find all of Pauls writings. Hebrews was not in that mix.

The Pastorals are not in Pauls style, and are dated written after his death..

Second, the Torah is a physical law set. No man could follow it. Jesus said he came to fulfill it. He made us see it as spiritual, not physical. Each of the Torah laws can be followed with the two commandments Jesus gave us. Not breaking Torah law is not the same thing as following Jesus commandments. One could follow the laws and not have love (for others). Jesus gave us a lens to view the law differently, through spirit.

 

[StanJ]

Well, two things. Hebrews first.

The author of Hebrews is unknown. My study shows Hebrews was probably written by a catholic sympathizer. The pastorals (Titus, 1,2 Timothy) as well as Hebrews are accepted by many as Pauls writing. I don't buy it for these reasons.

1. Hebrews is the only letter glorifying the priests and high priests. The word "priest" is used dozens of times, and in the positive. All of Pauls other letters (except Timothy), the Acts of the Apostles, and all four Canon Gospels refer to priests in the negative, against the Father and Son, the group who were responsible for crucifixion. The Catholics have reinstated the priesthood, the very group who was fooling the Jews.

2 The first Canon Bible was created by Marcion. Marcions followers rivaled the Catholics in numbers for many years. The Bible was all 10 letters of Pauls and a revised Gospel of Luke. Truly Pauline in source, as Marcion trekked hard and long to find all of Pauls writings. Hebrews was not in that mix.

The Pastorals are not in Pauls style, and are dated written after his death..

Second, the Torah is a physical law set. No man could follow it. Jesus said he came to fulfill it. He made us see it as spiritual, not physical. Each of the Torah laws can be followed with the two commandments Jesus gave us. Not breaking Torah law is not the same thing as following Jesus commandments. One could follow the laws and not have love (for others). Jesus gave us a lens to view the law differently, through spirit.

Sadly your whole response is ill informed. Luke is the author of Hebrews and Paul died AFTER all his letters were written. Catholicism didn't even start until around 300 AD.

1. Hebrews does no such thing. It compares the OT/OC priesthood and law with the NC/NT Grace of which Jesus is THEE high Priest, NOT in the order of Levi but in the order of Melchizedek, which FYI was God in the OT.

2. The first canon was The Muratorian Canon (also called the Muratorian Fragment). For sure, Marcion was a dualist and an early church heretic, and his so-called canon was never accepted other than by himself and his followers, who were FEW.

I would respectfully suggest if you are going to post historical assertions, that you study them first before posting fallacious assertions.

The Torah is OC/OT written Mosaic Law which is no longer applicable as of Jesus' death, and has not become obsolete and has disappeared. The Levite priesthood no longer exists as of 70 AD, when the temple was destroyed.

 

[Phantasman]

Ill informed?

Ignatius (35-110AD). Early church father,
He is also responsible for the first known use of the Greek word katholikos (καθολικός), meaning "universal", "complete" and "whole" to describe the church, writing:

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.

Way before 300AD.

As far as Marcion,

In hindsight, Marcion is seen as one of the first heresiarchs for his deviations from what would become the orthodox positions of the main authorities in the Catholic church. The suppression of the Marcionist form of Christianity is thus viewed[11] as a catalyst for the development of the New Testament canon, the establishment of a centralised church law, and the structuring of the Church.
The church centred on the Marcionist interpretation of the Christian gospel expanded greatly within Marcion's lifetime, became a rival to the orthodox Christian church and retained its following for several centuries. It survived Christian controversy, and imperial disapproval, for several centuries more.[12]

While WIKI is used with references to the Marcion-Library, other info exists if you need debate further. Todays NT is an expanded Marcion Bible. Like Valentinians, Marcion's churches were prevalent outside of Rome and many areas of Roman influence.

Disagree with me, show proof. But please refrain from the use of ill informed. At worst, agree to disagree. At 66, I have spent a life of study. My only regret is my first 35 or so years of Orthodox slavery.

A very Merry Christmas to you and your family.

 

[StanJ]

Ill informed?
Ignatius (35-110AD). Early church father,
He is also responsible for the first known use of the Greek word katholikos (καθολικός), meaning "universal", "complete" and "whole" to describe the church, writing:

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.

Way before 300AD.

As far as Marcion,

In hindsight, Marcion is seen as one of the first heresiarchs for his deviations from what would become the orthodox positions of the main authorities in the Catholic church. The suppression of the Marcionist form of Christianity is thus viewed[11] as a catalyst for the development of the New Testament canon, the establishment of a centralised church law, and the structuring of the Church.
The church centred on the Marcionist interpretation of the Christian gospel expanded greatly within Marcion's lifetime, became a rival to the orthodox Christian church and retained its following for several centuries. It survived Christian controversy, and imperial disapproval, for several centuries more.[12]

While WIKI is used with references to the Marcion-Library, other info exists if you need debate further. Todays NT is an expanded Marcion Bible. Like Valentinians, Marcion's churches were prevalent outside of Rome and many areas of Roman influence.

Disagree with me, show proof. But please refrain from the use of ill informed. At worst, agree to disagree. At 66, I have spent a life of study. My only regret is my first 35 or so years of Orthodox slavery.



Yes, and I wasn't talking about use of a Greek word by Ignatius, I was referring to the actual RCC, which was not started by Constantine but basically legally established by him. The first Pope wasn't until Leo 1 in 440 AD. Way AFTER 300 AD

As far as Marcion I've already stated what I know of him, as history clearly shows. Not only was he a heresiarchs, he was also a leader of one of the first hierarchies, but regardless he was a false teacher. You claims are just plain fallacious if you insist on continuing to make them. As I've already stated, the first example of a Bible was the Muratorian Canon from 170 AD.

I did show proof and you reacted instead of looking into it. If you want more, look here; http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/bible-faqs/how-were-the-books-of-the-bible-chosen/

 

[Phantasman]

• The Muratorian Canon was a second century collection under Pope Pius i. Pius excommunicated Valentinians and Marcion who he believed was Gnostic. Regardless, are you familiar with the Codex Sinaiticus. An older Bible than Vaticanus and many more books, including Revelations mid way of the NT, not at the end. Just more of Catholics buffaloing people..

A false teacher teaching Pauline letters and Luke. That's a new one. Maybe his Antithesis is what you mean. Makes sense to me.

 

[Phantasman]

Pope is just position of celestial authority on Earth. Jesus never set up men as celestial authority, IMO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_I

Again, WIKI points to the New Advent of the Catholics for it's content. The only accounts we had about Valentinus and Marcion were from Catholic Church fathers, especially Irenaeus in his Against Heresies writings. Once the Nag Hammadi books were found, what Irenaeus had described was not the same as the teachings. Rome thought they had extinguished all Christian heresy literature,

We have been taught to frown on heresy and heretic, when they are only words depicting non Catholic. Words can be used to control the ignorant, like using racist today. I am not spiritually motivated by words, but the truth behind it's description. There is no better twisting of words than that of the Catholics view of the scriptures. That's like saying white robes are a sign of purity.

Constantine was the wealthiest man. He killed thousands of enemies. He waited until his death bed to become baptized, and wanted it done only in the Jordan river. He rose up against any religion teaching Christ that did not follow the Nicene Creed. The Catholics sainted him.

It's all about Earthly power, and Jesus wanted no part of any of it.

 

[StanJ]

• The Muratorian Canon was a second century collection under Pope Pius i. Pius excommunicated Valentinians and Marcion who he believed was Gnostic. Regardless, are you familiar with the Codex Sinaiticus. An older Bible than Vaticanus and many more books, including Revelations mid way of the NT, not at the end. Just more of Catholics buffaloing people..

A false teacher teaching Pauline letters and Luke. That's a new one. Maybe his Antithesis is what you mean. Makes sense to me.

No, he himself, but sadly you have made him some kind of mentor. If he is then indeed YOU are a false teacher.

 

[Barrd]

Don't want to upset anyone, but if you follow things through, this has to be the conclusion. All things are done in order to bring people to "participation in the divine nature". The divine nature is LOVE. God is LOVE. Anything that preceeds this "result" is only a "tool" to enable this result. That one of (the main "tool") the "tools" is the very nature of "suffering God" as exhibited in the body of Christ is obvious, along with the other things that are said to "save" - faith, hope etc ("we are saved by hope"). To claim that the blood of Christ was "special" is wrong other than it may have been genetically different. The blood denotes the suffering and death of the son, and by logical extension, the effect on the Father. What it all means is that God himself, through his son, has demonstrated, revealed, his very nature as one who has forgiven and forgives. The cross was his forgiveness to the world, just as it was his love to the world. Christ on the cross may also be said to have wresled, encountered, resisted, opposed, fought and destroyed in his flesh (body) sins attempts to conquer his righteousness, through the whole gambit of sinful possibilities. He conquered, and so the legal aspects of the law of sin and death were met. Death could not hold him, his righteousness survived.

If people start to use scriptures to object to this position, they must realise that this position has been derived from those very scriptures, and in any case I would probably not be able to defend against some scripture being used literally. Also I have no desire to argue the point, but am willing to look at what may be presented. Although I have padded this out, the main issue is obviously that Christ's blood should not be looked to as the magic ingredient of salvation, just as other things may also be held high in this regard, they are not the answer. It is man answering and responding to the love of God that brings salvation through the means that Christ is seen to have provided.

What is salvation, do you think?
We are saved....but what are we saved from?

Fools that we are, we have sold ourselves to sin, and to the death that results from sin.
But we have been redeemed...that is we have been bought with a price.
God loves us so much that He paid the price of our redemption....he bought us back.

Now, I would agree with you that it is the great love of God, manifested in Jesus Christ, that saves us from the curse of sin and death. Love, and not blood, as you say, is the "magic ingredient". Love that is so intense...so beautiful...that God was willing to shed His Own blood on the cross...to die for our sins.

There is love in every drop of precious blood shed for us at Calvary.