Mercy, not sacrifice

Korah · May 12, 2016

graceandpeace said:
I understand. I'm definetly not comfortable with satisfaction theories. And I agree that Jesus's death has been understood as a sacrifice.

I guess my issue is with the concept of needing a sacrifice at all. Keyword, "needing" - does God need sacrifices? I think not.

So perhaps the answer really is just a matter of choosing how to interpret sacrifice in the first place. The idea of requiring blood to appease God is disturbing to me, but thinking of Jesus as the victor over death, or as a peaceful God-man willing putting an end to sacrifice forever, is more palatable. As a recent blog I read put it, perhaps Jesus's sacrifice is the means by which all of our score-keeping (& thus appeasement) is invalidated.

Christus Victor and the Classical Theory of Atonement have been mentioned in this thread, but I did not notice it specifically related to Mark 10:45 in which the Son of Man comes "to give his life as a ransom for many", to me meaning that he bought off Satan's rights to humans as the Prince of This World. When Fr. O'Brian presented this to me (and not as his own more modern views) I finally saw how I could accept Baptism without any of the penal substitution that repelled me. I'm now appropriately I guess a Lutheran, as it was a Lutheran Bishop Gustav Aulen who rehabilitated the doctrine in the 20th Century.
Before that the closest I could come to Anselm was the Moral Theory of the Atonement taught by Peter Abelard.

~Anastasia~ · May 12, 2016

Korah said:
Christus Victor and the Classical Theory of Atonement have been mentioned in this thread, but I did not notice it specifically related to Mark 10:45 in which the Son of Man comes "to give his life as a ransom for many", to me meaning that he bought off Satan's rights to humans as the Prince of This World. When Fr. O'Brian presented this to me (and not as his own more modern views) I finally saw how I could accept Baptism without any of the penal substitution that repelled me. I'm now appropriately I guess a Lutheran, as it was a Lutheran Bishop Gustav Aulen who rehabilitated the doctrine in the 20th Century.
Before that the closest I could come to Anselm was the Moral Theory of the Atonement taught by Peter Abelard.

I like to think of it as Christ accomplishing so much more through His death and Resurrection than can be neatly explained within a single human theory of Atonement. To varying degrees, I accept almost all of them (not PSA though), just as having different levels of importance. I do see Christus Victor as the most important.

Christ is Risen from the dead, by death trampling down upon death. And to those in the tombs, He has granted Life!

I do love the Paschal season.

graceandpeace · May 13, 2016

Cappadocious said:
Here are a few thoughts:

Let us rule out, to begin, the notion that Christ's sacrifice pays, answers or atones for a debt of punishment: That is, a payment, the content of which is punishment in terms of torments or deprivation for their own sakes.

Now that we have ruled out a debt of punishment for Christ's sacrifice, let's rule it out for Old Testament sacrifices, too. Old Testament sacrifices were not paying a debt of punishment to God. After all, the Hebrews didn't sentence or torture their animals to death, and some of the sacrifices were not animals at all, but rather grain. Not to mention the offerings of firstfruits, which were often non-animal. Sacrifices were also eaten by the people in some circumstances, such as the Paschal lamb.

So if the sacrifice isn't filling up a debt of punishment, what it is doing? Well, here's a thought: There is a debt, but it is a debt of righteousness, not punishment. That is, the content of the payment is righteousness, not torments or punishment.

And righteousness is life,
And life is being in communion or toward communion.

If these three are one, or at least interconnected in the right way, then we can make some better sense out of the sacrifices. Life is in the blood, hence why it was given to fill the break in life/communion/righteousness. What of the firstfruits and the grain offerings? They were real self-emptyings toward God. They are a very movement towards God, being poor towards God. And being poor towards someone is necessary for communion.

So Christ becomes man, and becomes truly, totally poor towards God, filling up unrighteousness (death, anti-communion) with his righteousness (life, being toward communion). There is no communion without sacrifice, because sacrifice is in some sense the very content of communion.

Now, the classic question, why did God have to do it? Why didn't he just zap the debt paid? Well, because if the debt is righteousness, and righteousness is being toward communion, and being toward communion is being totally poor toward the other, then the only way to pay it is by being totally poor toward the other. And God zapping that the case seems to involve making us who we're not while we're still us, and God can't do that. (The question, "why didn't God just force us or predispose us to be totally poor toward the other, then?" pertains to the whole problem of free will and moral responsibility, which is a different topic).

Now, the Psalm 51 question: God cares about spirit only, right? And spirit only means my mental intentions, right? Like how David said God doesn't want physical sacrifices, just a broken spirit? So why did he require these ugly, physical, tangible, slimy sacrifices?

Well, to that I have to say: Nope. Mental intentions aren't acts of being toward communion, repentance, reconciliation, being poor toward the other. They aren't significant of themselves. And that reading of Psalm 51 is baloney. Some shadowy intention floating around in the ether doesn't count for anything in the real world, and thank God for that. When a peasant offers one of his only birds, that's repentance. Thinking about being humble simply isn't.

I can agree with some of your thinking, I think. Like I said, I'm not comfortable with satisfaction thinking & similarly with ideas of needing blood shed to appease God in some way. I do understand that a physical act is something tangible, compared to a separate mere "spiritual" act. It means more to do something than to just think about it, sure.

Cappadocious · May 13, 2016

graceandpeace said:
I'm not comfortable with satisfaction thinking & similarly with ideas of needing blood shed to appease God in some way.

Appeasement wouldn't be a factor, if I've presented my thoughts correctly.

graceandpeace said:
I do understand that a physical act is something tangible, compared to a separate mere "spiritual" act. It means more to do something than to just think about it, sure.

I like that you call it spiritual acts.

For me, we exist in our actions. It's not that we have a thought and then act based on that thought; rather there are only different sorts of actions in the world (including thoughts) with significance. So thoughts are judged by how they are in the world.

In other words, for me, offering the birds is not an outward sign of the right corresponding humble mental state. Rather, offering the birds is itself the humility.

The modern identification of spiritual with mental is one of the big problems.

hedrick · May 19, 2016

~Anastasia~ said:
Wonderful. I need to read this a few more times.

Just one thought - isn't it true that in a common Protestant understanding, God DOES just "simply zap" a person "righteous" based on contractual fulfillment? Just a little irony that crept into my mind while I read your post.

The best answer is probably “in a sense.” When we’re followers of Jesus, God accepts us as his. That’s righteousness in the sense of being acceptable to God, but certainly not in the sense of being sinless or perfect.

I’m not sure I’d call it contractual fulfillment. God accepts us when we have faith. But it’s not just that we’ve ticked off the requirements of a contact. Faith unites us with Christ, whose presence within us (over tine, normally) transforms us.

mark46 · May 20, 2016

hedrick said:
The best answer is probably “in a sense.” When we’re followers of Jesus, God accepts us as his. That’s righteousness in the sense of being acceptable to God, but certainly not in the sense of being sinless or perfect.

I’m not sure I’d call it contractual fulfillment. God accepts us when we have faith. But it’s not just that we’ve ticked off the requirements of a contact. Faith unites us with Christ, whose presence within us (over tine, normally) transforms us.

"when we have faith"

This phrase covers lots of theology.

hedrick · May 20, 2016

mark46 said:
"when we have faith"

This phrase covers lots of theology.

Sure. But I'm very skeptical of anyone who claims to have a neat formula for defining who is really a follower of Christ. Faith is the term Paul uses, and it's traditional in Protestant theology.

And just for fun, I have to explain it to a group of 13 year olds next week.

mark46 · May 20, 2016

hedrick said:
Sure. But I'm very skeptical of anyone who claims to have a neat formula for defining who is really a follower of Christ. Faith is the term Paul uses, and it's traditional in Protestant theology.

And just for fun, I have to explain it to a group of 13 year olds next week.

Our faith should be understandable to 13 year olds.

FireDragon76 · Jun 6, 2016

Cappadocious said:
I don't know, but I'd think that theologically educated protestants would just say that they are participating in what Christ accomplished which wasn't a zapping.

Yes, definitely. That's one of the main themes coming out of the "Finnish School" of interpretation of Luther. It's always been there, it just hasn't been acknowledged, mostly because until recently Protestants have been interacting with Roman Catholics, not Orthodox.

~Anastasia~ · Jun 6, 2016

Interesting to see different perspectives on the "zapping". I suppose I considered the question mainly from an evangelical perspective? It's difficult for me to keep many points of view in mind at the same time and nuance them all by comparison, especially for those denominations I was never a part of.

But many of the ones I WAS a part of considered salvation to be sort of like a light switch, flipped on at a particular moment in time. One said a prayer (at least that was the "active" participation on our part, and if nothing else a good "just in case" action) and by virtue of one's belief/faith in Christ, one was instantaneously "justified" because God would grant "imputed righteousness" of Christ on one's behalf. Whether this was something that could be lost or was permanent no matter what one did later was up for debate, but it was certainly a moment in time, and when explained in this way, certainly seems like "zapping" and as a result of a contractual obligation on God's part. Perhaps that IS too narrow a view, as I can easily see there are major groups of Protestants who do not accept such a format. To what degree various other ones may accept parts of it, I'm not entirely sure.

Thank you for the replies.

Razare · Jun 6, 2016

graceandpeace said:
For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,
the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. - Hosea 6:4-6

Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.” - Matthew 9:10-13

God excluded himself from that statement.

Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together. - Genesis 22:8

And that is how his mercy manifest, rather than sacrifices we provide, there is really no such thing as a sacrifice men gives to God. His mercy is that he provides the sacrifice.

But who am I, and who are my people, that we should be able to give as generously as this? Everything comes from you, and we have given you only what comes from your hand. - 1 Chronicles 29:14

It also refers to the inferior sacrifices men attempted to provide. God never even wanted those sacrifices, he wanted you to learn a Bible lesson as you gave the sacrifice. The lesson was that when you offer a lamb before God, really, there is one lamb whom God will provide as a sacrifice. That realization was what God was after with sacrifice, to point to the one sacrifice which was his will.

If you hit upon that realization as David did, or Hezekiah did, you learned the lesson and were no longer strictly obligated to the Mosaic law. There was always a greater law available than the Mosaic law, which is the law of faith by which Abraham was justified.

FireDragon76 · Jun 9, 2016

Anastasia, there are still a lot of people in traditional churches that believe in imputed righteousness. I'd say the idea is at least understood in even mainline Protestant churches like Episcopalians or Presbyterians though they don't tend to talk about it that way now days.

The forensic understanding of justification can be important, without it there can sometimes be pastoral problems where people do not trust God's mercy, they trust in the things they do to justify them. That opens the door to both despair and pride.

~Anastasia~ · Jun 9, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
Anastasia, there are still a lot of people in traditional churches that believe in imputed righteousness. I'd say the idea is at least understood in even mainline Protestant churches like Episcopalians or Presbyterians though they don't tend to talk about it that way now days.

The forensic understanding of justification can be important, without it there can sometimes be pastoral problems where people do not trust God's mercy, they trust in the things they do to justify them. That opens the door to both despair and pride.

Don't get me wrong - I believe that God IMPUTES righteousness, because the Scriptures say that He does. But the podcast I listened to was excellent, and makes the point well that IMPUTING is a verb/action, and this does not refer to a "thing"/noun called "imputed righteousness". I realize that a great many Christians may disagree with me. Perhaps all Catholics and Protestants, I'm not sure. I am reminded that "grace" tends to be a "thing" to Catholics and Protestants, whereas in Orthodoxy it is ..... something else.

(Forgive me please, I am not well just now, and can't bring a proper explanation to mind.) Orthodoxy focuses a lot more on the interactions between God and man in such cases, rather than "being given something".

I don't mean this to insult anyone or their theology. Forgive me please since I know I am not explaining myself well. But I did want to clarify that I do not deny that God imputes righteousness.

~Anastasia~ · Jun 9, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
The forensic understanding of justification can be important, without it there can sometimes be pastoral problems where people do not trust God's mercy, they trust in the things they do to justify them. That opens the door to both despair and pride.

You know, I thought about this more right after I posted. It's kind of ironic. You may be right, but I have the opposite impression. It seems to me that the forensic idea of justification has many more problems with people trusting in God's mercy. It may just be the place where I am personally. But it is much easier for me to trust God in realizing that it has to do with relationship and love, which necessarily occurs in the process of us walking out our faith, rather than any forensic idea. If it were me, I'd be much more worried about what I "had to do" in order to please God if I felt it was going to be a courtroom-like situation. Perhaps that's the reason some protestant groups tend to simplify it so much down to that moment of salvation - if one retains a juridicial foundation and yet does not want to worry about "works" it may be that some of them see that as the only answer.

But I really find the very opposite to be true. It is much easier for me to trust in God's mercy and hopefully dispel any temptations to pride by simply looking at salvation as flowing out of God's love and our relationship with Him.

FireDragon76 · Jun 10, 2016

I would submit you do not see the full benefits of the doctrine because Orthodox theology, for the most part, does not even acknowledge we are justified forensically, and instead focuses on what Protestants would call sanctification. (There are exceptions of course, some modern EO theologians in eastern Europe have discussed justification and suggested it has important pastoral and ethical implications). The forensic understanding is there in the Bible, reflected in the language used, though perhaps not in as detailed a sense as some churches believe. It is not something that merely conservative Protestants see. The most developed forensic understanding is probably in the Reformed, Calvinist tradition (and it's probably the one you are familiar with), but all magisterial Protestants focus on God having a covenantal promise to forgive sins unconditionally to those having faith.

The focus on sanctification over justification is not some kind of primrose path without its perils. Lutheran theology can be helpful here in seeing how this doctrine has implications far beyond just "being zapped" and getting a 'get out of jail free" card. If you want to know more, I'd recommend this book, as it is an easy read, it explains why Protestants (and specifically Lutherans) understand the Bible the way they do, and it explains even some of the ethical implications of justification sola fide. Perhaps surprisingly, it means we don't deal ethically as legal absolutists:

~Anastasia~ · Jun 10, 2016

FireDragon76 said:
I would submit you do not see the full benefits of the doctrine because Orthodox theology, for the most part, does not even acknowledge we are justified forensically, and instead focuses on what Protestants would call sanctification.

That might be true if I hadn't spent many years as a Protestant, and with just about every understanding out there.

As I said, the "benefits" and how one responds as far as "trusting in works" and possible associated pride are going to vary, IMO, depending on where a person is spiritually and where they have been. I think my experience is simply different from yours, and perhaps we are both right within our own contexts.

I can see what you are saying. It's just not my own experience, that's all.

(There are exceptions of course, some modern EO theologians in eastern Europe have discussed justification and suggested it has important pastoral and ethical implications). The forensic understanding is there in the Bible, reflected in the language used, though perhaps not in as detailed a sense as some churches believe. It is not something that merely conservative Protestants see. The most developed forensic understanding is probably in the Reformed, Calvinist tradition (and it's probably the one you are familiar with), but all magisterial Protestants focus on God having a covenantal promise to forgive sins unconditionally to those having faith.

Yes, I'm familiar with Calvinist tradition, but others as well. I agree that there is an element in Scripture that we are justified by God, and that can be seen forensically. I rather think of it like the many theories of Atonement. I think nearly ALL of them are true, but some have preeminence over others (and I outright reject the "God demands pain as payment" part of PSA). Of course we are justified, but it is only one slice of the pie (and a smaller one, IMO), and focusing on that can give a warped view of God. (To be fair, it's probably true that focusing on any number of doctrines to the exclusion of complementary ones can also give a warped view, to some degree.)

The focus on sanctification over justification is not some kind of primrose path without its perils. Lutheran theology can be helpful here in seeing how this doctrine has implications far beyond just "being zapped" and getting a 'get out of jail free" card. If you want to know more, I'd recommend this book, as it is an easy read, it explains why Protestants (and specifically Lutherans) understand the Bible the way they do, and it explains even some of the ethical implications of justification sola fide. Perhaps surprisingly, it means we don't deal ethically as legal absolutists:

Thanks for the recommendation.

mark46 · Jun 13, 2016

Some seem to find comfort in the idea of God as judge, we as deserving death, and Jesus having paid the penalty for our sin.

I find little comfort in this construction of the faith. We are part of the family of God; we grow in our relationship with God each day of our life, by His Grace. He died on the Cross to remove the barrier between us and God. He rose from the dead, victorious over Death, that we might have eternal life.

Yes, this can be put within the bounds of the traditional Western concept of Christ's death as a payment for sin. I just don't have the need to for the courtroom framework of the faith.

Luke17:37 · Jun 28, 2016

graceandpeace said:
I'm going start by posting several Scriptures, so bear with me. From NRSV:

What shall I do with you, O Ephraim?
What shall I do with you, O Judah?
Your love is like a morning cloud,
like the dew that goes away early.
Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets,
I have killed them by the words of my mouth,
and my judgment goes forth as the light.
For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,
the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. - Hosea 6:4-6

Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God,
for you have stumbled because of your iniquity.
Take words with you
and return to the Lord;
say to him,
“Take away all guilt;
accept that which is good,
and we will offer
the fruit[a] of our lips.
Assyria shall not save us;
we will not ride upon horses;
we will say no more, ‘Our God,’
to the work of our hands.
In you the orphan finds mercy.” - Hosea 14:1-3

(Note that the Hebrew would be "bulls" rather than "fruit," which I believe is from the Septuagint.)

And as he sat at dinner in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” But when he heard this, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.” - Matthew 9:10-13

(Matthew has Jesus quoting the same line from Hosea 6:6 again in Matt. 12:7.)

This thread is partially inspired by a discussion invoking Hosea in another thread, different forum.

What do you think it means that God desires mercy/steadfast love, rather than sacrifice?

What sort of sacrifice did God have in mind? The blood kind?

If so, why would Jesus' death need to be understood in any way as a blood sacrifice?

If, as Hosea seems to say, we can offer "the bulls of our lips" - meaning to me, we can just repent, seek forgiveness, & it would be likened unto a sacrifice - it seems problematic to imply Jesus is needed to be a blood sacrifice.

Jesus quotes Hosea: "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." In Mark 12:28-34, the scribe answers Jesus that the commandments to love God & neighbor are more important than sacrifices, & Jesus seems to approve of this answer.

If what God is looking for is not a blood sacrifice, what do we do with verses that seem to imply understanding Jesus as a blood sacrifice of sorts? (I.e. Romans 3:24-25, 1 John 4:10, Hebrews 9:11-12, etc)

Just thinking about some of these verses, & wanted to hear how you or your church tradition answers them.

I read a few or your posts. Because of what Adam and Eve did (and we inherited and continued in sin), we needed a worthy blood sacrifice. Jesus fulfilled it. I encourage you to listen to or read this sermon:

https://www.mcleanbible.org/sermons/work-christ

https://www.mcleanbible.org/sites/default/files/sermon-files/thfaf5-2571729_4.pdf

This concepts discussed in this sermon are really foundational to the gospel.

A lot of the Jews were using religious works to try to become acceptable to God. They didn't necessarily have a heart for God, though. When we try to come to Him trying to justify ourselves as good, as the many of the religious leaders were doing, God doesn't like it.

Matthew 9:10-13
10 Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, that behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
12 When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

The Pharisees who believed they were righteous because of their rule following (many of which were made up, and didn't follow the spirit of God's law) looked down on others. God doesn't want people coming to Him with their "sacrifices" of "good" works, trying to justify to Him that they are good. He wants humble, repentant sinners, who fall upon the mercy of God. God's mercy is expressed to us if we come to Him with repentance and faith in the Jesus' atoning sacrifice for our sins. Atonement = at-one ment (between God and us)

In Hosea 6:4 and beyond (for many chapters), God discusses how He feels about Israel's behavior.

Jesus was quoting part of Hosea 6:6:

For I desire mercy and not sacrifice,
And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Isaiah 29:13-14
13 Therefore the Lord said:
“Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths
And honor Me with their lips,
But have removed their hearts far from Me,
And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,
14 Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work
Among this people,
A marvelous work and a wonder;
For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish,
And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden.”

God bless.

tienkhoanguyen · Jan 2, 2017

graceandpeace said:
I'm going start by posting several Scriptures, so bear with me. From NRSV:

What shall I do with you, O Ephraim?
What shall I do with you, O Judah?
Your love is like a morning cloud,
like the dew that goes away early.
Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets,
I have killed them by the words of my mouth,
and my judgment goes forth as the light.
For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,
the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. - Hosea 6:4-6

Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God,
for you have stumbled because of your iniquity.
Take words with you
and return to the Lord;
say to him,
“Take away all guilt;
accept that which is good,
and we will offer
the fruit[a] of our lips.
Assyria shall not save us;
we will not ride upon horses;
we will say no more, ‘Our God,’
to the work of our hands.
In you the orphan finds mercy.” - Hosea 14:1-3

(Note that the Hebrew would be "bulls" rather than "fruit," which I believe is from the Septuagint.)

And as he sat at dinner in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” But when he heard this, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.” - Matthew 9:10-13

(Matthew has Jesus quoting the same line from Hosea 6:6 again in Matt. 12:7.)

This thread is partially inspired by a discussion invoking Hosea in another thread, different forum.

What do you think it means that God desires mercy/steadfast love, rather than sacrifice?

What sort of sacrifice did God have in mind? The blood kind?

If so, why would Jesus' death need to be understood in any way as a blood sacrifice?

If, as Hosea seems to say, we can offer "the bulls of our lips" - meaning to me, we can just repent, seek forgiveness, & it would be likened unto a sacrifice - it seems problematic to imply Jesus is needed to be a blood sacrifice.

Jesus quotes Hosea: "I desire mercy, not sacrifice." In Mark 12:28-34, the scribe answers Jesus that the commandments to love God & neighbor are more important than sacrifices, & Jesus seems to approve of this answer.

If what God is looking for is not a blood sacrifice, what do we do with verses that seem to imply understanding Jesus as a blood sacrifice of sorts? (I.e. Romans 3:24-25, 1 John 4:10, Hebrews 9:11-12, etc)

Just thinking about some of these verses, & wanted to hear how you or your church tradition answers them.

Jesus Christ all the time! Bless GOD, Jesus Christ, Mary, and The Holy Spirit all the time#!! Then bless my real mom Huong Thi Vu all the time. Honours to my real mom and my real dad Nguyen Binh Thuy all the time; Congratulations to my real two sisters Nguyen Khoa Thuyen for being a professional chemical engineer and my other real sister Nguyen Khoa Thi for being a professional programmer all the time [no matter what the occupation - I love you both sis!!!] Although I never graduated I am grateful to GOD for those who are teaching me to be a Jesus Christ loving person. When I was baptized my pastor told me it is only the beginning of your understanding The Word and THE WORD IS YOUR SOLE SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE FROM JESUS CHRIST. (all the time)

I once thought sacrifice was better than love. I would always go and sacrifice my life in a way. For instance my toys I would go and give others and not have anything to play with for myself. My mother would come home and yell at me for giving what belonged to me to someone other than myself when others already have "toys" to play with.

Then I realize true love is greater than being a robot! That was the answer that I was seeking. The question is who do I truly love? In The Word I will give you a challenge it says you must love GOD with all your love. The answer is in Deuteronomy 6:5. That was my problem all along. GOD solves your problems however in order to gain that you must love GOD with all your love#!!!!!!!!!!

FatalHeart · Apr 26, 2017

graceandpeace said:
This thread is old now, but I will say thank you to those who offered their thoughts.

I don't see much hope for resolving some of these difficulties, but such is the way of religion. When I can, I will explore this issue more in my own time.

All these things are taken care of in Hebrews. Hebrews 9 explains the meaninglessness of the required sacrifices but the necessity of blood. Hebrews 10 explains the solution to them. As a final thought, one can only get the Holy Spirit from true faith in what Jesus did (Galatians 3:4), and it is only by the Holy Spirit we can please God (Romans 8:9), meaning, whatever you wish to think about God wanting mercy over sacrifice, good cannot be accomplished without the death and resurrection of Jesus. Furthermore, anyone who wishes to do good in an attempt to please God without Jesus sets themselves up as an enemy of God, (Matthew 12:20). Life only comes through the Spirit and the Spirit only comes through the cross of Christ.

Mercy, not sacrifice

Anglican Lutheran

† Handmaid of God †

Episcopalian

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

† Handmaid of God †

God gave me a throne

Well-Known Member

† Handmaid of God †

† Handmaid of God †

Well-Known Member

† Handmaid of God †

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

non-denominational Christian

Wisdom's Associate

Similar threads