DISTINCTION OF “BLOOD-LIFE” A FALLACY

Both Mr. Storrs and Mr. Curry make a point and lay much stress on the supposed distinction between the “blood-life” and “spirit-life;” their position being that the blood-life is forfeited to the law, and that the law, as a matter of justice, holds it forever; that the life that is laid down in death is not taken up again in the resurrection, but another or spirit-life is conferred in its stead. The fallacy of this has already been shown in that it makes the justified pay the same forfeit as the condemned, which is unjust. To further show its erroneousness, I will compare their statements with those of the Scriptures. Said Mr. Curry:VDRU 16.2

“How was it with Christ? He laid down his blood-life, made an atonement, but he never took it up again. That was the purchase, the forfeit.” Debate with Grant, p. 91.VDRU 17.1

And Mr. Storrs says:VDRU 17.2

“It was the price paid; his blood-life is laid down forever, and is never taken again.” Life from the Dead, p. 92.VDRU 17.3

But the words of the Saviour stand directly opposed to these assumptions. He says:VDRU 17.4

“I lay down my life that I might take it again.... I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” John 10:17, 18.VDRU 17.5

This expression—“take it again”—shows that no such distinction obtains in the Scriptures. If he laid down one life and never took it again, but took another in its stead, as they assert, then this language of the Saviour is most unhappily chosen. And as the Saviour’s statement is as plain and explicit as theirs, and directly contradicts theirs, I must conclude that their view was never drawn from the Bible, but was gotten up to meet the necessity of their theory.VDRU 17.6