The Evangelical Universalist Forum

How does Jesus's resurrection make people righteous?


#361

Bob:

I’m sorry for repeating myself here, but there’s simply no way unbelievers could be righteous when in at least two verses the NT explicitly says all unbelievers are condemned. What is your interpretation of the following?

John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

Mark 16:16
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to think that the only unbelievers who can be righteous are unbelievers who have never heard the gospel. :question: Why exactly someone who heard the gospel but didn’t believe would be condemned is not clear at all. It would imply that a person becomes guilty of something when they discover the gospel, and that they can only become righteous now by believing. But what then are they guilty of and what then is the gospel?


#362

qaz, Bob is fully capable of answering you. But before he does, I wish to share my thoughts.

“Gospel” is the translation of “ευαγγελιον.” ευ(eu) “good” αγγελιον (angelion) “announcement.”
What is the good announcement?—that Jesus, the Son of God, died and God raised Him from the dead, and as a consequence a person can appropriate the enabling grace of God to be delivered from wrongdoing and to live consistently righteous lives. Thus they are being saved from WRONGDOING. Those who do not “believe,” that is, entrust themselves to Christ to avail themselves of God’s enabling grace, are NOT in the process of salvation from sin, a process that God wants them to undergo. So they will be condemned. But to what will they be condemned? I suggest they will be condemned to a kind of “purgatory” (call it “hell” if you will) that they will undergo in order to be corrected. This correction is not limited to discomfort, but may also include being encouraged by, and hearing the “ευαγγελιον” from, the completed sons of God, or perhaps from God Himself, ministering to them. Notice the following passage:

(Ro 5:18)

Adam’s trespass resulted in the fallen nature of mankind, and THAT would lead to condemnation of all, except that Jesus’ righteous act of dying on our behalf, leads to our lives being made righteous, that is the salvation of all.

So condemnation if temporary, while the process of salvation when complete, will be permanent. And that process will eventually be completed in every person who ever lived.


#363

Good question. But are sheep symbolic of Christians or followers of Jesus because they do good works? If so, then identifying sheep as Christians or followers of Jesus is simply identifying those who do good works, and it does not get us beyond where we were.


#364

Bob said to qaz:

I would say that no one who hears the story of God and what he did through his son, in an accurate way, could ever dismiss the impact of Christ. The problem, in my view, is with the teller, and not the listener. :open_mouth: So we start to see that there is a real connection between the ‘preacher’ and the hearer.

From my standpoint, God is the ultimate power and if the story is framed in the proper way, evangelism (I Freaking hate the term) can still and does exist. :sunglasses:


#365

BTW at the risk of incurring the wrath of Paidion :smiley: I believe there is an element of imputed righteousness in believing in the atonement of Christ which includes the resurrection because it does includes the forgiveness of sins. These sins could be forgiven before the atonement because the atonement was planned by God before the foundation of the world so IMO God gave credit to it’s effect from when he conceived it not just when the physical event occurred.
Of course after one accepts Christ and receives imputed righteousness he still needs to grow and bear fruit because Christ said you will know a tree by it’s fruit which symbolically is saying you will know a Christian by his works.


#366

steve said:

And that is the very crux of the evangelical argument. The idea that God did not know about sin is absurd, why the hell would he send his son? And not only send his son but proclaim that through Jesus Israel would be saved and through that connection, the nations (the rest of humanity) would be blessed by the savior. Interesting question.


#367

Why would it follow that an action which involves forgiveness of sins requires that it must be imputing righteousness to the offender?
My perception is that in all texts about the call to “forgive” those who sin against us, the implication is the opposite of signaling that we regard them as righteous (or attribute righteousness to them). Forgiveness regularly means that we have recognized that they’ve shown themselves as perverse, but we have mercifully chosen to treat them well despite the reality that they are not at all righteous.


#368

Bob:

Interesting point. When Jesus on the cross prayed that the Father forgive his tormentors, was he saying they were righteous?


#369

Bob, There is nothing new in the New Testament. It all comes from the Old Testament.
Genesis 32:30 Jacob saw God face to face. He didn’t see a shadow of God.
The Old Testament speaks much about a HOLY God, who is merciful, abounding in goodness and truth, gracious, loving, kind, etc.etc. The Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments were from of old. Blessings of the Spirit did not just begin with Jesus. You are correct in that I don’t hold to the broad Christian consensus. I believe the Word, the “new covenant”, the bread of heaven, Christ, Christianity etc. etc.,(in other words, what Jesus taught), came FIRST. Just as the Roman Catholic Church grew into very powerful, corrupt branch of true Christianity, so it was with Judaism. It was a branch that needed to be pruned, a tree bearing bad fruit. I also believe that the Levitical/ Jewish law, as well as some other writings in the Bible, are a stumbling block for many because they are viewed as the infallible word.


#370

No… he was pleading to the Father for their forgiveness. The question is… did the Father listen to the Son? He did and affirmatively so. It has become popular by some to try and link ‘one’s own confession’ into the mix by way of a caveat in claiming a tentative connection with the likes of Acts 4:4, but that is speculative at best. Besides which, there are texts that beg the same question as to the efficaciousness of Christ’s unilateral salvific work…

The question is… did Jesus succeed or fail? I know where my confidence stands.


#371

Clearly the world is not yet saved now. The daily news reveals that. So the question should be: will He fail to save sinners, or succeed?

As for Scripture’s - true - teaching on this subject:

"Is that what all Pantelists believe, you, davo & that link included? That salvation is a “done deal” & not a “possible salvation”, since the cross c. 30 A.D.? Then why does Scripture not say so? Moreover, why does Scripture plainly oppose such a notion:

Acts 2:21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’

Acts 2:40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.”

Acts 2:47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Acts 16: 30 Then he brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.”

And many other verses at:

biblehub.com/greek/strongs_4982.htm


viewtopic.php?f=18&t=6656&p=117546#p117440


#372

Yep… good ole’ ‘newspaper theology’ — typical and to be expected. :unamused:


#373

That’s just your Calvinistic Spurgeonism talking:

“We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. —Charles Haddon Spurgeon”

vintage.aomin.org/Was%20Anyone%20Saved.html

As for Scripture’s teaching on this subject:

"Is that what all Pantelists believe, you, davo & that link included? That salvation is a “done deal” & not a “possible salvation”, since the cross c. 30 A.D.? Then why does Scripture not say so? Moreover, why does Scripture plainly oppose such a notion:

Acts 2:21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’

Acts 2:40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.”

Acts 2:47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Acts 16: 30 Then he brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.”

And many other verses at:

biblehub.com/greek/strongs_4982.htm


viewtopic.php?f=18&t=6656&p=117546#p117440


#374

Nah, it’s exactly as your posts demonstrate… unadulterated newspaper theology! :unamused:


#375

What’s better is the Rev. Peter Popoff,… with his miracle spring water and his instant money miracles. :laughing:

I watch his infomercial, whenever I get the chance. Along with shows, like The Walking Dead and Fear The Walking Dead.

But I remember that Origen likes Benny Hinn. I think Hinn and Popoff - are spiritual brothers. :laughing:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaFCGx3SIFs[/youtube]


#376

Lol Randy… you need lessons on how to cut n’ paste from that expert Origen. :laughing:


#377

Sounds great, Davo. But I fixed the prior quote in question. It’s just one quote left me, with three embedded quotes…Which PHBPP didn’t like - and wouldn’t allow.

So I had to leave it until I finished my Yoga and Mindfulness contemplation. Now I’m back in the group, warning everyone about the up-and-coming…tribulation and Zombie Apocalypse.

Given enough time. I can usually figure out, most technical things.

I should dedicate a song - to this reflection. Actually, this might become my theme song - during the Zombie Apocalypse :laughing:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSqcxFGFVas[/youtube]


#378

Hey I want to see some action… how long we gotta wait :question:


#379

Why would it follow that an action which involves forgiveness of sins requires that it must be imputing righteousness to the offender?
My perception is that in all texts about the call to “forgive” those who sin against us, the implication is the opposite of signaling that we regard them as righteous (or attribute righteousness to them). Forgiveness regularly means that we have recognized that they’ve shown themselves as perverse, but we have mercifully chosen to treat them well despite the reality that they are not at all righteous.

Forgiveness does not require we imput righteousness to the offender as Jesus on the cross gave a different reason “for they know not what they do.”
So Jesus murderers may have been deceived by Satan or simply ignorant but Jesus didn’t attribute righteousness to them.


#380

Steve, in response you stated: “Forgiveness does not require we imput righteousness to the offender as Jesus on the cross gave a different reason “for they know not what they do.”…Jesus didn’t attribute righteousness to them.”

Acknowledging that Jesus’ forgiveness at the cross did not involve imputation seems to be a different conclusion that you drew about the forgiveness he brings in the original post whose logic I was not recognizing. I agree with the logic of your latter reasoning.