The Evangelical Universalist Forum

How does Jesus's resurrection make people righteous?


Your idea of ‘any rewards given out in 70AD’ is simply evangelical bias.

Actually MM it came from Davo referring to Matt 16.28 but thanks for the analysis!


The “every man” as you say, or “each according to” was specific to those of Jesus’ generation aka “this generation” involved in the parousia. And no, you didn’t see AD70 but then you didn’t see AD30 either… they were bookends to God’s ONE-time consummative redemptive event. We’re not told about the nature of said “rewards” other than John describing things like… “to him who overcomes will I grant” etc. This at least describes surviving into the life of the coming new age; thus death is not a prerequisite… as Mt 16:28 directly makes plain.


Another option - although INCREDIBLE… is that there are immortals, living among us. :wink:

Perhaps they got ahold, of some miracle spring water…from the fountain of youth :question: :wink:


Which is exactly what I pointed out HERE. :wink:


I like to go back to that statement:

There are other options, besides what the conventional theologians pick. Perhaps seeing is having visions?


The seeing of the vision that immediately follows that verse (Mt.16:28) is one of the most popular conventional theologians options in interpreting the same passage:

“It is important to see when Matthew 16:28 was literally fulfilled. To find a literal fulfillment we need only look to the next chapter (Matthew 17), where we find that the “some standing here” refers to Peter, James and John and “seeing the Son of man coming in His kingdom” refers to the transfiguration. This is confirmed by 2 Peter 1:16-18 where the transfiguration is said to be “the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The transfiguration was a marvelous preview of the Lord’s future coming in His kingdom majesty.”

“The Lord’s promise refers to literally seeing—in a picture . . . in a foreview—the Son of Man coming in His kingdom (a preview of Christ in the glory of His kingdom), which is in perfect accord with all other scripture revelation on the subject, and particularly as to the nature of the kingdom. It is in perfect harmony with all other scripture (2 Pet. 1:20), including the immediate context, and thus the correct and genuine literal interpretation.” … etjv06.htm

Mt.17:9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Do not tell anyone about this vision until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead
Mk.9:9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.

Of course, with Mt.16:28 in mind, there are also John’s visions as recorded in the book of Revelation of the coming of Christ in His kingdom.

Facts to be Considered by All Full Preterists

Origen, rather than turning this thread into a place to air objections to preterism (we already have several threads for that), why don’t you share your atonement theory? I’m curious.


Cindy, I disagree. Man always had the choice to either eat from the TOL or the TOKOGE. Abel was righteous. Obviously he was eating from the TOL, while Cain chose another path.
Genesis 1:26 says this: “And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord.”
Romans 10:13 “Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Abraham didn’t believe in the false gods of the world. He believed in the One true God and therefore left Ur to establish a place for Him. Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael; one eating from the TOL, while again, the other chose a different path.


Please do keep on topic, gentlemen. Ya’ll have lots of prophecy topics, so if you want to talk about that, please step out of the atonement lounge and head back to the pan-pret coffee room. :wink:



How could he be righteous if he hadn’t accepted Jesus’s sacrifice?


That’s rather disingenuous after all the answers you’ve already been given, isn’t it?


This is quite brilliant: … stitution/


Davo replied: "So I may be misunderstanding you here (that’s possible) BUT it seems your… “this has not happened” is your position based on or following so-called ‘historic consensus’ — or do I have this wrong?

What if… (one) accepts at face value Jesus’ words that…"

Bob’s response: Thanks, yes, I think you misconstrued that construction. I saw it as an “IF-Then” type of observation, which argues for no position at all. It only observes that IF one presupposition is embraced, then a particular conclusion follows. But the condition remains in dispute.

On your “face value” approach, I just expressed great sympathy above (for heaven sakes even arguing not to just discard it even if we think it could mean Jesus was mistaken, and now saying that , on the basis of this text alone, I’d opt for your view). Yet I also indicated reasons that I’m not convinced of your view, and doubt that your approach is only conditioned by your interpretation of this one text. Many texts are relevant to seeking a uniform interpretation of the NT’s eschatology. Thus I admit that the rejection of your view by so many students of the NT who think it conflicts with many texts, and who at least offer a variety of options for this text that appears to favor your view, seems to justify taking some pause.


Thanks for the clarification Bob… I can see where you’re coming from. :slight_smile:


It doesn’t seem at all obvious that Abel was eating from the Tree of Life.

The LORD prevented Adam and Eve from returning to the garden and eating from the Tree of Life and thereby living forever. They were prevented by the cherubim with a flaming sword. All this occurred before Abel was born. So how could Abel have eaten from the Tree of Life?


Bob, before you were saying you don’t think being forgiven and being justified are the same thing. What are your thoughts on the idea that PS (penal substitution) would mean God doesn’t actually forgive us? … ement.html

A common Christian pillar of faith is that Jesus died so that we could be forgiven. Perhaps that’s incorrect; Jesus died so that we could be justified .


My 2nd critique in my posted list is:
"2. P.S. says that God is unable to simply forgive, or write off our debt. P.S. argues that the sinner’s offense against God can only be ‘satisfied’ when He obtains the punishment that sin & the Law requires. But in reality, without requiring such a full penalty, Jesus proclaims God’s Good News of forgiveness, and regularly displays God as One fully able to graciously embrace and forgive sinners. Jesus’ parable of God’s relationship to a lost prodigal presents God as a wronged “Father” able to choose to restore a broken relationship by forgiving, not as One who needs retribution or wrath (Lk. 6:27-38; 7:36-50; 15:1f, 11-32).

Jesus said our calling to forgive enemies without securing payment is based on imitating how God gives mercy to rebels. Requiring no payment is the heart of being like our “Father” (Mt. 5:38-48). God does not say, “Forgive as I say, not as I do,” as if God can not do it without huge recompense. We are to keep loving & forgiving those who do us evil, seeking no pay back, and surely God has no less love than us. In truth,

God’s core nature as love is able to forgive whenever there is repentance (1 John 4:10).
Since “forgiveness,” by definition, is not conditioned on any payment, it cannot be explained in terms of a debt paid. To say Jesus paid the full price of sins, such that it cancels that debt, is like saying I owed you $50, and someone provided you full payment. Then, no debt is left for God to consider ‘forgiving.’ If God can only forgive, if he gets the payment due, then it would appear that God never truly forgives!"

So I find God’s mercy regularly is forgiving toward me, but see justification in the fullest sense, as the future verdict that we are pronounced righteous at the judgment. Of course, by faith we live in assurance that he who began a good and righteous work in us will bring it to completion, so that the ultimate verdict will reflect God’s ultimate victory in our lives. And my impression is that the apostles see this being assured not so much by a one-time transaction at the cross, but by what Jesus’ whole life, death, resurrection, sending of the Spirit, and now interceding for us brings.


What do you guys think of this argument by a PS proponent?


God also cannot forgive either since this is a logical contradiction. The contradiction is that God who is infinitely holy cannot allow unholy beings to participate in his nature. If He did, God would be a holy and unholy God at the same time which is a direct contradiction.

Jesus did & the Holy Spirit does so this theory doesn’t add up.


Steve, just to be clear, the person who wrote that was saying it was impossible for God to forgive without punishing someone.