How does Jesus's resurrection make people righteous?


#501

Paidion, the reason I asked you what you think of that verse is because according to you the ability for people to be righteous only become possible after Calvary. But according to that verse from the NT someone was righteous pre-Calvary. How do you explain that?


#502

Romans 12:1 “Therefore, I urge you brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. This is true and proper worship.”

Yes it’s called “lordship salvation” meaning Christ s/b both Lord and Savior. It’s faith and faithfulness and reconciles all these statements in the bible about this topic.


#503

In addition to others’ observations about Abel, I suspect that the note that he didn’t just bring the generic fruit of his vocation, but brought the “first-born” and the 'fattest" among it, may suggest that he had it in his heart to present the best to God, whereas Cain just brought run of the mill parts of his vocation that he could easily do without.

Qaz, I’ve suggested to you before that I sense that the OT generally can call someone “righteous” who keeps the external Mosaic code, and avoids the worst external offenses, using sacrifices to cover the smaller failures. Whereas Jesus seems to raise the standard for being considered righteous, declaring that even an ego-centered wicked heart can count against our righteousness. And thus, that this may be why Jesus says those who now enter the kingdom are greater than all who came before, and the apostles come to think of true righteousness in us as something that requires a greater pouring out of the Spirit as brought by Christ, and received by faith. Perhaps Hebrews aligns with this deeper view of righteousness, by discerning even in the early text of Genesis that righteousness lies in what comes from our heart, by faith presenting our best to God.


#504

Bob:

That would seem to create a problem, because then we have someone meeting the NT definition of righteous pre-Calvary. In other words, if Abel could do it without Jesus dying, why couldn’t other people?


#505

Well, qaz, I guess there’s “righteousness”—

“Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.” Gen. 6:9.
And then there’s “RIGHTEOUSNESS”—

-“Even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all, and upon all them that believe….” (WEB) Rom. 3:22.

-“For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!” Rom. 5:17.

-“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him [Christ] we might become the righteousness [b]of God[/b].” 2 Cor. 5:21.
We know that apparently the “righteousness” of the Old Testament believers was not sufficient to get them out of [the Paradise side of] Sheol:

That qualitative difference between these “righteousnesses” makes the difference between heaven and hell.

(And as I shared earlier, the Blood of Jesus is the delivery system of the gift of divine righteousness.)


#506

First, some shocking news. :open_mouth:

Google to end goo.gl link shortener service

What does this mean? Well, the links will still be valid. But I’m using another top contender at https://bitly.com.

Anyway, I came across a relevant article today, from the Patheos Evangelical newsletter. It’s shocking. Simply SHOCKING. :open_mouth:

I thought I was reading, a supermarket tabloid article. :astonished:

Did the Atonement Break the Trinity? On Tom McCall’s Essay

The writer is reacting, to a controversial theological essay, Let me quote a bit - from the article:

Yes. That LAST QUOTE is well-in-keeping, with the Eastern Orthodox/ Eastern Catholic concept of Theosis :smiley:


#507

Thanks for sharing that article. I wonder what [tag]jasonpratt[/tag] thinks.


#508

Your observation seems logical to me, and it is a problem if one expects every passage to be in alignment with all the others, and to say nothing essentially different from the rest. But I’ve repeatedly argued that I don’t find the Bible to be that kind of book. Here e.g., that some texts can speak of people being righteous before the work of Christ, and others can say no such one was truly righteous. I assume the nuances differ.


#509

That would seem to create a problem, because then we have someone meeting the NT definition of righteous pre-Calvary. In other words, if Abel could do it without Jesus dying, why couldn’t other people?

"Knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ , like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
"He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake 1 Peter 1.19-20

Because Jesus was “manifest” in the time of his sacrifice but was foreknown before the foundation of the world so i believe his sacrifice was effective when it was conceived not when it was manifest.

Also re the atonement theory Peter says we were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from our forefathers, I take that to mean sinful life.


#510

Can you elaborate? Do you think the criteria for righteousness has changed? Do you think Abel would meet the NT criteria?


#511

qaz… you may find this article by Andrew Perriman interesting — A pragmatic non-theory of the atonement.


#512

Very interesting article.


#513

There’s nothing to explain, because you are incorrect in your first affirmation. Never have I said that the ability for people to be righteous only became possible after Calvary. If you still think I did, please find the quote and provide a link to it.

Indeed, I have said several times that non-Christians and even atheists can perform righteous acts, in some cases, even giving their lives to save the lives of others. Such people could be called “righteous” because of their sacrificial actions on behalf of others.

What I DID say is that it takes the enabling grace made available by Christ’s death in order to live consistently righteous lives.

Consider David. Was he a righteous man?

There are other references to the righteousness of David. I’ve heard it said that David was a man after God’s own heart (though I couldn’t find a statement to that effect in my search of the OT).

Yes, David was a righteous man—but was he CONSISTENTLY righteous? Clearly not. He not only copulated with Uriah’s wife Bathsheba, but he deliberately placed Uriah at the forefront of the hottest battle in war, so that Uriah would be killed, and then he could marry Bathsheba.


#514

Hermano, I disagree.

Paidion, I disagree with this as well. The Old Testament does not give an account of every person that ever lived. I would say that there were people living consistently righteous lives just as there are today.

qaz, No. The criteria for righteousness has not changed, and yes, Abel met that criteria. He was truly righteous, just as there were others who were truly righteous pre Calvary.

The Old Testament was not all the laws in the Torah/ Levitical/ Jewish law. The Old Testament WAS the New Testament. Abel followed the SAME God as Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, etc. …and Jesus. The battle was between those who followed the true faith( the Law of God that is written in the heart and mind) and those who followed the ways of the world (man’s own law), and it still continues today.


#515

The Old Testament was not all the laws in the Torah/ Levitical/ Jewish law. The Old Testament WAS the New Testament. Abel followed the SAME God as Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, etc. …and Jesus. The battle was between those who followed the true faith( the Law of God that is written in the heart and mind) and those who followed the ways of the world (man’s own law), and it still continues today.
LLC

Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:45 am
Top
Print view this post

The New Covenant had significant differences from the Old Covenant. A good deal of the Law of Moses was ritualistic actions and even in the 10 Commandments the first 9 are not necessarily heartfelt actions, more ritualistic.
Jesus elevated the most important law to “Love God with all your heart,soul,mind and might” and although it was in the OT it was buried and obscure and 'Love your neighbor" and “Love your enemies” were elevated dramatically. In the NC the relationship with God was as a “Father” but in the OC the Jews were afraid to utter the word “God” at all, so it was very different.


#516

But when the NT talks about righteousness/justification it never prefaces it with the word “consistent”/“consistently”, does it?


#517

I think Abel just functions in a story, and that there’s no reason to assume Jesus would consider him an exception to his observation that no one before John the Baptist enjoys what those in the kingdom can display.

My elaboration above on the general difference in the Testaments was:
“Qaz, I’ve suggested to you before that I sense that the OT generally can call someone “righteous” who keeps the external Mosaic code, and avoids the worst external offenses, using sacrifices to cover the smaller failures. Whereas Jesus seems to raise the standard for being considered righteous, declaring that even an ego-centered wicked heart can count against our righteousness. And thus, that this may be why Jesus says those who now enter the kingdom are greater than all who came before, and the apostles come to think of true righteousness in us as something that requires a greater pouring out of the Spirit as brought by Christ, and received by faith.”


#518

and that there’s no reason to assume Jesus would consider him an exception to his observation that no one before John the Baptist enjoys what those in the kingdom can display.

This is a great observation that i meant to comment on before which is John was the greatest of those “born of women” but even the least in the Kingdom of God are greater then John , which i take to mean those who are born of the Spirit.

I take “born of women” to possibly include even the righteous of the OT.


#519

Could you (or anyone) elaborate on why you disagree with me? I have argued that the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ (et al; please see my entire last comment) is qualitatively different than the “righteousness” of pre-Calvary believers. So much so that it makes the difference between heaven and Sheol.

What do you mean by “effective”? Pre-Calvary believers (“prisoners of hope,” Zec. 9:11-12) were apparently stuck in the “Paradise” side of Sheol until Jesus came down and led them out: “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,” Eph. 4:8.

As to Jesus in Sheol:

-“He [Jesus] went and preached to the spirits in prison….” 1 Peter 3:19.

-“The gospel was also preached to those who are dead….” 1 Peter 4:6.


Again, are some of you arguing that the “righteousness” of believers—independent of faith in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross—is sufficient qualification to enter the kingdom of heaven?


#520

Steve- Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac etc. etc. were NOT following the Levitical law because it didn’t even exist yet. There were hundreds if not thousands of years between Adam and Moses.

The Ten Commandments are not ritualistic. 1 John 5:3 says this “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments and His commandments are not burdensome.” Putting God first is the FIRST commandment. It was not buried and obscure.Many just didn’t obey.

The third commandment, is to not take the name of the Lord God in vain, so yes, they did have a name for Him. As Genesis 4:26 says “Then men began to call on the name of the Lord.”
The Old Testament says that Abraham was a friend of God.

Bob- From what I understand, Abel, Noah, Abraham, etc. did not have ego centered wicked hearts; and they were not following the “Mosaic code” because, as I mentioned to Steve, it wasn’t even written yet.