The Evangelical Universalist Forum

How does Jesus's resurrection make people righteous?

#764

All my statements are saying that my focus is on sensibly engaging what the words of specific texts most likely meant. While I’m glad to hear your own contemporary “view,” it has no relevance to the textual reasons I’ve offered for my interpretation of specific texts
.

0 Likes

#765

Paidion, you may be more theologically conservative than I. But I find the framework you present here makes the most sense of the Bible’s storyline as a whole.

0 Likes

#766

[quote=“maintenanceman, post:762, topic:6381, full:true”] Not you or me or any theologians are going to be able to wrestle the Christ’s work from Him… No matter how hard we try.
[/quote]

That’s for sure. Why not join me in refusing to try to do that :wink:

0 Likes

#767

Sorry Dave… Does not fly. You of all folks know where I come from.

So do you want to have a go at answering me?

0 Likes

#768

No, it flies very well.

0 Likes

#769

No, your sensible views are just that… Your sensible views.

0 Likes

#770

This is kind of cool. You are doing the very thing that you have time again fought against.

I have no problem that you need to do certain things, or live in certain ways to be loved by God. Good for you. I appreciate the idea.

Love you bro.

0 Likes

#771

It could be that you are wrong in your assessment, mon ami. That’s cool too.

0 Likes

#772

but if I am wrong, is it not just my opinion?

0 Likes

#773

As I went back through the posts I see you posted this… I would disagree that Christ was not sent for the Jews. If we want to exchange proof texts we can but I think it is very clear that Christ came for HIS PEOPLE.:smile:

0 Likes

#774

Yes of course he came for the Jews - but that has to be parsed a tad. He came for the whole world to fulfill what the Jews were supposed to have done. Coming ‘for the Jews’ was a portion of that ‘mission’.

0 Likes

#775

Well, your Idea that Christ came for the whole world is only realistic if you think that first of all, God chose a People. And through that People God showed His will and wanted to Love that people. He worked and those people kind of swallowed and did not do what he wanted to do. The Abrahamic covenant was the covenant that said that the seed would be for the whole world. To you the significance is not at all important, or at least it seems that way to me. But this is very important.

0 Likes

#776

Yes, no doubt we do see some things differently… so in terms of those saved to serve you might not be grasping fully what I’m alluded to. Predominately the call to righteousness in the NT is by the very nature of things a call to believers… those having responded to the gospel; and thus in THAT regard, I agree with you that… “God’s plan was to have no difference in his approach to everyone, Jew or Gentile”.

These ones’ however were NOT chosen over anyone else in terms of being… “qualified to go to Heaven after death” as per typical evangelicalism. No, Jesus said… “many are called, but few are chosen” meaning — what lay ahead for Jesus’ genuine followers would be testing and difficult, even to the point for some following their Lord in martyrdom.

So when I say NOT everyone was called to serve I mean it in the biblical sense that some were called/chosen/elect… BUT always with the wellbeing of the rest being squarely in view — they were NEVER to be an end in or of themselves. Those who were ‘saved to serve’ were specifically chosen to work deliverance ON BEHALF OF the rest. This has NOTHING to do with Heaven being promised at the expense of all else, as per the likes of Calvinism etc… such a notion is to completely misread, misrepresent and so misapply certain biblical texts.

The OT account of Gideon and his band of 300 (Jgs 7:7) is a prime biblical example of this principle in play. Israel was God’s redeemed people AND YET from within her certain ones were called for a redemptive task of deliverance. This calling to service entailed a selecting and whittling down to a certain refined number. Thus as per Jesus… “many were called, but few were chosen” — and why?

Jgs 7:2 And the Lord said to Gideon, “The people who are with you are too many for Me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel claim glory for itself against Me, saying, ‘My own hand has saved me.’

Now, NONE of those being REJECTED from that redemptive task thereby became known as evil, lost or reprobates or any other pejorative moniker, NO — they were simply not chosen for that specific redemptive calling and so duly sent home.

God has always chosen some ON BEHALF OF the whole; that’s what the elect always did, they ministered on behalf of the rest. Other CLEAR examples of this principle in Scripture is the priesthood, and in fact as a nation Israel herself being God’s chosen kingly priests to be His light to the world. Ultimately in Jesus and his band of firstfruit followers came Israel’s redemption which secured man’s reconciliation, in toto…

Jer 2:3a Israel was holy to the Lord, the firstfruits of His increase.

Israel was the chosen vessel ON BEHALF OF “His increase” i.e., the WHOLE harvest, aka humanity. The NT is about how that all came to redemptive fruition in Christ and those he chose to do in-kind (Jn 15:16; 17:2, 6).

I think it would be useful/healthy for “21st-century believers” to try and NOT reinvent the wheel in terms of God’s redemptive measures and simply live-out the reality of fulfillment… in ‘witness’ i.e., we testify to what God has fully done. In ‘worship’ i.e., with thankful hearts acknowledging His grace to all, and in ‘works’ i.e., practising the righteous royal rule of… “love thy neighbour”.

Mic 6:8 He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?

So… from the fulfilled perspective… does God still call and move men’s hearts post Parousia? YES, but NOT in terms of the redemptive task as THAT has already been directly fulfilled by God ON BEHALF OF ALL in Christ (Jn 1:29; Heb 9:26; 2Cor 5:19 et al). And yet ever-so, in terms of witness, worship and works then God can and always has been moving peoples’ hearts in service of Him towards others — and that’s the righteousness believers are encouraged to walk in.

0 Likes

#777

I hope I cause no offence, but IMHO, if we are not in some sense clothed in Christ’s righteousness, we are left with little hope (as Paul describes in Rom 7… unless one buys into the New Perspective on Paul). The doctrine of 'imputed righteousness (which may be seen as simplistic and even dangerous! It has certainly been misused and misunderstood) was never meant to be seen as a ‘pretended’ righteousness, or some kind of ‘cop-out’. Of course we are to try and be Christ-like; to do what he says, and not just call him 'Lord, Lord. We are to respond, with all our might - to love and obey etc. I’m sure we would all agree! But the battle with sin within us is always going to be incomplete (in this life).

When I use the term imputation, I’m thinking of something like this; I die, and am entering the Pearly Gates with Jesus walking beside me. When I come to the judgement throne of God and he asks, ‘what makes you think you’re righteous enough to enter here?’ I can reply, ‘I’m not; but the man beside me is, and I’m with him.’ (I speak in childish/shorthand terms to keep the post brief!).

As I understand it, this is why Christ was/is a man like us, but without sin (Heb 4:15f). Only he is perfect. Only by faith can I walk with him and stand before God, never by claiming that my own righteousness has reached an acceptable point. Indeed, for me, this latter notion would threaten the entire Gospel, because ‘If keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die.’ (Gal 2:21, NLT).

God bless all

Chris

0 Likes

#778

Hi Bob
Absolutely agree. Sometimes ‘righteous’ applied to a person in scripture means ‘a good man’ (e.g., Job), in just the same way we might say Ghandi was a ‘good man’. It’s a figure of speech and most people would understand what we mean. In Christian terms of course, just being a ‘good man’, or a ‘nice bloke’ is not enough. At the very heart of the gospel lies the need for a person to admit that they are a sinner; as CS Lewis wisely said (I paraphrase)… Christianity has nothing to say to people who think they’ve done nothing wrong. ‘Righteousness’ in the Christian sense is (I believe) rooted in the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ and not only in the OT Law.

I think you are right that we must constantly strive towards righteousness (even though we know we will fail), and live as righteous a life as we can, with the Spirit’s help.

Blessings

Chris

0 Likes

#779

Well, back to something I’ve said before. Here are the theories:

No matter how we circle around them and pick one…We will NEVER know, which one IF any - IS right. I side the most with Paidion’s perspective. That’s it a cooperative effort - between US and God. Which leads to the Eastern Orthodox / Eastern Catholic perspective - for me. Someday God will let us know. So pick one and run with it.

And we can take part, in the divine light…As the Quakers and Eastern Orthodox / Eastern Catholics (and even Native Americans and Sufis) - understood things.

Let’s now speak the truth - for US… as we know it (and understand it).

“I find television very educational. Every time someone turns it on, I go in the other room and read a book.”-- Groucho Marx

0 Likes

#780

Not sure who created this concept (I have heard this since I was a little boy). It felt compelling as a child, but now I see all the flaws in it. If you are “not righteous enough to enter”, then you are not getting in, period. Once an imperfect being enters heaven, it would cease to be heaven! So you are either perfect after death, or you will not be getting in, if perfect righteousness is required and if it isn’t required, you just made heaven a little closer to hell.

0 Likes

#781

Yes, it is a false/faulty construct IMO.

0 Likes

#782

I’m not aware of any verses that say everyone in heaven is perfect. That said, I lean towards ultra universalism. I think God can “burn out” any sinful desires from our character when we die.

0 Likes

#783

As I understand it… sin is not a factor after death; and in particular the death of Jesus — that removed the real death, i.e., the separation between God and his creation aka man. According to Paul, the gospel was ALL ABOUT the revelation of GOD’S righteousness, NOT ours

Rom 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

0 Likes