The Righteousness and Glory of God?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I was just looking up the number of occurrences of the word righteousness in the Bible, and it should have been no surprise to me to find Spoke 1 of the Bible Wheel the "God spoke" leading with the total number of times. Isaiah came in with 49 times and Romans close behind with 33!.... WOW.... A full head and shoulders above the rest!

Must be telling us something......

Rose

P.S. Psalms does have the most for a single book.

Hi Rose,

Excellent observations! I talk about the distribtution of Righteousness in my article on Spoke 18 called "To Fulfill All Righteousness." Here's the graph of the distribution of all words based on the Hebrew and Greek roots meaning righteousness (tsadek and dikaio):

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Evening Richard and Joel!

I just want to add a few comments to supplement some of the recent debate.

The verse at Romans 10:18 is a direct quote of Psalm 19:4, so don't you think we need to reference that verse to find the context?

A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y

Psalm 19 opens by speaking about the heavens before flipping over to the law of God. The writer is comparing the two of them. Bullinger gives some very interesting background data on Psalm 19, co-opting it for his thesis that the stars themselves have a revelation of God. This, he contends, is what the verse quoted by Paul is referring to. His thesis is not without merit in that it deals directly with the verse in its context. He also was an authority on the Hebrew language, unlike the rest of us, who are mere journeymen. Thus, he was able to elucidate the word patterns and metaphorical language used in the original of Psalm 19, as well as its grammatical symmetries, and apply these to strengthen his thesis.

Well, I am ambivalent about the "Gospel in the Stars" thesis. On the one hand, there are some interesting correlations between Zodiac and the Gospel. Bullinger starts with Virgo (= The Virgin) and moves on through the 12 signs ... but I'm not sure how much of that could be done with any story with sufficient meaning or depth. For example, the Matrix movie can be mapped onto the Gospel rather directly. And there is the question of the origin of the zodiac. Why should we think it is of God? But on the other hand, it seems that many ancient Christians and Jews took the validity of the zodiac as a given ...

I also must query the idea that God will save everyone. Daniel 12:2 tells me otherwise. Revelation 20:15 tells me otherwise. And then there are verses like Mark 9:42-48. These are just starters. Scripture is littered with references to the fate of wicked people. How then can you gentlemen possibly justify the idea that all shall be saved? Sounds like buddhist philosophy creeping in. What is the purpose of Christ sacrificing himself for us if, in the end, God is going to save everyone anyway? I would have to say that the notion that all shall be saved is nothing short of heresy. Not everyone's name is written in the book of life!

There are competing verses, Stephen. They must be interpreted in light of all the other competitors. The question then becomes "Which interpretation works best for the most verses?" And that, of course, is not easy to answer ....

As for your question sentence that I highlighted - let me ask you the converse question: What is the purpose of Christ sacrificing himself for someone if, in the end, God fails to save them anyway? The Calvinist answer to that question is "None" - which is why it gave rise to their Doctrine of Limited Atonement (the L in TULIP).

But really, I don't think there is any connection between the Purpose of Christ's Sacrifice and the number of souls ultimately saved, unless, of course, that number were zero. And now that I think of it, it seems like the glory of Christ's work should increase with every soul saved, so that universal salvation through Christ's Work on the Cross would maximize God's glorious, and prove that Love conquers all.

Richard

[joel]

As for your question sentence that I highlighted - let me ask you the converse question: What is the purpose of Christ sacrificing himself for someone if, in the end, God fails to save them anyway? The Calvinist answer to that question is "None" - which is why it gave rise to their Doctrine of Limited Atonement (the L in TULIP).

But really, I don't think there is any connection between the Purpose of Christ's Sacrifice and the number of souls ultimately saved, unless, of course, that number were zero. And now that I think of it, it seems like the glory of Christ's work should increase with every soul saved, so that universal salvation through Christ's Work on the Cross would maximize God's glorious, and prove that Love conquers all.

Richard
__________________

Please allow me to state, in case there may be any doubt as to how I look at this, that Christ's sacrificial death is sufficient for the salvation of all of mankind. In other words, His blood is sufficient for the covering over of all sins.
Just as surely as all men die, and just as surely as all men sin......all due to the disobedience of Adam (it is universal, there are no exceptions unless God takes someone out by His sovereign choice).........................
Just as surely, all men shall be saved.......all due to the obedience of Christ
(it is universal, and there are no exceptions).

I Timothy 4:10
For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially those that believe.

Who is not included in that statement?

Is He "potentially" the Saviour of all men, in that He has provided a means, but, due to man's "free will choice" he can override God's purpose?
Man man daily go against His will, but no one can override His purpose.

When someone says......"The salvation of all opens the door for man to commit sin upon sin, upon sin .......what does it matter??....He will forgive us anyway"......such a statement is in direct opposition of the clear teaching of Romans 6 where Paul asks the question....."Shall we continue in sin that grace should abound?.....His answer....."God forbid"....he continues to prove that such a person who would make such a statement is ignorant about the truth of the crucifixion of Christ that is inclusive of each of us.

Did only a few get crucified with Christ?.....as if the two with him at the time of His death were representative of only a few of humanity?......No....our old humanity was crucified with Christ........"In that one died, we all died."......how plain does scripture have to be??

Of course your flesh, and my flesh does not want to be consigned to the cross.....but, that is exactly where it must be consigned.

To what glory is that God cannot and does not save all? Doesn't the parable of the lost sheep teach us that He will leave the 99 and go and find the lost one?

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

When someone says......"The salvation of all opens the door for man to commit sin upon sin, upon sin .......what does it matter??....He will forgive us anyway"......such a statement is in direct opposition of the clear teaching of Romans 6 where Paul asks the question....."Shall we continue in sin that grace should abound?.....His answer....."God forbid"....he continues to prove that such a person who would make such a statement is ignorant about the truth of the crucifixion of Christ that is inclusive of each of us.

Hey there Joel,

I agree, particularly with the sentence I highlighted ... and would amplify the answer by noting that the purpose of the Gospel is more than just getting souls to heaven. If that's all God wanted to do, there would be no purpose in creation at all.

Did only a few get crucified with Christ?.....as if the two with him at the time of His death were representative of only a few of humanity?......No....our old humanity was crucified with Christ........"In that one died, we all died."......how plain does scripture have to be??

Well, I agree that that passage has a valid universalist intepretation, but its not the only possible interpretation. The word "all" is limited in the two cases by "all in Adam" and "all in Christ." People can get confused because the "all in Adam" is identical to the everyone ever born, whereas the "all" in Christ could be limited to those who believe in him.

To what glory is that God cannot and does not save all? Doesn't the parable of the lost sheep teach us that He will leave the 99 and go and find the lost one?

Joel

99% + 1% = 100% Saved, to the Glory of God through Christ.

[joel]

Well, I agree that that passage has a valid universalist intepretation, but its not the only possible interpretation. The word "all" is limited in the two cases by "all in Adam" and "all in Christ." People can get confused because the "all in Adam" is identical to the everyone ever born, whereas the "all" in Christ could be limited to those who believe in him.

Richard, we seem to be tracking together except for this one point.

If being in Adam = all people without exception (none of them having anything to do with it),
why is the being in Christ = a limited number, less than all?

Is God comparing apples with oranges?

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, we seem to be tracking together except for this one point.

If being in Adam = all people without exception (none of them having anything to do with it),
why is the being in Christ = a limited number, less than all?

Is God comparing apples with oranges?

Joel

I don't think its a "apples and oranges" situation. It like two buckets. One bucket is Adam, the other is Christ. All in bucket Adam die, and all in bucket Christ live. Now it just so happens that everyone is born in bucket Adam, but not everyone enters bucket Christ, becuase some don't have faith.

My point is that the verse allows for both a universalist and a limited interepretation, so it, by itself, can not settle the issue. For example, if someone can successfully prove that not everyone will be "in Christ" then the "all in Adam" could not be identical to the "all in Christ." And since that seems to be the actual teaching of the Bible, I find myself leaning towards anihilationism over universalism. But there are other verses that makes me think all will eventually come to faith, so the issue is still open.

Richard.

[joel]

I find myself leaning towards anihilationism over universalism. But there are other verses that makes me think all will eventually come to faith, so the issue is still open.

Richard.
-----------------------------------------------

I assume that what you mean by "anihilationism" is that those who are not "saved" do not, in fact, any longer exist.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I assume that what you mean by "anihilationism" is that those who are not "saved" do not, in fact, any longer exist.

Joel

Precisely. God is "able to destroy both body and soul in hell." (Matt 10:28) In this interpretation, the unquenchable fire that Christ warns us of will do what fires do, and utterly consume everything cast into it. The wicked will be nothing but ash, as it is written:

Malachi 4:1-3 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. 2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. 3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

There are many other verses that teach anihilation of the wicked. Porbably many more than those that can be interpreted as teaching eternal conscious torment, though I haven't done a count yet.

Richard