Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Whether humans can be righteous and meet God's standards

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Whether humans can be righteous and meet God's standards

    One of the biggest mistakes I think that Protestants and Roman Catholics typically make in their biblical interpretation (which Eastern Orthodox interpreters usually don't) is arriving at the theological idea that all humans fall short and cannot meet God's standards. (An obscure discussion here was beginning to touch on this, so I thought it was worth a thread of it's own).

    Ancient Jewish writings are choc-full of mentions of the final judgement, and talk of righteousness. In the typical Jewish conception, what is needed to pass the final judgement is a 51% level of goodness rather than evil. They use the binary categories of "righteous" and "wicked" to discuss the two groups of mostly-good and mostly-bad people. (And so the question of "so what if the person has exactly 50% good and evil" comes up in the Testament of Abraham.) It was accepted that a person could repent of their previously wicked ways, and seek to do good, and it was believed that because God was a loving and kind and forgiving father that he would wipe the person's slate clean if they sincerely repeated. The phrase "repentance and forgiveness" attained a proverbial character in ancient Jewish literature, and we see it repeated approvingly in the NT.

    It is important to note that there was a universal acceptance among these Jewish writers that humans could be "righteous" by being generally good people and trying to follow God's commandment to the general best of their abilities, and that there were plenty of humans who achieved such a standard to acceptable levels (>50%+) and that therefore God would judge them positively. Two of the best scholarly works on the subject that I'm aware of are: Righteousness in Matthew and his World of Thought by Przybylski and Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul by VanLandingham, and I highly recommend both of these to anyone interested in a serious scholarly study of these topics.

    In the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition there tends to be a similar understanding of the theology of salvation to this historical Jewish view. The idea being that through a process of sanctification (aka theosis) the Spirit strengthens people in goodness and righteousness, leading them to be Christ-like people whom God approves of. However in the Western Christian tradition in the period from Augustine through to the Medieval theologians there was the introduction of some very different and very dubious doctrines which completely change the entire salvation process, and which rely on some key (mis)readings of biblical passages. These novel ideas include:
    1. That 'righteousness' should be re-defined from 51% good to 100% good. "Righteous" = "perfect". And, as such, no human is ever righteous because nobody is absolutely perfect.
    2. Every single individual person falls short of God's required standard. Because God's required standard has been pushed from 'generally good' up to 'perfection' (aka the new definition of "righteous"), and so not a single person meets it.

    Obviously these two ideas struggle to find any sort of evidence in the historical Jewish tradition because they are so fundamentally opposed to it. The most that can be said for them is that some Jewish writers did note that "nobody's perfect" and those trite and trivial observations can be taken out of context and creatively redeployed as supposedly supporting evidence for these two new ideas.

    When we look at the gospels, Jesus gives his most lengthy portrayal of the last judgement in Matthew 25 where he explains that those who give material assistance to those in need are those that will be judged righteous. That is not an unmeetable standard of righteousness by any stretch of the imagination, and it falls totally within the spectrum of historical Jewish views. Notably Jesus does not say "God will judge everyone unrighteous on their merits at the final judgement because none have met his perfect standard, and only those who have the perfection of Christ imputed to them will be regarded as righteous". The other portrayals of the final judgement in the NT are also consistent with the general historical Jewish theme.

    The ideas #1 and #2 rely for their support almost solely on a particular interpretation of a particular part of Romans. This should in itself strongly imply they are wrong, because we would reasonably expect such crucial teachings that so squarely contradicted pervasive Jewish belief (and Jesus' gospel teachings) should be expounded clearly and in detail multiple times, and if we find it only occurring once it suggests that it is probably the interpretation of the passage that is wrong.

    IMO, Paul in the first 5 chapters of Romans spends his time emphasizing that those who actually do good are the ones whom God considers righteous, and that one's status as a "Jew" rather than as a "gentile" is irrelevant in God's sight, rather it is only a person's faithfulness to God's commandments that matters. Paul seems to be setting his argument in direct opposition to the minority Jewish view found in the book Wisdom of Solomon that all Jews are amazing people whom God has chosen and given them the law and sanctified with his spirit, whereas the gentiles are all horrible people in the extreme, and thus that God's final judgement will be the "righteous Jews" vs the "wicked gentiles". Paul paraphrases the zealous ravings from Wisdom of Solomon 13-14 in Romans 1:18-32, and then responds himself by vehemently attacking it in Romans 2 where Paul lays out his own view:
    6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism... For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
    Paul is keen to emphasize that it is not Jews only that can do good, but that gentiles likewise can obey the law of their consciences and achieve a positive judgement from God by doing so.

    In the second half of Romans 2 and then in Romans 3 Paul moves to address the claim of Wisdom of Solomon 15:2-3 that Jews don't sin and that all Jews are righteous. In the course of Romans 3 Paul quotes historical examples of particular groups of Jews and particular groups of Gentiles sinning, showing that scripture condemns both in the same language when they sin. Paul emphasizes that various people from all nations have sinned at times, and there is not some special nation of sinless people - individuals from all different nations have at times fallen short and the Jewish nation is not supernaturally exempt from this.

    In my view the Western Christian tradition has misread Paul's argument here, and misread his statements about races as statements about individuals, and pretended that Paul is saying that every human individual in history has fallen short and wasn't righteous. Obviously such a reading flatly contradicts all sorts of biblical statements that various people were righteous (e.g. "Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.", "Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous in God's eyes, careful to obey all of the Lord's commandments and regulations." etc), and this interpretation also contradicts the proof-texts that Paul is quoting from in Romans 3 which in their OT contexts are not making claims of universal human unrighteousness but are labeling a specific group of people at a specific time as unrighteous and usually contrasting those baddies with other specific historical groups of people who are implicitly or explicitly "righteous".
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

  • #2
    Where are you getting this idea of Jewish believing in 51% being righteous?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Where are you getting this idea of Jewish believing in 51% being righteous?
      The books I linked, plus others I've read. Stowers' Rereading Romans and E.P. Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism are also good academic works worth reading that touch heavily on the topic. But I think Przybylski is easily the best on the word "righteousness" and VanLandingham is easily the best on the topic of texts touching on final judgement.
      Last edited by Starlight; 04-15-2017, 06:46 AM.
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        The books I linked, plus others I've read. Stowers' Rereading Romans and E.P. Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism are also good academic works worth reading that touch heavily on the topic.
        any evidence from the bible? because it seems pretty clear from the bible that just one sin is enough to make you unrighteous right from the beginning (Adam and Eve)

        I see nothing in the OT that mentions 51% good being righteous. and throughout the bible even one sin can make a person unclean.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          These novel ideas include:
          1. That 'righteousness' should be re-defined from 51% good to 100% good. "Righteous" = "perfect". And, as such, no human is ever righteous because nobody is absolutely perfect.
          2. Every single individual person falls short of God's required standard. Because God's required standard has been pushed from 'generally good' up to 'perfection' (aka the new definition of "righteous"), and so not a single person meets it.
          ...

          The ideas #1 and #2 rely for their support almost solely on a particular interpretation of a particular part of Romans.


          Someone forgot about necessary crucifixion, also justification by faith!!!
          Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            any evidence from the bible?
            All the times where the bible calls individuals and groups righteous? I mentioned Noah and Zechariah in the OP, but there are plenty more of course.

            Proverbs and Psalms both pretty commonly contrast the "righteous" and the "wicked". It's pretty clear by the way they're using these words that they're colloquial terms for groups of people in the same sort of way we'd today say "good people" and "bad people". To pick an example at random:
            Proverbs 12:10: The righteous care for the needs of their animals, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.


            Pretty much universally in the Bible's descriptions of the final judgement there are references to people meeting God's standards. In Matthew 25 for example, Jesus specifically says that there will be people who have given material assistance to the needy, and who will be called righteous at the judgment.

            because it seems pretty clear from the bible that just one sin is enough to make you unrighteous right from the beginning (Adam and Eve)
            Obviously a major sin / major rejection of God can potentially be enough to switch a person from "overall good" to "overall bad". That doesn't mean there can't be a later change of heart (repentance). The Roman Catholics today distinguish really serious ("mortal") sins from mundane sins, and I think that's reasonably in the spirit of general Jewish thought.

            I see nothing in the OT that mentions 51% good being righteous.
            As I mentioned above, the OT has a tendency to use the words much like we might say "good people" and "bad people" today meaning in a hand-waving kind of way "people who are generally good" and "people who are generally bad", and that is a kind of vague and hand-waving way of talking about it but the idea is clear. The more mathematical and legalistic definitions of exact weighing of numbers of good deeds versus number of bad deeds and needing to have more good than bad are found in various extra-biblical Jewish texts from the period. e.g. I mentioned Testament of Abraham in the OP. The apocryphal book 2 Esdras which appears in the Catholic and Orthodox versions of the OT goes into quite a lot of detail on the subject also.

            and throughout the bible even one sin can make a person unclean.
            I don't think unclean and unrighteous are really the same in Jewish thought. The whole ritual uncleanliness thing is like getting mud on you, you wash it off using the prescribed rituals. Perfectly righteous people can become unclean at times due to necessities of touching a corpse or interacting with women in their periods or whatever, and it's simply necessary for them to engage in the appropriate ritual washings the same way it would be necessary to wash their clothes if they fell in actual mud - it shouldn't be confused as being something that makes them bad people.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
              Someone forgot about necessary crucifixion, also justification by faith!!!
              Obviously those doctrines are related. Historically the Western teachings on those subjects developed within the Western Christian tradition after Augustine and the Medieval theologians had firmly enshrined the misunderstandings about righteousness into the Western theological tradition. The medieval theologian Anselm espoused his Satisfaction theory of the atonement in Cur Deus Homo ("why God became man") around 1095 AD which became the general Roman Catholic view after Thomas Aquinas adopted it, and became what we know today as Penal Substitution following the work of John Calvin in the 16th century. The concept of "justification by faith" was wielded to revolutionary effect by Martin Luther in the 16th century, and I recommend McGrath's Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification for a good scholarly treatment of the history of what Christians have thought about justification in the Western Christian tradition (ability to read Latin not required).

              You are absolutely right to notice that a logical connection exists between theologians' views about the human condition and what they think the point of Jesus' life and works were, and with how they understand Paul's arguments about "justification by faith". Historically the Eastern Orthodox Church has had some very different ideas about what the point of Christ's incarnation was to the Western Church. There has likewise been different views about what Paul means by his arguments about "justification by faith", and you will find that many recent Protestant scholars have been revisiting that issue in great deal in a academic movement called "The New Perspective on Paul" that argues that much of the interpretation of Paul's writings of the Protestant theologians in the 1600s and after was incorrect.
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #8
                Okay, I can see when someone spoiling for fight of 'who can quote from big names better'.

                Will leave you, Adrift and whoever else to it!!!
                Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Starlight,

                  It seems you do not understand what you think you do.

                  Consider, Ecclesiastes 7:20, , "For [there is] not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

                  Now what do you understand that single reference to explain?

                  And how does that fit or convey what you are asserting?
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    All the times where the bible calls individuals and groups righteous? I mentioned Noah and Zechariah in the OP, but there are plenty more of course.

                    Proverbs and Psalms both pretty commonly contrast the "righteous" and the "wicked". It's pretty clear by the way they're using these words that they're colloquial terms for groups of people in the same sort of way we'd today say "good people" and "bad people". To pick an example at random:
                    Proverbs 12:10: The righteous care for the needs of their animals, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel.


                    Pretty much universally in the Bible's descriptions of the final judgement there are references to people meeting God's standards. In Matthew 25 for example, Jesus specifically says that there will be people who have given material assistance to the needy, and who will be called righteous at the judgment.

                    Obviously a major sin / major rejection of God can potentially be enough to switch a person from "overall good" to "overall bad". That doesn't mean there can't be a later change of heart (repentance). The Roman Catholics today distinguish really serious ("mortal") sins from mundane sins, and I think that's reasonably in the spirit of general Jewish thought.

                    As I mentioned above, the OT has a tendency to use the words much like we might say "good people" and "bad people" today meaning in a hand-waving kind of way "people who are generally good" and "people who are generally bad", and that is a kind of vague and hand-waving way of talking about it but the idea is clear. The more mathematical and legalistic definitions of exact weighing of numbers of good deeds versus number of bad deeds and needing to have more good than bad are found in various extra-biblical Jewish texts from the period. e.g. I mentioned Testament of Abraham in the OP. The apocryphal book 2 Esdras which appears in the Catholic and Orthodox versions of the OT goes into quite a lot of detail on the subject also.

                    I don't think unclean and unrighteous are really the same in Jewish thought. The whole ritual uncleanliness thing is like getting mud on you, you wash it off using the prescribed rituals. Perfectly righteous people can become unclean at times due to necessities of touching a corpse or interacting with women in their periods or whatever, and it's simply necessary for them to engage in the appropriate ritual washings the same way it would be necessary to wash their clothes if they fell in actual mud - it shouldn't be confused as being something that makes them bad people.
                    yes the bible does use the term righteous as a relative term in many places. no argument there. but that does not support some idea of measuring if someone is righteous or wicked based on a 51% measurement. especially when it comes to judgement in order to get into heaven.

                    in the old testament they had to repent and make sacrifices in order to be forgiven of their sins. there was no measurement of 51% good. In the new testament the criteria is believing in Jesus and his sacrifice for your sins.

                    John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      Starlight,

                      It seems you do not understand what you think you do.

                      Consider, Ecclesiastes 7:20, , "For [there is] not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

                      Now what do you understand that single reference to explain?

                      And how does that fit or convey what you are asserting?
                      Considering the genre and cultural background of Ecclesiastes (which tends to the hyperbolic), it's probably not a good idea to take the verse strictly literally. It is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely, that a man can be without sin. Jesus was without sin, after all, and not because His mother was immaculately conceived (and not because His human will was subsumed to His divine will).
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        One of the biggest mistakes I think that Protestants and Roman Catholics typically make in their biblical interpretation (which Eastern Orthodox interpreters usually don't) is arriving at the theological idea that all humans fall short and cannot meet God's standards. (An obscure discussion here was beginning to touch on this, so I thought it was worth a thread of it's own).
                        I know two certain things. I'm not righteous and neither are you.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          yes the bible does use the term righteous as a relative term in many places. no argument there. but that does not support some idea of measuring if someone is righteous or wicked based on a 51% measurement. especially when it comes to judgement in order to get into heaven.

                          in the old testament they had to repent and make sacrifices in order to be forgiven of their sins. there was no measurement of 51% good. In the new testament the criteria is believing in Jesus and his sacrifice for your sins.

                          John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
                          It sounds like you're getting stuck on this 51% as some magic number. It's just intended as an expression of "more good than bad".
                          I'm not here anymore.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                            It sounds like you're getting stuck on this 51% as some magic number. It's just intended as an expression of "more good than bad".
                            Yep.

                            And the 51% thing is just my way of trying to approximate the ideas in language modern people would understand. As I've mentioned, a lot of the ancient Jewish sources are a lot more hand-waving and vague than that, because the Jews believed in things like "repentance and forgiveness", so they didn't necessarily all believe in a literal and mathematical counting up of deeds or balancing the good deeds against bad on a balance scale, what they tended to be more interested in were people's overall inclinations - whether overall their hearts were directed towards trying to do good and trying to follow God's commands or whether overall their hearts were directed away from God's will and toward evil.

                            So while some Jewish sources literally use a 'balance scales of justice' analogy where good deeds are weighed against bad deeds in the judgment and whichever's larger wins out, I think that is more legalistic and mathematical than the general Jewish view and is more a helpful metaphor for depicting the idea that people could be overall good or overall bad. E.P. Sanders in his work Paul and Palestinian Judaism (a milestone work in modern biblical study that is required reading for anyone seriously interested in these topics) is very careful to emphasize that in the minds of most Jews, the fact that they were trying to follow God's laws was enough to make them 'good' and 'righteous' and 'right with God' etc because God looked at the heart. He emphasizes that they didn't view the fact that they occasionally sinned or broke the law as relevant to the fact that they were righteous, because by performing the sacrifices or atonements required by the law for their transgressions they were following the law.
                            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              Considering the genre and cultural background of Ecclesiastes (which tends to the hyperbolic)
                              Ecclesiastes is a very amusing book in general, it's mostly something a modern thinker might write.
                              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              2 responses
                              28 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              61 responses
                              296 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              299 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 02-15-2024, 11:52 AM
                              74 responses
                              319 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 02-06-2024, 12:46 PM
                              60 responses
                              337 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Working...
                              X