Who are declared righteous for life ?

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

But how does your conclusion follow that his and Christians' destinies are different?

Well, don't misquote. I said "the first century Christians addressed by Paul".

Anyway, those who were addressed by Paul in "a mini-Romans" could become "Abraham's offspring, heirs with reference to a promise" (Gal. 3:29), and therefore part of "the Israel of God" (Gal.6:16).

As one whose faith was "counted to him as righteousness", Abraham will receive a place in the "resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous" (Acts 24:15). It seeems unlikely to me that Abraham was destined to become one of his own offspring, so on that basis, his and first century Christians destines differ.

[Shiwiii]

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Abraham will receive a place in the "resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous" (Acts 24:15).

doesn't everyone have this? i mean its not something prestigious or else the unrighteous wouldn't have a place there too. 

2 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

It seeems unlikely to me that Abraham was destined to become one of his own offspring, so on that basis, his and first century Christians destines differ.

of course he wouldn't be his own offspring, but rather the patriarch and ultimately belonging to Jesus as your scripture shows (Gal 3:29) . Galatians 3:6-9 tells us that those who have faith, like Abraham did, are sons of Abraham. This is meaning that those with faith like Abraham's faith are of the same family, the same group, the same all the way around. So why would their destiny's be any different?

I still do not see in the scriptures you posted any deviation from a common destiny for both Abraham and the 1st century Christians. 

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

i mean its not something prestigious

Hmm. You have a low opinion of the resurrection    

[Shiwiii]

2 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Hmm. You have a low opinion of the resurrection    

no, I just fail to see your logic in comparison between the righteous and unrighteous in your statement. 

 

3 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Abraham will receive a place in the "resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous"

not only will Abraham have this "place" but so will the unrighteous. 

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

of course he wouldn't be his own offspring,

Then I cannot follow your logic as those addressed  by Paul were designated as Abraham's offspring, due to become  "heirs with reference to a promise". Abraham was not, therefore........................ different destiny.  You don't subscribe to the Trinity doctorine by any chance do you? 

[Evacuated]

7 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

not only will Abraham have this "place" but so will the unrighteous

Correct. 

[Shiwiii]

12 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Then I cannot follow your logic as those addressed  by Paul were designated as Abraham's offspring, due to become  "heirs with reference to a promise". Abraham was not, therefore........................ different destiny.  You don't subscribe to the Trinity doctorine by any chance do you? 

The term of offspring is used as similarity, meaning of the same family/group/ like mindedness.  This is the reason why all belong to Christ who have the same faith as Abraham. Heirs of the promise is described in detail in Galatians chapter 4:21-31 and how the faith that Abraham had distinguishes the difference between those  who try and uphold the law vs the faithful ones. 

14 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Correct. 

then you DO realize that there is not something prestigious about the resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous as if it were something different for Abraham vs the 1st century Christians. 

 

Again, I have yet to see any scriptural support for there being a different destiny for Abraham vs the 1st century Christians. I want to know how you support this idea. 

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

Since 1935, millions of people have allowed the remnant to ‘bring them to righteousness.’

Every now and then we harken back  to the old clergy-laity distinction (in the form of the remnant-nonremnant distinction). Care was taken not to use this type of expression for a few years. I have rarely seen it since then, and especially not since Fred Franz died. He was one who often hinted that the non-remnant are brought to righteousness through the work of the remnant since only the remnant have Jesus as mediator. In effect, as many opposers are quick to point out, only the remnant become the mediator between Jesus and the "other sheep." It's problematic and forces the idea that the Greek Scriptures were only written to the remnant, and the only parts that can apply at least indirectly to the other sheep are those portions that the remnant will clarify for them.

[Evacuated]

44 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

not something prestigious about the resurrection

That's your view. Not mine.

[Evacuated]

49 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

I have yet to see any scriptural support for there being a different destiny for Abraham vs the 1st century Christians. I want to know how you support this idea. 

Just keep looking. Pray for God's spirit. He will help you if you are sincere.

[Evacuated]

35 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Every now and then we harken back  to the old clergy-laity distinction (in the form of the remnant-nonremnant distinction). Care was taken not to use this type of expression for a few years. I have rarely seen it since then, and especially not since Fred Franz died. He was one who often hinted that the non-remnant are brought to righteousness through the work of the remnant since only the remnant have Jesus as mediator. In effect, as many opposers are quick to point out, only the remnant become the mediator between Jesus and the "other sheep." It's problematic and forces the idea that the Greek Scriptures were only written to the remnant, and the only parts that can apply at least indirectly to the other sheep are those portions that the remnant will clarify for them.

Whilst illuminating, these discussions are disappointing as to the spirit they show existed both amongst certain witnesses in the past and those who inherit their legacy.

Jesus had no objection to submitting to water baptism by imperfect, unworthy John the Baptizer in order to "carry out all that is righteous". Matt.3:13-15. No clergy-laity hocus pocus existed there.

Why would anyone object to being brought to righteousness by someone else as described at Dan.12:3? 

[Melinda Mills]

For JWInsider: Please note the article I quoted about bringing the many to righteousness since 1935 was from 2014.