The Narrow Path Ministries

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:19 pm**

Lest I be considered a heretic, hear me now and hear me well! I believe in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and I think it is highly unlikely that one with a heart to believe in Christ's Lordship would be able to doubt the fact of His resurrection, but I do think it's possible.

With that out of the way, Al Mohler had a program the other day that offended me due to the dogmatic stance he took on this subject. He was aghast that anyone (including NT Wright) could refuse to acknowledge (even if they didn't deny) the "NEED" as expressed in Scripture for one to believe in the factual and literal resurrection of Christ. While I find the subject most clearly taught, skeptics and atheists have trouble with such dogmatic assertions when they (being logical and rational beings, they think, and able to read clear texts themselves) don't see the express assertions that evangelicals so often state with dogmatic indignation concerning anyone who could read with another view.

Anyway, I sent him this email, and I would like some feedback from anyone who disagrees with me.

To: Al Mohler

First, let me say unequivocally that I believe firmly in the Resurrection of our Lord!

Now, from a strictly rational and precisely logical reading, I do disagree with your firm stance that it is without question for a person to read Romans 10 and 1 Cor. 15 and come away with the possibility that one can be saved without belief in the Resurrection.

When I read the relevant passages, I find the TRUTH of the Resurrection stated with no uncertainty, along with the need for the truth to be true for us to have any hope for our own salvation. However, the truth of the thing or the necessity for the truth to be so true is quite a different matter, logically, from the need for one's belief to affirm that truth.

It is also true that Scripture unequivocally state that anyone who DOES so believe will be saved; (though, even the demons believe..., right?) however, it does not state the negative that no one who DOES NOT so believe will NOT be saved.

The only thing I believe is necessary is a true belief in our Lord as King over Creation and Lord of our lives, and surrendering to that Lordship by turning from our wicked ways and acknowledging Christ authority to rule our lives and to commit in our hearts to do so follow Him and His teachings. While I believe anyone who commits to doing so will ultimately agree with the authority and reliability of Scripture and will come to believe in the Resurrection, it's quite another thing to suggest that Scripture is PLAIN in its teaching as to its NECESSITY (as compared with its sufficiency).

Even as to sufficiency, one realizes that the simple proof-texts are incomplete, as there is so much more than a mere profession of belief to secure our salvation in my opinion. But, that's a completely different subject....

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:25 pm**

Hello Darin,

I'm having a hard time following you altogether. You're sort of posting "like a lawyer." But I do have a couple questions.

You wrote:Lest I be considered a heretic, hear me now and hear me well! I believe in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and I think it is highly unlikely that one with a heart to believe in Christ's Lordship would be able to doubt the fact of His resurrection, but I do think it's possible.

Are you saying a person can be a Christian without believing Jesus rose from the dead? By Christian I mean a true Christian, not a "liberal Christian" like Marcus Borg and others who deny the rez of Jesus: They can be "Christians" within their own definition of it (which isn't the Bible's).

With that out of the way, Al Mohler had a program the other day that offended me due to the dogmatic stance he took on this subject. He was aghast that anyone (including NT Wright) could refuse to acknowledge (even if they didn't deny) the "NEED" as expressed in Scripture for one to believe in the factual and literal resurrection of Christ.

Did Mohler say N.T. Wright does not believe in the resurrection of Jesus?
He, of course, does.

Do you have a link to Mohler's broadcast?

Posted: **Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:49 pm**

I did not hear the broadcast, but I think that anyone who believes that Jesus is who He claimed to be would also have to believe His repeated predictions that He would die and rise the third day, and that those predictions necessarily came true. What might not be sufficiently clear is the nature of the rising from the dead. Even the disciples disputed among themselves as to what this might mean (Mark 9:10).

I know that some Christians (of a somewhat liberal sort, but who seem to truly love Jesus), like William Barclay, waffle a little on the question of whether the resurrection was physical or not. Others more familiar with N.T. Wright's positions than myself will have to be consulted to know whether he is persuaded of the physicality of the resurrection, or is open to other interpretations.

I personally have no doubts that the body that came out of the tomb was the same physical (though changed) body that had been buried there (else where did that body go?). Evidences of the physicality of the resurrection body of Jesus seem abundant in the record, and are clear to my mind, but I do not know whether they would be equally clear to one who was not raised with my evangelical interpretations.

Posted: **Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:28 am**

I think what may be confusing is I wasn't very clear on the nature of the question. I don't think anyone would disagree that the Scripture plainly teaches the risen Lord. It isn't the "truth" that was the question, but the necessity to believe in that particular truth.

To remove the "liberal" aspect or those who have a dim view of Scripture (or doubt its historicity) from the equation, a good example might be a jew in the first century who lacked a bible -- if the risen nature of the Lord wasn't even communicated to someone by a Christian who lacks a bible, for example, but the evangelized person only heard of the teachings and prophetic fulfillment and believed in his Messiahship and decided to follow Him and His teachings, does the bible say he is not a Christian?

In other words, the Bible clearly communicates the truth of the resurrection (and I agree that one could hardly fail to believe this central point and have a sufficient understanding of Christ) but the Bible doesn't seem to clearly teach the actual requirement that one do believe in that particular (albeit very important) aspect.

If I am evangelizing a physicist who doesn't read the bible I give him, and he just can't see how the resurrection can be true based on his knowledge of the universe, but his heart becomes willing to surrender to what He does know about Christ and His teachings, does he fail to be a Christian until He begins to read his bible and let go of that intellectual stronghold (which would no doubt happen at some point in the future if He was truly regenerated)?

Posted: **Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:10 pm**

Maybe the question can be put thusly: Can a person repent, believe that jesus died for their sin, submit to Jesus as their Lord and King, and become a disciple without believing in the physical resurrection?

that's a toughie.

TK

Posted: **Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:13 pm**

darin-houston wrote: If I am evangelizing a physicist who doesn't read the bible I give him, and he just can't see how the resurrection can be true based on his knowledge of the universe, but his heart becomes willing to surrender to what He does know about Christ and His teachings, does he fail to be a Christian until He begins to read his bible and let go of that intellectual stronghold (which would no doubt happen at some point in the future if He was truly regenerated)?

Romans 10:9

if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Posted: **Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:17 pm**

TK wrote:Maybe the question can be put thusly: Can a person repent, believe that jesus died for their sin, submit to Jesus as their Lord and King, and become a disciple without believing in the physical resurrection?

that's a toughie.

TK

I agree. And I think it's a tough thing to be subject to a Lord and King who is dead.

Posted: **Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:21 pm**

Or more specifically, does Scripture alone make this explicit as a requirement for salvation.

Steve's show yesterday discussed the Corinithians and the basic gospel, etc. It raises a related question that when dealing with the modern day equivalent of the Corinthian, might we do well to first address the basic gospel. So, if that is "Christ and Him crucified," does that necessarily include the resurrection? As powerful as it is as a proof of Christ's unique position (and the necessary spiritual role it plays somehow in the atonement), Paul didn't say he taught "Christ and Him crucified and resurrected". It's possible, isn't it, that this is one of those difficult spiritual realities that they might have difficulty with even if they believe enough without it to be regenerated and then mature sufficiently later to be able to handle the spiritual truth of the very supernatural aspect of the resurrection?

Also, to deny the resurrection is quite a different matter, I believe, than an agnostic view of indecision towards it. It seems irrational to us not to believe in the resurrection because we know enough that if it weren't true, we would have no reason for our faith, but a new believer or someone completely foreign to Christian ideas or confidence in the Historicity of the Gospels, might not get that and (it seems to me) might still be able to be regenerated through Faith in Christ. How is this any different than Christ's nature as God? At some level, an incomplete understanding of Christ is likely in most cases for a new believer, isn't it?

Posted: **Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:52 pm**

Well, what did you think about Romans 10:9 -- the resurrection does have something to do with the belief leading to salvation.

Posted: **Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:05 pm**

From googling "Marcus Borg on the resurrection of Jesus" I found:

The Scandal of the Empty Tomb: The Glory of the Resurrection
R. Albert Mohler Jr.

excerpted

"I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time brings dead people back to life." That blunt assessment comes from John Dominic Crossan, a leading figure in the Jesus Seminar, and one of the most influential authors on religion in post-Christian America. Thomas Sheehan, another fellow of the Seminar, put it even more directly: "Jesus, regardless of where his corpse ended up, is dead and remains dead."

In 1993 the Jesus Seminar released their version of the New Testament gospels. Using the same color-coded system, the seminar voted that only 18% of the sayings of Jesus recorded in the New Testament are either true or probably true. Put simply, their red letter edition of the gospels shows very little red.

Turning to the central issue of the resurrection of Jesus, the seminar released the following conclusions:

* The resurrection of Jesus did not involve the resuscitation of a corpse.
* Belief in Jesus' resurrection did not depend on what happened to his body.
* The body of Jesus decayed as do other corpses.
* The resurrection was not an event that happened on the first Easter Sunday; it was not an event that could have been recorded by a video camera.
* It is not necessary to believe in the historical veracity of the resurrection narratives.

Marcus Borg, another fellow of the Jesus Seminar, denies that the empty tomb is necessary to the Christian faith. "I think the resurrection of Jesus really happened, but I have no idea if it involves anything happening to his corpse, and, therefore, I have no idea whether it involves an empty tomb.... So I would have no problem whatsoever with archaeologists finding the corpse of Jesus. For me that would not be a discrediting of the Christian faith or the Christian tradition."

The empty tomb does not matter? The Apostle Paul saw the case quite differently. Speaking for the modern secular naturalistic worldview, the Jesus Seminar may dismiss the resurrection as myth, claiming that, as all right-thinking moderns know, dead persons simply do not rise from the dead. Paul, who evidently would not qualify for membership on the Jesus Seminar, leaves no room for negotiation: "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." [I Corinthians 15:13-14]

Paul sets himself—and the true Church—over against Bultmann, the Jesus Seminar, and all who deny or deride the empty tomb. Either the tomb is empty, or our faith is in vain. Paul wants nothing to do with Bultmann's effort to find a spiritual meaning without a historical event, nor with the Jesus Seminar's anti-supernaturalism. Against modern skeptics, Paul cared deeply about whether the tomb was empty.

I had the following saved in my computer for the debate about universalism from a few months ago, but don't recall if I posted it. It's pertinent for what you're asking though, Darin.
Excerpted from this link:
Liberal Christianity

Liberal Christianity, Progressive Christianity or Liberalism is a movement of Christianity that is characterised by these points;

* diversity of opinion
* less emphasis on the literal interpretation of Scripture
* an intimate, personal, and sometimes ambiguous view of God
* wider scope in their views on salvation (including universalist beliefs)
* non-traditional views on heaven and hell
* an emphasis on inclusive fellowship and community
* an embracing of higher criticism of the Bible.

The tenets of Liberal theology

* Liberal theology is individualistic, and as such values personal and subjective religious experience above doctrines, Church authority or the literal word of scripture.
* It claims that a religion is a community of individuals united by common intuitions and experiences, and therefore the value of the Church is in providing a supportive framework in which new conceptions of God can be explored, not in issuing decrees, upholding rigid dogmas or in exercising power over the religious community.
* It maintains that, while God remains immutable, theists relationship with, and understanding of God change through history, and therefore that no religious truths are necessarily fixed, as each person's experience can reveal a novel aspect of God.

Liberal theology and religious language

Liberal theologians view religious language (i.e. descriptions of God, or of religious experience) as inevitably limited. Our language belongs to the world of phenomena, whereas religious experiences exist in the realm of noumena, so no matter how hard we try, our language can never describe God factually, but only in metaphors and analogies, symbols and myths etc.

These myths, analogies etc. are important in forming religious communities and traditions, and can be a useful way of expressing a particular thought or feeling about God, but we cannot hope for them to sum up God's nature (God is non-reducible, non-naturalisable, and essentially ineffable).

One of the original Liberal theologians, Friedrich Schleiermacher argued that theology's place was to describe internal feelings, rather than external truths or facts (italics mine)

The Albert Mohler article talks about Rudolph Bultmann who, along with the much earlier Schleiermacher, agreed with the current Jesus Seminar that "un-scientific" beliefs (as in a real resurrection of Jesus) are not necessary to be a "Christian."

There are, obviously, many liberal Christians today who see Jesus primarily as a great teacher. They emphasize "loving tolerance" and accepting everyone as they are. This includes "not judging" certain types of sinners, such as active homosexuals. For these kinds of "Christians" it is more important to be what they call "Christ-like" in not condemning anyone at all (excepting conservative Christians)...so much for their "loving tolerance" (which ends right ^^^ there ^^^)....

I don't think first century Jews would follow the teachings of a dead rabbi unless he had a successor. This was how teachings got passed along in oral traditions. In both the N.T. and in early church history, the Jewish successor of Jesus was James, the brother of the Lord. The next 32 or so "bishops of the church in Jerusalem" according to Eusebius, were [Jewish] blood-relatives of Jesus. The oral tradition they all passed along was that Jesus rose [physically, literally] from the dead.

What your questions seem to boil down to is: Can someone be a gnostic Christian and still be truly saved? The Jesus Seminar and some other liberals aren't necessarily "gnostic" as they actually state the body of Jesus did not rise from the dead. There is a realm of mystery in their beliefs as to who or what the Apostles and early Christians saw in the resurrection appearances.

Personally speaking, I would rather have someone asking, "What did the early Christians see? Was it really Jesus?" than have them write it off as a hallucination.

In this sense, your physicist friend might be on the right track if s/he is asking these things. Also, a big attraction to Judaism among Gentiles in Jesus' day was its teachings on morality, which Jesus reiterated and expanded.

Considering Jesus is a good place to begin. Thanks.

The Narrow Path Ministries

Al Mohler's Program on Belief in Resurrection

Al Mohler's Program on Belief in Resurrection