Al Mohler's Program on Belief in Resurrection

[Guest]

I'm not sure I understand your question -- I can't support a preconception that would deny the reliability of the historical accounts of the fact of the resurrection, and very much agree with the truth claim.



If a person is aware of the NT claims about the resurrection yet denies it's truth then what's left of Christianity? Because even if you say that our spirit goes to be with the Lord at death , it's at the resurrection that believers gain immortality and that is the hope of every Christian.
So without this core belief i doubt you're really a Christian, at least by a biblical standard.

[Guest]

Did I misunderstand your original post? It seems that you were asking if a person who is unaware or unconvinced about the resurrection in any way, be it physical or non-physical, could still be considered a Christian. Is that right? I mean, it seemed like you were setting aside the interpretation and just focusing on the fact that it happened.

I'm not sure I understand your question -- I can't support a preconception that would deny the reliability of the historical accounts of the fact of the resurrection, and very much agree with the truth claim.

But, I did start this thread to question whether Scripture directly and unequivocally teaches it as an essential belief requirement of salvation for someone to positively believe it as a stated precondition in Scripture.

That is a very narrow question (and an intramural one).

Darin, I find your thoughts on this very interesting. For me the bodily resurrection of Christ is so central that I cannot separate it out as a non-essential belief. I've thought about this off and on all day today, and I find that I cannot even imagine believing in Christ without the resurrection, but I'm not sure everyone has the same problem I do, and if it matters. *shrug*

[_darin-houston]

If a person is aware of the NT claims about the resurrection yet denies it's truth then what's left of Christianity? Because even if you say that our spirit goes to be with the Lord at death , it's at the resurrection that believers gain immortality and that is the hope of every Christian.
So without this core belief i doubt you're really a Christian, at least by a biblical standard.

First, this is why I suggested it is quite a different matter to "deny" the truth claim than it is to say one is undecided or more so if one never heard the details of the resurrection (again, probably only relevant today in a third world lost tribe situation).

Second, and this gets to the core of the issue -- salvation is so much more than our eternal state, and I think it is conceivable that someone could respond to the gospel without even any consideration of their own resurrected state at the end of time.

[_darin-houston]

Darin, I find your thoughts on this very interesting. For me the bodily resurrection of Christ is so central that I cannot separate it out as a non-essential belief. I've thought about this off and on all day today, and I find that I cannot even imagine believing in Christ without the resurrection, but I'm not sure everyone has the same problem I do, and if it matters. *shrug*

I find myself feeling the need to apologize for this thread -- I don't intend to cast ANY (ANY) (did I say ANY?) doubt or confusion on the truth of the resurrection or its importance to our faith or to suggest in ANY way that we should consider a belief against the resurrection.

This is simply an academic inquiry, really, and an attempt to be refined when we make dogmatic assertions about what Scripture actually and explicitly says, but it does have practical implications in some cases.

if I was to approach someone who had a problem with this whole "resurrection thing" it would be good to know just how truly essential it is to address that point for the sake of their souls -- is it like Christ's divinity? something that is central but not essential to understand ? or is like Christ's Lordship, which is essential for salvation? For discipling such an individual, AMEN, this is the first thing I would follow up on, and pray about for their understanding, but if I stand on a non-essential stumbling block and ignore the essentials, then I would want to know that.[/quote]

[_darin-houston]

On a related side-note.
I once asked Michael Patton in a The Theology Program session, "Can a person believe in the Bible without believing in God?" Michael replied, "That's a good question"....

Another good question is "Can a person believe in God without believing in the Bible?". (but that's another thread).

My point was that the eye-witness accounts of the N.T. are "exterior" to regular history; that this puts it in a different class or type away from "normal" history. (I didn't say it is "inferior" to regular history and didn't mean to imply that if you thought I did).

I guess I don't recognize a distinction between "normal" or "exterior" history. To me, history is just history -- some accounts are more reliable than others, and some motives bear more scrutiny than others, but it's all the same to me whether only my friends saw a traffic accident and related it to me or whether a news reporter happened to be standing on the corner and reported about it also.

[_Rick_C]

I guess I don't recognize a distinction between "normal" or "exterior" history. To me, history is just history -- some accounts are more reliable than others, and some motives bear more scrutiny than others, but it's all the same to me whether only my friends saw a traffic accident and related it to me or whether a news reporter happened to be standing on the corner and reported about it also.

"Normal history" in my train of thought on this thread is the kind that is standard, regular, etc. For example, Christians and non-Christians who lived in the first century knew the Caesars existed, lived and died.

When I said about the the Bible's historicity, in terms of the resurrection of Jesus, was that it is external to normative history: Only believers, that is, his disciples, attested to the resurrection of Christ. There might be possible exceptions with: Paul, James, and the brothers of Jesus (I had mentioned only Paul and James before).

(I hope that clears up what I meant)...Thanks.

[Guest]

Hey Rick,

I have tons of time on my hands today and tonight and I've never heard a believer say what you are saying, so I'd like to ask you more about it. I realize that you said earlier in this thread that you've debated it already, so I'll understand if it seems like a waste of your time to go over it again. I really don't want to debate, anyway; I'm just very curious.

My point was that the eye-witness accounts of the N.T. are "exterior" to regular history; that this puts it in a different class or type away from "normal" history. (I didn't say it is "inferior" to regular history and didn't mean to imply that if you thought I did).

I've never heard of "regular," "normal," or "exterior" history. Are these classifications of types of writings? Are they used for different purposes? I love history and have all the volumes of the Durants The Story of Civilization. Is that "regular" history? Is "regular" history written only by dispassionate, unbelieving, eye-witnesses?

. . .
If unbelievers had seen Jesus alive again---and there is no record that any did---we would have "regular" history to look to. Since no unbelievers saw Jesus after his resurrection we have no way to know if they would have accepted his Lordship or not. We can guess but we can't know.

If you have time to respond, would you tell me what you mean by "unbelievers?" I'm asking because I think I might be misunderstanding since to me it seems that many of the disciples were unbelievers:

• Luke 24: 10-11 "It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them, who told these things to the apostles. And their words seemed to them like idle tales, and they did not believe them."

As well as those on the Road to Emmaus, Thomas, James the brother of Jesus, and Saul of Tarsus. It kind of seems to me that if you saw the risen Lord, when you realized it was Him, you believed.

You said that this is not "regular" history, so therefore it is "exterior" history, which you said is not inferior to, but different than "regular" history. Your quote above makes it sound inferior, however, because we cannot use it, according to you, to make a generalization about what an unbeliever would do in the presence of risen Christ.

I, myself, believe the eye-witness testimony as recorded in the Bible; which takes faith to believe, imo. Lee Strobel presents the Bible as normal verifiable history, as if it is like regular historical documentation: "a history book." This is where I part with Strobel's apologetic.

I do not think that the whole Bible is a history book, but I think parts of it are reliable history and useful for historical documentation.

On a related side-note.
I once asked Michael Patton in a The Theology Program session, "Can a person believe in the Bible without believing in God?" Michael replied, "That's a good question"....

Did he say anything else?

I'm curious if a person can believe in God without believing in the Bible. You said, "...as recorded in the Bible; which takes faith to believe, imo," which sounds to me like you go along with it because it's from God, but you won't go so far as to say that the parts which claim to be history...well, just can't be considered "regular" history. Your answer to your own question is, "no," because without God, you would have nothing to allow you believe. How do you know what God is like? How do you know you can believe him?

Which reminds me of a way of witnessing I was taught a long time ago: You witness to someone and then ask them to read the Bible and ask God if it is true; ask Him to reveal Himself to you. (Okay, how can a person ask God something if they don't know if God exists? Such a person, if they sincerely do this, already has some faith though it may not be saving-faith). Prevenient Grace, imo,
Btw, I still use "ask God" as type of witnessing tool, so to speak (which is obviously different than Lee Strobel's method, claiming the N.T. as "normal, factual history"). He may also encourage people to "ask God" as I do. But I'm not sure if he does.

That's how the Mormons witnessed to me, too. They said it really worked for them, that God let them know that Joseph Smith is a true prophet and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

It would be convenient if we had the High Priest shake hands with our risen Christ and turn to the crowd and say he agreed He came back to life but still didn't think He was Messiah and didn't want to follow Him, but that's not how it went down.

The closest we probably come to anything like this is Gamaliel's judgment before the Sanhedrin. Though he never saw Jesus alive again, he was open to the possibility of it being true.

Acts 5:29Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."

33When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God" (NIV).

Hmm...what kind of history is that?

But, I did start this thread to question whether Scripture directly and unequivocally teaches it as an essential belief requirement of salvation for someone to positively believe it as a stated precondition in Scripture.

That is a very narrow question (and an intramural one).

Small "o" orthodox Christianity has required this belief from the beginning. (Btw, I'm extending orthodoxy past the Early Fathers and back to to the Apostles themselves).

Heterodox Christianities (note the plural), going from the earliest gnostics right up to the most recent liberal Christians (and including modern day gnostics), have not required the belief in a literal, physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus.

good point.

Edited to add: Sorry Rick and Darin, I worked on this while you were exchanging the two posts above, plus I took time out for dinner in the middle. Sorry to have repeated some of Darin's questions, but I'm not going to edit them out.

[_Rick_C]

Michelle, that's a lot to respond to....

Did he (Michael Patton) say anything else?

No, he did not. I'm not sure if he has an answer yet (he's a Calvinist, btw, not that that might have anything to do with it?)....

To clarify on the other stuff.
I should have said "non-disciples" instead of "unbelievers." The disciples believed in Jesus' teachings before he died. While they also had to believe in his resurrection--he appeared to them!

Yet once again, there were exceptions to this with the brothers of Jesus and perhaps Paul (they were not Jesus' disciples before Jesus died).

When I said "regular, standard, normal history" I meant the Will Durant kind:
just plain old history. Jesus is not recorded as being raised from the dead in this kind of history. Secular historians of a time proximal to the N.T. reported that there were those who said, and wrote, they saw him alive again. But Jesus didn't have any "press conferences" to the secular general public after his resurrection. He appeared only to those who were his disciples, to his brothers, and Paul. As such he is beyond the realm of normative historical investigation; only his disciples and a select few others saw him, according to the N.T.
Text:
1 Cor. 15:3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

I may not have answered everything you asked but does this make sense?

[Guest]

I may not have answered everything you asked but does this make sense?

I can follow your train of thought, so yes it makes sense. I disagree, but I won't take up any more of your time, nor derail this thread any further.

[_Rick_C]

Okay, Michelle,

I simply believe that Jesus appeared to some people alive-again after he died, and they wrote about it. I didn't get this information from regular historical resources; it comes from the N.T.

A thought.
Interesting, isn't it?, that Jesus appeared only to those select few. Apparently, this is in God's plan. It has to be by faith for us. God could have, potentially, had Christ set up His reign in an earthly kingdom but He didn't. It's by faith I believe what the eye-witnesses said they saw!

{to anyone who might be interested: Karl Barth's book: "Evangelical Theology: An Introduction" is actually the written form of lectures Barth gave in 1962 in his only visit to the U.S. These lectures are available to listen to at some libraries. I heard them before I bought the book (and dubbed them to cassette). My ideas on this thread are basically the same as Barth's. This "book" is one of the best ever written, imo! Barth has answers for postmodernism, the emerging church, liberals and fundamentalists, and a LOT of other stuff we talk about today. Barth died in '68 and is still ahead of his time!!...Okay, enuf from me!!!} Thanks.