Al Mohler's Program on Belief in Resurrection

[Guest]

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

Code: Select all

if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.

This definitely states the affirmative position as to the one who "DOES" profess and believe. But, it doesn't explicitly address the corollary question of the one who "DOES NOT" believe. For example, it does not say...

ONLY if you confess... and believe....

or

if you don't confess... and believe... you will not be saved.

[_Rick_C]

Busy thread!

I have one comment.

Also, to deny the resurrection is quite a different matter, I believe, than an agnostic view of indecision towards it.

Speaking technically in philosophical sense, I consider myself an agnostic: I have not actually seen Jesus alive myself. In other words, I have no scientifically verifiable proof that Jesus is alive.

However, I do have another proof that Jesus is alive: Faith.
But of course this gets into epistemology ("How can we verify what is true?"). I've debated "religious experience as a valid source for epistemology" with a guy who knew the late philosopher Richard Rorty personally (at Beliefnet a few years ago). He had discussed some of these same things with Rorty. It was a long, civil debate that ended with his being intrigued with---yet unconvinced of---the idea that religious experience (faith) can be seen as a valid proof claim.

I seldom debate atheists and agnostics.
But when I do they find it surprising that I consider myself an agnostic (as outlined above). I have the fact that I have not seen Jesus alive personally "with my own eyes" 100% common with them! Btw, some fundamentalist Christians got extremely upset with me when I said I was an agnostic along these lines; especially when I said, "And so are you too!" Thanks.

[Guest]

Speaking technically in philosophical sense, I consider myself an agnostic: I have not actually seen Jesus alive myself. In other words, I have no scientifically verifiable proof that Jesus is alive.

With this I have to disagree -- though it's arguable whether history is a science, we have a historically reliable factual reason for our belief in the risen Christ and not simply a spiritual faith.

I only have another moment to reply and don't have time to look them up, but another thought that occurs to me is that there are places in Scripture where Christ and others say "You must...." Those seem to be related to the condition of our heart and our commitment to Christ and not to any beliefs or ideas about doctrines or spiritual realities.

[_Rick_C]

Darin,

Speaking technically in philosophical sense, I consider myself an agnostic: I have not actually seen Jesus alive myself. In other words, I have no scientifically verifiable proof that Jesus is alive.

You replied:
With this I have to disagree -- though it's arguable whether history is a science, we have a historically reliable factual reason for our belief in the risen Christ and not simply a spiritual faith.

I don't want to get into a debate about whether Christians who really believe Jesus arose are agnostic (in the strict philosophical sense of "without faith" as I outlined above). I'll just say that I have not seen Jesus myself and will leave it at that (I've been through a long debate with Christians on this before, during the same debate I had with the guy who knew Richard Rorty)!

I agree we have a historical record of those who wrote that they saw Jesus alive again: the N.T. But the N.T. differs from regular recorded history (and I don't want to move very far ahead in the discussion).

Briefly, we all believe Abraham Lincoln existed though we haven't seen him: history records it. We take it as a given Lincoln existed and have no reasons to doubt he did.

What differs with the N.T. is that only believers saw Jesus after he was alive again. He didn't appear to others in the world of "regular recorded history." In this sense the resurrection is a-historical and/or "beyond normal history." Had Jesus appeared to non-believers (though some might argue Paul and James as possible exceptions); the resurrection lies outside history as it is regularly reported, imo.

I often hear people like Lee Strobel take the Gospels as "historical proofs" that Jesus was resurrected. I don't agree with him or other Christians who take this line of debate. Again, if non-believers---such as, say, the High Priest or Pilate---had seen Jesus alive again and this was recorded; it would be regular history and verifiable with absolute certainty.

Whenever I witness to the resurrection of Christ, what I say is something like, "People who lived back then saw Jesus alive then wrote about it." Ultimately our faith depends not on historical evidence as it is normally recorded, but on those who were eye-witnesses of Jesus' resurrection.

I don't want to side-track the thread on this, as I've been through a long debate with fundamentalistic Christians on this before. But these are my opinions (largely the same as Karl Barth's).

To sum up, though guys like Lee Strobel say the N.T. is "historical proof" of Jesus' resurrection...no one believes what the N.T. reports is literally true till they have faith. Stobel's approach is probably good to get people to think about it. But to present the Gospels or N.T. as historical proof requires seeing the Bible as "normal recorded history" in an a priori way. So I disagree with Strobel and others on this and never take this approach myself.

Jesus is not on record as having been raised by secular historians: They wrote there were those who believed Christ was raised and that they reported they saw it. But secular historians, themselves, didn't record he was raised (they had not seen Jesus alive again)...Thanks.

[Guest]

What differs with the N.T. is that only believers saw Jesus after he was alive again. He didn't appear to others in the world of "regular recorded history." In this sense the resurrection is a-historical and/or "beyond normal history." Had Jesus appeared to non-believers (though some might argue Paul and James as possible exceptions); the resurrection lies outside history as it is regularly reported, imo.

I hear where you're coming from, and agree Strobel and his ilk of fundamentalists can quickly lose sight of logic (while sounding quite rational), but I'm not willing to concede that there is something "inferior" about the reliability of the believers' testimony.

It would be hard for someone who saw Him raise from the dead after crucifixion NOT to believe in Him and His Lordship claims, I think. So, that would make it impossible for anyone to be reliable from your perspective, and make reliable testimony by your recconing virtually impossible.

I agree it poses an element of self-interest in the testifier, but someone with a motive to lie about a thing doesn't always lie about that thing (or have to). Besides, we have credible reasons not to believe they had "motives to lie" as they were persecuted for their beliefs and did not recant.

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.

[Guest]

Michelle wrote:

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

and i certainly agree with you- but some, as Steve suggested, might believe that it was a spiritual, not a physical resurrection(presumably meaning that his soul or spirit went to heaven but not his physical body).

I dont think anyone can believe that Jesus is dead and gone (in either physical or spiritual form) and be a Christian; if they disbelieve only the physical resurrection it is a tougher one to call.

TK

[Guest]

yeah, TK, that's what I meant.

[Guest]

I hear where you're coming from, and agree Strobel and his ilk of fundamentalists can quickly lose sight of logic (while sounding quite rational), but I'm not willing to concede that there is something "inferior" about the reliability of the believers' testimony.

It would be hard for someone who saw Him raise from the dead after crucifixion NOT to believe in Him and His Lordship claims, I think. So, that would make it impossible for anyone to be reliable from your perspective, and make reliable testimony by your recconing virtually impossible.

I agree it poses an element of self-interest in the testifier, but someone with a motive to lie about a thing doesn't always lie about that thing (or have to). Besides, we have credible reasons not to believe they had "motives to lie" as they were persecuted for their beliefs and did not recant.

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.

I agree with what you've written, Darin, plus I cannot see how someone, this official history-writer, would be reliable if he saw the risen Christ, who he knew to have been dead before, yet didn't believe.

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.

[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).

[_Rick_C]

I hear where you're coming from, and agree Strobel and his ilk of fundamentalists can quickly lose sight of logic (while sounding quite rational), but I'm not willing to concede that there is something "inferior" about the reliability of the believers' testimony.

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).

Strobel and others have a certain apologetic they use which I don't agree with (and thus, do not use myself).

It would be hard for someone who saw Him raise from the dead after crucifixion NOT to believe in Him and His Lordship claims, I think. So, that would make it impossible for anyone to be reliable from your perspective, and make reliable testimony by your recconing virtually impossible.

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.

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.

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"....
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.

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).

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.