Al Mohler's Program on Belief in Resurrection

[Guest]

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, and a LOT of other stuff we ask about...Okay, enuf from me} Thanks.

I have faith as well. I believe that the eye-witnesses saw what they said they saw because they are trust-worthy, faith-inspiring, first-person eye-witnesses, just the thing that makes reliable history.

By the way, I looked up the resurrection in The Story of Civilization. It's there. Will Durant seemed to think there is enough evidence in favor of it not to dismiss it.

[Guest]

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.

I want to thank you for this thread. It's given me a lot to think about.

Michelle

[Guest]

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?

I've actually thought about this before and wondered why Paul didn't mention the resurrection at that point of first Corinthians. However, I think Paul's statement did include the resurrection and that he believes it is very important. Paul says as much in the same letter, first Corinthians:

1Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand,
1Co 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
1Co 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,

Paul goes on about the importance of this event, the resurrection:

1Co 15:12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Co 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.
1Co 15:14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.
1Co 15:15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise.
1Co 15:16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.
1Co 15:17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!
1Co 15:18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
1Co 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.
1Co 15:20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.


It seems that Paul admits not only the importance of the resurrection to salvation (both present and future aspects) but he also says this is what Paul has testified about.

[Guest]

That is VERY helpful, Sean. Thanks very much.

While that is quite satisfactory to me, and is a good Scriptural case for the position, I still think folks like Mohler who have such an audience would do well to take these issues as opportunities (as Steve does) to educate his audience as to the Scriptural case for his position instead of mocking and merely casting doubt on one's intelligence or honesty for believing otherwise.

One of Christianity's biggest problems these days with "modern Corinthians" is our intellectual honesty. We tend to take dogmatic positions (some scriptural and some not) on issues and just draw our line in the sand instead of communicating and engaging in dialogue.

This is one reason I appreciate Steve's ministry so much -- he strives to consider seriously people's questions and differences in opinion and considers them at least for dialogue without disrespecting the truth. Too often, it's blind fundamentalism or Bishop Spong and very little in between.

Thanks again.

[Guest]

Darin,

In reference to your comment, to which Sean also replied:

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".

I find it impossible to believe Paul meant he preached no more than "Christ crucified". That would have been meaningless apart from the resurrection. Paul, in fact, makes it plain that he did preach the resurrection to them:

1 Corinthians 15:1-9 (New King James Version)

1. Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2. by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
3. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4. and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5. and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
9. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Here are some pertinent excerpts from an old sermon "What Men Must Believe to be Saved":

In the commission (note: Mark 16), the Lord said: "Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." The Gospel is, then, what must be preached. The Lord proceeds: "He that believes." He that believes what? He that believes the Gospel, certainly. The Gospel, then, is what the Lord commanded the apostles to preach, and what hearers were required to believe. The amount of it is, then, that the Lord commanded the Gospel to be preached, required the Gospel to be believed, and declared that he that believes not the Gospel shall be condemned.


We can learn something of what a man must believe from what he is to confess with his mouth. We will now hear Paul tell, in the same connection, what a man must confess with his mouth and believe from his heart: "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Rom. x: 8, 9. To believe that "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the same as to believe that he is the Christ, the Son of the living God; for if God raised him from the dead, he thus demonstrated that all he ever said was true. God would not have raised an impostor. If God raised him from the dead, he thus confirmed his divine mission and all he ever said. His entire claim to be the Messiah, or to be from God, is confirmed, if God raised him from the dead. Indeed, if he rose from the dead at all, it proves his divine mission. An impostor could not have raised himself from the dead. God would not have raised him, and thus have aided him in palming an imposition on the world. The belief, then, with the whole heart, that God raised him, amounts to the same as the belief that he is the Christ, the Son of the living God.


In this light Paul viewed it, in his reference to those disciples in Corinth, who had fallen back into their Sadduceanism and denied the resurrection of the dead. 1 Cor. xv: 12, he puts the question, "How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?" He then proceeds to show them that every thing rests on the resurrection of the dead, by bringing to their view the consequences of their denial of the resurrection, or rather the result, if there is no resurrection. He mentions these results as follows:

Result 1. Christ is not risen. Certainly this is correct if there is no resurrection.
Result 2. The apostle's preaching is vain. If Christ did not rise, the preaching, that he did rise, is false.
Result 3. Their faith is vain. They believed what was preached, that Christ rose. If he did not rise, they believed a falsehood. This faith is vain. It could not save them.
Result 4. The apostles were false witnesses, for they testified that he did rise, and that they saw him after he rose from the dead.
Result 5. They were yet in their sins. They could not have been justified from their sins by the belief of a falsehood.
Result 6. Those fallen asleep in Christ are perished, or lost. Their faith, being the belief of a falsehood, that God raised Christ, whom he did not raise if the dead rise not, could not save them, and they are lost.
Result 7. We, the apostles, of all men are the most miserable, for we have given up this world--suffered the loss of all things for Christ; but if the dead rise not all is lost.

After thus showing them where they placed themselves, in denying the resurrection from the dead, he comes out in the following triumphant language: "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept." If he rose from the dead, the preaching of the apostles, that he did rise, is true; the belief of that preaching is the belief of the truth; the apostles were true witnesses, in testifying that God raised him; by this faith they were justified; those who had fallen asleep in Christ had not perished, and the apostles were not of all men most miserable. Thus we see how beautifully he rests every thing on the great truth.

My apologies if these points have already been made.