I’m a big fan of Al’s writings, but this time, I think he’s gone too far: Not All Christians Believe in the Resurrection of Christ?
This time it’s N T Wright that is in his sights. Wright believes in the bodily resurrection of Christ, but that is not his crime. Rather, his crime is that he believes it is possible to be a Christian even if you don’t believe in the bodily resurrection, and he cites Marcus Borg as an example of that.
Let’s be clear. Wright is not saying that it doesn’t matter - far from it. As Mohler quotes, he says of Borg: “I actually think that’s a major problem and it affects most of whatever else he does, and I think that it means he has all sorts of flaws as a teacher…”. But can you be a Christian and not believe in the resurrection? You can, and scripture makes it clear that you can, for three reasons:
- Firstly, on the basis of 1 Corinthians 15. In Corinth there were people in the church (”some of you say”) who did not believe in the bodily resurrection of believers. Paul says that must mean they do not believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor 15:12). Paul tells them to sort their beliefs out, he doesn’t tell them they’re not converted.
- Second, Mohler is wrong when he claims that the alternative to a physically resurrected Christ is a dead Christ. I have many friends who have died, and who are not yet bodily resurrected. But they are not dead.
- Mohler quotes Romans 10:9, “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved”. But Mohler goes on to assume that the verse actually says “unless you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will not be saved”. But that’s not what the text says, and to assume it does is going beyond Scripture.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying it’s acceptable not to believe in the resurrection. I’m not saying the gospel makes sense without the doctrine of the resurrection - it doesn’t. I’m simply saying that fallen creatures (even saved ones) sometimes make big mistakes - usually as a result of continued sin. But to try and determine the “irreducible minimum” of the gospel is not a task that the apostles indulged in. They simply wanted to explain as much of the truth that they could - often far beyond the irreducible. Many of us became a Christian without understanding very much at all - then by God’s grace our understanding grew. What mattered to God was whether we had realised that we could never get to heaven through our own efforts, and were therefore willing to throw ourselves upon His mercy, and trust only him for our salvation.
So can we recognise Borg as a Christian teacher? Certainly not - his teaching is clearly contrary to scripture in foundational areas. Can we recognise him as a Christian? It’s doubtful, but not impossible. If he is a Christian, then he is a very weak one. But if that’s the case, then he won’t be the only person with weak faith who is praising Christ on the Last Day.
Popularity: 10% [?]
Mark,
Thanks for that. Been ‘following’ the discussion on Pyromaniacs and fed up of the vitriol and jingoistic attitude of Phil Johnson in particular… Great Christian witness. This helped me concrete my own thoughts.
GB,
Jon
Mark,
I agree that apostles never devised an “irreducible minimum”, but resurrection is a central and recurrent theme in the apostolic preaching. Hence Peter’s recorded sermons in Acts 2, 3 and 10 and Paul in his sermons Acts 13, 17 include the resurrection. Peter’s Pentecost (Acts 2) and Paul’s Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13) sermons hinge around the fact and significance of the resurrection.
In 1 Cor 15 Paul reminds them of the gospel he preached. v2 makes it clear that it is “this gospel” that saves, “Otherwise, you have believed in vain.” v3 tells us that it is of “first importance”. There may have been those in the church at Corinth who had “wonky thinking” about their own resurrection, but if they denied the fact of the resurrection it seems impossible that they have belived the gospel. (I know this leads neatly to an arguement about the “church within the church”, but that’s not the point here!)
Matt
Thanks for both comments.
Matt, I agree resurrection is a central theme (I’m even tempted to say the central theme).
But I can’t agree that the people Paul spoke of in 1 Cor who doubted the resurrection (and therefore Christ’s resurrection) were not Christians. Some (possibly the teachers of the doctrine) may not have been, but some were weak Christians being dragged away.
Do you know a Christian who for a short time has doubted some of the central truths of the gospel? If Al Mohler is right, those people have never been Christians at all, because it’s not possible to be a Christian and doubt the resurrection.
I simply can’t accept that, and I’m sure Paul would not accept it either.
“Do you know a Christian who for a short time has doubted some of the central truths of the gospel? If Al Mohler is right, those people have never been Christians at all, because it’s not possible to be a Christian and doubt the resurrection.”
Yes I do know such people, like you I wouldn’t say they were never Christians. But I wonder if “weak Christians being dragged away”, or doubting for a short time is comparable with Marcus Borg denying the nessecity of the physical resurrection.
The Corinthians had believed in the resurrection of Christ. Some of them were denying the future resurrection of believers. If that was so then they would also then be denying the resurrection of Jesus. This would be a total departure from the apostolic gospel that Paul preached, which they had believed, by which they were being saved (if they held on to it) and which Paul takes as basic Christianity and the universal belief of the church.
Having believed it if they then departed from it there would be no basis for considering them to be being saved, they would still be in their sins and destined for hell.
I don’t know if Borg ever believed in the resurrection of Jesus in the first place.
I only have one book of Borg’s, and I haven’t read it all. But nothing that I have read gives me confidence that Borg is converted or has even understood the gospel.
It’s also true that many evangelical Anglicans outside ProcTrust circles have an immensley difficult job answering the very simple question: “What is a Christian?” This is a disaster for Anglicanism, a greater disaster for evangelicalism, and tragically could be an eternal disaster for some who have been led to think they are Christians despite what they believe, or how they live.
Yet none of this takes away from what I said in my original post. However regrettable, however serious, it is possible to be wrong on the resurrection, and still be saved. Likewise, it is possible to doubt the resurrection and still be saved. Mohler went too far in saying that it was impossible.
Paul does tell the Corinthians that they are being saved if they hold fast to the gospel of the cross and resurrection.
And if they don’t what happens?
I take it that we can distinguish between doubt, temporary unbelief, and decided deliberate unbelief (the rejection and replacing of the Gospel by giving preference to some other belief).
Dear Mark,
I think you’ve missed Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 15. It is not that there were those in the church who did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, they did not believe in the future resurrection of the dead. Paul points out very forcibly that their position is both inconsistent and contradictory. How can they say there is no resurrection from the dead and at the same time believe in Christ’s resurrection, the truth preached to them which they had believed (v11). The Lord’s resurrection necessarily requires the belief in the resurrection of the dead as well. Presumably these people were baptised members of the church and had therefore accepted the teaching of the death and resurrection of Christ implicit in that symbol. It was hypocritical of them to now call into question the resurrection of the Lord by their rejection of the resurrection of the dead. Presumably their problem was that they were influenced by pre-Gnostic ideas drawn from greek philosophy about the physical body being an uneccessary burden and source of evil and therefore could not see why a physical resurrection would be a good thing. In contrast Paul asserts that a resurrectionless Christianity is an empty and useless affair.
Gareth & Martin,
Thanks for your comments and interaction. I agree in part. The Corinthians in question affirmed the resurrection of Christ in principle, but denied it in practice. (That is, I’m sure they said they accepted the resurrection, but according to Paul, denying the possibility of the resurrection of believers meant denying the possibility of the resurrection of Christ also.)
The point is that Paul treats these Corinthians as believers, and at the same time says “having these beliefs means you are denying the resurrection of Christ”.
There are major differences between the Corinthian position and Borg’s position. But the Corinthian case is an illustration of an argument, not a proof of a position. Therefore those differences matter less than you might expect.
Yes, Martin, we can agree about the distinctions between doubt and unbelief. As I have already stated, there is nothing that I have read from Borg that gives me confidence he is a believer.
But my post was not about Borg. It was about Mohler, his use of Romans 10:9, and his assertion that there is no such thing as a Christian who does not believe in the bodily resurrection.
My main point once more: There are some genuine Christians who wrongly (and nearly always temporarily) do not believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. They do not believe Christ is still dead - they believe that he is alive in heaven. They are wrong, their faith will suffer, and they are not fit to teach. But they may still be saved.
Dear Mark,
My point is that Paul can call those at Corinth who denied the resurrection of the dead Christians because, despite their grave error they still believed in the real, physical resurrection of Jesus. Whilst it is true that some believers may temporarily have difficulty with this doctrine, and we need to graciously support them through their time of doubt, it is impossible to think of anyone who is truly born again persisting in such an error. The physical resurrection of Christ is intimately linked to His finished work of atonement and to deny the resurrection is to fatally undermine the cross. You may disagree with Mohler’s use of Romans 10:9 but his point is valid. To deny the real physical resurection of Jesus is to deny the Gospel. If people can do so and still be saved then people can believe anything and be saved. It is interesting that the sermons recorded in Acts all emphasise the resurrection of the Lord as a cornerstone of the faith and the irrefutable evidence of the atonement. This is reinforced by the symbolism of baptism and it is clear to me that the New Testament does not allow for anyone persisting in denying the resurrection of Jesus being called a Christian. If you were to remove from your explanation of your main point the word “nearly”, there would be no arguement. But the inclusion of that one word implies that a persistent denial of the real, physical resurrection of Jesus is compatible with having been born-again and that is impossible.
Gareth,
I’m not sure I can remove the word “nearly”. I say that because to remove it would assume that everyone who fails to return to the Lord after a period of back-sliding was never really a Christian at all. In order to retain the word “nearly”, all I need is one example from Scripture of someone who moved away from God, stayed away, but was still saved.
To find that example we go to 2 Chronicles 16. In the previous chapters Asa has been described in glowing terms. Then in v7 we read that he “relied on the king of Aram and not on the Lord your God”. Rather than responding in repentance, he became angry, locked the seer who had brought God’s word in prison, and “brutally oppressed some of the people”. Then (in his old age, 1 Ki 15:23) his feet became diseased, but he still “did not seek help from the Lord.” Then he died. He went away from God. He refused to repent. He hid from God’s word. He broke God’s law. And (we’re led to assume) was punished by God and still did not seek Him.
So what’s the Chronicler’s verdict on this man? He is held up as a model of godliness (20:32, 21:12).
So whilst Asa’s situation is unusual, it is not unique (Noah is probably another example). There are some who have genuine repentance and faith who then persistently deny the truth, yet are still saved. It might be a dangerous truth, but it’s still a truth.
If it is your contention that it is possible for a person to be saved without believing in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, then, in your reading of the scriptures, what must a person believe in order to be saved?
Who is Jesus Christ without the resurrection? Without the resurrection, Christ was no more than a great person who lived a good and moral life. Without the resurrection, he was a liar (”destroy the temple and I will rebuild it in three days;” etc.). Without the resurrection, the apostles are liars (recounting their meeting Jesus after the resurrection; etc.). How is it possible to say to God “I accept your Son as my savior, but not on His terms, as He has revealed Himself, and as He has been revealed through the scriptures, because I don’t believe that He was raised from the dead. That takes more faith than I have. I accept your Son as my savior on my terms, according to my own beliefs and my own level of faith.” I just cannot understand how you can be saved without belief in this fundamental tenant of Christian faith. Most every other faith on earth believes in Jesus Christ as a great teacher, great moral leader, and a prophet. Only Christians recognize Him as God because He said He was God and because He proved it through his miracles, and most importantly, through His resurrection.
I will ask again, if you don’t have to believe in a resurrected Jesus Christ to be saved, what is the threshold of faith you have to cross for salvation? Do you have to believe that he died for our sins? If we don’t have to believe He was raised from the dead to be saved, do we even have to believe that He died in the first place? Where do you draw the line in the sand? How do you take belief in the resurrection out of the requirements for salvation without creating an extremely slippery slope?
Please, give me contact address (email or msn) of this site administrator…
Thanks!
http://www.4-14.org.uk/contact/
Do those who profess the Nicene creed go further than scripture?
QUOTE
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
UNQUOTE
And consider
John 20:9
For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.
2 Timothy 2:8
Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel,
Paul is absolutely clear in 1 Corinthians 15 that belief in the resurrection of Christ is a fundamental tenet of the gospel.
verses 12-19
Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there (W)is no resurrection of the dead?
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.
Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
—————————————————————-
To deny the resurrection of Christ is to deny the Word of God.
On the other hand, when speaking non technically (and not in logic class) ‘if’ can mean ‘only if’. There is a case to be made that Paul did mean that if you don’t confess and don’t believe you are not saved. That understanding would seem to me to be consonant with the rest of the New Testament teaching on Christ.
However, it probably wouldn’t immediately resolve the thorny problem of what to do with belivers with erroneous beliefs. We can talk about essential beliefs and matters of contention, the probalem with that is that my matter of contention is your essential belief. The question I struggle with is when does an erroneous belief become willful rebellion? I sometimes think that might be a matter between that person and God. That’s a fairly unthought out position, however.
Thanks for the intersting discussion.
God Bless.