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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.