On the Resurrection
// April 4th, 2010 // No Comments » // Doctrine
The Resurrection is historical…
The Bible says that Christ rose physically from the dead, that if you
had been there that day you would have seen Christ stand up and
walk away in a space-time, observable situation of true history.
The materialist says, “No, I don’t believe it. Christ was not raised
from the dead.” That is unbelief. Liberal theology is also unbelief
because it says either that Jesus was not raised from the dead in
history, or that maybe he was and maybe he wasn’t because who
knows what’s going to happen in this world in which you can’t be
sure of anything. The historic resurrection of Christ doesn’t really
matter, says this theology; what matters is that the church got a
big push from thinking he was raised in history. . . . Now I would
say that the old liberalism, the new liberalism, and materialism are
basically the same. To all of them finally the same word applies:
unbelief. – Francis Schaeffer
The historical evidences which prove the resurrection are obvious for
all to see. The reason that all men do not see them is the sinful blindness
of the human heart. Only the man of faith can see the facts of
history. . . . Faith is not a blind leap in the dark without any historical
evidences. Neither will historical evidences demand faith, for the man
of unbelief will always come up with different historical explanations.
However, faith is supported and reinforced by historical evidences.
- George Eldon Ladd
The Resurrection is doctrinally significant…
As a generalization . . . Christ’s resurrection has been relatively eclipsed.
In Eastern Orthodoxy . . . the accent has been on his incarnation. . . .
In Western Christianity (both Roman Catholic and Protestant) . . .
attention has been focused heavily and at times almost exclusively on
Christ’s death and its significance. The overriding concern, especially
since the Reformation, has been to keep clear that the Cross is not simply
an ennobling and challenging example but a real atonement. . . . In
short, the salvation accomplished by Christ and the atonement have
been virtually synonymous.My point is not to challenge the validity or even the necessity of
this development, far less the conclusions reached. But in this dominating
preoccupation with the death of Christ, the doctrinal . . . significance
of his resurrection has been largely overlooked. Not that the
Resurrection has been deemed unimportant, but all too frequently it
has been considered exclusively as a stimulus and support for Christian
faith (which it undoubtedly is) and in terms of its apologetic value, as
the crowning evidence for Christ’s deity and the truth of Christianity
in general. - Richard Gaffin
Fundamentalists and Liberals get it wrong…
Sadly, there are those who err in emphasizing either the crucifixion or
the resurrection of Jesus at the expense of the other. Some preach only
the cross and its result of forgiveness of sin and justification. Without
preaching the resurrection of Jesus as well, Christians are prone to
overlook the mission of Jesus and the new life he has for them on the
earth. They tend to see Christian life as little more than going to church
to soak in teaching until they get to heaven. This is the perennial error
of Christian fundamentalism.Conversely, there are others who preach only the new kingdom life
that Jesus offers through his resurrection. These Christians excel at
helping the poor and handing out hugs and muffins, but fail at repenting
of personal sin and calling others to repent of personal sin so that
they might be forgiven and reconciled to God through Jesus. This is
the perennial error of Christian liberalism. – Mark Driscoll































