Well the mystery is where I suspect we’ll find common ground so thank you for that. I embrace the mystery as well but I let it tell me what it thinks I need to know.
1 Like
No. I Corinthians 15:17-22. There must be a resurrection. It is true that we have an immortal spirit; however, we will be reunited to our resurrection bodies at the Second Advent: Daniel 12:2. We are not Greek philosophers but followers of Christ. There is no hope without the resurrection. If you do not believe in the resurrection of the body and you just believe in the immortality of the soul, then you are another Plato. In my opinion, that is all Thomas Jefferson was. Benjamin Franklin might have been a Unitarian; however, he believed in the resurrection. Please go to Philadelphia and read his tombstone. N.T. Wright is correct. The spirits of my parents are in paradise with Jesus, but when the Second Advent shall come, our spirits and resurrected bodies from the graves with be reunited and glorified to live in the new heaven and new earth. As can be seen in the Bible, the new earth will be a renewing of the current earth. All death, pain, hatred, and war will finally come to an end. It will be a world of peace where nature will be at rest and harmony. Oh, yes! There must be a true resurrection of a glorified physical body. That is what Paul meant by a spiritual body-glorification. We will be able to enter rooms without going through doors, yet we will still be physical.
Hello Reggie,
I’m here a little late. The question could (should) be, “can we be saved without believing in the resurrection:”. And the answer is, according to the New Testament, no. Christy quoted 1 Corinthians 15:17, "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."
To go along with that, Jesus said in John 3:3, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again."
And to pull it all together, Paul writes in Romans 6:4, "We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."
So we are born-again, being buried with Christ and resurrected with him during baptism, so that, “we too may live a new life”. This can only have meaning if, one, Jesus was in fact resurrected, and two, we believe that fact. Thus, what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:17.
1 Like
Imagine the metaphysical apparatus for that kind of atonement:
If you believe what this man says… and what other men say about the man… then you have an eternity of a blissful afterlife.
But if you are skeptical, and don’t think what the man is saying is actually possible or well thought out … you spend an eternity in a lake of fire?
If the choice was life or death, eternity vs. total elimination, I would think the arrangement, the “deal”, made more sense. But with the choice being “eternity of bliss” vs. “eternity of torture” … well, for thousands of years, nobody in the ancient world thought a deal like that made much sense… or at least, nobody ever tried to promote a “deal” like that.
In Egypt, the unrighteous were gobbled up by a multi-form deity (like an alligator cherub). Otherwise, you got to live a life more or less free of being molested by the banalities of life one thinks are normal for mortal existence. If you wanted things to go well, you bought mystical texts that prepared you for the testings of the afterlife.
In Greece, if you had no special qualities, you expected to spend eternity in a hazy half-sleep state, face down in the mud, eating mud if you got a little hungry. The mystery schools were the Greek version of buying a copy of the Book of the Dead.
If you were a Hittite or Neo-Hittite aristocrat, you looked to carved images of one god escorting you into the presence of a superior God. I don’t recall any special narratives from the ANE on what exactly privileged a person to be escorted into the presence of the divine. It seems that being a King, or a Governor, was sufficient grounds… but maybe not if you were a bad governor… and maybe you had to be a really terrible King to be disqualified.
The Zoroastrians, like the Egyptians, had a formal “testing” … but it was a magical test. The Chinvat Bridge, you see, knew your value.
[[ i don’t know the history behind the image of Chinvat I posted above… the river doesn’t seem to be very hot… maybe it’s being depicted as a calm river of molten tin… it looks like a Christian depiction of an Eastern idea… maybe I’ll stumble across a better rendition sooner or later. ]]
If you had little redeeming value, the bridge changed shape and threw you into a flaming fire of molten metal. If the Bridge knew you were righteous, it would help you cross the blazing fires of the lake of molten metal.
So, the whole idea that “belief” was what you needed to get you into the “Afterlife Club” - - that was certainly a novelty.
And that’s why it’s traditional to hold baptisms on Easter Eve (Saturday night) at the Easter Vigil service.
Terrific point. Certainly it’s important to know more about God’s nature by understanding what his word is. However, as with the pastor’s sermon posted on inclusivism by @Mervin_Bitikofer, and as with C S Lewis’ image of Emeth in the Last Battle, God really judges us by what we know and understand. He wouldn’t be just without that.And we know that he is just–as in Psalm103: 13, “As a father has compassion on his children, so the Lord has compassion on those who fear him. For he knows our frame…He remembers that we are dust.”
I don’t actually know what happens. However, I know God would be just.
1 Like
One of the reasons I am a Universalist is because I’m not a fan of the whole set up.
God punishes Adam because he violated a rule “before Adam knew good from evil”;
that’s like slapping a 2 year old because he doesn’t understand calculus.
Humans are behaving badly, so God kills all the misbehaved, their children, their pets,
and the little girl making soup for her sick grandmother.
The Pharaoh won’t let Charlton Heston’s people go … because God hardened his heart.
So, guess what, more people “gotta die”. And once again, there’s someone making soup
for a sick grandmother … a firstborn … he dies too.
[Response: Because Pharaoh wouldn’t cooperate …
Reaction: Yeah, but that was God who made him not listen, right? ]
Romans 9 seems to say everything that I am not a fan of.
I agree that that’s not a just way of putting things. George Macdonald and Greg Boyd say that the OT is full of people interpreting God through their lenses; that our vision got clearer with Jesus as His representative. Have you seen Pete Enns’ interpretation on Romans 9? He has it on 2 of his podcasts, plus an interview with Beverly Gaventa of Baylor, “When in Rome.” Really clarified things and made them more Christlike for me; though I’m not sure I have good insight yet.
I applaud your unwillingness to ascribe evil to God. May it never be! I can PM you for more, if you wish.
I do think that if we keep in mind that Christ’s actions and words are closer to God than anything his followers (including Paul) said about him, we’ll avoid some big mistakes that have been made.
1 Like
Thank you for your kind offer. I am not suffering over this. It is rather cut-and-dried to me. I am inclined to accept the kind of “naturalist” interpretation of the afterlife as presented in the ancient Egyptian culture.
Knowledge helps your understanding of what is happening to you - - and it happens to you no matter what you believe.
1 Like
It does still frustrate me. I think that my own gracious parents prepped me for a just God; and the angry god that some pastors preach out of Romans 9 and other passages, and then label “loving,” makes me growl and want to leave, like George Macdonald. They are well intentioned 
but preach out of fear. I just hope I can pass a better view on to my own children than they sometimes will hear from a mistaken interpretation. Going back to Jesus’ view helps. Wasn’t Samuel Adams a Unitarian?
3 Likes
Sorry, it was John Adams!
1 Like
Just came across this blog that speaks to the “Can you be a Christian” question, food for thought:
2 Likes
Well, I can understand your complaint. However, you paint the whole thing in the most unbecoming way and in that way, somewhat unhelpful.
Whether Adam was historical or not, Adam can be seen as an metaphor for ourselves. My dad told me to not to do some dumb things, and I did them anyway. “Did you learn anything? … I told you.”.
I also struggle with lakes of fire and so forth for unbelievers (I live in Japan, a land with 99% “unbelievers” and know many Chinese also about 99% non-Christian), but the understanding that a life of wickedness will meet redress if the person does not repent is a necessary part of persisting in doing right. If doing right is just futile and wicked just win all the time, which is often what seems to be true, it seems too hard to accept.
by Grace we proceed
1 Like
right, but isn’t there an undistributed middle here? Fundamentalists seem to list all or nothing–if we mess up a little, then not only Adam and Eve, but billions of people as their descendants are doomed to living sinful lives apart from God’s help, where many die prematurely and in great suffering; and only a few ever get to go to heaven if they hear and believe the exact right thing. That sounds more like socially driven evolution–a do or die myth that causes cohesion among a people.
https://randalrauser.com/2018/10/hell-and-the-principle-of-proportional-justice/
Randal Rauser explores Hell and the principle of proportional justice here.
George Macdonald envisioned God as punishing correctively, not vindictively, like a father with his children. Whatever it takes–even correction after death, till every one (even Hitler) repents (purgatory, or Hell till they change their minds) will eventually bring them closer to Him. Experimental Theology: George MacDonald: Justice, Hell and Atonement
Thanks for your thoughts.
1 Like
I am willing to bet this is because of a non-Biblical teaching of the resurrection.
Read 1 Cor 15 – All of it!
There Paul makes it perfectly clear that a belief in a bodily resurrection is essential for Christianity. But then he goes on to explain that this is a bodily resurrection is to a spiritual (supernatural) body not a physical (natural) body. Unfortunately lots of Christians play this game with words where they use one definition of the word “physical” as bodily and then take just the first part of Paul’s explanation to say that a belief in a physical resurrection is essential to Christianity even though this directly contradicts the complete teachings of Paul.
I mean after all if it is a resurrection to a SPIRITUAL body then what objection can you have? This is just the rather universal belief of most religions in a life after death – and of course it would be ludicrous to think that the vast majority of Christian teachings makes sense without that.
I am still not entirely sure why it us considered an essential part of Christian belief as there are more than 9 other instances in both Testaments of resurrection. It is not essential to forgiveness of sin and even folks like NT Wright thought Borg, who struggled with this, was a Christian. I do believe in Christ’s resurrection but these are points I ponder too. Thanks
Cannot decide if this response is employing sarcasm or not.
In any case, this is also stated in the creed of Nicea 325 AD, which I think constitutes the oldest ecumenical agreement on the meaning of Christianity. It is just an issue of semantics comparing one religion to the others and distinguishing between them.
1 Like
No, I’m sorry. I’m not being sarcastic. I was just musing. I think that your idea is a good one regarding interpretation of resurrection.
I am juts wondering about what “being a Christian” means in this case. Randal Rauser posted a blog on the meaning of “mere Christianity” What is Mere Christianity? Part 1: Dale Tuggy - Randal Rauser and If the Bible is a map for how to get to heaven, it isn't a very good one - Randal Rauser also wrote a book " What’s So Confusing About Grace?". One point he made was that it’s really not so clear what a definition of “Christian” is, and that there is even space unshared between the definition of “orthodox” and what is needed for salvation.
I’m trying to think of why God would ever reject one of us if we didn’t believe in the resurrection; and I don’t see anything from that basis that has anything to do with forgiveness of sins (though I think he meets us where we are, with what we can understand and believe anyway–it’s more “salvation by allegiance” to the truth we know, even if we can’t believe anything, rather than holding us to an unattainable standard).
So–yes, it’s orthodox to believe in the resurrection; but I don’t think it has to do with salvation, even by orthodox standards. --my 2 cents.
But I enjoyed your explanation above. Thanks.
For me that is an utterly different issue. I do not equate being Christian with being saved – not by a long shot. I think it would be a wonderful irony to find all the atheists in heaven and all the Christians in hell. Is there a reason to even think this might happen? I think there is. Who are the ones who do what is right for its own sake?
2 Likes
I do think that God judges us very justly. I also think that his punishment is corrective, not for vindication. So–even Hell can be where He is closest to us, not in a lake of fire but correcting us lovingly till we all repent–even Hitler in time (and I’m sure I’m like Hitler in many ways) would eventually come to repentance. But that’s an interpretation I have, and not orthodox! 
Thanks for your thoughts.