2006·04·19 · 6 Comments
Foundational vs. Essential

From Albert Mohler's blog:

"I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection," says the Right Reverend N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham. . . .

"Marcus Borg really does not believe Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. But I know Marcus well: he loves Jesus and believes in him passionately. The philosophical and cultural world he has lived in has made it very, very difficult for him to believe in the bodily resurrection.

"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 I don't want to say he isn't a Christian.

"I do think, however, that churches that lose their grip on the bodily resurrection are in deep trouble and that for healthy Christian life individually and corporately, belief in the bodily resurrection is foundational."

. . . Bishop Wright does affirm the bodily resurrection of Christ. Indeed, he has published one of the most significant treatises on the resurrection of our times. Nevertheless, if he is genuinely to defend the resurrection of Christ against its denial, and if he is to affirm the faith as handed down by the Apostles, he must defend the resurrection of Jesus Christ as essential, and not merely as foundational.

read full article

What is the difference between essential and foundational? Having a background in construction, and having built houses, I can testify to the essential nature of a foundation. Houses that don't have solid foundations don't stand over time.

Furthermore, even without my knowledge of construction, I can read Jesus' illustration in Matthew 7 of the difference between a foundation of rock and one of sand, and it is apparent that Jesus considered a foundation to be essential.

Dr. Mohler is correct to say that the bodily resurrection of Christ is essential; but he is incorrect to distinguish between essential and foundational. Wright's definition of foundational is deficient.


Dan Phillips has written a few good words about this at Pyromaniacs. There appears to be a mile-long comment thread there that I don't have time to read, some of which looks interesting, and some of which looks . . . well, anyone with a keyboard can be a theologian, I guess. Which brings up another question. Why do so many Christians — not just generic Christians, but doctrinally sound (TR, if you like) Christians, some whom I esteem very highly — waste their time reading a website* that has more interest in providing a platform for "a wide ranging conversation" than defending the Gospel? That's a serious question. I really don't get it.

Nathan Casebolt, a sharp fellow from Montana, student at the Master's Seminary, and a newlywed to boot, has also written an astute post on this subject. In fact, he writes such consistently good material that I'm blogrolling him. Call it a wedding present.

*Someone asked if I was referring to Pyromaniacs. I most definitely am not.

6 Comments:

1. 06·04·19··15:58
Jonathan Moorhead

As the conversation over at the Moor indicates, I would have to ask what Jesus Borg loves?

2. 06·04·19··16:34
David

It can't be the Jesus of 1Corinthians 15. Maybe he means this one.

3. 06·04·20··08:33
Libbie

Jesus Borg... would I be displaying too much girlgeekness if I made a rubbish 'assimilate' joke here?

4. 06·04·20··08:53
David

"Rubbish" jokes on this site? Inconceivable!

5. 06·04·20··11:58
Nathan

Thanks for plug. In particular, thanks for spelling my blog's name correctly. It is not, and never will be, Nate Notes. This just grates against the side of me that graduated with a BA in Creative Writing.

6. 06·04·20··12:22
David

Nathan, things like that bug me, too. I don't have a BA in creative writing, but one of my favorite hobbies is correcting my children's grammar. They enjoy it somewhat less than I do.


Comments on this post are closed. If you have a question or comment concerning this post, feel free to email us.