Some in fundamentalism are teaching that the resurrection was not necessary. Where do you stand on this issue? It is a new and unexpected position to me, and I’m wondering if it is a common belief among fundamentalists?



Hello Judy,

Thank you for your question. To be honest I’m shocked some in fundamentalism would maintain the resurrection is not necessary. The early fundamentalists considered the bodily resurrection of Christ a fundamental of the faith.

1 Corinthians 15 is the great resurrection chapter, but it starts with the Gospel. Beginning with verse 3, the text includes the fact that Christ died for our sins (proven by the fact that He was buried) and that He rose again (proven by the fact that He was seen). Then, Paul argues for the resurrection of Christ, and in verse 17, he states, “if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” Clearly, the resurrection is necessary and vital to the Gospel message.

Jesus is “the Firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence” (Col. 1:18). As the “firstborn,” Jesus’ resurrection was necessary for there to be a resurrection of the saints. Therefore, the bodily resurrection of Christ is an essential, fundamental doctrine.


We’d love to hear your thoughts on this subject in the comments section below! If you have a question on another subject, we welcome you to make a submission by clicking here: