Paul argues that if there is no resurrection, then he and the other apostles suffered for nothing. It was joy in the truth about the risen Christ—and the hope of the resurrection of believers—that drove the apostles forward to endure all of the persecution that they bore for the sake of the Gospel and the building up of the people of God. Paul reasons that, if there is no resurrection, we should give ourselves entire to hedonistic living because that would be all there is in which to find joy in this empty, futile and passing world. 

I’ve always had something of an aversion to the “if Christianity is not true what do you lose” sort of apologetical approach—precisely because Scripture is God’s word and because it is perfect in all that God reveals in it. To raise the question almost seems to inadvertently jeopardize the veracity of it. Nevertheless, that is precisely the kind of reasoning that the apostle Paul utilized in 1 Corinthians 15 after he appealed to the clear teaching of Scripture about Jesus’ death and resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1-3).
What is at stake if we deny the resurrection?
Writing to a church that was in danger of allowing false teaching to creep in, the apostle tackled the issue of what was at stake if we deny the resurrection. Beginning in verse 12, Paul raises eight “ifs” (following them up with some of the weightiest of all theology) in order to explain the significance of the resurrection for the life of the believers. Consider the following eight “ifs” about the implications of denying the resurrection:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? (1 Cor. 15:12)

But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised….For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. (1 Cor. 15:13, 16)

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. (1 Cor. 15:14)

We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. (1 Cor. 15:15)

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.  Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. (1 Cor. 15:17-18)

If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Cor. 15:19)

If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? (1 Cor. 15:29)

If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (1 Cor. 15:32)

According to the apostle’s argument, if the resurrection never occurred one can categorize all that is lost under the following eight heads:
1. The Apostolic Message
The first thing that is lost, if we deny the resurrection, is the centrality of the death and resurrection of Jesus in the apostolic message. That is the central message of Christianity. How can some profess to be Christians and deny the central message of Christianity? The resurrection cannot be said to be a mythological or analogical story. It was an historical event that turned the world upside down. This, Paul, said—at the outset of the chapter—was an essential part of what was “of first importance.” In essence, Paul is saying, “If there is no resurrection, we have nothing left to preach because our message centers on Christ having been raised from the dead.”
2. A Living Redeemer
Next, the apostle heightens the argument by insinuating that if there is no resurrection from the dead, then “Christ is not risen.” We not only lose the central message of Christianity if there is no resurrection.
Read More
Related Posts:

To pursue this objective the word nation was replaced by the word ethnicity. But it won’t work!  It may have some success in Christian families, in the church were members of various nations all change their allegiance to Christ, and it may have some success within a common geographical boundary where the Ten Commandments of the Christian Faith still have the force of law, but outside of these, I believe it is ultimately a recipe for disaster. 
America is no longer a nation in the biblical sense.  It is an empire.  A nation has the four boundary markers I have just mentioned, but an empire is a combination of nations living under one authority, usually under some type of tyranny.

When I was a young minister, I never heard of the word “ethnicity,” but today it is as common as pumpkins in the Fall.  My contention is that this word is relatively new, and that it was intentionally created by modern America to replace the concept of a “nation” as it is used in the Bible.  It has become a popular word in the church too.  The word ethnicity is not used in the King James Version of the Bible.  Not that I am a KJV-only person, but the more ancient language translations do give us the mindset of the past.  For example, in the typical English translation of the Greek language, Jesus told his disciples to make disciples of all the nations, not of all the ethnicities. The word “ethnicity” comes from the Greek term “ethnos” which is generally translated as nation in the English Bible.
The English word “nation” is derived from the same word as “nativity” which reminds us of the birth of Christ.  The word nation was chosen in older translations because it describes a people group with the same birth or ancestry.  In the distant past there existed patriarchs (like Abraham), and from such men came forth generations to follow.  This created a nation.  The most common element of a nation was being of the same birth.  Later, the word “race” was used in other translations, but again, this is a relatively new word that was not used in the old KJV (except as in running in a race).
In the New Testament the Apostle Paul adds to this definition of a nation, when preaching on Mars Hill, he said that God created the nations and defined them by borders as well as birth.  “He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation” (Acts 17:26).
Luke tells us of another common attribute of nations when he describes the nations gathered at Pentecost in Acts 2:5-6 as having a common language: “Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven.  And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language.”
The Bible obviously includes one more marker in the concept of a nation, and that is a common religion which produces a common culture with common traditions and customs such as the celebration of Christmas and Easter. The great commission (Matt. 28: 18-20) is a command to change the religion of each nation by the preaching of the gospel and by the power of the Holy Spirit. This assumes that a nation, as defined in the Bible, still remained a nation even after receiving the gospel, but the God it worshipped was changed (like in Ninevah).
Nations as defined in the Bible are here to stay.  Actually, nations even as defined by these markers will appear before God in heaven. Heaven is described as a place where, “The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it” (Rev. 21:24).
Thus, the four common marks of a biblical nation are a common birth, a common border, a common language, and a common religion.
We still think of nations with these markers when we think of the Japanese, the Chinese, the Dutch, and even such nations as Israel.  They are typically nations with a common border, a common language, a common ancestry, and a common religion (communism in China).
This was true of the United States in its earliest days.  America for much of its early existence consisted of mostly White Evangelical Protestants who spoke the English language. The nation had borders (that eventually covered the land from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans). Blacks came to America under compulsion via the institution of slavery and eventually became part of the sinews of our nation, even though they were of a different birth and ancestry.  Indians (native-Americans) were incorporated into the United States by force under the doctrine of Manifest Destiny.  Ellis Island opened this nation to other European descendants. Jews and Muslims would follow.
Why has the word ethnicity replaced the word nation?  Because it aligns more with the American notion of a nation, which is contrary to the biblical view of a nation. The word ethnicity empties the word nation of three of its major markers—a common ancestry, a common language, and a common religion.  Like all generations, we tend to read the Scriptures through the lens of our culture rather than read the culture through the lens of the Scriptures.  America prides itself on the diversity of nations living within a common geographical boundary with different languages and religions where democracy guarantees freedom and peace for all eternity.  Democracy has become our new god.
To pursue this objective the word nation was replaced by the word ethnicity. But it won’t work!  It may have some success in Christian families, in the church were members of various nations all change their allegiance to Christ, and it may have some success within a common geographical boundary where the Ten Commandments of the Christian Faith still have the force of law, but outside of these, I believe it is ultimately a recipe for disaster.
America is no longer a nation in the biblical sense.  It is an empire.  A nation has the four boundary markers I have just mentioned, but an empire is a combination of nations living under one authority, usually under some type of tyranny.
Protestant pluralism is waning as a significant force in America.  We now live under a secular polytheism.  The United States Constitution was created for a Christian people, and not for a muti-cultural conglomeration of various nations with their different ancestors and different religions living within one geographical border.
America has been balkanized and there is no longer unity under the banner of Christ.  This is one reason why there is so much political upheaval. One good example of this is the hatred now seen on college campuses where there is a verbal war between Jews and Hamas-sympathizers (who represent Muslims). The Middle East has been imported to our American geographical boundaries, and the result is the seed of hatred between these various nations living within our country.  As other nations are imported into America (some in the middle of the night by airplanes), the danger of the demise of this great nation is at hand.
Somewhere along this timeline the word ethnicity replaced the word nation to accomplish a goal contrary to the Bible. Never in the history of man since Adam and Eve have different nations with different religions lived in peace within the same boundaries, except by the force of war.
However, America, in its arrogance and its belief in the goodness of man, thought she could ignore the biblical concept of a nation and create a new tower of Babel where a multitude of nations could live together within the same border in a peaceful existence without a common religion. The goal was a melting pot, but we have created a boiling pot. The word ethnicity was a means to this end. That’s why I don’t use the word.
Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tenn.
Related Posts:

One example can be seen in larger bodies where both teaching and lay elders once governed the church; they’re called “ruling” elders.  Today, some churches reduce the role of ruling elders to merely shepherding and have established a smaller group of men, including possibly non-ordained staff members, to govern and exercise authority over the church.  One of these unbiblical innovations is called a “Governance Commission.” 

The term “deep state” is ubiquitous in today’s parlance and used by many to signify political control and power in the United States.  While driving my car just a while ago listening to the program, Issues, Etc., on the Lutheran Missouri Synod radio station KFUO, reference to the “deep state” occurred several times.  It was explained as the bureaucratic control and secret manipulation of government policy behind the scenes by certain influential members of government agencies.  When I finally heard a clear definition of what it is, I couldn’t help wondering if something similar is taking place in some churches and denominations throughout Christendom?  In other words, is there a “deep church” in the body of Christ?
Many would probably recognize or perceive its existence especially in the hierarchal churches or denominations.  But what about Protestant, Evangelical, or Reformed Faith churches?  The more I thought about it, the more I recognized its increasing presence, even in Reformed Faith churches.  However, it’s important to first attempt to recognize the source, that is, is it biblical or something else?  The early Church led by the apostles did not represent bureaucracy or hierarchy as so many churches do today.  The apostles did not represent highly educated men who were paid based on their levels of education or their degrees attained.  Some of the early leaders continued to support themselves by their trades.  Others were modestly supported by other believers, as they traveled evangelizing wherever they went.  Requests for donations appeared to focus not on support for leaders or an institution, but for the poor and persecuted believers.
The Western Church—whether hierarchal, Evangelical, or Reformed—today does not closely resemble that early church.  In many respects, today’s churches, denominations, and branches are a far cry from the early Church.  In fact, most forms seem to be distanced from the biblical image and norms given to us. With the increasing bureaucracies in most church bodies, is it possible that the world’s ways and means have invaded Christ’s Bride, surreptitiously?
Unfortunately, as a Reformed Faith Christian, I admit I can’t ignore that something close to the “deep state” in politics is evident in Reformed Faith churches.  I am reluctant to admit this, but truth requires that we acknowledge facts, history, and reality.  Below are just a few indications that some Reformed Faith churches have acquiesced and embraced the world in polity and practices.
One example can be seen in larger bodies where both teaching and lay elders once governed the church; they’re called “ruling” elders.  Today, some churches reduce the role of ruling elders to merely shepherding and have established a smaller group of men, including possibly non-ordained staff members, to govern and exercise authority over the church.  One of these unbiblical innovations is called a “Governance Commission.”  Placing so much power over a particular church in the hands of a few select individuals is always questionable and risky.  Smaller groups can become elitist and political, exercising unchecked power and possibly abuse or manipulate their authority that would not happen with the larger group of ruling elders or overseers.
As organizations receiving charitable and voluntary contributions, year-end in-depth financial statements of income and expenditures were once provided to all members.  This transparency included staff salaries, additional perks, and individual expenditures or overhead expenses that were easily understood.  Some churches no longer provide such detailed statements to their memberships.  Today, financial transparency is essentially absent to the congregation. Of all institutions and organizations, Christian churches and organizations should be the most transparent.
In bygone days, pastors were paid for the work they did for the church–as most pastors carried the same burdens and duties regardless of level of education.  Today in many churches, pastoral salaries relate to level of education and degrees received.  Pastors with more degrees are paid more than pastors with a seminary only degree.  In other words, remuneration appears to be based on what has been received rather than what is given, and many pastors’ seminary expenses were either supported or paid for by their churches. It must be recognized some are simply more privileged than others.  Even in the world, remuneration based on work performed, rather than privilege received, is more just and fair.
Churches previously relied heavily on voluntarism to perform many duties in the church, as opposed to a large paid staff.   Many of our contemporary Evangelical churches have large paid staffs and even pay people for services that were once volunteered freely as service unto God.  Both natural and spiritual gifts voluntarily bolstered churches ministries; however, today many of those services are monetarily remunerated.  Paying staff for work that could be voluntarily performed by the laity consumes limited funds that could be directed to proclamation of the Gospel or needed charity.
It’s doubtful early Christian pastors or priests received housing allowances that were tax-exempt.  Today, pastors expect to receive salaries plus housing allowances.  This practice appears based upon indirect government assistance. Allegedly, one pastor requested a reduction in salary with an equivalent raise in housing allowance in order to pay less taxes.  This practice appears to be manipulative.
In the past, congregations nominated candidates for office in Reformed Faith churches.  This too appears to be diminishing, where committees of a few elites are authorized to select candidates for church office. This “central planning” or “deep state” model creates situations whereby candidates can be selected who are more controllable, rather than based upon their qualifications, character and experience to direct activities on behalf of the church.  In some instances, the pastor has final authority to approve or disapprove candidates, without giving explanation to the ordained lay overseers. Selecting officers or committee members without congregational responsibility gives inordinate power to the staff, and over time, and will lead to diminished participation of the congregants in the life of the church.
The above discussion shows, unfortunately, that the world and worldly practices as—opposed to biblical practices and principles—have entered the Church, and there appears to be a “deep church” as well as a “deep state.”  Are we willing to acknowledge and recognize how much the world has been allowed into the Church?  Are we even willing to address the issues biblically?  In the Reformed Faith, the laity once had the responsibility for oversight, which appears to be decreasing in many churches.
Isn’t it time for both leadership and laity to take control of their churches and denominations to ensure genuine transparency, doctrinal integrity, and biblical practices and principles?  God’s Word and Church History demand it.   “Deep church,” as “deep state,” is unhealthy and merits addressing.
This is written by a former missionary.  Missionaries in general make great sacrifices to serve Christ, to proclaim the Gospel, and to disciple others out of great love for the Lord.  Remuneration is generally a pittance of what could be earned in other fields.  This writer has also served her church in many areas using both natural and spiritual gifts with no expectation of remuneration.  Today, she writes this monograph seeking no remuneration because serving God is a joy and a privilege.
Helen Louise Herndon is a member of Central Presbyterian Church (EPC) in St. Louis, Missouri. She is freelance writer and served as a missionary to the Arab/Muslim world in France and North Africa; this article originally appeared in October 1991 in her church newsletter.
Related Posts: