Saved Without Knowing the Resurrection?

[Scripture More Accurately]

Since Paul emphasizes the eye witness testimony of the 500 folks that saw Jesus alive as of “first importance”, can a person be saved without believing those folks saw Jesus alive after the resurrection?

Shouldn’t that info be included in every gospel presentation?

BTW, I stand corrected, Peter did preach the resurrection to Cornelius.

peace to you

Given a proper opportunity, I take everyone that I evangelize through the witnesses listed in 1 Cor. 15:5-8. Including that information in every gospel presentation is fully legitimate and would strengthen any gospel presentation.

Having said that, no, I do not believe that a person has to hear specifically about the more than 500 people who all saw Jesus alive at the same time in order for him to be saved. What is necessary is that he believe that God has raised Him from the dead.

 

[canadyjd]

Given a proper opportunity, I take everyone that I evangelize through the witnesses listed in 1 Cor. 15:5-8. Including that information in every gospel presentation is fully legitimate and would strengthen any gospel presentation.

Having said that, no, I do not believe that a person has to hear specifically about the more than 500 people who all saw Jesus alive at the same time in order for him to be saved. What is necessary is that he believe that God has raised Him from the dead.

Paul lists 3 things as of first importance.

1. Jesus died for our sins and was buried according to the scriptures

2. Jesus rose from the dead according to the scripture

3. Jesus was seen by more than 500 people after the resurrection.

You are saying the first two must be understood and believed for someone to be saved, but not the third.

Why not? They are all listed as being of first importance

peace to you

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Paul lists 3 things as of first importance.

1. Jesus died for our sins and was buried according to the scriptures

2. Jesus rose from the dead according to the scripture

3. Jesus was seen by more than 500 people after the resurrection.

You are saying the first two must be understood and believed for someone to be saved, but not the third.

Why not? They are all listed as being of first importance

peace to you

No, Paul does not list as of first importance the three things that you have listed as you have listed them.

Paul presents 4 things in his delineation of what was of first importance concerning Christ:

1. His death for our sins according to the Scriptures
2. His burial
3. His resurrection on the third day according to the Scriptures
4. His appearances

These 4 elements are joined by the same words "and that":

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve . . .

Alternatively, some understand His death for our sins according to the Scriptures and His resurrection on the third day according to the Scriptures to be the two key elements that are supported by His burial and His appearances, respectively.

 

[canadyjd]

No, Paul does not list as of first importance the three things that you have listed as you have listed them.

Paul presents 4 things in his delineation of what was of first importance concerning Christ:

1. His death for our sins according to the Scriptures
2. His burial
3. His resurrection on the third day according to the Scriptures
4. His appearances

These 4 elements are joined by the same words "and that":

1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve . . .

Alternatively, some understand His death for our sins according to the Scriptures and His resurrection on the third day according to the Scriptures to be the two key elements that are supported by His burial and His appearances, respectively.

You are side stepping the question.

The appearances are listed as of first importance along with the others. If a person cannot be saved without understanding and belief in the others, why is the same thing not said of the appearances?

peace to you

 

[kyredneck]

that doctrine/event is clearly part of Paul's Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15

14 and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain.
17 and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 1 Cor 15

You understand that this is a 'hypothetical' presented by Paul, right? He's not saying if one hasn't heard and believed in His resurrection they're going to hell.

 

[kyredneck]

Saved without being baptized? Mark 16:16

Forgive me, but I'm not sure what your point is here.

If you're constructing a precise formula whereby one can be 'saved' why aren't you including water baptism?

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. Mk 16

38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.
40 And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation. Acts 2

20 that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water:
21 which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ; 1 Pet 3

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

You are side stepping the question.

The appearances are listed as of first importance along with the others. If a person cannot be saved without understanding and belief in the others, why is the same thing not said of the appearances?

peace to you

No, I am not side-stepping the question. You made factually incorrect statements about what 1 Cor. 15 says so I had to correct what you said.

You claimed that hearing specifically about the more than 500 who all at the same time witnessed one of the resurrection appearances was of equal importance to the death, burial, and resurrection. I corrected that by showing that hearing and believing about that specific appearance was not of such importance.

Regarding your further question, First Corinthians 15:1-8 is not the only passage in Scripture that teaches us about how people are saved. God inspired the Gospel of John and directed John to write that those who read what he has written in his Gospel and believe what he has written in it will be saved:

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

John does not mention the appearance to the more than 500, but he does mention some other appearances. A person who reads the Gospel of John and believes what it testifies to him will be saved even though he does not hear anything about some of the appearances that are listed in 1 Cor. 15:5-8. By comparing Scripture with Scripture, we learn conclusively that hearing about the appearance to the more than 500 is not necessary for salvation.

I always tell people about the appearances if they allow me to do so in my witnessing.

If someone is told about one or more of the appearances and rejects that testimony, he will not and cannot be saved. The appearances prove that Christ rose bodily!

 

[canadyjd]

No, I am not side-stepping the question. You made factually incorrect statements about what 1 Cor. 15 says so I had to correct what you said…..

Ok, let’s be clear. I said Jesus died and was buried according to the scripture and so on.

You separated it into “Jesus died” and then “Jesus was buried” and claimed I made factually incorrect statements.

If you want to “major in the minors”, instead of focusing on substance, I really don’t want to waste my time with you.

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

 

[percho]

For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 1 Cor 15:16,17
Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. Rom 6:9

Since the beginning of time to date, how many have experienced Rom 6:9?

Methinks it is kind of good to know. The resurrection, that is.

 

[canadyjd]

For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 1 Cor 15:16,17
Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. Rom 6:9

Since the beginning of time to date, how many have experienced Rom 6:9?

Methinks it is kind of good to know. The resurrection, that is.

No one denies the importance of the resurrection. The question of the OP is whether a person must understand and believe the resurrection occurred to be saved.

peace to you

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

To probe biblically the question of whether someone has to understand and believe in the Resurrection in order to be saved, let's also ask the question whether someone has to understand and believe in the Crucifixion in order to be saved. According to the methodology used by some, any evangelistic account in Scripture where testimony to the Crucifixion is not explicitly mentioned would be an account of evangelism where no testimony was given to Jesus' dying for people's sins.

By the reasoning used by some, therefore, understanding and believing in Jesus' dying for their sins is not necessary for salvation, right?

For example, some argue that the Philippian jailor was saved by hearing only the following:

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

According to this approach, he was saved without being given any testimony to either the Cross or the Resurrection because the passage does not explicitly mention testimony to either truth, right?

 

[John of Japan]

I used “initial salvation” to mean the moment a person is indwelt by God Holy Spirit. At that moment, when God Holy Spirit has drawn a person to the truth of Jesus as Savior.

I hesitate to declare a “formula” for this to occur since it is a work of God Holy Spirit and could lead some to believe God is manipulated by our actions to respond to us by granting salvation. Also, God may work differently in each person’s life.

The Gospel is truth, not formula. As such, it is powerful (Romans 1:16).

For example, I once knew a man that believed a person must weep when they are “saved”. His reasoning was that weeping demonstrated repentance and without weeping there could be no salvation. That is a “formula” 1. Hear the gospel. 2. Weep (repentance) 3. Accept Christ as Savior.

I'd simply say he was adding to the Gospel. Unacceptable.

You are correct that Paul gave a clear definition of what was of “first importance” concerning the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15. He also mentions that Christ was seen by more than 500 people after His resurrection that knew He had died. I rarely hear anyone mention that in a gospel presentation and Paul considered it of “first importance”

The Gospel is that Christ died for our sins (substitutionary atonement), and rose again the third day for our justification. The burial proves the death, and the 500 witnesses proves the resurrection. As proofs rather than truths, they are not part of the Gospel, so other passages in the NT do not discuss them.

I don’t believe you should leave out any part of 1 Corinthians 15. The goods news is that if you do, (as one of my profs was fond of saying) God is able to hit straight with a crooked stick.

We are the crooked stick, holding truths in jars of clay, doing our best and perhaps, like Peter, God Holy Spirit will move upon someone before we get a chance to finish our long winded, well rehearsed gospel presentation.

Praise be to our Lord

Peace to you

Well said.

 

[John of Japan]

No. Romans 10 pretty plain about that.

What in particular about Romans 10?

 

[John of Japan]

If you're constructing a precise formula whereby one can be 'saved' why aren't you including water baptism?

I have no formula, unless you consider the Gospel itself to be a formula. And Paul did not include baptism in 1 Cor. 15.

But the Gospel is not a formula, it is revealed truth. And that truth is powerful unto salvation (Romans 1:16).

 

[John of Japan]

To probe biblically the question of whether someone has to understand and believe in the Resurrection in order to be saved, let's also ask the question whether someone has to understand and believe in the Crucifixion in order to be saved. According to the methodology used by some, any evangelistic account in Scripture where testimony to the Crucifixion is not explicitly mentioned would be an account of evangelism where no testimony was given to Jesus' dying for people's sins.

By the reasoning used by some, therefore, understanding and believing in Jesus' dying for their sins is not necessary for salvation, right?

For example, some argue that the Philippian jailor was saved by hearing only the following:

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

According to this approach, he was saved without being given any testimony to either the Cross or the Resurrection because the passage does not explicitly mention testimony to either truth, right?

I think it's jumping to a conclusion to say that the jailer never heard about the cross or resurrection. It's also an argument from silence, and therefore invalid logically.

The Bible says that Paul and Silas were there, were thrown into prison for preaching the Gospel, and sang praises to God. So I'm pretty sure he heard the Gospel from Paul and Silas, and already knew it when he believed. Hard to believe anyone ran into Paul without hearing the Gospel.

 

[John of Japan]

14 and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain.
17 and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 1 Cor 15

You understand that this is a 'hypothetical' presented by Paul, right? He's not saying if one hasn't heard and believed in His resurrection they're going to hell.

These are "conditional sentences" in the Greek using the indicative, not the subjunctive, meaning Paul was assuming the reality of what he said, not presenting a hypothetical, which would have needed the subjunctive. Therefore, Paul was saying, "Since" in v. 14, and kind of like "Really????" in v. 17.

To be clear, though, are you saying that it is not necessary to proclaim the resurrection?

 

[37818]

I don't think any of these three passages apply to the subject. The first one was before the resurrection, and the second two were to people already Christians, whereas the thread topic is evangelism.

Ref, John 2:19-21. And Matthew 16:21.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I get what you are saying here. However, what if the hearer is an ancestor worshipper, and decides to add this Jesus who died for sins to the rest of those he prays to? I wish you would give Scripture for your viewpoint.

A divided worship of God is no worship at all (Exodus 20:1-5; Isaiah 42:8; Mark 12:29-30).
The two-stage healing of the blind man in Mark 8:22-26 is there to show us, I think, that people, when they are saved, often do not see (understand) everything at once, In the same chapter, by way of illustration, we see Peter making his confession of Christ (vs. 27-30), and immediately after we see him rebuking the Lord Jesus for saying that He would suffer, and being rebuked in turn (vs. 31-33)

But as you say, it is God who decides who gets saved. Is it then your view that the content of the message does not matter in salvation?

Not at all. We should make our presentation of the Gospel as full as possible (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 4:1-2), but the Puritans used to say that the Lord can draw a straight line with a bent stick. Apollos needed to be instructed further in his understanding of the faith (Acts of the Apostles 18:24-26), but it seems that the Lord made sure that Paul was at hand to correct any misunderstandings that Apollos' converts may have had (Acts of the Apostles 19:1-6).

I hope that's enough Scripture references for you.

 

[John of Japan]

A divided worship of God is no worship at all (Exodus 20:1-5; Isaiah 42:8; Mark 12:29-30).
The two-stage healing of the blind man in Mark 8:22-26 is there to show us, I think, that people, when they are saved, often do not see (understand) everything at once, In the same chapter, by way of illustration, we see Peter making his confession of Christ (vs. 27-30), and immediately after we see him rebuking the Lord Jesus for saying that He would suffer, and being rebuked in turn (vs. 31-33)

Well said.

Not at all. We should make our presentation of the Gospel as full as possible (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 4:1-2), but the Puritans used to say that the Lord can draw a straight line with a bent stick. Apollos needed to be instructed further in his understanding of the faith (Acts of the Apostles 18:24-26), but it seems that the Lord made sure that Paul was at hand to correct any misunderstandings that Apollos' converts may have had (Acts of the Apostles 19:1-6).

I've been a bent stick many times in my life, if not always. But I hesitate to refer to the Gospel as a bent stick. As it is revealed truth required for salvation, we must present it fully, as you note. So the thread is about how much truth it takes for a person to get saved. Or to put it a different way, is there a minimum of Gospel truth "by which we must be saved"?

I hope that's enough Scripture references for you.

You will agree that it is not the references we need but the truth of God's Word.

 

[John of Japan]

Ref, John 2:19-21. And Matthew 16:21.

Okay, but these Scriptures do not address the OP, which is about how much truth must be proclaimed for a lost sinner to get saved.