Saved Without Knowing the Resurrection?

[John of Japan]

No, it would not at all be strange for someone to think in his mind that Christ died but then experienced the vile, pagan abomination of cremation instead of being buried. That would especially be true in certain countries, especially the one where you ministered for many years.

Irrelevant to the OP.

Furthermore, nonsense about a "spiritual" resurrection is an entirely possible notion for someone to entertain.

This concept is totally foreign to anything I have said in this thread. I don't believe in some "spiritual" resurrection, which would actually not be a resurrection.

More importantly than evaluating your experience in life is to handle the Bible correctly.

Absolutely true. So what? Are you accusing me of putting my experience over the Scriptures?

Concerning when the apostle Paul preached the gospel to the Corinthians, the gospel by which they were saved, does the Scripture teach that he proclaimed to them the burial of Christ and His appearances or not?

Yes he did. Did he do the same to the Galatians? No. Did he do the same to the Ephesians? No. Etc. etc.

So again: do you know a single theologian--your choice--who teaches what you are saying? Do you know a single missionary, evangelist, or pastor who teaches that we must proclaim the burial and the witnesses to win people to Christ???

Do you yourself ever witness for Christ? If so, do you always tell the prospect they must believe that Jesus was buried?

Do you ever give out tracts? Do you make sure every tract you give out specifies believing in the burial of Christ?

 

[canadyjd]

…

It is a serious charge to say someone insisting on getting the Gospel right has "hubris."

I said it is hubris to believe God Holy Spirit cannot save someone unless the believer knows “exactly what to say”, which is your stated goal. That is similar to the charismatic claim that if you pray “in Jesus name” and have faith, God is obligated to give you what you prayed for.

I don’t dismiss your desire to be accurate in presenting the gospel. I’m just urging caution in focusing too much on the believers performance in presenting the gospel.

Many years ago, right after I was saved, I witnessed for about an hour to a young man who was into Gaia worship. He was knowledgeable of scripture (raised in a church) and completely unreceptive of the gospel.

I was devastated. I told my pastor about it, how I felt I was a poor witness and whether God Holy Spirit could use me and so on. My pastor told me that if I didn’t think it was all about myself, I wouldn’t feel so bad. He was right.

Later, as I mentioned earlier, I had a prof tell us God can hit straight with a crooked stick. I really like that.

BTW, Satan has hubris to attempt to make himself equal to God

So yes, there is another kind of hubris other than human hubris

I admit to a flashback from “A Few Good Men” when you asked “is there any other kind”

Peace to you

 

[John of Japan]

I said it is hubris to believe God Holy Spirit cannot save someone unless the believer knows “exactly what to say”, which is your stated goal. That is similar to the charismatic claim that if you pray “in Jesus name” and have faith, God is obligated to give you what you prayed for.

This is absolute baloney. Nothing you said in that paragraph is "my "stated goal." I have not said any of this. Come on, please "judge righteous judgment" and don't make up things you think I have said.

I don’t dismiss your desire to be accurate in presenting the gospel. I’m just urging caution in focusing too much on the believers performance in presenting the gospel.

Are you kidding me? Look at the particular forum this is in. I'm doing theology here--I don't know what you are doing.

Many years ago, right after I was saved, I witnessed for about an hour to a young man who was into Gaia worship. He was knowledgeable of scripture (raised in a church) and completely unreceptive of the gospel.

I was devastated. I told my pastor about it, how I felt I was a poor witness and whether God Holy Spirit could use me and so on. My pastor told me that if I didn’t think it was all about myself, I wouldn’t feel so bad. He was right.

Later, as I mentioned earlier, I had a prof tell us God can hit straight with a crooked stick. I really like that.

Your pastor and prof were wise.

BTW, Satan has hubris to attempt to make himself equal to God

So yes, there is another kind of hubris other than human hubris

Irrelevant to the thread.

I admit to a flashback from “A Few Good Men” when you asked “is there any other kind”

Peace to you

Never watched it.

 

[John of Japan]

Hi, everyone. I am now reminded why I quit posting in this particular BB forum. I got tired of people misinterpreting what I write, putting words into my mouth, and accusing me of things I've never said or done. I'll try to hang in there on this thread, since I started it, but right now I'm pretty disgusted at a couple of posters.

Maybe I'll post more tomorrow. Right now I'm going to grade some tests from my Advanced Missions class, a two week module we just finished. Had an awesome time in that class! I guarantee you, my students know what the Gospel is!!

We did a really fun exercise on cross-cultural evangelism where I divided them up into two teams. Each team invented a culture, and then tried to evangelize the other team. What a blast!

 

[canadyjd]

This is absolute baloney. Nothing you said in that paragraph is "my "stated goal." I have not said any of this. Come on, please "judge righteous judgment" and don't make up things you think I have said…

Well, I have apparently misunderstood you. I thought you said you wanted to know “exactly what to say” when you witnessed to others based on your posts….

…..
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"?….

….
Why could it be "an exercise in human hubris" to want to know exactly what to tell others when you witness about Christ?? …...

My apologies.

This is an interesting discussion and I did not intent to make unfounded claims.

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

 

[John of Japan]

Well, I have apparently misunderstood you. I thought you said you wanted to know “exactly what to say” when you witnessed to others based on your posts….

Please go back and look at the OP. I said nothing, zero, nada, 何も, about "exactly what to say." So the OP is about the content of the Gospel, meaning the truths we must present. There are many different ways to phrase the Gospel, but the truth content must be decided by Scripture.

My apologies.

This is an interesting discussion and I did not intent to make unfounded claims.

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

No problem. Thanks for a humble apology.

 

[John of Japan]

Something just occurred to me about the Gospel, so I had to take a brief break from grading tests to note it here.

Here is what distinguishes Christ's death for our sins and the resurrection of Christ from the burial and the witnesses of 1 Cor. 15:18. Christ Himself died for our sins and rose again, but someone else buried Him and other people witnessed that He had risen from the dead. Thus, if we say that the burial and witnesses are part of the Gospel, we must say that human actions are part of the Gospel. And that is terrible theology!

 

[JonC]

Something just occurred to me about the Gospel, so I had to take a brief break from grading tests to note it here.

Here is what distinguishes Christ's death for our sins and the resurrection of Christ from the burial and the witnesses of 1 Cor. 15:18. Christ Himself died for our sins and rose again, but someone else buried Him and other people witnessed that He had risen from the dead. Thus, if we say that the burial and witnesses are part of the Gospel, we must say that human actions are part of the Gospel. And that is terrible theology!

I think that what is missing on this thread is a concise definition of the gospel prior to discussing things about the gospel.

This is, IMHO, important because Mark 16:15–16 records Jesus as saying "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned."

In Matthew 9:23 we are told "Jesus was going through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom".

My argument is that the gospel of the kingdom Jesus preached is the gospel and this good news is that the kingdom has come, that men can enter into this long awaited kingdom.

That did not include Christ's death or resurrection, but was focused on Christ Himself as Emmanuel. In this way I believe Christ to be the gospel He proclaimed (God with us).

But then Christ died for our sins and was resurrected. This is also a part of the gospel - a part of the gospel unfolding (again...IMHO).

So I believe that the gospel is Christ to include His death for our sins and His resurrection from the dead. I believe this is the full gospel He told His disciples to proclaim prior to the Ascension.


My answer to the OP is, therefore, that I believe the resurrection an essential element of the gospel that one must believe in order to be saved, and a rejection of the gospel in part is a rejection of the gospel.

 

[John of Japan]

Well, I have apparently misunderstood you. I thought you said you wanted to know “exactly what to say” when you witnessed to others based on your posts….

My apologies.

This is an interesting discussion and I did not intent to make unfounded claims.

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

To clarify, I did use the words "exactly what to say," but my meaning (perhaps unclear) was not the exact words to say, but the exact content of the message.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Something just occurred to me about the Gospel, so I had to take a brief break from grading tests to note it here.

Here is what distinguishes Christ's death for our sins and the resurrection of Christ from the burial and the witnesses of 1 Cor. 15:18. Christ Himself died for our sins and rose again, but someone else buried Him and other people witnessed that He had risen from the dead. Thus, if we say that the burial and witnesses are part of the Gospel, we must say that human actions are part of the Gospel. And that is terrible theology!

Sadly, you are very mistaken in this understanding. No one saw the risen Christ except for people whom God specifically chose to show Him to them:

Acts 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; 41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

To tell people about the ones who were eyewitnesses to the Resurrection glorifies God who specifically chose all of them beforehand that they would see the risen Christ! The Resurrection appearances of Christ were the work of God the Father and of Christ and not the work of man.

Concerning the theological importance of the burial of Christ, many passages stress its importance.

Following Paul in evangelizing people by giving them the gospel of Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and appearances is fully biblical, glorifies God, and gives sinners the God-intended gospel content that God wants them to receive.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Irrelevant to the OP.

This concept is totally foreign to anything I have said in this thread. I don't believe in some "spiritual" resurrection, which would actually not be a resurrection.

Absolutely true. So what? Are you accusing me of putting my experience over the Scriptures?

Yes he did. Did he do the same to the Galatians? No. Did he do the same to the Ephesians? No. Etc. etc.

Do you yourself ever witness for Christ? If so, do you always tell the prospect they must believe that Jesus was buried?

Do you ever give out tracts? Do you make sure every tract you give out specifies believing in the burial of Christ?

The issue is not whether you believe in cremation or some "spiritual" resurrection, etc. The issue is whether the sinners that are being evangelized would wrongly believe such things happened to Christ based on a witness that does not tell them that Christ was buried and that many credible witnesses saw Him, heard Him, touched Him, and ate and drank with Him, which all prove that He rose bodily!

You have no Bible basis to claim that Paul did not testify to the burial and appearances in Galatia or Ephesus when he evangelized those people. Arguing from silence is not proof about what Paul did not testify in his evangelism.

Everybody that I evangelize who allows me to give them an extended witness will at some point in my evangelizing them hear from me about the burial and the appearances unless I am providentially prevented from giving them those glorious truths.

 

[percho]

This is a false dichotomy. It's not "either or." We believe, God saves.



Great Scriptures. I love the Word.


This looks like you are trying to turn my thread into a Cal. vs. Arm. thread. Please don't do that. The thread is about the content of the Gospel message, which should be the same for both sides as long as they are thinking Scripturally.

BTW Did you tell the student yes or no. Methinks knowing about the resurrection should be a part hearing the gospel preached. Why does Paul begin with the death and resurrection when preaching, the gospel?


I had no intent of turning your thread into anything.

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, From 1 Cor 15:1
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, From 1 Cor 15:3

I guess we could ask why Paul when preaching, the gospel, always begin with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

Brings to mind: Acts 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

What else did he tell them relative to, the gospel? Well reading V 7 Paul must have said something about this Jesus being a king of something, King of what? Brings to mind Acts 20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. And being Paul received, the gospel, from Jesus brings to mind Mark 1:14,15 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Yet, first of all, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: Why?

Following is why I believe that is preached first of all relative to the gospel of the kingdom of God.

And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

 

[John of Japan]

Sadly, you are very mistaken in this understanding. No one saw the risen Christ except for people whom God specifically chose to show Him to them:

Acts 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; 41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

All very good, but none of it proves the witnesses as part of the Gospel.

To tell people about the ones who were eyewitnesses to the Resurrection glorifies God who specifically chose all of them beforehand that they would see the risen Christ! The Resurrection appearances of Christ were the work of God the Father and of Christ and not the work of man.

Yeah, but people seeing the risen Christ were people, not God. It is God who saves, not people.

Concerning the theological importance of the burial of Christ, many passages stress its importance.

Following Paul in evangelizing people by giving them the gospel of Christ's death, burial, resurrection, and appearances is fully biblical, glorifies God, and gives sinners the God-intended gospel content that God wants them to receive.

Then how come the burial and witnesses are not mentioned in Romans 4:25--"Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." There is not salvific theological purpose in the burial and resurrection.

Okay, I'm going to go in a different direction. You are claiming there are four parts to the Gospel: Christ's death for our sin, Christ being buried, Christ rising from the dead, and 500 witnesses who saw the risen Christ. Here is the main problem with that.

1. Christ Himself died for our sins. That was His incredible sacrifice for us.
2. He was buried. But He did not do that, others did: Joseph of Arimathaea got the body of Christ and buried it.
3. Christ Himself rose from the dead "for our justification."
4. Witnesses saw Christ, but looking at the risen Christ was a human action, not a divine action.

Therefore, your version of the Gospel includes two actions of Christ and two actions of ordinary people. But salvation is all of God. Humans other than Christ Himself do not bring about salvation for anyone. Your theology of the Gospel is hugely flawed.

 

[John of Japan]

BTW Did you tell the student yes or no. Methinks knowing about the resurrection should be a part hearing the gospel preached. Why does Paul begin with the death and resurrection when preaching, the gospel?

I didn't tell the student a straight "Yes" or "No," actually. My job was to help him think through it himself, so I asked leading questions to bring him to the right conclusion. Namely, since this was a missions class, I led him to thinking about a Confucian society that worships ancestors. I think his problem was wondering if he had mislead someone when he witnessed to them and/or led them to Christ.

I had no intent of turning your thread into anything.

I believe you.

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, From 1 Cor 15:1
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, From 1 Cor 15:3

I guess we could ask why Paul when preaching, the gospel, always begin with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

So we have theology (the content of the Gospel) and we have praxis (living out the theology). Both are important.

Brings to mind: Acts 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Right! The main point of the Gospel is Christ Himself, who is the Gospel. But that does not diminish in the slightest the truths needed to proclaim the Gospel.

What else did he tell them relative to, the gospel? Well reading V 7 Paul must have said something about this Jesus being a king of something, King of what? Brings to mind Acts 20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. And being Paul received, the gospel, from Jesus brings to mind Mark 1:14,15 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Well, the Gospel can be considered a subset of the kingdom of God.

Yet, first of all, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: Why?

Following is why I believe that is preached first of all relative to the gospel of the kingdom of God.

And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

I'm not sure what you are saying with these Scriptures as regarding the content of the Gospel. Remember that there is a theological change in the Gospel from before the cross to after the cross.

 

[John of Japan]

@Scripture More Accurately:

I just went through the first ten chapters of Acts, looking at the various presentations of the Gospel. Note that there no mentions of the burial of Christ in any of the presentations, and the witnesses are not mentioned until Ch. 10:

Acts 2—Peter preached Christ’s death and resurrection (vv. 22-24, etc.). He emphasized repentance and the forgiveness of sin (v. 38).

Acts 3—Peter preached the death and resurrection of Christ (v. 15), and called for repentance (v. 19).

Acts 4—Peter preached the crucifixion and resurrection (v. 10-12). “And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all” (v. 33).

Acts 5—Peter emphasized the death of Christ (v. 30) and His atonement for sin (v. 31).

Acts 6—No Gospel presentations

Acts 7—Stephen preached, and accused them of murdering the Messiah (v. 52). Then he was murdered before he could give more of the Gospel.

Acts 8—Philip “preached Christ unto them” (v. 5). Then he preached “the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ” (v. 12). Then he witnessed to the Ethiopian eunuch about Jesus from Isaiah (v. 35), and Christ as the Son of God (v. 37).

Acts 9—Saul preached Christ as the Son of God (v. 20).

Acts 10—Peter preached Christ as Lord of all (v. 36), then Christ as “hanged on a tree” and risen from the dead (vv. 39-40). For the first time in the book of Acts he mentioned that there were witnesses (vv. 39 & 41).

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

@Scripture More Accurately:

I just went through the first ten chapters of Acts, looking at the various presentations of the Gospel. Note that there no mentions of the burial of Christ in any of the presentations, and the witnesses are not mentioned until Ch. 10:

Acts 2—Peter preached Christ’s death and resurrection (vv. 22-24, etc.). He emphasized repentance and the forgiveness of sin (v. 38).

Acts 3—Peter preached the death and resurrection of Christ (v. 15), and called for repentance (v. 19).

Acts 4—Peter preached the crucifixion and resurrection (v. 10-12). “And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all” (v. 33).

Acts 5—Peter emphasized the death of Christ (v. 30) and His atonement for sin (v. 31).

Acts 6—No Gospel presentations

Acts 7—Stephen preached, and accused them of murdering the Messiah (v. 52). Then he was murdered before he could give more of the Gospel.

Acts 8—Philip “preached Christ unto them” (v. 5). Then he preached “the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ” (v. 12). Then he witnessed to the Ethiopian eunuch about Jesus from Isaiah (v. 35), and Christ as the Son of God (v. 37).

Acts 9—Saul preached Christ as the Son of God (v. 20).

Acts 10—Peter preached Christ as Lord of all (v. 36), then Christ as “hanged on a tree” and risen from the dead (vv. 39-40). For the first time in the book of Acts he mentioned that there were witnesses (vv. 39 & 41).

Wrong. Peter was an eyewitness himself and declared that he and others were witnesses of the Resurrection repeatedly before Acts 10:

Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

I am not going to waste any more time in this discussion addressing such factually incorrect statements. Your approach to interpreting Scripture that emphasizes argument from silence is deeply flawed.

 

[canadyjd]

To clarify, I did use the words "exactly what to say," but my meaning (perhaps unclear) was not the exact words to say, but the exact content of the message.

Thanks for clarifying. Interesting discussion.

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

 

[Van]

The answer to the question, can a person be saved without knowing about Christ's resurrection, is yes!

Anyone God chooses to save, because God credits his or her faith as righteousness, will be saved. Scripture clearly indicates belief in the God (Yahweh) that raised Jesus from the dead is a component of Christ's gospel. Thus according to Romans 4:24, it is belief in God, rather than belief in Christ's resurrection, that is required.

In Romans 10:9 scripture says, "if we believe God raised (something already done) Jesus from the dead, you will be saved." It does not say if you did not know about this, such as OT saints, you cannot be saved. The OT saints could believe in God without understanding the mystery of Christ, and still be saved. Abraham's faith was credited because Abraham believed in God and that God would keep His promises.

Fundamentally, the idea of saying you must believe in "X, Y, and Z" to be saved is unstudied legalistic nonsense. God must credit your faith, as He knows your heart, and your commitment to follow God and your love of God is the essential. If we do not believe in God, or believe God rewards those who seek Him, we certainly do not fit scripture's stated requirements. Further, if we do not believe Jesus performed His miracles by the power of God, that seems to fall short of God's required beliefs established after the resurrection. In summary, we must believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

 

[John of Japan]

Wrong. Peter was an eyewitness himself and declared that he and others were witnesses of the Resurrection repeatedly before Acts 10:

Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Acts 3:15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

I am not going to waste any more time in this discussion addressing such factually incorrect statements. Your approach to interpreting Scripture that emphasizes argument from silence is deeply flawed.

What is flawed about going to the Scripture and showing exactly what the Gospel presentations were in Acts? Please go through them and show me what I missed. I stated that the burial of Christ was not one time mentioned in the Gospel presentations of Acts 1-10. Don't just quit the discussion. Show me where I am wrong. Man, if I'm wrong about the content of the Gospel I really want to know it so I can correct my message in soul winning, and interpret "Scripture More Accurately."

Otherwise, I guess not only me, but Peter and the other Gospel preachers in Acts totally blew it. So apparently no one got saved in the first 10 chapters of Acts because the burial was not preached.

 

[John of Japan]

I am not going to waste any more time in this discussion addressing such factually incorrect statements. Your approach to interpreting Scripture that emphasizes argument from silence is deeply flawed.

But you have not answered Post #93, in which I point out that the burial and witnesses are human actions, but the death for our sins and resurrection are things done by Christ Himself. If you are correct, there are four elements to the Gospel, but two of them are human centered. It is the Gospel that saves. How do these human actions save?

This is not an "argument from silence," but a cogent theological argument. If you can't answer it, fine. Take your leave!