Is it necessary to believe in the resurrection of Jesus to be saved?
Since it’s Easter week, I want to resurrect (I know–that’s a terrible pun) a discussion I participated in over at Evangelical Village a week or so ago. It began when my friend Matt posed a simple but important question:
“What must a person know in order to be saved? What theological knowledge must a person know in order to become a believer?”
Let me say up front that I don’t want anyone to think I’m being critical of Matt here. I love my brother, I recommend his blog, and I know that he was doing what he always does very well–asking thought-provoking questions, and involving others in the discussion. I appreciate that.
The thrust of the post was that it probably isn’t necessary to “know” much to be saved, but you do have to “believe.” One commenter gave the example of the thief on the cross. He knew very little, but he believed in Jesus and was saved.
In the original post Matt had asked:
“If one would take the stance that a person must have a knowledge of personal sin and the sacrifice of Jesus, then would you say that God cannot save a person by merely reading John 3:16? … We need to separate the ideal from the necessary.”
God can do whatever He wants, but essentially I felt that this approach to faith set up a false dichotomy between what we know and what we believe. I think that what we believe (or who we trust) is necessarily built on a foundation of what we know.
I pointed out that Paul said we must believe in our heart that God raised Christ from the dead (which assumes we would have to first know that he was in fact raised) in order to be saved (Romans 10:9-11). That prompted Matt to ask:
“So Barry, does one have to know the Resurrection to be saved? Or could God save someone just by reading John 3:16?”
I replied (with a few edits included here):
I think that in Paul’s mind (which is the mind of the Spirit) understanding the resurrection falls into the category of “the necessary” rather than “the ideal.” In addition to the passage I quoted earlier (Romans 10:9-11), Paul considered the resurrection essential to the gospel:
“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures…” (1 Cor. 15:1-4)
Not only was the resurrection essential to the gospel, the gospel was essential to salvation. That’s evident in this passage from the tiny (but massively important) word “if” in the phrase: “by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you” (i.e., the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus).
It’s also evident in other passages. The gospel (again, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, according to 1 Cor. 15) is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16)
We’re saved by believing in Jesus, but what Jesus is that? One who was just a great moral teacher? One who was just a prophet? One who was willing to die for what he believed in? Or one who is defined by the content of the gospel? I believe it’s the latter. Which gospel and which Jesus one believes in really, really matters. That’s clear from the following passages:
“For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.” (2 Cor. 11:4)
“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8-9)
I’ve continued to think about that discussion. It’s certainly possible that I’m wrong, but at this point, I stand by my conclusion. Our belief in Christ is not properly focused, and therefore unable to save, without a clear understanding of Christ’s death for our sins, and his resurrection on the third day.
So…what do you think? Is it necessary to believe in the resurrection of Jesus to be saved?
…if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, ‘Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.’ (Rom. 10:9-11)
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins (1 Corinthians 15:17)
Barry Wallace
theoparadox
pijohnson
interesting post. in the NT we see followers of Christ verbally and orally proclaiming the gospel, with the result that some come to the saving knowledge of Christ. we must ask, “what is the content of that gospel?” it seems obvious from the book of Acts, as well as the gospels and epistles, but especially in Acts, that the resurrection is an essential part of the gospel.
so yes. if we adhere to the belief that salvation comes only through hearing the gospel, and the resurrection is an essential part of this gospel, then saving faith in Christ is faith in a resurrected Christ.
mike
I believe that it is absolutely necessary to believe in the resurrection for a person to be saved. If you do not believe in the resurrection, then there is no victory over death. You definitely hit the nail on the head, I believe, because we must believe in the true Jesus. The Jesus which is the Son of God, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Alpha and the Omega, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world! How does He take away our sins? By making the payment that we would have to make otherwise: death, physical and spiritual. He made him to be sin who knew no sin. He literally became sin for us that we could have eternal life. All that is necessary is belief, which a person could learn from John 3:16, but then a person must find out who this “only begotten son” is in whom He must believe.
Mike, Michie, and Barry,
So my question is this, if someone has never heard anything about Jesus in their whole life and then they started reading the gospel of John: are you telling me they couldn’t be saved before they got to the end to know of the resurrection?
Barry, great post… I do not disagree that the resurrection is an essential part of the gospel. A preacher would fail miserably if he preached the gospel without mentioning the resurrection. My only point is I think God can and does save people in sermons that dont mention the resurrection and in reading Scripture before they ever get to the resurrection.
matt,
great question about John! i’ll answer with this: before this hypothetical reader gets to the resurrction, what would he or she putting their faith in? a Jesus who claimed to be God and died on a cross? or a Jesus who claimed to be God, died on a cross, and rose again!?! the latter. that’s what the apostles preach in Acts – Jesus made claims, did things, died, but rose again!
my answer is no, someone cannot be saved without trusting in the resurrection. i’m around a ton of people at TCU who claim to know Christ and be saved, but reject the idea of a resurrection. thus they are rejecting the real, saving Jesus and replacing him with an idol. that may be a non-comparison with your example, but it definitely belongs in the conversation.
i’m sympathetic with your argument, but i (respectfully) disagree.
mike
If you do not believe in the resurrection, I think you are missing what Christ did in obedience to the Father’s will.
He died, knowing He was to be resurrected “in a little while you will see Me”, He was obedient to the will of the Father.
Our faith in Him mirrors His faith in the Father.
Yes.
Without an object of affection the affection is dead. If Christ is not raised we are still dead in our sin: “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” Faith, Hebrews tells us, is substance and surety. It has that which it seeks. One needs to ask from what one is saved and to what hope is one saved? As Paul says: “If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.” And someone might say, yeah but we only learn that later. To the contrary, by John 3 John is developing the eternal life theme with its comfort and eternal condemnation. The hope of life after death in heaven is granted in Christ. But, what hope, Paul is saying, is there in one who is dead? Resurrection then is essential knowledge (and knowledge is essential to faith), for only in it is hope founded. To claim to be born-again and not know Christ is impossible. He said: “Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” And just who reveals himself if Christ is not resurrected? Without the manifestation of the resurrected Christ, there is no salvation.
Gentlemen,
I do not claim to be as knowledgeable as you and certainly not Barry, but I would like to chime in on the discussion.
Could it be that you are all right in some partial way? Honestly, I have no answers only questions.
It could be easily understood that Matt is on to something, if you consider the thief on the cross. How much did he know about what was to happen. Did he hear and understand that when the temple was destroyed it would be raised on the third day? (John 2:19) Also, how did he understand Jesus’ response, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” (Luke 23:43) Was the thief to meet Christ Jesus in Paradise or this earth? Was resurrection simply just not ceasing to exist, but being raised from death into heaven or paradise? I don’t really know, but I’m sure this fellow was saved, because of the Lamb of God’s response. This story gives great hope to people who’s loved one’s have a deathbed conversion. (Those stories leave me feeling a little uneasy, given that I know how deceptive the heart is and how desperately people fear death and the judgment of God when faced with certain death. After all, I think the saying goes, “There are no atheists in foxholes.”)
My next thought involves twelve men in Ephesus (see Acts 19:1-7). These did believe in the coming of the Messiah, but only had been baptized into John’s baptism of repentance. They had not heard how Jesus fulfilled all that John had taught (and more importantly the Old Testament prophesies) and that he died and was raised again and that the Holy Spirit had come. In fact they said, “we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit” (Acts 19:2). After talking with Paul, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then he laid hands on them and the Holy Spirit fell on them, followed by speaking in tongues and prophesying, an outward expression of what had happened inwardly. Now, these guys clearly believed in the teaching of John and that there would be a Messiah. I confess that I don’t know all of what John taught, other than what I have read in the Bible, so did he tell that there would be a resurrected Messiah? I don’t know. My big question is, where those guys saved when only believing what they knew before Paul set them straight? They clearly didn’t have the Holy Spirit before then. (A lot could be said about the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer, but I’ll leave that alone at this time.)
Next, my thoughts go to a phrase that Paul used, namely “being saved” (1 Corinthians 1:18, 1 Cor. 15:2). I hear and have even said that someone “got saved,” yet Paul says “being saved.” Now, here is my simple understanding of Christ. His death on the cross accomplished all that the Father demanded that we could not do. He defeated sin, Satan and death and saved those who would believe in Him and accept this payment as a substitution. Later, He demonstrated the acceptance of His sacrifice by the Father and His victory over death, but rising from the grave. So the believer is “saved.” However, inspired by the Holy Spirit, Paul says we are “being saved.” So, is this a case of already and not yet? I think so. We have been saved and are being saved through Sanctification. So, with this in mind, Matt’s idea that someone reading the beginning of John’s gospel gets saved in the third chapter makes some sense to me. But is their heart stirred with the beginnings of salvation, but not the full knowledge of the gospel? If their faith is true, will they not keep reading and then get to full knowledge by finishing the book of John? I don’t know. I do know that every time Paul refers to the gospel, he breaks it down to include the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
I don’t know; I should probably leave this discussion to you guys. I think when God touches someone’s heart and opens it to His truth it won’t end with John 3:16, unless that person doesn’t make it out of the foxhole.
My question is, why would you even care about Christ or God the Father, Himself, without the Resurrection? It is the pivotal act that shows us God’s Love, Grace, Sacrifice and Renewal, by which we are saved from the wages of sin. Without it, there is really nothing spectacular to believe in – which is what I think Christianity is unique from every other religion.
“if you consider the thief on the cross.”
The thief on the cross said: “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” He believed in the resurrection, that’s clear. Scripture tells us that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. But Jesus tells us that hearing with understanding comes from being born from above. While it is true that regeneration precedes faith, faith intails certain knowledge. That is what it means that faith, i.e., the understanding into which we trust, comes by hearing. We have an informed faith. Can one be saved in the sense of regeneration and not know anything? Ask John the Baptist who was filled with the Spirit in the womb before anyone had ever taught him the Gospel. No the biblical meaning of saved is almost as broad as the definition of faith and the two can be used interchangeably at times. And salvation as you mentioned is prosessional, glory to glory, transformation moving toward consummation in the resurrect. So again, there is the reality that regeneration precedes understanding, it cannot be otherwise, and all who are regenerated will make it out of the womb. The question that is being asked which presupposes understanding, is can someone be saved and not believe in the resurrection. The answer is no, because the faith that we trust into to be saved is in the death and resurrection of Christ. There is no subdividing it. That, “If you cnnfess with you mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” There is no alternative.
This is some great discussion. It really makes me question what are the absolute essentials to the gospel. Part of me hates that question because all of God is essential. We don’t want a stripped to the bones gospel, we want a gospel in as much fullness as our bodies and our minds can grasp without exploding!
Yet, it is an important question at the same time because it causes us to answer the most essential question, what is salvation? Some will say that you cannot be saved if you don’t believe in the Trinity. Without the Trinity, you can’t understand the cross or the Son bearing the Father’s wrath. Some will say you can’t be saved without a reformed understanding of the scriptures, because you ultimately place salvation in your own hands and thus believe in a false gospel.
One question I keep running into is how to answer this knowing my own flaws. I know I have my understanding of the perfect scriptures is not perfect. I try to work the best with the mind God’s given me and the things I come to wrong conclusions about, I know his grace covers me.
So, what can I be misunderstood about while still having a saving relationship with Jesus Christ? I think the scriptures you (Barry) use from 1 Corinthians to back up your point really help us in this. Here Paul is giving us the essentials of our faith.
Definitely good food for thought.
According to the scriptures, faith in Christ and his resurrection are essential to salvation. At the same time, for God to place most human on earth without any opportunity to hear the gospel, and then condemn them to eternal hell for not receiving that gospel is incompatible with him being just, merciful and perfect. Some resolve this with the belief that those without the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel will be provided opportunity to repent and do so after this life.
Good thread on that here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=44123
That said, procrastinating repentance after you’ve heard the gospel is a very very bad idea.
Anonymous,
Thanks for visiting and taking time to comment. I would like to deal with your comment in detail, but I will probably have to wait and devote an entire post to a response. Until then, I would encourage you to read Romans 1 and Romans 9 and 10. I believe a plain reading of those passages proves your conclusion wrong. In the mean time, if you would like to read a simple exposition of Romans 1 and 10, go here.
To all,
Where to begin? First, I want to thank all of you for participating in this discussion. It’s important, and I hope it continues.
Many of you have affirmed what I believe to be true, and you have added some excellent insights of your own. I won’t try to reply individually to every comment, but I greatly appreciate them all.
Since I only have a few minutes, and then I’ll be gone again until late tonight, I’ll try to respond briefly to just a few comments.
Matt,
Thanks for coming over and joining the discussion. What I’m saying is this–that according to the New Testament, no one will be saved apart from hearing and believing the gospel, which includes the death of Christ for our sins, and his resurrection on the third day.
Let me try to approach your objection from a slightly different angle. It seems to me that you’re saying that you believe the resurrection is essential to the gospel, but that believing in the resurrection is not essential to salvation. The only logical conclusion you can come to, then, is that believing the gospel (which includes believing in the resurrection) is not essential to salvation.
Based on Romans 10, 1 Corinthians 15, Romans 1, and other passages, if we remove either the death of Christ for our sins, or his resurrection from the dead, we have gutted the gospel and thereby robbed it of its saving power.
I should note that my wife threw a token of support your way (see Shari’s comment). That’s worth something!
Thomas,
You make an important point: “Without an object of affection the affection is dead.” If we place our faith in any Jesus other than the resurrected, reigning Lord Jesus Christ, we have placed our faith in a dead prophet (even if dead only in our thoughts) or some other Jesus who has no power to save.
Shari,
I think you’re right to point out that a person with a partial understanding of who Christ is may be in the process of coming to the point of faith, but it won’t end there if God is drawing that person to himself.
Isaac,
You’re right. This is not just an academic discussion. The integrity of the gospel, and the salvation of souls are at stake.
To all first-time commenters,
I’m thankful for your participation. I hope you will continue to share your thoughts in future discussions.
Good discussion…enjoyed reading all the responses. Thought I had a pretty clear view point…until I kept reading…then I had to really ponder the question…
I do agree with Barry in that “if we remove either the death of Christ for our sins, or his resurrection from the dead, we have gutted the gospel and thereby robbed it of its saving power.”. Well said.
Mauri,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. It has been a helpful and thought-provoking discussion. Hope you all are doing well!
Barry,
Wives are always better than the husbands…
First, I want to say thanks to everyone in the discussion. I did not have my mind made up on this topic, which is why I asked more questions than tried to give answers.
To be honest, I think Shari, was on to something. I don’t think Thomas is right that it is CLEAR that the thief believed in the resurrection. He could of merely believed Jesus was who he said he was and that he was dying for the sins of the world. And to say that implies the resurrection is OBVIOUS is wrong because the apostles didnt even get it until the resurrection was over!!!!
What a stretch Matt. Read it. “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom…You will be with me today in Paradise.” Now I will grant that Christ’s physical body would not arrive till later, but the fact is He is saying that there is a real place where at least there is existence of an individual nature with which He will commune. So it is not that the theif only knew that Jesus was dying for his sins. Now this:
“And to say that implies the resurrection is OBVIOUS is wrong because the apostles didnt even get it until the resurrection was over!!!!”
For one, I agree in part. We don’t know when the disciples were regenerated. And Peter has a revelation from the Father and three of them behold the Lord in his glory. Something which is not true of the unregenerate. Now the catch. This man was not going to see the physical resurrection three days later. His revelation was more to the likeness of ours (for the time being). Still, the whole passage needs to be considered and if we follow the reasoning of the prophets, they too believed in the resurrection as coincidental with faith, Hebrews 11, esp v 39-40. This man had faith, and believed Jesus was coming into his kingdom (we don’t know that he was not aware of the Prophets) and the Lord confirms his faith with an oath. That being said, the disciples are a different case, and you’re right they don’t understand everything until he is resurrected. But, that has to do with their particular position in history, not the normal knowledge of faith. John the Baptist was “saved” in the womb, filled with the Holy Spirit. But there again, that is not the norm and he did not learn who Christ was until the baptism and then needs to ask again. And in reference to the post, we are not speaking of regeneration but of the condition of salvation as an implied personal knowledge of it, “necessary to believe.” The disciples didn’t know, in Truth. That I will also grant. In fact they ran. So did his mother, though she knew the prophecy. There were none who stood by him. But that is the point, it is a peculiar and isolated case for a specific purpose.
Again, we are not speaking to how one is saved, but what constitutes the knowledge of being saved. At least that is the way I took it. The thief knows at least that he will be with Christ and his impression of that is not denied but confirmed by Jesus. And, I agree, there is very little that we must know to be saved.
No big deal. Unlike the disciples, however, the thief was comforted. The prospect of death will not do that if you don’t know what awaits. Now for what purpose were the disciples afraid? So that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’” Different situation and conditions, so the two cases cannot be compared.
As for the thief on the cross, all we have are his words. We know that at least among those who followed the Pharisees there was a belief in a coming resurrection (the Sadducees denied that but AFAIK the majority of the Jews would have sided with the Pharisees on this). The thief on the cross was likely a fellow Jew, although again we are not told that, but he certainly had an expectation of the coming kingdom and saw Jesus as the Messiah based on his words to Jesus while on the cross. He was no ignorant of the teachings of scripture, and Paul is clear in 1 Corinthians 15 that the resurrection of Jesus is in keeping with scripture. Stating he was unaware of this is to rip him out of the 1st century Jewish context and make the thief a 21st century pagan who knows nothing of God or the Bible. He likely had knowledge, it just did not seem to have taken root in his heart up to that point.
Here the setting helps. Both Jesus and the thief are on crosses. They are both about to die. He is expressing his belief in Jesus even though Jesus and he are hanging there waiting to die. If he was merely expecting Jesus to come down off the cross and be the sort of Messiah that the people were expecting (That is, a Messiah who would get rid of the Romans and return Israel to the glory days of David) I highly doubt that Jesus would have responded the way he did. It would seem much more likely that this thief did believe in the resurrection, albeit, not in the fullness that comes following Christ’s resurrection.
As for reading John and having to wait until the end to hit the resurrection, that is to forget that as early as John 2, Jesus starts to speak of his resurrection,
“Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about the temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. John 2:19-22 (ESV)
Well Barry, I’m late to this and don’t have much to add save that I agree with your position, and a couple of brief points.
As for John 3:16 pulled from it’s context being enough to save someone – I hardly think so. Listen to what it says: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…” who is this Son (it could be any Tom, Dick, or Harry) and what does it mean “gave”? “That whosoever believes in Him might not perish but have everlasting life.” (believes what about him?…) As much as we love this verse, it does not stand on it’s own and is not meant to. It can however be a beginning. I’ve heard of people being converted from hearing a Psalm, but always in a context where the gospel is preached. The Lord is the Author and finisher of our faith. If He begins a good work He will complete it. I think sometimes we go to far with these hypothetical scenarios. The Scriptures you’ve provided are quite clear as to what is the content of the Gospel.
As for the thief on the cross, one could argue that Jesus preached the resurrection right there; or one could argue that the thief was saved in the same manner as the O.T. believers, by faith God’s promise of a Savior. I tend toward the latter, that He believed the word of God spoken to him and his belief was reckoned to him as righteousness.
Thomas,
Good response. I enjoy thinking..
but the thief on the cross had a knowledge base…so he did know something.
Good post, made me think.
I’m glad you pointed me to this post. It’s definitely something that I’m still thinking through. I’m reading McLaren’s Secret Message of Jesus and he rarely (ever?) mentions the resurrection, so this is something I’m mulling over. That said, I think it’s pretty important one or the other, so I’ll keep on talking about it. After all, it was Paul himself who said that if Christ wasn’t raised from the dead, we’re to be pitied. It’s definitely important to our faith!
Glad it made you think. Believing in the resurrection seems indispensable to salvation, in my opinion, if we take 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 at face value.