Theologians often talk about the "minimum content of the gospel." With this discussion, they attempt to determine the hypothetical "least" a person could believe to be saved. However, most of these conversations assume this minimalist believer already knows a lot. This hypothetical believer, for instance, is generally familiar with the Bible, Monotheism, the Creator, Their own need for salvation/eternal life, etc. I'm interested in a discussion about what the minimum context needed to understand the gospel might be. Let's talk about it a bit in the comment section (or on our Facebook page if you prefer).
In response to Vincenzo Russo, Knowledge of Jesus as the Christ without the Promise of everlasting life is pointless. In John 4 to the women at the well, Jesus said "If you knew the gift of God (eternal life)" and "Who it is who says to you... (The Christ)", She would have asked and Jesus would have given Her living water (The message of life). Notice that even if she knew that Jesus was the Christ and that the gift of God was Eternal life, She would have asked how to receive that gift, and Jesus would have told her how to get it (by believing in Him for it) But according to this passage, knowledge of Jesus as the Christ without the knowledge of the gift of God and how one receives that gift will not result in Eternal life.
To believe in the Son of God is to believe the Testimony of God that we have eternal life and that this life is in His Son. To not believe this testimony is to make God a liar. 1 John 5:9-11
Paul says very specifically that He believed in Jesus for eternal life. 1 Tim 1:16
Jesus is the Christ the saviour of the World, The one who guarantees eternal life to anyone who believes in Him for it. Simple, like Antonio said.
I asked Earl Radmacher this very question. He pointed me to John 11:20-27 as Jesus was going to raise Lazarus and spoke to Martha. To paraphrase Dr Radmacher, he said one must believe that “Jesus IS who He says He IS (God), and He DID DO what He SAID HE CAME TO DO (provided justification to the world by His substitutionary death).
The minimum content of the gospel is likely to be found consistently across the New Testament. Some have advanced that only the Gospel of John can save. It is preposterous. Tying the Gospel to a single promise is also naive, because God has made multiple promises that can only and will only be fulfilled in Christ.
The Good News is quite explicitly linked to the person of Jesus and his identity as the Christ, the Son of God. You believe that, you have believed the Gospel.
Jesus was concerned with "who people say that I am" — to that question, Peter answered with the Christological confession, and Jesus remarked that he was blessed from the Father because of that confession.
When John the Baptist sent his disciples to ask Jesus whether he was the one they were waiting for, Jesus answers quoting messianic passages from the OT. Once again, the focus was on his identity as Christ, not on anything else.
In evangelistic passages such as Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 17, the one thing that is not missing is Jesus' identity.
In Matthew 24 Jesus warns about false Christs.
So, from that point of view, it is pretty clear to me that in order for you to be saved, you must believe that Jesus is the Christ. Of course, you can't make up your own Christ, like the cults do, you must believe in the biblical Christ. But belief in Jesus as the Christ is the essence.
To that, it's interesting to note that:
1. one of the Messianic promises was (and is) the Messianic kingdom to Israel. The fulfilment of that promised was eventually postponed to the second coming — Why? Because Israel nationally rejected, what? Jesus as the Christ.
2. the one thing every cult and false religion denies about Jesus is that he was Christ, the Son of God (divine sonship is an integral part of the biblical Christ).
The Gospel is about Jesus as the Christ. No about what Jesus can do for you. From that point of view, it's not too complicated. But some have decided to make it so.
I think Antonio has simplified it to its essential core. Adding to this would be adding complexity.
In reply to Antonio and for everyone here...
As a former rocket scientist turned pastor, I'd suggest that theology is at least as difficult as rocket science. Now in the particular subject of the gospel, then, yes it is a lot simpler. But I think you still might be oversimplifying things.
Let me look at your list through the eyes of a large people group– Hindus.
"The object of the evangelist is:
(1) Identify the Jesus of the Bible"
What is the Bible?
Is Jesus related to Āchārya or Sadhu?
"(2) Show Him to be qualified, able, willing, and authorized to grant everlasting life to the believer in Him"
I already believe I have eternal life, I am just trying to make my next cycle through (reincarnation) better by improving my karma. Are you suggesting that Jesus is authorized to improve my karma?
"(3) provide the promise of this Jesus"
The promise of Jesus you mentioned doesn't make sense to my worldview. But I'd be happy to merge Jesus into my pantheon of gods if it helps me avoid coming back as a cow.
"(4) and invite men to take Him at His word"
I am still confused, but I would love to have an eternal life where I am not a cow.
"When someone believes in this Jesus according to His promise they possess eternal life that can't be lost."
Your gospel message is very "focused", but presupposes a bunch of Western Christian worldview.
#NotSoSimple
Some questions to consider:
Your entire gospel presentation does not mention God at all. Does one need to believe that God exists to have eternal life?
Do we have a soul? If I have eternal life why does my physical body still die? Why do I need eternal life? Who says I don't already have it?
Do you really think that God loaded us up with the entirety of the Old Testament so that we'd present the gospel without any mention of sin? Or how God provided a way of dealing with man's sin?
Are you suggesting the entire Biblical meta-narrative (the one foreshadowed by Abraham offering his one and only son, and the fact that "God will provide the substitute") is extraneous? (A good rocket science word.)
I know "minimum" is a thought-provoking intellectual conversation. But it is a terrible missional/evangelistic strategy. My goal is to tell them as much about Jesus as will fit the time and space. I'd suggest that was John's strategy. I'd suggest to you that John 1:29 is just as important as John 3:16; that John 8:24 is as important as John 5:24; John 1:1-5 is as important as John 8:12.
Many want to distort the gospel by adding human works to a free offer. May it never be. But in our striving to eliminate human works let's not eliminate the essential context of the gospel and confuse the message by oversimplification.
I'd suggest reading two great resources from Goodseed that capture the wisdom of thousands of New Tribes / Ethnos missionaries who have planted hundreds of churches in cross-cultural contexts:
https://www.goodseed.com/blog/2014/01/06/what-is-the-point-of-the-bible/
https://goodseed.com/pdfs/goodseed-hidden-danger-of-syncretism.pdf
How did OT people become saints? They believed what God promised, and we could assume they believed it because they were persuaded that what they knew about God was true. This is how everyone since creation becomes a saint--they believe what God promised. Interestingly, both the context and content of that promise varies, so essentially they believe in the Promiser. In Scripture, sometimes that is God; sometimes it is Jesus. Is this too simplistic?
So if a person denies that Jesus is the Messiah , and that He is the the Divine and human Son of GOD who was crucified ,died, buried, and rose from the dead but believes in the promise of eternal life , that person has been born again? The object of saving faith is a person not a promise.John17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know you ,the only true God, and the One You have sent Jesus Christ[Messiah]."
Piggybacking on what Antonio said, the required context is what ever it takes to convince the open unbeliever of the truths of item 2. I'm not convinced we can develop a "minimum" context. It will vary from person to person.
If we are talking to an agnostic with some familiarity with Biblical concepts, the context we share will be very different than if we are talking to someone in the LDS church.
This isn't rocket science.
The object of the evangelist is:
(1) Identify the Jesus of the BIble
(2) Show Him to be qualifed, able, willing and authorized to grant everlasting life to the believer in Him
(3) provide the promise of this Jesus
(4) and invite men to take Him at His word
When someone believes in this Jesus according to His promise they possess eternal life that can't be lost.
#simple
They must believe that Jesus is the Messiah,[Christ] Gods anointed Savior, and that He is the Divine and human Son of God, who died on the cross for their sins, and rose from the dead. Upon believing, the new believer automatically receives many things, some of them are as follows: Imputed righteousness, Justification, Regeneration, Imputed eternal{everlasting] life, Baptism of the Holy Spirit, Propitiation, Reconciliation, Redemption, and many more.
If a person is certain that he has everlasting life because Jesus Christ promises it to the believer in Him, then that person has believed all he needs to believe to have everlasting life. Conversely, if a person has never been certain that he has everlasting life, then he has never believed in Jesus, no matter what else he may believe about Jesus (e.g. diety, virgin birth, sinless life, substitutionary death, or bodily resurrection).