This question is sometimes asked another way: Is Free Grace a crossless gospel?
Many who argue that you absolutely must believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus to be saved reference 1 Corinthians 15 as proof. So we could add another form of this question to the mix:
Is the content of 1 Corinthians 15 the model for Saving Faith?
First, the Bible doesn’t seem intent on answering questions about the minimum content of saving faith. The biblical writers seem more satisfied with supplying as much information about Christ as they have space for, and as much as they can to make their argument. They don’t seem set on trying to dissect the message down to the hypothetical minimum, so I think we must proceed with caution since the Biblical writers didn’t engage in this kind of activity.
I believe that someone can get the saving message from 1 Corinthians 15. Some have noted that 1 Corinthians 15 makes no mention of justification, eternal life, and some of the terms that are considered standard to evangelistic passages. However, it does mention being “saved” (vs 2) by the gospel that is included in the following verses.
What’s fascinating to me is that instead of using terms of eternal life, justification, and righteousness, Paul takes a different approach entirely. He uses the resurrection as a synonym for salvation. It reminds me of Jesus’ discussion on the topic in John 11. So, I believe 1 Corinthians 15 contains a saving message through the concept of resurrection rather than some of the other standard terms we are used to.
With that said, I’m convinced that 1 Corinthians 15 Is NOT designed to be a measuring stick for which we measure all other gospel presentations. It’s a specific approach that focuses on the resurrection. However, I don’t believe we should use it to discount or disqualify other passages as evangelistic.
So when we consider the various evangelistic passages together there are three approaches we could take to the content of the saving message:
My preference is to say number three is most likely to be right. That would mean that someone could technically get saved by believing a gospel presentation that doesn’t include every detail about Jesus’ life.
In evangelizing, if someone mentioned that Jesus is the Son of God and we know so by his miracles but then accidentally neglected to mention that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead, I’m convinced that the listener could still believe in Jesus and receive eternal life, despite not having yet heard of his death and resurrection. However, in actual practice, I think this hypothetical possibility doesn’t do us much good because anyone who neglects the mention of the cross and resurrection should readily admit they’ve made a huge mistake.
To not yet have heard Jesus died and rose, but to be open to it is different from outright denying it.
If someone says they believed in Jesus for salvation, but they never believed that he died and rose again, I would approach that person as if they need to be evangelized. Technically they may have eternal life, I don’t know, but I’m not going to ignore this huge issue. Out of an abundance of caution I would assume they need to be evangelized. So once again, I don’t think the idea that a person might be able to be saved without believing in Jesus’ death and resurrection is a useful theological point, since if a person doesn’t believe those things, I’m going to treat them as if they need to be evangelized.
I believe that Jesus’ death and resurrection is “required belief” in the sense that it is the consummate verifier of Jesus’ identity. If someone believes in Jesus for their salvation but doesn’t believe that that Jesus rose from the dead, then they are believing in the “wrong” Jesus. The Jesus who gives salvation is the Jesus who died for sins and rose again. So I consider Jesus’ death and resurrection as “required belief” in that sense. So, one needs to believe in the Jesus who died and rose to receive his offer of eternal life, not a Jesus who didn’t.
So let’s pull back from the hypothetical and address the practical. When I meet a person who needs to be evangelized, I always treat the crucifixion and the resurrection as if it is “required belief” even if it is technically not. It seems that acting as if they are not “required beliefs” and being wrong, is much more dangerous than if they are technically not “required beliefs” but I teach them as if they are. So while I think it’s theoretically possible for a person to get saved who does not yet know about the resurrection and the cross, it’s only a heretic that would say we should remove their mention from the presentation. From my perspective, all FG teachers I know teach the cross and resurrection, even when they don’t believe it’s technically a “required belief.”
Its for these reasons that I am willing to fellowship and partner with teachers who believe either way, as long as they consistently teach the cross and the resurrection. If someone teaches the cross and the resurrection are absolutely “required beliefs” I am more than willing to partner with them, because there is a strong Biblical argument for that position. If someone teaches that the cross and resurrection are not technically “required beliefs” but they teach them anyway, I’m more than willing to partner with them as well. I do not intend to divide from teachers or believers who have a different preference than I do on this issue.
Lucas, you said, "I believe 1 Corinthians 15 contains a saving message through the concept of resurrection...." What's that message?