Death and Resurrection Excluded as Content of Saving Faith

The Death and Resurrection are Not Required Content of Saving Faith

The following is a logical syllogism dealing with the content of saving faith, submitted for your approval.


Premise #1: The gospel and epistle writer, the Apostle John, described for us who is regenerate, who is a child of God, and therefore saved, when he wrote: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God” (1 John 5:1). He also claimed that the one who “believes that Jesus is the Christ” has “life in His name” (John 20:31). Both of these were written well after the events of Jesus’s life.


Premise #2: Many people believed (including the disciples) that Jesus was the Christ without knowing, understanding, or believing that Jesus Christ had to die on the cross for sins and rise from the dead. They believed that Jesus was the Christ during the Judean ministry of John 1-5, which is in the first months of His ministry. They didn’t become aware of His coming death until the third year of His ministry, and even then, denied it (Matthew 16:21-22). As a matter of fact, there were those who believed that Jesus was the Christ and denied and did not believe that He rose from the dead (Mark 16:10-15; John 20:9).


Conclusion: Therefore, the soteriological import of the term “the Christ” does not contain the implicit idea of the Christ’s death for sins and bodily resurrection from the dead. Consequently, the death and resurrection of Christ are not required contents for saving faith.


Summary: The death and resurrection are not the soteriological import of the term “the Christ” for the reason that the disciples and others believed that Jesus was the Christ, and were therefore born of God and possessed eternal life (as per 1 John 5:1; John 20:31), while concomitantly (1) not knowing about His death on the cross, and when finding out, denying it, and (2) denying and disbelieving that He rose from the dead. The death and resurrection are not required soteric content.


If the first two premises are correct, then the conclusion seems to necessarily follow.


What is your analysis? There really are only a few options:

• The syllogism is completely accurate
• One (or both) of the premises is inaccurate
• Or the conclusion does not necessarily follow the premises