PART 1

Our Position

It is our contention that this controversy is unnecessary. Christians (of the true evangelical church) hold to different views on this issue. We think it is mistaken to place this issue on the same level as the previous battle over the bodily resurrection of Christ. In that battle, the essential truth regarding the bodily resurrection was being challenged from within the church. However, this present controversy is quite different. No one is challenging the truth of the deity of Christ. What is at issue is whether a potential convert must know and believe in the deity of Christ in order to be saved, or can they learn about it after they have been saved (as is the case with the virgin birth, the Trinity, the second coming etc.).

In a nutshell, we believe that the minimum content of the gospel message is that given by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1–11, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This then is not a “New Gospel,” but the same old-fashioned gospel that the Apostle Paul preached.

Not only is this view in accord with the Scriptures, but with historic Christianity as well. One very important part of our view is that while we do not think that it is necessary to understand or affirm the deity of Christ to be saved, neither could one be saved who denies the deity of Christ. In other words, one can have an incomplete view of the person of Christ, but not an incorrect one. There is a big difference between not understanding something and rejecting something. Again, there is a big difference between not having explored something on the one hand, and exploring and rejecting something on the other hand. We suggest that an unbeliever can know enough about the real Jesus to be saved (that He died for their sins and rose from the dead) without clearly understanding that Jesus is Almighty God. On the other hand, if one denies or rejects the deity of Christ, they then have a different Jesus, a pseudo-Jesus, that cannot save them (2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 1:8–9).

Of course, there is nothing wrong with including the deity of Christ (or the virgin birth etc.) in a gospel presentation. Doing so does not add anything to the gospel (such as works), but only gives more important information that may help one contemplating faith in Christ.

Further, we do agree with the idea that the deity of Christ is an implicit part of the gospel. In other words, when one thinks through the issue, they will realize that Jesus is God (who else could save them?). We contend, however, that this may happen either before or after one’s conversion to Christ.

What is meant by the Gospel

Normally in this controversy, the word “gospel” is referring to “the content that must be accepted and believed by a potential convert to be saved.” However, the term is also used in other ways. It can also mean: That which is commonly talked about while explaining the gospel. Finally, it can refer to anything associated with the person and work of Christ. (That is the meaning of gospel in the sense that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are gospels).

Normally, when people explain the gospel, they include other facts that are helpful to someone contemplating putting their faith in Christ, even if they aren’t necessary for salvation. For example, Old Testament prophecies pointing to Christ may be considered part of the gospel in this sense, even though such knowledge is not necessary for belief in Christ. Many people that Magnani quotes are really referring to the gospel in such extended ways. For example, look at this quote:

The Lausanne Congress on World Evangelism (1974) aptly agreed the statement: ‘To evangelize is to spread the good news that Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the dead according to the Scriptures, and that as the reigning Lord he now offers the forgiveness of sins and the liberating gift of the Spirit to all who repent and believe.[1]

Notice that this passage suggests that the “liberating gift of the Spirit” is also part of the gospel. However, this is something that even Duane Magnani does not think is necessary to believe prior to salvation. It makes more sense if we understand this statement from the Lausanne Congress to be using the term “gospel” in a sense beyond merely giving the precise content (noticia) of the gospel.

What we mean by “Understanding the deity of Christ”

We normally explain our position by saying that it is not necessary to understand the deity of Christ to be saved. We hope the following will clarify what we mean when we use the term “understanding the deity of Jesus Christ. There are two components to “understanding”:

1. Hearing:

The first thing is that the person must be told the information (content, proposition) to be learned. This can be learned by actually hearing it from a person or through reading it from a book, etc. For instance, a person hears that “Jesus is God.” For this step to take place the recipient must understand the definition of the words. In the above statement, a recipient would have to know what was meant by the words “Jesus” and “God.”

For example, the word “God” includes ideas such as that God is the creator of all things, that he is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Almighty (and in turn the definitions of those words).

2. Apprehension:

This step is our intellectual response to the teaching. It means that you have to understand what was taught in the sense that you know what the words mean together (what the proposition or message of the sentence is). This step only requires apprehending of the statement not the comprehension of the statement. For example, we apprehend the statement that Jesus is God but don’t fully comprehend how Jesus can be God.

The combination of these two steps (hearing and apprehension) is what we mean when we use the term
”understanding.” Please understand that when we use the phrase “understanding the deity of Christ,” we mean apprehension, not comprehension. Our belief is that that an explicit understanding in this sense is not required before conversion.

Implicitly understanding the deity of Christ

The term implicit, as opposed to explicit, is another example of how semantics has created confusion. Webster defines implicit as “capable of being understood from something else though unexpressed.” It is related to the term implied, which means: “to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement.”

For comparison, Webster defines explicit as: “fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity”, or “fully developed or formulated.”

We do not believe that a person has to have a “fully developed or formulated” doctrine of the deity of Christ prior to conversion.

Here is an example that shows what is meant by implicit: If I make the statement: “My car broke down today,” the explicit facts are that the car that I have, stopped working, and that it broke down today as opposed to some other day. Implicit in that passage is the fact that I own a car. I did not say I own a car, but that fact is implied in that statement.

Even though my car is a Ford Escort, I do not consider that fact implied in the previous statement. That is because it does not necessarily follow that when I say “my car” it is an Escort. It could just as well be any other sort of car.

So when something is implied, we do not mean a vague, fuzzy, possible reference. Rather we mean something that can be clearly understood by something else, although it isn’t the main point of a statement.

Duane Magnani says that the Romans 10:9 (“That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord. . . ’”) is an explicit reference to Christ’s deity. If by “explicit” he means that the deity of Christ can be clearly shown from that passage in its context, we agree. However, because the point of Romans 10:9 is not to show that Christ is God, (but rather that because he is God, he is the only object of saving faith), we think that the term “implicit” more accurately describes that statement.

While we can argue whether the term implicitly or explicitly best describes the passage, we all agree it is nevertheless present. The fact that we differ on which English word (implict or explict) to use is irrelevant. We affirm just as strongly as Duane Magnani that the deity of Christ is affirmed in the passage (Rom 10:9–13).

We must always strive to accurately portray someone’s view with their intending meaning, rather than misrepresenting their view through judicious quotations.

Here is an example of what we mean by implicitly believing the deity of Christ:

To implicitly accept Christ as deity means that you accept him for whom he is, namely the Almighty God. This doesn’t mean that at the moment of conversion a convert needs a complete and exhaustive theology on the person of Christ. For example, one can implicitly accept him as God without using such phrases as the “God Man” or “incarnate” or “fully God and fully man.”

The fact that the Bible refers to Jesus as Lord, Christ, Savior, and Creator makes it clear that New Testament Christians believed that Jesus was God. If one examines the Scriptures, it is obvious that the terms Lord, Savior, and Christ could refer to no one else than to the Almighty God. Because those terms necessarily refer to God (as they are used in reference to Jesus), his deity is implicitly referred to by using those words. Therefore, the statement “Jesus is Lord” is an implicit reference to Christ’s deity.

Naturally, if someone has a different definition of the word “Lord” where the object is someone else other than the Almighty God then that would not be salvific. Of course, there is nothing magical about any of these words. The important thing is your response to Jesus. For example, the act of praying to Jesus, accepting that he can forgive your sins and be your Savior and make him Lord of your life all show that you have accepted his deity implicitly.

Problems with Witness Inc.’s position

In speeches on this subject, Duane Magnani often makes what we call “chain of logic” arguments. An example of one of these “chain of logic” arguments is as follows.

· People will call on Jesus to save them.

· Calling on Jesus is the equivalent of praying to him.

· The Bible teaches that we should only pray to God.

· Therefore, anyone who asks Jesus to save them should know that Jesus is God.

The problem is that not everyone can or does follow the train of logic to its proper conclusion. Some may have been influenced by past beliefs, and think it is O.K. to pray to others than God himself (like a saint or Mary). Others may simply be confused about the whole thing, yet understand clearly that Jesus died for their sins and rose from the dead for them, and are willing to receive him as savior. So while anyone familiar with the Scriptures will be able to follow the chain of truth after having had a chance to study the issue, we would be wrong to expect this of all converts.

Another “train of logic” argument is as follows:

1 Corinthians 15:3 says that “Christ died for our sins” as part of the gospel message.
The term “Christ” stands for Messiah or anointed one.
In the Bible, the Messiah is presented as God.
Therefore 1 Cor. 15:3 presents the Deity of Christ as part of the gospel

Again, the train of logic is fine. However, how many potential converts would follow that train? The point is that it is unreasonable to expect all converts to understand such trains of logic. It is also unreasonable to require of converts what the Bible does not require of them.

Notes on the Witness Inc. position

As to the Scriptures that Witness Inc. appeals to in support of their position, we briefly state our understanding as follows. There are verses that stress the deity of Christ in relation to salvation, the most mentioned one being John 8:24: “I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” There is a textual question involved with that passage which greatly affects the interpretation of the verse. Depending on the reading one follows, Jesus is affirming either that he is the promised messiah, or that he is deity (or both). Even taking the view that Jesus is emphasizing his deity; this fits nicely with our view. This is because if one is rejecting the deity of Christ, they cannot be saved. Jesus was right to emphasize his deity to those Jews who openly denied it. That is why we must stress the doctrine of the deity of Christ to cultist like the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Like most of the Jews during Christ’s ministry, Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the deity of Christ. By doing so, they imperil their eternal soul because they have a false Jesus and a false gospel.

This explains why Duane Magnani could find so many quotes by Lorri MacGregor (who does not agree with the Witness Inc. position[2]) since her target audience is Jehovah’s Witnesses who deny the deity of Christ.

In other verses Witness Inc. appeals to in support of their position, it is not the deity of Christ that is being emphasized, but rather it is the authority of Christ that is in view. For example, in Romans 10:9–13, the Apostle Paul is making the point that Jesus is the only object of faith that can bring salvation to everyone, whether Jew or Gentile. Paul’s main point is not to prove that Christ has the nature of God, but rather, that Jesus is the only true object of faith that can give salvation (whether for Jew or Gentile). We do agree that the deity of Christ is affirmed in this passage, but that that point is secondary to Paul’s main point.

Again the idea is not that of accepting that Jesus is LORD (has the nature of God, Yahweh, what theologians refer to as the “objective” sense of the word Lord), but rather, accepting Jesus as your Lord (your master and only hope of salvation, what theologians refer to as the “subjective” sense of the word Lord). This latter understanding is reflected in translations like the King James Version’s “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,” or the New American Standard Version’s “That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord,” or the Revised Berkeley Version’s “that if you confess with your lips the Lord Jesus.”

This is the understanding of the passage by the great commentator Matthew Henry,

Rom 10:1–11 a. Two things are required as conditions of salvation:(a.) Confessing the Lord Jesus—openly professing relation to him and dependence on him, as our prince and Saviour, owning Christianity in the face of all the allurements and affrightments of this world, standing by him in all weathers. . . . (b.) Believing in the heart that God raised him from the dead. The profession of faith with the mouth, if there be not the power of it in the heart, is but a mockery; the root of it must be laid in an unfeigned assent to the revelation of the gospel concerning Christ, especially concerning his resurrection, which is the fundamental article of the Christian faith, for thereby he was declared to be the Son of God with power, and full evidence was given that God accepted his satisfaction[3]

So also are Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown:

Rom 10:9 With thy mouth the Lord Jesus, [Kurion (NT:2962) Ieesoun (NT:2424)] - meaning either, “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as [the] Lord” (so DeWette and Green translate the words); in which case, compare 1 Cor 12:3; Rom 14:9; Phil 2:11; or the meaning may be more general-”If thou shalt confess the Lord Jesus with thy mouth;” the emphasis in this case being on the open confession of Christ (Matt 10:32; 1 John 4:15), and “the Lord Jesus” being but a wonted form of that name which is above every name. We used to take the words in the former sense; but this latter (that of our own version) is probably the correct sense.[4]

Note also the position held by James Denney. Commenting on Romans 10:9, James Denney, then Professor of Systematic and Pastoral Theology, Free Church College, Glasgow, states:

The exaltation of Jesus is the fundamental Christian confession, and presupposes resurrection; and it is this exaltation which here (as in the other passages referred to) is meant by His Lordship. It is mechanical to say that the first part of ver. 9 (Jesus is Lord) refers to the doubting question in ver. 6, and therefore means a confession of the incarnation; and the second part of it (God raised Him from the dead) to the doubting question of ver. 7. Paul nowhere connects the Lordship of Christ with his incarnation, and there is certainly no reference to His Divine nature here. The confession of the first part of the verse answers to the faith in the second; he who believes in his heart that God raised Christ from the dead can confess with his mouth (on that ground and in that sense) that Jesus is Lord.[5]

We note A. W. Pink’s opinion of what it means to call on Christ as your Lord. He states,

We do not ask, Is Christ your “Saviour,” but is He, really and truly, your Lord? If He be not your Lord, then most certainly He is not your “Saviour.” Those who have not received Christ Jesus as their “Lord,” and yet suppose Him to be their “Saviour,” are deluded, and their hope rests on a foundation of sand. Multitudes are deceived on this vital point, and therefore, if the reader values his or her soul, we implore you to give a most careful reading to this little tract.

When we ask: Is Christ your Lord?, we do not inquire, Do you believe in the Godhood of Jesus of Nazareth? The demons do that (Matt. 8:28, 29) and yet perish notwithstanding! . . .When we ask, Is Christ your LORD we mean, does He in very deed occupy the throne of your heart, does He actually rule over your life? “We have turned every one to his own way” (Isa. 53:6), describes the course which all follow by nature. Before conversion every soul lives to please self. Of old it was written, “every man did that which was right in his own eyes”, and why? “In those days there was no king in Israel” (Judges 21:25). Ah! that is the point we desire to make clear to the reader. Until Christ becomes your King (1 Tim. 1:17; Rev. 15:3), until you bow to his sceptre, until His will becomes the rule of your life, SELF dominates, and thus Christ is disowned. [6]

Pink’s opinion is shared by many in the Lordship camp who believe that the emphasis of the word “Lord” in such contexts is on the master/rulership aspect of our relationship to Christ and not on his deity. In fact, we agree with many in the Lordship camp that in Romans 10:9 (and its context), both the deity of Christ and his mastery and rulership are affirmed. To put it another way, the fact that Jesus is Lord (deity) in the objective sense is the basis for his right to expect to be our Lord (ruler) in the subjective sense. Yet, with them we agree that in Romans 10:9, the primary meaning of the word “Lord” is the mastery/rulership aspect. In other words, in order to be saved, one must turn from self (and self rule), to Christ and his rule. A convert has been redeemed by the blood of Christ and belongs to Him (1 Corinthians 6:19–20).

So while all may not agree with this interpretation of Romans 10:9, it cannot be denied that it is a position held by many leading evangelicals. In this light, Romans 10:9 agrees perfectly with the gospel Paul defined in 1 Corinthians 15:1–4, in that salvation comes by turning from self to Christ, trusting in His death for our sins, and His resurrection from the dead.

There is much more in Scripture on this matter, and we will be happy to address questions anyone has on other passages.

Paul’s Definition of the Gospel

One very important and decisive factor is that in 1 Corinthians 15:1–11, the Apostle Paul gives an explicit definition of the gospel message. He says:

Now brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved. . . For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures . . . this is what we preach, and this is what you believed (NIV).

Notice that Paul makes no explicit mention of the deity of Christ in his definition of the Gospel. Now if the deity of Christ is really central to the gospel message, it is unfathomable that Paul would not even mention it in his definition. At most, one could argue that the deity of Christ is implicit in the passage in the word “Christ.” However, if the Apostle Paul included only an implicit, but not an explicit mention of the deity of Christ in his gospel preaching, then on what basis does Witness Inc. demand that the deity of Christ should be explicitly taught as part of the gospel today?

Further, those who hold to the Witness Inc. position will respond to our argument that the gospel is defined in 1 Corinthians 15:1–4 (without mentioning the deity of Christ), by saying something like “Yes, but who is Christ? You have to define who “Christ” is in light of what Scripture says about him, and of course he is God. Therefore, the deity of Christ is contained in the 1 Corinthians 15: 1–4 definition.

This argument is fraught with problems. For instance, while it is true that the Scriptures teach the deity of Christ, they also teach many other things about him. Scripture affirms that Jesus Christ shares in the life of the divine Trinity (contra Unitarianism or Modalism), that he is both fully God (contra Arianism) and fully man (contra Docetism), that the two natures are distinct and unmixed in his person, yet he is one person and not two (contra Nestorianism), that he is virgin-born (contra Liberalism), and that he performed miracles (contra Liberalism). The question for Witness Inc. proponents is: Why arbitrarily pick out one of these aspects of the person of Christ and import them into the meaning of “Christ” in 1 Corinthians 15, and ignore all the others? Why not say that all of these Scriptural truths about Christ’s person are a part of the gospel?

Some Comments on the Position of Reveal Ministries and Don Nelson

We agree with Dan Hall and Don Nelson’s view that someone can be saved without understanding and believing in the deity of Jesus Christ. We originally had some concern that Dan Hall’s view of saving faith didn’t include any intellectual content at all (based on a radical Calvinism). However, after talking to him it is clear that he does affirm that converts need to understand and believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

Nelson has been misunderstood to believe that the deity of Christ for salvation doctrine is a new doctrine in the church. What Don meant by a “new doctrine” was a new doctrine among the people he originally wrote his letter to. He did not mean it was a new doctrine in the history of the church. Here is Don Nelson’s clarification:

It is something that perhaps Duane has misunderstood. It sounds much too stupid to be something I said, if you will pardon such vanity. Chuckle. It is “new” in the sense that Justin Martyr was unclear on the issue in the second century, as was his contemporary, Origin. It is “new” in the sense that the deity of Christ is incorporated into the Athanasian Creed, which Creed in the minds of some should be appended to the gospel. And which Creed is “newer” than the NT. It is probably as “new” as the second or third century, which makes it rather old. Is there anyone who doesn’t know that? My point was that in the earliest, pristine, apostolic presentation of the gospel, that gospel did not go beyond 1 Cor.15.1–3. As you mention, we have no quarrel with Duane’s incorporating the deity of Christ into any preaching of the gospel as a clarification. I always do. I always include the deity of Christ when I preach to Arians[7].

Therefore, Don Nelson and the authors agree that in some sense the New Testament believers believed the deity of Christ, even though we may differ slightly on exactly how much they understood of the doctrine. However, we believe that this point does not affect one’s orthodoxy.

Some Notes on our Position

This controversy is not a question over whether Jesus is God or not. We strongly affirm the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. The question at hand is: is it necessary to believe the deity of Christ to be saved, or can one be saved not yet having explored that important truth?

It would be easy for us to go along with the Witness Inc. position. After all, who wants to sound as though they are compromising on the importance of the deity of Christ? An analogy may be helpful. Sometimes King James only advocates attack other Christians who use the modern translations of the Bible and accuse them of tampering with or attacking the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Why? Because there are verses that speak to the deity of Christ in the King James Version, that are not included in the newer translations. To an uninformed person, it sounds like some are attacking the very deity of Christ, but nothing could be further from the truth. In actuality it is not an attack on the deity of Christ, but merely a textual question involved. By way of analogy then, we are no less zealous for the truth of the deity of Jesus Christ that anyone else. We are simply trying to be faithful to the teaching of scripture regarding the message of the gospel (1 Corinthians 4:6).

Representing Witness Inc., Duane Magnani often makes statements to the effect that it is the unanimous opinion of the evangelical church that the deity of Christ is a necessary element of the gospel. While we acknowledge it is one position that many evangelicals hold to, it is grossly inaccurate to suggest that it is the only position accepted. Some agree with the Witness Inc. position, while others disagree. However, most commentators and theologians do not directly address the question. We offer the following quotations to show that many Christian leaders hold to the position that we adhere to in this work—namely that the gospel is that described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1–4. Again, It is that Christ died for our sins, and rose from the dead.

Adam Clarke in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:11 said this:

Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. [Whether it were I or they] All the apostles of Christ agree in the same doctrines; we all preach one and the same thing; and, as we preached, so ye believed; having received from us the true apostolical faith, that Jesus died for our sins, and rose again for our justification; and that his resurrection is the pledge and proof of ours. Whoever teaches contrary to this does not preach the true apostolic doctrine.[8]

Matthew Henry agrees, “1 Cor 15:1–11 Note, The doctrine of Christ’s death and resurrection is at the foundation of Christianity. Remove this foundation, and the whole fabric falls, all our hopes for eternity sink at once.”[9]

In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Alan Redpath stated,

What are some of the facts? “I delivered unto you first of all”— that is, first in order of importance—”that which I also received,” says Paul, “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” (15:3–4). That is the whole gospel in a nutshell. . . These facts are inevitably linked together: if you take anything away, you have no gospel. These things: He died, He was buried, He rose again, constitute the basic elements of our Christian faith.[10] (emphasis ours)

Theologian Charles Ryrie stated:

Paul gives us the precise definition of the Gospel we preach today in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8. The Gospel is the good news about the death and resurrection of Christ. He died and He lives—this is the content of the gospel . . . This same twofold content of the good news appears again in Romans 4:25: He “was delivered up . . . and was raised.” Everyone who believes in that good news is saved, for that truth, and that alone, is the Gospel of the grace of God (1 Corinthians 15:2) . . . But Paul wrote clearly that the Gospel that saves is believing that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead. This is the complete Gospel, and if so, then it is also the true full Gospel and the true whole Gospel. Nothing else is needed for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life.[11]

In the same work Ryrie also said, “Faith has an intellectual facet to it. The essential facts are that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:3–4; Romans 4:25).”[12] Again, Ryrie has this important statement, “The object of faith or trust is the Lord Jesus Christ, however little or much one may know about Him.”[13]

Another associate of Dallas Seminary, David K. Lowery stated in the Bible Knowledge Commentary:

Paul included himself in the company of all believers when he spoke of receiving the truth of Christ’s death and His resurrection on behalf of sinful people. These verses, the heart of the gospel, were an early Christian confession which Paul described as of first importance. It was really a twofold confession: Christ died for our sins and He was raised. . . the apostolic message was that the crucified Christ became the resurrected Christ, which message Paul did preach and the Corinthians believed.[14]

Another long time Dallas Theological Seminary professor is J. Dwight Pentecost. He said:

Now, what is the good news which Paul preached? It has two facts: the first (v. 3): Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures. . . The second great fact in Paul’s good news is in verse 4: ‘he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures’ [15]

Commentator Ray Stedman stated,

We must learn precisely what the gospel is. . . There are three elements of the gospel, according to Paul. . . First: “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.” That is the first element. . . The second element of the gospel, according to Paul, is that Jesus not only “died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,’ but he was also buried. . . The third element of the gospel is, “he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures”. . . That is the complete gospel—three basic facts. . . That is the gospel as Paul gave it to the Corinthians.[16]

The highly respected radio teacher, the late J. Vernon McGee said this,

Paul says that he declares the gospel to them. What is the gospel? ‘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.’ That is the gospel. These are the facts. My friend, there is no gospel apart from these three facts. That is what the gospel is. Jesus Christ died for you and for me. He was buried and He rose again. That is the gospel— it’s good news. . . The gospel is that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again.[17]

Charles Carter stated in the Wesleyan Bible Commentary that:

He [Paul] emphasizes the primacy of four central factual truths in the saving gospel of Jesus Christ (vv. 3–5). . . These truths are, first, the vicarious, substitutionary, atoning sacrifice of Christ for sinful men in accordance with God’s revealed plan (v. 3); second, the actual death of Jesus Christ on the cross (v. 4a); third, the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a temporal fact, according to the divinely revealed plan (v. 4b); and, fourth, the temporal post-resurrection appearances of Christ to those who knew Him best and were qualified to identify Him. In these four facts rests the essential central saving truth of the Christian religion.[18]

The New Unger Bible Dictionary gives this definition of the gospel:

“GOSPEL 1. The good news of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as provided by our Lord and preached by His disciples (1 Cor 15:1–4). The gospel then is full and free deliverance from sin on the basis of simple faith in Jesus Christ, the vicarious sin-Bearer (Eph 2:8–10).[19]

The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary gives this definition:

The content of the gospel is clearly defined in the NT. It is the accepted message of the Christian church, for it was received by all believers, defended by their reason, and was a vital part of their experience. It was historical in its content, biblical in its meaning, and transforming in its effect. “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures . . he was buried . . . he hath been raised on the third say according to the scriptures . . . he appeared to Cephas . . . “ are Paul’s descriptive words (1 Cor 15:1–6, ASV).[20]

The Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology agrees:

At the end of 1 Corinthians, in the last major unit on the resurrection (15:1–58), Paul returns to the theme of kerygma. Interestingly, at the beginning of this section Paul uses the word “gospel” (euangelion) and spells out the four crucial elements of the gospel: Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and appearances (vv. 1–8). . . Clearly Paul understands “our preaching” as the gospel he has just defined in the opening verses of the chapter. The interchangeability of kerygma and gospel in this passage brings out unmistakenly that the kerygma is the gospel message about Christ’s death and resurrection.[21]

One counter-cult ministry that believes that Christians can be ignorant of the deity of Christ at the time of salvation is CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministries). The director of this ministry is Matthew J. Slick, who holds a Master of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary. Their official website stated:

The Bible itself reveals those doctrines that are essential to the Christian faith. They are 1) the Deity of Christ, 2) Salvation by Grace, and 3) the Resurrection of Christ. These are the doctrines the Bible says are necessary. Though there are many other important doctrines, these three are the only ones that are declared by Scripture to be essential. The truly regenerate may be ignorant to some extent of one or more of them at the beginning of his/her new life in Christ, but he will come to a proper understanding of these three issues as he studies the Word of God. A non-regenerate person, or a cultist (i.e., Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness), will deny one or more of these essentials.[22]

Notice the author states that while one may be ignorant of the deity of Christ, he cannot deny it.

Watchman Fellowship defines the gospel as: “Literally meaning ‘good news,’ the term gospel is used by traditional Christians as a reference to the message of salvation by grace through faith based on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1–4).”[23]

In addition, we note two evangelistic tracts that have been distributed in the millions. One is called “Steps to Peace with God” produced by Billy Graham’s ministry, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. The other is called “The Four Spiritual Laws” produced by Bill Bright’s ministry, Campus Crusade for Christ. Neither of these popular tracts even mentions the deity of Christ, and yet they have been used as an instrument to bring untold numbers to faith in Christ.

We conclude this section by quoting Martin Luther:

. . . to explain that in truth our righteousness comes not from the law and works, but from the death and resurrection of Christ. Whoever believes these facts will be saved as we read in the next verse.[24]

PART 2

Different views of the minimum content of the Gospel

The previous section addressed the question of what the content of the gospel is, and more specifically, whether someone has to understand that Christ is God to be saved. This section explores the more practical question of whether Christians need to divide over this issue. Along the way, we will examine what various Christians have thought about the fate of people who haven’t heard the complete gospel, but have responded to God in some way. This will show that even those who believe that someone can be saved without hearing the gospel (inclusivists) are still accepted by evangelicals as Christians..

Please note that we are not saying that the views we cite are correct; we are only listing them to demonstrate that Christians have had differing views on this important subject. This will help us understand what our position should be toward others who have different views on what the correct content of the gospel is.

Christians differ on what the bare minimum gospel is. Some agree with the Witness Inc. position that you have to affirm the deity of Christ in order to be saved. Others would say that affirming the virgin birth is also necessary. Others would add the doctrine of the Trinity as part of the gospel. One other issue is whether a correct view of the minimum content of the gospel is in itself a salvation issue.

What we are saying is that what you believe the proper content of the gospel message is, is one thing. A separate, but related question is how you relate to others who hold a different opinion on the first question. In other words, no matter what position you take on the first question (what the content of the gospel is), you can either agree to disagree with others who hold a different position than yourself (provided they are orthodox in their doctrinal beliefs), or you can make the first question a test of orthodoxy and consider anyone who disagrees with you a heretic no matter how sound their doctrinal beliefs may be.

Witness Inc. takes the latter approach and brands anyone who disagrees with them on the content of the gospel as unbelieving heretics. In this work, we are arguing for the former position that there is room within the body of Christ for both views, and that we can agree to disagree without dividing from our Christian brethren. We appeal to Witness Inc. in the strongest terms, not to change their view on the content of the gospel, but rather, to realize that we needn’t separate the body of Christ over this issue! We in the church do the same thing in many areas of disagreement, such as the question of baptism, the question of election and predestination, and the question of the “lordship controversy.”

To be consistent, those who believe the content of the gospel should be a test of orthodoxy should have a clear understanding of what is included in the gospel, and what is not. They should be able to list all the doctrines necessary for salvation. They should be willing to take a stand on whether or not the following doctrines are “salvation issues”: The Trinity, the personality of the Holy Spirit, the virgin birth, the truths regarding the dual nature of Christ, the sinlessness of Christ, the miracles of Christ, that Jesus is the Messiah, the bodily resurrection, the ascension, the seating at the right hand of the Father, the second coming, the substitutionary atonement, and any and all other issues relating to the person and work of Christ. From the Witness Inc. perspective, to be unsure on which doctrine is a salvation issue is to be unsure if you were adding or subtracting from the gospel. In other words, you would be unsure if you were a Christian or not according to Witness Inc. reasoning. However, to date Witness Inc. has not produced such a list describing the precise content of the gospel.

We believe that as Christians, we don’t have to agree with those who may differ in their list of what is required for salvation. For example, if someone believes that you have to affirm Christ as the “Son of God” as well as “God” to be saved, and another doesn’t, they can still accept each other because both recognize the truth and teach that Jesus is the Son of God. However, if someone’s list includes things contrary to the gospel, such as a belief in salvation by works, or a denial of the deity of Christ, then they should rightly be considered heretics.

Various views by Christian Writers

In this section, we will examine what some Christian leaders have said concerning the minimum one has to affirm to be saved. The point that we want to make is that while we don’t agree with all their positions, we don’t feel the need to call them unbelievers for their beliefs. This is because they all affirm the essentials of the Christian faith in their doctrinal beliefs.

One view that some Christians have is that people have to believe in the deity of Christ to be saved (The Witness Inc. position). Dr. John Witmer, former Associate Professor from Dallas Theological Seminary has stated in the Bible Knowledge Commentary concerning Romans 10:9–13 that “in these verses Paul stated that the content of the message concerning faith. . . . The confession is an acknowledgement that God has been incarnated in Jesus (cf. v.6), and the Jesus Christ is God. . . . Salvation comes through acknowledging to God that Christ is God and believing in Him.”[25]

It should be mentioned that the Bible Knowledge Commentary, while it is a Dallas Theological Seminary work, does not mean that the school itself has taken a position on the deity of Christ for salvation issue. For example, Zane Hodges, who received his doctorate from Dallas Theological Seminary, as well as taught there for 27 years, and served as the chairman of the New Testament Department, believes that to “believe in the name” is all that is necessary:

Everyone who believes in that name for eternal salvation is saved, regardless of the blank spots or the flaws in their theology in other respects. Another way of saying the same thing is this: No one has ever trusted that name and been disappointed.

In other words, God does not say to people, “You trusted my Son’s name, but you didn’t believe in His virgin birth, or His substitutionary atonement, or His bodily resurrection, so your faith is not valid.” We say that, but God’s word does not.”[26]

Hodges is also a Bible Knowledge Commentary contributor and wrote the commentaries to Hebrews, 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John. Here we have two associates of Dallas Theological Seminary collaborating on the same work, with differing views on the minimum knowledge someone needs to be saved. Contrary to showing that we should be casting out as false teachers those who disagree with us, this shows that Christians have accepted others with differing views on this matter.

The Counter-Cult Salvation

Controversy

A look at the Deity of Christ for

Salvation Issue

Second edition

Steve Devore and Steve Lagoon

Introduction