Biblical & Theological Issues

(First published in Areopagus Journal Vol. 12 No. 4 – Judaism)

by Jason S. Hiles –

When Jesus claimed to be “the way and the truth the life” and that “no one comes to the Father” except through him, he was speaking to an audience of Jewish men accustomed to the concept of exclusive religious devotion (John 14:6).¹ He and his disciples shared in common a religious heritage shaped by a command to love the one unique God, Yahweh, with all their heart, soul, and strength (Deut. 6:4- 5). In contemporary culture, however, Christ’s all-encompassing statement strikes many as unusually narrow, somewhat arrogant, and perhaps even offensive. Modern people seem to have little regard for absolute declarations which imply that someone or some group has an exclusive claim on truth. Such claims are commonly viewed as naïve at best and as narrow-minded, judgmental, and intolerant at worst. Surely, it is assumed, all religions possess part of the truth and only fanatics are foolhardy enough to pretend that they clearly see and understand the whole of reality.

Interestingly the values and convictions of the larger culture have proven compelling to many in the contemporary church, particularly with respect to salvation. On one end of the theological spectrum this translates into an openness toward a wide variety of religious traditions reminiscent of attitudes in the secular culture. On the more evangelical end of the spectrum this has given rise to proposals envisioning a wider hope of salvation for non-Christians than previously believed in the classical Christianity tradition, especially for those with no access to the gospel. The present essay offers a critique of such proposals from both ends of the spectrum and argues that non-Christian religions do not genuinely lead to salvation even when their adherents have no gospel witness. While perhaps affirming some truth, these religions do not embrace the most critical truths relating to salvation and are therefore not genuinely salvific. Toward this end discussion begins with a critique of two basic contemporary challenges to classical Christian convictions regarding salvation, known as pluralism and inclusivism.

MANY PATHS TO GOD: PLURALISM

Pluralists suggest that the great diversity of human religious traditions actually reflects a shared preoccupation with one Ultimate Reality.² Although this preoccupation gives rise to a variety of religious teachings and practices, it is alleged that they are not ultimately contradictory as much as partial and limited. The diverse religious manifestations of the world, then, amount to culturally and historically influenced responses to a singular Reality. According to this view, while these contextually-bound manifestations are often regarded as absolute by their adherents, in actuality particular religions only apprehend and convey part of the goodness, beauty, and truth of the Real.³

As a way of vividly illustrating this perspective, advocates sometimes offer a traditional Indian story involving an elephant, a number of blind men, and a local king whose perspective is recounted by the story’s narrator. While the story’s details tend to vary, essentially some blind men enter into a courtyard where they encounter an elephant and begin to describe the beast from their individual perspectives. As the king watches, each blind man claims to understand the nature of the elephant as a whole from his limited experience of one part. As the situation develops, the blind men begin to argue with one another drawing a rebuke from the king who can see their arrogance and the ignorance with which they disregard the insights of the others.

The elephant in the story represents Ultimate Reality, while the blind men are representative of religious traditions. The story is told to demonstrate that no group has access to the whole of Reality and therefore no single tradition should presume to possess complete and absolute knowledge of Reality. Thus, various perspectives on the nature of Reality, how humans should live, and what constitutes salvation must be regarded as equally valid. Consequently, on the pluralistic view the story illustrates, people can find salvation through a wide variety of means and conditions from within many if not all of the world’s religions. Religious pluralism can be described accurately as relativism applied to the philosophy of religion. The broad appeal of this position stems from what appears to be openness to other perspectives and the feeling that one who holds this view avoids the judgmental pitfalls of intolerance.

Unfortunately the story does not actually demonstrate what it is intended to demonstrate and as a result fails to uphold the popular values of mental openness and un- biased tolerance. The truth of this assessment should become obvious once one notices that the king in the story represents the pluralist. The king apparently observes Reality from a position lofty enough to offer a sweeping judgment that is comprehensively valid whereas the judgments of the blind men are only partially valid. Furthermore, the king alone symbolically takes in all the world’s religious traditions from a privileged vantage point and then declares that individual traditions are inadequate. Hence, the telling of the story subtly elevates the pluralistic narrator to a position of prominence superior to Jesus Christ, Buddha, and the prophet Mohammed. Additionally, the depiction of Reality in terms of a silent and still elephant unfairly favors an impersonal conception of the divine that parallels a monistic, pantheistic conception akin to that of Hinduism. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that the pluralistic view is no less narrow-minded, arrogant, or biased than the traditional Christian view except that the pluralist is more subtle in professing to grasp religious truth comprehensively. While feigning relativism, the pluralist makes an absolute claim to truth.

Furthermore, by positing that all paths lead to the same Reality, pluralists commit to the notion that all faiths ultimately worship the same “God,” though they refer to the deity by different names. This is to suggest that Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, the Dalai Lama, Rabbi Hillel, and others actually guide their followers toward the same deity. As long as emphasis is placed on similarities such as initiatory rituals, attention to morality, concern for the transcendent, and so forth, this suggestion maintains a measure of plausibility. But of course a major reason for the diversity of religious expression is the diversity of conviction about the nature of Ultimate Reality and its implications. For example, some believe in a personal god, some in an impersonal god, some in multiple gods, and others in no god at all (atheists, some Hindus, and some Buddhists). The mutually exclusive nature of these conceptions renders the pluralist view that all religions offer complementary understandings of the same Reality utterly incoherent. The world’s religions clearly center on contradictory conceptions of the Real that exclude one another, meaning that these conceptions cannot all prove true simultaneously.

Also note that when one thinks fondly of religions and supposes that all paths lead to the same Reality, he is typically thinking of paths advocated by the world’s major religions (Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.). But for consistency’s sake the pluralist must also maintain openness to cults such as the People’s Temple (Jim Jones), Branch Davidians (David Koresh), and the Manson Family (Charles Manson) as well as the occult (Satan- ism, etc.). Most people balk at the idea that these fringe groups offer a legitimate path to the divine, which suggests that many intuitively recognize the deficiencies of the pluralistic proposal. Thus we may conclude that plural- ism does not represent a viable alternative to traditional Christian convictions due to its incoherence, intuitive implausibility, and failure to avoid intolerance while condemning the intolerance of others.

A WIDER HOPE FOR “CHRISTIAN” SALVATION: INCLUSIVISM__________________

If, as Christianity has traditionally affirmed, salvation is only accessible to those who hear the gospel, then some humans live and die and are condemned eternally without any hope of salvation whatsoever. This implication of the gospel troubles some who question whether this traditional understanding, known as exclusivism, is consistent with the character of a loving God. Others wonder if the situation is fair and are troubled by what appears to be a grave injustice. In response to these concerns a number of inclusivistic proposals have been offered positing that a wider hope for the un- evangelized exists than previously recognized by the church. Perhaps, it is suggested, God in some way extends grace to those who have no access to the gospel.

A growing number of evangelicals have attempted to formulate a view generally known as inclusivism that attempts to maintain fidelity to biblically-derived, orthodox convictions while extending the hope of salvation to some who never hear the gospel.⁴ In brief, orthodox understandings of salvation will not transgress at least three biblical boundaries emphasized during the Reformation: Salvation is by (1) grace alone, (2) through faith alone, (3) in Christ alone. An orthodox formulation must acknowledge the devastating consequences of sin and affirm the gracious nature of salvation as a gift granted on the basis of faith alone apart from works.

Advocates of religious pluralism contradict Christian orthodoxy at key points and therefore enjoy little favor among Bible-believing Christians. Proponents of inclusivism, however, attempt to stay within the bounds of orthodoxy but believe that hope for salvation is somewhat broader than suggested by advocates of exclusivism. Central to inclusivistic proposals is the conviction that neither the gospel nor knowledge of Jesus’ name is necessary for salvation, although this broader hope is still grounded in Christ’s atonement. Inclusivism, then, is the view that Jesus is the only Savior but that one does not have to know Jesus or hear the gospel in order to be saved by him.

Inclusivists rightly observe that Jesus’ name and the good news that salvation is possible through him has not been communicated universally. Hence, according to exclusivistic understandings, many will die in sin without an opportunity to be saved through  faith  in  Jesus.  Some  inclusivists suggest that, if  true, this situation would not be fair. Against this suggestion, the author of Romans insists that it is necessary to make a careful distinction between what sinners deserve and the salvation God offers as an undeserved gift of grace. In Romans 3 Paul asserts that “all, both Jews and Greeks [i.e. Gentiles], are under sin, as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one; no one under- stands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave . . . Their feet are swift to shed blood . . . There is no fear of God before their eyes’”(Rom. 3:9-18). This blanket statement dispels all myths of human neutrality, innocence, and proper disposition toward God. For those who cherish thoughts of some noble pagan in an isolated region, living a righteous life before God, the initial chapters of Romans offer a strong dose of realism. Romans does not portray those outside of Christ as genuine seekers yearning for the true God with righteous humility. It claims that fallen people do not seek God and do not fear him. Their words are deceptive and their actions are violent.

This means that according to strict justice no one can plausibly claim to be innocent or assert that God owes him or her anything other than condemnation (Rom. 3:19-20). Hell, then, would be the final just response of a holy God to unholy rebels if not for the grace of God in Christ. By contrast with all that sinners deserve, the grace God offered in Christ should not be regarded as just or unjust. Instead grace must be understood as an undeserved gift (Rom. 3:24) that be- longs to a different category altogether. For this reason suggestions that God acts unfairly toward those who live and die apart from knowledge of the gospel are misguided. They imply that God owes everyone something, namely, an opportunity to be saved. But this understanding turns salvation into some- thing that God owes humans rather than a free gift offered on the basis of grace alone (Eph. 2:8-9). Thus if God chooses to save some rather than none, which would be just given the totality of human rebellion, his just character is in no way impugned.⁵

Careful advocates of the inclusivistic view avoid the misguided notion that the exclusivistic conclusion, if true, would not be fair. They recognize that God owes sinners nothing and is not required to make salvation accessible universally for the sake of justice. Nonetheless, all inclusivists assert God does make salvation available to the unevangelized on some basis other than explicit faith in Christ. At the same time, inclusivists affirm that Christ is the ground of all salvation since God cannot justly pardon the unjust without atonement. Therefore, on this view one can be saved by the grace of God in Christ without knowing his Savior.

If, for the inclusivist, the ground of salvation remains the atonement of Christ, then defining the means by which one receives the grace of God apart from the gospel poses a formidable challenge. Generally it is alleged that some, if not many, respond positively to what may be known about God through nature. Unfortunately this proposition proves problematic because the Bible clearly teaches that no one responds positively in the sense of conforming to God’s standards in a way that merits salvation. A proposal of this kind would lack biblical warrant and contradict explicit biblical teaching to the contrary. Therefore, those allegedly saved apart from the gospel cannot be saved apart from faith of some sort or else the proposal would entail salvation on the basis of human righteousness. Conversely, if the unevangelized are saved by faith rather than works, as required for orthodoxy, then the object of faith becomes the critical concern. Some inclusivists allege that one who recognizes his moral inadequacy can throw himself on the mercy of whatever conception of God he has derived from the light of nature. Will not God grant him mercy? Perhaps, but this creates a rather odd scenario in which many of those saved in this wider hope are pious worshipers of false gods. To borrow a phrase from the Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, such people might be described as “anonymous Christians” who implicitly obey the true God from within their non-Christian religions.

How are we to evaluate the inclusivistic proposal? Although inclusivism offers an intriguing hypothesis, the notion that someone can come to saving faith apart from explicit knowledge of Jesus Christ flies in the face of clear biblical teaching. Paul states plainly that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). Examples abound in Scripture but in essence the Bible persistently connects saving faith and knowledge of the Savior who is the only legitimate object of faith. In light of this fact, the proposition that some actually serve Christ as they worship under the forms of non-Christian religions must be rejected. The Bible nowhere implies that one can serve the true God by worshiping other gods and explicitly condemns non-Christian religions.

This proposal also jettisons vital relational aspects of the gospel. Inclusivism would entail an impersonal situation at best and, at worst, a situation that would be misleading given the non-Christian’s explicit religious devotion to other conceptions of deity. For in spite of all her devotion to another god, on the inclusivistic view, the pagan’s religious commitments would be nullified by a mysterious relationship to an unknown Father, an unspecified Spirit, and union with a Bridegroom she knows nothing about.

The positive biblical case for the traditional exclusivistic view provides additional challenges to inclusivism. Jesus repeatedly taught that he was the sole means to salvation. He also commissioned his disciples to carry his message to the ends of the earth, making disciples among the nations by baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and by commanding obedience to his teaching (Acts 1:8; Matt. 28:18-20). Christ’s commission entails a requirement to turn away from other religious teachings and practices, which would be unnecessary if those practices were already acceptable before God. Paul, who was Christ’s chosen instrument to carry Jesus’ name before the Gentiles (Acts 9:15), made it his ambition to preach the gospel where it had never been preached (Rom. 15:20). But if salvation were possible where it has never been preached, why did he offer a message that could be rejected by already pious pagans who may have been saved already? Clearly Paul regarded the situation of those outside of Christ as ominous and did not hesitate to teach the unevangelized the only gospel by which they could be saved. Paul’s example coupled with Christ’s unambiguous commission to preach the gospel to the nations suggests strongly that responsible Christians should not put stock in a broader hope.

NO OTHER NAME BY WHICH WE MUST BE SAVED ______

Imagine, if you will, finding yourself among the people in one of the World Trade Center’s towers on September 11, 2001 just after a jumbo jet smashed into the floors above you. As people fill smoky stairwells and begin making their way to the ground floor that morning, a sense of dread comes over the crowd. Perhaps some are in denial while others are in despair, but all are aware that the situation is dire. Those who work in the upper levels will have to descend dozens of floors to exit onto the sidewalk below. Now, imagine that someone in the crowd realizes that descending so far in such a short time is not feasible and thus begins to wonder if the building’s architect shared a similar concern. Suppose that person, presuming the architect to be a good and competent designer, begins to openly speculate that the architect must have created alternative exits on the upper floors for precisely this type of life and death situation. If his speculation proved persuasive and people began to abandon the effort to reach the lower level in order to look for hypothetical exits in the upper levels, they would be abandoning the only certain route to safety.

This imaginary scenario is offered to illustrate the dangers inherent in deviating from the unambiguous witness of Holy Scripture in the matter of salvation. As with lower-level exits in the World Trade Center situation, the biblical gospel identifies Jesus Christ as the only Savior and teaches that faith in his name is the only means by which one may be saved. Contrary to the authoritative word of God, pluralists argue that multiple “exits” are available and that each will ultimately lead to salvation in connection with some poorly-defined conception of “God.” As argued above, the view that mutually exclusive and contradictory paths lead to the same end is incoherent, amounts to unsupported optimism, and will ultimately prove destructive. Inclusivism fares no better in suggesting that God saves the unevangelized without a gospel witness through implicit faith in an unknown Savior.

In conclusion, no compelling evidence has been offered in support of the theory that God saves those who do not know Christ Jesus. We may hope that he does, but we have no biblical authority to assert that this is indeed true. Instead, the preponderance of biblical evidence supports the conclusion that the fate of those who do not believe in Jesus’ name will be horrendous and frightful. All genuine believers should be deeply troubled by the situation of the unevangelized, but such concerns do not excuse anyone to offer a hope of salvation that is not offered by the word of God. Rather, these concerns should motivate Christians to diligence in carrying out Jesus’ Great Commission.

Jason Hiles is Associate Dean and Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at the Louisiana College Caskey School of Divinity.

Notes

1 All Scriptural citations are from the English Standard Version.

2 Major advocates of this position include John Hick, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, and Paul F. Knitter. Cf. John Hick and Paul F. Knitter, eds., The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions (Eugene, OR: Wipf& Stock, 2004).

3 The term “Real” as it is used here derives from well-known philosopher of religion, John Hick, who is a prominent advocate of religious pluralism.

4 Examples of important works by notable scholars who hold this position include: Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992); John Sanders, No Other Name (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992); and Terrance L. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004).

5  It is beyond the scope of this essay to interact extensively with the topic of God’s justice. It may be useful, however, to note that challenges to God’s fairness in relation to the salvation of the unevangelized narrows the discussion arbitrarily. One could just as easily question God’s evenhandedness in distributing wealth, longevity, intelligence, and beauty. One could also ask why God chose Abram rather than Terah to be the father of a great nation, David rather than his brothers to be King of Israel, and Paul rather than Stephen to be his chosen vessel to carry the gospel to the Gentiles. Thus, when we read that God “shows no partiality” (Rom. 2:11), it is better to understand that in context we are being assured of justice in judgment rather than a comprehensive equality according to which God blesses all in precisely the same way.