Although my upbringing was in a foundationally solid Christian family, I was not completely sheltered from the world.  I attended public school, and I hung out with pot-smoking, beer-drinking, sexually active Dalai-Lama fans.  I even dated non-Christians and a Baha’i.  Perhaps my emotional inclination towards inclusivism is due to my background.  People that I love and respect will be damned to hell.  This idea is not appealing.  Nonetheless, my logical facilities recognize that biblical data seems to best fit an exclusivist view towards salvation.  Thus, within me is a head versus heart war over the issue of who and how one is saved.

I believe Jesus experienced this same tension.  He deeply loved the lost and wanted no one to perish.  John writes, “This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.”  (I John 4:9).  God loves the non-believer and Jesus died as an atoning sacrifice because of his great love for the unsaved.  Yet, again and again, the New Testament speaks of Jesus as the exclusive way to salvation (Acts 4:12, John 3:18, John 14:6, Romans 10:14).  God is indeed love, but this does not entail that any path can be salvific. God is not unjust in sending people to hell.  Hebrews 2:3 states, “How shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation?”  In an ultimate act of love he provided a way for all people to escape damnation (I John 3:16, I John 2:5, I John 4:9).  1 Timothy 2:4 states that God our Savior “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”   It is because people reject his manifestation of divine love that God is able to be perfectly loving, yet allow people to suffer eternally in hell.

This is where inclusivists such as Clark Pinnock trip up.  Pinnock builds his argument for inclusivism upon the fact that God is love, and because of this God could not possibly damn good, sincere people to hell.  Pinnock states,  “God’s love for the world is both broad an inclusive . . . Christian theology must speak of universality and of inclusion” (p 95).  Pinnock calls upon 1 Timothy 2:4 in order to support this statement.  However, this verse says that God wants all people to be saved.  It does not state that all people are saved.  Pinnock focuses upon the love of God while overlooking the justice and perfection of God.  God abhors sin, and he does not hesitate in allowing a person who rejects his ultimate gift, his Son, to go to hell (John 3:18, Romans 5:6-11). 

Romans 1:18-20 speaks of the justice and righteousness of God, concepts that must be juxtaposed with his loving nature.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them (Romans 1:18).

God is not unjust nor unloving in sending unbelievers to hell, for God has made his truth evident to all people.  In verses 19 and 20 Paul further discusses the idea of general revelation – creation speaks of the nature and truth of God, a message which all people must be either accept or reject.   Certainly general revelation is enough to condemn a person, but is it enough a save a person?  Pinnock would reply yes to this question.  However, I am not so sure.  Biblical evidence must decide the answer.

The foundation upon which Pinnock builds his argument for this position is his claim that the Holy Spirit works universally to bring all people to salvation.  Pinnock writes, “The centerpiece of modal inclusivism is belief in the Spirit as everywhere active, even in the context of the religious life, in advance of the mission preparing the way of the Lord” (Pinnock, p. 102).   Pinnock paints an image of the universal Spirit as the mode of salvation.  This claim does not fit biblical evidence.  Time and time again the Bible states that salvation comes through Jesus alone, not the anonymous work of the Spirit.   R. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips in their essay supporting particularism focus upon four major passages: Acts 4:8-12, John 3:16-18, John 14:6, and Romans 10:9-15 to prove salvation comes through Christ alone.  Together, these verses construct strong biblical evidence for an exclusivist view towards salvation.

The context of Acts 4:12 is that religious rulers, elders, and teachers of the law are questioning Peter and John by what authority they are healing and preaching.  Peter answers their questions then goes on to proclaim, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven, give to men by which we must be saved.”  Geivett and Phillips pull out four key phrases from Acts 4:12 upon which they build a case for exclusivism.  These phrases are “under heaven,” “given among men,” “must” and “name.” 

“Under heaven” indicates the total exclusion of all other names besides Jesus for providing salvation.  However, Peter does not restrict the scope of to whom the name is given.  “Given among men” highlights the idea that salvation through the name of Jesus is universally necessary.  Likewise, the word “must” emphasizes that salvation comes only through Jesus.  Finally, Geivett and Phillips highlight the word “name.”  This word is highly important for distinguishing inclusivism from exclusivism.  Inclusivists accept the idea that salvation comes through Jesus, but they deny the necessity of possessing specific knowledge concerning Jesus as Savior.  Geivett and Phillips conclude that, “’Name’ refers to the focus of God’s universal redemptive plan in the person and work of Jesus Christ who must be the object of explicit faith by those who want to be saved” (p. 232)

In much the same vein as Acts 4:12, John 3:16-18 and John 14:6 highlight the fact that salvation comes through Christ alone and emphasize the importance of his name.  John 3:16,18 states:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life . . . Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son (John 3:16,18).

This passage stresses the requirement of belief in Jesus for salvation.  Verse 18 also states that a person who does not believe in the name of Jesus stands condemned already. In John 14:6, Jesus states, “I am the way, and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.”  From these two passages it seems clear that indeed it is belief in the name of Jesus, not the universal presence of the Spirit, that is the basis of salvation.

In Romans 10:9-15, Paul builds upon the idea that knowledge of Jesus as Savior is necessary for salvation.  In this passage, Paul discusses the need for one to hear the gospel.  He writes, “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in?  And how can they believe in one of whom they have not heard?  And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?” (Romans 10:14)  This verse communicates the need for human agency in disseminating the gospel.  However, Paul does not mention the necessity of human agency.  Later, in verse 18 Paul goes on to quote Old Testament passages that speak of general revelation, not special revelation.  For example, Paul quotes Isaiah “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me” (Romans 10:20).  From Paul’s discussion on the need to hear the gospel and call upon the name of Jesus, I feel compelled towards holding a position of exclusivism.  However, I remain open to the possibility that people can learn about Jesus from sources other than human agency.

            It is interesting that Paul should pull Old Testament verses concerning general revelation into his discussion of the need to hear the gospel.  In verse 18, Paul quotes from Psalm 19:4, “Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the end of the world.”  In Psalms, “voice” refers to the testimony of the heavens to the glory of God.  The NIV Study Bible interprets Paul’s use of “voice” as preachers of the gospel.  This is certainly possible, especially considering the earlier verses that emphasize human agency.  However, I cannot discount the possibility that the gospel can reach people through other means.  I simply do not see sufficient biblical evidence for the assertion that human agency is the only way by which people can hear the gospel and obtain concrete knowledge concerning the person of Jesus Christ. 

I also do not want to limit the ways in which God can work.  I fall within the sphere of exclusivism in that I feel the Bible states that salvation necessarily and sufficiently comes through Jesus Christ.  In addition, the Bible highlights the necessity for an individual to believe in the name of Jesus – that is, a person must have specific knowledge concerning his/her savior.  However, I do not believe that these criteria for salvation must be relayed through human agency. I am not advancing the claim that God normally chooses to use an alternative source of revelation to bring people to salvation.  Rather, I feel human agency is the standard mode by which God operates.  For this reason he commands us to preach the gospel message to all people throughout the world, and we must not abrogate our responsibility.

This article was written by Aleah