Although I concluded the series on the book “Salvation in a Pluralistic World”, I felt the need to clarify a few things. I received a very thoughtful response from an inclusivist. See the comment from unkleE after the inclusivist post. He makes some good points, and although I am not an inclusivist, I do agree some/partly with his points.
I am not aware of any exclusivists who think Old Testament believers or babies/young children are condemned to hell and not saved. Even the more restrictive exclusivists Geivett and Phillips (in the book) would not see Old Testament believers and babies outside of salvation. To say that all the Old Testament heroes of faith from Hebrews 11 are condemned to hell would be rather silly. God has revealed himself progressively throughout time. While Jesus had not yet come in the Old Testament, those believers placed their faith in God as he had then revealed himself, trusting in the future promises of a coming Savior.
RBC ministries has this thoughtful article: Are all who haven’t heard of Christ damned? They are exclusivists, but that doesn’t mean God’s grace doesn’t extend to some such as Old Testament believers. They also share a missionary story, and leave open the possibility of salvation for people like Dayuma’s father.
A couple years ago I read a book by the famous missionary to India Amy Carmichael. She told the story of a teenage Indian woman named Mimosa who came by their home. They began to tell her the story of Christianity but they did not get past the Old Testament when her parents came for her. They never even got to Christ! But Mimosa believed with all her heart in the God they told her about, and stopped practicing Hinduism. She was ostracized and had a very difficult life for no longer being Hindu. Many years later she ended up at Amy’s home again, and they told her “the rest of the story” – about Jesus – and her beliefs became complete. I believe if Mimosa had never heard “the rest of the story” that she still would have had eternal life with Christ.
Various Scriptures seem to teach that God will judge people by the light that they had, and by their response to the light that they had (Luke 8:18;12:47-48). I also think Scripture teaches a “willingness principle” – If someone is earnestly seeking the true God, God will reveal the truth to them somehow (John 7:17). I’m reminded of people like Melchizedek in the Old Testament who was not with Abraham, yet Melchizedek was worshiping the true God. God had revealed himself to Melchizedek somehow. Or I think of people like the Ethiopian eunuch and the Roman centurion in Acts. These men responded to the light they had, and God sent them more light – people (Philip and Peter) who told them about Christ.
I hope these thoughts bring a little clarity. Being exclusivist does not mean a staunch, wooden interpretation that there is literally no salvation outside of direct knowledge of and faith in Christ – as that would indeed rule out salvation for Old Testament believers.
Being exclusivist does not mean that we blithely or arrogantly see Jesus as the only way. Yes, Jesus is the only way, and we should be seeking to share Christ with the world. But humility should be part of the picture and trust in God’s sovereignty. We can trust that God will bring sufficient light for salvation to those who are honestly seeking it, and that God may work in other supernatural ways that we are not aware of to bring people to faith in Christ.
God wants all people to receive salvation (2 Peter 3:9), yet that doesn’t mean all people will receive it. Human response must be part of the picture too. The Bible clearly teaches two eternal destinies for those who accept or reject Christ. But…what about people who have not heard and therefore could not accept or reject Christ?
Let us act on what we do know (John 14:6) and leave the uncertain in God’s good hands.
UPDATE: Here is a post with some related content:
More on faith and evidence…Will everyone accept Christ in the end when given a chance?
Enough Light 
Apparently Spurgeon was once asked, “Will the heathen who have not heard the Gospel be saved?”, and answered, “It is more a question with me whether we, who have the Gospel and fail to give it to those who have not, can be saved.” Now Spurgeon was quite reformed in his theology, of course, so he was not questioning a believer’s salvation, but his point is apt: Why do we hold back the Gospel from those who have not heard it? Yowza!
Tim
Challenging thought from Spurgeon Tim! Thanks for sharing. God has told us enough in the Bible to clearly indicate that we should actively evangelize and proclaim salvation in Christ. Unanswered or uncertain questions should not be the primary rudder steering us. We should act on what is certain (John 14:6) and leave the uncertain in God’s hands….which can give us a little more humility along the way. (Instead of arrogance which too many of us evangelicals are known for unfortunately.)
I think this topic could be discussed exhaustively! So many aspects to it.
Thanks for these additional thoughts. I think we have to say that no-one is saved except through Jesus, but we cannot put a limit on God’s grace, and that at least some people who don’t know Jesus (the Jews) will be saved. And therefore that we can’t say exactly how God decides things.
But I think there is another issue. We tend to see God’s dealings with people in terms of personal salvation, but that is a very truncated and not fully Biblical view. We teach personal salvation but Jesus taught the kingdom of God. We teach repenting and believing, but Jesus asked people to also follow him, and that words without action are worthless. We teach free grace and forgiveness, but Jesus also taught that if we don’t forgive others, God won’t forgive us (Matthew 18:21-35). We teach pure salvation by grace through faith, but Jesus also taught that our eternal destiny was determined by how we act towards others (Matthew 25:31-46).
So much of this is more complex than our simple evangelical doctrines infer, and I can only conclude that while we all need to be saved by Jesus, the pathways to that salvation may be many and varied. In Matthew 21:28-32, Jesus tells a parable of two sons, and makes it clear that entry into the kingdom is based on deeds, not just words.
So is it possible that (1) an evangelical who has repented and trusts Jesus, (2) a Muslim who has never heard of Jesus but has sincerely prayed to God for salvation, and (3) a humanist who sacrificially cares for the poor and under-privileged because he wants to do what is right, might all be saved by Jesus? Note that none are saved by their works, not even the last one, they are all saved by Jesus, but the works may be the path to receiving that salvation. Is that too heretical???
I’m not sure, I’m still thinking and praying about it. But it seems to me to fit the Biblical evidence. May I also mention my fuller exploration of some of these ideas at Can only christians be saved? and What message?. Best wishes.
I may reply more later, but for now wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your thoughts. This is a complex issue… and while certain things are clear, other aspects are not so clear. I appreciate your blog by the way, and would encourage others to check it out! You have thoughtful commentary on many issues, and I appreciate your approach.
I agree with your second paragraph. I think the “Revivalism” of the 19th Century sent evangelicalism off in a bad direction…with all the emphasis on “making a decision” and “personal salvation”….and completely forgetting the Kingdom and corporate and “following” aspect of faith. Scot McKnight has a new book out (The King Jesus Gospel) which addresses this issue. I have not read it yet, but want to get a copy.
Your 2nd to last paragraph (So is it possible… ) makes me nervous. I can not go so far, but I am sympathetic with your view. Yes, let us pray that God will give us direction as we consider this issue in our journey of faith.
I am completely with you that Jesus’ kingdom teaching is crucial to understanding life in him. I think another important distinction is to recognize, though, that his teachings such as in Matthew 6 are under the Old Covenant and not the New Covenant (e.g.., we do not need to forgive in order to be forgiven in the New Covenant).
Blessings,
Tim
I hate to disagree after you have been so agreeable, but I don’t think the command to forgive lest we not be forgiven is old covenant. It is in the so-called Lord’s Prayer, which he taught his new covenant followers, and Jesus introduces the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matthew 18:21-35), which teaches the same thing, by saying that it is about the kingdom. And the kingdom that Jesus preached was surely new covenant?
I think we do need to forgive, because that’s what Jesus said. Of course we can be forgiven for not being forgiving, but that requires repentance and a change of heart towards our “enemies”.
unkleE, you can disagree with me any time you like, since you are never disagreeable when discussing these matters!
I understand the preaching of the kingdom as being for those under both the Old Covenant and the New, but to say that those who heard the Sermon on the Mount were New Covenant followers is a bit of a stretch as far as I can tell since the New Covenant did not begin until Jesus’ death and resurrection.
As for whether we must forgive in order to be forgiven, I’ll go with John’s teaching on the state of our forgiveness: “I am writing to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.” (1 John 2:12. Paul and others say much that goes along with this.) Jesus died once for all (Romans 6:10) so, as Jesus himself said on the cross, “It is finished.”
Blessings,
Tim
No, forgiving others does not save us. But it is proof of our own forgiveness. Faith saves. Good works are the fruits of this saving faith.
A pastor friend recently told me that a lot of people will be surprised who they see in heaven! I agree with the unkle e’s post that said “we cannot put a limit on God’s grace” – how often do we do that, including me? It is a humbling thought. One more step in the lessons on my spiritual journey. Patty
Thanks LLM for positive response. Let’s keep in contact about this and other things.
Don’t worry about feeling nervous. You get used to it after a while if you,push the boundaries, and one of the rewards is finding how many are on the same journey, which I take to be some sort of indication that the Holy Spirit is in it. I don’t know whether that is the case on this matter, but I think I will research some more and blog on this soon.
Thanks too to tfaaw for your positive comment.
“to say that those who heard the Sermon on the Mount were New Covenant followers is a bit of a stretch as far as I can tell since the New Covenant did not begin until Jesus’ death and resurrection”
Tim, that would make all Jesus’ teachings, except those after the resurrection, not for us today?? Surely that can’t be true.
Surely the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord’s prayer and the parables (all of which mention this teaching on forgiveness, and all mention the kingdom of God) are preparing people to live in the kingdom, starting there and then, but coming in power after his resurrection and the Day of Pentecost?
“I’ll go with John’s teaching on the state of our forgiveness: “I am writing to you, dear children, because your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.” (1 John 2:12. Paul and others say much that goes along with this.)”
It seems to me Tim that you are allowing one set of passages to over-rule another – the time-honoured, but in my view, unbiblical practice of interpreting scripture with scripture – which generally means re-interpreting or explaining away something – effectively writing that teaching out of scripture.
In this case you allow Jesus’ followers to explain away his teaching. Don’t you think it would be better to say I accept both teachings, even if I’m not sure how they fit together? I think they can be fitted together, as I mentioned briefly in my last comment, but even if we couldn’t, I don’t see how we can just reject a clear teaching of Jesus given multiple times.