Salvation in No One Else?

Christianity is a conversionist religion. From the point of its birth in the aftermath of Jesus' death and resurrection in Jerusalem, the Christian faith has spread via conversion. In the book of Acts, a text that my Bible Study is exploring, makes it clear that the church was to be witnesses to Jesus, beginning in Jerusalem and moving outward to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). One could say that the book of Acts is the living out of that command. A similar command is found in Matthew 28:19-20, where we see Jesus telling the disciples to go into the world and make disciples of all nations. This conversionist dimension makes for an interesting dynamic in an increasingly pluralistic world. It raises all kinds of difficult questions and makes for difficult global relationships.

In our Bible study this past Wednesday we looked at chapters 3-4 of Acts. In the 4th chapter one can find a text that seems to speak clearly to the question of one's destiny. According to Peter:
There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved (4:12).
The biblical context here is the arrest of Peter and John, after the healing of a lame man, a healing that had drawn a crowd. In response to the question of in whose authority they were preaching, Peter said Jesus -- the one in whom the world might find its salvation. Indeed, in this text, we hear that one can find salvation in no other name.

This passage is a difficult one for modern Christians. It seems quite clear that outside of faith in Jesus, there is no hope. It is an idea that Peter takes from Joel (Joel 2:32), which states in stark terms that at the end of days, when the portents of judgment are seen, those who “call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

What do we make of this “exclusivist” claim on our allegiance? What does it say about other religious traditions? At one level this passage isn’t speaking to this issue, it’s speaking to an inter-Jewish debate about who best represents the Israel of God. However, it is also a text that defines, for many Christians, the lines by which God’s people are to be known.

For those who take an exclusivist perspective this text seems quite clear. Outside of Christ there is no salvation -- there is no hope. Interfaith conversation is ultimately fruitless, unless conversion is held out as the end result. You can treat one another with respect, but at the end of the day, one's eternal destiny is at stake.

There are other ways, of course, of looking at this text. Indeed, for the most part, my Bible Study participants weren't at all happy with the exclusivist bent. They wanted something else. It would seem that the easiest solution would be to ignore it or toss it. But is that the only solution?

As I told the participants, one solution is to read this "inclusively." That is, to believe that in Christ all find reconciliation with God, whether they affirm this for themselves or not. This seemed more acceptable, though some weren't sure. There are also pluralist interpretations, which would say that this claim is ultimately relative. This may be true for you, but not for everyone.

I must confess that while I started as an exclusivist, I found this much too limiting and not true to my understanding of the nature of God. At the very least, God would have to offer grace to those who had never heard the message. Over the years, I've tried on several different solutions to this dilemma, including the idea that God will never give up, continuing to offer us opportunities to say yes to Jesus even after death.

At this point in my journey I find myself somewhere in between an inclusivist and a pluralist perspective. I'd be happy with a pluralist position, but for some reason, in spite of my strong commitment to interfaith conversation/work, I still have questions about what at times appears to be a relativist position -- whatever works for you is fine with me. Ultimately, it's not Acts 4:12 that is the stumbling block. Rather it's Paul's words in 2 Corinthians 5 that draw my attention. At this point in my life, I have adopted a universalist position when it comes to salvation.

The problem that is at hand is balancing one's commitment to one's faith with one's recognition that one shouldn't limit God. There are questions here of the particular and the universal. Paul Knitter suggests a way forward in H. Richard Niebuhr's confessional approach. In this approach one shouldn't approach other faiths either with an attitude of superiority or derision, but simply make confession of one's faith and leave the rest to God. As Knitter writes:

With such a confessional christology and approach to other faiths, Christians can hold to their personal, total commitment to the universal relevance of Jesus. In fact, it seems that only such a confessional stance will enable them to persuade others that what God has done in Jesus is meaningful to all human beings. We are persuaded by those who speak with deep conviction of what their savior has done for them. We are not persuaded by those who tell us, with deep conviction, that "my savior is bigger than yours." (Paul Knitter, No Other Name? A Christological Survey of Christian Attitudes toward the World Religions, Orbis, 1985, p. 203).
Knitter suggests that such an approach is both certain and open-ended. Perhaps this is a workable solution, that enables each person to be true to the faith they know as truth and also stand together as people of faith seeking to build a better world. Ultimately, I leave this question in the hands of God. I will bear witness to Jesus and I will work with my brothers and sisters of other faith traditions.


Comments

Anonymous said…
"I have adapted a universalist position when it comes to salvation."

You mean there's no Hell? I can believe anything I want and do anything I want and still go to Heaven? How delightful! And how absurd is religion.
David Henson said…
Yes, and isn't the absurdity beautiful?

I've been thinking about the "uniqueness of Christ" lately and heard someone talk about the idea that anyone who is beloved is unique. So could it be that it is we who make Christ unique. That Jesus is Jesus, but our response to him makes him the Christ?
OneSmallStep said…
**You can treat one another with respect, but at the end of the day, one's eternal destiny is at stake.**

How is respect defined here, though? On the one hand, you can treat the other with respect by not belittling them, or attacking them, or persecuting them to follow your faith.

However, if respect is defined in such a way as accepting the person as s/he is, then I would say the exclusivist is not doing that, because the exclusivist is telling the unsaved person that the unsaved person must change, and become like the exclusivist. Depending on the unsaved person, that can be calling for a massive overhaul to the identity.
Anonymous said…
I hope this post gets a "part 2", as my initial reaction was shock and sadness... however I reread and thought I heard more of a theological struggle than an affirmation.

If that verse causes pause, then there are several others that should cause you shock. "No one comes to the Father, but through me", "whoever disowns me before men, will be disowned in heaven", "narrow is the door".. to paraphrase a few verses. I would challenge you to provide a single verse that would hint at another way besides Jesus.

I had pause with the conclusion of skip it or toss it.. clearly if we start that with the Bible, we begin to create God in our own image. The clay trys to mold the potter.

The essential question a Christian must ask is why did Jesus have to die? If we all go to heaven, then is there really power in faith in Jesus? Did his blood need to be shed? Heaven would essentially be earth.. all the same people, right? Revelations would be an interesting read for the universalist.

Your point about those not hearing God is a good one, but I found some answer in Romans 1:20 that says man sees the qualities of God in nature. We see this all the time with people worshiping the creation of God.

I got the impression your struggle was born out of your desire to be an active part of the interfaith community. Naturally when all sides go through their faiths, there will be exclusion. The Koran is very exclusive and Allah lets in who Allah lets in. Jews believe you must follow the law exclusively. I am sure you don't, but by definition a Satanist could join your group and all heck breaks loose. We don't use our exclusivity as a weapon to drive people away, but we do want our God to be Holy, or "set apart".
Anonymous said…
d,

If salvation is universal, what difference does it make if you are right or wrong about anything you believe?
Anonymous said…
Mr One:
Depending on the unsaved person, that can be calling for a massive overhaul to the identity.

Isn't this known as taking up your cross daily? Whoever will lose their life will gain it?

Maybe thats what you were getting at, but Jesus calls for radical "heart" surgery in our lives.
OneSmallStep said…
Anon,

**Maybe thats what you were getting at, but Jesus calls for radical "heart" surgery in our lives.**

But I'm not talking about my interaction with God, or your interaction with God. I'm speaking about the respect of another person. I can hardly tell a non-Christian "I accept you for who you are" or "I love you" or even "I respect you" when I also in turn tell the non-Christian that s/he must change/be converted. The two are contradictory. I do not love that person for who they are if I'm telling the person that the entire "you" of the sentence must change. Nor do I respect that person, because I'm insisting that the "you" portion of that sentence change.

If the latter is going to be said, then the former has very little validity.
Anonymous said…
One,
Not sure if this changes your equation, but I do believe its God that converts, while we are called to proclaim the Gospel.

If I tell the unsaved I accept you and everything is ok.. when scripture tells me the opposite. Isn't that hypocritical? My 2 year old may have a tantrum.. I want her to change her behavior..doesn't mean I don't love her or accept her, in fact, if I didn't correct her, that would be incredibly cold and heartless. Or are we on different paths?
Anonymous said…
My, so much controversy! The struggle I hear is to accept the fact that God is the God of all creation, and that each human is a beloved child of God. The struggle includes the need to understand the clearly exclusivistic language of the new testament writers means in light of the certainty that God speaks to each culture and each person "in his own tongue". God is not limited, each of us is. And God is capable of reaching through the fog of our cultural limitations and addressing us in a language and in a format which is intelligible to each of us.

John
Anonymous said…
Anon,
You point to "No one comes to the Father, but through me", as if that closes the matter. I point to the story of Jonah, as more compelling, God will not turn his back on so many of his creatures just because of the pious concerns of his prophet Jonah. God's compassion and God's love will not be limited by Jonah's piety, no matter how orthodox.

More arresting yet, consider the implications of "No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me...." I can't help but see in this the message that God chooses who will be a Christian and who will not. And yet I also believe from the rest of Scripture that God loves all his children, without "partiality."

It is my belief that God does not turn God's back on God's non-christian children, nor does God spit in the face of the devout and pious Jew, Muslim or Hindu and damn them for eternity, with a shrug and the consoling words: "Nice try, but you got it wrong - too bad your weren't a bad Christian, at least then I could have forgiven you. But as it is, you got the ritual wrong, your piety, your love and your sincerity notwithstanding; after all it is the form of your belief that matters, not the sincerity of your devotion or the depth of your love for me."

If God is truly Love, then God is love without limits or conditions. And it is between God and each of God's children how each one's salvation will be worked out - it is not for me to judge or criticize the tone of the conversation or the language in which God converses with God's other children. My instructions are to love God and to love those whom God loves - my neighbors.

I need to keep in mind that God will be whom God will be. I need to take God's ineffable nature seriously. The Incarnation was an expression of the Divine, it was not intended to be definitive, exclusive or limiting. To see the Incarnation as exclusively definitive is to put God in a box. Talk about the clay molding the potter!

John
Anonymous said…
Frank and Anon,

Are you really saddened that a pastor should seek to understand how God fits the bulk of humanity into God's plan of salvation in the face of the New Testament's apparent claims of exclusivity? I should think instead you would applaud the pastor's efforts at taking seriously God's claim of unconditional love.

By the way, I think there is a Heaven and there is a Hell. The decision of just who goes where though is most certainly above my pay grade. Not just because I don't have the answers, but because I don't have the emotional and spiritual capacity to bear the responsibility for making such choices.

In the end all we can do is love God and love one another as God loves us. Such love crosses all barriers and moves mountains. The rest is always going to be in God's loving hands.

John
Anonymous said…
John,

Cornwall only takes seriously those things from the Bible that he likes, much like you do. He believes, or pretends to believe, what he wants, and what the Bible says that he doesn't like, or doesn't understand, he "reinterprets" to try to make it fit what he wants to believe, or ignores.
Anonymous said…
Frank,

I take seriously everything Scripture says. I skip nothing. But I often struggle with Scripture's contradictions and I work very hard to find meaning in the competing texts, without ignoring any of them.

For example, for now I am content to understand the text, "the only way to the Father is through the Son", when read in conjunction with the texts which teach that Jesus is profoundly in love with humanity, and with each and every human, by accepting the notion that somehow, someway, someday, Jesus will find a way to cement an eternal relationship between the Father and each and every human being.

In Jesus all things are possible. And, armed with that understanding, I do my best to love each person, Muslim, Hindu, Christian, friend and enemy, saint or murderer, just as Jesus loves me. And I pray that Jesus will bring God's children together with their Father. And that when the time comes the leaves of the tree on the banks of the river of Revelation will be made available for the healing of all the people of all the nations. And I don't count anyone out.

I am a believer, and as part of the universal priesthood of all believers, I have a calling to be a priest not just to other believers, but to a universal congregation. I cannot ignore or give up on the truth that God's plan of salvation is impartial and inclusive and ultimately irresistible.

I don't skip the inconvenient texts, I struggle with them, trying understand why God put them there for me to read them.

John
Anonymous said…
I LOVE the fact there is so much rich discussion and wrestling! Politics is so boring compared to our awesome God!

John.. my only warning to you is when do you begin to create "God in your own image", simply meaning if we use to many "I think" and "I believe", and not have scripture to back it up.. we can risk getting away from what God revealed in his scripture.

I could feel this whole page up with scriptures pointing to Jesus as the only way. Verses about the "book of life" and "those God called in advance", would show some go to Heaven, some don't. Jesus even says "you called my name, but I did not know you" as another warning. Finally, look at the lives of Paul and the Apostles, would they risk their lives and spread a message to the ends of the earth if any religious person could be saved?

I still wonder, if you believe in a Universalist doctrine, why did Jesus have to die? Why does sin need to paid for? Doesn't it make God hypocritical if he says the wages of sin are death, but then turns around and lets sinners have eternal life?
OneSmallStep said…
Anon,

**If I tell the unsaved I accept you and everything is ok.. when scripture tells me the opposite. Isn't that hypocritical?**

That's my point. You can't say you accept a person when in fact you are telling the person you are praying for their conversion. Because the conversion in question is calling for the person you are accepting to change. And thus, the unsaved person you have accepted does not exist upon the conversion.

**My 2 year old may have a tantrum.. I want her to change her behavior..doesn't mean I don't love her or accept her, in fact, if I didn't correct her, that would be incredibly cold and heartless. Or are we on different paths?**

I don't think this example works, though. For starters, the unsaved aren't like the two year old having the tantrum. They're in completely different categories. For the unsaved, in many cases, you can be calling for a massive overhaul of the identity. How they interact with the world, how they treat people, is directly tied into their worldview. Maybe they'll feel that they'll become colder people if they believe that everyone deserves to be tormented for all eternity. Maybe they'll feel that they'll stop seeing who people are, and stop being compassionate, if they become exclusive.

Whereas with a two year old ... they're still learning who they are, how to control themselves. Many aspects of their identity are still being formed. You are correcting the tantrum in order to teach her that it's incorrect behavior, that she can't behave however she wants to get what she wants, and just so she can becoming a functioning member of society. Most unsaved already know what inorrect behavior is, that they can't behave however they want, and what the requirements are for a functioning member of society.

Unless you're saying that just as you must correct your two year old who has a tantrum due to love, you must correct the unsaved due to love. But again: the unsaved are nothing like a two year old.

Although, granted, there are people out there who do seem childish. But I'm thinking of the unsaved who already live decent lives, who care about others, who help others.
Anonymous said…
John,

You and Cornwall are both fooling yourselves. Universal salvation is nowhere to be found in Scripture. You have to pervert Scripture in order to come to that conclusion.
Anonymous said…
Universal salvation is one possibility offered by a God who loves without condition. There are certainly other possibilities. I have to make certain choices and I have chosen to let my choices be guided by the principle of love, charity and forgiveness. God may indeed exclude and deny salvation to some, even to many. I just don't know. And regardless if that is the ultimate resolution God imposes, God has instructed me to be charitable in all that I do and that includes the love I extend on God's behalf to the rest of God's children. I hope for the best, I pray for the best, and I perceive God as willing the best. How God accomplishes that, or even how God determines what is best, I don't know, and it is not my concern, I am the hands of God, not the heart or the head.

John
Anonymous said…
One-
Thanks for calling me out on the 2 year old comment. After I posted it, I thought it was misused. My point was simply this- correcting someone can be the most loving act we can do. Also, I think the word accepting has been misused for the word tolerate. I may love an alcoholic, but doesn't mean I will accept it. Hope that makes better sense.

This is a hard issue because the position I have to take is - believe or burn, when I say Jesus is the only way. You do make a good point about dragging this into the extremes.. which is true for MANY good and bad ideas. To me.. it motivates me to share Jesus more, than hunker down in my exclusive world.
OneSmallStep said…
Anon,

**Also, I think the word accepting has been misused for the word tolerate. I may love an alcoholic, but doesn't mean I will accept it. Hope that makes better sense.**
Well, you realize there might still be complications with with this comparison, too, if you're somewhat comparing unsaved people to alcoholics. :)

But I understand what you mean about correcting someone.

And I'm not asking you to not share Jesus, or to change your beliefs. I'm not asking you to change who you are. I just don't think you can say you respect/accept a person, if you are also praying for their conversion. As you stated earlier, it's a hypocritical position, given what you believe about Jesus.
Simon said…
It's weird how when people read these so-called exclusivist verses, they always read them a little differently to how they're written.

Here the verse in question is "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved". This is a verse which is talking about Jesus, not about us. And yet the commentary goes "outside of faith in Jesus". Where did that bit come from? It is Jesus who saves, not our faith.

Someone pulls up another verse, "No one comes to the Father, but through me", but expects it again to mean "but except through faith in me." Again the focus is less on what Jesus does to save us but on what we do in order to get saved.

For years we've been told that the Bible is a book about us, a book which tells us what we need to do.

How shocking would it be to discover that it's actually a book about Jesus.

Incidentally, I'm a missionary, I preach the Gospel, and I beg people to accept it, to accept the very real fact of the present lordship of Christ and to enter the Kingdom of God. I am called to be a witness to that Kingdom, not a judge; what God chooses to do with people who do not accept that Gospel is outside of my domain as a witness. The whole "if you're a universalist why would you evangelise" argument is, let's face it, stupid - I believe Paul shows strong universalist tendencies in his writing, ("all died... all with live", etc.) and he certainly evangelised. I do the same.

Why? Because I'm not content to reduce our beautiful and manifold Gospel down to a ticket to heaven.
Anonymous said…
When Christ said, no one goes to Father except through me, he is telling the truth or he is lying. Why would Christ be so specific if there are other ways to heaven? If there are other ways to heaven why did he have to die for our sins?

It feels good to say everyone gets to go to heaven by believing whatever you want. However that is not what the Bible teaches us. The Bible is true or it is not. I can't believe in some parts and not others.

With love I am saying, you are fooling yourself to believe there are other ways to heaven other than a relationship with Jesus Christ.

God is specific in how you have a relationship with Him and how you will spend forever in heaven with Him!

It's not about being exclusive. Anyone can except Christ that wants to.

Popular Posts