Is there salvation outside Christianity?

Wintery Knight has pointed out a helpful summary by Stephen Notman of the classic title in the Zondervan Counterpoints series on Christian theology, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Edited by Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, the book surveys the different approaches in reconciling religious pluralism with the exclusive claims of Christ.newbookcover

Traditionally, the debate has been characterized by the positions of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. The title includes a fourth position; agnosticism (defended by Alister McGrath). Here is a quick run-down of the positions in the debate:

  • Exclusivism/Particularism: This view maintains that the central claims of Christianity are true and only those who explicitly place faith in the Christ of the Bible are saved. Salvation cannot be achieved through the claims or structures of other religions. It is important to point out that exclusivists do not say that every religion is wrong in every respect, but that only where other religions contradict the self-disclosure of Christ, they are wrong. This is defended by by R. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips.
  • Inclusivism: This view can be broken down into different positions. Generally, inclusivists affirm the truth of fundamental Christian claims, but nevertheless appeal to the love of God and insist that God has revealed Himself, even in saving ways, within other religions.  All who are saved are in fact saved on account of the person and work of Jesus Christ, but conscious faith in Jesus is not necessary: some may be saved who have never heard of him, and may respond positively to the light they have received.
    • Soft inclusivism (Agnosticism): Unconvinced by the clarity of teaching of Scripture on whether those outside Christianity are truly condemned, advocates allow for the faint possibility that God may save some who have never heard of Christ – so long as these individuals respond to God’s grace in Creation and entrust themselves in repentance and faith. Some also go further in arguing that there is biblical reason to be hopeful and not simply agnostic about the possibility of salvation for those outside Christianity. Alister McGrath puts forward a version of soft inclusivism in the book.
    • Hard inclusivism: This view differs from radical pluralism in that it does argue for Christ as the absolute basis of a person’s salvation. But while Jesus may have been God’s principal plan of salvation for humanity, it is argued that salvation itself is not unavailable in other religions. Unlike exclusivism or soft inclusivism, this view emphasizes believing, but not believing in Christ. Jesus is therefore ontologically necessary, but not epistemologically necessary. Some hard inclusivists will also concede that God may yet use other religions as instruments of his salvation. Clark Pinnock argues for this position.
  • Religious Pluralism: This view relativizes every religious claim. According to it, no religion can advance any legitimate claim of superiority over any other religion. Every religion has the same moral and spiritual weight, and offers an equally valid path to salvation. John Hick has been one of the leading voices of this position, and he defends it in Four Views.

Read Stephen Notman’s summary of the debate in the book.

Although no longer recent, the book remains a significant effort to represent the strongest positions and the strongest advocates for those positions. R. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips put forward a convincing exegesis of the important texts (Acts 4:12; John 3:16, 18; Romans 10:9-15; and John 14:6; 17:20) and provide a robust defense of the traditional Christian position. For anyone who has pondered these questions, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World is an excellent introduction.

For further reading on the topic, Ronald Nash’s Is Jesus the Only Savior? is a great book, or Paul Copan’s article If you had been born in another country, is it at all likely that you would be a Christian? The latest issue of Philosophia Christi also features a dialogue on religious pluralism with scholars Keith Yandell, Paul Moser and Paul Knitter.

4 replies
  1. Wintery Knight
    Wintery Knight says:

    Thanks for the link!

    I like Nash’s book a lot and he covers exclusivism, inclusivism and religious pluralism.

    I really recommend that you guys consider purchasing the 2009 Greer-Heard Forum with Paul Knitter. It’s $15 USD and you won’t be disappointed! Paul Copan’s response is AWESOME.

    I’m thinking of blogging on it during the Christmas holidays in case you need more convincing!

  2. Doug Geivett
    Doug Geivett says:

    Nice recap of the book! Thanks for the gracious comments about the portion that Gary and I contributed.

    I participated in the 2009 Greer-Heard Forum and am preparing a chapter for a book to be edited by Robert Stewart, who organizes the Forum. So the topic continues to interest me.

    I may be taking this topic up on my blog eventually.

  3. Other Simon
    Other Simon says:

    I like the direction that McGrath voices. I think christianity will continue to soften the ridiculous exclusivistic views. On the other hand, if it does so completely, christianity will cease to have a border and identity, even as it realizes the truth.

  4. Jason
    Jason says:

    Wintery Knight –

    No problem. Thanks for the heads up about the Forum. Hopefully I can convince someone to put it in my stocking this Christmas.

    Douglas Geivett –

    Thanks for stopping by! The book sounds interesting. Your work has been a great benefit to me.

    Simon –

    That is the rub of pluralism, is it not? To cut all claims of knowledge off from objective truth and reduce religion to merely culturally conditioned responses to the Ultimate is to rob every religion of its voice. The move also, of course, undercuts pluralism itself, because it too is a knowledge claim about the Ultimate. To be able to listen to what each religion is saying and to take the differences in each ideology seriously, we must have some confidence in our ability to get at objective truth. And truth that will, by necessity, exclude falsehood.

Comments are closed.