Dee Dee Warren
March 4th 2004, 08:32 AM
EPISTEMOLOGICAL CERTANTY OF SALVATION: A CRITIQUE OF THE SOTERIOLOGY OF DR. CLARK H. PINNOCK
by Jeremy D. Oxford
Thesis
The focus and purpose of this paper is to examine and critique the soteriological view of inclusivism, as proposed by Dr. Clark H. Pinnock. As of now Dr. Pinnock considers himself to be an optimistic evangelical theologian1. It must be pointed out in the beginning, however, that his stance on salvation cannot be thrown out for lack of nobility. For his views are held mostly out of a genuine compassion for people2. However, man’s compassion, as in all areas of life, must be subjected to the infallible word of God. It must be that way because even our compassion for mankind is corrupt due to the fall. We are beings that are subjected to the imputed sinfulness of Adam from birth and even in a redeemed state of mind we are still marred by the effects of the fall.
Inclusivism, in brief, is the belief that salvation can be obtained through extra-biblical means. This belief says that there are many saved Muslims, Buddhist, etc. throughout the world. Does this seem to contradict the Scriptures? Did Jesus not say, “I am the way the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14.6)?
John 14.6 is one among many texts that points to the valid claim that no one apart from Christ - found only in the Christian faith - can obtain salvation. This will be the focus of this paper.
Inclusivism Further Defined
With the passing of Modernity and the recent rise of Post-Modernity the western church has entered into a new arena of skepticism. Historically, the church until now has held to the validity of the Scriptural claim that Jesus is the only way of salvation and only in the Christian faith can one obtain a true knowledge which leads to salvation. Today that claim has been challenged by many evangelicals.
In this recent rise of Post-Modernism there has been a new hunger for religion. Modernity, in its attempt to answer the questions of ultimate reality, started with man and ended right were it started; it answered nothing and was left only with human reason as ultimate, leaving man with no meaning or purpose in life. Man, in his attempt to be autonomous, has come back to confessing a dependency on the need for religion to satisfy his ultimate need for a supernatural explanation to life and meaning.
All religions and all beliefs seek to find some type of salvation in someone or something. Some faiths seek it existentially or epistemologically, while others might try to find salvation through ascetics or a specific redeemer. No matter what, everyone every where longs for some sort of enlightenment that will give him (or her) meaning and purpose in life.
At this point however, it must be questioned, “Can these other faiths point to the cross of Christ? Can man in his attempt to seek God come to God through Christ via an extra Biblical faith?” The Biblical answer to this question would be no3. However, there are evangelicals today who have challenged this orthodox position. These individuals are known as inlcusivists.
Inclusivism, unlike pluralism, believes that salvation can only come from a high Christology4. In other words, Christ's atonement on the cross is necessary for salvation. However, depending on the context in which one is dealing it does not have to come via the Bible. A saving knowledge of God may be extended to other faiths based on a positive response of faith of God’s general revealing5. This understanding of Inclusivism comes by way of the work of Dr. Clark H. Pinnock.
In the introduction to his book, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, Pinnock defines his inclusivism as thus; “By ‘inclusivism’ I refer to the view upholding Christ as the savior of humanity but also affirming God’s saving presence in the wider world and in other religions.6” He explains his position by stating that he is in some way exclusive in his beliefs but only in the sense that Jesus is needed for the atonement of sin. However, in his words, “it does not deny the possible salvation of non-Christians.”7
Having now established a historical foundation and an understanding of what Pinnock means by salvation, attention needs to be turned to what he sees as fundamental in his soteriology. In his inclusivism he has what he calls two fundamental axioms8. The first is universality and the second is particularity. He states that, “This two-sided truth is found every where in the New Testament.9” He then goes on to quote John 3.16 which says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten so that who ever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life.10” The logic behind this line of thought would be that he views world here to mean every individual which would give him his universal view and then next would be the only begotten son which would be the trade for the world and so that leaves his readers with Christ as being the particular.
Axiom I: Pinnock’s Universality. When speaking of the universality of God’s mercy, Pinnock is referring to the extant of God’s saving love for all individuals from the farthest corners of the earth. As mentioned earlier he believes that there are many children of God who are outside the Christian faith because God is at work among many pagan religions.11 How does he come to this conclusion? Even non-believers have a general sense that the Bible teaches a strict exclusivism. The answer to this question is found in what Pinnock calls A Hermeneutic of Hopefulness and will be the focus of this section. 12
What Pinnock does with his hermeneutical method is bring his presupposed idea to the text that God’s salvific mercy is wide and inclusive to all peoples. He then uses the Bible to find proof texts that will support his claim with little to no exegesis and then concludes by trying to show that he has pointed out a universal principle in salvation. 13
A clear example of this is Pinnock’s understanding of Abraham’s faith. He writes, “The patriarch Abraham was justified by faith without knowing Jesus, and Paul holds him up as a model believer for us all, even though he never herd the gospel (Romans 4.1-25).”14 By making this statement Pinnock tries lead his readers into believing that God saves some outside the Judeo-Christian faith. He does this based off the fact that he was a righteous man apart from the preached message of the crucified Lord. What Pinnock fails to do however, in his presentation of this passage is acknowledge the context in which Paul is writing.
Paul is in no way trying to establish salvation apart from the God of the Bible. In fact he is building a case for salvation that is found only in the Bible that is based not on a system of works.15 This is why he says in verse 2 of chapter 4, “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.” Paul then goes on to add in verse three, “For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed in God and it was credited to him as righteousness.” The faith that the apostle Paul is discussing here is in no other faith than that of the one true God of Israel. Abraham was looking forward to the promise and although he may not have understood the Tri-unity of God per se, he did seek the one true God found only in the Scriptures that was made manifest in Jesus the Christ. The salvation of Abraham was found in no other faith than the one in which God established with him.16
Another fine example of Pinnock’s hermeneutic is found in his handling of the text of Hebrews. Hebrews is a very interesting letter and probably one of the more encouraging of the New Testament epistles.
Hebrews was written to a church that was once a thriving body, the church as a whole was on fire and was willing and ready to walk through the flames of persecution for the name of Christ (Heb. 10.32-33). Joyfully they gave up their property and showed sympathy to prisoners by believing they had a greater treasure, namely Jesus (Heb. 10.34). As time went by their faith grew dim and as it grew dim they began to shrink back from the race of faith (Heb. 10.36-39). It is from here that the author of Hebrews turns his attention to the patriarchs of the Jewish faith in which they were apart of found in chapter 11. Many know this chapter as the “hall of faith”. The reason why the author does this is because the patriarchs were of the same faith. They were not ambiguous entities of a general belief in God. They believed in and served only Yahweh.
However, what Pinnock does with this text is ignore the surrounding context of the entire book. Concerning Hebrews 11 he writes:
The author of Hebrews, after speaking about those who had faith before Christ came, that is, about those pagans[emphasis added] and Jews who had pleased God by faith (all of them as non-Christians), observes that they did not receive what was promised (the Messiah) because God had a better plan, according to which they would not suffer loss (Heb. 11.39-40). Are we not all burdened by the apparent unfairness of a message that we say has universal saving significance, but which has not actually been available to a sizable percentage of the [human] race hitherto? Hebrews wants to tell us that all these people had access to God, even though they longed for a fuller gift that in God’s sovereignty was not yet given historically – namely, the better covenant, the better sacrifice, the better hope, and so on.17 This is a prime example of Pinnock’s exegesis. Not only did he not exposite the text in any real sense to do it historical justice, but he added an unwarranted assumption that some of the people discussed in the text were pagans. He just simply has no proof of this. No where does the Bible lead its readers to believe that pagans were included in the nation of God’s holy people. As well, the Bible also never leads its readers to believe that once a pagan submitted faith to Yahweh they remained in a pagan state.
In the Shema, found in Deuteronomy chapter 6, Moses tells Israel that they are only to serve and worship Yahweh. In verses 4-6 he writes, “Hear, O Israel! The Lord your God is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. These words which I am commanding you shall be on your heart.” He then continues on to say in verses 13-15 that:
You shall fear only the Lord your God; and you shall worship Him and swear by His name. You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you, for the Lord your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the Lord your God will be kindled against you, and he will wipe you off the face of the earth. How can these passages lead the readers of Pinnock’s work to believe what he has set forth in Hebrews is true?
Were there pagans considered to be included within God’s chosen people? The next chapter over in the same book God gives us a good answer to this. God tells His people Israel they are to stay away from the pagan world. He says to them they are not to intermarry with those outside of Israel (Deut. 7.3) and that when they enter into their lands they are to “tear down their alters, smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire (Deut. 7.5).” This does not sound a bit supportive to Pinnock’s belief that among God’s chosen there were pagan followers outside the nation of Israel.18
To speak objectively and give an obvious conclusion to this section will be to confess Pinnock’s hermeneutic of hopefulness as rather a Presupposition of Hopefulness, which carries with it no type of exegetical integrity. In his universality axiom Pinnock shows more concern for what his mind and heart desires than what the text actually says and allows. His compassion for the human race to be saved, as mentioned before is quite noble, but compassion needs to be in accord with the evidence. Jesus said that apart from him there is no other way (John 14.6). The Bible serves as authority on soteriology; readers must submit to that authority regardless of what he (or she) feels.
Axiom II: Pinnock’s Particularity. Having now an understanding of Pinnock’s universality this paper now turns to his particularity. Pinnock defines his particularity by saying that it is the, “…finality of Jesus Christ as the decisive manifestation and ground of God’s grace towards sinners.”19 Standing on the outside looking in Pinnock seems to be making a very orthodox statement. Christ is in fact the only source in which sin can be atoned and He is the only mediator between us and the father.20 However, what he asserts in other places is that there are other ways (paths) and mediations that lead to Jesus apart from the preaching of His word. What Pinnock believes is, “Everyone must eventually pass through Jesus to reach the Father, but there is more than one path for arriving at this place.”21
For orthodox believers, the only way a person can arrive at knowing Christ is via His word and no way else. In Romans 10.17 this is made clear by the apostle Paul who himself writes that, “…faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ.” Faith in Jesus Christ cannot come apart from the preaching of his of his word. Paul believes that if there were no preachers sent there would not be new converts. This means that apart from the knowledge of Christ a person can not be an adherent to the work of Christ and is then, therefore condemned.
In Pinnock’s view, however, a person does not need to have a working knowledge of Christ to belong to Christ. This is seen when Pinnock writes that:
There are other levels to faith than the intellectual. The act of faith is more than cognitive. Authentic faith and holy action may flow from persons inhabiting an unpromising religious and doctrinal culture. Someone might be an atheist because he or she does not understand who God is, and still may have faith… Did Jesus not tell us that giving the thirsty a drink of cold water is an act of participation in the selfless love God revealed in the gospel and makes one his sheep (Matt. 25.31-40)?22 According to what Pinnock is saying here, faith is subjective. This means that the only real objectivity in faith is Christ, therefore, apart from him any genuine effort towards the love of a god or a desire to worship is indirectly towards the true God (and in some cases a god does not even need to be present). This then is quintessential faith in Pinnock’s understanding.
Many Christians recall the sequences leading up to their salvation and conversion in Jesus. In this, many can account for a previous desire to know God in the moments that God was drawing them to himself. However, the believers who confess to this also confess that although they desired him (still not knowing him) they would not consider their subjective desires as acts towards faith in Christ. The difference between the pagan, who offers a thirsty passer by a drink of water, and the difference between a Christian who does the same is motive. The pagan does it because he sees it as some good merit showing his good nature (or possibly in hopes something good will happen to him in return ect…), but the believer does it because it glorifies God and it shows appreciation for man created in the Imago Dei (image of God).
Pinnock’s remarks concerning atheist having faith being counted towards God in Christ Jesus based off of Matthew 25.30-41 is a careless handling of what God’s word actually says. This passage is a product of Jesus’ private words to his disciples that begin back in chapter 24. The scene that the scripture paints for its readers is that as Jesus is coming out of the temple, His disciples meet up with him and they begin to point out the temple buildings surrounding the area where they are located (Matt 24.1). At this time Jesus tells them, “not one stone will be left upon another, which will not be torn down” (Matt 24.2). His disciples, curious at his words, seek him out later as he is sitting on the Mount of Olives and ask him in private, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be a sign of your coming, and of the end of the age (Matt. 24.3)?”
It is from here that the context for this passage can be built. From Matthew 24.4-25.41 Jesus explains to them what is going to take place when this time comes. To help them understand these things he uses his typical method of parables to teach them. Leading up to the end of their discussion Jesus tells them what is going to take place at his return. He is going to gather the nations and as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats at night so he to will separate His people from amongst the nations (Matt 25.32).
What Pinnock tries to imply here from all this is that Jesus is not meaning only his disciples, but also people who are located among the nations that do not confess Christ per se. Since the gospel has not gone out from where they are at this time Pinnock would (or could) try to argue that there are pagan believers that could be read into the text. Although one could see how he could come to this conclusion, that just is not fact.23 Jesus is explicitly leading His disciples to believe that when he returns he is returning for them. Not them only but the disciples of the entire world eschatologically who confess a loyal faith only to Jesus the Christ. Upon his return he will judge the world according to her works and reward His sheep according to theirs.24
Pinnock believes that subjectiveness is a great factor in the lives of unbelievers concerning faith and puts a de-emphasis on knowledge. Ronald Nash observes rather closely and quotes some of his words concerning the importance Pinnock places on knowledge in faith and writes:
Apart from having the true God as its object, the key factor about saving faith in inclusivist terms is its subject aspect. Note these statements by Pinnock:
Faith in God is what saves, not possessing a certain minimum information.’
‘A person is saved by faith, even if the content of faith is deficient (and whose is not?). The Bible does not teach that one must confess the name of Jesus to be saved.’
‘One does not have to be conscious of the work of Christ done on one’s behalf in order to benefit from that work. The issue God cares about is the direction of the heart, not the content of theology.’ 25 The Bible teaches that it is a cognitive imperative that man has a historical knowledge of Christ. The doctrine of the cross cannot be ignored. Thus one can hear the groan of the broken heart of Paul over the Jewish nation when he writes:
Brethren, my hearts desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to God (Romans 10.1-3; emphasis added). Was knowledge not seen as being important to the salvific state of his Jewish brethren? He says that they did not even know about God’s righteousness; however they are still accountable for it, because they suppressed the knowledge which God had revealed in them through creation (Romans 1.19). Paul says, “They exchanged the truth for a lie (Romans 1.25).” It is clear that Pinnock is gravely mistaken in his words when he teaches that a working knowledge of Christ is not important.
In the series of quotes that Nash listed, Pinnock wrote, “The Bible does not teach that one must confess the name of Jesus to be saved.”26 This does not line up with Paul’s words in Romans 10.9-10 when he writes:
That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. Confession of Jesus Christ as Lord is essential in the Christian faith and cannot go unnoticed. If confession was not important in salvation, Paul would not have written it. If confession of Jesus was not important he himself would not had made mention of it. In Matthew 10.32-33 Jesus said:
Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. The Bible clearly teaches that the confession of Christ is apart of the believer’s life.
It could be argued, however, that when Paul wrote Romans 10.9-10 is was written in a conditional/situational manor. This is an argument that inclusivist John Sanders makes27. Thus Nash quotes Sanders as saying:
It is clear from Roman 10.9 that whoever confesses Jesus as Lord and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead will be saved. It is not clear that whoever does not fulfill these conditions is lost. Paul simply does not specify how much a person has to know to be saved. Therefore, this results in a conditional meaning for the inclusivist and ignores the content of the text. Nash then counters the argument by writing:
Sanders regards this passage as a conditional statement comparable to “If it rains, then the sidewalk will get wet.” That is, if you confess Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him, you will be saved. Both conditional statements are true Sanders assures us. But turning the nonbiblical sentence around does not yield a true proposition. The side walk could be wet even though it has not rained. The side walk might have gotten wet some other way – from a sprinkling system, for example. 29 It then cannot be stated by Pinnock that confession of our glorious Lord is not needed.
Conclusion.
When Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me” (John 14.6) He made himself rather clear. That there are those who have made the claim to hold to biblical authority and reject the exclusivity of Scripture in salvation is absurd. From Genesis to Revelation the Bible has shown itself to be a timeless piece and has shown it self to be written to give light unto the world and guidance to God’s chosen.
In his work Dr. Clark H. Pinnock has shown himself to be a passionate yet careless theologian. In the closing of one of his works he writes:
Inclusivism is a timely and appealing model, and I offer it for consideration. It interprets faith in Jesus Christ as not entailing narrowness or pessimism in our understanding of God’s redemptive purposes. I think that if we were to reform theology in the direction of inclusivism, we might enhance the credibility of our faith and render more radical options unnecessary.30 In closing, this paper represents everything opposite to what Pinnock sets forth. Inclusivism as a whole shows no exegetical tact and is a system built around a desire to be as inoffensive as possible with a hermeneutic that seeks to appeal to a pluralistic culture. To reform theology in the direction of inclusivism would counteract to what Pinnock claims and would be the death of faith – for who would need to believe?
300
Footnotes
1. His optimism will be more fully developed further throughout the paper. This optimism is a key component of how he views his soteriology.
2. He also makes the claim that his view is exegetically supported throughout his writings.
3. The Bible answers this in many ways but two brief references to this would be John 14.6 which states: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me.” Also Romans 10.17 which says: “So Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ.”
4. I am meaning Religious pluralism which, “Is the belief that every religion is true. Each provides a genuine encounter with the ultimate. One may be better than the others but all are adequate. See Norman L. Giesler, “Pluralism, Religious” Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), 598.
5. D.A. Carson defines inclusivism as being the, “view that all who are saved are saved on account of the person and work of Jesus Christ, but that conscious faith in Jesus Christ is not absolutely necessary: some may be saved by him who have never herd of Him, for they may respond positively to the light they have received.” The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 278.
6. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 15.
7. Ibid., 15
8. Ibid., 17
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Pinnock bases his belief in this off of the doctrine of the omnipresence of God. He puts his words in a syllogistic form for his readers like this: “God is present as the triune creator and Redeemer everywhere – in the far reaches of space, in every culture, and in every human heart. Therefore, divine grace is also prevenient everywhere – since God has created the whole world, since Jesus Christ died for all humanity, and since the spirit gives life to creation. “Inclusivism”, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, eds., Dennis L. Okholm, Timothy R. Phillips, Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House 1996), 98.
12. Ibid., 20
13. I m not trying to imply that Pinnock is a Universalist in the sense that all will eventually be saved, as some pluralist believe. However, in Pinnock’s writing he does seem to be very sensitive to believing that all “good” people will be saved. That is people who would be considered very moral in there life styles. This leaves the reader with a clear conclusion that Jesus is working amongst non-believers in their faith and operatively converting them apart from the Judeo-Christian message
14. Pinnock, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. 110.
15. When I say that Paul is making a case for salvation through the God of the Bible I do not mean that he is writing primarily to combat inclusivism. I believe that Paul does not even think twice about whether or not his readers believe that salvation can come from outside faiths through Jesus. He is obviously dealing with those who are working within a Biblical frame based off the Old Testament. These are believers whoa re probably very familiar with the Shema found in Deuteronomy 6. Israel would have only assumed the God of the Bible for their source of salvation. Salvation could only come to those who where part of Israel.
16. Concerning Old Testament believers Dr. Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote: Those who point to the Old Testament believers as evidence that conscious faith in Jesus is not necessary for salvation are mistaken both about the nature of Old Testament belief and about the progressive nature of redemptive history. The New Testament contends that old covenant believers trusted in the coming messianic redemption on the basis of the revelation given to them by God (Heb. 11.26, for example) Even more significant, the New Testament asserts that a cosmic shift has occurred in the flow of history with the coming of Christ. The “end of the ages” has come upon us. The Man on the Island: Facing the Truth about those who Never Hear the Gospel. Article from: //www.henryinstitute.org, posted August 18, 2003
17. Pinnock, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, 115-116.
18. This is not to say that pagans then and pagans now cannot be converted. But a pagan cannot be both pagan and believer that is a false dichotomy not found in the scriptures. The whole focus when having gave your life to Christ is that you are a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5.17). Just as we are made new and conform to Christ found in God’s law, so it is true that the converted pagan do the same. That’s why we must insist against what Pinnock says about there being pagan saints (Ibid. 119). However Pinnock also says right after that that, “Not using this terminology [pagan saints] avoids practical embarrassment of calling a Buddhist an anonymous Christian… (Ibid. 120)”, in essence that is what he is still saying. This is an insult to Christians and to Buddhists, because a Buddhist does not want to be a Christian, but rather a Buddhist and Christians do not want to be tied a belief that is contrary to the Bible. It is also important to note here that when referring to Israel I mean those who believe in Yahweh. It is impossible to think of one as a true follower of God and not being apart of God’s Holy nation, for Gentiles are considered grafted in to the promises of God when brought into a relationship with Him.
19. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, 49.
20. In Pinnock’s book – A Wideness in God’s Mercy – he builds a case for high Christology in the Bible. I am not including his foundations for this because I can agree with him (that is, that apart from Christ there is no remission for sin) and there is no real need to comment on this. What I will comment on is his unorthodox beliefs of other religion being used for leading people to a proper knowledge of God.
21. Pinnock, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, 119.
22. Ibid., 118-119.
23. It would also be good to note that no where in the Gospels have the writers made sheep to mean any thing other than those who have a coherent working knowledge of Jesus being the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and savior of there sins.
24. For good commentary on this passage See. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, D.A. Carson ed., (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1992).
25. Ronald H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior?, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 125.
26. See above quotes on page 11 of this paper from Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior?, 125
27. Ibid., 144-145.
28. Ibid., 144.
29. Ibid., 144-145.
30. Pinnock, Four Views on Salvation, 123.
300
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carson, D.A. The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.
Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Edited by D.A. Carson. Grand Rapids, Michigan. William B. Eerdmans Publishing. 1992.
Nash, Ronald J. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishing. 1994.
Okholm, Dennis L. and Timothy R. Phillips, eds. Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Series Editor Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishing. 1996.
Pinnock, Clark H. A Wideness in Gods Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishing. 1992.
Internet Source
Moore, Russell D. The Man on the Island: Facing the Truth about those who Never Hear the Gospel. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. 2003. Accessed Oct. 2003. Available from www.henryinstitute.org; (http://www.henryinstitute.org;) Internet.
300
Notice - The featuring of a particular member article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.
by Jeremy D. Oxford
Thesis
The focus and purpose of this paper is to examine and critique the soteriological view of inclusivism, as proposed by Dr. Clark H. Pinnock. As of now Dr. Pinnock considers himself to be an optimistic evangelical theologian1. It must be pointed out in the beginning, however, that his stance on salvation cannot be thrown out for lack of nobility. For his views are held mostly out of a genuine compassion for people2. However, man’s compassion, as in all areas of life, must be subjected to the infallible word of God. It must be that way because even our compassion for mankind is corrupt due to the fall. We are beings that are subjected to the imputed sinfulness of Adam from birth and even in a redeemed state of mind we are still marred by the effects of the fall.
Inclusivism, in brief, is the belief that salvation can be obtained through extra-biblical means. This belief says that there are many saved Muslims, Buddhist, etc. throughout the world. Does this seem to contradict the Scriptures? Did Jesus not say, “I am the way the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14.6)?
John 14.6 is one among many texts that points to the valid claim that no one apart from Christ - found only in the Christian faith - can obtain salvation. This will be the focus of this paper.
Inclusivism Further Defined
With the passing of Modernity and the recent rise of Post-Modernity the western church has entered into a new arena of skepticism. Historically, the church until now has held to the validity of the Scriptural claim that Jesus is the only way of salvation and only in the Christian faith can one obtain a true knowledge which leads to salvation. Today that claim has been challenged by many evangelicals.
In this recent rise of Post-Modernism there has been a new hunger for religion. Modernity, in its attempt to answer the questions of ultimate reality, started with man and ended right were it started; it answered nothing and was left only with human reason as ultimate, leaving man with no meaning or purpose in life. Man, in his attempt to be autonomous, has come back to confessing a dependency on the need for religion to satisfy his ultimate need for a supernatural explanation to life and meaning.
All religions and all beliefs seek to find some type of salvation in someone or something. Some faiths seek it existentially or epistemologically, while others might try to find salvation through ascetics or a specific redeemer. No matter what, everyone every where longs for some sort of enlightenment that will give him (or her) meaning and purpose in life.
At this point however, it must be questioned, “Can these other faiths point to the cross of Christ? Can man in his attempt to seek God come to God through Christ via an extra Biblical faith?” The Biblical answer to this question would be no3. However, there are evangelicals today who have challenged this orthodox position. These individuals are known as inlcusivists.
Inclusivism, unlike pluralism, believes that salvation can only come from a high Christology4. In other words, Christ's atonement on the cross is necessary for salvation. However, depending on the context in which one is dealing it does not have to come via the Bible. A saving knowledge of God may be extended to other faiths based on a positive response of faith of God’s general revealing5. This understanding of Inclusivism comes by way of the work of Dr. Clark H. Pinnock.
In the introduction to his book, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, Pinnock defines his inclusivism as thus; “By ‘inclusivism’ I refer to the view upholding Christ as the savior of humanity but also affirming God’s saving presence in the wider world and in other religions.6” He explains his position by stating that he is in some way exclusive in his beliefs but only in the sense that Jesus is needed for the atonement of sin. However, in his words, “it does not deny the possible salvation of non-Christians.”7
Having now established a historical foundation and an understanding of what Pinnock means by salvation, attention needs to be turned to what he sees as fundamental in his soteriology. In his inclusivism he has what he calls two fundamental axioms8. The first is universality and the second is particularity. He states that, “This two-sided truth is found every where in the New Testament.9” He then goes on to quote John 3.16 which says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten so that who ever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life.10” The logic behind this line of thought would be that he views world here to mean every individual which would give him his universal view and then next would be the only begotten son which would be the trade for the world and so that leaves his readers with Christ as being the particular.
Axiom I: Pinnock’s Universality. When speaking of the universality of God’s mercy, Pinnock is referring to the extant of God’s saving love for all individuals from the farthest corners of the earth. As mentioned earlier he believes that there are many children of God who are outside the Christian faith because God is at work among many pagan religions.11 How does he come to this conclusion? Even non-believers have a general sense that the Bible teaches a strict exclusivism. The answer to this question is found in what Pinnock calls A Hermeneutic of Hopefulness and will be the focus of this section. 12
What Pinnock does with his hermeneutical method is bring his presupposed idea to the text that God’s salvific mercy is wide and inclusive to all peoples. He then uses the Bible to find proof texts that will support his claim with little to no exegesis and then concludes by trying to show that he has pointed out a universal principle in salvation. 13
A clear example of this is Pinnock’s understanding of Abraham’s faith. He writes, “The patriarch Abraham was justified by faith without knowing Jesus, and Paul holds him up as a model believer for us all, even though he never herd the gospel (Romans 4.1-25).”14 By making this statement Pinnock tries lead his readers into believing that God saves some outside the Judeo-Christian faith. He does this based off the fact that he was a righteous man apart from the preached message of the crucified Lord. What Pinnock fails to do however, in his presentation of this passage is acknowledge the context in which Paul is writing.
Paul is in no way trying to establish salvation apart from the God of the Bible. In fact he is building a case for salvation that is found only in the Bible that is based not on a system of works.15 This is why he says in verse 2 of chapter 4, “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.” Paul then goes on to add in verse three, “For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed in God and it was credited to him as righteousness.” The faith that the apostle Paul is discussing here is in no other faith than that of the one true God of Israel. Abraham was looking forward to the promise and although he may not have understood the Tri-unity of God per se, he did seek the one true God found only in the Scriptures that was made manifest in Jesus the Christ. The salvation of Abraham was found in no other faith than the one in which God established with him.16
Another fine example of Pinnock’s hermeneutic is found in his handling of the text of Hebrews. Hebrews is a very interesting letter and probably one of the more encouraging of the New Testament epistles.
Hebrews was written to a church that was once a thriving body, the church as a whole was on fire and was willing and ready to walk through the flames of persecution for the name of Christ (Heb. 10.32-33). Joyfully they gave up their property and showed sympathy to prisoners by believing they had a greater treasure, namely Jesus (Heb. 10.34). As time went by their faith grew dim and as it grew dim they began to shrink back from the race of faith (Heb. 10.36-39). It is from here that the author of Hebrews turns his attention to the patriarchs of the Jewish faith in which they were apart of found in chapter 11. Many know this chapter as the “hall of faith”. The reason why the author does this is because the patriarchs were of the same faith. They were not ambiguous entities of a general belief in God. They believed in and served only Yahweh.
However, what Pinnock does with this text is ignore the surrounding context of the entire book. Concerning Hebrews 11 he writes:
The author of Hebrews, after speaking about those who had faith before Christ came, that is, about those pagans[emphasis added] and Jews who had pleased God by faith (all of them as non-Christians), observes that they did not receive what was promised (the Messiah) because God had a better plan, according to which they would not suffer loss (Heb. 11.39-40). Are we not all burdened by the apparent unfairness of a message that we say has universal saving significance, but which has not actually been available to a sizable percentage of the [human] race hitherto? Hebrews wants to tell us that all these people had access to God, even though they longed for a fuller gift that in God’s sovereignty was not yet given historically – namely, the better covenant, the better sacrifice, the better hope, and so on.17 This is a prime example of Pinnock’s exegesis. Not only did he not exposite the text in any real sense to do it historical justice, but he added an unwarranted assumption that some of the people discussed in the text were pagans. He just simply has no proof of this. No where does the Bible lead its readers to believe that pagans were included in the nation of God’s holy people. As well, the Bible also never leads its readers to believe that once a pagan submitted faith to Yahweh they remained in a pagan state.
In the Shema, found in Deuteronomy chapter 6, Moses tells Israel that they are only to serve and worship Yahweh. In verses 4-6 he writes, “Hear, O Israel! The Lord your God is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. These words which I am commanding you shall be on your heart.” He then continues on to say in verses 13-15 that:
You shall fear only the Lord your God; and you shall worship Him and swear by His name. You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you, for the Lord your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the Lord your God will be kindled against you, and he will wipe you off the face of the earth. How can these passages lead the readers of Pinnock’s work to believe what he has set forth in Hebrews is true?
Were there pagans considered to be included within God’s chosen people? The next chapter over in the same book God gives us a good answer to this. God tells His people Israel they are to stay away from the pagan world. He says to them they are not to intermarry with those outside of Israel (Deut. 7.3) and that when they enter into their lands they are to “tear down their alters, smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their graven images with fire (Deut. 7.5).” This does not sound a bit supportive to Pinnock’s belief that among God’s chosen there were pagan followers outside the nation of Israel.18
To speak objectively and give an obvious conclusion to this section will be to confess Pinnock’s hermeneutic of hopefulness as rather a Presupposition of Hopefulness, which carries with it no type of exegetical integrity. In his universality axiom Pinnock shows more concern for what his mind and heart desires than what the text actually says and allows. His compassion for the human race to be saved, as mentioned before is quite noble, but compassion needs to be in accord with the evidence. Jesus said that apart from him there is no other way (John 14.6). The Bible serves as authority on soteriology; readers must submit to that authority regardless of what he (or she) feels.
Axiom II: Pinnock’s Particularity. Having now an understanding of Pinnock’s universality this paper now turns to his particularity. Pinnock defines his particularity by saying that it is the, “…finality of Jesus Christ as the decisive manifestation and ground of God’s grace towards sinners.”19 Standing on the outside looking in Pinnock seems to be making a very orthodox statement. Christ is in fact the only source in which sin can be atoned and He is the only mediator between us and the father.20 However, what he asserts in other places is that there are other ways (paths) and mediations that lead to Jesus apart from the preaching of His word. What Pinnock believes is, “Everyone must eventually pass through Jesus to reach the Father, but there is more than one path for arriving at this place.”21
For orthodox believers, the only way a person can arrive at knowing Christ is via His word and no way else. In Romans 10.17 this is made clear by the apostle Paul who himself writes that, “…faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ.” Faith in Jesus Christ cannot come apart from the preaching of his of his word. Paul believes that if there were no preachers sent there would not be new converts. This means that apart from the knowledge of Christ a person can not be an adherent to the work of Christ and is then, therefore condemned.
In Pinnock’s view, however, a person does not need to have a working knowledge of Christ to belong to Christ. This is seen when Pinnock writes that:
There are other levels to faith than the intellectual. The act of faith is more than cognitive. Authentic faith and holy action may flow from persons inhabiting an unpromising religious and doctrinal culture. Someone might be an atheist because he or she does not understand who God is, and still may have faith… Did Jesus not tell us that giving the thirsty a drink of cold water is an act of participation in the selfless love God revealed in the gospel and makes one his sheep (Matt. 25.31-40)?22 According to what Pinnock is saying here, faith is subjective. This means that the only real objectivity in faith is Christ, therefore, apart from him any genuine effort towards the love of a god or a desire to worship is indirectly towards the true God (and in some cases a god does not even need to be present). This then is quintessential faith in Pinnock’s understanding.
Many Christians recall the sequences leading up to their salvation and conversion in Jesus. In this, many can account for a previous desire to know God in the moments that God was drawing them to himself. However, the believers who confess to this also confess that although they desired him (still not knowing him) they would not consider their subjective desires as acts towards faith in Christ. The difference between the pagan, who offers a thirsty passer by a drink of water, and the difference between a Christian who does the same is motive. The pagan does it because he sees it as some good merit showing his good nature (or possibly in hopes something good will happen to him in return ect…), but the believer does it because it glorifies God and it shows appreciation for man created in the Imago Dei (image of God).
Pinnock’s remarks concerning atheist having faith being counted towards God in Christ Jesus based off of Matthew 25.30-41 is a careless handling of what God’s word actually says. This passage is a product of Jesus’ private words to his disciples that begin back in chapter 24. The scene that the scripture paints for its readers is that as Jesus is coming out of the temple, His disciples meet up with him and they begin to point out the temple buildings surrounding the area where they are located (Matt 24.1). At this time Jesus tells them, “not one stone will be left upon another, which will not be torn down” (Matt 24.2). His disciples, curious at his words, seek him out later as he is sitting on the Mount of Olives and ask him in private, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be a sign of your coming, and of the end of the age (Matt. 24.3)?”
It is from here that the context for this passage can be built. From Matthew 24.4-25.41 Jesus explains to them what is going to take place when this time comes. To help them understand these things he uses his typical method of parables to teach them. Leading up to the end of their discussion Jesus tells them what is going to take place at his return. He is going to gather the nations and as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats at night so he to will separate His people from amongst the nations (Matt 25.32).
What Pinnock tries to imply here from all this is that Jesus is not meaning only his disciples, but also people who are located among the nations that do not confess Christ per se. Since the gospel has not gone out from where they are at this time Pinnock would (or could) try to argue that there are pagan believers that could be read into the text. Although one could see how he could come to this conclusion, that just is not fact.23 Jesus is explicitly leading His disciples to believe that when he returns he is returning for them. Not them only but the disciples of the entire world eschatologically who confess a loyal faith only to Jesus the Christ. Upon his return he will judge the world according to her works and reward His sheep according to theirs.24
Pinnock believes that subjectiveness is a great factor in the lives of unbelievers concerning faith and puts a de-emphasis on knowledge. Ronald Nash observes rather closely and quotes some of his words concerning the importance Pinnock places on knowledge in faith and writes:
Apart from having the true God as its object, the key factor about saving faith in inclusivist terms is its subject aspect. Note these statements by Pinnock:
Faith in God is what saves, not possessing a certain minimum information.’
‘A person is saved by faith, even if the content of faith is deficient (and whose is not?). The Bible does not teach that one must confess the name of Jesus to be saved.’
‘One does not have to be conscious of the work of Christ done on one’s behalf in order to benefit from that work. The issue God cares about is the direction of the heart, not the content of theology.’ 25 The Bible teaches that it is a cognitive imperative that man has a historical knowledge of Christ. The doctrine of the cross cannot be ignored. Thus one can hear the groan of the broken heart of Paul over the Jewish nation when he writes:
Brethren, my hearts desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to God (Romans 10.1-3; emphasis added). Was knowledge not seen as being important to the salvific state of his Jewish brethren? He says that they did not even know about God’s righteousness; however they are still accountable for it, because they suppressed the knowledge which God had revealed in them through creation (Romans 1.19). Paul says, “They exchanged the truth for a lie (Romans 1.25).” It is clear that Pinnock is gravely mistaken in his words when he teaches that a working knowledge of Christ is not important.
In the series of quotes that Nash listed, Pinnock wrote, “The Bible does not teach that one must confess the name of Jesus to be saved.”26 This does not line up with Paul’s words in Romans 10.9-10 when he writes:
That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. Confession of Jesus Christ as Lord is essential in the Christian faith and cannot go unnoticed. If confession was not important in salvation, Paul would not have written it. If confession of Jesus was not important he himself would not had made mention of it. In Matthew 10.32-33 Jesus said:
Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. The Bible clearly teaches that the confession of Christ is apart of the believer’s life.
It could be argued, however, that when Paul wrote Romans 10.9-10 is was written in a conditional/situational manor. This is an argument that inclusivist John Sanders makes27. Thus Nash quotes Sanders as saying:
It is clear from Roman 10.9 that whoever confesses Jesus as Lord and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead will be saved. It is not clear that whoever does not fulfill these conditions is lost. Paul simply does not specify how much a person has to know to be saved. Therefore, this results in a conditional meaning for the inclusivist and ignores the content of the text. Nash then counters the argument by writing:
Sanders regards this passage as a conditional statement comparable to “If it rains, then the sidewalk will get wet.” That is, if you confess Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him, you will be saved. Both conditional statements are true Sanders assures us. But turning the nonbiblical sentence around does not yield a true proposition. The side walk could be wet even though it has not rained. The side walk might have gotten wet some other way – from a sprinkling system, for example. 29 It then cannot be stated by Pinnock that confession of our glorious Lord is not needed.
Conclusion.
When Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me” (John 14.6) He made himself rather clear. That there are those who have made the claim to hold to biblical authority and reject the exclusivity of Scripture in salvation is absurd. From Genesis to Revelation the Bible has shown itself to be a timeless piece and has shown it self to be written to give light unto the world and guidance to God’s chosen.
In his work Dr. Clark H. Pinnock has shown himself to be a passionate yet careless theologian. In the closing of one of his works he writes:
Inclusivism is a timely and appealing model, and I offer it for consideration. It interprets faith in Jesus Christ as not entailing narrowness or pessimism in our understanding of God’s redemptive purposes. I think that if we were to reform theology in the direction of inclusivism, we might enhance the credibility of our faith and render more radical options unnecessary.30 In closing, this paper represents everything opposite to what Pinnock sets forth. Inclusivism as a whole shows no exegetical tact and is a system built around a desire to be as inoffensive as possible with a hermeneutic that seeks to appeal to a pluralistic culture. To reform theology in the direction of inclusivism would counteract to what Pinnock claims and would be the death of faith – for who would need to believe?
300
Footnotes
1. His optimism will be more fully developed further throughout the paper. This optimism is a key component of how he views his soteriology.
2. He also makes the claim that his view is exegetically supported throughout his writings.
3. The Bible answers this in many ways but two brief references to this would be John 14.6 which states: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me.” Also Romans 10.17 which says: “So Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ.”
4. I am meaning Religious pluralism which, “Is the belief that every religion is true. Each provides a genuine encounter with the ultimate. One may be better than the others but all are adequate. See Norman L. Giesler, “Pluralism, Religious” Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), 598.
5. D.A. Carson defines inclusivism as being the, “view that all who are saved are saved on account of the person and work of Jesus Christ, but that conscious faith in Jesus Christ is not absolutely necessary: some may be saved by him who have never herd of Him, for they may respond positively to the light they have received.” The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 278.
6. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 15.
7. Ibid., 15
8. Ibid., 17
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Pinnock bases his belief in this off of the doctrine of the omnipresence of God. He puts his words in a syllogistic form for his readers like this: “God is present as the triune creator and Redeemer everywhere – in the far reaches of space, in every culture, and in every human heart. Therefore, divine grace is also prevenient everywhere – since God has created the whole world, since Jesus Christ died for all humanity, and since the spirit gives life to creation. “Inclusivism”, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, eds., Dennis L. Okholm, Timothy R. Phillips, Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House 1996), 98.
12. Ibid., 20
13. I m not trying to imply that Pinnock is a Universalist in the sense that all will eventually be saved, as some pluralist believe. However, in Pinnock’s writing he does seem to be very sensitive to believing that all “good” people will be saved. That is people who would be considered very moral in there life styles. This leaves the reader with a clear conclusion that Jesus is working amongst non-believers in their faith and operatively converting them apart from the Judeo-Christian message
14. Pinnock, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. 110.
15. When I say that Paul is making a case for salvation through the God of the Bible I do not mean that he is writing primarily to combat inclusivism. I believe that Paul does not even think twice about whether or not his readers believe that salvation can come from outside faiths through Jesus. He is obviously dealing with those who are working within a Biblical frame based off the Old Testament. These are believers whoa re probably very familiar with the Shema found in Deuteronomy 6. Israel would have only assumed the God of the Bible for their source of salvation. Salvation could only come to those who where part of Israel.
16. Concerning Old Testament believers Dr. Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote: Those who point to the Old Testament believers as evidence that conscious faith in Jesus is not necessary for salvation are mistaken both about the nature of Old Testament belief and about the progressive nature of redemptive history. The New Testament contends that old covenant believers trusted in the coming messianic redemption on the basis of the revelation given to them by God (Heb. 11.26, for example) Even more significant, the New Testament asserts that a cosmic shift has occurred in the flow of history with the coming of Christ. The “end of the ages” has come upon us. The Man on the Island: Facing the Truth about those who Never Hear the Gospel. Article from: //www.henryinstitute.org, posted August 18, 2003
17. Pinnock, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, 115-116.
18. This is not to say that pagans then and pagans now cannot be converted. But a pagan cannot be both pagan and believer that is a false dichotomy not found in the scriptures. The whole focus when having gave your life to Christ is that you are a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5.17). Just as we are made new and conform to Christ found in God’s law, so it is true that the converted pagan do the same. That’s why we must insist against what Pinnock says about there being pagan saints (Ibid. 119). However Pinnock also says right after that that, “Not using this terminology [pagan saints] avoids practical embarrassment of calling a Buddhist an anonymous Christian… (Ibid. 120)”, in essence that is what he is still saying. This is an insult to Christians and to Buddhists, because a Buddhist does not want to be a Christian, but rather a Buddhist and Christians do not want to be tied a belief that is contrary to the Bible. It is also important to note here that when referring to Israel I mean those who believe in Yahweh. It is impossible to think of one as a true follower of God and not being apart of God’s Holy nation, for Gentiles are considered grafted in to the promises of God when brought into a relationship with Him.
19. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, 49.
20. In Pinnock’s book – A Wideness in God’s Mercy – he builds a case for high Christology in the Bible. I am not including his foundations for this because I can agree with him (that is, that apart from Christ there is no remission for sin) and there is no real need to comment on this. What I will comment on is his unorthodox beliefs of other religion being used for leading people to a proper knowledge of God.
21. Pinnock, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, 119.
22. Ibid., 118-119.
23. It would also be good to note that no where in the Gospels have the writers made sheep to mean any thing other than those who have a coherent working knowledge of Jesus being the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and savior of there sins.
24. For good commentary on this passage See. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, D.A. Carson ed., (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1992).
25. Ronald H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior?, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 125.
26. See above quotes on page 11 of this paper from Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior?, 125
27. Ibid., 144-145.
28. Ibid., 144.
29. Ibid., 144-145.
30. Pinnock, Four Views on Salvation, 123.
300
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Carson, D.A. The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996.
Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1999.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Edited by D.A. Carson. Grand Rapids, Michigan. William B. Eerdmans Publishing. 1992.
Nash, Ronald J. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishing. 1994.
Okholm, Dennis L. and Timothy R. Phillips, eds. Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Series Editor Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishing. 1996.
Pinnock, Clark H. A Wideness in Gods Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishing. 1992.
Internet Source
Moore, Russell D. The Man on the Island: Facing the Truth about those who Never Hear the Gospel. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. 2003. Accessed Oct. 2003. Available from www.henryinstitute.org; (http://www.henryinstitute.org;) Internet.
300
Notice - The featuring of a particular member article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.