ARTICLE: Jesus, the Only Savior

[STR Ambassador]

Jesus, the Only Savior

by Greg Koukl

A caller alerted me to the fact that apparently there's a president of a Baptist college who believes Jesus is not necessary for salvation. If I'm understanding his view correctly, this would make him a pluralist--someone who says that other religions are legitimate and appropriate avenues to God and that the work of the cross is not necessary at all for salvation. We Christians happen to believe in Jesus because it's "our thing." Jesus, though, could be completely out of the picture and salvation could still be secured through other religions.

As a point of information, this would be different from the "inclusivist" Roman Catholic view. On this view, Jesus' work on the cross is necessary for forgiveness, but one need not believe in Jesus--and could outright reject Him--and still enjoy the benefits of the cross. The forgiveness that comes through Jesus can be mediated through the sincere pursuit of other religions. Therefore, all people, regardless of there belief systems, are potentially included—ergo the word "inclusivist"—in God's Kingdom. To put it most directly, the good Buddhist is cleansed by the blood of Christ (though one might as why he needs the blood of Christ if he's good already).

My caller asked this question: Should a person who is a religious pluralist be allowed to continue as a president of a Baptist college? I think the answer may be obvious when we ask the question another way: Should a non-Christian be allowed to run a Christian institution? It seems the answer to this question must be "no."

You've probably noted, of course, that I'm presuming the president of this Baptist college is not a Christian simply because he's a pluralist, which may seem like a bold thing to say. I have a very good reason for this presumption, though, and it has to do with what it means to be a Christian.

The word "Christian" has a definition. It has a broad cultural meaning, but that's not what I'm talking about here. Rather, I'm talking about a theological definition. It seems to me, at bare minimum, being a Christian in a genuine, theological, biblical sense requires believing a particular thing to be true about Jesus. And the thing we believe to be true is not that Jesus is my savior. Rather, the thing we believe is that Jesus is the Savior, and because He is the Savior, He can therefore be my savior. Because Jesus is the Savior, He can save me.

There are other things, to be sure, that are necessary to believe in order to call yourself a Christian. But you've got to at least believe that Jesus is the Savior. This is the beginning. This is the foundation, that Jesus did something for us we absolutely need to have done for us, something we would perish without. We turn to Jesus because we need Him, that is, we desperately require something only He can give--forgiveness. If He doesn't give us forgiveness, then we're in hot water--or, I should say, hot fire.

Now, this seems so basic to Christianity I feel a bit foolish belaboring the point. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Savior. He is not just the savior for me; He's not just a savior for others--one of a number of possible rescuers, like a team of lifeguards might be. The Bible teaches--and Christianity is built on this teaching--that He is the Savior of the whole world, and without Him the world could not be saved.

If this is a core teaching of Christianity--so vital that denying it effaces the religion entirely so that it no longer is the same thing--then what are we to make of someone who denies this truth? If someone believes that members of other religions are as easily saved through their own religion as Christians are through Jesus, what does this tells us about the beliefs of this person concerning the nature of the work of the cross and the person of Christ?

If you say people can be saved without Jesus, then Jesus is not the Savior. These people either save themselves (making each of them a savior), or they are saved by others. Is this possible?

If Jesus is a savior, then what does He save someone from? The Bible makes it clear that Jesus saved me from the judgment I would have received if He hadn't save me. Therefore, if one repudiates their need for Jesus, then Jesus isn't saving them and they stand in the path of God's judgment. What could be simpler? What could be more clear?

Now, if you believe other people can be saved through other religions, then you certainly don't believe that Jesus is the Savior. And if you reject that Jesus is the savior, it really calls into question whether He's even your savior, because if other people could be saved without Him, why couldn't you? You need Jesus to be saved because you're lost without Him. If you're lost without Him, so is everybody else who's in your same position, a sinner. That, by the way, includes everybody else, according to the biblical account. Therefore, everybody else needs Jesus, and it doesn't make any sense to say that everybody else can get to heaven without Him, but that you happen to need him.

If you do say that, it's the same as saying Jesus is not the Savior, and if you reject that Jesus is the Savior, then you're rejecting the foundational tenet of Christianity. You are, therefore, denying the heart and soul of the faith, and it doesn't seem to me that you can then call yourself a Christian.

This is not that hard, friends. In order to call yourself a Christian, you must fulfill certain foundational and fundamental requirements, and there's nothing more foundational or fundamental about Christianity than that Jesus is the Savior. Not a savior, not my savior, not the savior of some, but the Savior, the Savior of the world. And because He is the Savior, He is capable of saving all of us. Because He's the Savior, there is no other savior, and we can't save ourselves.

Which is precisely why the apostle said, "There is salvation in none other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)


Stand to Reason - Training Christian ambassadors in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - www.str.org

Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

[C. D. Ward]

"Inclusivism" doesn't describe only Roman Catholic soteriology, it's also the Orthodox (Greek and Russian) position as well.

And I think your explication of Inclusivism may be a tad misleading (although it is obvious that you were attempting to cover a more complex topic at a high level). From what I know of RC and Orthodox soteriologies, it would appear that both acknowledge that while salvation is indeed possible outside of the physical body of the Church, through God's grace, those outside of the body are, to quote from Dominus Iesus (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html), "...in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation."

[MichNH]

From what I know of RC and Orthodox soteriologies, it would appear that both acknowledge that while salvation is indeed possible outside of the physical body of the Church, through God's grace, those outside of the body are, to quote from Dominus Iesus (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html), "...in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation."
Michelle replies: As with most theological ideas this one has been tossed around a bit. An interesting RC theologian to read ont his topic is Karl Rhaner---his concept of anonymous christianity is interesting.

A nice link:
http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/anonchrs.htm

[JustbytheBlood]

While the Inclusivism debate rages on, there seems to be a huge foundation stone that is missing from both sides of the aisle. That stone is this: It is neither Christianity, nor any other religion on the face of the earth at any time in the history of man, that is the means or agency of eternal salvation. It isn't Christianity that mediates eternal salvation, it is the Man Christ Jesus Himself.

Allow me to quote from an excellent essay on this topic that is far more eloquent than I could ever be. The full text will be made available at anyone's request. But please, chew on this profound point with some quality meditation time.

The bridge between God and man, then, is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. It is not truth about Christ or concerning his death that bridges the gap between an offended God and offending sinners, but His actual work on the cross. Christianity is not the one mediator between God and men; rather, the man Christ Jesus is.

This popular tendency to confuse the actual work of Christ on the cross with the revelation of that fact in the gospel arises from the failure to recognize that the Bible makes distinctions between the legal, vital, and practical (i.e. ethical) phases of salvation. Allow me to illustrate by posing a question.

What initial thought suggests itself to your mind when you hear the verse, “This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life: and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life” (1 Jno. 5:11-12)? What does it mean to “have the Son”? I suppose that when many Bible interpreters hear this verse, they automatically assume that the condition described as “having the Son” means “having the truth about the Son”. But the text does not say that. It does not even imply the idea of “possessing Christian orthodoxy”. The subject under consideration is the possession of Christ, not the possession of Christianity. I assert the text means that every person who “possesses the Son” vitally, i.e. in terms of a relational union with Christ, is in possession of eternal life.

Many, however, cannot conceive of any way that a person may “possess Christ” apart from an intellectual or creedal sense. So far as they are concerned, only the person whose thinking is orthodox and whose creed is correct is truly in possession of eternal life.

But that failure to distinguish between what is vital and relational (i.e. that which pertains to “life”) and what is academic and creedal (i.e. that which pertains to “knowledge, awareness, and belief”) inevitably complicates the issue. In the first place, it raises the question, “Just how much orthodoxy is necessary to final salvation?” How much Christian truth is enough? Does a person simply have to believe in the deity of Christ, or does he also have to embrace and affirm the substitutionary nature of the atonement in order to be finally saved? If orthodoxy is defined by correct views concerning both the Person and the Work of Christ, then must he further believe in particular redemption and the finished work of Christ in order to be saved? In other words, will an Arminian gospel save a person? What level of creedal accuracy is sufficient to measure whether or not someone “has the Son”?