By insisting that salvation is found in Christ alone, exclusivists draw attention to the second factor—the scandal of particularity. In addition, the overwhelming of exclusivists affirms the central idea that God has a provision for everyone’s salvation. Some members of fundamentalist faiths do not accept the holy books of other religions because they believe they were written by humans and not God. Most exclusivists, after emphasizing the one-of-a-kind nature of Jesus’ atonement, then claim that salvation is contingent upon one’s hearing and accepting the message of Jesus.
Religious pluralism is a broad concept that refers to embracing and comprehending the existence of more than one religion around the world. Opponents of exclusivism frequently assert that the belief condition proves that the vast majority of people will ultimately perish.
Yet, there are forms of exclusivism that hold that saving the majority, if not the entire of humankind is possible. Those who hold an exclusivist view often claim there are not any other ways to heaven; however this does not mean that few non-Christians end up in heaven. There seem to be six different arguments made by exclusivists for and against the possibility of salvation for unevangelized individuals. One of the most popular misconceptions held by critics of exclusivism is that the believing state proves the majority of people on the planet will perish.
The position maintains that knowledge and faith in the message of Jesus Christ are necessary for salvation but adds a crucial qualification: these actions must take place before one’s physical death. One’s ultimate fate is decided after death. For the restrictive, motif 1 (God’s universal desire for salvation) is false. Most restrictionists are evangelical Christians who believe in definite or limited atonement and theological determinism. The fact that the vast majority of humans have perished without encountering the gospel makes it evident that the heavenly father has not made redemption available to everybody. Proponents of this view say God is justified in withholding salvation from the great majority of humanity because of their refusal to accept the truths of universal revelation about God.
Religious tolerance is the acceptance of the concept that everyone has the right to their own views and ought not to be compelled to adhere to the opinions of others. It is a secret provision in the United States Constitution that guarantees everyone the right to religious freedom. Religious pluralism differs from all this in that it says that many distinct religious belief systems may share truths and values that are not exclusive to any one faith.
Religious plurality has now resulted in interfaith initiatives in which people of many faiths collaborate to achieve similar goals such as social justice, eradicating poverty, peaceful movements, or a specific belief. Religious leaders from many religions banded together to establish an umbrella religious body, a campaign that is frequently utilized to campaign for a specific subject. It is commonly observed among powerful Christian faith leaders who strive to promote Christian unity. Leadership and participants of interfaith groups work together for the benefit of the international society.
Even though everyone deserves hell, God’s mercy saves a select few. While all exclusivists agree that there is no redemption to be found in any other faith, not all hold the view that salvation is only available during this life. The belief that God never forgoes redeeming grace from people who genuinely seek God was extensively debated in antique Christianity and still has a few followers among evangelicals today. This perspective, in contrast to restrictivism, upholds the motif that God desires salvation for everyone.
Believers in Jesus will hear the Good News even if it comes to them in a dream or from an angel. One heathen was rescued from hell and given enough time to hear the gospel and be converted, and he mentions others who are said to have had visions of Christ as early as a thousand years before Jesus’ birth. Universal sending supporters agree with soft restrictivism on most points, but they also think that the unevangelized have a better chance of responding positively to understanding God through divine revelation and that the door of redemption is more open to the unevangelized.
The last choice hypothesis is a minority position in Roman Catholicism that supports motifs 1 and 2 and the believing requirement. It shares the restrictive view that our eternal fate is determined at the moment of our death, making the decision to put our faith in Jesus before that moment very crucial. There is a twist in the last chance theory: everyone meets Jesus Christ just before they die and realizes what God has accomplished in Jesus to save them. Therefore, God makes the state of belief available to everyone, regardless of when or where individuals live. Those who come to know the saving work of Jesus Christ for their sins are then asked to offer their last response to God. In this way, an individual may make a decision based on complete information. Advocates often have high expectations that many individuals may accept their faith in Jesus as their Savior just before they pass away.
Similar to the last choice hypothesis, but with the evangelistic contact with Jesus happening in the afterlife. Even after death, knowing Jesus and making a deliberate decision to follow the gospel are both sufficient to satisfy the believing criterion. According to the writings of a Lutheran theologian from the nineteenth century, the great news of redemption through Jesus Christ will be preached to those who on Earth did not hear it at all or not in the correct manner. Hell is a reality. But it is not the last word on human destiny since God’s mercy chases the sinner into hell. Those who advocate for evangelism after death are often positive about the number of individuals who come to believe, but they avoid the assertion that everyone will come to trust in Jesus in the end.
For Christians who hold to the universal salvation doctrine, Jesus Christ will one day save everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation. The first two themes are shared by all Christian Universalists, but not all Universalists share an anti-exclusivist stance. The argument that God does not act via faiths other than one’s own is rejected by certain Universalists who embrace inclusivism. Most Christian Universalists throughout history have held exclusivist views. The most essential attitude that individuals ought to have regarding different religious groups would be to respect their religious beliefs and practices to create peace. There is no question that conflicts can break out if individuals do not respect the cultures and religions of others.
The first and second themes, in addition to the necessary belief, are confirmed. Most Universalists rely on afterlife evangelism to spread the gospel of Christ to everyone, but there are also others who believe that God uses middle knowledge to do this. Ultimately, the goal of all Universalists is to ensure that nobody is excluded or left out. The gateways of the eternal Jerusalem are never locked (Rev 21:25); therefore the door to redemption is always available to outsiders. The Lord will keep looking for people until they are all inside. Eastern Orthodox believers have long had a penchant for universalism, which has also gained traction in the Protestant world over the last 200 years and has been lately reaffirmed by a number of evangelical intellectuals and philosophers. There are two kinds of Universalists: those who believe salvation for all is a possibility and those who believe it is a foregone conclusion.
The information in the middle ground confirms motifs 1 and 2, but it does not unambiguously accept the belief requirement. Only this exclusivist position does not insist that people must verbally declare their trust in Jesus to be saved. If God knows what she would do if evangelized, then that is enough. To God, there is no such thing as a hypothetical occurrence; He is aware of every eventuality. Middle knowledge advocates, however, are deeply split on the percentage of non-Christians who are converted using this approach. There is Roman Catholic Thomas Flint arguing that the middle ground between knowledge and universalism is a happy place to be. A god with average intelligence who wished to rescue everyone might do it if he or she believed that, under perfect circumstances, every person on Earth would accept the gospel.
Many advocates of middle knowledge also draw a bleak conclusion. They argue that even under perfect conditions, none or very few of the unevangelized who died might have believed in Christ. There are no possible worlds in which people with this attribute might accept the gospel; hence they suffer from the majority of participants’ anti-gospel depravity. People like this deserve to spend all of eternity in hell because they never really believed in Jesus.
The second element is affirmed by all six exclusivist perspectives on the redemption of non-Christians: salvation is found alone in Jesus. Only the restrictive view, an exclusivist one, denies motif 1: God’s will to redeem everyone. Only the exclusivist perspective held by those with middle knowledge denies the belief requirement that a person must comprehend and actively believe in the saving effectiveness of Christ in order to receive salvation. The other five isolationist views all agree that faith must come first, but they disagree on the procedures by which God makes faith in Jesus possible for everyone. Last but not least, we have discovered that exclusivists’ beliefs about the number of non-Christians who will be rescued vary from zero to 100%. Our analysis concludes with a look at the dominant alternative to both exclusivist and inclusive pluralism.
Inclusionism endorses themes 1 and 2: God’s plan is to rescue everyone, and Jesus is the only way to do it. To be saved, one must know about Jesus and put their confidence in him. However, this view is contradicted by this passage. The redeeming act of Christ is essential for everyone’s salvation, according to inclusivists, although people may be redeemed by Jesus even if they never learn about Christ before they die. The only thing God asks is that people accept the revelation he has given them. A positive response is often thought to include actions like seeking out what is true and beneficial and displaying kindness toward others.
In the souls of believers and non-Christians alike, the Holy Spirit actively attempts to generate the fruit of the Spirit. Inclusivists argue that Jesus is the answer for people of different faiths who are searching for goodness, truth, and love. Since inclusivists insist that such individuals are saved by Jesus, most of them believe that even if they practice another religion, they will have a uniquely Christian atonement in the hereafter. Afterlife contact with Jesus is said to be necessary for this to occur. Unlike the postmortem salvation idea, this is not an evangelical encounter. It is more of a confirmation meeting in which the savior is identified to the rescued.
All of the above perspectives, including inclusivism, are defended for a combination of scriptural and theological reasons. Once again, there is no explicit discussion of whether or not non-believers may be saved in the Bible. Most have taken stances on the subject by combining motifs 1 and 2, as well as other important theological convictions. Inclusionists are just as guilty of this.
In other passages, God is seen to be active outside the confines of racial Israel and the faith. For instance, in Deuteronomy (2:5, 9, 19, 21-22; 2 Kings 5:1), for instance, God’s provision of territory to several countries is noted, and we also learn that God did not hold nations other than Israel and the church to the same standard of accountability as He did His chosen people (Deut 4:19).
Amos said that Israel was not the only country God had led out of captivity (9:7). The inclusive interpretation of scripture makes use of the so-called holy pagan heritage. Many non-Israelites, like Melchizadek, Jethro, Job, and the Queen of Sheba, received God’s blessing. Matthew, a New Testament writer, praises Persian astrologers (Matt 2:1–12). Both the Canaanite lady (Matthew 15:21–8) and the Roman centurion (Matthew 10:8–9) are examples of good faith among the Gentiles, which Jesus praises (Matt. 8:10).
Namaan, the Syrian military commander, and the ritually unclean woman who touched Jesus’ clothing in the hope of being cured both had genuine confidence in Jesus, and Jesus affirmed their beliefs as true (Lk 4:27; Mk 5:34). And yet, despite the reality that they had contradictory theological views, their faith was validated. Proponents of inclusivism say that one does not need to have a perfect understanding of God to be accepted by him.
Cornelius, a Roman military soldier, is given substantial space in the books of Acts, where he is shown as a God-fearing, uncircumcised Gentile who prays constantly. An angel appeared and informed him that God had accepted his prayers and charity as a memorial offering and that he should get in touch with the apostle Peter (Acts 10:4). After Peter came, he shared the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ, which led to the immersion of Cornelius and his family. Thinking back on what had happened, Peter said, “I most surely realize now that the Lord is unlikely to show favoritism, but in any country, the individual who fears Him and performs what is right is acceptable to Him” (Acts 10:34-35).
Despite the story’s immediate context being the early congregation’s, the conclusion that non-Jews are not mandated to follow Jesus, inclusive readers view this and similar stories to suggest that God accepted Cornelius as redeemed before he even learned about Jesus. As a result of their good deeds, God counts them among the faithful. Such individuals are good in God’s eyes even before they become Christians. Cornelius, in this situation, already had faith in the God who delivers via Christ. Integration into the Christian fellowship and hearing Peter’s message about Jesus provided Cornelius with what inclusivists call the fullness of salvation from the gospel of Jesus.
One may nonetheless receive God’s redeeming grace even if they are unaware of Christ. God desires that even those who are not Christians live righteously and listen to the Holy Spirit’s guidance, even if they do not know what the Holy Spirit is. For inclusive theologians, Paul’s claim that God will accept Gentiles who, despite lacking the Old Testament revelation, obey God’s commands in the New Testament is an expression of this view (Rom 2:6-16). They could, for instance, show neighborly love (Leviticus 19:18).
Even if Abraham believed in a messiah, he probably did not know what one would look like. Still, Paul claims that God approved of Abraham because he acted appropriately in light of what he knew about God (Rom 4:16-22). Paul continues by saying that people who embrace the message of Jesus are embraced by their heavenly father in the exact manner Abraham was, by reacting rightly to the divine revelation accessible to mankind (Rom 4:24). A Christian refers to a believer in what Jesus has done for God.
Christians have access to knowledge about God that Abraham and the unevangelized did not, yet God still welcomes anybody who reacts properly to the facts. Paul believes that there is only one God (Romans 3:29) and that God’s goal is for all people to bear the fruit of the Spirit, even though some have greater insight into God’s will than others. Since the same God is responsible for both sorts of revelation, the only distinction between conceptual revelation and scriptural revelation is one of degree.
Christians who advocate for religious tolerance are aware of passages in the Bible that cast non-Christians in a negative light and condemn some tenets of other faiths. However, inclusive believers want to stress that there are examples of individuals from different faiths in the Bible who show significant parts of what God intends. Also, inclusive theorists consider how the Bible has interacted with different faiths. The authors of the Bible, for instance, included indigenous God names and concepts, beliefs, and rituals that were all harmonious with the worship of the One True God.
This selective adoption, adaptation, and rejection of elements of other faiths are also seen in the New Testament. In his address to the Athenian intellectuals (Acts 17), Paul demonstrates his familiarity with the philosophy of the Stoics and Epicureans. Neither does he discuss God’s particular activities towards Israel. Furthermore, he does not reference the Hebrew Scriptures but rather a Greek poet. Paul acknowledges that his non-Christian audience already has important facts about God, divine intervention, and real worship, pointing out certain parallels between his own views and theirs.
Still, he acknowledges that they do not know all there is to know about God, some of which the Almighty is only now disclosing. He claims that God has forgiven their lack of knowledge and is now urging them to be ready for the last judgment (17:30-31). Even while Paul is aware that many of the faiths and civilizations he encounters include elements of corruption and deception, he does not categorically reject them. Instead, he draws a line between what may be accepted, what can be adjusted, and what must be rejected in terms of ideas and behaviors.
In conclusion, evangelical inclusivism is generally receptive to the idea that God may make use of information from other traditions. He explains that, on just one hand, it is possible to see the good in other religions and to acknowledge that Holy Father is currently worked among them. Since we hold Christ to be our compass and ultimate authority, we cannot be blind to the possibility of religiously inspired forms of oppression and servitude.
Pinnock concedes that Catholicism may play a part in the salvation of humanity that predates the gospel of Jesus Christ, but he still believes that God must sometimes operate counter to the faiths in order to reach people with the good news of salvation. The sacrifice mechanism, the sanctuary, and many of the regulations were adapted from neighboring civilizations, but many of the hymns and rules were accepted verbatim.
Therefore, the Bible’s authors viewed religions apart from Christianity as containing equal parts truth and falsehood, holiness and depravity. Furthermore, God knows everything that could have happened if a single variable had been changed, thanks to his all-encompassing middle knowledge.
Bibliography
Aguti, Andrea. “Does It Still Make Sense to Talk about the Absoluteness of Christianity?” Does It Still Make Sense to Talk about the Absoluteness of Christianity? (2019): 3-12.
Bano, Neelam, Javaria Hassan, and Shama Urooj. “The Christian Response to Religious Plurality: An appraisal of the Twentieth Century Christian Pluralist Approaches.” Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization 11, no. 2 (2021).
Bible, Holy. “New International Version®, NIV® Copyright© 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission.” All rights reserved worldwide (2020).
Foster, Deborah. “A Theology of Religions in the United Church of Canada: A Journey.” Toronto Journal of Theology 35, no. 2 (2019): 208-216.
Grzelak, Krzysztof. “A Historical Perspective on Inclusivism as the Prevailing Paradigm in the Christian Theology of Religions.” Sympozjum 1 (34) (2018): 161-192.
Mori, Giuliano. “The Truth of the Matter: Observations on Inclusivism and Exclusivism.” In Inexcusabiles: Salvation and the Virtues of the Pagans in the Early Modern Period, pp. 187-211. Springer, Cham, 2020.
Pasaribu, Goktondi, Corinthians Joel Sangian, and Oktavia Kristika Sari. “Christological Evaluation of Inclusivism Theology.” Theological Journal Kerugma 3, no. 2 (2020): 42-53.
Samuel, Joshua. “Re‐viewing Christian Theologies of Religious Diversity: Some Lessons at/from the Margins.” The ecumenical review 71, no. 5 (2019): 739-754.