“Evangelical Inclusivism” and the Exclusivity of the Gospel: A Review of John Sanders’s No Other Name A.B. Caneday

A. B. Caneday is Associate Professor Introduction exclusivist Christians who allegedly be- of Biblical Studies at Northwestern Col- Pluralism advances by utilizing multi- lieve in a God who “does little in the way lege, Saint Paul, Minnesota. Specializing culturalism, diversity, and inclusivism. Of of seeking the redemption of the great in the New Testament and Biblical The- course, the pluralism in mind here is not majority of human beings” but adopt the ology, Caneday is currently co-authoring the fact that there exists a plurality of race, cold “idea that all the unevangelized are Run to Win the Prize: Christian Perse- value systems, heritage, language, culture, indiscriminately damned.”6 Take note verance and Assurance (forthcoming, and religious belief systems.1 Rather, the how Clark Pinnock indulges in the InterVarsity Press) with Southern Semi- pluralism under consideration is itself a pluralism’s “new virtue” to express his nary faculty member Tom Schreiner. belief system that both cherishes and cel- dislike of evangelicalism’s emphasis upon ebrates plurality2 and also refuses to toler- individual salvation as he advances his ate any ideology or religious creed that “outcomes-based” sense of fairness. asserts itself to be exclusively right and true and that other creeds are false or inferior.3 It is instinctive for us to think im- mediately of the eternal destiny of Cultural and social pluralism’s dogma of individual persons, while the Bible multiculturalism has been described as a prefers to address large issues of jus- Trojan horse in America.4 Likewise, reli- tice and restitution, focusing much less on the judgment of solitary in- gious pluralism has invaded the church to dividuals. . . . This corporate empha- subvert the gospel of Christ, the very foun- sis contrasts rather sharply with the dation upon which the church is built. popular evangelical view of judg- ment which focuses on the much The ideology of pluralism that spawns narrower issue of verbal assent to social and cultural inclusivism also gives the gospel—or the decision for Christ. In particular, it contradicts an birth to religious inclusivism that wages implication of the thinking that the war against Christianity’s affirmation that unevangelized, most of whom have believing in Jesus Christ is the exclusive endured oppression and misery, in this earthly life, will go on suffering means of eternal salvation. Ironically, in hell forever because they did not those who see themselves as the evangeli- believe in Jesus, even though this is cal guardians against “the modern flow something they could not have done. The implication of popular 5 toward pluralism” are the very ones who eschatology is that the downtrodden advance the cause of pluralism and of this world, unable to call upon inclusivism from within the camp of Jesus through no fault of their own, are to be rejected for eternity, giving evangelicalism. As with social and cul- the final victory to the tyrants who tural pluralists, these patrons of religious trampled them down. Knowing little but suffering in this life, the pluralism conceive of people as corporate unevangelized poor will know noth- groups and they elevate themselves mor- ing but more and worse suffering in 7 ally above the benighted traditional and the next. 24 Professing to defend the God who has ues to teach at an evangelical institution “great love for all humanity,”8 the where he freely propagates his view;11 and inclusivists criticize those who hold to the (4) Sanders continues to publish his “popular eschatology,” concluding that inclusivist viewpoint.12 The remainder of such a belief blames the victims for their this paper, therefore, consists of a review plight. They reject the God of the “popu- and critique of John Sanders’s No Other lar eschatology” who condemns all who Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of have not obeyed the gospel. To these the Unevangelized.13 “evangelical pluralists,” a God who does not make salvation accessible to everyone A Critical Analysis without exception is harsh and unloving; Sanders’s book is a major expansion such a God lacks the “new virtue.” Even upon the theme of his earlier essay, “Is worse, the inclusivists introduce Belief in Christ Necessary for Salva- pluralism’s dogma of “victimization” as tion?”14 Like a growing number of they corrupt the biblical verdict of eternal evangelicals, Sanders is concerned to find condemnation upon God-hating rebels.9 a “viable third” option to “the two ex- To be sure, these pluralists give lip service tremes commonly thought to be the only to humanity’s guilt, but unless everyone options on the theological market” (4) con- has equal access to God’s salvation in cerning the destiny of the unevangelized. Christ Jesus, God is spiteful and unlov- Neither restrictivism nor universalism are ing to condemn them. These “evangelical tolerable to Sanders, for, as he sees it, the pluralists” shudder at Christian former claims “that there is absolutely no exclusivists who allegedly represent “God hope for the unevangelized” and the lat- as a cruel and arbitrary deity.”10 ter tends toward pluralism (4). These “two The viewpoints of these “evangelical ends of the spectrum” (131) serve as a foil pluralists” (or to use their own terminol- and motivation for Sanders. He attempts ogy, “inclusivists”) need to be critically to position himself between the “two ex- examined, because they are calling for a tremes” by adopting inclusivism (215).15 radical departure from beliefs that for cen- Sanders divides his book into three parts. turies Christians have held to be biblical. Part one consists of the first chapter, in which If they are correct, the message we have the author formulates the issue under ques- been believing and preaching has been tion. Here he addresses the legitimacy of the seriously flawed. If they are incorrect, question and its growing popularity in however, they are teetering upon a dan- evangelicalism. Part Two consists of two gerous precipice from which we must call chapters. Each one addresses what Sanders them to retreat. Sanders’s book, No Other calls “two extremes”—restrictivism and uni- Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of versalism.16 Part Three includes four chap- the Unevangelized, particularly beckons ters in which the author considers a variety critique, for four reasons: (1) it was one of of views ranging “between these two ends the first recent representatives of the of the spectrum” (131). Having found inclusivists in evangelicalism, thus it gave restrictivism and universalism “incompat- rise to considerable discussion; (2) it is ible with the key premises of God’s univer- large, thus it has the appearance of schol- sal salvific will and the finality of Jesus” arship and precision; (3) Sanders contin- (131), he defends “wider-hope theories” 25 (136). He surveys three “wider-hope” views sible is to do this without permitting the and favors the third. First, somehow God text of scripture to speak for itself. Sand- makes sure that the unevangelized have an ers not only fails to do biblical exegesis opportunity to be saved before they die with sensitivity to context, his “control whether by means of human agents who beliefs” (his term) misguide his efforts. bring the gospel to honest God-seekers, by His prior commitment to belief in a God an encounter with Christ at the moment of who is “bound by time and history of the death, or by God’s judging them on “the world” and who does not yet know the basis of how they would have responded future functions as the compass for his had they heard the gospel” (so-called theological navigation that arrives at con- “middle knowledge,” 151). Second, the clusions which without dispute diminish unevangelized will have an opportunity the tension that evangelicals encounter after death “to hear about Christ and to ac- with burgeoning religious pluralism.17 cept or reject him” (177). Third, “appropria- Sanders’s primary motivation for writ- tion of salvific grace is mediated through ing his book clearly sets his whole agenda. general revelation and God’s providential His disagreement with restrictivism (es- workings in human history” (215). pecially associated with “Calvinistic pre- Concerning the rightness of addressing destinarians,” 111) and his more mild the question of the destiny of the dislike for universalism urge him to un- unevangelized, Sanders rejects advice not cover “a theologically sound alternative” to seek a definitive answer to a question (4), one that better represents “the loving, that the Bible does not specifically ad- saving God we find in Scripture—the God dress. Instead, Sanders chooses to “specu- who was crucified for all sinners” (281).18 late” (his term) about the question, With this brief overview of No Other because he is convinced that “If we did Name in mind, the remainder of this cri- not speculate about subjects not directly tique will examine Sanders’s work under revealed in the Bible we would have very three categories: (1) a “process-theist” little theology; we would have no doctrine view of God; (2) a step into pluralism; and of the Trinity, no doctrine of Jesus having (3) a failure to do biblical theology. a human and divine nature in hypostatic union,” (17, 136f). This exaggeration launches his speculative theological quest. A “Process-Theist” View of God It is commendable for Christians to “the- Sanders correctly points out that God’s ologize” and not “adopt an agnostic character is at issue in the whole question stance before we have made a thorough concerning the destiny of the investigation” (18), just as it is right to unevangelized. He rejects what he calls provide answers to detractors of Chris- “the evangelical view” (which he also tianity, even concerning the issue of the dubs restrictivism, 4), because such a view destiny of the unevangelized. However, “seriously puts” his own “conception of theological structures must be built upon God in jeopardy” (6). This is so because, the solid foundation of biblical exegesis. Sanders says, “the God I see presented in Though it is both necessary and proper to the Bible has great love for all humanity” attempt to fit texts into a comprehensive (6), and restrictivism maintains that “God and intelligible system, what is inadmis- does little in the way of seeking the re- 26 demption of the great majority of human (cf., e.g., 3, 4, 6f, 16, 71, 118, 137, 218). Nei- beings” (6) but instead claims “all the ther responsible traditionalists nor Calvin- unevangelized are automatically damned ists affirm that events are determined by to hell” (4, 6). He also rejects universal- causal necessity or that any human beings ism because it also “reflects a distortion are condemned against their will.19 of the biblical God” (6). One only discov- Sanders largely blames John Hick’s ers Sanders’s argument against universal- move to pluralism on “traditional theol- ism well into the book, and then one reads, ogy” because it “presents a harsh and ex- “The major difficulty with the universal- clusive God who condemns most of the ist, Calvinist [read restrictivist], and athe- human race to hell as a matter of course” ist views is their concept of God” (112); (118). Not only does Sanders portray the they believe “that God does not take risks, God of the traditional view as vindictive that he can guarantee outcomes even if he and arbitrary, he thinks traditionalists grants freedom to some creatures” (111). themselves have usurped divine authority, He rejects the God of the restrictivist for as “those who would automatically damn the same reason he dislikes the the unevangelized” (137, cf. 285).20 If this universalist’s God—because he has a plan is restrictivism or Calvinism, it ought to be that assures his victory. rejected, for such a view of God’s relation- So, Sanders indicates both his disagree- ship to the unevangelized is certainly in- ment with and misunderstanding of tolerable. Such a view exaggerates one restrictivism. Throughout the book Sanders dimension of biblical evidence to the ex- virtually equates restrictivism with Calvin- clusion of the other, precisely the opposite ism (witness the three leading defenders he error that Sanders commits. The God of the identifies: Augustine, Calvin, and R. C. Bible is no puppeteer, nor are humans au- Sproul [51-59]). Though it may be granted tomatons who follow a preprogrammed that most evangelicals are “restrictivists,” sequence of motions or choices. only a minority would identify themselves If Sanders’s caricature of “restrict- as Calvinists. Though Sanders spurns the ivism’s God” is defective, so is his own traditional view, Calvinism is his real tar- concept of God. If God is not “an abso- get, for he portrays restrictivism as if it were lute dictator whose every whim is satis- “necessitarianism.” fied” (112), neither is God “the Sanders distorts the traditional view ‘defenseless superior power’” who “takes and repudiates it. He sketches a caricature risks and leaves himself open to being of it (or fabricates a “straw man”) and re- despised, rejected, and crucified” (112).21 jects what he sees, claiming that it affirms With his view of God, Sanders has ven- “that the majority of the human race is au- tured outside the boundaries of tomatically a massa damnata” (3). Accord- evangelicalism. He has taken a giant stride ing to Sanders, the traditional view affirms into the land of “process theism”22 despite “there is absolutely no hope for the the fact that he and his “openness” friends unevangelized,” for “God automatically” protest such a charge.23 He carves out a (6) and “indiscriminately” (7) “damns all deity patterned after the likeness of hu- the unevangelized to hell” (6). This pejo- mans, one who is limited by time and his- rative and theologically irresponsible lan- tory. This deity changes as he interacts guage is scattered throughout the book with creation, and his actions are ulti- 27 mately contingent upon human choices. absolute sovereign right to determine the Though he is superior to his creatures, he destiny of his creatures. Sanders domes- so shares his powers with them to create ticates God. But God has revealed him- or to destroy that his intentions are fre- self in such a way that he will not be tamed quently frustrated. Hence, though his de- by his creatures. The mystery of his provi- ity knows all there is to know about the dence defies human ingenuity and logic world at present (he is “omnicompetent”) (cf. Dt 29:29). This does not make it illogi- the future is contingent and uncertain; he cal; rather this is precisely one of the es- cannot know the future, because he is in sential differences between Creator and partnership with his creatures in “creat- creature. He is God and we are not! It is ing the future” (165-80, 174-78).24 only in holding firmly to both strands of Sanders cuts the line of tension that bib- biblical evidence simultaneously that one lical evidence strings between two poles: will truly submit before God who is the the Creator’s absolute sovereignty and the untamed benevolent Sovereign. creature’s moral responsibility and free agency.25 By assuming, without demon- A Step into Pluralism stration, his definition of human “free- His refusal to affirm, without contra- dom” (that God cannot guarantee the diction, the biblical tension between outcome of any human action) he believes divine sovereignty and human responsi- that God desires to redeem every human bility provides the assumption upon being, but his will is entirely contingent which Sanders frames the question he upon the “ex nihilo” response (176) of his seeks to answer concerning the destiny of creatures.26 Thus, even though “God de- the unevangelized. He identifies two bib- sires to save every human being who has lical axioms from which the whole debate ever lived” (32), he is powerless to do so, concerning the unevangelized originates: for he is the “superior defenseless power” (1) expressions of God’s universal salvific who refuses to “force his love upon his will (e.g., 1 Ti 2:3-4) and (2) the particular- subjects even if that means he must allow ity and finality of salvation in Jesus Christ them to spurn him eternally” (110). alone (e.g., Ac 4:12; see 25ff). Sanders Sanders opts to press “beyond what is states, “The attempt to hold both axioms written” (cf. 1 Co 4:6) to “make sense” out together creates the problem of how God of the mystery of God’s providence. He can genuinely desire all human beings to chooses to ignore Moses who says, “the partake of salvation and yet claim that secret things belong to the Lord our God” salvation is exclusively offered only in the (Dt 29:29). By dismissing one strand of person of Jesus Christ, of whom most of biblical evidence, he turns to reduction- the human race has been ignorant” (25). ism to explain what the scriptures simply Just as he snaps the line of tension be- assume—compatibilism. Because Sanders tween God’s sovereignty and human free- refuses to confess, “Our God is in heaven; dom, Sanders presses “beyond what is he does whatever pleases him” (Ps written” as he “speculates” (his term, 17) 115:3),27 he defies biblical evidence by ex- how these two propositions can be simul- cising one complete strand of biblical taneously upheld. He imposes his own teaching. He accepts God’s urgent pleas definitions upon the expressions of the for human repentance, but rejects God’s two axioms. With reference to God’s uni- 28 versal salvific will, he simply assumes inform his viewpoint: (1) For God to be without demonstration that God’s univer- just, every individual on earth must be sal salvific will extends to “each and ev- counted deserving of accessibility to ery human being who has ever lived” (30, God’s saving grace (216ff) and (2) Christ’s 32, 286). Concerning the second proposi- death establishes a kind of neutrality in tion, he flirts with pluralism, so that at the all humanity so that now the only basis end of his argument he cannot meaning- upon which God can condemn anyone is fully affirm “that salvation is exclusively their existential response to revelation offered only in the person of Jesus Christ” whether it be the gospel or simply gen- (25). His treatment of both propositions eral revelation (cf. 208, 217, 235). deserves unpacking. Concerning the first of these two as- sumptions, Sanders claims to be over- A Questioning of God’s Justice whelmed by God’s magnanimous Sanders is correct when he says that, salvation (216), but what truly astonishes “a genuine appeal to the authority of him are the enormous numbers of peoples Scripture does not consist in merely cit- who have never heard the gospel of ing a list of verses and then concluding Christ.29 Sanders contends that to believe that one’s position has been proved” (33). that “God is not obligated to send the gos- This observation indicts his own method pel message to the vast majority of the of doing theology, however, for when he unevangelized because they do not seek defines what he means by “God’s univer- him strikes me as incompatible with the sal salvific will,” he simply assumes that assertion that God truly desires to save “all” in passages such as John 12:32, 1 everyone” (172). So Sanders reasons that Timothy 2:3-6 and 2 Peter 3:9 or “world” God would be unjust to condemn the in texts such as John 3:16 (27) must refer unevangelized unless he gives them suf- to “each and every human being who has ficient knowledge to save them.30 He ever lived” (30, 32, 286). He rejects grossly distorts God’s love as revealed in Calvin’s view (Institutes, 3.24.16) and sim- the biblical story. ply asserts his own, deciding “this is not Sanders’s argument assumes that the place to debate” the different interpre- “restrictivists” believe that the unevan- tations (30). Sensing the need for some gelized are condemned for not believing measure of support for his own view, but the gospel which they have never heard. refusing to grant exegetical bases, Sand- In response, Sanders believes that a God ers appeals to popular opinion. The fact who would condemn anyone without that relatively few today accept making salvation accessible to them is Augustine’s or Calvin’s explanations of harsh and unloving (106).31 passages such as 1 Timothy 2:3-6 is As to the second assumption, dealing enough for Sanders to proceed as if truth with the basis of divine condemnation, the were established by an opinion poll (30).28 author takes one strand of biblical evi- In place of finding a solid exegetical dence and exploits it while neglecting basis for his assertions, Sanders lets his other biblical evidence. His belief that assumptions shape how he holds together Christ’s death “objectively provides for the two theological axioms. Two crucial the salvation of every human being” (216) assumptions, given no exegetical basis, amounts to a denial of substitutionary 29 death—Christ died for everyone in gen- sition—the particularity and finality of sal- eral but for no one in particular.32 As he vation in Jesus Christ alone. would have it, Christ’s death so removes God’s wrath from every individual that An Unwarranted Dichotomy no sin will condemn them except one, a Sanders steps into pluralism when he conscious rejection of the gospel for those so modifies the second proposition (the who have heard it or of general revela- particularity and finality of Jesus Christ) tion for those who have received this that he can no longer meaningfully affirm alone. However, Sanders completely ig- that salvation is “exclusively offered” to nores passages such as Ephesians 5:3-6 humanity in Jesus Christ (25). He distin- that explicitly affirm that God’s wrath guishes between “epistemological neces- comes upon disobedient people for ob- sity of knowing about Jesus” and scene speech, immorality, impurity, “ontological necessity of Christ for salva- greediness, etc. (cf. Ro 1:18-32). tion” (62, 215). He means that no one can For Sanders, God can only be just if he be saved apart from Christ’s redemptive makes salvation equally accessible to each work (“ontological necessity”), but one and every human being who has ever can be saved without knowledge of Christ lived. Otherwise, what kind of God is he (215). This is philosophical sophistry; he who gives ample knowledge to the separates what the scriptures do not di- unevangelized to make them accountable vide. Sanders appeals to Acts 4:12 and to him but withholds knowledge that is John 14:6 to support his case. His appeal able to bring salvation to them ?(233) Sand- is seriously flawed, for he detaches both ers reasons, “Once one is confronted with passages from their contexts by asking the words and person of Jesus, one no them his systematic theological question: longer has any excuse” (180). Yet, “the “What do they say about the destiny of warnings about judgment based on one’s the unevangelized?” Finding that Acts response to Christ are not applicable to the 4:12 does not address the “destiny of the unevangelized. They are addressed only to unevangelized per se” (62) and that John those who know about Christ” (180). The 14:6 “is silent about the unevangelized” unevangelized “can be saved or lost de- (64), Sanders concludes that “they do not pending on their response to the general teach that all must hear of Christ or be revelation. . . . Those who form a trusting forever lost” (64). relationship with God are saved, while Making much of the fact that “no other those who turn their backs on the truths name” signifies “no other authority,” he found in general revelation are heading for conveniently ignores the fact that, coming damnation” (233). He fails to take Paul se- at the close of Peter’s address before the riously when he says that, quite aside from Sanhedrin, Acts 4:12 clearly infers the hearing the gospel, God has revealed him- “epistemological necessity” of belief in this self in creation so that humanity is univer- one called Jesus whom God raised from the sally “without excuse” (Ro 1:20), and not dead in fulfillment of scripture. It is irre- one seeks the God who has disclosed him- sponsible to treat Acts 4:12 as if it were an self to them (Ro 3:11); they all suppress the encyclopedic entry detached from its sal- truth in wickedness (Ro 1:18).33 This leads vation history context. Salvation comes to to Sanders’s treatment of the second propo- people where the gospel is proclaimed, for 30 the “name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth” other religions. He alleges that common- demands human acknowledgment as Pe- alities prove “God is at work ter makes clear—“then know this” (4:10). redemptively” among people who have John 14:6 also inseparably ties “onto- never heard the gospel (248) and that “God logical necessity” and “epistemological has not been sitting idly by waiting for necessity.” Jesus’ claim—“I am the way human missionaries to bring the gospel to and the truth and the life. No one comes these peoples” (249).35 Since “God cannot to the Father except through me”—is his save those he would like to save if indeed response to an epistemological question it is true that there is salvation only where that John undoubtedly expects his read- the gospel is preached and accepted” (61, ers to ask with Thomas, “Lord, we don’t 258; citing Pinnock), he does not so restrict know where you are going, so how can saving grace. Sanders contends that “the we know the way?” (14:5). Against Sand- source of salvific water is the same for all ers, the apostle John designs his narrative people, it comes to various people through to clarify that knowledge of Christ is uni- different channels” (226). To many it comes versally indispensable for salvation. through the proclamation of the gospel, but John’s Gospel underscores this “epistemo- to multitudes more his saving grace may logical necessity” in 17:3—“Now this is be received through general revelation and eternal life: that they may know you, the in connection even with their non-Chris- only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom tian worship (233-49). Hence, Sanders’s you have sent.” sophistry neutralizes his affirmation of the Because Sanders rejects the need to hear non-negotiability of the proposition: “sal- the gospel of Christ in order to receive sal- vation is exclusively offered only in the vation, he tries to draw a distinction be- person of Jesus Christ” (25). tween “believers” and “Christians.” Sanders attempts to find support for his “Believers” are “all those who are saved distinction between “believer” and “Chris- because they have faith in God”; a “Chris- tian” from early church fathers to argue that tian” is “a believer who knows about and the pagan’s god is “the same God” the Chris- participates in the work of Jesus Christ” tian worships (240). He even appeals to Acts (224f). Both “groups are saved by the name 17 for support36 when he claims Paul’s of Jesus, but only the latter are informed preaching to the Areopagus was a success about that name” (230). Though Sanders in that those who were believers became acknowledges that “saving faith certainly Christians” (247). His support comes only involves knowledge,” he forces a false dis- by twisting Luke’s words, for scripture says junction upon the biblical data by asking, that “some men joined him [Paul] and be- “Is cognitive information the most impor- lieved” (Ac 17:34). They did not become tant element in saving faith, or is a person’s believers until they trusted in the one whom attitude the decisive factor?” (225). Scrip- God raised from the dead (cf. 17:31). Re- ture requires both, without giving greater sponsible interpretation of the New Testa- weight to one or the other. But being preju- ment requires one to acknowledge the diced against the evidence by his question, categories “believer” and “Christian,” but Sanders presses headlong toward plural- these acceptable categories do not derive ism, to draw “inclusivist lines”34 that seek from distinctions between people who re- commonalities between Christianity and ceive only general revelation and those who 31 receive the gospel of Christ. The catego- Testament and the inclusivism of the New ries originate from God’s providential correspond to the promise/fulfillment placement of individual believers along relationship of old and new revelation.37 the salvation-historical axis in relation Because Sanders fails to approach to Christ’s redemptive act. This crucial scripture with a sense for the contours of observation raises the third major line the Bible’s storyline, he neither under- of criticism. stands the Old Testament’s restrictivism with its limited inclusion of Gentiles A Failure to Do Biblical Theology (218-21) nor the New Testament’s unre- Sanders’s theological method illus- strained inclusion of the Gentiles (221-24) trates well the peril of doing systematic with its insistence upon the just condem- theology without first doing the arduous nation of all humanity and the universal work of biblical theology. Rather than al- hopelessness of mankind apart from re- low the biblical text to define its own cat- ceiving the gospel of Christ. These tenden- egories, Sanders demands that the biblical cies are illustrated by his treatment of Acts categories take the shape of his own pre- 10 and Romans 10:9ff.38 conceptions. Hence he imposes his catego- First, because he has falsely equates the ries—“believer” and “Christian.” New Testament’s inclusion of the Gentiles Sanders gives little evidence of with his own pluralistic inclusivism, redemptive-historical understanding Sanders identifies Cornelius as “the Gen- when interpreting scripture. He attempts tile of most interest to inclusivists” (222) to support his pluralistic inclusivism from because he is “an example of an Paul’s defense of the inclusion of the Gen- unevangelized person being saved” (265). tiles as recipients of the gospel. Sanders Contrary to popular interpretation, Sand- claims, “I think it can be reasonably ar- ers is right to affirm that Cornelius, who gued that the construction of a wider-hope was a God-fearer, was a believer before position parallels Paul’s attempt to extend Peter preached the gospel to him (66).39 salvation to the Gentiles even though He is also correct not to let Peter’s there was little explicit teaching about that words—“through which you and your in the Old Testament” (137). He “flattens” household will be saved” (Ac 11:14)—dis- the redemptive-historical contours of suade him from this conclusion.40 Still, he scripture. He fails to acknowledge that the makes a fatal mistake. Because Cornelius particularism of the Old Testament was was a “God-fearer” or a “believer” and God’s redemptive design in preparation became a “Christian” upon receiving the for and anticipation of the New gospel, Sanders assumes that Luke’s nar- Testament’s inclusion of the Gentiles. rative supports his own inclusivist or plu- Though he acknowledges that the main ralist categories—“believer” and purpose of the Cornelius story was to con- “Christian.” Hence, he cannot understand vince the apostolic church of God’s inclu- Robert Gundry’s argument that “’Luke sion of the Gentiles in the scope of and Peter are not talking about heathen salvation (66), this redemptive-historical people deficient of special revelation, but dimension plays no substantive role in about God-fearers, Gentiles who know Sanders’s discussion. He fails to recognize and follow the special revelation of God that for Paul the particularism of the Old in the Old Testament. . . . They do not sup- 32 port the possibility of salvation for the may turn on a sprinkler, or there may be a pile of melting snow unevangelized’” (266). Gundry’s point nearby—any number of things be- completely eludes Sanders, who re- sides rain might make the sidewalk sponds, “Gundry seems to suggest that wet. (67) Cornelius was not saved until Peter told Sanders fails to recognize that, in Ro- him about Christ. . . . If, on the other hand, mans, Paul has already demonstrated that he believes that Cornelius was saved be- there is no other way by which anyone fore Peter came, he pulls the rug out from can receive deliverance from God’s wrath; under his basic argument, since that is the all are equally condemned, for all are un- very point inclusivists wish to make” der sin (Ro 3:9). The apostle has ruled out (266). Obviously, the point at issue is not both the “sprinkler” (God’s self-revelation when Cornelius first believed unto salva- in creation, Ro 1:18ff.) and the “melting tion but that when he believed he was not snow” (God’s self-revelation in the Law, restricted to general revelation. What Ro 2:1ff, 17ff; 3:19-20; 7:7-25).41 Therefore, Sanders ignores is the fact that Cornelius Paul’s logic in Romans 10:9ff (“if . . . then”) was a “God-fearer,” a “believer,” precisely is not to be disputed. With his axioms al- because he had been a recipient of God’s ready in place, Paul’s words of Romans special revelation through his contacts 10:9ff. can hardly be interpreted to mean with the Jews. Clearly Luke’s categories simply “that confession of Christ is one of “believer” and “Christian” turn upon sure way to experience salvation” (67). one’s relationship to the epochal advent True, in this context “Paul does not say of Christ, not upon whether one receives anything about what will happen to those only general versus special revelation. who do not confess Christ because they The second example of Sanders’s faulty have never heard of Christ” (67). But it interpretation of scripture is his treatment must be understood from the course of his of Romans 10:9ff. He rejects claims “that argument that apart from confessing Paul asserted the necessity of knowing Christ as Lord and believing that God has about Christ for salvation when he said raised him from the dead there is no sal- that ‘ if you confess with your mouth Jesus vation for anyone, whether evangelized as Lord, and believe in your heart that or unevangelized. God raised Him from the dead, you shall In neither of John Sanders’s books does be saved’” (67). He contends, he make any attempt to account for Paul’s ironclad reasoning in Romans 10:13-15 But logically this means nothing more than that confession of Christ which does address the question about the is one sure way to experience salva- destiny of those who never hear the gos- tion: Paul does not say anything pel. A few years ago, at a conference I at- about what will happen to those who do not confess Christ because tended, John Sanders and Clark Pinnock they have never heard of Christ. The held a forum to dialogue with critics of text is logically similar to the condi- tional statement “If it rains, then the their views on the unevangelized. They sidewalk will be wet.” If the condi- were confronted with Paul’s tightly rea- tion is fulfilled (if it rains), then the soned argument in Romans 10:13-15. They consequent will follow (the sidewalk will be wet). But we cannot with cer- refused either to acknowledge its appeal tainty say, “If it is not raining, the to them to renounce their views or to ad- sidewalk will not be wet.” Someone dress the text by explaining how they can 33 hold their views in light of this text. Paul fenseless superior power” nor a mecha- reasons, nistic and impersonal deity. He is the untamed benevolent Sovereign whose For everyone who calls upon the providence over all creation is confess- name of the Lord will be saved. How, then, will they call upon one edly a mystery that transcends both our in whom they do not believe? And creaturely understanding and “the things how will they believe one whom revealed” (cf. Dt 29:29). they have not heard? And how will they hear apart from a preacher? To the degree that we fail to acknowl- And how will they preach except edge and maintain vigorously the full pro- they be sent? Just as it is written, portion of the gospel concerning who God “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news.” is we will err in both our responsibility to evangelize the nations and in our posture How much clearer could the text be? toward the unevangelized. If we diminish Paul, the great apostle to the unevange- human responsbility and distort God’s lized, is completely convinced that none transcendence, we sin by becoming passive will call upon the Lord to save them un- concerning evangelism and heartless to- less they believe the gospel which they ward the unevangelized. If we exaggerate hear preached to them by a preacher who human freedom and denigrate divine sov- is sent to them to bear God’s good news ereignty, we sin by inclining toward self- of salvation in Jesus Christ. Paul’s reason- sufficiency in proclaiming the gospel and ing cuts the ground from under Sanders’s toward frenzied impatience with God con- inclusivist view of the gospel. cerning the destiny of the unevangelized. It is from the latter error that Sanders Conclusion leads an assault against God, against our No Other Name provides the occasion God, against the God and Father of our for all of us to recognize how crucial Lord Jesus Christ. He endeavors to do- even-handed treatment of the Bible’s mesticate God. In defiance of scripture’s storyline is to the life and mission of the rebuke—“But who are you, O man, to talk church. One’s conception and expression back to God” (Ro 9:20)—Sanders ques- of the nature of God is foundational to tions God’s justice in condemning the all beliefs. It is imperative that we affirm unevangelized. Whether or not humans with biblical proportions both God’s love are evangelized has nothing to do with and holiness, his mercy and justice, his their just condemnation. Christ did not grace and wrath, his personality and come into the world to render its condem- transcendence. Likewise, we must affirm nation just and right (Jn 3:17); God’s self- without equivocation both the Creator’s disclosure in creation has left humanity absolute sovereignty and the creature’s without excuse (Ro 1:20). Nor is it the mis- moral responsibility. We must insist on sion of the church to proclaim Christ to both. We must be compatibilists. To deny all humanity in order to provide just cause the former, as Sanders does, is to press for their condemnation, though it is true toward process theism. To deny or dimin- that the gospel entails condemnation for ish the latter is to move toward fatalism “those who are perishing” (2 Co 2:15). Our or necessitarianism, neither of which is mission is to proclaim the gospel indis- Christian. But our God is neither the “de- criminately wherever humans are found 34 and to trust our sovereign God that (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997). through our preaching he will bring sal- 5John Sanders, No Other Name: An Inves- vation to all his chosen ones (2 Ti 2:10). tigation into the Destiny of the We are commissioned to proclaim to all Unevangelized (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, nations with great urgency, “Repent, or 1992) 4. perish!” as we adopt God’s posture to- 6See Ibid., 6-7. ward the death of the wicked expressed 7Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy by the prophets (Eze 33:11). Yet, at the (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 152. same time we must not become frantic, 8 Sanders, No Other Name, 6. as if the millions whom we have not yet 9For a superb discussion of pluralism’s reached somehow escape God’s sovereign dogma of “victimization,” see Charles J. plan and design. Are we not told that God Sykes, A Nation of Victims: The Decay of has a day planned for the wicked (Pr the American Character (New York: St. 16:4)? Belief that God’s sovereignty en- Martin’s Press, 1992). compasses the destiny of each one must 10Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy, 19. never lead to passivity or neglect of God’s Take note how cleverly these “evangeli- appointed means.42 Though we may cal pluralists” (my term) have shaped the never reach every individual with the whole discussion of the unevangelized good news of Jesus Christ, with regard to with politically correct terminology that those within our spheres of influence we paints the “exclusivists” in menacing incur culpability if we fail to warn them colors, while they craftily select the concerning God’s wrath (cf. Eze 3:18; 33:7- warm-sounding term, “inclusivist,” to 9; cf. Ac 20:26-27; 1 Ti 4:16). represent their allegedly loving and kind position. This is akin to the social plu- ENDNOTES ralists who set themselves over against 1See D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: the “anti-abortion” advocates with the Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand politically correct designation, “pro- Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 13ff. for dis- choice.” tinctions in the way the term “pluralism” 11John Sanders teaches at Oak Hills Bible may be used. College in Bemidji, Minnesota. 2Lesslie Newbigen states, “It has become 12See John Sanders, ed., What about Those a commonplace to say that we live in a Who Have Never Heard? Three Views on the pluralistic society—not merely a society Destiny of the Unevangelized (Downers which is in fact plural in the variety of Grove: InterVarsity, 1995). Sanders wrote cultures, religions and lifestyles which the chapter on “Inclusivism,” 21-55. it embraces, but pluralist in the sense that 13This critique appeared in a slightly differ- this plurality is celebrated as things to ent form as “‘To Go Beyond What Is Writ- be approved and cherished” (The Gospel ten’: An Exercise in Speculative Theology,” in a Pluralistic Society [Grand Rapids: Contra Mundum 5 (1992) 49-56. Eerdmans, 1989] 1). 14The Evangelical Quarterly 60 (1988) 3For a discussion of ideological pluralism, 241-59. see Carson, The Gagging of God, 19ff. 15Clark Pinnock, who has published nu- 4Alvin J. Schmidt, The Menace of merous essays on the destiny of the Multiculturalism: Trojan Horse in America unevangelized, introduces the book and 35 shortly after No Other Name was re- missions are meaningless unless all Reflections on Suffering and Evil, leased, Pinnock followed suit with the unevangelized are necessarily [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990] 212). his own book, A Wideness In God’s damned to hell” (71). 22Sanders joins Pinnock in his depar- Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a 20This is a common theme among ture from Christian theism. Cf. World of Religions. Sanders thinks Sanders’s allies in his cause. Clark Pinnock, “God Limits His much like Pinnock, which is evident Pinnock states, “Theological liber- Knowledge,” in Predestination and by comparing Sanders’s No Other alism reacts sharply and correctly Freewill: Four Views of Divine Sover- Name with Pinnock’s A Wideness In to…the orthodox tradition and…its eignty and Human Freedom (Downers God’s Mercy. representatives [who] have pre- Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986) 16Note the familiar pluralist tactic of sented God as a cruel and arbitrary 143-62. labeling the disliked view “ex- deity” (A Wideness in God’s Mercy, 23See Clark Pinnock, et al., The Open- treme.” 19). See Carson’s critique, The Gag- ness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the 17Sanders, “God As Personal,” in The ging of God, 290-91. Traditional Understanding of God Grace of God, The Will of Man: A Case 21D. A. Carson aptly addresses such (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, for Arminianism, ed. Clark Pinnock a view of the crucifixion: “If the ini- 1994). I concur with D. A. Carson’s (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989) 174. tiative had been entirely with the assessment of this book when he 18That Sanders rejects the traditional conspirators, and God simply came states, “I have to say, with regret, view and is more favorably dis- in at the last minute to wrest tri- that this book is the most consis- posed toward universalism is veri- umph from the jaws of impending tently inadequate treatment of both fied by his own words: “When defeat, then the cross was not his Scripture and historical theology people are asked to choose between plan, his purpose, the very reason dealing with the doctrine of God the extremes of the harsh, unloving why he had sent his Son into the that I have ever seen from the hands God of restrictivism and the loving world—and that is unthinkable. If of serious evangelical writers” (The God of universalism, it is not diffi- on the other hand God was so or- Gagging of God, 225, fn 74). cult to understand why universal- chestrating events that all the hu- 24Of course, at the root of Sanders’s ism seems so attractive” (106). man agents were nonresponsible view of God is the issue of human Sanders’s four other stated motives puppets, then it is foolishness to talk freedom. He asks, “Can God make are all fruits or outcomes that he of conspiracy, or even of sin—in free creatures and guarantee they hopes to achieve among his readers: which case there is no sin for Christ will never sin? No! That would in- to offer a theodicy that will curb the to remove by his death, so why volve a contradiction, since one as- “modern flow toward pluralism” (6, should he have to die? God was sov- pect of freedom (defined as the 4); to suggest “good reasons to pur- ereignly at work in the death of ability either to do something or sue missionary activity even if sal- Jesus; human beings were evil in not--libertarian) is the impossibility vation is not out of the reach of the putting Jesus to death, even as they of guaranteeing the outcome” (No unevangelized” (7); to strengthen accomplished the Father’s will; and Other Name, 111). Without demon- the “theological muscle” of people God himself was entirely good. strating a moment’s reflection upon who already hold to an inclusivist Christians who may deny biblical evidence that does not fit his viewpoint (7); and to provide a tax- compatibilism [which Sanders ex- scheme, Sanders assumes a priori onomy and bibliography of views plicitly does, “God As Personal,” that “human freedom” must entail on the subject (7). 172] on front after front become absolute power to the contrary. 19The author misrepresents the tradi- compatibilists (knowing or other- 25D. A. Carson expresses com- tional view when he says, “There wise) when they think about the patibilism lucidly. “The Bible as a are many who reject the restrictivist cross. There is no alternative, except whole, and sometimes in specific contention that evangelism and to deny the faith” (How Long O Lord? texts, presupposes or teaches that 36 both of the following propositions them of this capacity. With such a distinction (2:4). Paul’s mention of are true: 1. God is absolutely sover- view of human freedom, the possi- his Gentile mission (2:7) reinforces eign, but his sovereignty never func- bility of apostasy must always be this interpretation. tions in such a way that human present, even in the eternal kingdom. 29For an excellent rebuttal of such an responsibility is curtailed, mini- Of course, this empties biblical con- approach, see Benjamin B. Warfield, mized, or mitigated. 2. Human be- cepts of “eternal life” and “salvation” “God’s Immeasurable Love,” in The ings are morally responsible of meaning and significance. Saviour of the World (Cherry Hill, NJ: creatures—they significantly choose, 27Sanders caricatures the God of uni- Mack Publishing, 1972) 69-87. rebel, obey, believe, defy, make deci- versalists and Calvinists as “an ab- 30He cites Dale Moody approvingly, sions, and so forth, and they are solute dictator whose every whim who asks, “‘But what kind of God rightly held accountable for such ac- is satisfied” (112). Not liking what is he who gives man enough knowl- tions; but this characteristic never he caricatures, he discards the Cal- edge to damn him but not enough functions so as to make God abso- vinists’ God. to save him?’” (233) See Moody, The lutely contingent” (How Long O Lord? 28Sanders refuses anyone else an ad Word of Truth (Grand Rapids: 201). hominem argument. For example, in Eerdmans, 1981) 59. 26Sanders objects that universalists response to the charge that 31Against restrictivists and Calvinists (e.g., Ferré, Hick, Robinson) are in- “inclusivists” sell the truth to get Sanders asks, “Is there something consistent in their view of human non-evangelical admiration, he deficient about God’s distributive jus- freedom and divine omnipotence says, “Aside from the questionable tice—that is to say, does God not ex- because they cannot demonstrate nature of the accusation, the fact re- tend justice to all human beings in the how God can ultimately reconcile all mains that the psychological origin sense of providing an opportunity of free creatures if they remain free crea- of a belief is irrelevant to its truth or salvation for all? If humans have a tures forever. He argues, “And if, as falsity” (23, fn 24). Against charges fatal disease, and if God is in fact they suggest, human freedom entails that “inclusivism” diminishes the omnipotent and has taken care to pro- the possibility that individuals will need to evangelize, he responds, “I vide the medicine to cure the disease continue to fall from grace and re- think it is important to note that an through his Son Jesus Christ, then turn to hell in the afterlife, how can argument from utility does not nec- why can he not provide it to all?” (71) it be guaranteed that there will ever essarily establish truth” (283). Sand- Sanders discloses his failure to under- come a time when all people will ers fails to reflect any sensitivity to stand the depth of human depravity cease to turn away from God and hell the fact that the context of each pas- and the justice of God’s condemning will be done away with?” (113) He sage restricts “all” to mean “all sentence upon all humanity when he presumes, of course, his own defini- peoples without distinction” not says that some restrictivists argue tion of freedom—absolute power to “every individual without excep- “both that the unevangelized are the contrary. The question must be tion.” For example, 1 Timothy 2:4 is justly condemned for rejecting the put to Sanders: If human freedom defined by verses one and two. In light of general revelation and that necessarily entails absolute power to 2:1 Paul hardly exhorts Timothy to even a total acceptance of that revela- the contrary, can humans ever stop intercede for “each and every hu- tion would still be insufficient for sal- having absolute power to the con- man being who has ever lived.” vation. This is like my telling my trary after the present life is ended? Verse two clarifies that our prayers daughter that I am angry with her for Would not humans continue to have are to encompass people of all walks not washing the dishes and then ac- the power to frustrate God’s will? If of life, particularly kings and rulers. knowledging that I would still be an- absolute power to the contrary is Likewise, God’s desire to redeem gry with her even if she had washed what makes humans moral crea- and Christ’s substitutionary death them. By this logic, the unevangelized tures, then God can never deprive encompasses all peoples without are truly damned if they do and 37 damned if they don’t” (69). Christian Epistemology [Phillipsburg, send a deliverer—the Deliverer had 32Sanders reasons, “If the redemption N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, already come; and from the time of procured by Jesus objectively pro- n.d.] 68). Because Sanders refuses to his advent it became necessary to vides for the salvation of every hu- believe that everything that hap- believe and acknowledge that ‘ man being, and if God intends this pens in this world takes place in Jesus is the Christ.’ Had he died be- salvation to be genuinely universal, keeping with God’s purpose and fore Christ’s advent, or even after then it must be possible for every design (Eph 1:11), he fails to under- his advent, but before he had any individual who has ever lived per- stand that even the movements of sufficient information on the sub- sonally to receive that salvation re- humans to evangelize some or to ject, he might have been saved as gardless of the historical era, fail (for any reason) to evangelize Abraham was, and all the faithful geographic region, or cultural set- other peoples carries out God’s children of Abraham were, by the ting in which these people have intentions. To confess this truth, faith of what God had promised to lived” (216). contrary to Sanders, does not the fathers; but had he rejected 33For Sanders’s understanding of “automatically damn” the unevan- Christ, or refused to believe in him, Paul’s argument in Romans 1-3, see gelized to hell, nor does it excuse when he had been fully informed of his “Inclusivism,” in What About passivity and callousness toward all that he did and taught, his unbe- Those Who Have Never Heard? 46ff. those who are perishing. lief would have been fatal, not only 34The expression belongs to Harvey 36Sanders treats Acts 17:22 irrespon- because it rejected the Saviour, but Conn, “Do Other Religions Save?” in sibly. He turns Paul’s words to the also because it indicated the absence Through No Fault of Their Own? The Athenians (“I see that in every way of that spirit of faith in the true Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard you are very religious;” Ac 17:22) to meaning of the Old Testament itself, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991) 199. his own advantage by failing to un- which, wherever it existed, was in- 35This is further evidence of Sanders’s derstand Luke’s use of the expres- variably found to embrace the Gos- problem with God’s sovereignty sion in Acts 17:18 and 25:19. He says, pel when it was first proclaimed. over human actions. Van Til elo- “In recording Paul’s message, Luke There was an affinity betwixt the quently points out the type of error had no qualms about using the faith of a spiritual Jew or proselyte, Sanders makes: “Synergism takes same term to describe the Christian and the faith of the New Testament, for granted that there can be no truly faith” (246). Sanders fails to point in virtue of which the one led on to personal relation between God and out that Luke puts the expression on the other, and found in it, not a new man unless the absoluteness of God the lips of people who were hardly creed, but the completion, the per- be denied in proportion that the friends of Christianity—Athenians fecting of the old one” (The Office and freedom of man is maintained. Syn- and Festus. Work of the Holy Spirit [1843; rpt. ergism assumes that an act of man 37Cf. Machen’s argument against “lib- London: Banner of Truth, 1966] 178). cannot be truly personal unless such eralism” of his day. See The Origin 40Sanders’s explanation of “salva- an act be impersonal. By that we of Paul’s Religion (New York: tion” in Acts 11:14 falls considerably mean that according to synergism, Macmillan, 1923) 17ff. short of the New Testament concept. a personal act of man cannot at the 38Sanders himself identifies these two Briefly, “salvation” is in the future same time but in a different sense, passages as very crucial in his case tense in Acts 11:14, which accents be a personal act of God. Synergism (64-68). the eschatological focus of salvation assumes that either man or God acts 39Cf. e.g., James Buchanan’s com- (cf., e.g., 1 Co 15:1-2; 1 Ti 4:16; Jas personally at a certain time, and at ments on Cornelius: “It was neces- 1:21; 5:20; etc.). It neither indicates a certain place, but they cannot act sary for himself that he should now that Cornelius had not been a recipi- personally simultaneously at the believe the truth as it is in Jesus; it ent of salvation nor that once he same point of contact” (A Survey of was no longer true that God would became a Christian he “received the 38 fuller blessing” (Sanders, 66). he intended otherwise He would 41Cf. Sanders’s discussion of Paul’s have supplied the means leading to teaching in Romans in What About the designed end” (cited by Sand- Those Who Have Never Heard? 46ff. ers, No Other Name, 51; The Reformed Sanders’s conclusions concerning Doctrine of Predestination, 120). This Romans 3 reflect a facile grasp of the is really quite terrible! Thanks be to text. He says, “Others object that God that William Carey never took Paul says in Romans 3 that all are such a view, though with all his sinners and so any hope for the heart he believed in the God who unevangelized is ruled out. But if elected unconditionally whom he Paul means to say there that all would save. those mentioned in the first two chapters are outside the boundaries of salvation, then a serious problem arises. If Paul means that no Jews and no Gentiles were saved before Christ, then obviously not even people such as David and Abraham were saved . . . I find it interesting that people are so willing to use Ro- mans 1-3 to rule out hope for the unevangelized (since they are all sinners) but unwilling to accept the conclusion that since Paul has included the entire human race in his argument, any hope for premessianic Jews has also been eliminated” (49). 42Sanders has a legitimate gripe against Lorraine Boettner, who says “those who are providentially placed in the pagan darkness of western China can no more accept Christ as Savior than they can ac- cept the radio, the airplane, or the Copernican system of astronomy, things concerning which they are totally ignorant. When God places people in such conditions we may be sure that He has no more inten- tion that they shall be saved than He has that the soil of northern Siberia, which is frozen all the year round, shall produce crops of wheat. Had 39