IS JESUS CHRIST THE ONLY SAVIOR?

INTRODUCTION     

 Is Jesus Christ the only Savior? As our society becomes increasingly pluralistic, the preceding question becomes less of a genuine inquiry and more of an acerbic taunt to those who hold to the exclusivity of Jesus Christ. Our culture has become undeniably post-Christian and as a result the imperative has become that Christians understand and be prepared to share what the Bible declares regarding the exclusive nature of salvation through Jesus Christ. Can this be done?

PRELIMINARY CONCERNS: TRUTH AND LOGIC     

Prior to examining the Scriptural evidence for the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ, it would be beneficial to define the operative terms being presented. By referring to religious-pluralism it is meant that those who hold to this system believe that all religious expressions represent but a small segment of what truly comprises the transcendent divine, more commonly called God.[1] According to this position, all religious exploration will eventually hit an epistemological wall that prevents the religious adherent from truly finding direct access to this divine reality. Therefore, all religions provide their adherents a genuine glimpse of what can be known of this “God” through the religious-epistemological processes found within the given system.      

 Contrary to this understanding of religion stands the position called exclusivism.  This position holds that only one religion can be ultimately true thereby making all other religious expressions false.^[2]  For Christian exclusivists this belief could be defined as a conviction that “Jesus Christ is the only Savior, and explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation.”[3] Those who hold to this position site the intrinsically exclusive nature of truth as the philosophical support for just such a position.  Truth by definition is exclusive. For instance, if one says pluralism is true then it only logically follows that the exclusivist position must be incorrect. This simply follows one of the most basic rules of logic; the low of non-contradiction.[4] Lastly, and most importantly for the subject at hand, Christian exclusivists site the “either/or” claims of all religions and specifically those of Jesus Christ in support of their position.

SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE EXCLUSIVITY OF JESUS CHRIST     

The issue of exclusivity and its Scriptural support has been handled quite thoroughly by many capable scholars. For the purposes of this research however only three prominent exclusive proof-texts will be examined as they relate to the pluralism-exclusivism debate. This Scripture driven approach is critical for understanding the Evangelical Christian position.    

  The first text that must be considered is Peter’s defense before the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:12. Here we find Peter standing before the Sadducees after being arrested for preaching the Christian gospel. During the course of the interrogation, the text states in the eighth verse that Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking under His guiding. This is critical because it presents the statement to follow in verse twelve as coming from God Himself and not Peter’s private interpretation.  Peter states “…there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”[5] Peter’s intent is quite clear: contrary to the idea of the Jewish leadership, the works of the Law could not save. Also, standing in opposition to their gentile neighbors, the Christian gospel explicitly declares that salvation has and can only be provided through the work of Jesus Christ. According to Peter, under the guiding of the Holy Spirit, it is by acknowledging this fact and this fact alone that one can be saved. Therefore, knowing in a very real way who the Messiah is becomes necessary for salvation.     

 Secondly, the very words of Jesus Christ in John 14:6 declare His own understanding of His salvific exclusivity. Christ, sitting with His disciples, had just predicted His betrayal by Judas and His denial by the Apostle Peter. Following this, Christ comforts His disciples with the promise of heaven. Thomas then questions how to enter this realm where Christ was going to prepare a place for them. Christ answers, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”[6] Two things about Christ’s response directly speak to the issue of exclusivity. First, he spoke of personally being the way (not merely knowing of the way).[7] Secondly, He spoke authoritatively regarding the way because He recognized His unique nature as the Son of God.[8] Christ called Himself the personal path to God, calling to mind His previous statement that He was in fact the door:  “I am the door; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.”[9] If Christ is the door (singular) and is the personal way to the Father, then this would exclude any “way” that does not see Christ as the personal path to the Father. Jesus Christ has presented a problem for the pluralist. To twist Christ’s words to meet the presuppositions of pluralism one must suspend all rules of logic.      

 Finally, Paul’s words in I Timothy 2:5 must be taken into account. Paul writes to Timothy, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus…”[10] The context of Paul’s words need be addressed in order to grasp the gravity of what was being conveyed. We find that Paul is writing to his protégé’ of sorts, giving him practical instructions for his pastoral ministry. In this process Paul gives Timothy guidance for what constitutes proper worship. He notes a few facts that are critical in understanding the exclusivity presented in this passage.       First, in verse four, Paul, writing about what God desires, states “who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”[11] It is the desire of the Father that all men be saved. Secondly, they are saved by coming to a knowledge of the truth. Truth by definition is definite, therefore, this rules out the relativity presented by Christian pluralists. Further, if knowledge of the truth is necessary for salvation, one can hardly support inclusivism, which espouses the idea of ignorant or anonymous Christians. Clearly, the Father requires explicit knowledge of the truth in order for one to receive salvation.       Coming to the heart of the matter, Paul’s words in verse five leave no room for dispute regarding what comprises this “knowledge of the truth.”  Paul writes, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus…”[12] This truth that is required for salvation is the recognition that the historical death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is necessary for redemption from sin. Christ alone can provide man with access to the Father. Therefore, He alone can be the provider of salvation. In the following verse Paul clarifies further why this is the case when he writes, “…Who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.”[13] According to Paul the reason Christ alone is mediator and savior is that He alone paid the penalty for sin through His historical death, burial, and resurrection. If this single moment in history (the passion of Christ) is what provides the exclusive avenue of salvation, how can there be but one savior? Would not a single salvific act by definition and basic rules of logic necessitate a single path to salvation and reconciliation with God? Clearly the Apostle Paul believed this to be the case.

CONCLUSION     

A brief survey of passages teaching the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus Christ does not begin to do justice to the biblical witness. A thorough examination would require quite a bit more research. However, a few concluding observations may be provided from what has been presented thus far.      

Looking to some of our preliminary remarks a few facts are worth repeating and clarifying. First, truth by its very nature implies an exclusive claim. No person can make any claim for truth without by necessity being exclusive. The pluralist cannot champion relativistic truth as the proper approach, for in doing so he would be violating his own relativism by exclusively declaring that exclusivists are incorrect in their understanding of truth.  Secondly, two contradicting truth claims, while being equally valid claims to truth, cannot both be equally true. All claims have the right to be made but not all claims have the right to be true; especially when competing claims contradict one another. The basic rules of logic rule out the possibility that two contradictory claims can be equally true. One or both must be incorrect.      

Scripturally speaking, we are confronted with numerous facts that must be overcome in order for inclusivism and/or pluralism to be true. First, according to Acts 4:12, ignorance to the name and redeeming work of Christ will not bring about an imparting of grace. Further, sincerity in the worship of any deity by any name other than Jesus Christ will fail in providing one with salvation. Secondly, Jesus Christ Himself believed and taught that He alone is the means by which we can return to fellowship with God and be granted access to eternal life. This makes the claims of Jesus Christ regarding his very nature to be in direct opposition to those of all other competing “saviors.” Based on the very nature of truth, then, Christ is either correct in His statements and is in fact God’s only provision for the redemption of man or He is not. There is no middle ground. Finally, Paul taught explicitly that only a knowledge of the truth that Christ alone is the mediator between God and man would provide salvation. Ignorance to this name and the work of Christ will not suffice. Only clear and precise knowledge of who Christ is and what He has accomplished will bring one to salvation.     

In conclusion, the biblical text plainly teaches the position known as exclusivism. This position presented scripturally and coupled with universal rules of logic leaves the inclusivist and the pluralist in the unenviable position of relativism. However, in order to defend their positions they must appeal to the exclusivistic nature of truth. How much easier would it be to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture and to acknowledge the plain teaching of the New Testament, that Jesus Christ alone provides salvation?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

New American Standard Bible. Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1997.

Geisler, Norman. Geisler’s Systematic Theology Volume II: God & Creation. Minneapolis, MN: Harvest House, 2003.

Nash, Ronald. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.

Tenney, Merrill & Gaebelein, Frank, Ed. The Expositors Bible Commentary Volume 9- John & Acts. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981.

 

---

      [1] The greatest living voice for the pluralism camp is that of the Oxford trained scholar John Hick. 

      ^[2] Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 238.

      [3] Ronald Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 11. 

      [4] This law states that two contradictory positions/claims cannot both be equally true at the same time. In order for such an occasion to arise all truth claims must be made relative. However, the claim that all truth is relative is an absolutist/exclusive truth claim. Therefore, to even claim all truth is relative is to deny that all truth is relative. 

      [5] New American Standard Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997) All Scripture quotations are taken from this version unless otherwise noted. 

      [6] John 14:6 

      [7] Merrill C. Tenney, Frank Gaebelein, Ed. The Expositors Bible Commentary: Volume 9- John & Acts (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981), 144. 

      [8] Ibid. 

      [9] John 10:9 

      [10] I Tim 2:5 

      [11] I Tim 2:4 

      [12] I Tim 2:5 

      [13] I Tim 2:6