Customer Reviews

No Other Name

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

John Sanders' "No Other Name" is a scholarly, comprehensive survey and critique, written primarily for evangelical Christians, of historically-held Christian positions on the destiny of the unevangelized. By "unevangelized" Sanders means those who never come to know or understand the Gospel message of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ before their death, for whatever reason. He includes those who are simply incapable of understanding, such as young children and the severely mentally disabled; those who have never had the Gospel presented to them, as in all indigenous peoples before missionary contact; and those who may be aware of such "buzz words" as "Jesus" but who never come to an understanding of what the Gospel message charges upon them.

Sanders begins by placing the issue in context: arguing for why it even matters (for example, because of its apologetic importance - people are going to ask and Christians need to have a reply at hand) and describing the controversy it has elicited in modern times among evangelical Christians. He then proceeds to present the two extreme positions on the issue: exclusivism (which he calls restrictivism) and universalism.

Restrictivism is the position that only those who come to know and understand the Gospel during their lifetimes have the opportunity to be saved (whether they actually are, of course, is based on whether they accept the message in faith). Thus by necessity, since they either do not know or do not understand, all the unevangelized are lost to "Hell" (Sanders leaves what that means out-of-scope of the discussion). In a pattern that is repeated with each position, he discusses the Scriptural and theological case for restrictivism, its proponents throughout history (for example, Augustine), and offers a critique, itself based in Scripture and theology.

Universalism, in contrast, is the position that everyone is (at least eventually, perhaps after some "time" beyond death) saved. Thus the destiny of the unevangelized - in fact, everyone's destiny - is at least eventually to be united with God. Universalism is a position that evangelical Christians today would probably almost uniformly find unorthodox and heretical, but Sanders gives it a fair shake (though ultimately rejecting it - and restrictivism for that matter).

After presenting these extremes, Sanders turns to what he lays out as a "wider hope". He discusses universal evangelization - the idea that God miraculously sends a messenger (angelic if not human) to all during their lifetimes, so that all have the opportunity for salvation (whether there's any empirical evidence for this empirically-testable claim is not really discussed - to my knowledge, there is little or none, despite popular evangelical "urban legends" to the contrary). He discusses eschatological evangelization - the idea that God presents the Gospel at the point of death, or after death, to those who are otherwise lost (curiously, the Catholic concept of purgatory is not presented - perhaps because Sanders knows his audience is primarily coming from the Protestant tradition).

Finally, inclusivism is presented. This is the view that God judges all according to their faith response to whatever true revelation they had during their lifetimes. For the unevangelized, this is general revelation - the deep intuition all humans curiously seem to have about a supreme being and a moral law (see the opening chapters of C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity", for example). Thus although Christ's atonement remains the basis for anyone's salvation, explicitly knowing and understanding that is not necessary for salvation. Rather, God judges the heart according to the knowledge it had, and an overall faithful response is "credited as righteousness". Nonetheless, responding to general revelation is a precarious path to God - sort of a "plan B". Coming to know and understand the Gospel during one's lifetime is God's preferred approach, not just because of its ability to save, but also because of its ability during our lifetimes to sanctify, give assurance, and come to fuller knowledge.

For conservative Christians who have been raised with restrictivism and have had the lid screwed down tight on the container of all the other views historically held, "No Other Name" will either be enlightening, or a very tough pill to swallow. Never mind that John Wesley and that icon beloved of modern American evangelicalism, C. S. Lewis, were inclusivists (as Sanders documents), I can hear some conservatives saying - its heresy nonetheless. To Sanders' credit, "No Other Name" at least challenges such people to more-charitably regard the diversity of opinion on this issue.

Without using Amazon as a platform to prooftext as some reviewers, let me say that Sanders honestly, carefully, scripturally, wrestles with the question of the fate of non-Christian Persons!!!

What I liked most was the historically careful treatment he provided of other views than his own as well as to show the fallout of different positions (theologically, philosophically, and existentially). Not arrogant, but careful, it deserves a wide readership.

Sanders has meticulously researched each of the available views on salvation. The beauty of the book is that Sanders himself is careful not to take a stand till the last, but rather to show the evidence (Biblically, historicly, and philosophically,) for each view in question. The pure weight of evidence presented for each individual view is testimony of Sanders' honest attempt at an unbiased presentation. The strength of the presentation does not allow one Christian to look at another and say, "Your view is silly. You just haven't read your Bible." To criticize the author for a moment, I believe his decision in the end of the book to adopt a personal preference for the "wider hope views" is the book's most important downfall. It forces those who disagree with him to step back and assume his presentation is biased (which I suppose epistimically it probably is.) This mars an objective reading of what I believe to be an honest attempt at objective writing.

Regardless of your stance on the fate of the unevangelized and religious pluralism, this book provides an incredibly wide survey of literature to aid the researcher's thought on these issues (in English language sources). Especially helpful, I thought, was the extensive bibliography Sanders included for "salvation after death," or "postmortem evangelism," a topic difficult to research because of its many names and expressions. Sanders could have increased his research by going into works such as Paul Althaus's Die Letzten Dinge and others, but for most Americans who obstinately refuse to glance upon anything but English texts, he provides an indispensable resource for this topic.

For all those interested in this question, this is the first book to obtain. Mr. Sanders surveys the contemporary spectrum of opinion as well as the approaches to this question throughout history. Overall, this very balanced approach is most valuable. The author has a viewpoint but is fair in describing the competing ideas. I firmly believe that it is by carefully reading the wide divergence of opinions that one makes more progress in formulating a coherent answer to a difficult question. I appreciate John Sander's high Christology and high view of the scriptures. Without this base, all opinions are outside Christianity. I have one minor issue with the author and that is his confusion regarding the doctrine of election as it relates to the working of God apart from the preaching of the word. Election is a separate issue and can fall either within the more restrictive view or the inclusive view of the destiny of the unevangelized. This critique is minor. The book deserves 5 stars for it's balance approach.

Troubling as it is for 21st Century Christians to ponder what will be the fate of those who do not hear the Gospel of Christ before their physical death, Sanders does not answer with sound Biblical exegesis.

Rather, he reads his own thoughts into Scripture. Especially must they contend that God saves some by general revelation. Their whole case hinges on that fact. While never revealing what in general revelation God uses to save, Sanders errors greatly by finding two classes, one in the OT and the other NT to show how he believes those who trust in the God with the level of revelation given, they will be saved. These are the examples of faulty exegesis on Sanders part. The OT believers who are saved, e.g. Abraham, as Paul states believed not in the general revelation given by God to all sinners but to the special revelation (typology) promises of the Messiah. This is the OT means of grace.

For further dialogue on this topic, check out "What About Those Who Have Never Heard?" by Gackre, Nash and Sanders, and see my review of this book.

Theological structures must be built upon the solid foundation of biblical exegesis. While it is both proper and necessary to endeavor to fit texts into a comprehensive and intelligible system, what is inadmissable is to do this without permitting the text of scripture to speak for itself. Sanders not only fails to do biblical exegesis with sensitivity to context, his "control beliefs" misguide his efforts. His prior commitment to belief in a God who is "bound by time and history of the world" and who does not yet know the future ("God As Personal", p. 174) functions as the compass for his theological navigation that arrives at conclusions, which without dispute diminish the tension that evangelicals encounter with burgeoning religious pluralism. However, neither Sanders's conclusions nor his methodology are commendable. His compass is defective, his course is treacherous, and his point of arrival is perilous. I wholeheartedly agree with Sanders when he states, "a genuine appeal to the authority of Scripture does not consist in merely citing a list of verses and then concluding that one's position has been proved" (p. 33). However, this indicts his own method of doing theology, for when he defines what he means by "God's universal salvific will," he simply assumes that 'all' in passages such as John 12:32, 1 Tim 2:3-6 and 2 Pet 3:9 or 'world' in texts such as John 3:16f (p 27) must refer to "each and every human being who has ever lived" (pp. 30, 32, 286). He rejects Calvin's view (Institutes, 3.24.16) and simply asserts his own: "this is not the place to debate" the different interpretations (p. 30). Sensing the need for some measure of support for his own view, but refusing to grant exegetical bases, Sanders appeals to popular opinion. The fact that few today would accept Augustine's or Calvin's explanations of passages such as 1 Tim 2:3-6 or John 3:16f is adequate for Sanders to proceed as if the truth were established by an opinion poll (p. 30).7 He fails to reflect any sensitivity to the fact that the context of each passage restricts 'all' to mean "all peoples without distinction" not "every individual without exception." For example, pantes anthrwpoi in 1 Tim 2:4 is defined by verses one and two. In 2:1 Paul hardly exhorts Timothy to intercede for "each and every human being who has ever lived." Verse two clarifies that our prayers are to encompass people of all walks of life, particularly kings and rulers. Likewise, God's desire to redeem and Christ's substitutionary death encompasses all peoples without distinction (2:4). Paul's mention of his Gentile mission (2:7) reinforces this interpretation. In place of exegetically basing his assertions, Sanders lets his assumptions shape how he holds together the two theological axioms. Two crucial assumptions, given no exegetical basis, inform his viewpoint: (1) For God to be just, every individual on earth must be counted deserving of accessibility to God's saving grace (p. 216ff); (2) Disbelief in God (not necessarily in Christ) is the only basis upon which anyone will be condemned by God (cf. pp. 208 & 217). Concerning the first of these two assumptions, Sanders claims to be overwhelmed by God's magnanimous salvation (p. 216), but what truly astonishes him is the enormous numbers of peoples who have never heard the gospel of Christ.8 He argues, if God desires all to come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9), "is it credible that he would create billions of people without any hope for salvation?" (p. 218). Sanders asks, "What kind of God would take delight in creating people just to punish them eternally?" (p. 95). He contends that to believe that "God is not obligated to send the gospel message to the vast majority of the unevangelized because they do not seek him strikes me as incompatible with the assertion that God truly desires to save everyone" (p. 172). So Sanders reasons that God would be unjust to condemn the unevangelized unless he gives them sufficient knowledge to save them.9 To support his case, he cites favorably Peter Cotterell when he argues, "the fact that the unevangelized 'have never heard of Christ is due not to a failure on their part, as if they were expected to seek him, but as a failure on the part of the church, which is commanded to seek them.... Is it reasonable, is it just, to condemn the world for the failure of the church'" (p. 70). Though Sanders says that "it is true that God owes us nothing" (p. 209), he fails to convince the reader, for human desert of grace dominates his thinking. Citing Cotterell again, he says, "All peoples deserve to have the good news preached to them because it is good news" (p. 285, italics original). Sanders's argument assumes that "restrictivists" believe that the unevangelized are condemned for not believing the gospel which they have never heard. In response, Sanders believes that a God who would condemn anyone without making salvation accessible to them is harsh and unloving (p. 106). Contrary to his claims (p. 235), Sanders fails to take seriously the depth of human depravity, and he fails to understand that every human being who has ever lived stands condemned apart from being in Christ Jesus.10 The question is not whether God is just to condemn those who never hear the gospel of Christ....11 The question is rather, "What justice is this that God redeems anyone who stands justly condemned before him?" Paul does not busy himself with Cotterell's and Sanders's question, but he does speak to the latter question. Paul never questions God's justice in condemning anyone, whether Jews who received the promises (Rom 9:1-5) or Gentiles who never received the law (Rom 1:18-32; w/2:14). Paul is not overwhelmed by questions concerning God's justice in condemning multitudes of humans, for to Sanders Paul says, "Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" (Rom 9:20). Rather, what amazes Paul is God's demonstration of his justice: God is both just and justifier. That is, God does not wink at sin or at sinners. He remains just even when he issues the justifying verdict to all who are in Christ Jesus, because he inflicted Christ with his wrath, a wrath deserved by all whom he redeems in Christ (Rom 3:26). As to the second assumption, dealing with the basis of divine condemnation, the author takes one strand of biblical evidence and exploits it while neglecting other biblical evidence. Evidently he believes Christ's death on the cross establishes a kind of neutrality in all humanity12 so that now the only basis upon which God can condemn anyone is their existential response to revelation, whether it be the gospel or general revelation (p. 235f). His belief that Christ's death "objectively provides for the salvation of every human being" (p. 216) amounts to a denial of substitutionary death - Christ died for everyone in general but for no one in particular. As he would have it, Christ's death makes savable every individual by bearing for them God's wrath against sin so that now what condemns them is only their rejection of the gospel or of general revelation. However, Sanders completely ignores passages such as Eph 5:3-6 which explicitly affirm that God's wrath comes upon disobedient people for obscene speech, immorality, impurity, greediness, etc. (cf. Rom 1:18-32). In other words, salvation does not come to people who are neutral but who are rebels against God (cf. Rom 1:18-32). For Sanders, God can only be just if he makes salvation accessible to each and every human being who has ever lived. If salvation is available to some, it must be available to all. Otherwise, what kind of God is he who gives ample knowledge to the unevangelized to make them accountable to him but withholds knowledge that is able to bring salvation to them (p. 233)? He fails to take seriously Paul who says that quite aside from hearing the gospel, God has revealed himself in creation so that universally humanity is "without excuse" (Rom 1:20