WHO CAN BE SAVED? A REVIEW ARTICLE

Trinity Journal, Spring 2007 by Hamilton, James M Jr

WHO CAN BE SAVED? A REVIEW ARTICLE JAMES M. HAMILTON JR.* Terrance L. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004. 511 pp. $27.00.

I. INTRODUCTION

We can all thank Terrance Tiessen for his remarkable clarity and perceptive ability to ask the right questions (see esp. pp. 12-17).1 In this introduction I will summarize the major contours of the argument, interacting with the specifics in the body of this review. Tiessen's presentation is rendered disarmingly persuasive by several strengths of the book. First, Tiessen is everywhere clear and easy to understand. Second, along the way Tiessen affirms many cardinal doctrines, such as original sin, and he claims that he is not denying a text such as John 14:6 because the salvation he is proposing is through Christ. Third, Tiessen frequently makes reference to the emotionally troubling nature of the view that those who never hear the gospel through no fault of their own are lost.

Tiessen affirms that all salvation is through Christ by proposing that just as Old Covenant believers were saved apart from faith in Jesus, so those who have never heard can be saved if they respond to general revelation by glorifying God and giving thanks to him. In addition, God might give "nonuniversally normative divine revelation" to some who never hear, and the Spirit could quicken these hearts such that they respond to the light they are given. Since Tiessen holds that faith in Christ is necessary, he posits that those who are "saved" this way -apart from knowing Jesus in this life will respond to him in faith when they do meet him. Here the idea of "universal at death encounters with Christ" is put forward, and Tiessen argues that one's response to Jesus at the moment of death will be in line with the way one responded to him, or would have responded to him, during one's life. Those who consciously reject Christ are without excuse, but Tiessen holds that those who do not hear of Christ are not condemned for not having believed in the one of whom they did not hear. With this overview before us, we turn to a fuller survey of Tiessen's argument.

II. CHAPTERS 1-3: DESTINATION, POSSIBILITIES, HISTORY

The argument for "accessibilism" comes in two parts, which are preceded by three orienting chapters. In Part 1, which begins with ch. 4, he asks "How Does God Save People?" Part 2 takes up the question "How Do the Religions Fit into God's Purposes in the World?"

In the first chapter, "Where Are We Going?" Tiessen lays out the argument of the book in thirty theses. These theses present the whole of the book's argument, and they reappear as superscriptions to the chapters in which they are developed. Chapter 2, "What Are the Options?" seeks to define the various views regarding who can be saved. Tiessen presents the options as follows: (1) Ecclesiocentrism holds that "only those who hear the gospel can be saved" (p. 32); (2) Agnosticism represents those who "do not think that Scripture clearly indicates that none of the unevangelized are ever saved"2 (p. 33); (3) Accessibilism is distinguished from agnosticism because it holds "that there is biblical reason to be hopeful (not simply agnostic)3 about the possibility of salvation for those who do not hear the gospel. . . . [Accessibilists] posit that God makes salvation accessible to people who do not receive the gospel" (p. 33); (4) Religious Instrumentalism is distinguished from accessibilism in that it holds that "God's salvation is available through non-Christian religions" (p. 34). Both religious instrumentalists and accessibilists are inclusivists, and the difference between the two lies in the fact that "accessibilists believe that God may save people who are members of other religions, but religious instrumentalists believe that God has raised up those religions as his instruments in salvation" (p. 34).4 (5) Relativism holds that all religions are "more or less equally true and valid as paths to salvation" (p. 34).

This way of framing the issues is presented as a nuanced improvement upon the typical categories of "Exclusivism, Inclusivism, and Pluralism." A helpful chart on p. 35 summarizes the distincrives of each position. There are several things this way of framing the issues accomplishes for Tiessen's case. Accessibilism is hereby presented as the sane "middle way" between the far right of ecclesiocentrism and the incoherent liberalism of relativism. This styles accessibilism as a way to hold onto Scripture5 while being sensibly nuanced. This will probably give accessibilism wide appeal. It seems that the common perception, though, is not that the Bible presents accessibilism. Could it be that all the animosity toward Christianity in our culture for its supposed "intolerance" is actually undeserved? Could it be that it is not Christianity that is exclusive but mistaken Christians? Will adopting Tiessen's perspective deliver us from the reproach of being narrow and harsh?