Synopsis

In this article, I will argue for an exclusivist position of evangelical theology in regard to the fate of the unevangelised. This will be argued firstly because it is the most biblical position that one can take on the subject. I seek to show that arguments of both universalism and Inclusivism overemphasize the scriptures that present the love and will of God to save the unevangelised to the expense of others or that they base their arguments on faulty exegesis.

I will uphold the truth that the fate of the unevangelised is that they will be condemned if they do not hear the message. This is because as I will show (a) everyone must “call on the name of the Lord to be saved.” (b) Because general revelation although bringing a knowledge of God is incapable of bringing saving knowledge; (c) it is just and righteous for to God to condemn these people because all are sinners (d), I will show how the situation of contemporary unevangelised pagans is not equivalent to Old Testament saints who were saved by looking ahead as some theologians have tried to claim.

I will conclude the article with the only position that explains the urgency of the early church for the Christian message to go to all nations is exclusivism and that any other approach will inevitably slide into pluralism whether directly or by implication.

Introduction

This article seeks to answer the two following questions in order to establish the fate of those who never hear the Gospel. Firstly: Is it just for God to condemn the millions of people who have never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel message? Secondly: Is it possible to exercise saving faith in other ways apart from directly hearing the Gospel message, either by trusting in general revelation or the light that people have? In regard to these hard questions, Evangelicals have traditionally held the position argued throughout this article called exclusivism.[1]

Exclusivism argues that it is essential to know the “name of Jesus” and to be able to call on him for salvation.[2] It teaches that saving faith can only come through the special revelation of God revealed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That general revelation is insufficient to save[3] because humanity is fallen and all men suppress the truth of God they have in unrighteousness.[4]

This view argues that all those who do not hear the message of the Gospel, respond to it in faith will not be saved but will be condemned justly because Gods wrath abides on them due to their sins.

This article will discuss two alternate views on the destiny of the unevangelised. Firstly universalism, then inclusivism it seeks to show that these two positions are not biblically tenable and cannot be accepted as an evangelical option.

UNIVERSALISM

Universalism is the belief that all people will eventually be saved.[5] Universalism was held by some of the church fathers. Origen held “that all of the condemned and even demons would eventually be brought, through a time of “purifying” punishment, into voluntary subjection to Christ.[6] ”His follower Gregory of Nyssa, for example, believed that all the dead including demons and “Satan” would eventually be saved.[7] Some more modern proponents of universalism include John A.T Robinson, John Hick and possibly Karl Barth.[8]

The basic arguments for universalism are based on the love of God,[9] and the omnipotence of God:[10] If God is all-powerful and He loves and desires to save all people then ultimately he will save all.[11] Lastly, they argue in regard to those who end up in hell that they will not stay there because hell is a way to purge and purify the sinner until they come to voluntary submission to Christ.[12] Some of the Scriptures used to support it are: Rom 5:18-19[13],2 Cor 5:19,[14] Col 1:20, 1 Cor 15:22. 1 Tim 2:4,4;10, 2 Peter 3:9.[15]

In response to universalism’s use of scripture to support their view it is noted by most theologians that universalists seem to only look at the texts that refer to God’s universal salvific will and that they do not look at scripture as a whole (for example those scriptures that speak of people being lost) or they argue that such scriptures are hypothetical.[16]  Erickson explains that most of the texts that universalists use refer not to the whole world but to Christians alone. Take Romans 11:32 “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” universalists argue that this text is referring to all humanity but as Erickson explains:

Gods mercy has been shown to all humans, but only those who accept it will experience and profit from it. Indeed, Paul points out (e.g., in vv. 7-10, 21-22) that some have rejected Gods mercy and, accordingly, have not revived this salvation. Thus although salvation is universally available, it is not universal.[17]

In regard to God’s omnipotence sanders notes that although God is all powerful he does not save us against our will. But that he calls us to put our faith in him, he says:

The universal conception of human freedom and divine omnipotence is problematic on other counts as well. To the extent that universalism based on divine omnipotence diminishes the vitality of human freedom. It destroys the personal I- thou relationship God desires.[18]

Lastly in regard to the claim that hell is not eternal but only a time of purging are the many scriptures that point out the eternality of hell (Matt 12:32, 25:46, Mark 3:29, 2 Thess 1:8-9). Therefore we conclude that universalism is not an evangelical option as it rejects clear scriptures that speak of people being lost. It also fails to adequately account for the scriptural tension on the issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

 INCLUSIVISM

The next viewpoint Inclusivism it has been described as a middle path between the two extremes of universalism and exclusivism.[19] Its proponents seek to keep a tension between the “universal salvific will of God”[20] and “the particularity and finality of salvation only in  Jesus Christ.”[21] inclusivists hold to the fact that Jesus is the only way of salvation but reject that people must hear about it. They argue that the atonement provided by Jesus Christ is the means by which all people are saved but that people do not need to hear the message for it to benefit them.

JUSTICE?

One of the main objections raised by inclusivists of exclusivism is the issue of injustice.[22] They argue that it is unjust for God to condemn millions of people to an eternal hell who have not had the opportunity to hear the message. Sanders calls this issue “the cardinal difficulty with exclusivism.”[23] He goes on to say that exclusivism insistence that salvation is not universally accessible seem to reject God’s salvific will for all people,[24] that this implies that God does not really love all people and desire them to be saved. If he did, he says, he would make the Gospel universally accessible.[25] This objection is by far one of the hardest to make sense of because scripture does seem to say that God desires all people to be saved (1 Tim 2:4, 4:10, 2 Peter 3:9).

The first thing that needs to be understood in regard to this issue is that God is not obligated to save anyone. Whether people have heard or not, the fact that he saves some and the means by which he saves at all is pure grace (Rom 11:5-6 ). Secondly, we must remember that people are not being condemned innocently as all people have had God revealed through general revelation and rejected him (See below).[26] Third God has made provision for the salvation of the unevangelised through the great commission.[27]

Let us try to tie these ideas together: if God has not sent the gospel to certain people up until now he is not unjust because his ultimate overarching historical goal is to save his elect people from every tribe, nation and tongue (Rev 5:9) not all people. If the Gospel has not reached millions in their geographical region today God in his providence may be seeking to save his elect in that nation in the future [28] but they haven’t been born yet. Just as millions of people died without hearing the message before it arrived in China, God is now working there bringing in an unprecedented harvest. God in his sovereignty works in one place gets a harvest and then works in another. Those regions who have not heard yet may be future harvest fields that God in his sovereignty is preparing to save his elect in at his own time. Those nations God has already worked in like Israel after a time became hardened. God then opens the door for others nations until he reaches the ends of the earth ( Rom 11).

Therefore we conclude that it is not unjust that millions today may die without hearing the Gospel because salvation is by grace alone it is not something that God is obligated to give to all, if he does it is grace: the one who hears and is saved is saved by grace, the one who hears and does not believe has not been given grace, therefore, the hearer and the non-hearer are in the same position. Also, God has made provision for salvation: in his divine providence, God is bringing the message to particular people groups in his fullness of time for them to fulfil his overarching goal to save his elect people from every tribe and tongue, not all people.

FAITH WITHOUT HEARING?

Seeking to make sense of the issue of injustice Inclusivism desires that people can be saved without hearing the Gospel message. That is they say that people can be saved apart from knowing about Jesus Christ himself or the Gospel about him. We argue that this view is contrary to scripture because scripture makes the content of the message Christ and him crucified and that without that message no one can be saved (See 1 Cor 1:20-25). We also base our argument on Romans 10:13-15 and Acts 4:12.[29] We charge that no one can “call on the name of the Lord”(v.13) and be saved if they have not heard of him. We also emphasise that calling on the name of the Lord is essential for salvation.[30] In regard to Romans 10:13-15 Montgomery Boice points out that verse 13 makes it clear that calling on the name of the Lord is essential for salvation.[31] He says:

Many people know about Christ. A significant number of these also probably believe that he is the son of God and the worlds saviour, as the Bible teaches, but they have never called on him in personal trust, and so they are not Christians. They are not saved.[32]

Boice’s main point is that even if people know the name of Jesus but have not called upon his name for salvation then they are not saved. How does this relate to those who have never heard? It relates because saving faith is not believing in an abstract way as inclusivists argue but an actual trust in the name of Jesus, a calling on him for salvation. Boice explains that the point of the whole passage is that people need to be sent so that others can know the name of Jesus and thus call on him to be saved.[33]

This point also is seen in Acts 4:12 where Peter explains that “There is no other name given among men by which we must be saved.” It is knowing the name of Jesus and being able to call on his name by which people are saved.[34] Bock points out that the last part of the verse should be translated “by whom it is necessary to be saved,[35]” He explains that not even “the Jews who had access to Gods revelation”[36] could be saved apart from acknowledging his name.[37] Acts 4:12, therefore, rules out the idea of an anonymous Christian calling on the name of his god in ignorance of the true God and being saved.

Boice explains that there are three things that are needed for true faith to exist (1) intellectual content or knowledge, (2) Personal assent to or agreement with that content, (3)Trust or commitment.[38] With this in mind, those who do not know the name of Jesus are missing parts (1) and (2) and therefore cannot have part (3). The inclusivist argument is missing essential knowledge of the person who is central to the content of the message it is therefore unable to have anonymous believers agree with it and trust in it. We conclude that the inclusivist position is incorrect as it does not provide its hypothetical unevangelised heathens with any content on which to call upon. They have only a view of God that is obscured through the eyes of a fallen humanity ( see next point).

In regard to a “faith response” that inclusivists continually argue for we argue that any faith response that is not connected with the Son is insufficient for salvation. John 17:3 teaches that to have eternal life is to know both the father and the Son if one does not know the Father and the Son they do not have eternal life/salvation.

GENERAL REVALATION

Many inclusivists today argue that people can have saving faith apart from specific special revelatory knowledge of Jesus. They argue that people can be saved by a “faith response” to general revelation or by responding with faith to light that they have. Tiessen argues for this saying:

People experience the salvation that God has accomplished in Christ only when they respond to God in a way that satisfies him, which the Bible calls “faith.” Therefore God makes himself known to all people, but not everyone receives an equally full revelation. God reveals his being and work and something of his moral nature to everyone (i.e., generally”). He does this by his works of creation and providence and through the moral consciousness and intrinsic religiousness of human beings. Thus no- one lacks the revelation necessary to elicit a response to God.[39]

Tiessen is in agreement with other inclusivists when he says that general revelation is able to bring enough knowledge of God for people to trust in him for salvation. The reason  inclusivists are able to argue this way is because they reject the traditional view of general revelation. This traditional view is argued from Romans 1:18-20 it explains that general revelation cannot save anyone because all people suppress this knowledge of God they receive in unrighteousness. Moo explains this view :

For here Paul make it clear that “natural revelation” in and of itself, leads to a negative result. That Paul teaches the reality of a revelation of God in nature to all people, this text makes clear. But it is equally obvious that this revelation is universally rejected, as people turn from a knowledge of God to gods of their own making (cf. vv. 22ff.). [40]”

Secondly inclusivists argue that there may be a possibility that not every human suppresses the knowledge of God they have in unrighteousness (see Anderson below). Sanders strongly complains against the traditional view saying: “Why is it that I can learn from the created order that I am condemned, but apart from special revelation I cannot be moved by the Holy Spirit to repent and be saved ?[41] Clark Pinnock along the same line says “Counting  against restrictivism is . . . the ever-present Spirit, who can foster transforming friendships with God anywhere and everywhere.”[42] Last Anderson explains his hope that someone may not suppress saying:

Did God who is ‘the Creator and Maker of the whole world’ go on ‘continually inflaming some spark [of his grace] among them’ only that they might be ‘without excuse’, and without any possibility of salvation ? May it not be compatible, both with Scripture and experience, to suggest that God sometimes so works in men’s hearts by his grace that, instead of them ‘holding down the truth’, he opens their hearts to it and enables them to embrace such of it as has been revealed to them?[43]

What inclusivists like Pinnock and Sanders do is diminish the distinction between general revelation and special revelation. They argue that although general revelation is different to special revelation that within general revelation there is enough knowledge of God for people to respond to in faith. Pinnock argues that all revelation is salvific because all revelation reveals Gods nature.[44] But as McIntosh explains what all these authors seem to do is confuse common grace and general revelation with saving grace and special revelation.[45] They argue that the Holy Spirit is not tied to the church or the work of human messengers. They argue that the Holy Spirit is able to bring saving knowledge of God to all people through general revelation or as in the case of Old covenant saint by an incomplete special revelation.[46]

In response to this we argue that it is only the traditional view of general revelation is that explains Romans 1:17-32 correctly. This is because humanity is unable to come to a saving knowledge of God without special revelation and God’s regenerating grace.[47] Strange explains it like this:

After the fall what sinners need is the regenerating power of the Gospel to know God as creator and redeemer, and general revelation is an inappropriate vehicle because knowledge of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is not contained in it.[48]

Moreover what both sanders and Anderson argue for is not general revelation at all but special revelation. We find it strange to say as Sanders does that the “Holy Spirit”  moving a person to be saved is general revelation and not special revelation. The reason inclusivists can argue this way is because they separate the saving work of the Spirit from the Son.[49]

OLD TESTAMENT SAINTS

We have argued so far that no one can be saved without explicit knowledge of the Son. And that general revelation is not sufficient to bring saving faith the the unevangelised. In response to this inclusivists ask how then were faithful Jews in the Old covenant saved as they did not know the name of Jesus ? They argue that the situation of unevangelised pagan is the same as the situation of Old Testament saints.

In response to this, we argue that the Old Testament believer is not in the same situation as the unevangelised heathen. This is because the Old Testament saint had special revelation but the unevangelised heathen does not.[50] The light that Old Testament saints had through the Law and the prophets was able to bring them revelation of the true God they were not relying on general revelation. Also, they were able to call upon the name of the Lord. This is because the term Lord in its Old Testament use refers to Yahweh (Joel 2:32). After the coming of Christ, the term was redefined and was used to refer to the Son. In this way, Old Testament saints are not in the same situation as unevangelised heathens.

Secondly to argue that Old Testament believer has incomplete revelation is not totally true. In Romans, Paul explains that the Gospel is foreshadowed in the Law and the prophets (Rom 3:21cf.1 Peter1:10-12). Also that the salvation accomplished in Christ was spoken of beforehand in the prophetic scriptures (Rom 16:26).

Clark Pinnock argues that Old Testament Saints were saved by general revelation[51] not by special revelation. He lists examples like Able, Enoch, Daniel, Noah, Job, Abraham, Melchizedek Moses and David as being saved by general revelation.[52] Before we move to look at any noteworthy examples the question must be asked were these believers saved by general revelation? Those among this group like David, Moses and Daniel clearly had access to special revelation, to claim that they were saved by a general revelation seems foolish. Also, all the members of Pinnock’s group are part of Gods salvation plan for all nations, therefore, they must have received some kind of special revelation. Noah (Gen 6:13), Job (Job 38:1) and Abraham (Gen 12:1-3) for example are said to have had God speak directly to them. Jesus said of Abraham that he rejoiced to see his day (John 8:56). Paul says that God preached the Gospel to Abraham beforehand (Gal 3:8). In regards to Job, his background is not all that clear to say he was a pagan is speculative. To argue that these saints were saved by general revelation seems unfounded. Lastly, in regard to Melchizedek, his background like Job’s is veiled in mystery so to say that he can become a pattern for all unevangelised is not wise.[53] If he did worship the true God then his meeting with Abraham could have introduced him to special revelation also to argue that he himself the small amount we know him was saved by general revelation is not at all wise as it is based on so little.

We conclude then that to say that the situation of unevangelised pagans is the same as Old Testament believers is not a correct analogy. Old Testament saints were not saved by general revelation and they had encounters with special revelation or people who had. The few examples offered by inclusivists do not measure up to scrutiny all but a few were not saved by general revelation at all. Those who were connected to Israel had a foreshadowing of the Gospel within their own nation and therefore are not in the same position as unevangelised pagans who cannot call upon the God of Israel nor his Son.

CONCLUSION

In Conclusion, we argue that the only view that can be considered as an evangelical option is exclusivism. This view states that the fate of those who have not heard the Gospel will be lost that there is no hope of salvation for them unless God chooses to save them by sending them the Gospel so they can call upon the name of the Lord. Since the inclusivist option is not biblically based we should not assume that people can be saved in any other way. This, therefore, puts an important place on the church to reach out to the lost. It is this knowledge that the fate of the unevangelised are lost without the Gospel getting to them that is the strongest motivation for world missions. If we truly do love the lost we should do all we can to save them in a biblical way not open up hypothetical possibilities in the name of wider-hope which may just end up being no hope at all.

---

[1]Ronald H. Nash “ Restrictivism,” In  What About Those Who Have Never Heard?: Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized, ed. John Sanders,(IVP Academic, 1995), 108.

[2]R.D Geivett & W.G Phillips “A particularist view: An Evidential Approach,” In Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World eds. D.L Okholm, T.R Phillips (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996), 214.

[3]For a detailed discussion of this see Daniel Strange “General Revelation: Sufficient or insufficient,”In Faith Comes by Hearing: A Response to Inclusivism eds.  Christopher W. Morgan, Robert A. Peterson. (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2008),40-78.

[4]David K. Clark “Is Special Revelation Necessary for Salvation. Taken from ”Through No Fault of Their Own?: The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard, eds.  William V. Crockett, James G. Sigountos (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Pub Group, 1991), 39.

[5]Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics, Reprinted. (Baker Academic, 1998), 746.

[6]Paul R. House and Gregory A. Thornbury, eds., Who Will Be Saved?: Defending the Biblical Understanding of God, Salvation, and Evangelism (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2000), 86-87

[7]Ibid

[8]Richard Bauckham “Universalism: a historical survey”Taken from  http://www.thologicalstudies.org.uk/article_universalism_bauckham.html.  Bauckham explains that Although Barth did not teach universalism he did not reject it as a possibility either.

[9]John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation Into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001),89.

[10]Geisler, Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics. 747

[11]Ibid.

[12]House and Thornbury, Who Will Be Saved?. 86-87.

[13]See Thomas Talbott “Towards a better Understanding of Universalism,” In Universal Salvation?: The Current Debate eds. Robin, A. Parry and Christopher H. Partridge, (London: Paternoster Press, 2004),18-22.

[14]Geisler, Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics.,748-749

[15]Sanders, No Other Name, 83.

[16]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1998),1030.

[17]Ibid. 1031.

[18]Sanders, No Other Name, 112-113.

[19]Ibid.

[20]  Ibid. 25.

[21]Ibid.

[22]Ibid.

[23]Ibid. 60.

[24]Ibid.

[25]Ibid.

[26]William Edgar “Exclusivism Just or Unjust?” In Faith Comes by Hearing,  93.

[27]Ibid., 94-95.

[28]Ibid.

[29]Paul R. Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2009), 199.

[30]John Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad!: The Supremacy of God in Missions, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2010), 155.

[31]James Montgomery Boice, Romans: God and History (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2005).1238

[32]Ibid.

[33]Ibid.

[34]Also note Acts 22:16 were Paul is told by Ananias to get baptised to wash away his sins, calling upon the name of Jesus. Compare with Luke 24:47 it is in the name of Jesus that The Apostles are to proclaim to all nations.

[35]Darrell L. Bock, Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007),194.

[36]Ibid.

[37]It was the apostles teaching in Jesus name that upset the Jewish leaders. What they  wanted was the miracle without acknowledgement of the Son.

[38]Boice, Romans., 1239.

[39]Terrance L. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved?: Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2004), 104.

[40]Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 105-106.

[41]Sanders, No Other Name.,70.

[42]Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 1999), 86-87

[43]Norman Anderson, Christianity and World Religions, Rev Sub. (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 1984),151.

[44]  Pinnock, Flame of Love, 192.

[45]John McIntosh, “Biblical Exclusivism: Towards a Reformed Approach to the Uniqueness of Christ,” Reformed Theological Review 53, no. 1 (April 1994). 15-17.

[46]See Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love Ch. 6 For this argument.

[47]Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976), 38.

[48]Steven J. Wellum “Saving Faith: Implicit or Explicit,”In Faith Comes by Hearing, 68.

[49]Ibid ,147.

[50]Ibid. Walter C. Kaiser “Holy Pagans :Reality or Myth.” 141.

[51] See Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy,26,105.

[52] Ibid. 26.

[53]For an example of this kind or reasoning see Don Richardson, Eternity in Their Hearts: Startling Evidence of Belief in the One True God in Hundreds of Cultures Throughout the World, 3rd ed. (Ventura, California: Regal, 2006). 9-117.

---

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Norman. Christianity and World Religions. Rev Sub. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 1984.

Richard Bauckham“Universalism: a historical survey”

http://www.thologicalstudies.org.uk/article_universalism_bauckham.html.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976.

Bock, Darrell L. Acts. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007.

Boice, James Montgomery. Romans: God and History. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2005.

Crockett, William V. Through No Fault of Their Own?: The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard. Edited by James G. Sigountos. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Pub Group, 1991.

Eddy, Paul R., and Gregory A. Boyd. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology. 2nd ed. Baker Academic, 2009.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1998.

Fackre, Gabriel, Ronald H. Nash, and John Sanders, eds. What About Those Who Have Never Heard?: Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized. IVP Academic, 1995.

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopaedia of Christian Apologetics. Reprinted. Baker Academic, 1998.

House, Paul R., and Gregory A. Thornbury, eds. Who Will Be Saved?: Defending the Biblical Understanding of God, Salvation, and Evangelism. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2000.

McIntosh, John  “Biblical Exclusivism: Towards a Reformed Approach to the Uniqueness of Christ,” Reformed Theological Review 53, no. 1 (April 1994).

Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.

Morgan, Christopher W., and Robert A. Peterson, eds. Faith Comes by Hearing: A Response to Inclusivism. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2008.

Okholm, Dennis L., Clark H. Pinnock, Alister E. McGrath, and Stanley N. Gundry. Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996.

Parry, Robin A., and Christopher H. Partridge. Universal Salvation?: The Current Debate. London: Paternoster Press, 2004.

Pinnock, Clark H. A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality Of Jesus Christ In A World Of Religions. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1992.

———. Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 1999.

Piper, John. Let the Nations Be Glad!: The Supremacy of God in Missions. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2010.

Richardson, Don. Eternity in Their Hearts: Startling Evidence of Belief in the One True God in Hundreds of Cultures Throughout the World. 3rd ed. Ventura, California: Regal, 2006.

Sanders, John. No Other Name: An Investigation Into the Destiny of the Unevangelized. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001.

Tiessen, Terrance L. Who Can Be Saved?: Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2004.