What do you think?
Rate this book
How Shall They Be Saved?: The Destiny of Those Who Do Not Hear of Jesus
Part 1 delineates the array of positions - including liberal, Catholic, and Protestant stances - taken on the destiny of the unevangelized. In part 2 the author probes the critical issues, including the role of general revelation, the possibility of salvation after death, the requirements of salvation, the number of the redeemed, and the problem of annihilationism. In the final part, Erickson tackles two practical (1) the fate of those who die in infancy and others who do not reach the age of accountability and (2) how the subject of the destiny of the unevangelized affects evangelism and missions.
278 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 1996
About the author
Millard J. Erickson
48 books46 followersMillard J. Erickson (PhD, Northwestern University) has served as a pastor and seminary dean and has taught at several schools, including Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Western Seminary (Portland and San Jose), and Baylor University. He has also held numerous visiting professorships, both in the United States and internationally, and is the author of many books. Erickson lives in Mounds View, Minnesota.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 19, 2026
A BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL DEFENSE OF ‘EXCLUSIVISM’
Millard J. Erickson (b. 1932) is a theologian (and ordained Baptist minister) who taught theology at Western Seminary, Bethel University Seminary, and Baylor University.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1996 book, “This book attempts to survey theological developments that have drawn inspiration from both theoretical and practical sources. Consequently, the question of the eternal destiny of those who do not hear of Jesus Christ during their lifetime is one that in various ways currently engages theologians, philosophers, anthropologists and missiologists. The literature on the subject has mushroomed in the past decade or two.
“Yet much of the material sent forth on this subject carries rather strong ideological flavoring. Firm positions are taken, sometimes without real appreciation for the type of considerations that motivate those of opposite persuasions. In many cases, more is read into the Scripture than is exegetically supported there. Thus, another work on the subject seems justified. In this book we first attempt to survey the several different positions of ‘schools of thought,’ before going back over the issues that are at stake and sifting the evidence with an attempt to come to a balanced and responsible viewpoint.” (Pg. 9)
He reports, “Hodge contends that this requirement of persons hearing explicitly and believing is true because the Bible expressly teaches it… Hodge admits that this is an awful doctrine, one in which he takes no joy. This should be borne in mind when we come to some later comments of theologians who suggest that those who hold the exclusivist position are somehow indifferent or cold-hearted. The exclusivist view is that the message of the Bible, specifically our Lord’s teaching, is that the way is small and narrow, and few find and enter in. This could produce a reaction on our part: abhorrence or blaming of God, or repulsion that causes us to turn away or immobilizes us. Rather, it should prompt us to increased exertion in taking the gospel to those who have never heard.” (Pg, 52)
He notes, “there are a number of problems with the usual form of [the Exclusivist] view, and a number of points at which unresolved issues must be dealt with. 1. There tends to be too much deduction from other tenets, without careful evaluation of the suppressed premises in the argument. For example… believing in Jesus Christ or calling upon his name leads to salvation. [Passages like Romans 10:9-12 and Acts 16:31] do not necessarily say, however, that only those who do so will be saved, although no other alternative is considered in those contexts. To say that those AND ONLY THOSE who believe in Jesus will be saved is an illicit deduction. 2. Too much is also inferred from the Great Commission. To be sure, Christ’s giving this confers an importance and urgency on the task of missions and evangelism. It is not stated, however, that this is because those to be evangelized cannot possibly be saved otherwise. 3. Perhaps the most serious problem with this view is that it has not really grappled adequately with the problem of human responsibility. That is to say, how can people who have not heard the gospel be without excuse if they could not possibly have believed and if such belief is indispensable to salvation? As the statement … stands, people are condemned for failing to do what they could not possibly have done. 4. … That people are placed in situations where they cannot hear the gospel may make it certain that they will not be saved. Does it follow from this, however, that God does not will for them to be saved. In other words… may it be the case that God intended them to live where they are, but also that Christians were to take the message to them?” (Pg. 63-64)
He argues, “[John] Hick himself exemplifies the fallacy of the cultural conditioning factor. On the grounds of his theory, he, born in England, should be an Anglican, if anything. Yet this is not the case. He has undergone a series of changes, first to a fundamentalist type of Presbyterianism and then to a broader, pluralistic sort of Christianity. How can this be? What this seems to point out is that the initial religious identity of a person can be accounted for by this theory, but that when a person matures to a point of more critical thought, other factors enter in. If this is not the case, then we must go to a more complex type of cultural conditioning…” (Pg. 101)
He states, “What are we to say about those who live chronologically after the event of Christ, but who are epistemologically before it? In other words… those who have never had any contact with special revelation at all, and thus cannot know the details of what God has done… May they still be treated in the same way as those who lived before the completion of the plan of salvation and the revelation?… Although I once favored such an approach, I now believe this is too artificial and speculative a solution. A more helpful approach is to note that the responsibility was in relationship to the available understanding. Those who lived in the Old Testament [time] were not held responsible for not knowing, believing, or responding to the fuller knowledge of God as found in Christ. That Old Testament revelation was, however, considerably more specific in content than we have sometimes thought.” (Pg. 194)
He concludes, “1. There will be persons present in the final kingdom from every tribe and nation. The gospel will be preached successfully, in the sense that it will be taken to every group and there will be converts from all nations. 2. There will be a large number of believers… beyond any crowd that we have ever encountered. 3. Nonetheless, they will be, when compared to the great number of unbelievers, a minority. It is not with any satisfaction that we arrive at this conclusion. On the contrary, it is with a great sense of sorrow that we conclude this. We could wish that it were otherwise. Yet in the final analysis, it is not our wishes or desires that determine what is true. There is a sufficient number of reasonably clear biblical texts teaching this that we have no choice but to reach this conclusion.” (Pg. 215)
This book will appeal to Christians supporting the ‘Exclusivist’ viewpoint.
Millard J. Erickson (b. 1932) is a theologian (and ordained Baptist minister) who taught theology at Western Seminary, Bethel University Seminary, and Baylor University.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1996 book, “This book attempts to survey theological developments that have drawn inspiration from both theoretical and practical sources. Consequently, the question of the eternal destiny of those who do not hear of Jesus Christ during their lifetime is one that in various ways currently engages theologians, philosophers, anthropologists and missiologists. The literature on the subject has mushroomed in the past decade or two.
“Yet much of the material sent forth on this subject carries rather strong ideological flavoring. Firm positions are taken, sometimes without real appreciation for the type of considerations that motivate those of opposite persuasions. In many cases, more is read into the Scripture than is exegetically supported there. Thus, another work on the subject seems justified. In this book we first attempt to survey the several different positions of ‘schools of thought,’ before going back over the issues that are at stake and sifting the evidence with an attempt to come to a balanced and responsible viewpoint.” (Pg. 9)
He reports, “Hodge contends that this requirement of persons hearing explicitly and believing is true because the Bible expressly teaches it… Hodge admits that this is an awful doctrine, one in which he takes no joy. This should be borne in mind when we come to some later comments of theologians who suggest that those who hold the exclusivist position are somehow indifferent or cold-hearted. The exclusivist view is that the message of the Bible, specifically our Lord’s teaching, is that the way is small and narrow, and few find and enter in. This could produce a reaction on our part: abhorrence or blaming of God, or repulsion that causes us to turn away or immobilizes us. Rather, it should prompt us to increased exertion in taking the gospel to those who have never heard.” (Pg, 52)
He notes, “there are a number of problems with the usual form of [the Exclusivist] view, and a number of points at which unresolved issues must be dealt with. 1. There tends to be too much deduction from other tenets, without careful evaluation of the suppressed premises in the argument. For example… believing in Jesus Christ or calling upon his name leads to salvation. [Passages like Romans 10:9-12 and Acts 16:31] do not necessarily say, however, that only those who do so will be saved, although no other alternative is considered in those contexts. To say that those AND ONLY THOSE who believe in Jesus will be saved is an illicit deduction. 2. Too much is also inferred from the Great Commission. To be sure, Christ’s giving this confers an importance and urgency on the task of missions and evangelism. It is not stated, however, that this is because those to be evangelized cannot possibly be saved otherwise. 3. Perhaps the most serious problem with this view is that it has not really grappled adequately with the problem of human responsibility. That is to say, how can people who have not heard the gospel be without excuse if they could not possibly have believed and if such belief is indispensable to salvation? As the statement … stands, people are condemned for failing to do what they could not possibly have done. 4. … That people are placed in situations where they cannot hear the gospel may make it certain that they will not be saved. Does it follow from this, however, that God does not will for them to be saved. In other words… may it be the case that God intended them to live where they are, but also that Christians were to take the message to them?” (Pg. 63-64)
He argues, “[John] Hick himself exemplifies the fallacy of the cultural conditioning factor. On the grounds of his theory, he, born in England, should be an Anglican, if anything. Yet this is not the case. He has undergone a series of changes, first to a fundamentalist type of Presbyterianism and then to a broader, pluralistic sort of Christianity. How can this be? What this seems to point out is that the initial religious identity of a person can be accounted for by this theory, but that when a person matures to a point of more critical thought, other factors enter in. If this is not the case, then we must go to a more complex type of cultural conditioning…” (Pg. 101)
He states, “What are we to say about those who live chronologically after the event of Christ, but who are epistemologically before it? In other words… those who have never had any contact with special revelation at all, and thus cannot know the details of what God has done… May they still be treated in the same way as those who lived before the completion of the plan of salvation and the revelation?… Although I once favored such an approach, I now believe this is too artificial and speculative a solution. A more helpful approach is to note that the responsibility was in relationship to the available understanding. Those who lived in the Old Testament [time] were not held responsible for not knowing, believing, or responding to the fuller knowledge of God as found in Christ. That Old Testament revelation was, however, considerably more specific in content than we have sometimes thought.” (Pg. 194)
He concludes, “1. There will be persons present in the final kingdom from every tribe and nation. The gospel will be preached successfully, in the sense that it will be taken to every group and there will be converts from all nations. 2. There will be a large number of believers… beyond any crowd that we have ever encountered. 3. Nonetheless, they will be, when compared to the great number of unbelievers, a minority. It is not with any satisfaction that we arrive at this conclusion. On the contrary, it is with a great sense of sorrow that we conclude this. We could wish that it were otherwise. Yet in the final analysis, it is not our wishes or desires that determine what is true. There is a sufficient number of reasonably clear biblical texts teaching this that we have no choice but to reach this conclusion.” (Pg. 215)
This book will appeal to Christians supporting the ‘Exclusivist’ viewpoint.
May 8, 2015
I first read this book when I bought it in 2007. I made extensive notes and highlights at that time as I processed the historical and current schools of thought Erickson reviews on this topic. In May 2015, I am reading it again, interacting with the text with my own constructive concepts on the concepts as he presents them.
This is a thoughtful presentation of considerations from a Christian perspective of the status of people who have not heard the Gospel, and the possibilities for their salvation in light of the Christian understanding of salvation in reference to Jesus Christ. Erickson reviews the various factors and evidence from traditional, scriptural and logical perspectives. He competently presents and analyzes the views of major thinkers throughout the Christian era on this question.
He discusses general "schools" of thought on this in the traditions of Christina theology and practice. He then evaluates the positive aspects and strengths of each position, then likewise the negative or weak aspects. He deals with some difficult questions that are often ignored, especially in popular theology and common preaching, but even in formal theologies. One strength of this work is the detailed consideration of major contributions on this topic in the last 25 years.
But Erickson also reviews current Christian thinkers like Pinnock and Sanders, and the previous generation, such as Rahner, as well as masters throughout history. He covers both Catholic and Protestant thinkers, and reflects of various historical councils (of the Western church), including changes in perspectives from Vatican II and later. He reviews in detail every passage from the Old and New Testament that he can find that relates to this question.
In the process he debunks many popular ideas that supposedly are based on some of these passages. I was impressed, and frankly surprised, at the objectivity and care he takes to honestly say what he feels can be drawn from each biblical passage. He does not seem slavishly indebted to a certain fundamentalist line of thought, nor is he beholden to popular liberal ideas.
This is a great resource on the history of Christian attempts to deal with the question on those who have not heard, the mentally deficient and others who for various reasons are incompetent to understand and decide for themselves. Erickson lays out clearly the concepts of God entailed in the various views on this question.
This is a thoughtful presentation of considerations from a Christian perspective of the status of people who have not heard the Gospel, and the possibilities for their salvation in light of the Christian understanding of salvation in reference to Jesus Christ. Erickson reviews the various factors and evidence from traditional, scriptural and logical perspectives. He competently presents and analyzes the views of major thinkers throughout the Christian era on this question.
He discusses general "schools" of thought on this in the traditions of Christina theology and practice. He then evaluates the positive aspects and strengths of each position, then likewise the negative or weak aspects. He deals with some difficult questions that are often ignored, especially in popular theology and common preaching, but even in formal theologies. One strength of this work is the detailed consideration of major contributions on this topic in the last 25 years.
But Erickson also reviews current Christian thinkers like Pinnock and Sanders, and the previous generation, such as Rahner, as well as masters throughout history. He covers both Catholic and Protestant thinkers, and reflects of various historical councils (of the Western church), including changes in perspectives from Vatican II and later. He reviews in detail every passage from the Old and New Testament that he can find that relates to this question.
In the process he debunks many popular ideas that supposedly are based on some of these passages. I was impressed, and frankly surprised, at the objectivity and care he takes to honestly say what he feels can be drawn from each biblical passage. He does not seem slavishly indebted to a certain fundamentalist line of thought, nor is he beholden to popular liberal ideas.
This is a great resource on the history of Christian attempts to deal with the question on those who have not heard, the mentally deficient and others who for various reasons are incompetent to understand and decide for themselves. Erickson lays out clearly the concepts of God entailed in the various views on this question.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews