What do you think?
Rate this book
The Possibility of Salvation Among the Unevangelized
In the area of systematics known as the theology of religions, those who affirm the particularity of Christ in terms of truth, revelation, and salvation have always had to deal with the problem of the unevangelized: those who have never heard of Christ through no fault of their own. For evangelical theologians this issue impinges on fundamental tenets of evangelical identity. Recently the fate of the unevangelized has received detailed attention from evangelicals, and has been fiercely debated because of the wider doctrinal issues it raises. The position known as inclusivism has been most fully developed by Clark H. Pinnock, an influential and controversial evangelical theologian, known as being the leading spokesman of Arminianism and a new theistic paradigm entitled the trinitarian openness of God. Through a detailed analysis and critique of his work, this book examines a cluster of issues surrounding the unevangelized and its implications for Christology, soteriology, and evangelical identity.
362 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2003
About the author
Daniel Strange
21 books13 followersDaniel Strange was born in 1974 to British and Guyanese parents. After studying theology and religious studies at Bristol University, he completed his doctoral work on the theology of religions under Prof. Gavin D'Costa. From 2000-2005 he was Co-ordinator for the Religious and Theological Studies Fellowship, part of UCCF. He joined the faculty of Oak Hill Theological College, London as Tutor in Culture, Religion and Public Theology in 2005. In 2018 he became the Director of Oak Hill. His book, Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock, received an Award of Merit for Theology/Ethics in Christianity Today's 2016 Book Awards. Dan is a Contributing Editor for Themelios. He is married to Elly, has seven children and serves an Elder at East Finchley Baptist Church. He regularly suffers as a season ticket holder at West Ham United.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 27, 2026
A STUDY AND CRITIQUE OF PINNOCK’S VIEWS ON THE SALVATION OF THE UNEVANGELIZED
Daniel Strange (b. 1974) is the College Director of Oak Hill Theological College (where he was previously a faculty member, teaching Culture, Religion and Public Theology).
He wrote in the Preface to this 2002 book, “The focus of this study can be delineated as follows: through a detailed description, analysis and critique of a specific representative (Clark H. Pinnock) of a specific theological position (inclusivism), my primary aim, using Pinnock as a facilitative vehicle, is to examine a cluster of issues surrounding the question of the ‘fate of the unevangelized,' of which … Clark Pinnock’s ‘version’ of inclusivism, is but one possible answer… the seemingly abstruse nature of this question does not imply theological insignificance… a second aim of this study is to highlight the organic nature of systematic theology and to analyze the question of the fate of the unevangelized… as a gateway to explore … other areas. All of this analysis will be focused within the boundaries of … evangelicalism, where the significance of the destiny of the unevangelized is particularly acute and where discussion of it generates some … tension by the ‘reputation’ of certain evangelical theologians (e.g., Pinnock) who are at the forefront of the debate and who propose new ways of answering the question.” Later, he adds, “for while this study does not directly deal with evangelical responses to other religions, the fate of the unevangelized is ... inextricably linked to religious pluralism and questions such pluralism raise for Christian theologians.” (Pg. 14)
He defines some terms: “‘Exclusivism’ maintains that the central claims of Christianity are true and that where the claims... conflict with those of other religions, the latter are to be rejected as false… Inclusivism holds that … God’s salvation is available through non-Christian religions. Pluralism … [says that] God is… actively revealing himself in all religious traditions. Christian faith is merely one of the many equally legitimate human responses to the same divine reality.” (Pg. 15-16)
He explains, “The question that will be the focus of this study [is]: … If one believes that: (1) God has revealed Himself uniquely and definitively in the incarnation; (2) that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and that there is no other name by which one can be saved… and (3) that explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, then what is the eschatological destiny of those who live and die having had no opportunity to hear about the life and work of Jesus? Are they by definition ‘without hope of salvation’?” (Pg.19-20)
Later, he also adds, “Another reason for the evangelical interest in this area is the implications it has for missions…. any position that posits … that salvation can come about other than through the missionary is seen as a serious threat to missionary activity.” (Pg. 25-26)
He notes, “In the discussion of the unevangelized, this … has referred to four different groups of people: 1. Those since the time of Christ, who have lived and died without receiving the gospel [by report]… [perhaps] because they … lived in remote geographical regions… 2. Those who lived prior to the coming of Christ … This includes both Jew and Gentile… from the time of Adam to the birth of Christ. 3. Those who are … able to hear the gospel… but are unable to understand… [e.g.] children who die in infancy… those who are ‘unable mentally to understand the gospel message'… (4) Those who have not been presented with a full and adequate presentation of the Gospel and have received only a perverted or incomplete gospel.” (Pg. 33-34)
He explains, “I should note two characteristics of Pinnock’s theology that make him problematical as a focus for study. Firstly, Pinnock openly professes that he has changed his mind on various theological issues… Secondly… Pinnock does not concentrate … in one area of systematics but … has written on a wide range of theological topics.” (Pg. 43-44) He states, “A common thread … in all of Pinnock’s work concerning the unevangelized, is his desire to uphold two fundamental axioms… The first … [is] the ‘universality axiom’… a belief in God’s love for all humanity; secondly, His universal salvific will; and thirdly, an optimism in the numbers that will eventually be saved… The second axiom … stresses that any and everyone saved is saved through the person and work of Christ.” (Pg. 56) He states, “Pinnock admits that … the majority of the human race has never heard of Christ through no fault of their own… and so have been unable to explicitly accept or reject the love of God.” (Pg. 86)
He reports, “Pinnock draws our attention to the ‘holy pagans’ of the Old Testament, figures including Enoch, Melchizedek, Abimelech, Jethro, and Job. Such figures … were saved because they cast themselves on the mercy of God…” (Pg. 110) Strange counters later, “the examples Pinnock cites were pagans who BECAME saints by virtue of being ingrafted into Israel, or, secondly they were never ‘pagans,’ but were recipients of a special revelation and so cannot be counted as pagans.” (Pg. 167)
He explains, “Pinnock claims that evangelicals have placed undue emphasis on justification and the change of status of the sinner from guilty to not guilty rather than on the more relational side of salvation.” (Pg. 114) He notes, “Pinnock understands one of the main objections to his position … [is that] universal access to salvation takes away the urgency for mission, one of the primary characteristics of the evangelical community… For Pinnock, the main motive in evangelism is not to warn people that they are … damned unless they believe the gospel. Rather, evangelism should be … telling people about Jesus and calling them to enter into relationship through Spirit.” (Pg. 127)
He points out, “[A] ‘softening’ in Pinnock’s position has arisen because of his struggle to deal with one of the most fundamental questions… when does an unevangelized person become evangelized?… What do we say about the Muslim who has responded to prevenient grace [i.e., divine grace that precedes human ‘decision’] but who believes Christianity to be inextricably … imperialistic in nature…?” (Pg. 131) Pinnock “believes that [infants] were included in Christ’s act of representation...” (Pg. 134)
Strange asserts, “Against Pinnock’s argument that Israelite believers were saved by confessing a generalized ‘faith principle’… that… provides the template for how the unevangelized are saved, I wish to argue … that Israelite believers actually ‘confessed Christ’ albeit in an embryonic way.” (Pg. 163) He argues, “What Pinnock must prove… [is] that Melchizedek worshipped a Canaanite deity, ‘El Elyon’ but that Abraham accepted the equivalence of this name with Yahweh… Of course this says nothing of the mode or source of revelation given to Melchizedek… all that needs to be shown is that Melchizedek was the recipient of a special revelation from God…” (Pg. 179-180)
He suggests, “One begins to get the impression that in his desire to prove universal accessibility, Pinnock has proscribed two ways to salvation, one through the revelation of the Spirit in creation which brings salvation albeit opaque and incomplete, and one through the revelation of God in Christ which brings full messianic salvation.” (Pg. 222)
He points out, “Pinnock does not hide the theological motives behind his exclusivist formulation. For him, the universality axiom comprising of God’s universal salvific will, universal atonement and universal accessibility, are fundamental truths that cannot be compromised… If God desires all to be saved, and if Christ dies for all, what are we to say concerning the unevangelized and the possibility of their salvation? It is to the universality axiom and the way Pinnock and other evangelicals construe it that becomes the subject of my final chapter.” (Pg. 263-264)
He summarizes, “In this study I have explicitly focused on Pinnock’s inclusivist argument concluding that there is no biblical evidence that the unevangelized can be saved through an unspecific ‘faith principle.’ … I have been led into critiquing other areas of Pinnock’s theology, particularly certain facets of Pinnock’s soteriology… he calls ‘trinitarian openness.’… My point is this: In Pinnock’s theology, his adherence to ‘trinitarian openness’ with its stress on mutuality and reciprocity between God and human beings, generates his construal of the universality axiom… Pinnock is pressured to find a mediation that shows a universal accessibility. As has been seen, though, a universalization of particular themes such as revelation, grace and atonement, changes the whole nature of these themes so removing them from their biblical meaning… Pinnock has stressed the love, grace and mercy of God so much, that other equally important themes, the depth of sin, the righteous wrath and judgment of God, have been neglected. This reductionism results in a misunderstanding of the love of God and its complex nature.” (Pg. 280-281)
His conclusion is: “Even under a broad definition of evangelicalism, I believe that I have shown that there are too many problems internally and biblically to make Pinnock’s doctrine of the unevangelized a viable ‘evangelical’ option.” (Pg. 287)
This book will be of great interest to Christians looking for a very DETAILED discussion/critique of issues relating to the unevangelized.
Daniel Strange (b. 1974) is the College Director of Oak Hill Theological College (where he was previously a faculty member, teaching Culture, Religion and Public Theology).
He wrote in the Preface to this 2002 book, “The focus of this study can be delineated as follows: through a detailed description, analysis and critique of a specific representative (Clark H. Pinnock) of a specific theological position (inclusivism), my primary aim, using Pinnock as a facilitative vehicle, is to examine a cluster of issues surrounding the question of the ‘fate of the unevangelized,' of which … Clark Pinnock’s ‘version’ of inclusivism, is but one possible answer… the seemingly abstruse nature of this question does not imply theological insignificance… a second aim of this study is to highlight the organic nature of systematic theology and to analyze the question of the fate of the unevangelized… as a gateway to explore … other areas. All of this analysis will be focused within the boundaries of … evangelicalism, where the significance of the destiny of the unevangelized is particularly acute and where discussion of it generates some … tension by the ‘reputation’ of certain evangelical theologians (e.g., Pinnock) who are at the forefront of the debate and who propose new ways of answering the question.” Later, he adds, “for while this study does not directly deal with evangelical responses to other religions, the fate of the unevangelized is ... inextricably linked to religious pluralism and questions such pluralism raise for Christian theologians.” (Pg. 14)
He defines some terms: “‘Exclusivism’ maintains that the central claims of Christianity are true and that where the claims... conflict with those of other religions, the latter are to be rejected as false… Inclusivism holds that … God’s salvation is available through non-Christian religions. Pluralism … [says that] God is… actively revealing himself in all religious traditions. Christian faith is merely one of the many equally legitimate human responses to the same divine reality.” (Pg. 15-16)
He explains, “The question that will be the focus of this study [is]: … If one believes that: (1) God has revealed Himself uniquely and definitively in the incarnation; (2) that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior and that there is no other name by which one can be saved… and (3) that explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, then what is the eschatological destiny of those who live and die having had no opportunity to hear about the life and work of Jesus? Are they by definition ‘without hope of salvation’?” (Pg.19-20)
Later, he also adds, “Another reason for the evangelical interest in this area is the implications it has for missions…. any position that posits … that salvation can come about other than through the missionary is seen as a serious threat to missionary activity.” (Pg. 25-26)
He notes, “In the discussion of the unevangelized, this … has referred to four different groups of people: 1. Those since the time of Christ, who have lived and died without receiving the gospel [by report]… [perhaps] because they … lived in remote geographical regions… 2. Those who lived prior to the coming of Christ … This includes both Jew and Gentile… from the time of Adam to the birth of Christ. 3. Those who are … able to hear the gospel… but are unable to understand… [e.g.] children who die in infancy… those who are ‘unable mentally to understand the gospel message'… (4) Those who have not been presented with a full and adequate presentation of the Gospel and have received only a perverted or incomplete gospel.” (Pg. 33-34)
He explains, “I should note two characteristics of Pinnock’s theology that make him problematical as a focus for study. Firstly, Pinnock openly professes that he has changed his mind on various theological issues… Secondly… Pinnock does not concentrate … in one area of systematics but … has written on a wide range of theological topics.” (Pg. 43-44) He states, “A common thread … in all of Pinnock’s work concerning the unevangelized, is his desire to uphold two fundamental axioms… The first … [is] the ‘universality axiom’… a belief in God’s love for all humanity; secondly, His universal salvific will; and thirdly, an optimism in the numbers that will eventually be saved… The second axiom … stresses that any and everyone saved is saved through the person and work of Christ.” (Pg. 56) He states, “Pinnock admits that … the majority of the human race has never heard of Christ through no fault of their own… and so have been unable to explicitly accept or reject the love of God.” (Pg. 86)
He reports, “Pinnock draws our attention to the ‘holy pagans’ of the Old Testament, figures including Enoch, Melchizedek, Abimelech, Jethro, and Job. Such figures … were saved because they cast themselves on the mercy of God…” (Pg. 110) Strange counters later, “the examples Pinnock cites were pagans who BECAME saints by virtue of being ingrafted into Israel, or, secondly they were never ‘pagans,’ but were recipients of a special revelation and so cannot be counted as pagans.” (Pg. 167)
He explains, “Pinnock claims that evangelicals have placed undue emphasis on justification and the change of status of the sinner from guilty to not guilty rather than on the more relational side of salvation.” (Pg. 114) He notes, “Pinnock understands one of the main objections to his position … [is that] universal access to salvation takes away the urgency for mission, one of the primary characteristics of the evangelical community… For Pinnock, the main motive in evangelism is not to warn people that they are … damned unless they believe the gospel. Rather, evangelism should be … telling people about Jesus and calling them to enter into relationship through Spirit.” (Pg. 127)
He points out, “[A] ‘softening’ in Pinnock’s position has arisen because of his struggle to deal with one of the most fundamental questions… when does an unevangelized person become evangelized?… What do we say about the Muslim who has responded to prevenient grace [i.e., divine grace that precedes human ‘decision’] but who believes Christianity to be inextricably … imperialistic in nature…?” (Pg. 131) Pinnock “believes that [infants] were included in Christ’s act of representation...” (Pg. 134)
Strange asserts, “Against Pinnock’s argument that Israelite believers were saved by confessing a generalized ‘faith principle’… that… provides the template for how the unevangelized are saved, I wish to argue … that Israelite believers actually ‘confessed Christ’ albeit in an embryonic way.” (Pg. 163) He argues, “What Pinnock must prove… [is] that Melchizedek worshipped a Canaanite deity, ‘El Elyon’ but that Abraham accepted the equivalence of this name with Yahweh… Of course this says nothing of the mode or source of revelation given to Melchizedek… all that needs to be shown is that Melchizedek was the recipient of a special revelation from God…” (Pg. 179-180)
He suggests, “One begins to get the impression that in his desire to prove universal accessibility, Pinnock has proscribed two ways to salvation, one through the revelation of the Spirit in creation which brings salvation albeit opaque and incomplete, and one through the revelation of God in Christ which brings full messianic salvation.” (Pg. 222)
He points out, “Pinnock does not hide the theological motives behind his exclusivist formulation. For him, the universality axiom comprising of God’s universal salvific will, universal atonement and universal accessibility, are fundamental truths that cannot be compromised… If God desires all to be saved, and if Christ dies for all, what are we to say concerning the unevangelized and the possibility of their salvation? It is to the universality axiom and the way Pinnock and other evangelicals construe it that becomes the subject of my final chapter.” (Pg. 263-264)
He summarizes, “In this study I have explicitly focused on Pinnock’s inclusivist argument concluding that there is no biblical evidence that the unevangelized can be saved through an unspecific ‘faith principle.’ … I have been led into critiquing other areas of Pinnock’s theology, particularly certain facets of Pinnock’s soteriology… he calls ‘trinitarian openness.’… My point is this: In Pinnock’s theology, his adherence to ‘trinitarian openness’ with its stress on mutuality and reciprocity between God and human beings, generates his construal of the universality axiom… Pinnock is pressured to find a mediation that shows a universal accessibility. As has been seen, though, a universalization of particular themes such as revelation, grace and atonement, changes the whole nature of these themes so removing them from their biblical meaning… Pinnock has stressed the love, grace and mercy of God so much, that other equally important themes, the depth of sin, the righteous wrath and judgment of God, have been neglected. This reductionism results in a misunderstanding of the love of God and its complex nature.” (Pg. 280-281)
His conclusion is: “Even under a broad definition of evangelicalism, I believe that I have shown that there are too many problems internally and biblically to make Pinnock’s doctrine of the unevangelized a viable ‘evangelical’ option.” (Pg. 287)
This book will be of great interest to Christians looking for a very DETAILED discussion/critique of issues relating to the unevangelized.
Displaying 1 of 1 review