What do you think?
Rate this book
Spectrum Multiview
What About Those Who Have Never Heard?: Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized
Voted one of Christianity Today's 1996 Books of the Year What is the fate of those who die never hearing the gospel? Do Hindus, Jews, agnostics and others who do not profess faith in Christ really suffer damnation after death? These and similar questions have long been contemplated by people from every religious persuasion and every walk of life. But in a culture of increasing diversity and growing doubt in the existence of "objective truth," it seems ever more pressing. In this book three scholars present the span of evangelical conviction on the destiny of the unevangelized. Ronald Nash argues the restrictivist position, that receptive knowledge of Jesus Christ in this life is necessary to salvation. Gabriel Fackre advocates divine perseverance, with the expectation that those who die unevangelized receive an opportunity for salvation after death. And John Sanders sets forth the inclusivist case--asserting that though God saves people only through the work of Jesus Christ, some may be saved even if they do not know about Christ. As each scholar presents his own case and responds to strengths and weaknesses of differing positions, readers are treated to a lively and informative debate.What About Those Who Have Never Heard? is a truly helpful book on one of today's--and every day's--most crucial questions.
168 pages, Paperback
First published May 31, 1995
21 people are currently reading
98 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
June 1, 2012
The book gave readers an opportunity to explore a question that is often left unanswered in their minds. The fate of the unevangelized is a topic that touches a number of issues important to Christians. It touches the theological topic of soteriology as a whole as it considers the eternal fate of those who never hear the gospel. It contributes to a theology of missions. It anticipates the honest questions of the unsaved in personal evangelism. And finally, it deals with the larger questions of theodicy as a whole.
The book required the reader to think through his own understanding of the fate of those who have never heard the gospel, while being exposed to views that challenge his thinking. One strength of the multi-view format of this book, and others like it, is that it allows the voices of those who espouse a particular view to speak. This prevents those who may disagree with their view from misrepresenting it, thereby creating a distorted caricature of it in their arguments. The fact that the book allowed for response to each view also contributed to the reader’s better overall understanding of them.
Each particular essay needs to be judged on its own. In this, all three essays have areas that need improvement. In the case of Sanders and Fackre, their conclusions are drawn from a misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the biblical data. For Nash, he never systematically explained or defended his view, choosing rather to spend his allotted space refuting the others.
Sanders’ view is supported by faulty interpretation of bible passages. Further, his appeal to prominent theologians of the past does not improve his argument. He actually sought to mislead his readers concerning the views of many prominent writers and theologians of the past by quoting them in defense of his view. He used quotes from William G. T. Shedd, B. B. Warfield, Charles Hodge, J. Gresham Machen, and G. Campbell Morgan to espouse his view of inclusivism. A casual reader with little knowledge might be led to believe these prominent Christians held to the same view.
Fackre’s essay did well in recognizing the question of the fate of the unevangelized as a part of the larger problem of evil. However, he redefined terms used to describe God in order to argue for his view. He redefined God’s power as God’s powerlessness or weakness. Therefore, according to Fackre, God does not exert His power to accomplish His will, but chooses rather to remain powerless to accomplish His good pleasure, depending rather upon the actions of men to accomplish God’s plan. Further, he redefined God’s goodness and justice to mean that God must provide every guilty sinner an opportunity to be saved in order to be good. This is paramount to an earthly judge refusing to punish a guilty criminal until he refuses an opportunity for pardon. According to Fackre, every person is in God’s grace until he decides to reject it. This is clearly unbiblical.
Unfortunately, Nash’s essay, which represents the biblical view, did not offer an explanation and defense of his view. Rather, Nash made a robust, and less than kind, refutation of the other positions. The result was that restrictivism was left with a seemingly angry voice with nothing of its own to say. The editor of the book would have been better served to require Nash to rewrite his essay or turn to another writer for a contribution to the topic.
Overall, the multi-view format is good for providing an introductory explanation of differing positions in Christian theology from those who espouse each view. However, they do not provide adequate space to fully develop each view. This particular book was useful in explaining and refuting errant views concerning the fate of the unevangelized, but did little to teach the biblical view. It is recommended for students, but not without an additional work which develops the restrictivist view more thoroughly.
The book required the reader to think through his own understanding of the fate of those who have never heard the gospel, while being exposed to views that challenge his thinking. One strength of the multi-view format of this book, and others like it, is that it allows the voices of those who espouse a particular view to speak. This prevents those who may disagree with their view from misrepresenting it, thereby creating a distorted caricature of it in their arguments. The fact that the book allowed for response to each view also contributed to the reader’s better overall understanding of them.
Each particular essay needs to be judged on its own. In this, all three essays have areas that need improvement. In the case of Sanders and Fackre, their conclusions are drawn from a misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the biblical data. For Nash, he never systematically explained or defended his view, choosing rather to spend his allotted space refuting the others.
Sanders’ view is supported by faulty interpretation of bible passages. Further, his appeal to prominent theologians of the past does not improve his argument. He actually sought to mislead his readers concerning the views of many prominent writers and theologians of the past by quoting them in defense of his view. He used quotes from William G. T. Shedd, B. B. Warfield, Charles Hodge, J. Gresham Machen, and G. Campbell Morgan to espouse his view of inclusivism. A casual reader with little knowledge might be led to believe these prominent Christians held to the same view.
Fackre’s essay did well in recognizing the question of the fate of the unevangelized as a part of the larger problem of evil. However, he redefined terms used to describe God in order to argue for his view. He redefined God’s power as God’s powerlessness or weakness. Therefore, according to Fackre, God does not exert His power to accomplish His will, but chooses rather to remain powerless to accomplish His good pleasure, depending rather upon the actions of men to accomplish God’s plan. Further, he redefined God’s goodness and justice to mean that God must provide every guilty sinner an opportunity to be saved in order to be good. This is paramount to an earthly judge refusing to punish a guilty criminal until he refuses an opportunity for pardon. According to Fackre, every person is in God’s grace until he decides to reject it. This is clearly unbiblical.
Unfortunately, Nash’s essay, which represents the biblical view, did not offer an explanation and defense of his view. Rather, Nash made a robust, and less than kind, refutation of the other positions. The result was that restrictivism was left with a seemingly angry voice with nothing of its own to say. The editor of the book would have been better served to require Nash to rewrite his essay or turn to another writer for a contribution to the topic.
Overall, the multi-view format is good for providing an introductory explanation of differing positions in Christian theology from those who espouse each view. However, they do not provide adequate space to fully develop each view. This particular book was useful in explaining and refuting errant views concerning the fate of the unevangelized, but did little to teach the biblical view. It is recommended for students, but not without an additional work which develops the restrictivist view more thoroughly.
April 3, 2012
This book left me a bit perplexed. On the one hand, it gives some good insight to the three views. On the other hand, I ended up leaving more unsure of what the truth is than before I read it!
The three views held are the following:
1. Inclusivism (John Sanders) - this is the view that some unevangelized individuals may be saved despite never having heard of Jesus, depending on how they reply to the amount of light shone to them. Somewhat common throughout time.
2. Divine Perseverance (Gabriel Fackre) - The very uncommon view that those who never hear about Jesus will have a chance to accept or reject Him after death and before judgment.
3. Restrictivism (Ronald Nash) - The belief that the only way a person can be saved is if they knowingly and explicitly place their faith in Jesus. The unevangelized, therefore, are all condemned. Very common today and throughout church history, though not without substantial challenge.
I will give a brief review of the contributions by the three authors:
John Sanders - Overall I thought he did well, but not well enough by any means to convince most skeptics. In his affirmative argument, he uses a decent amount of scripture and doesn't rely too much on emotion and philosophy. Unfortunately, these do show their heads in the responses.
Gabriel Fackre - His affirmative case is very mixed. He makes good points, and gives a reasonable (though by no means certain) interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-4:6. On the downside, the way he interprets a few passages (such as 1 Corinthians 15:19) is way off. Nash is right that he does not address passages that are used to indicate that the chance to except Jesus ends at death.
Ronald H. Nash - His contribution is in many ways the worst of the three. It's not that his position is totally impossible (if anything, I'm more sympathetic to it). However, he commits numerous logical fallacies and clearly misunderstood both of the other two views in the book. Many of these things are brought up clearly and succinctly in the responses to his chapter that are given by Fackre and Sanders. I could add several as well. For example, on numerous occasions (such as his handling of Romans 10:9), he seems to take the position that if the passage doesn't prove the other person's position (even when they don't argue that it does), it disproves it. Sanders rightly points out that he doesn't make much of a positive case for restrictivism, and just assumes that his position is right. Obviously, we all think we are right, but for him, it's a given, and the burden of proof (a phrase he uses several times) always seems to be on everyone else. He also comes across at times as arrogant and very uncharitable in his responses, often assuming the worst about the other two writers and their views even when they explicitly deny what he says. It's a shame, because every once in a while he makes a good point, but it gets lost in the pages of theological polemic which is thinly veiled as biblical exegesis.
In short, this book may be useful if you just decided to get into theology and want to get your toes wet and see how arguments sound on the various sides. However, the numerous flaws in each person's contribution make it hard for you to leave agreeing fully with any view. If you are like me and have not delved into this issue all that much, further study will be needed.
The three views held are the following:
1. Inclusivism (John Sanders) - this is the view that some unevangelized individuals may be saved despite never having heard of Jesus, depending on how they reply to the amount of light shone to them. Somewhat common throughout time.
2. Divine Perseverance (Gabriel Fackre) - The very uncommon view that those who never hear about Jesus will have a chance to accept or reject Him after death and before judgment.
3. Restrictivism (Ronald Nash) - The belief that the only way a person can be saved is if they knowingly and explicitly place their faith in Jesus. The unevangelized, therefore, are all condemned. Very common today and throughout church history, though not without substantial challenge.
I will give a brief review of the contributions by the three authors:
John Sanders - Overall I thought he did well, but not well enough by any means to convince most skeptics. In his affirmative argument, he uses a decent amount of scripture and doesn't rely too much on emotion and philosophy. Unfortunately, these do show their heads in the responses.
Gabriel Fackre - His affirmative case is very mixed. He makes good points, and gives a reasonable (though by no means certain) interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-4:6. On the downside, the way he interprets a few passages (such as 1 Corinthians 15:19) is way off. Nash is right that he does not address passages that are used to indicate that the chance to except Jesus ends at death.
Ronald H. Nash - His contribution is in many ways the worst of the three. It's not that his position is totally impossible (if anything, I'm more sympathetic to it). However, he commits numerous logical fallacies and clearly misunderstood both of the other two views in the book. Many of these things are brought up clearly and succinctly in the responses to his chapter that are given by Fackre and Sanders. I could add several as well. For example, on numerous occasions (such as his handling of Romans 10:9), he seems to take the position that if the passage doesn't prove the other person's position (even when they don't argue that it does), it disproves it. Sanders rightly points out that he doesn't make much of a positive case for restrictivism, and just assumes that his position is right. Obviously, we all think we are right, but for him, it's a given, and the burden of proof (a phrase he uses several times) always seems to be on everyone else. He also comes across at times as arrogant and very uncharitable in his responses, often assuming the worst about the other two writers and their views even when they explicitly deny what he says. It's a shame, because every once in a while he makes a good point, but it gets lost in the pages of theological polemic which is thinly veiled as biblical exegesis.
In short, this book may be useful if you just decided to get into theology and want to get your toes wet and see how arguments sound on the various sides. However, the numerous flaws in each person's contribution make it hard for you to leave agreeing fully with any view. If you are like me and have not delved into this issue all that much, further study will be needed.
January 8, 2018
I appreciate each of these scholars for different reasons:
-John Sanders is likable because he wants to find a middle way with his audience. He understands that inclusivism is not necessarily a popular position among most evangelicals, and he desires to present it in such a way that folks “across the aisle” can understand and see where he’s coming from. He brings up some very important questions concerning the relationship between knowledge & salvation.
-Gabriel Fackre gets the reader thinking outside the box. His observations on texts in 1Peter and John surprised me (and confused me). He gives a considerable amount of weight to early sources, and he builds on those sources to develop his own views. He’s also very quotable.
-Ronald Nash was built for a book like this. Once you know that he’s a disciple of Gordon Clark, then you should expect a hearty spirit of debate. Nash is skilled and he loves to dissect the arguments of the other writers. That being said, Nash spent more time arguing against the other writers to the neglect of a hearty treatment of restrictivism.
This book won’t really give you any set answers; it will probably just get you to think more carefully about what questions to ask.
-John Sanders is likable because he wants to find a middle way with his audience. He understands that inclusivism is not necessarily a popular position among most evangelicals, and he desires to present it in such a way that folks “across the aisle” can understand and see where he’s coming from. He brings up some very important questions concerning the relationship between knowledge & salvation.
-Gabriel Fackre gets the reader thinking outside the box. His observations on texts in 1Peter and John surprised me (and confused me). He gives a considerable amount of weight to early sources, and he builds on those sources to develop his own views. He’s also very quotable.
-Ronald Nash was built for a book like this. Once you know that he’s a disciple of Gordon Clark, then you should expect a hearty spirit of debate. Nash is skilled and he loves to dissect the arguments of the other writers. That being said, Nash spent more time arguing against the other writers to the neglect of a hearty treatment of restrictivism.
This book won’t really give you any set answers; it will probably just get you to think more carefully about what questions to ask.
January 6, 2016
Worth reading for the contributions from Sanders and Fackre, which are thoughtful, robust, and respectful to scripture. Though I (personally) still find the 'divine perseverance' perspective unconvincing, I found Fackre's presentation to be moving and compelling. I left this book considering a different perspective in a new light, which is ultimately the best outcome one could hope for from one of these 'multiview' books.
The contributions from Nash, however, were frustrating and disappointing. As someone who strongly disagrees with the 'restrictivist' viewpoint, I actually wanted to read a fully fleshed-out, persuasive account. Instead, I got a polemic which was focused solely on disproving the opposing views. Even in Nash's responses to the other two contributors, he pleads with the reader to skip ahead and read his full chapter first, something that left me feeling very confused when I realized what his chapter actually included.
Overall, this is a pretty helpful overview of a couple perspectives on the eternal destiny of "unreached" peoples, but just read it to gain an understanding of 'inclusivism' and 'divine perseverance,' as you won't learn anything from Nash.
The contributions from Nash, however, were frustrating and disappointing. As someone who strongly disagrees with the 'restrictivist' viewpoint, I actually wanted to read a fully fleshed-out, persuasive account. Instead, I got a polemic which was focused solely on disproving the opposing views. Even in Nash's responses to the other two contributors, he pleads with the reader to skip ahead and read his full chapter first, something that left me feeling very confused when I realized what his chapter actually included.
Overall, this is a pretty helpful overview of a couple perspectives on the eternal destiny of "unreached" peoples, but just read it to gain an understanding of 'inclusivism' and 'divine perseverance,' as you won't learn anything from Nash.
November 6, 2017
While I had to read this for a graduate school class, I did choose it from a list of several options. What About Those Who Have Never Heard is not a comprehensive work, but it does offer three viewpoints on the topic of the unevangelized. I found Gabriel Fackre and John Sanders to be respectful and thorough in their work, using scripture as well as logic to prove their points. Ronald Nash (who died in 2006, 11 years after this was originally published) came across as arrogant and assuming. He spent little time presenting his viewpoint, and most of the time merely attacking the others. While this was appropriate in his two "rebuttal" mini-chapters, it didn't play well in his own full chapter.
Ultimately I would have to side the most with editor John Sanders in his Inclusivist view. While I don't feel that the matter is 100% settled in my mind, I'm more apt to believe that the Lord always finds a way to offer His grace to every human He has created. It's simply up to us to respond to that grace. Some do, and some exercise their free will and reject it. In many cases, that offering comes in the form of general revelation, and in other cases, it's through special revelation. I leave it up to God to decide who will receive which type of message. And I also believe we believers still need to obey the edict to share the Gospel with the world (Matthew 28:19-20).
Ultimately I would have to side the most with editor John Sanders in his Inclusivist view. While I don't feel that the matter is 100% settled in my mind, I'm more apt to believe that the Lord always finds a way to offer His grace to every human He has created. It's simply up to us to respond to that grace. Some do, and some exercise their free will and reject it. In many cases, that offering comes in the form of general revelation, and in other cases, it's through special revelation. I leave it up to God to decide who will receive which type of message. And I also believe we believers still need to obey the edict to share the Gospel with the world (Matthew 28:19-20).
May 20, 2020
As John Sanders’ very helpful introduction makes clear, there are many and varied answers to the titular question, “What about those who have never heard?”. This book presents only three proposed answers, and these only in overview: Sanders presents the inclusivist position; Fackre the divine perseverance view (postmortem evangelism); and Nash the restrictivist (exclusivist) view.
Each author laments the lack of time and space to fully develop his arguments, and the result is a book that introduces these three views in a cursory way but leaves the reader with many questions. The greatest strength of the book is its endnotes referring the reader to more thoroughgoing expositions of these (and other) positions.
As an introduction to the questions and an examination of three potential answers, the book is valuable. But it raises more questions than it answers, at least not persuasively. So, prepare to read more – much more – on this topic.
Each author laments the lack of time and space to fully develop his arguments, and the result is a book that introduces these three views in a cursory way but leaves the reader with many questions. The greatest strength of the book is its endnotes referring the reader to more thoroughgoing expositions of these (and other) positions.
As an introduction to the questions and an examination of three potential answers, the book is valuable. But it raises more questions than it answers, at least not persuasively. So, prepare to read more – much more – on this topic.
January 12, 2023
This book is 5 star worthy—but not for any reasons that its authors might imagine. The arguments between its pages demonstrate in resounding fashion the absurd “logic” Christian theologians require to keep the contradictions of eternal punishment and infinite mercy and love alive. And the featured theologians accomplish that impressive feat without any help from non-Christian critics. You simply must check it out
February 7, 2022
This book was very insightful. All three views were very compelling. I do wish Professor Nash would have done more explaining instead of critiquing because he was very harsh on the other views. I loved the format of an argument then a response to the argument by the other two contributors of the book. This was a very good book to start thinking about the unevangelized and how you view them.
October 5, 2022
Not the best book with competing views. Neither Sanders nor Fackre make a compelling case for their views, and Nash spends his chapter critiquing other views rather than outlining his own. The critiques are not very engaging--they mostly just rehash the arguments from the primary chapters.
July 17, 2024
The book is simple enough to be understood without a great deal of effort. In my opinion, all the others present their position as best they can. That's why at the end of the book I felt like I agree partially with all of them.
I recommend this one!
I recommend this one!
February 3, 2014
Ron Nash makes this book worth reading. John Sanders complains a bit about Nash's contributions in the book, primarily because Nash engaged real issues and side-stepped the fluff. I read this in a class taught by John Sanders back in 2001, and even there he complained about Nash!
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews