What do you think?
Rate this book
No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized
An investigation into the destiny of the unevangelized
- GenresTheology
334 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1992
1 person is currently reading
55 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 - 4 of 4 reviews
July 3, 2021
I just finished "No Other Name," by John Sanders.
My reading goal for the new year is to take notes on the book while I read rather than try to recall the high points after the fact. What better book to begin with than the last book of the year?
To begin, Sanders tackles a massive topic--the fate of the unevangelized--with his usual grace and skill: he writes well and clear, he writes at a level that is deep but most people can grasp without heavy Google time (he doesnt Greek/Hebrew/Latin too heavily, and his theological terminology, when used, is worth learning so Google it). And he does this while writing about evangelisms sacred cow:
"What happens to the tribesman in the Amazon when they die if they have never heard about Christ?"
Starting, he speaks about only-my-team-gets-a-trophy in restrictivism: only those who have heard and affirmed the gospel will be saved and those who never heard are condemned. Or, only Christians are saved (and only "Christians like me" are saved, when taken to many peoples logical conclusion). He cites the source data and the theological arguments from those who affirm restrictivism. Then he lists what the middle ground--inclusivism--would argue against restrictivism. One that I found well articulated is the difference between the ontological necessity of Christ for salvation (that He died for all) and our epistemological necessity of knowing about it. Or, does "there is no other name...." and "no one comes to the Father...." mean that He is the only salvific way or that one must know and affirm His being the only salvific way?
Sanders moves on from restrictivism to religions version of everyone-gets-a-trophy, universalism: everyone is saved; Christian, Buddhist, skeptic, seeker, agnostic, heck, even the Atheist who doesnt want to be with God, hes saved. This concept totally ignores God being a gentleman and not forcing himself salvifically on people. Or, God who is free and created freely and also created us in His image to freely accept or reject Him. To come along ex post facto and totally disregard our free choices ignores the very purpose of us having freewill, to choose this day whom we will serve. Before rebutting universalism Sanders makes the statement "My heart longs for this doctrine to be proven correct. But I find a number of problems with universalism...." I have heard a similar statement from Roger Olson and agree, people of the loving God should hope this is true (our love for others should compel us to this desire) but be intelligent enough to see the scriptural and theological holes in the theory. And then we should go love on people as Jesus did.
The above two positions are given fair and equal treatment in scripture and tradition. Sanders does a great job in arguing pro and con both of the above positions.
Following these two polar opposite views (restrictivism and universalism) Sanders begins to discuss the differing views which speak to a "wider hope," or inclusivism: everyone-who-wants-a-trophy-gets-one (even if they arent positive of whose team it is).
Inside of inclusivism Sanders moves to three concepts that are held in a pre death context: all who seek Him will receive the Gospel; All who seek Him will have a deathbed encounter; God will judge them based on what sounds like Molinism: had they been presented God knows what would have happened. (Sanders chews up the concept of Molinism; I agree, for this topic the many possibilities which may or may not be made manifest in our future does matter when it comes to salvific knowledge of Christ.)
The textual data he uses to set the stage for support of inclusivism are the great commission (...he who believes in me...he who rejects me....) and like others which list that a "not knowing" isnt enough, "a refusal" is, when it comes to one choosing their eternity...its not accidental.
Following this Sanders speaks about those who never hear the Gospel but respond to the little light they have received (Roman's 1, for instance) in general revelation. The covering of the atonement is a must for anyone who attains a blissful hereafter (generically stated so as not to begin a big eschatological discussion) but this doesnt mean that the person who the atonement is applied to knows about it; hence the difference between the ontology of the atonement and an individual's epistemological acknowledgment of the atonement.
In the conclusion Sanders lists four reasons to continue in the great commission even if one affirms some form of inclusivism. I believe he did a great job picking these reasons. His #3 had always been my go-to: it's not just what Christ saved us from but what he saved us for. Life on earth wasn't intended to be miserable just so we can gain a blissful hereafter like some for of existential flagellation.
He has an appendix on the salvation/damnation of infants and mentally incapacitated. My knee jerk reaction to this is to lay the blame at the feet of those who affirm Adamic Sin. But it is understandable that one wants to be able to systematically get from point A to point B.
Closing thoughts:
I appreciate how he states what his control beliefs are heading into this study. And along with this he stated how wide reaching a topic like this is and how many subjects it is impacted by. Thank you for stating this, Doc. I often find myself googling a writer in hope of getting a vague idea of their control beliefs. I often fail at this.
His use of footnotes here, especially in this book, form a text within a text. The only other theologian who comes to mind who did this text within a text this well was Barth in CD (but Barth did this almost painfully by writing full pages of footnotes; Sanders keeps both sides of the text flowing). This goes to show: read the footnotes, and if you are writing, dont use endnotes--i hate endnotes.
My reading goal for the new year is to take notes on the book while I read rather than try to recall the high points after the fact. What better book to begin with than the last book of the year?
To begin, Sanders tackles a massive topic--the fate of the unevangelized--with his usual grace and skill: he writes well and clear, he writes at a level that is deep but most people can grasp without heavy Google time (he doesnt Greek/Hebrew/Latin too heavily, and his theological terminology, when used, is worth learning so Google it). And he does this while writing about evangelisms sacred cow:
"What happens to the tribesman in the Amazon when they die if they have never heard about Christ?"
Starting, he speaks about only-my-team-gets-a-trophy in restrictivism: only those who have heard and affirmed the gospel will be saved and those who never heard are condemned. Or, only Christians are saved (and only "Christians like me" are saved, when taken to many peoples logical conclusion). He cites the source data and the theological arguments from those who affirm restrictivism. Then he lists what the middle ground--inclusivism--would argue against restrictivism. One that I found well articulated is the difference between the ontological necessity of Christ for salvation (that He died for all) and our epistemological necessity of knowing about it. Or, does "there is no other name...." and "no one comes to the Father...." mean that He is the only salvific way or that one must know and affirm His being the only salvific way?
Sanders moves on from restrictivism to religions version of everyone-gets-a-trophy, universalism: everyone is saved; Christian, Buddhist, skeptic, seeker, agnostic, heck, even the Atheist who doesnt want to be with God, hes saved. This concept totally ignores God being a gentleman and not forcing himself salvifically on people. Or, God who is free and created freely and also created us in His image to freely accept or reject Him. To come along ex post facto and totally disregard our free choices ignores the very purpose of us having freewill, to choose this day whom we will serve. Before rebutting universalism Sanders makes the statement "My heart longs for this doctrine to be proven correct. But I find a number of problems with universalism...." I have heard a similar statement from Roger Olson and agree, people of the loving God should hope this is true (our love for others should compel us to this desire) but be intelligent enough to see the scriptural and theological holes in the theory. And then we should go love on people as Jesus did.
The above two positions are given fair and equal treatment in scripture and tradition. Sanders does a great job in arguing pro and con both of the above positions.
Following these two polar opposite views (restrictivism and universalism) Sanders begins to discuss the differing views which speak to a "wider hope," or inclusivism: everyone-who-wants-a-trophy-gets-one (even if they arent positive of whose team it is).
Inside of inclusivism Sanders moves to three concepts that are held in a pre death context: all who seek Him will receive the Gospel; All who seek Him will have a deathbed encounter; God will judge them based on what sounds like Molinism: had they been presented God knows what would have happened. (Sanders chews up the concept of Molinism; I agree, for this topic the many possibilities which may or may not be made manifest in our future does matter when it comes to salvific knowledge of Christ.)
The textual data he uses to set the stage for support of inclusivism are the great commission (...he who believes in me...he who rejects me....) and like others which list that a "not knowing" isnt enough, "a refusal" is, when it comes to one choosing their eternity...its not accidental.
Following this Sanders speaks about those who never hear the Gospel but respond to the little light they have received (Roman's 1, for instance) in general revelation. The covering of the atonement is a must for anyone who attains a blissful hereafter (generically stated so as not to begin a big eschatological discussion) but this doesnt mean that the person who the atonement is applied to knows about it; hence the difference between the ontology of the atonement and an individual's epistemological acknowledgment of the atonement.
In the conclusion Sanders lists four reasons to continue in the great commission even if one affirms some form of inclusivism. I believe he did a great job picking these reasons. His #3 had always been my go-to: it's not just what Christ saved us from but what he saved us for. Life on earth wasn't intended to be miserable just so we can gain a blissful hereafter like some for of existential flagellation.
He has an appendix on the salvation/damnation of infants and mentally incapacitated. My knee jerk reaction to this is to lay the blame at the feet of those who affirm Adamic Sin. But it is understandable that one wants to be able to systematically get from point A to point B.
Closing thoughts:
I appreciate how he states what his control beliefs are heading into this study. And along with this he stated how wide reaching a topic like this is and how many subjects it is impacted by. Thank you for stating this, Doc. I often find myself googling a writer in hope of getting a vague idea of their control beliefs. I often fail at this.
His use of footnotes here, especially in this book, form a text within a text. The only other theologian who comes to mind who did this text within a text this well was Barth in CD (but Barth did this almost painfully by writing full pages of footnotes; Sanders keeps both sides of the text flowing). This goes to show: read the footnotes, and if you are writing, dont use endnotes--i hate endnotes.
January 11, 2023
Gibt ne sehr gute Übersicht über die verschiedenen Theorien, was mit den Unevangelisierten passiert. Stellt zu jeder biblische Kerntexte, so wie bekannte Vertreter und theologische Argumente dafür und dagegen dar. Formuliert am Ende auch eine klare, nachvollziehbar argumentierte Meinung. Für richtigen Tiefgang, muss man aber zu Werken der Vertreter greifen, die ihre jeweilige Theorie in voller Breite formulieren.
September 30, 2010
Unpacks the various viewpoints on whether people who have never heard of Jesus can inherit eternal life.
July 21, 2009
The best researched book I've ever read.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews