When it was Wallace’s turn, he showed some good use of humor (playing off the UNC-Duke rivalry), and an impressive command of the field of textual criticism, but he spent way too much time (in my opinion) on listing all the manuscripts and the number of copies we have. That would have been good for a lecture, but was too tedious for a debate format. He showed that Bart Ehrman understated the number of early manuscripts we have, but did not satisfactorily engage him on the theoretical question as to how we can say we have the original text of the NT.

Probably Wallace’s strongest moment was when he quoted from Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus where Ehrman said that none of the variants affects a major NT doctrine. Wow! That’s a powerful point. If I’d been in Wallace’s place, I would have kept reiterating this point several times, especially since Ehrman never responded to it. Another golden opportunity missed on Wallace’s part, in my opinion, was that he never pressed Ehrman on his comment that there were several places in the NT where there were serious problems with the text. Amazingly, Ehrman just made this general statement in his opening presentation without giving even a single example. He should not have gotten away that easily with this unsubstantiated assertion.

Also, at times Wallace conceded too much, as when he acknowledged there were problems with the text of 2 Corinthians but maintained that 2 Corinthians was not representative of the rest of the NT. Some of the material on 2 Corinthians in our NT Intro, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown might have been helpful here. Also, when Ehrman claimed that the German scholar Gunther Zuntz’s theory of a Pauline letter collection reflects a scholarly consensus, I was waiting for Wallace to object (he did not). What about David Trobisch? And what about those who don’t think any such compiler modified the text of the letters he collected?

In my judgment, it may have been effective for Wallace to ask Ehrman early on what kind of proof he required to be persuaded that we have the original text of the NT. That would have brought out the fact that Ehrman sets the bar so unreasonably high that virtually nothing could ever satisfy him. Even though Wallace titillatingly dangled the prospect of a first-century MS of Mark in front of Ehrman’s nose (mysteriously hinting that he was sworn to secrecy), it was clear that even that discovery (if it checks out) is unlikely to sway Ehrman. Simply producing a few earlier MSS does not necessarily overturn Ehrman’s theoretical concerns.

Perhaps it might have been helpful at some point, without being unduly ad hominem, to bring out Ehrman’s agnosticism and overall skepticism toward the Christian faith. Ehrman certainly came across as very sensible and measured during the debate, but in some of his writings it is quite clear that he has taken a strongly adversarial stance toward Christianity (not least because of his concerns related to the problem of evil).

Finally, the closing statement cried out for an effort to transcend the stuffy academic issue that probably went over many people’s heads in the audience anyway. If I’d been Wallace, I might have said something like this in closing: “Friends, I think I’ve shown that for every skeptical argument Bart Ehrman advances, there is a reasonable response that shows the Bible to be more reliable than he makes it out to be. But in the end, how many of us believe in the Bible because of text criticism, or the number of manuscripts, or differences in the variants? The bigger questions, I submit to you, are these: Is Christianity true? Is Jesus divine? Did Jesus die on the cross for our sins? Did he rise from the dead? Is Jesus the only way? What is the gospel? Will you and I believe? There are many believers in this audience who have become convinced that the Bible is true and that Jesus is real. We’ll continue to advance arguments and counter-arguments on the minutiae of textual matters, and those matter, but let’s not forget the bigger picture. The Bible is trustworthy, and Christianity is true. Hopefully, we can all agree on that. Thank you very much.”

After the debate, I conducted an informal survey among those who had just witnessed the debate. I asked them who they thought won the debate. There seems to have been no clear winner. Some said Wallace, others Ehrman. It seems that those who were more conservative in the audience appreciated Wallace’s solid presentation of the textual MS evidence and felt confirmed in their belief in the reliability of the NT documents. Others, especially UNC students who have taken Ehrman’s classes or heard about him from others, were impressed with Ehrman’s debating skills and clarity of explaining complicated issues. Some seemed unsure why the issue even mattered. One girl told me that she believed there were errors in the Bible but that she believed in Jesus anyway. On the whole, Ehrman’s delivery was crisper and more lucid. Wallace had a lot of valuable information but wasn’t always able to drive home the relevance of the data he presented for the issue at hand. Perhaps he should contact Romney’s debate coach and get some tips?

1. G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Baker): In my blurb, I say, “Beale’s volume is far reaching, written at a high scholarly level, and conversant with a wide range of scholarship. Even where one may disagree, Beale’s treatment is always informative and at times even provocative. A very important contribution to biblical theology that deserves to be widely read.”

2. Understanding the Times: New Testament Studies in the 21st Century: Essays in Honor of D. A. Carson on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Crossway). As Simon Gathercole writes, “A remarkable series of studies in honor of a remarkable man. Carson’s influence has been extraordinary, and this book explores a number of his particular interests with great skill.” The book includes essays by Stan Porter, Grant Osborne, Mark Dever, John Woodbridge, Douglas Moo, Peter O’Brien, Eckhard Schnabel, Robert Yarbrough, and others.

3. Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert, What Is the Mission of the Church? Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission (Crossway). In his commendation, D. A. Carson writes, “Among the many books that have recently appeared on mission, this is the best one if you are looking for sensible definitions, clear thinking, readable writing, and the ability to handle the Bible. DeYoung and Gilbert pastor in Michigan and Kentucky, respectively.

4. George Guthrie, Read the Bible for Life: Your Guide to Understanding and Living God’s Word (B&H). David Platt writes about this book, “In the church’s dry desert of biblical illiteracy, this book is a drink of cold, refreshing water.” This book is part of a bigger project. It includes, in a conversational format, interviews on hermeneutical topics with scholars such as David Dockery, Bruce Waltke, Darrell Bock, Craig Blomberg, Donald Whitney, and others.

5. George Kurian, ed., The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization. 4 vols. (Blackwell). After a major delay in publication, Blackwell just released this new reference work. An online edition is available on Wiley Online Library at www.encyclopediaofchristiancivilization.com. The entries are written by a team of over 350 scholars and teachers from more than 24 countries. It includes over 1,420 entries on a vast range of topics.

6. Gregg Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Zondervan). In his foreword, Wayne Grudem writes, “This book is an amazingly rich resource that traces the development of thirty-two major doctrines from the time of the New Testament to writers in the present day. Every chapter provides a fascinating story that is hard to put down because it shows how God has worked in Christians’ lives over the centuries to allow one heresy after another to challenge the church, then to raise up courageous, wise teachers and writers to respond to the wrong teaching with a new and deeper understanding of Scripture, resulting in even stronger faith in God and his Word.”

7. Eugene Merrill, Mark Rooker, and Michael Grisanti, The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament (B&H). Long in the making, this is the companion volume to The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown. Edwin Yamauchi says about this volume, “The World and the Word should become a standard textbook at many evangelical colleges and seminaries, as well as a welcome resource for lay persons interested in the Old Testament.”

8. Bruce Ashford, ed., Theology and Practice of Mission: God, the Church, and the Nations (B&H): Here is what Christopher Wright about this book: “It is enormously encouraging to read a book on mission that consistently puts God and God’s mission first, that applies the grand biblical framework of creation, fall, redemption and new creation thoroughly and repeatedly across almost every issue it addresses, and which tackles some very controversial areas with grace, wisdom, and biblical thoroughness.”

9. Andrew Steinmann, From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology (Concordia). Praise for this volume comes from Eugene Merrill who says, “Steinmann lays out here a foundation that doubtless will provide the basis for all subsequent discussions of biblical chronology.” Nicholas Perrin writes in the foreword, “Steinmann gives a guided tour of sacred time. … A delight to read.”

10. Daniel Akin, Bill Curtis, and Stephen Rummage, Engaging Exposition: A 3-D Approach to Preaching (B&H): All three authors of this book are seasoned preachers who have a keen interest in hermeneutics as well a commitment to engage contemporary Christians with the message of the Word of God. Wayne McDill writes, “Engaging Exposition well lives up to its title. [The authors] have provided a detailed and practical guide for the preacher who wants to take the biblical text seriously and connect with the contemporary audience at the same time.”

“In 1968 I published an article that offered fresh evidence in support of Friday, 3 April A.D. 33, as the date of the Crucifixion. Since then, much attention has focused on the other terminus of Jesus’ life in response to recent recalculations of dates for the death of Herod the Great and the birth of Christ. Although a precise date, as in the case of the Crucifixion, still seems unattainable for the Nativity, some further refinement within the usual range of 7 to 4 B.C. is possible, which would suggest late 5 B.C. as the most probably time for the first Christmas. This time frame, along with 3 April A.D. 33 for the Crucifixion, provides a very balanced correlation of all surviving chronological clues in the New Testament, as well as the extrabiblical sources. Earlier or later dates, in either case, tend to disregard or manipulate at least one or more of the sources. Using the form of a running commentary on the relevant chronological sedes in the New Testament, I will respond briefly to the current status of research on each. . . .”

To read the rest of Maier’s article, click here.

Jesus’ birth most likely took place in late November of 5 B.C. (the most authoritative treatment of which I am aware is Paul L. Maier, “The Date of the Nativity and the Chronology of Jesus’ Life,” in Chronos, karios, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan [ed. J. Vardaman and E. M. Yamauchi; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989], 113–30). This, incidentally, would allow enough time for Jesus to be born and for Herod (who died in 4 B.C.) to mount his campaign to have all the boys two years old and under in Bethlehem and vicinity killed (see Matt 2:16, 19).

Jesus’ crucifixion probably occurred on Friday, April 3, A.D. 33. Luke 3:1–3 tells us that John the Baptist, Jesus’ forerunner, began his ministry “in the 15^th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.” Both Roman historians Tacitus (Annales 4 §4) and Suetonius (Tiberius 73) date the beginning of Tiberius’s reign at A.D. 14 (the precise date is August 19, the day of Emperor Augustus’s death). Hence the 15^th year of Tiberius’s reign, counting from August 19, A.D. 14, brings us to A.D. 29 (14 + 15 = 29).

According to Luke 3:23, Jesus was “about 30 years old” when he began his ministry. If Jesus was born in 5 B.C. (as argued above) and began his ministry, as is indicated by all four Gospels, shortly after that of John the Baptist (that is, in the latter part of the year A.D. 29), this would mean that Jesus was about 33 years old when he began his public ministry (see H. W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977], 31–37 and B. Messner, “’In the Fifteenth Year’ Reconsidered: A Study of Luke 3:1,” Stone-Campbell Journal 1 [1998]: 201–11).

John’s Gospel records Jesus’ appearance at at least 3 Passovers: (1) in Jerusalem (2:13, 23); (2) in Galilee (6:4); and (3) again in Jerusalem (11:55; 12:1). In addition, it is likely that he attended a fourth Passover not recorded in John but recorded in the Synoptics (Matt 12:1 pars.?). This adds up to a length of about 3 ½ years for Jesus’ ministry. If he began his ministry in late A.D. 29, this brings us to A.D. 33 for the crucifixion. It so happens that because of astronomical calculations A.D. 30 and 33 are the only possible dates for Jesus’ crucifixion as far as the date of Passover in these two years is concerned (for the dating of the four Passovers in question see esp. C. J. Humphreys and W. G. Waddington, “The Jewish Calendar, a Lunar Eclipse, and the Date of Christ’s Crucifixion,” Tyndale Bulletin 43 [1992]: 331–51, esp. 335).

Finally, John 2:20 says that the temple was completed 46 years ago (see for this translation A. J. Köstenberger, John [BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004], 109–10). According to Josephus, the renovation of the temple building proper started in 20/19 B.C. (Antiquities 15.11.1 §380), with completion 18 months later in 18/17 B.C. (Antiquities 15.11.6 §421). Again, counting from 18/17 B.C., adding 46 years brings us to A.D. 29 (there was no year zero)—a great way to check our math above!

For Further Study: see the chart in A. J. Köstenberger, John (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 11–13, and commentary at 1:19 and 2:20, and the previous post on Johannine chronology here. See also H. W. Hoehner, “Chronology,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (ed. J. B. Green, S. McKnight, and I. H. Marshall; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 118–22. Also, http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/culture/was-jesus-born-on-december-25-with-c-l-quarles.

1. The ESV Bible Atlas by John D. Currid and David P. Barnett (Crossway): A truly magnificent achievement. You have to see this for yourself!

2. Redeeming Singleness: How the storyline of Scripture affirms the single life by Barry Danylak (Crossway): The long-awaited biblical-theological treatment of singleness from this Ph.D. candidate at Cambridge University.

3. Who Chose the Gospels? by Charles E. Hill (Oxford University Press): The new mint standard on this vital topic. The subtitle of chapter 11 says it all: “Natural Selection: The Gospels that Imposed Themselves.”

4. After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters by N. T. Wright (HarperCollins): Despite some negative reviews, Wright’s book deserves serious consideration. I found this to be very stimulating reading in my work on a forthcoming project on academic excellence.

5. Politics according to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture by Wayne Grudem (Zondervan): Another encyclopedic resource by this prolific author who does not shy away from addressing critical matters such as Christian influence on government and economic issues.

6. The Glory of God, ed. Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson (Crossway): A nurturing study of this important biblical theme in the Theology in Community series (disclaimer: I wrote the essay on God’s glory in John for this volume).

7. Keeping God’s Earth: The Global Environment in Biblical Perspective, ed. Noah J. Toly and Daniel I. Block (InterVarsity): A responsible treatment of a subject often neglected by evangelicals, with important essays by Douglas Moo and Daniel Block, among others.

8. The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel, ed. Tuomas Rasimus (Brill). A fascinating collection with essays by Charles Hill and Nicholas Perrin, among others.

9. The Trials of Theology: Becoming a ‘Proven Worker’ in a Dangerous Business, ed. Andrew J. B. Cameron and Brian S. Rosner (Christian Focus). A helpful reader for theology students, with selections by Luther, Spurgeon, Warfield, and others and essays by D. A. Carson, Carl Trueman, and others.

10. The New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha (NRSV), 4th fully rev. ed., ed. Michael D. Coogan (Oxford Univ. Press): the new standard.

First of all, thank you for articulating your strong commitment to regenerate church membership, with implication for observance of the Lord’s Supper. I accept your assurance that this is not an FIC issue even though Presbyterians will differ from Baptists on these matters. Perhaps a bit more dialogue is needed on this to crystallize the issue even more clearly.

I’m not sure what was unclear about my response regarding the Mohler blog. As I tried to indicate, Dr. Mohler had planned to post a blog but did not end up doing so, and when I realized this I tried to have the reference removed, but the book was already being printed. As already planned, note 17 will be reworded in future printings.

As to Renfro and the Perspectives on Family Ministry volume, I don’t recall the exact details now, but I believe the manuscript only reached me in the final stages of working on the chapter. I am certainly prepared to consider Renfro’s response and note any salient points in any future editions.

With regard to “segregation” language, I am sincerely glad to hear you say that you don’t necessarily disagree with me (though it certainly sounded like you did when you wrote in your post that “[t]he term is appropriate … it simply communicates a truth … the word fits … Segregation is simply the most appropriate term for the church practices in question”). When you compare this issue with my use of the word “extreme” in a single, passing reference and call this a “double standard,” here is the difference (at least the way I see it): I used a given word once (in the context of seeking to differentiate between various models of family integration), while “segregation” language represents a consistent pattern of usage in family-integrated circles. Perhaps the reason for this proliferation is that the term “segregated” serves as the preferred antonym to “integrated.” I think this is just plain unfortunate. But I’m glad to hear that you don’t necessarily disagree with me on this issue. I hope that other family-integrated church advocates will follow suit and avoid “segregation” language in the future. How about this: I’ll change the one instance of “extreme” in my chapter to something like “thoroughgoing,” and you desist from using “segregated” from here on out. Agreed?

I am also glad to hear you say that, “We have never argued that ours is the only way to do church.” That’s very refreshing. I sincerely hope that you are representative of other family-integrated churches in this regard. This is the kind of humility that will make future dialogue a whole lot easier, in my opinion.

Finally, thanks for your gracious tone and apology (accepted!). I’m genuinely grateful for our dialogue, and others have told me they have found it helpful as well. Be assured that I will continue to ponder the concerns you raised as I continue to reflect, and perhaps write, on the subject.

Your brother in Christ,

Andreas

Thank you for taking the time to read the chapter on God, Marriage, Family, and the Church in the second edition of God, Marriage & Family and for your blog post in response to it. You are a man of God, and I am deeply grateful for your ministry. In fact, I endorsed your most recent book!

I think it’s great that you and I seem to agree on the bottom line—you quote at length my positive and constructive prescription on how to move forward in encouraging family-friendly and family-oriented churches (though you prefer the term “family-integrated”).

We also agree on the inadequacy of a “family of families” theology. (I was told that this kind of language was removed from the FIC website a while back. That tells me that this language was indeed in use, and then removed, and that there must have been significant reasons why this was done.)

What we don’t agree on is whether the cautions and concerns I raised in my chapter were justified. At this point, I think there may be a misunderstanding. You read my comments as a critique of your church and your “movement” while in fact my purpose was to assess the theology of family integration. (If I had sought to write a critique of the “movement,” I would have given a history of it, named the major organizations and key individuals, and so on. But this was not my intention in the book.)

Here some questions remain. For example: Do you and others with whom you associate hold to, and practice, regenerate church membership? Is this vital biblical principle also followed in the observance of the Lord’s Supper?

You mention that I cite a non-existent blog post by Dr. Mohler. The background to this is that at the annual ETS banquet this past November, Dr. Mohler and I talked at length about family integration, and he and I completely concurred on some of the concerns I just mentioned. At that time, he was planning to post a blog on this topic, but apparently subsequently did not find the time. I had temporarily included a reference to this forthcoming post. When I found out that it was no longer forthcoming, I tried to remove the reference, but was told my book was already in press. Nevertheless, in that lengthy conversation, Dr. Mohler and I saw completely eye to eye on some of the above-mentioned, and other, concerns.

You also fault me for being second-hand in my research and for only using a few, and biased, sources (though I sometimes wonder if “biased” means that those sources don’t agree with you!). In large part, the problem I encountered in writing my chapter was the paucity of cogent scholarly defenses of family integration. I am not talking about blog posts here, or statements on websites, or other talks or personal conversations, but about sustained biblical and theological treatments in form of scholarly monographs or articles. If you know of such treatments, please point me to them, so I can include reference to them in future editions of our book.

We also disagree on whether the words “segregated” or “segregation” as regularly used by family-integrated church advocates is appropriate and helpful. (Merely citing an instance where I accommodate myself to the use of the word by family-integrated advocates does not substitute for an argument. By what legitimate logic can you justify a practice just by catching your “opponent” in doing the same thing?) I continue to think that this rhetoric is inflammatory and unhelpful and urge you and others to consider stop using it. It is this reactionary aspect that concerns me, because it defines a certain set of beliefs over against an “enemy” who “segregates.” Family integration is not the gospel, and traditional churches who “segregate” are not our enemy. Our struggle is not against flesh and blood; it is against the devil who seeks to divide brothers and sisters in Christ with regard to non-essentials of the faith.

Surely ministering to various age and other groups in the church is not all bad, and there are other ways to go about discipling our children than to do away with youth groups or even nurseries. As I mention in my chapter, we should distinguish between underlying biblical and theological principles and specific methods. When we start investing particular methods with biblical authority and charge others with lack of biblical fidelity because they differ with us on the matter of method, we are treading on dangerous ground. On my recent travels in Europe, I found that the North American controversy surrounding family integration is virtually unknown there, at least in the places I visited. One young youth minister did a wonderful job involving parents in working with the youth while being blissfully unaware of North American family integration debates.

On the whole, your response to my new chapter in God, Marriage & Family strikes me as a bit too reactionary and prickly (at one point you say I “attack” a “straw man,” a most unfortunate word choice). Even if you feel that my concerns do not apply to your church, or to most in the “movement,” if they are valid, and well taken, then they should be heeded. What is more, we agree on the positive agenda and on the inadequacy of a “family of families” theology! Do we also agree on regenerate church membership and its implications for the observance of the Lord’s Supper? I would be thankful to hear that we do. By all appearances, the debate generated by the new chapter in God, Marriage & Family has surfaced considerable common ground between us, and this is something for which I am deeply grateful.

Yours in the common cause of celebrating God’s good plan for marriage and the family and of affirming the centrality of the church in God’s work in the world today,

Andreas Kostenberger

The ruling shows that as Christians, we should not look for a political solution to the crisis surrounding marriage and the family in our culture. The only true and lasting solution is found in a return to our spiritual foundations. The Bible makes clear that marriage is God’s idea rather than a social contract that we are free to renegotiate based on changing social trends. But we can’t expect the unbelieving world or any government or judicial system to understand or reinforce that. For this reason we should focus our efforts not on swaying political opinion but on teaching people what the Bible says about God’s plan for marriage and the family.

To read the full article click here.

What are we to say about this way of presenting things? In essence, the argument is circular. Once “orthodoxy” is defined in fourth-century terms as ecclesiastical doctrine hammered out by the various ecumenical councils, any doctrinal core preceding the fourth century can be considered “proto-orthodox” at best. Thus the validation of the Bauer-Ehrman thesis becomes in effect a self-fulfilling prophecy. Bauer, Ehrman, and others have cleverly recast the terminological landscape of this debate, most importantly by narrowing the term “orthodoxy” to a degree of doctrinal sophistication only reached in subsequent centuries, so that everything else falls short by comparison. Then they put “diversity” in place of what was conventionally understood as orthodoxy.

As we will see below, however, the New Testament presents instead a rather different picture. What we find there is not widespread diversity with regard to essential doctrinal matters, most importantly Christology and soteriology, but rather a fixed set of early core beliefs that were shared by apostolic mainstream Christianity while allowing for flexibility in nonessential areas. In matters of legitimate diversity, there was tolerance; in matters of illegitimate diversity (i.e., “heresy”), no such tolerance existed, but only denunciation in the strongest terms. What is more, as we have seen in the previous chapter, this early agreement on the fundamentals of the Christian faith in no way precludes subsequent theological formulation.

For this reason Christian orthodoxy for our present purposes can be defined as “correct teaching regarding the person and work of Jesus Christ, including the way of salvation, in contrast to teaching regarding Jesus that deviates from standard norms of Christian doctrine.” Defined in this way, the questions then become: Is it meaningful and appropriate to speak of the notion of “correct teaching regarding the person and work of Christ” in the first century? Were there standards in place by which what was “correct” and what was “incorrect” could be measured? As we will see, when framing the issue in this manner, the answers that emerge from a close study of the New Testament present themselves quite differently from those given by Bauer-Ehrman thesis.

One final point should be made here. As in many places, Ehrman places the conventional view in a virtual no-win situation. If the New Testament is held to be essentially unified, this, according to Ehrman, proves that it was “written by the winners” who chose to suppress and exclude all countervailing viewpoints. If the New Testament were to exhibit a considerable degree of diversity, and an unsettled state of affairs as to which theological position represents the standard of orthodoxy, this would be taken as evidence that the Bauer-Ehrman thesis is correct and diversity prevailed in earliest Christianity. Either way, Ehrman is right, and the conventional understanding of orthodoxy wrong. As a debating tactic, this is clever indeed. But will it work?

NOTE: The above is an excerpt from The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity (Crossway).

1. Divine, not human: The gospel is God’s saving message to a world living in darkness and a humanity lost in its sin. The gospel is not a human message, nor was its conception a function of human initiative, but its origin and its impetus derive solely from God. For this reason our role with regard to the gospel is not that of evaluation, criticism or reformulation, but that of grateful acceptance and obedience. Humans are not equal partners with God as far as the gospel message is concerned; they are rather his commissioned representatives, charged with proclaiming the gospel in the exact form in which they received it (e.g., John 17:20; 20:21; 1 Cor 15:3–4).

2. Required, not optional: Acceptance of the gospel is not optional for salvation but rather required, owing to pervasive human sinfulness. As the Book of Hebrews states, “people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment”; “Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time . . . to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him” (Heb 9:27–28). Apart from believing in Jesus Christ, “God’s wrath remains” on people (Jn 3:36), and they are spiritually dead (Jn 5:24; Eph 2:1). People must be “born of God” (Jn 1:12; 3:3, 5; 1 Jn 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18), that is, be spiritually regenerated (Tit 3:5; 1 Pet 1:3). As Paul writes in his epistle to the Ephesians, “[a]nd you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit . . .” (Eph 1:13). Inclusion in Christ comes only by hearing and believing the gospel.

3. Christological, not merely theological: The gospel is not vaguely theological, as if it were amenable to various ways of salvation depending on a person’s belief in a particular kind of god, or depending on the degree to which people were able to hear the gospel presented in a clear way; it is decidedly and concretely Christological, that is, centered on the salvation provided through the vicarious cross-death of the Lord Jesus Christ. Hence Paul is able to speak of “the gospel . . . regarding his [God’s] Son . . . Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom 1:2–4). Significantly, this gospel is not a New Testament novelty but was “promised beforehand through his [God’s] prophets [such as Habakkuk, Rom 1:17 citing Hab 2:4] in the Holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:2). Abraham already had resurrection faith (Romans 4; Galatians 3; Heb 11:8–12).

4. No other gospel: The messianic motif pervading all of Scripture and centering in the Lord Jesus Christ coupled with the risen Jesus’ “Great Commission” for his followers to go and disciple the nations inextricably link an understanding of the gospel as the exclusive message of salvation in Jesus Christ with the church’s mandate to engage in missionary outreach. This is clear especially from the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, John, the book of Acts, and several of Paul’s writings. Conversely, any messages proclaimed in the name of Christ that feature a “different gospel” or a different Christ (such as compromising his simultaneous full humanity and deity, e.g. 1 John 4:2–3) are rejected. The church must engage in missions, because “faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17). If anyone confesses with his mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead, he will be saved (Rom 10:9; see also vv. 10–13).

5. No other name but Jesus: In light of the clear biblical passages mentioned above and in view of the strong and pervasive trajectory of scriptural references to the gospel there is no proper foundation for arguing for salvation apart from explicit faith in Jesus Christ. Scripture makes clear that humanity is universally sinful, and that God’s wrath remains on every individual who has not placed his or her trust in Jesus Christ on the basis of his substitutionary death on the cross and his subsequent resurrection. While there may be philosophical or larger theological objections to such a notion (such as the difficulty experienced by some of reconciling this notion with the love of God), while there may be commonsense concerns on the basis of human conceptions or “fairness” or other similar considerations, there can be little doubt that Scripture nowhere teaches, or easily allows the implication, that there is a way to salvation other than through explicit faith in Jesus Christ during a person’s lifetime (e.g., Heb 9:27–28). In fact, this is not an obscure topic; it is the central contention of the biblical message concerning the gospel, that “[s]alvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to people by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

For Further Study, read the entire essay in Faith Comes by Hearing, pp. 201–19. See also my book, co-authored with Peter T. O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission (New Studies in Biblical Theology edited by D. A. Carson; InterVarsity).