As you can see from the outline I want to advocate an approach that outflanks and in the process undermines the head-on collision between “exclusive” and “inclusive.” This approach is biblical. It ascribes exclusiveness to Jesus as the mediator but affirms the importance of inclusiveness as a mark and goal for the church. It is the opposite of the Emergent Movement (or Emergent Church) that says “Come one, come all” but cannot agree on its own name. It is everything and it is nothing. What appeal will that have to those who want to be rid of the crushing emptiness that they are aware of and are looking for something substantial to fill it?

To reject the kind of universalism which is favored by those who adopt a pluralistic view of truth and the saving validity of non-Christian religions and to assert the exclusiveness of Jesus Christ as the only savior does not carry with it any suggestion that Christianity is for some kind of elite. Nor must it ever be thought of as a minority faith. Such conclusions are as forbidden by Scripture as the heresy which we are opposing. No—it is for the world and the world needs it. Peter was affirming this when he used the expressions “under heaven” and “among men.” The gospel has a worldwide bearing and scope of reference.

By the expression “under heaven,” Peter was referring to the whole earth. No part of the universe is excluded at this point. “Among men” is a reference to the inhabitants of the earth, women and children included, considered in their common humanity (men lacks the definite article) but also in their number and variety (the noun is plural). David Edwards’ restriction of Peter’s statement to the Jews who were present fails to treat these universalising expressions at all. Associating “under heaven” and “men” and relating them to the matter of salvation means that there is no other saviour in the whole wide world and the people of the whole wide world need that savior.

What is it that undergirds this universality? We have seen and stated the reasons which support and necessitate the exclusiveness of the Savior. What are those which support and necessitate the universality of his salvation? They are two in number and are found in the words “given” and “must.” The first relates to the single divine provision and the second to the common human need.

The basic fatal weakness of all ‘saviors’ other than Jesus Christ is that they are only human and therefore sinful. They are therefore unable to deal with the sin which creates the need for salvation. Salvation cannot come therefore from within the human race. Where then can it come from? It cannot come from the devil—he has neither the love nor the righteousness nor the power to provide it. Only God has these. But he is the one so grievously sinned against and justly angered. Yet he provides it and by gift! It is given but only in one person, Jesus Christ. That salvation is divine and so it must be sufficient for the whole world. And all the world needs it. God loves all sinners. God so loved the world. No one can say there is no love for him or her in God and no salvation. Anyone, anywhere, who believes in Jesus Christ, God’s son, will not perish but will have everlasting life.

But this is only a debate about a possibility. Acts 4:12 deals with certainty. It uses the word ‘must’ not ‘may’ about this salvation. The fact that God has given a savior is the proof that he is needed. Just as every sinner has no real option about whether he or she needs to be saved or not, so the church has no real option about whether it needs to preach the gospel or not to every sinner. God was not interested, nor was the Lord Jesus Christ, in a possibility of salvation, not even a theological possibility! Should the church be? God gave Jesus Christ to make salvation sure for any, for all who believe. The church must therefore proclaim that certain and immense salvation to any and to all. To the whole wide world, we must say, “Come, for all things are now ready.” And if they were all to come, there would still be one name in which salvation is found.

Toward the end of the nineteenth century there was a widespread conviction in the Church about the exclusiveness of Christ and the need of the world for his gospel. The lines between Christianity and Judaism, Christianity and Islam and by extension all other religions were well marked. Although the Missionary Movement that had begun in the eighteenth century was not absolutely distinct from the spread of western democracy, it was full of heroic and genuine self- sacrifice in the cause of Christ and love for mankind. Christians knew that non-Christian people needed Christ. But can it be said that they still know? Do non-Christians still need Christ—as much as 100 years ago or at all?