To reiterate from Exclusivism, Part I (where we discuss whether only one worldview is true) a particular argument states that is that it is arrogant to claim exclusivity, in this case, that there is only one way of salvation. Of course, the atheist is not interested in soteriology (the study of salvation) or theology of any sort. Rather, they make this argument in order to besmirch the exclusivists. First we should point out that there is no greater exclusivism than atheism. While Christianity believes that they are right and all other religious have some correct concepts of God as well, atheism believes that they are right and everyone else is absolutely wrong.
As stated by one time atheist, and later Christian scholar, C. S. Lewis:
“If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view.”1
Let us lay the case out-there is either:
No way of salvation (or no need for salvation)
.One way of salvation.
Many ways of salvation (two, three, fifty, one thousand, a million, or one for each human being).
If there is no way of salvation because none is required, which is the atheist view, then the argument is that the whole concept of salvation is faulty and manipulative. However, considering that they argue against the exclusive claims of only one way of salvation we can see that it is about more than logic, it is about contention.
Note very carefully that if there really is “only” one way of salvation then it is not arrogant to believe that there is only one way of salvation. Moreover, unless the atheists can offer a numerical figure as to how many ways of salvation would free Christianity (and many other theistic systems) from the realm of arrogance, they cannot refer to the offer of one way of salvation as arrogant. Let us reiterate that this argument comes to us from a worldview that offers zero ways of salvation. Surely, an atheist would argue that salvation is not required for anyone since there is no such thing as sin. Yet, consider that Christianity offers one way of salvation while atheism offers zero and one is 100% more than zero. If it truly is arrogant to believe that there is only one way of salvation it is infinitely more arrogant to believe that there are no ways of salvation (and that they are certain in knowing that). If you need salvation you do not need more than one way.When there is only one medicine that can save our lives we do not deny the existence of the doctor. Nor do we claim that it is arrogant to only have one medicine.When the firefighters have only cleared one route of escape from a burning building we do not deny their existence. Nor do we claim that they are arrogant for only clearing one exit.Christianity does not claim one way for somebody but rather, one way for everybody.
If there is only one way of salvation, which is the gospel, and not everyone has heard the gospel yet, perhaps atheists should stop personally and purposefully hindering its spread.
If there are many ways of salvation God could provide a different way of salvation for each and every individual. But this would seem to place the individual in the place of God, determining how they will be saved. And might this not breed envy and charges of unfair and unequal requirements?
Perhaps we could all agree that salvation should be based on good deeds. Certainly, many people are of this opinion including atheists who, while they do not believe in salvation, still believe in doing good deeds (and thus claim to do them for purer purposes).
Yet, there appears to be various problems with this concept:
An absolute standard of “good” and “bad” would be required (these issues are discussed here, here, here, and here). In this case the atheist would claim that is it arrogant to have only one way to define good and bad.
Some would envisage that our good deeds would be weighed against our bad ones (who could live with such spiritual paranoia as having to wait until life’s end to await the great reckoning?). Surely we could argue and boast about the much we did and the little someone else did. Would you want to be compared to Mother Theresa?
But where does this system leave “bad people”? Simply condemned? Can a truly good person, a truly good God, have no regard for bad people? What if you spent most of your life being bad only to come to your senses in your later years?
The Bible makes a point about people who would boast about their good deeds and about salvation being a gift:
“But now a righteousness of God has been revealed apart from Law, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets; even the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ, toward all and upon all those who believe. For there is no difference, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness through the passing by of the sins that had taken place before, in the forbearance of God; for the display of His righteousness at this time, for Him to be just and, forgiving the one being of the faith of Jesus. Then where is the boasting? It is excluded. Through what law? Of works? No, but through the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law. Or is He the God of the Jews only, and not also of the nations? Yes, of the nations also, since it is one God who will justify circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith” (Romans 3:21-30).
“But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love with which He loved us (even when we were dead in sins) has made us alive together with Christ (by grace you are saved), and has raised us up together and made us sit together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:4-10).
“the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:4-5).
Ultimately, “my good deeds” are tantamount to a child saying, “Mommy, can I have some money so that I can buy you a present?” God gives me life, gives me a world to live in, and gives me all that I have. Could I then I think that I can do for Him? And what about motives? What if I do good just to be thought of as good, to be popular, to get something back, even to purchase salvation?
I had a martial arts teacher whom I did not pay for teaching me the art. Yes, he “charged” a fee and I gave him money every month. But he explained that he did not prostitute the art, he did not receive money for teaching it. The reason that he “charged” a fee and I paid was so that he could pay his bills and have time to practice, and perfect, the art. This system was in place so that he did not have to work a full time job that would hinder his practice of the art that he was teaching for free. Likewise, God does not sell salvation, neither does God demand that we earn it, nor does God wait until we deserve salvation.
Now, let us imagine that there are many ways of salvation and one is by becoming a terrorist bomber-what then? Well, then the atheist would be forced to begin judging the various claimants of ways of salvation, rejecting some, and accepting others. Yet again, the atheist would become the exclusivist.
Ultimately, we must make two points about atheism’s argument against the one way of salvation:
One is to wonder what can be said about a worldview that denies the existence of sin and the need of repentance. The other is to admit that we are completely unqualified from discussing this issue since we have not yet figured out why God would offer even one way of salvation.
Christianity does not only offer one way but two choices. The choice of where we spend eternity is ours to make. Atheism teaches hard determinism, or strict predestination-all will be annihilated, there is no choice, no way out. Atheism believes that no one is immortal. According to atheism Mother Theresa and Hitler were annihilated. No reward and no punishment. And while Mother Theresa was surely too humble to demand a reward, who would argue that Hitler does not deserve punishment? Hitler enjoyed his power and had thousands of adoring followers. Then, at his choosing, he took his own life and ended it all. That is to say that he ended it all for himself, the terror he wrought will continue to haunt humanity, but as for Hitler himself-atheism let him get away with it.
Let us consider a general example of “justice,” “mercy,” and “grace.”You are driving your car, break the speed limit, and get pulled over by a police officer.
Justice: the officer states that you deserve a speeding ticket, you will get a speeding ticket, and you will pay your speeding ticket.
Mercy: the officer states that you deserve a speeding ticket but that he will not write you one.
Grace: the officer states that you deserve a speeding ticket, you will get a speeding ticket, but he himself will pay the speeding ticket for you.
In the case of justice: you broke the law, you were charged, and you paid for your transgression.
In the case of mercy: you broke the law but you were not charged, you simply got away with it.
In the case of grace: you broke the law, you were charged, but your transgression way paid for you by a loving gift that you did not deserve, did not purchase, and did not earn.
Regarding justice: it is strict, you suffer the consequences of your crimes, no forgiveness.
Regarding mercy: it is a system in which you commit all the crime you want and suffer no consequence, the criminal end up on top.
Regarding grace: you committed the crime and the judge is too righteous to just look the other way and let you get away with it. Yet, he is also so loving that he does not want to see you suffer. And so he pronounces you guilty of your crime and hands down a sentence, but then he gets off of the bench and suffers the punishment for you. In this way justice was served but the very same judge who established and upholds the law pays the price for you.
God is not wrong for allowing us freewill. Rather, we are wrong for abusing freewill. Hell is necessary in order to ensure justice from those who reject grace. On the atheistic view there simply is no way to hold people accountable no matter what the morality de jure may be. Since some people simply refuse to repent they choose a lifetime (an immortal lifetime) of sin while alive on Earth and their hatred of God will continue to grow for all of eternity-according to their own wishes. Hell is eternal because in hell sin is eternal.
If I did not believe in hell, the objection to there being “only” one way of salvation would surely convince me of its necessity. Salvation, the gospel, the good news is that God has provided a way for you to have all of your sins forgiven forever. You did all of the sinning and God did all of the saving. We chose to live however we wanted, doing whatever we wanted, whenever we wanted, and as much as we wanted. God chose to come to Earth as a man, to suffer as we do and more, to be humiliated, beaten, spat upon, cursed, rejected, and crucified-the Bible refers to Jesus thusly,
“He is despised and rejected of men; a Man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as it were a hiding of faces from Him, He being despised, and we esteemed Him not” (prophecy in Isaiah 53:3).
Salvation is a package waiting for us in the post office, waiting to be picked up. The Bible is the slip of paper left at our door informing us that there is a package for us, it is paid in full. All we have to do is ask for it, just receive it. A gift is not earned, purchased, or deserved. A gift is given out of love, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). [this paragraph was quoted from our essay Oh, My Goodness!!!]
Can you even imagine learning that God has provided salvation as a gift and yet being so shockingly ungrateful as to complain about it? Can you even fathom being so extremely self-centered? Imaging finding out that God has offered you forgiveness of all your lifelong sins. Now imagine responding my being upset, responding by asking for more, by asking that God do it your way instead.
If there is one way of salvation and you do not take it, would you take another way? If there were a million would you ask for one million and one?