I was watching a short little video that one of my students shared. In it, a street evangelist was talking (technically shouting, but in a crowded open-air setting that is just the way things work). The young woman was expressing that she was saved through Christ but also believed that some others may be saved a different way. The street evangelist said that she was unsaved because she believed that there was more than one way to be saved.

I have had conversations with other evangelicals who have stated that some other faith traditions were not saved, or were at least questionable, because of a doctrinal stance they had. The doctrinal stance was not regarding who God is or Christ is, but rather their understanding of salvation.

One was that a group were not saved because they believe that they could lose their salvation. Admittedly, I have met few that would be that dogmatic. Most who hold to eternal security would not take such a stance.

The other I have heard more often. They would say that one who believes that faith alone is not enough to be saved must not be saved.

The question I have is this: IS THIS HOW SALVATION WORKS? The presumption for this is that salvation is a doctrinal formula. If you check the right boxes doctrinally, then one is saved. If one or more are missing, then one is not.

On a certain level this makes sense. Apostasy was a major concern in the New Testament. People argue about whether apostasy can change one’s status from redeemed to not. However, the strength of condemnation of apostates make it clear that their situation is rather dire.

But IF salvation is primarily relational rather than doctrinal, what would that mean? It would move identifying the saved versus unsaved away from some of these doctrinal shibboleths. And yet, some doctrines would matter. Ones that would matter would be more tied to the object of our relationship rather than the nature of the relationship. That is, our relationship with God is dependent on us have a certain understanding of who God is. If our understanding of God diverges too far from reality, one must question whether an actual relationship exists.

Consider marriage.

If I am married, I must understand who it is I am actually married to. While I may not know that person fully (such a deep understanding is impossible), I still must be able to identify that person and know who they are. If not, it is quite reasonable to suggest that I am not married to that person. Now, as a married person, I may certainly have different viewponts as to what makes the marriage “real.” Must it be government-ally recognized or not? Must it be blessed by a certain church? Can a married be broken, or must it last “forever”? These differences in perspective may be important, however, the marriage is dependent on the relationship of the two people, not on those other matters.

I don’t know where the line is between saved and unsaved. That is fine since God judges the heart and He alone. We can only hear words, and see behaviors. John (in First John) tells us how we can examine our own selves to know whether we are children of God, but no such guide exists for others.

I will say, however, that I have problems with the situations I started out with where beliefs about salvation are held to identify the redeemed. It seems self-serving. After all, an evangelist has a vested interest in labeling as many people as unsaved as possible since he cannot get credit for leading people to salvation who are already saved. Likewise, those who believe in faith-alone eternal security identify describing those who don’t as heretical are certainly self-serving. In essence, they are calling other faith traditions invalid and in opposition to God.

I am certainly skeptical of this— yet I must also watch the urge to fall into that same trap. I may suspect they are wrong… but be fellow brothers and sisters in Christ regardless.