For those who consider themselves to be part of the “exclusivist” understanding of salvation there is a definition posted by Terry Tiesen over at Scot McKnight’s blog that he is presenting for editorial feedback (see full post here). This is Tiesen’s definition:
At various points in human history, God revealed himself and his purposes in the world more fully, culminating in the incarnation of God the Son. Everyone has some knowledge of God through divine self-revelation and, in God’s justice, people are judged only according to the revelation they have received. Therefore, no one is condemned for not believing in revelation which they have not received. But, in God’s grace, he only saves people who believe in him according to the most complete revelation that he has given to human beings. At each point in human history, therefore, knowledge of the latest and fullest divine revelation is necessary for saving faith.
As someone who would consider myself more or less an exclusivist I am wrestling with this definition. I affirm that first line that at various points in human history God has revealed Himself and that the incarnation is the climax of revelation (ie. Acts 17:23-34; Heb. 1:1). Furthermore, I affirm that the Apostle Paul argued that all people have some understanding of God (at some point in their life), including Richard Dawkins (Rom 1-2)! This would result in people being judged according to the revelation that was received upon rejection of that revelation. So-called “general” revelation is always rejected in favor of gods that are no-gods at all (again, Rom. 1-2).
In the next phase I would affirm that God does appear to judge according to the most recent revelation of sort. Hence, Paul could lament the Jewish rejection of Messiah even though the Jews were zealous for Moses’ Law (Rom. 9-11). But it must be more than this: there is not a group of people who simply seem to acknowledge the most updated revelation, but a group of people that God somehow “chooses” to receive this revelation in a salvific way (again Acts 17:23-34; add Rom. 8:26-29). Therefore, God chooses those who will be able to receive the salvific revelation at certain points in human history.
Any thoughts?
the archives near Emmaus 
I, too, have hesitations regarding "people are judged only according to the revelation they have received. Therefore, no one is condemned for not believing in revelation which they have not received" As you alluded to, Paul states in Romans 2:12 "All those who sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all those who sinned under the law will be judged by the law" (HCSB). Furthermore, inclusivist reasonings seem to undermine many texts that clearly state belief in Christ is necessary for salvation.
Jason
Jason,
In some sense I do agree with this after I thought about it for a minute. Those who had the Law will receive a worse judgment than those who did not, but all that reject the God who raised Jesus from the dead stand judged. There may be some degrees of judgment. As Jesus said, there were pagan cities that would fair better at the judgment than those Jews who saw and rejected Jesus. Why? Because Jesus is the utmost revelation of God and therefore more revelation than Sodom, Gomorrah, and other cities received.
Nevertheless, just because someone is not judged for revelation that has not been received does not mean that they are not judged. Gentiles who hear the gospel and reject it are far worse off than Gentiles who reject only general revelation.
Brian: Agreed. I think Paul's point in the verse I cited was that people would still perish, even though they didn't have the law. This has stirred in my mind (along with some other reading I've been doing) about punishment for rejection of God and/or Christ. Scripture repeatedly speaks of degrees of reward, judgment, punishment, etc. Thus, I wonder how degrees of punishment will work. Could it really get much worse than eternal separation from God?
Jason
Jason,
I think this may be evidence of how little we really know about eternal punishment. We have the biblical imagery, but it is just that, imagery. Fire, a lake of fire, darkness, undying worms, a garbage-dump outside Jerusalem, a Greek netherworld, a prison–but we don't have "hell" directly relayed to us. At least that is how I read the data. Whatever "hell" is it is not good, but neither is it easily understood by limiting it to one of several NT images.
Brian: I think we can know this much–it will be a most awful punishment. I think the imagery portrays a place so unthinkable that mere words can't aptly describe it.
Jason
Jason,
Agreed.
Who or what is God,no one knows, so bible godspells and eny men writings are just literature. Beside Jesus of Galilea is only half jew as Celso and Talmud say….but love is the nearest God we have and evolution IS love. So why actual humans in their arrogance insist in their EGO creations as religions with love Manuel
moderation, means hipocracy or what? Manuel
Manuel,
Yes, if we humans were left to understand God from within our own capabilities we would never know who God is and we could never know God. Christianity has always affirmed that this is true. Yet Christianity affirms something else as well: God has chosen to reveal Himself to humanity, first through Abraham’s descendants and finally, climatically, in His Son Jesus Christ. If this is the case, as Heb. 1:1 asserts, then we can know God, at least as much as we can know of Jesus and as much as we can know God through the Holy Spirit.
Also, we Christians do not give the Talmud as much credence as the canonical gospels and the writings of Paul.