Exclusivism is the doctrine that the only exclusive way to salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus. Its opposite is Inclusivism, which holds that there are other methods, say, that the unevangelised will be judged according to the knowledge they have been given. It should not be confused with Pluralism, the idea that multiple religions lead to God.
Here I will simply use Scriptural quotations (all following references are NIV) with brief comments to give a summarised outline of exclusivism from an Arminian perspective. Let us hypothesise an arbitrary man living without yet having the Gospel shared to him.
The man is sinful:
Romans 3:23 – for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
And in his state of sin and unbelief he stands condemned:
John 3:18 – Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
He can only come to the Father [be saved] through belief in Jesus:
John 14:6 – Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
This is done by trusting in Jesus as Lord and Saviour:
Romans 10:9,13 – If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved… for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
For the man to come to faith in Christ, he has to be drawn:
John 6:44 – “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
And all are being drawn, which would include the man:
John 12:32 – [Jesus said] “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
This is done by leading the man to repentance before God:
Romans 2:4 – Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness,forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?
This drawing can function in different ways for different people who haven’t engaged with an explicit proclamation of the Gospel. He is without excuse because he can respond to God through creation, for example a simple inference from nature, or a sophisticated philosophical Cosmological Argument:
Romans 1:20 – For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Or similarly, through the law written on his heart, eg. Moral Argument:
Romans 2:15a – They [Gentiles] show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness,
Because God has allotted him a place sufficient to seek God:
Acts 17:26b,27a – and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him
If he yields truthfully to God’s natural revelation, eg. arguments above (obviously not necessarily with philosophical rigour that could be elaborated), then God can providentially send a preacher to him:
Romans 10:14,15 – How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
So that the sacrifice Jesus made for everyone:
1 John 2:2 – He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Can be applied to him:
Romans 3:25a – God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.
For a further analysis on some of the passages cited, eg. John 6:44, John 12:32, Romans 3:25a and 1 John 2:2 see previous posts here:
biblical arminian. 
Just a quick point: exclusivism and inclusivism aren’t opposites. The opposite of exclusivism is pluralism, while inclusivism is a middle ground position.
Hi jcfreak,
I’m using inclusivism here in the theological sense that the non-evangelised can partake in salvation apart from explicit faith in Jesus. So in this regard its negation, and thus opposite, is exclusivism: ie. it is not the case that (the non-evangelised can partake in salvation apart from explicit faith in Jesus).
If we are using exclusivism in a broader philosophical sense in relation to other religions, yes I agree with you that exclusivism being that salvation is found only (exclusively) through the Christian faith is opposite to pluralism which contends that salvation is found through other religions.
I probably should have been clearer how I was using the terms, thanks for your comment though 🙂
The verse Acts 17:26b-27a is just absolutely critical. Wherever anyone lives at any time is a place where they can seek God and reach out for him. Surely, then, we need to make some provision for those outside the gospel bounds, that they be responsible for responding or not. Perhaps you haven’t seen my “middle-way”? 😉 Here it is: http://dailyarminian.wordpress.com/2013/06/22/inclusivism-exclusivism-and-a-third-way/
Pingback: Inclusivism? Exclusivism? Or could there be a Third Way? | The Daily Arminian