what are some of the arguments that hick makes to support his rejection of religious exclusivism?

A Three-Pronged Defense
of Salvific Exclusivism
in a Globe of Religions

past Brad Johnson

---

Brad Johnson is a Teaching / Research Assistant in the Theology and Philosophy Departments of Cincinnati Bible College & Seminary. Much of his research revolves around inter-religious dialog, philosophical apologetics, and the interplay of Christology upon both. He can be reached through email at BAJ75@aol.com

The author defines and examines the bones arguments behind the classical approaches to other religions, exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. Of primary interest are the validity of inherent "truth claims" in each religion. He concludes that, inside a Christian prototype, a re-defined exclusivisism meets an established philosophical, biblical, and ethical criteria, thus providing reasonability and warrant.

---

Religious variety is nothing new. For instance, while the ancient Assyrians were bowing before the war god Ashur, the Indian Brahmin priests were worshiping Agni, the fire god. While Old Testament prophets like Jeremiah thundered warnings of impendingjudgment upon Judah, Confucius was education the virtues of chun-tzu.{1} Twentieth-century globalization has, however, prompted a veritable renaissance of cultural knowledge and adaptation, particularly, but not exclusively{2}, in the West. Today there is an unprecedented accessibility to different religious traditions and cultures. Religious plurality is no longer a theory or a distant phenomenon; in fact, it is virtually impossible to live in a major Western city without coming into contact withsome aspect of a non-Western religion. With the radical flux of immigration, advice and transportation, the world is, in essence, much smaller than it was a century previous ago.

Even more, non-Western religions are not merely surviving in the W; they are, indeed, thriving. Dr. Yvonne Haddad, a professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Massachusetts, has noted that the electric current rate of birth, conversion, and immigration of about 20-five g to thirty-five thousand Muslims a twelvemonth"brand it possible to predict that by the first decade of the twenty-first century Islam will be the second largest religious customs in the United States."{3}

This trend is not confined solely to Due north America. In France, for example, Islam is second just to Roman Catholicism, with Protestantism in 3rd.

The result of this religious and cultural meshing is non lost, nor is something new, to Christianity. Born into a hybrid earth of start-century Hellenism and Judaism, Christianity has, from its onset, adapted and contextualized in regard to its particular cultural or historical circumstance and setting. Contemporary religious plurality, though, has forced a renewed fervor of questions apropos the "cardinal" tenet of the Christian faith, namely the part and/or necessity of Jesus Christ in salvation.

The questions are age-old, and yet they are alive as ever. For example, it is not at all uncommon to hear questions such as: "In the context of religious plurality, how tin can I say that Christ is the definitive cocky-revelation of God? If Christ is and so crucial, why take not more followers of the world's religions been attracted to him? If simply one-third of the world's population professes faith in Christ, what is Christ's relationship to the other two-thirds? Will the bulk exist excluded from salvation? Is Jesus a savior, one amid many, or is he the unique Savior of the world?"{4} Clearly, one's Christology is the key component of one'south theology of religions.

What follows is a summary and critique of the three major positions developed in response to religious plurality -- exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. Every bit is the case with any summary, just certain pillars of each (most notably, Christology) will exist showcased and discussed. This is not,still, to negate the importance of unmentioned nuances. As it will get clear, this emphasis necessitates the primary focus upon the 2 polar positions, exclusivism and pluralism. When the grit settles, so to speak, this writer's contention is that an exclusive understanding of Christian salvation is explicitly biblical, morally and philosophically sound, and thus conducive to the inter-religious dialog central to sustaining any sort of cultural viability in the twenty-commencement century and beyond.

A definition of terms, however, is of primary importance. More to the indicate, an identification of the 3 positions is apropos. Classifications inside religion are rooted in history. Prior to the 1980s, the three primary positions concerning other religionswere "aperture" (Hendrick Kraemer), fulfillment (John Farquhar), and mutual appreciation (William Hocking).{5} Withal, the respective works of Alan Race and Gavin D'Costa have since laid the foundation for the current three-fold nomenclature typicalof the current nature of the debate.{6}

The following is a succinct explanation of the central characters and ideas behind each position. The exclusivist position has been the ascendant position of the church building as a whole through much of its history until the Enlightenment. Major representatives include Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Hendrick Kraemer, D.A. Carson, William Lane Craig, and R. Douglas Geivett.

Fundamental to this position is the understanding of God's full general and special revelations. God is manifested through cosmos (general revelation), only Man has responded by freely going against this revelation and, thus, stands guilty before a holy God. All the same, God has demonstrated a reconciliatory mercy through His discussion and human activity, fulfilled completely in Jesus Christ. The historical person of Jesus, and so, is the unique, final, decisive, and normative self-revelation of God to Homo (special revelation). Exclusivists believe that Jesus Christ is the sole criterion by which all religions, including Christianity, should be understood and evaluated. Calvin Shenk explains:

Christ did not come simply to make a contribution to the religious storehouse of noesis. The revelation which he brought is the ultimate standard. Since in Christ alone is conservancy and truth, many religious paths practise non adequately reflect the way of God and practice not lead to truth and life. Jesus is non, therefore, just the greatest lord among other lords. At that place is no other lord besides him.{7}

Specific texts ofttimes employed by exclusivists include Acts iv:12; John 14:6; 1 Corinthians iii:11; and 1 Timothy 2:five-6.

The claiming within this stance is to discern and residual the universal goal of salvation with the detail nature of salvation in Christ. This claiming seems to be the dividing lineamong the range of options inherent exclusivism. Some, like Harold Lindsell, can state emphatically, "God does not reveal Himself redemptively through other ways than . . . through His children'south missionary activeness to a lost globe."{8} Another option is the pessimistic agnostic position toward the salvific state of the unevangelized. Adherents of this detail view posit special revelation every bit explicitly necessary for conservancy and choose to get no further in their conclusions than what the Bible explicitly reads. Dennis Olkholm has pointed out, even so, that "this doubter stance toward the unevangelized can besides be construed optimistically, though such optimism can but be held tentatively as a secondary theme, never to encroach on or revise the salvation-history scheme."{nine} More than volition be made of this choice further in this study.

Inclusivism is a coating term to characterize a sort of "centre way" between exclusivism and pluralism. Most prominent within mainline Protestantism and post-Vatican II Catholicism, its notable proponents (in one formor some other) include Karl Rahner, Raimundo Panikkar and Stanley Samartha{10}, and Hans Kung. Evangelical theologians such equally Clark Pinnock, Norman Anderson, and John Sanders have also identified themselves with this position. Herein, the agnosticism associated with the latter option higher up is replaced with outright optimism. Christian salvation is not confined to the historical or geographic extent special revelation has spread, rather it must be available to all cultures, irrespective of age or geography.Salvation is still posited wholly in Christ and his salvific work. Specific noesis of this work, however, is not necessary for the effect (i.eastward., salvation) to utilise to those within a different religious civilisation who take responded to the general revelation available. Once again, Shenk explains:

Inclusivists desire to avoid monopolizing the gospel of redemption. They acknowledge the possibility of salvation outside of Christian faith or outside the walls of the visible church, but the agent of such salvation is Christ, and the revelation in Jesus is definitive and normative for assessing that salvation. Jesus Christ is believed to be the center, and other ways are evaluated by how they relate to him. Other religions are non but a preparation for Christ, simply Christ is really present in them.{11}

The key differences betwixt exclusivism and inclusivism, differences that will be examined in more detail later, are the nature and the content of "saving faith." The one-time emphasizes explicit faith while the latter points to an implicit faith.

Differences abound within the inclusivist position as well, specially in regard to the understanding of Christ'due south inherent identify in every religion. Some inclusivists focus only on individuals who have, out of no mistake of their ain, not heard the gospel. Hence, a normative agreement of evangelism is operative. Others, on the other hand, point out that the role of Christian missions is non conversion, as such, but to assistance people discover and unveil the Christ already within their religious tradition.

Finally, there is the pluralist position. This is undoubtedly the most difficult of the 3 to ascertain in any general sense. The spectrum of pluralistic idea is as broad as it is long. The focusof this item report volition examine the contributions of its key figures: Paul Knitter, John Hick, and Wilfred Cantwell Smith. Just as in the previous positions, the interpretative range inside merely these three individuals varies. It is plumbing fixtures, all the same, to focus primarily on them since they are the nearly song and influential figures espousing pluralism today.

Hick and Knitter contend the case for pluralism on the following grounds: (1) ethically, information technology is the but way to promote justice in an intolerant world; (2) in terms of the "ineffability of religious experience," then no religion can claim an absolutist stance; and (3) through the understanding that historical and cultural contexts must be the filter for any absolute religious claim.{12} Hick has argued that all world religions attempt to relate to the unknowable Ultimate Reality (or, the Existent), but because of their various cultural and historical contexts these attempts are all naturally different. Hence the various conceptions of the Real and the salvation(s) sought. The mutual soteriological goal, toward which all religions strive, though, is rooted in the desire to transcend self-centeredness and, in plow, encounter a new (unexplainable) experience with the Real. But, he emphatically emphasizes the fact that there is "no public evidence that any one religion is soteriologically unique or superior to others and thus has closer admission to Ultimate Reality."{13}

Therefore, with pluralism, Christ is no more definitive or normative than any religious figure or concept. Or, as Andrew Kirk explains, "Rather than confessing that Jesus Christ is the one Lord over all, this view asserts that the 1 Lord who has manifested himself in other names is also known as Jesus."{14} By "crossing the Rubicon," equally Hick and Knitter illustrate, Christians are encouraged to abandon whatever claim of Christian uniqueness and the possibility of absolute revelation, accepting the fact that the Christian faith is one amidst many options.{15}

This is the ideological landscape, or perhaps playing field is more appropriate. What follows is a condensed iii-pronged examination in which the veracity of the positions are examined according to (one) biblical data and exegesis, (2) philosophical veracity, and (3) moral status. None of the criteria are contained of the other. In other words, one'southward ultimate decision concerning which position seems most appropriate must be judged according to its ability to satisfy all iii components.

In his recent volume, The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Historic period, John Hick attempts to utilize biblical data to support his supposition that the Incarnation was a metaphor created by the early church. He has presented three fundamental reasons for rejecting the traditional Chalcedonian-understanding of incarnation.

Commencement, Hick concludes that if "Jesus was . . . the eternal creator God get man, so it becomes very difficult indeed to treat Jesus, the New Testament, and Christian faith every bit being on the aforementioned level equally phenomena from other religious traditions."{16} This statement is almost undoubtedly true. The Christian posits Jesus as the normative dominion past which all religious phenomena and traditions are evaluated. Hick, still, willingly accepts the consequences he recognizes in the traditional affirmation; therefore, he opts for pluralism and is then forced to tweak traditional Christology.

Second, Hick finds the notion of ane person truly being God and Man incoherent. "That Jesus was God the Son incarnate is not literally true, since information technology has no literal meaning, only it is an application to Jesus of a mythical concept whose office is analogous to that of the notion of divine sonship ascribed in the ancient globe to a king."{17} Hick maintains that the traditional understanding of the Incarnation isnot a logical contradiction, simply rather a muddled statement that has no meaning{xviii}. He writes, "It is logically permissible to believe annihilation that is non self-contradictory; notwithstanding, not everything that is not cocky-contradictory makes good religious sense."{19} Therefore, to Hick, since a literal estimation has no religious significance or sense, information technology must be replaced with a metaphorical understanding. More will be said of the philosophical fallacy underlying this conclusion.

3rd, Hick relies exclusively on the liberal wing of Christian New Attestation scholarship. Hick contends that the brunt of scholarship proves that Jesus never thought of himself as divine, nor did his early believers. The doctrine, in fact, was a later on development of the early church.

The fundamental problem with Hick's argument is his reliance solely on interpretations that back up his supposition. He notes that "even bourgeois New Testament scholars, who are personally orthodox in their beliefs, are agreed today that Jesus did non teach that he was God."{20} This is both outright false and irrelevant. Information technology is a fundamental flaw to assert that the otherwise orthodox scholars he cites (i.e. Moule, Dunn, and Ramsay) are at all representative of the whole of conservative scholarship. There is a wealth of evidence to the contrary supporting the claim that Jesus both regarded himself as God and that this self-understanding was recognized, and that the New Testament testament of both is historically valid.{21} Furthermore, a high Christology is seen even within the minimum sayings dubbed authentic past several of the radical critics Hick cites.{22} Oscar Cullman has, thus concluded:

Our investigation of the Christological utilization of kyrios, 'Logos,' and 'Son of God' has already shown that on the basis of the Christological views connected with these titles the New Attestation could [emphasis his] designate Jesus as 'God'. . . . The fundamental reply to the question whether the New Testament teaches Christ's 'deity' is therefore 'Yes.'{23}

The approach of Paul Knitter in his landmark work, No Other Name: A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the Earth Religions, falters on similar exegetical grounds. Herein, he argues for a theocentric Christology that posits Christ every bit normative for the Christian experience, only non-accented in whatever mode. This foray into philosophy and the nature of truth volition be discussed soon. His employ of Scripture to support his claim that "exclusivity claims," such as Acts 4:12 and John one:14, are a sort of dearest language is dubious at best, and outright incorrect at worst. While one can readily agree that the New Testament is filled with phrases of adoration and praise, it only does not follow that there are no ontological implications to their praise.Does it follow, then, from Knitter's reasoning that all religious language should exist understood in a non-cognitive way? Furthermore, he garners no textual support for his position that his love language was not intended to rule out the possibility of other saviors and lords apart from Jesus. The decision of Harold Netland seems appropriate when weighed with the prove Knitter offers:

It is difficult to escape the determination that the major reason for regarding such statements equally noncognitive expressions of one's devotion and not as truthful-or-false assertions almost actual states of affairs is a resolute unwillingness to accept the perceived undesirable ontological implications which follow if they are taken in their most normal, straightforward sense.{24}

In his near recent book, Jesus and the Other Names: Christian Mission and Global Responsibility, Knitter attempts to answer the critics apropos his pluralist -- although he now prefers "corelational"{25} -- position. There is much to applaud in this honest examination of his previous piece of work, particularly his potent emphasis on global responsibleness. However, the burden of his Christology remains unchanged. While maintaining his original exclamation that the exclusive claims in Scripture are a "confessional language," Knitter borrows John A.T. Robinson's explanation concerning one of the nigh clear exclusive claims, Acts 4:12. Knitter agrees with Robinson that the context of this claim, that is, in whose power had Peter and John only healed the crippled man, is "not one of comparative religion only of faith healing."{26} According to Knitter and Robinson the point is to bear witness that the power of healing resides in the proper name of Christ, not Peter and John. Knitter concludes, "The strength, then, is on the saving power [emphasis his] mediated by the proper name of Jesus, non on the exclusivity of the name."{27}

Knitter and Robinson miss the eschatological signal of the apostles' declaration, though. Beginning with Peter'south sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2), kyrios [Lord] is used simultaneously for God and for the exalted Jesus. The word appears in several quotations from the Septuagint for God (2:twenty, 21, 25, 34; 3:22; four:26). In iii:19, the word is used to refer directly to God (2:39; 4:29l cf. iv:24; 7:31, 33). Leon Ladd notes, "This usage goes back to the Septuagint where kyrios is the translation not only of Adonai but the ineffable covenant name Yahweh. It is therefore amazing to find the term used at the aforementioned time of both Jesus and God. Not only is Jesus, similar God, kyrios; the term is used both of God and the exalted Jesus in practically interchangeable contexts."{28} Furthermore, Peter employs the language from Joel that speaks of the "Day of the Lord" [Yahweh] and of calling on the proper noun of the Lord for salvation, a quotation that is explicitly linked with Acts 4:x, 12. The point of these verses, then, is not simply to prove the source of physical healing, but to bespeak dorsum to the theme throughout Acts, namely that Jesus is Lord (exclusive) and the apostles are His witnesses (i:half-dozen-8).

Therefore, the healings throughout Acts are not representative merely of healing ability lonely. They, in fact, have their theological roots in the language of Mark 2 in which Jesus posits his authority to forgive sins along with his authority to heal disease. Thus, in Acts the churchly healings are a witness to what the glorified Christ, discussed in 2:14ff, has accomplished in regard to forgiveness and his "already/not yet" eschatological kingdom.{29} It is only considering Jesus is regarded equally "Lord" that Christians tin brand definitive statements concerning His person and His salvific work.

Moreover, there is a strong sense of dissatisfaction emanating from the pluralist camp itself. Several pluralists have, indeed, criticized the radical segments for playing too loose with their Christology.{30} Mary Ann Stenger comments on this "to-each-his/her-own" stance: "Merely if we look at this stance more securely, nosotros are besides dissatisfied with an unthought-out, pure relativism."{31}

The normative understanding of Christ, as attested past Scripture, is that the fullness of deity was nowadays in the human Jesus (Colossians 1:19; John 1:1,14), hence Jesus is the ultimate cocky-revelation of God (John 14:ix-10; Hebrews one:ane-three). Even more, he is the ane and only Savior of sinners, the mediator between God and Man (1 Timothy 2:5). In that location is no other proper name by which salvation is available (Acts 4:12). Jesus' death is a once-and-for-all reconciliation and justification (1 Peter 3:1; Romans 3:21-26). Acceptance of this death by faith is the operative and saving response explicitly taught. The question remains, though, is this organized religion explicit or implicit?

Clark Pinnock and John Sanders take arisen equally two of the virtually prominent evangelical spokesmen in regard to the inclusivist position. Sanders firmly believes that "people can receive the gift of salvation without knowing the giver or the precise nature of the gift."{32} Pinnock affirms this conviction, "Religion in God is what saves, not possessing certain minimum data."{33} At one level, the exclusivist agrees with the latter; mere knowledge does non equal salvation. All the same, this position slips very close to a universalism that affirms biblical faith has no content or object.

This particular study will not attempt to fully reconcile the two themes in tension throughout Scripture: Jesus is Lord (exclusive) of all (inclusive). The statement from general revelation used by inclusivists must exist balanced and held in tension with the biblical description of the power and ontological consequence of sin. Romans ane:20 teaches that all people carry a responsibleness for their sin of distorting full general revelation. Neither Gentile nor Jew is without guilt (Romans 2:14-sixteen). More pointedly, Paul states in Romans three:23, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." The Bible does not pretend to cast those who have not heard as innocent.

However, Romans 5:12-21 likewise teaches that if sin and death are universal, so are grace and life. Sensation of the unknown "logos," to put it in inclusivist terms, however, does not found salvation. Grace is merely effected upon those who call for mercy (see 1 Corinthians 15:10-eleven; two Corinthians 6:1; Philippians 2:12-thirteen). Salvation, then, is non a consequence of one'southward pious response to general revelation (or in a pious response to special revelation for that affair!), but only considering of the grace of Christ. Outset Timothy emphasizes that God'southward universal desire to save human is demonstrated in the particularity of Christ's death.

The question remains, notwithstanding, is an explicit organized religion and understanding of Christ necessary? In Romans ten:9-10, Paul appears to stress an explicit confession that Jesus is Lord and credence of his resurrection. By all rights, this appears as an "epistemological necessity."{34} John Sanders, all the same, disagrees on the basis of logic. He contends that the text is like to the conditional statement, "If it rains, and then the sidewalk volition get wet." D.A. Carson explains:

If the protasis is true, the apodosis follows: if it rains, the sidewalk is wet, and if you confess and believe, you are saved. But it does non follow that if y'all negate the protasis, the apodosis is negated. If it does not rain, it does non necessarily follow that the sidewalk is not moisture, for it might take been soaked in some other way, e.g., past a sprinkling system. Similarly, if you do not confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and if you do non believe in your middle that God raised him from the dead, it does not necessarily follow that you are not saved.{35}

Hence the necessity of an examination of the philosophical grounds of exclusivism. In other words, in order to prove the thesis that an sectional faith is biblically explicit, one must also show that information technology is philosophically (and, as shall be demonstrated, morally) sound.

Philosophically, the to a higher place argument is logically valid. "If A, and so B" provisional statements exercise not necessarily guarantee the truth of their respective "If non A, so not B" conditional statements. At kickoff glance, the philosophical ground of exclusivism is crumbling. However, a 2d glance shows that the inclusivist'due south appeal to logic collapses upon itself. There is a vital classical exception to the rule, though. If all the members of class A are identical to the members of class B, and the conditional "If A, then B" is true, so is "If not A, so not B." In other words, if all those who confess Jesus every bit Lord and believe in their hearts that God raised him from the dead constitute class A, and all those who are saved found form B, and if the members of A and B are the aforementioned, it is entirely logical to believe that if you do not confess Jesus every bit Lord and practise not believe that God raised him from the dead y'all are not saved.{36}

Granted, both the exclusivist and inclusivist must assume that the ii classes either do or do not respectively coincide. The accent Paul places on the value of "knowledge" in verses 9-x, fourteen-15 of this same affiliate seems to show him with the same understanding that an explicit faith is, at the very least, normative. The point thus far is not to say that an exclusive understanding of Christian salvation necessarily exempts individuals with only an "implicit faith" wholesale. Nonetheless, the weight of the biblical data, in accordance with sound philosophical reasoning, supports an explicit faith response to Christ, per the above thesis. The question of the state of the unevangelized, in the stop, must autumn into the easily of a sovereign God. Perhaps, information technology is apt to suggest that Christian witness should take precedent over Christian speculation apropos the inexplicit nature of the Bible's message apropos the salvific state of the unevangelized. The philosophical possibility that grace extends to implicit faith is, later on all, only a theoretical possibility.

The philosophical debate is also not lost on the pluralist position. The brunt of the post-obit philosophical assay squares upon the normative pluralist understanding and awarding of "truth," particularly soteriological religious truth. The philosophical objections that pluralists point to regarding the normative understanding of the Incarnation cause inclusivists and exclusivists to unite in their understanding of a normative Christology. Neither Hick nor Knitter is acquiescent to the notion of the total divinity of Jesus.

Knitter's contention is clear: "To place the Infinite [God] with anything finite -- that is, to incorporate and limit the Divine to any one human form or mediation -- has biblically and traditionally been chosen idolatry."{37} In his understanding, one can completely affirm statements like Colossians 2:9 -- "For in Him [Jesus] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" -- past acknowledging the fact that the fullness of Jesus' body was divine, but it past no means contained the infinite entirety of God.{38} Once once again, Knitter quotes John Robinson for back up, "Christians can and must proclaim that Jesus is totus Deus -- totally divine, but they cannot claim that Jesus is totum Dei -- the totality of the divine."{39} One time once again, though, Knitter and Robinson miss an of import Christological focus of the New Testament. Second, Knitter and Robinson brand the erroneous assumption that eternal non-being, that is spirit, must take up corporeal infinite.In addition, neither is far from the argument espoused by John Hick against the orthodox view of the Incarnation.

As mentioned, while Hick maintains that the Incarnation is not a formal logical contradiction, it is void of significant. Furthermore, he insists that information technology will havemeaning only if the verbal human relationship betwixt Jesus' humanity and his deity can be "intelligently" identified.{40} He remains unconvinced by the evidence that pre-Easter Christology entailed an understanding of Jesus' divinity, as well equally by the classical Chalcedonian formulation: (ane) Jesus is fully man and (2) Jesus is fully God. This conception is believable if (a) there are expert reasons to believe that (i) and (ii) are both true and (b) there are no good reasons to think that (1) and (two) cannot be true. The difficulty, or fifty-fifty impossibility, of explaining the union of the ii is not a good reason to think the union is false. Hick does non agree with the union of the 2 because jointly they imply (iii) Jesus is the just Savior.{41} He, in fact, concedes this fact, "If [Jesus] was indeed incarnate, Christianity is the only religion founded past God in person, and must be uniquely superior to all other religions."{42} His "official" reason that the union of (one) and (ii) is false is that the entailing uniqueness of Christianity is non compatible with the "new global consciousness of our time."{43} This objection, however, smacks of twentieth-century sensibilities inhibiting what an almighty, sovereign God could logically do.

The pluralist feels justified in tweaking theology, to put it rather negatively, because of the underlying postmodernism in their understanding of (bi-level) truth. Every bit the scope of this particular study is primarily Christological, a detailed critique of the full general pluralistic approach to evaluating religious truth is not possible.{44} A few comments, though, are warranted.

Christian exclusivity (or at least normative Christology) is based on the (western) principle of non-contradiction, that is the assumption that 2 or more incompatible assertions cannot all be true. Admittedly, this principle is not universally accepted. In Hinduism, for instance, in that location is the understanding that dharma (the fundamental way of life) may differ for individuals. Zen Buddhist meditation uses the koan (an irrational riddle or phrase) to compel the individual to motility past such cerebral limitations as non-contradiction.

Wilfred Cantwell Smith has fused his agreement of theological truth with this approach when he writes "in all ultimate matters, truth lies non in an either-or merely in a both-and."{45} Paul Knitter does the same matter when he borrows John A.T. Robinson's terminology concerning the "two-eyed" nature of truth. Herein, Robinson compares Christianity and Hinduism, maintaining that the religious Ultimate is both personal (Christianity) and nonpersonal (Hinduism). Although he acknowledges the differences betwixt religions, and refuses to advocate naive syncretism, but calls for a vague "unitive pluralism" that finds unity amidst the diversity.{46}

Ane of the fundamental understandings of postmodern philosophy is that objective truth is not "out there" to be discovered. It is,in fact, impossible to discover because of the cultural limitations of language. At all-time, language but constructs 1's personal reality; at worst, it is manipulative. Whatever endeavor to "propose totalizing metanarratives that define and legitimize Reality are denounced as oppressive."{47} Only the Self is the source of personal truth and reality; furthermore, this truth and reality is real only then far as it is actively manifested. Truth, then, is entirely personally businesslike. Something is only "true" so far as one lives it.{48}

Volumes of work are continually devoted to this ever-growing debate that has spread from the halls of academia to everyday civilization. Robert Cook and Charles Taylor have identified 1 fundamental flaw of postmodernism. Melt has charged Hick with postmodernism{49}, and not backed downward despite serious objections from Hick.Hick's response pointed out that several postmodernists take attacked his arguments as creating the sort of metanarrative postmodernism argues against: "in that location is one large, overarching explanation that claims to handle all religious phenomena, and that therefore fails to recognize the sheer multifariousness of opinion and outlook in the earth."{50} Cook'southward rejoinder is primal, notwithstanding. He claims that Hick's skepticism that any religion tin provide a metanarrative that truly explains reality is grounded in postmodernism. The fact that he creates a metanarrative in the process merely identifies the fundamental flaw of postmodernism itself. Cook points out that "every bit soon as information technology makes an absolute merits that all truth claims are relative, it has forged its ain metanarrative."{51} Charles Taylor has come to the similar conclusion that "to believe something is to hold it to be true; and, indeed, one cannot consciously dispense one'due south behavior for motives other than their seeming truthful to united states."{52}

Regardless, the bare bones of the pluralist contention are important. Namely, no religious tradition can monopolize religious truth; hence, adherents of various religious traditions can and should be willing to listen to, and learn from, other traditions. As shall be demonstrated below, Christian exclusivism does non affirm that all available religious truth is establish within Christianity. Calvin Shenk makes an of import stardom between the truth inherent in Jesus (equally Lord), and the imperfections inherent in faith itself, including Christianity.{53} Understanding this indicate of stardom is invaluable to the conclusion of this study.

Exclusive claims, however, are a necessary component of faith itself. For the most part, pluralists are glad to have differences between religions, but they are not willing to concede that individuals recognize these differences as "exclusive"in a soteriological sense. While this methodology may agree true, to a certain extent, in matters of peripheral doctrinal differences, and even cultural paradigms, information technology is highly unreasonable (perhaps untenable) to necessitate the removal of the traditional understanding of Jesus as Lord as "the only way to salvation." Hence, the pluralist imperative to re-interpret Christology. Such truth claims are not inherently wrong, though. Indeed, although no ally to the exclusivist position, Raimundo Panikkar recognizes the unavoidable nature of such "truth claims" inside faith:

A assertive member of a religion in ane way or another considers his religion to exist true. Now, the claim to truth has a sure built-in exclusivity. If a given statement is true, its contradictory cannot likewise be true. And if a certain human tradition claims to offer a universal context for truth, anything contrary to that "universal truth" volition have to exist declared faux.{54}

The exclusivist insistence that a normative Christology is explicitly biblical and thus reasonable to affirm in a Christian context has resulted in scathing indictments, claiming such a position is ethically immoral and utterly detrimental to fruitful dialog. Consider the following argument by John Hick:

[Exclusivism], with its baleful historical influence, in validating centuries of anti-semitism, the colonial exploitation by Christian Europe of what today nosotros call the third earth, and the subordination of women within a strongly patriarchal religious system, not only causes misgivings among many Christians merely as well alarms many of our not-Christian neighbours, creating invisible but powerful barriers within the man community.{55}

Granted, the previous polemic is i of the harshest available, just it is closely representative of the cartoonish understanding of the exclusivist position. The primary reason for this particularwriter's interest on the detail topic is the black center this wing of Christianity has at the easily of those standing every bit morally and ethically superior. Is the exclusivist position inherently immoral or detrimental to dialog, though?

In that location are two important clarifications necessary concerning the moral implications of exclusivist truth claims. Starting time, at that place is a difference between interacting with people and evaluating truth claims. The attacks upon exclusivism are often due to an irresponsible conviction that dissent from someone else'south beliefs -- in favor of the truthfulness of ane'due south ain -- is intolerant and arrogant. Brad Stetson identifies that this is primarily rooted in mistakenly positing a necessary connection betwixt (i) believing Christianity true and other religions untrue and (2) mistreating and disrespecting non-Christians.{56} At that place is just no necessary truth in the statement that disagreement entails negative treatment. Absolutely, though, Church history is filled with accounts of brutality and negativity;however, the fact that exclusivism is tied to these episodes may be less a affair of theological implication than information technology is a socio-historical phenomenon.

Moreover, the brutality and negativity is not a direct corollary of the pedagogy and ethic espoused by Jesus. In other words, the ignorance and failure of a teacher'sfollowers does not necessitate an inadequate message. On the contrary, when a bulletin stands directly opposed to the actions of the followers, as does the love-motivated ethic of Jesus with brutality, fault must lie squarely on the offenders shoulders and not regarded as a necessary contingent result of the message.

With this said, though, the postmodern agreement of pragmatic truth, while not entirely convincing, is benign and a much-needed accent in regard to the Christian witness Jesus calls for. James 1:22ff is emphatic in this regard: "Merely prove yourself doers of the discussion, and not merely hearers who delude themselves." He goes on to posit a clear connection between faith and action. Private Christians are encouraged to personalize such an understanding and strive to live the faith they have been called to proclaim.

The disparaging cries against exclusivism, then, are not without bearing or history. This writer suggests, though, that the pluralists that level the cries confronting exclusivism should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath h2o, to borrow a cliché. Not every exclusivist is, or has been, a misogynist, a racist, or an imperialist; hence it stands to reason that the wholesale casting of the position as "immoral" is primarily a dramatic effort at over-generalization.

Fifty-fifty more, if truth is pragmatic (as the postmodernist and pluralist affirms), would not the exclusivist exist warranted in his/her belief that exclusivism is true (at least for that individual)?Perhaps the betoken of Christian witness, including dialog, is less a pointing to an "exterior truth," every bit such, but to demonstrate both the experiential and evidential plausibility of ane'south detail, exclusivist belief that Jesus is Lord of all. This does non refuse the notion of an objective truth but displaces the myth that epistemological certainty regarding such truth is feasible this side of the grave. Biblical religion "in that which is unseen," equally theEpistle to the Hebrews describes information technology, is an existential certainty. That is, information technology is a certainty, particularly in one's salvation in Christ, evidenced in one's "reasonable" belief � albeit, not certainty � that Scripture is divinely authoritative. The grounds for such a reasonable conventionalities, admittedly, will vary betwixt individuals, as will many of the beliefs themselves. This arroyo, indeed, tiptoes on the line between modernity and postmodernism, andneither is it entirely defined, but mayhap information technology is an arroyo in the correct direction.{57}

The grade of witness this approach espouses is evident most clearly in a dialog that pluralists and inclusivists seem to think they have monopolized. The biblical example of such a witness necessitates the post-obit attitudes:understanding, respect, humility, tolerance, and vulnerability. Each of the characteristics is, first, founded within the radical motivation of dearest that Jesus clearly emphasizes. They are, second, contingent upon the understanding that Jesus isthe Christian's personal criteria of truth; Christianity is non. Faith in the divine, not in religion, is the path to healthy dialog between religions. Furthermore, this understanding accepts and requires that organized religion is personalized while the person, the work and the message of Jesus remain the same. This (pragmatic, if yous will) criteria is what prevents a hapless fideism that postmodern Christianity often slips into.

Exclusivist Christians have simply called to follow the mode by which they know and translate truth, Jesus. Shenk's first-person narrative is helpful:

We do non claim to know exhaustively, but we merits to be on the way. Nosotros exercise not hesitate to invite others to join usa as nosotros press toward fuller understanding of the truth. . . . Jesus is the truth, but not everything that Christians have claimed is truthful. Christians take been nearsighted and parochial or have married truth and ability and have get oppressive. Nosotros deeply regret that some of what Christians have presented as truth is distorted. But limited knowledge or distortion should non cause us to slip into an like shooting fish in a barrel relativism or distortion which debunks what is valid. Not that all we believe is distortion.{58}

Shenk goes on to depict dialog in three levels. Offset, at that place is the "living dialog." This is a relational, 24-hour interval-to-24-hour interval interaction with persons of a different faith. A 2d level is working with and toward common goals with persons of a different faith -- hence, exclusivists tin can solidly affirm the attempts of Paul Knitter, in his most recent work, to work with other religions for social justice. The third level is a formal dialog that attempts to understand and share the fundamental similarities and differences between the respective faiths represented, evaluating, and assimilating when necessary, each from one'south criterion of truth.{59} Because faith in Jesus as Lord is the cornerstone of the Christian faith, it seems to reason (per the arguments above) that the principal aspect of religion pluralists seem willing to practise away with is the utmost important attribute to maintain.

The debates and lines between exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism will probably intensify before they subside. Only as common understanding is necessary between faiths, this writer is convinced that like understanding would be beneficial in regard to the respective positions. Attitudes, caricatures, and misconceptions are abounding, and volition go on every bit long every bit the debate proliferates. This study is merely 1 attempt out of many to residue a panoramic agreement of the three positionsto religions with an obvious confidence that one position is peculiarly valid. Moreover, this item study has contended that despite the polemic to the contrary, the exclusive nature of believing in "Jesus as Lord" for salvation is explicitly biblical, philosophically and morally valid, and does non necessarily inhibit inter-faith dialog.

Copyright © 1998 Brad Johnson. Used by permission of the author.

---

Endnotes

{i} Harold Netland, Dissonant Voices (K Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), four.

{2} Run across Paul Hiebert, "Christianity in a World of Religious Turmoil," World Evangelization sixteen (May-June 1989): 19. Herein, Hiebert notes that 41% of the population of Singapore is Buddhist, eighteen% Christian, 17% Muslim, 5% Hindu, and 17% secularist.

{iii} Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad and Adair T. Lummis, Islamic Values in the U.s.a. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 3.

{4} Examples taken from Calvin E. Shenk's Who Do You Say That I Am? (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1997), 32.

{5} Hendrick Kraemer, The Christian Message in a Not-Christian World (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1938); John Nicol Farquhar, The Crown of Hinduism (London: Oxford, 1913); William Hocking, Re-thinking Missions: A Layperson's Inquirty Afterward 100 Years (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1932).

{half dozen} Alan Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religions (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1982); Gavin D'Costa, Theology and Religious Pluralism: The Challenge of Other Religions (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986).

{7} Calvin Shenk, 35.

{8} Harold Lindsell, A Christian Philosophy of Missions (Wheaton: Van Kampen Printing, 1949), 117.

{ix} "Introduction" in Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic Earth, ed. Dennis Olkholm and Timothy R. Phillips (M Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 20.

{10} Alan Race and Gavin D'Costa debate they both are essentially still inclusivists, although Paul Knitter disagrees. See Race, 70-106; D'Costa, 106; Paul Knitter, No Other Proper name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1985), xiii.

{11} Shenk, 43.

{12} John Hick and Paul Knitter, The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology of Religions (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1987), seven-xii.

{xiii} Olkholm and Phillips, 17.

{14} J. Andrew Kirk, Loosing the Chains: Faith as Opium and Liberation (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1992), xi.

{xv} Hick and Knitter, viii.

{sixteen} Netland, 242. Harold Netland is referring especially to John Hick's article, "Jesus and the World Religions," in The Myth of God Incarnate (London: SCM Press, 1977), 172.

{17} Hick, "Jesus and the World Religions," 178.

{18} John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 103-4, 106.

{19} Ibid., 104.

{20} "Response to R. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips," in Four Views on Conservancy, 249.

{21} A few resources include: F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents -- Are They Historical? 5th ed. (One thousand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982); I. Howard Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus (Thou Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979); Northward.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); Gregory A Boyd Cynic Sage or Son of God: Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies (Colorado Springs: Bridgeport, 1995); Thursday half dozen-volume series of of the Gospels Inquiry Project of Tyndale House is technical but beneficial. Entitled Gospel Perspectives, and published by Sheffield University'south JSOT Printing, this series is summarized past Craig Blomberg'south The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downer's Grove, IL; InterVarsity, 1987).

{22} See the following works concerning the "Son of Human" sayings that should, by the critics' use of the criterion of dissimilarity, be judged no less authentic that all other sayings judged authentic using this criterion: Oscar Cullman, The Christology of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1959), 137-92; I. Howard Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1976, 1990), 63-82. Encounter also Royce Gordon Gruenler'southward approach to the texts found authentic using the benchmark of dissimilarity in New Approaches to Jesus and the Gospels: APhenomological and Exegetical Study of Synoptic Christology (Grand Rapids: Bakery, 1982).

{23} Oscar Cullman, 306.

{24} Netland, 260.

{25} Paul Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names: Christian Mission and Global Responsibility (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1996), one.

{26} Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, 69; John A.T. Robinson, Truth is Two-Eyed (Philadelphia: Westminster Printing, 1979), 105.

{27} Knitter, Jesus and the Other Names, seventy.

{28} Leon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 339.

{29} For an excellent overview of this eschatological tension see C. Marvin Pate's The Finish of the Age Has Come: The Theology of Paul (Yard Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).

{thirty} Run into esp. Judith Berling'south quoting of Peter Phan in A Pilgrim in Chinese Civilization (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997), thirty.

{31} quoted in Ibid., 31.

{32} John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation Into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 255.

{33} Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God'south Mercy: The Finalty of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 158.

{34} D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 312.

{35} Ibid., 312.

{36} Run across Ronald Nash's evolution of this similar logical pattern in Is Jesus the Merely Savior? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 145.

{37} Ibid., 73.

{38} For a remarkably similar discussion apropos this limited kenosis of God, from the perspective of Christianity Buddhism see Donald Guthrie's Spirituality and Emptiness (New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1991), 9-30, 53-78.

{39} Knitter, Jesus and Other Names, 74; Robinson, 104.

{xl} Hick, Metaphor of God Incarnate, iii.

{41} I am indebted to Geivett and Phillips in regard to this conception. See their article "Response to John Hick" in four Views on Salvation, 74-5.

{42} Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, ix.

{43} Ibid., vii.

{44} There are several interesting and thought-provoking studies available apropos the philosophical criteria for evaluating truth claims and religious traditions. See especially Brad Stetson, Pluralism and Particularity in Religious Belief (London: Praeger, 1994), 36-49; Keith Yandell, Christianity and Philosophy (One thousand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984); R. Douglas Geivett, "John Hick's Arroyo to Religious Pluralism," Proceedings of the Wheaton Theology Conference 1 (Spring 1992): 43-53; Netland, 180-95.

{45} Wilfred Cantwell Smith, The Organized religion of Other Men (New York: Mentor, 1965), 17.

{46} Robinson, 39.

{47} Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis L. Olkhom "Introduction," Christian Apologetics in a Postmodern World (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995), thirteen.

{48} Hence the cries against historical examples of exclusivism's failures, equally will be highlighted later.

{49} "Postmodernism, Pluralism, and John Hick," Themelios 19/1 (1993): ten-12; "Readers' Responses," Themelios 19/three (1994): xx-21.

{50} Carson, 147.

{51} Ibid., 147.

{52} "Rorty in the Epistemological Tradition," in Reading Rorty, ed. Alan Malachowski (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), 258.

{53} Shenk, 137.

{54} Raimundo Panikkar, The Intrareligious Dialogue (New York: Paulist Press, 1978), fourteen.

{55} John Hick, Disputed Questions in Theology and the Philosophy of Religion (New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1993), viii.

{56} Stetson, 118.

{57} Run into Daniel Taylor'due south The Myth of Certainty (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).

{58} Shenk, 210.

{59} Ibid., 210.

Bibliography

Berling, Judith. A Pilgrim in Chinese Civilisation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1997.

Carson, D.A. The Gagging of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

Cook, Robert. "Postmodernism, Pluralism, and John Hick," Themelios 19/one (1993): 10ff.

___________. "Readers' Response," Themelios 19/3 (1994): twenty-21.

Cullman, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. London: SCM Press, 1959.

D'Costa, Gavin. Theolgy and Religious Pluralism: The Claiming of Other Religions.

Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.

Haddad, Yvonne Yazbeck and Adair T. Lummis. Islamic Values in the United States. New

York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Hiebert, Paul. "Christianity in a Globe of Religious Turmoil," Earth Evangelization sixteen (May-

June 1989): 19ff.

Hick, John. Disputed Questions in Theology and the Philosophy of Religion. New Oasis,

Conn.: Yale University Press, 1993.

_________. The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Historic period. Louisville:

Westminster / John Knox Press, 1993.

Hick, John ed. The Myth of God Incarnate. London: SCM Press, 1977.

Hick, John and Paul Knitter ed. Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Toward a Pluralistic Theology

Of Religions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987.

Kirk, J. Andrew. Loosing the Chains: Religion as Opium and Liberation. London: Hodder &

Stoughton, 1992.

Knitter, Paul F. Jesus and the Other Names: Christian Mission and Global Responsibility.

Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1996.

__________. No Other Name? A Disquisitional Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World

Religions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1985.

Ladd, Leon. A Theology of the New Testament. 1000 Rapids, MI: Eermands, 1974.

Lindsell, Harold. A Christian Philosophy of Missions. Wheaton, IL: Van Kampen Press, 1949.

Malachowski, Alan. Reading Rorty. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990.

Nash, Ronald. Is Jesus the Simply Savior? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.

Netland, Harold. Dissonant Voices. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991.

Olkhold, Dennis and Timothy Phillips ed. Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic Globe.

M Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

Panikkar, Raimundo. The Intrareligious Dialogue. New York: Paulist Press, 1978.

Phillips, Timothy and Dennis Olkholm ed. Christian Apologetics in a Postmodern World.

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995.

Pinnock, Clark. A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of

Religions. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992.

Race, Alan. Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religions.

Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1982.

Robinson, John A.T. Truth is Two-Eyed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979.

Sanders, John. No Other Name: An Investigation Into the Destiny of the Unevangelized. Chiliad

Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992.

Shenk, Calvin Due east. Who Practice You Say That I Am? Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1997.

Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. The Organized religion of Other Men. New York: Mentor, 1965.

Stetson, Brad. Pluralism and Particularity in Religious Belief. London: Praeger, 1994.

Taylor, Daniel. The Myth of Certainty. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992.

Yandell, Keith. Christianity and Philosophy. Thou Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984.

melendeznitandeaughs.blogspot.com

Source: https://wri.leaderu.com/theology/salvific.html

Share this post