Is The Gospel Exclusive?
- by: Ray Ciervo 03/1/2002
Introduction
As part of the study of prolegomena one must come to terms with who
will be saved and therefore, how they will be saved. There is much
thought on this today and wide field of propositions. In this paper
four will be considered: Pluralism, inclusivism and exclusivism. In
exclusivism, two different approaches will be considered. In order to
evaluate each of these concepts it is necessary to review the beliefs
of particular people. John Hick posits a pluralistic view. Clark
Pinnock holds to an inclusive position. Alister E. McGrath holds the
first of two exclusive positions while the team of R. Douglas Geivett
and W. Gary Phillips holds the second.
The term pluralism considered in the religious context, argues that
many religions provide "different salvific access to the divine
Realty." Pluralism states that all major religions, regardless of
contradicting each other are equally valid pursuits. Relativism is
close to this. It states that the religion one holds is true to the one
holding it.
The contemporary case for pluralism is argued from several points. The
first is that it is the only way to ethically present justice in an
intolerant and oppressive world. Second, It is wrong to present any
religion as superior in terms of effectiveness. And third, from a
historical perspective, no religion can have an absolutist claim.
Although different cultural and historical settings of world religions
have produced varying concepts of this ‘divine reality' and even the
salvation, which they have sought, each has a common soteriological
structure. That soteriological structure is turning human beings from
being self-centered to centering on whatever their divine reality is.
John Hick, the contributor for pluralism in Four Views on Salvation in
a Pluralistic World posits that no religion produces morally superior
adherents. Hick mainly assails Christianity in general and
exclusivists in particular. His argument is aimed at the authority of
Scripture and the testimony of Christian society and history. He claims
to be a Christian but that is merely incidental because he was born in
a Christian environment. Hick would like the church to turn from being
Christ-centered to being-God centered. In order for Hick to be
successful he must refute the orthodox position of the Incarnation of
Christ.
Inclusivism in the religious context, connotes salvation encompasses
all cultures. It speaks of the universal availability of the gospel. In
Christian inclusivism, Jesus Christ is the normative fulfillment of all
religion. However, inclusivism states that God's grace is operative in
all religions and may provide a way of salvation apart from calling on
the name of Jesus Christ. Since God is omnipresent, His Spirit is
everywhere, means also that His grace is everywhere. Since his grace is
everywhere people can come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. "The
salvation in Jesus Christ is available not only for those who hear his
name; saving grace must be universally available in all cultures,
regardless to geography or age."
Although some Christian inclusivists state that other religions mediate
salvation, inclusivist Clark Pinnock denies that availability. He sites
other religions as being mixtures of truth and error. However, he
maintains that God's spirit can use positive aspects of religions and
various methods and elements including the conscience, the human desire
for religious experience, angels and social interaction.
Exclusivism claims that only in the name of Jesus can a person come to
saving grace and find salvation. In a politically correct culture this
is asking for conflict. Exclusivism has come under serious attack by
both pluralists and inclusivists.
A key to exclusivism is the difference between general and special
revelation. Although God reveals himself in general revelation there is
no saving grace revealed there. One could say that although nature
reveals God's nature and eternal attributes there is no revelation of a
savior. In Four Views of Salvation in a Pluralistic World two aspects
of exclusivism are explained.
Alistair McGrath posits that although he is an exclusivist he leaves
room for God to reveal himself through special visions. In fact he
says that God is not inhibited from bringing people to faith in him
even when that act of hope and trust lack the "full orbed character of
the Christian faith." Although McGrath is an exclusivist he is not
considered a restrictive exclusivist as R. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary
Phillips are.
Geivett and Phillips present what is labeled hard restrictivism. They
present the position that solely in "the name of Jesus" can a person
receives salvation. They are strictly evidentialists in that Bible
exposition is their source of revelation. Although the other positions
will consider scriptural references, Geivett and Phillips use this
source exclusively with orthodox Christian interpretation. One other
point to be made is that both McGrath and the team of Geivett and
Phillips opt for the label of particulalism instead of exclusivism.
Their reasoning is that the term exclusivism would not get a fair
hearing in this current climate of tolerance.
Arguments and Critical Concerns
Argument for Pluralism
John Hick is a major spokesman for pluralism. In Four Views of Salvation in a Pluralist Society, he states his case for pluralism. Citing that other major religions produce equally spiritual or mature believers, Christianity cannot claim an exclusivist position for salvation.
Hick bases this point on his experience of working with people of other
major religions. AFFOR (All Faiths for One Race) was the organization
Hick worked for with a religiously diverse group. "In all this I found
myself in active comradeship with Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs,
Marxists, and humanists, as well as many Christians." The place was
Birmingham, England. The project he was involved in was to create a new
religious curriculum for what Americans would call public schools.
Hick visited houses of worship of all faiths and came to the
realization that the similarities outweighed the differences. He states,
I soon realized something that is obvious enough once noticed, yet
momentous in its implications. This is that although the language,
concepts, liturgical actions, and cultural ethos differ widely from one
another, yet from a religious point of view basically the same thing is
going on in all of them...
By saying that the "same thing is going on in all of them," Hick is
referring to people coming together and opening their hearts and minds
to God whom they believe demands their whole lives in devotion to him.
Although they have different names for God and he reveals himself
differently to each religion, he is the same divine Reality, the
Ultimate. Hick does acknowledge that there are two other possible
views. The first being that the God of one's own religion is the true
God and all others are false. The second is what Hick says is adopted
by mainline theologians. This position is that God is known in other
religions but is fully known in Christianity. However of these three
positions, Hick opts for pluralism. His view of pluralism is that every
major religion is equally true.
Having been an evangelical Christian, Hick now defends his pluralism by
explaining his evangelical beliefs in this new light. He does this in
three steps. The first is to redefine salvation as
salvation/liberation. His second step is to reinterpret the New
Testament, namely the words of Jesus and consequently the third step is
"demythologizing" the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
Hick states that he has not found that people of other major religions
are, in general, on a different moral and spiritual level from
Christians. Perhaps more importantly he states that the work of the
Holy Spirit whom Christians believe produces the fruit of the Spirit is
not contained solely in Christian experience. In fact, he goes on to
say that if it were true that Christians were morally superior it ought
to be demonstrated in actuality and not simply be a verbal claim. He
finds that people of other religions are as spiritually mature as
Christians. If Christianity were the only true religion it ought to
produce adherents who are superior to other religions. Or, if it were
simply superior to other religions, its adherents ought also be
superior to others. As stated, he finds Christianity is not superior in
any sense.
Moving away from orthodox Christian terminology, Hick chooses to use
the hybrid term salvation/liberation. He believes that religion can
only be judged by its fruits, and that all religions have a
sanctification process where believers move from self- centeredness to
divine Reality-centeredness. He says this:
If we define salvation as being forgiven and accepted by God because of
Jesus' death on the cross, then it becomes a Christian tautology that
Christianity alone knows and is able to preach the source of salvation.
He goes on to say,
But if we define salvation as an actual human change, a gradual
transformation from natural self-centeredness (with all human evils
that flow from this) to a radically new orientation centered in God and
manifested in the "fruit of the Spirit," then it seems clear that
salvation is taking place within all of the world's religions-and
taking place, so far as we can tell, to more or less the same extent.
Further, Hick believes in universal salvation. All religions are
equally true and valid because of their being rooted in the ultimate
structure of reality. And, perhaps after many lives in many worlds,
will attain this final fulfillment in relation to the divine Reality.
Hick finds the Christian view of exclusivism offensive in its claim to
be the only way to God. Hick proposes that the gospels are not credible
sources of Jesus' claim to being one with the Father nor his claim to
be the way, the truth, and the life. He believes that the words of
Christ were actually put in his mouth between forty and seventy years
after Christ walked the earth. References to Jesus in the gospels were
flashbacks of the historical Christ and anticipations of the divine
Christ of later official church doctrine. Hick's Jesus was a godly man,
inspired as a prophet proclaiming the imminent coming of the kingdom on
the earth. The New Testament documents were written as these thoughts
developed into what is known as orthodox Christianity.
Hick also posits that the title ascribed to Jesus as the "son of God"
was a common title for many human beings in the ancient world.
Emperors, pharaohs, philosophers and religious figures could be called,
"sons of God." In Israel the term, "son of God" was familiar. Israel
was called God's son in Hosea 11:1; angels were called sons of God in
Job 38:7; and kings were enthroned as sons of God in 2 Samuel 7:14 and
Psalm 2:7. Hick believes the term "son of God" for Jesus was meant to
be understood as a metaphor as it was for King David. He mentions that
no one expected David to be known as the Son of God literally.
Therefore when the term "son of God," is used of Jesus it ought to be
understood as a metaphor.
Hick's third concern with orthodox Christianity is the understanding of
the incarnation of Christ. Here he says that Jesus never claimed to be
God. He again refers to the creation of Christ's identity by followers
some forty to seventy years after the death of Christ. However, his
main contention with the incarnation is that no one in his estimation
has ever presented a concise definition for his liking. How one person
can have two natures without them co-mingling is beyond the scope of
his understanding. From Hick's perspective no one has ever proven this
possible for one person to have all the attributes, which would make
him totally human, and at the same time have all the attributes that
would make him totally divine.
Hick mentions it was the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., which
described orthodox Christology. He faults the Council's description
because it did not say how it could be possible for Jesus to be totally
God and totally human. Hick struggles with how an infinite mind can
reside in a finite body. He affirms that the Council rejected anyone
who did not agree with them as heretics.
He also rejects the kenosis position by asking, "is a God who empties
himself still God?" Rhetorically he asks whether God could empty
himself of some of the attributes and retain others. His main point is
how can an infinite being be contained in a finite one?
Hicks purports that the incarnation of Christ is to be understood
metaphorically as Abraham Lincoln is the incarnation of the spirit of
American independence, or Hitler was the incarnation of Evil. For the
incarnation of Christ to be understood one has to transfer the meaning
of incarnation from literal to figurative or metaphorical. Because
Jesus was open to God in obedience and in responsiveness to God's will,
God was able to act on earth through him. From this Hick sees Jesus
as a revered spiritual leader who has made God real to humanity. This
position makes it possible to acknowledge and recognize the other
spiritual leaders of major world religions without denying their
"revelatory histories." This Jesus fits well with religious pluralism.
Concerns with Pluralism
In order to accept Hick's view of pluralism one must deny the basic laws of logic.
The first law of logic is the law of identity. "A" is "A." "A" is not "non A." This is
simple logic. If Jesus is the Messiah, he cannot be also the non- Messiah.
Pluralism posits that all religions are true. However, the major
religions of the world contradict each other in specific ways. They are
not simply different expressions of the same pursuit. Simply put the
major religions of the world contradict each other on major tenets of
faith. Consider Judaism and Christianity. The Jews deny Jesus as the
Messiah. Christians claim Jesus is not only the Messiah but also the
Hebrew Messiah. There are two possibilities for Christians and Jews to
agree. One would be for Christians to deny the New Testament claims of
Christ. The other would be for Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah.
Muslims say that Jesus did not die on the cross and therefore was not
resurrected. Orthodox Christians believe he did die and was
resurrected. For Islam and Christianity to both be true is not
possible. This is an example of the second law of logic, the law of
non-contradiction. This law states that two statements cannot disagree
with each other and both are true in the same sense at the same time.
Another example of this would be the Hindu belief in pantheism, all is
God. Hindu's profess all is God. You are God, I am God, the tree is
God, and the cow is God. All is God. This is in contradiction to
Muslim, Jewish, and Christian belief that God is a distinct separate
person from his creation. According to the law of non-contradiction he
cannot be both. Either Muslims, Jews, and Christians are correct in
their view of a personal God or they are wrong. Or, those who posit a
pantheistic view of God are correct or they are wrong. They both cannot
be right. They both cannot be true.
Hick doesn't seem to be concerned with what is true but rather that
everyone is respected. It appears he was touched emotionally through
his work in Birmingham with AFFOR. It is commendable that he was able
to work in such an alliance to better represent the religious community
in which he resided. However, in the process it also appears he lost
his bearing.
For Hick's pluralism to work he must dismantle orthodox Christianity.
Christian exclusivism is a barrier to pluralism as are other beliefs
held by other religions. Christ's claims to deity and the only way to
God pose an enormous problem for Hick, therefore he must deconstruct
the Jesus of the Bible.
It is interesting that Hick chooses to discount some sayings of Jesus
as being constructions of his followers after the fact and uses other
sayings of Jesus that fit with his views. For instance, he dismisses
Jesus saying, "I and the Father are One," as something his followers
literally put in his mouth some forty years later. But, He decidedly
quotes the parable of the prodigal son as an example of God's mercy in
order to foster the idea of God's gracious acts to sinners without any
reparation for their sins.
Consider also Hick's statement about the incarnation of Christ as
metaphor. Hick uses language that makes the reader understand
everything ought to be taken as a metaphor. He places the phrase, "son
of God," along side of phrases like, "food for thought." Is it proper
to consider these phrases as equally important? Hick believes so. Hick
can say these statements because he believes the incarnation is a myth.
By believing the incarnation to be myth he sets up his beliefs of the
atonement and resurrection. It becomes clear that Jesus does not save
anyone in Hick's belief.
The concern with John Hick's pluralism is that he has gone to great
lengths to dismantle the most crucial doctrines of orthodox
Christianity. However, he mentions nothing of the other major world
religions. He also gives the impression, as Ronald Nash states about
Hick's view of world religions, "...regardless of what the followers of
these religions thought they were doing, pluralists know better."
Hick makes tortuous moves in truth and logic in order to reject exclusivism and make pluralism sound intellectually superior.
Inclusivism
Argument for Inclusivism
Clark Pinnock's states inclusivism holds that, "...because God is present in the whole world (premise), God's grace is also at work in some way among all people, possibly even in the sphere of religious life (inference)." He goes on to say that inclusivism entertains the possibility that religion may play a role in the salvation of the human race, a role preparatory to the gospel of Christ, in whom alone fullness of salvation is found. Also, more specifically he states that because God is omnipresent, therefore his prevenient grace is also everywhere working in advance of the mission of God.
Pinnock makes reference that all inclusivists do not accept his
view of inclusivism. His view is referred to as cautious inclusivism.
He lists two important qualifiers. First, cautious inclusivism does not
glorify religions ignoring the darkness, deception, and bondage in
them. Second, it stops short of stating that the major religions are
themselves the vehicles of salvation. However, he does state that his
cautious inclusivism holds "that grace operates outside the church and
may be encountered in the context of other religions." He does state
that religions do not save people but the Spirit does. It is God's
Spirit that is the power of God to salvation, not religion.
Pinnock claims inclusivism is grounded in Trinitarian foundations
which he calls a "relational ontology" What he means by that is the
fact that God is a triune God, His relationality among the members of
the trinity reveal the love of God in community which is a testimony of
His nature. "It sees God as an event of loving communion, poured out in
creation and reaching out to the world in redemption."
Inclusivism believes that God's plan was not to make salvation
universal at the beginning of history but at the end. However, people
who were not privy to the gospel are not penalized for that. Pinnock
holds that general revelation as well as special revelation can be used
in salvific ways. He criticizes the view that claims general revelation
can present a revelation of God's eternal attributes and therefore a
point of contact but not create the possibility of redemption.
Inclusivism provides hope for those who have never heard and those who
will never hear. Christians today want that kind of religion.
Christians also feel the pressure of being politically correct in the
realm of tolerance. Superiority and chauvinism are not tolerated.
Therefore to posit a belief that claims any kind of exclusivism is
unacceptable.
Pinnock openly claims that inclusivism is an attempt to overcome
the painful legacy that has been imparted by exlcusivism. By
presenting an inclusive Christianity and recognizing noble features in
other religions, by citing God's prevenient grace among the nations he
hopes to avoid the stigma of superiority and dispel the criticism
leveled against it.
Concerns with Inclusivism
Clark Pinnock's inclusivism comes across as an appealing option. The fact that God is at work among other religions and in fact has been for all time appeals to something within the soul. However, there must be a framework in order to judge the merits of this view besides what one feels inside.
A question to consider is why God would warn Israel to have nothing to
do with the nations in Canaan if they in fact were also recipients of
His grace? If religions were place where the Spirit of God dwelt and
prevenient grace was also present, why forbid Israel to intermarry?
Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give
your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for
your sons. "For they will turn your sons away from following Me to
serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against
you and He will quickly destroy you.
This is strong language towards Israel. The Lord forbade the Israelites
to intermarry because the inhabitants of the land would lead them
astray from following the Lord to serve "other" gods. The Lord's
reaction if they were to do this would be to judge Israel and destroy
them. What the Lord does instruct Israel to do is revealing.
But thus you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, and
smash their sacred pillars, and hew down their Asherim, and burn their
graven images with fire. "For you are a holy people to the LORD your
God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own
possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.
God's instruction for Israel was to annihilate the nations who
possessed the land He was giving to Israel by destroying their objects
of worship. This hardly seems as if God was at work in these religions.
Another consideration is the statement Pinnock made concerning the "...Spirit being the power of God to salvation." This is not what Romans 1:16 states. There the apostle Paul claims "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." Here Paul plainly states that it is the gospel which the power of God to salvation, not the Spirit. Paul qualifies those who receive salvation through the gospel as, "those who believe." Although the Spirit of God is the One who generates the new birth, it is through the gospel that people are saved. Pinnock seems to place all the work on the Holy Spirit and nothing on the power of the gospel.
Once again, the author of this argument seems to have wrestled
Scripture out of context and into a form that would fit his
presentation. There must be some concern with any view that is more
concerned with how it appears or how others with think of it. Truth is
what suffers when something or someone other than God is served.
Exclusivism
Argument for Exclusivism
Those who argue for exclusivism refrain from the label itself because they believe it will not get a fair hearing. The authors representing exclusivism in Four View of Salvation in a Pluralistic World chose the term particularism.
Alistair E. McGrath represents a more liberal view of particularism.
His view asserts that God will operate outside the preaching of the
gospel to bring people to himself. He says that,
Where the gospel is not or cannot be preached by human agents, God is
not inhibited from bringing people to faith in him even if that act of
hope and trust may lack the fully orbed character of an informed
Christian faith.
McGrath mentions that Muslims have had visions of Jesus while in the
mosque in prayer that resulted in subsequent salvations. However, he
presents no evidence for the event and leaves his readers to suspect
his sources.
R. Douglas Geivette and W Gary Phillips represent the restrictive
particularist view. Their view will represent the exclusivist position
in this paper. For the sake of space McGrath's view of exclusivism
cannot be covered in any depth.
Geivett and Phillips come out declaring their position describing the particularist view as,
...with what is regarded as the appropriate human response to God's
saving initiative. That is, except perhaps in very special
circumstances, people are not saved apart from explicit faith in Jesus
Christ, which presupposes that they have heard about his salvific work
on their behalf.
Particularists believe God uses the means of general revelation to
communicate his existence, aspects of his nature, many of the ways he
is related to the world, and the moral obligation that humans have
toward him. Sources of general revelation include the entire order of
created reality, whether physical or non physical, human conscience,
and the pattern of human history. When one organizes these data and
sources into a systematic body of knowledge it is called natural
theology. General revelation comes from natural theology.
The two primary sources for what is called special revelation are
the Old and New Testaments of the Bible and the incarnation of Jesus
Christ. God's concern for the human race, his plan of salvation is
revealed in special revelation. Included in special revelation are any
conditions God may place upon them.
Particularists Geivett and Phillips provide a two-step strategy in
presenting their view of salvation. First they present God as the one
who has created the universe and revealed he is a personal, wise, and
benevolent Creator to whom we owe our existence as persons. From that
understanding it is reasonable to expect such a God to address the
human condition. Most importantly, one can expect that God would
address the darkest part of the human condition that would need divine
help. Further it would be reasonable to see where human nature falls
far short of the excellence one encounters in creation and the created
order. Therefore whereas one does not find a savior or the message of a
savior in the created order, one can see the need for a savior.
The law that God has written on the hearts of all people tells what
mankind ought to do. However, that law like other laws, does not
provide the ability to do what ought to be done. Once again the natural
order reveals the need for a savior. Beyond these there is the sense in
which nothing that is physical is completely satisfying to man. At this
juncture Geivett and Phillips quote C.S. Lewis, "If I find in myself a
desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable
explanation is that I was made for another world."
Therefore in general revelation there is the witnesses of the
created order, which speak of an infinite, personal, wise God who is
all-powerful and omniscient. There is also the conviction of the law
written on the heart which shows what ought to be but does not provide
the way to be. And finally there is the sense that man was made for
something more than what he can see and experience in the physical
world. What is left is the special revelation that God must provide.
The particularist view is that God has provided a particular
revelation answering the specific needs of mankind. This view is
historically verifiable and biblically well supported. The
particularist depends upon an orthodox interpretation of Biblical
events, especially those of the gospels.
Geivett and Phillips present several Scriptures that support their
position. Consider this quote from the apostle Peter: "And there is
salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that
has been given among men by which we must be saved." In the first part
of the verse Peter excludes everyone else from being a source for
salvation other than Jesus Christ. In the second part of the verse
Peter uses the phrase, "under heaven" which shows how extensive his
claim is. "No other name," is an exclusive term. Geivett and Phillips
point out an easily overlooked word. The word is "must." It states how
we must be saved. They relate how Jesus used this forceful word when he
spoke to Nicodemus that he must be born again. Again, they illustrate
the point from Acts when Paul and Silas were in prison and set free by
an earthquake. The jailer asked, "What must I do to be saved?" Paul
and Silas responded, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be
saved..." If there was another way to get saved Paul and Silas did not
offer it to the jailer.
When Peter spoke in Acts 4:12 he used the term name. Geivett and Phillips argue that this term requires knowledge. Acts is replete with references of how the church went out in the name of Jesus. Paul proclaims in Romans,
How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will
they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear
without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as
it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS
OF GOOD THINGS!"
Geivett and Phillip galvanize their position by saying that the
focus of special revelation has narrowed to the incarnate Son of God.
Salvation is available only through an explicit faith in Jesus Christ.
It is clear from their arguments that Geivett and Phillips present an
exclusivist view of salvation. Salvation is dependent upon the
necessary condition of faith in Jesus Christ. Christianity is unique
among all religions.
Concerns with the Particularist View
The chief concern raised against the particularist view is as John
Hick says, "...the exclusivist (renamed particularist) view that
salvation is confined to those who explicitly take Jesus as their Lord
and Savior has such horrifying implications that it is hard to believe
that Geivett/Phillips have thought these through." The concern raised
is the fairness of God. Would God allow those who have not heard either
through time constraints, i.e. they were born before Jesus came, or
geographical constraints, they were born in countries where the gospel
did not reach, to be consigned to eternal damnation? This question
comes up most often in evangelistic encounters with skeptics. "What
about those who have never heard?" is the most oft asked question.
The concerns with the exclusivist view are few other than they are narrow and appear to be intolerant. It is correct to view this as exclusivist.
Evaluation
Primarily the strict exclusivist view is the most literal interpretation of the Bible in general and the gospels in particular. Both pluralism and inclusivism employ a dialectical methodology in presenting their position. On the one hand John Hick views exclusivism as intolerant and incredible yet gives merit to the person of Jesus Christ. Clark Pinnock sees the exclusivist position too rigid and in need of flexibility. They both combine their view if Christianity with the needs the see in the world. In Hick's view he comes up with pluralism and in Pinnock's he comes up with inclusivism. Both have distorted orthodox Christianity for a more "favorable" view.
The problem with both of them is they have not changed the truth, just
their views of the truth. In another sense they have both tried to help
God out especially in a pluralistic society, because he appears
intolerant they have tried to make God and his message more palatable.
In doing so they have gutted the gospel message and have offered
erroneous or at best impotent alternatives.
Geivett and Phillips offer the soundest presentation of the gospel
message according to literal Biblical interpretation. They make no
excuses for those who have never heard either through time or
geographical restraints. The "Name" of Jesus is the way of salvation.
In this presentation they do not impinge on the understanding of God's
mercy or the fairness of God.
Whether God is just (fair) or not ought not to be a consideration in a
literal interpretation of Scripture. The Bible clearly portrays God as
just.
Therefore the LORD longs to be gracious to you, And therefore He waits
on high to have compassion on you. For the LORD is a God of justice;
How blessed are all those who long for Him.
If exclusivism is the correct view of salvation it ought not matter
what the results would be. If it is truth, it must abide. However,
there is consolation for those who seek answers to some of the hard
questions. Perhaps these are indirect answers also. It would be
surprising for the God of the Bible to be disinterested in the eternal
state of all those created in his image. Could a just God do anything
unjust? Rather than tamper with the message as the pluralists and
inclusivists do, it appears that trusting in a just and merciful God
would be more rational.
Geivett and Phillips make an important closing point in the rebuttals.
The religious pluralist's insistence that God cannot have arranged for
our salvation in the exclusivist way of Christianity presupposes a
greater knowledge of God than radical religious pluralists are in a
position to have on their own assumptions.
The pluralists and inclusivists seem to know better than everyone else.
From a rational point of view by way of evaluation, it would be more
rational for all religions to be wrong than for all to be right.
Contradictions are much too prominent. It is more rational to believe
that one is right among all. It is also irrational to believe that God
works through all religions toward a saving grace in Jesus Christ.
Strict warnings in Scripture forbade God's people from going after
other God's. Neither are there any references to how other religions
would help find Jesus in the New Testament. The silence speaks loudly!
Those who object to exclusivism appear to be more concerned with
the intolerant aspect of orthodox Christianity. It is a narrow view. It
also appears there is more emphasis placed upon tolerance and
acceptance than is warranted.
End Notes
Dennis L Okholm and Timothy R Phillips, General Editors, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, (Grand Rapids Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House), 1996, 17.
Ibid. 18
Ibid. 24
Ibid. 25
Alistair McGrath, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, Dennis Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, General Editors, (Grand Rapids Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House), 1996, 179.
John Hick, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, Dennis Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, General Editors, (Grand Rapids Michigan, Bondservant Publishing House), 1996, 38
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid. p. 39
Ibid. p 42
Ibid p. 44
Ibid. p.43
Ibid p. 45
John 10:30
John 14:6
Hick, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, 35
Ibid.
Ibid. 36. Hick is referring to Psalm 2:7
Ibid. 54
Ibid. 55
Ibid. 56
Ibid. 57
Ibid. 57-8
Ibid. 58
John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, (Louisville, KY, Westminster/John Knox Press), 1993, 100.
Ronald H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior, (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House), 1994, 66.
Clark H. Pinnock, Four Views of Salvation in a Pluralistic World, Dennis Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, General Editors, (Grand Rapids Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House), 1996, 98
Ibid. 98
Ibid. 100
Ibid. 116
Ibid. 103
Ibid.
Ibid. 123
Deuteronomy 7:3,4
Deut 7:5,6
Pinnock, 116
McGrath, 179
Ibid. 179
R. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, Dennis Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips, General Editors, (Grand Rapids Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House), 1996, 214
Ibid. 216
Ibid.
Romans 2:13
Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity, Macmillan Publishers, New York, NY, 1952, 106
Acts 4:12
John 3:7
Acts 16:30
Acts 16:31
Acts 8:12, 35; 9:15, 27. Consider also Romans 15:20, and 3 John 7.
Romans 14,15
Geivett and Phillips, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, 240
John Hick, Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, 248
Isaiah 30:18
Geivett and Phillips, Four Views of Salvation in a Pluralistic World, 270
Selected Bibliography
Carson, D. A..The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishing House. 1996
Hick, John. The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Louisville, Kentucky, Westminster/John Knox Press. 1993
Nash, Ronald H.. Is Jesus the Only Savior. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishing House. 1994
Okholm, Dennis L. and Timothy R. Phillips, General Editors. Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House. 1996.
