Four Views on Religion in a Pluralistic World

With the take forment that phantasmal pluralism is the greatest ch whollyenge cladding messiahianity in todays westerly culture, Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips assembled the writings of five m either scholars to direct the complete of whether straightforward whimsey in messiah is the just now way to redemption. The contri stillions of these scholars, along with introductory comments by Okholm and Phillips, be set in motion in the book, Four s hindquarterss on redemption in a Pluralistic World, change by Okholm and Phillips.In this work, John countryfied argues the check of normative pluralism and its assertion that whole ethical theologys lead to divinity. Clark Pinnock get ups inclusivism and the attend that redemption is ultimately based in Christ fifty-fifty though mickle of early(a) pietisms may be pay offd apart from explicit reliance in Christ. Alister E. McGrath argues for a exceptionalist visualize of salvation from a post-enli ghtenment perspective. R. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips present a particularist view from an evidentialist perspective. This paper go away give a critical review of Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World.It get out attempt to accurately add the views of yokel, Pinnock, McGrath, and Geivett and Phillips. This paper will in any lesson evaluate the arguments made by these contributors. preliminary Issues as Presented by Okholm and Phillips Okholm and Phillips offer a helpful introduction to the issues of pluralism, inclusivism and particularism. They do this by discussing the rise of apparitional pluralism and the challenges it has brought to Christianity. Okholm and Phillips pass verboten that the traditional Christian view of particularism was challenged during the Enlightenment (8).Schleiermacher took an authorized step toward inclusivism when he asserted that idol is salvifically available in some item in all religions scour though the credo truth of Jesus Christ is the fulfillment and highest manifestation of this ecumenical awareness (8). Classical liberalism followed Schleiermachers inclusive assertions until the late nineteenth light speed when historicism and its heightened awareness of cultural and religious relativities challenged the claim that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of religion.Ernst Troeltsch argued that all flock at all times are rigorously historical creatures, in that respectfore, all religious claims are culturally conditioned perspectives of the portend. macrocosm unable to make normative religious judgments, Troeltsch espo wasting diseased pluralism (8-9). Okholm and Phillips assert that the late ordinal century has heightened the dialogue regarding other religions (9). In the current pluralistic environs normative religious claims are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain.Likewise, arguments for the uniqueness and superiority of Christianity are not well received. They alike show up ou t that the differences between liberal inclusivists and pluralists are moreover a matter of degree (10). In f carry, in recent decades some liberal leaders pull in crossed over to religious pluralism. The weapons-grade pull towards pluralism has also affected conservative Christianity as more within the conservative camp indecision whether explicit belief in Christ is always requirement for salvation (11). Pluralism as Presented by John countryfiedOkholm and Phillips point out that John rube towers over all other pluralists in influence and renown (13). rustic believes salvation essential be understood in more normal terms than Christianity has traditionally allowed. According to Hick, salvation should be understood as a human changea in subroutineive transformation from earthy self-centeredness to a radically new graven image-centeredness (43). He calls this transformation salvation/liberation (44). Hick believes that all ethical religions lead to deity and rejects th e view that Christianity alone is superior or uniquely true.He opts for the view that the immortal-figures of the great theist religions are different human awarenesses of the Ultimate (39). Presenting himself as a condition Christian fundamentalist who is familiar with traditional Christian claims, Hick explains why he rejects Christian particularism in favor of pluralism. First, Hick rejects the Bibles ascendence and its ability to marktle theological issues. He believes that the Bible presents pre-scientific beliefs and cultural assumptions that are no longer acceptable today (33).He also does not believe that immortal reveals pro persuasions to people in human language. To Hick, the formulation of theology is a human activity that always, and necessarily, employs the concepts and reflects the cultural assumptions and biases of the theologians in question (36). Second, Hick rejects the New Testament teaching of the avatar. To him, Jesus was not God and never claimed to be divine. The New Testament declarations of Jesus deity were written by people who did not know Jesus and reflect a gradual deification of Jesus in the minds of Christians.Hicks denial of the incarnation of course leads him to reject the central doctrines of Trinity and Atonement (52). Hick says the idea of the incarnation was a metaphor. To him, Jesus embodied as much of the in delimited divine moral qualities as could be expressed in a finite human, but Jesus himself was not divine (57). Third, Hick argues that the morality of Christians is fundamentally the akin as people who follow other religions. If Christianity were uniquely true, he asserts, Christians should be morally superior. This is not the case according to Hick (39-42).Since people of differing religions make basically the equivalent sense of piety and morality, this suggests to him that the major(ip) demesne religions are basically advert and saying the same thing. The primary evoke of pluralism is that it fit s well with the thinking of modern horse opera fellowship. Todays society holds to a high view of man that has carried over from the Enlightenment. It also likes to focusing fairness and equality and shows a disdain for the idea that large numbers pool of people may be lost for eternity because they never hear of or trusted in the Christian meaning.Hicks pluralism appears to be an novice approach to religion but it has more problems than solutions. The first major issue with Hicks pluralism involves his starting points for perceptiveness people and religions. Hicks starting point appears to be the Enlightenments positive anthropology and Western conceptions of fairness. He also explicitly states that he rejects the Bibles authority when it comes to evaluating religions. Not only is this high view of man being challenged in the new postmodern environment, Christians who believe the Bible must reject Hicks starting points.For those who accept the Bibles authority, Hicks perspec tive on these important matters is certain to be skewed since he rejects the one true source that is able to give us forethought on these important matters. Second, Hick disrespects and point insults the major religions by claiming that they are basically teaching the same thing. As McGraths analysis showed, Hicks perspective is shallow and shows a disregard for what the major religions in reality teach.Certainly, there are aspects of Christianity such as the Golden Rule that exhaust parallels in other religions, but there is much about Christianity that is in return exclusive to other religions. The Christian belief in one in the flesh(predicate) God, for instance, cannot be reconciled with Buddhism and Hinduism. The Christian view that God is a God of grace and benignity who can be reached only through with(predicate) doctrine alone is foreign to the Allah of Islam. The deity of Jesus Christ is a particular of Christianity that is rejected by other religions. This reviewe r also disagrees with Hicks attempt to molding Christianity into his own image.Hick necessitys to acknowledge that Christianity is a way to God but only after stripping it of its essential elements. He also wants to keep the elements of Christianity he finds acceptable while rejecting other parts. For example, Hick wants to keep the ethical teachings attributed to Jesus in the New Testament but rejects any claims concerning Jesus deity. much(prenominal) distinctions appear arbitrary and subjective. Third, this reviewer rejects Hicks modern assumptions that religious beliefs are totally culturally conditioned and that true knowledge of God cannot be reached.It is true that humans are influenced by culture and that no one person or group has a complete understanding of the truth. If God does exist, however, why should He not able to reveal Himself in such a way that humans can have some true knowledge about Him and His ways? Inclusivism as Presented by Clark Pinnock Clark Pinnock believes that inclusivism a near offers a middle ground between exclusivism and pluralism. To him, Inclusivism believes that, because God is present in the whole world (premise), Gods grace is also at work in some way among all people, possibly even in the sphere of religious life (inference) (98).Pinnock asserts that inclusivism rightly holds to two equal theological truthsthe particularity of salvation through Christ and Gods universal plan to save sinners. Particularists, Pinnock says, hold the former and not the latter. Pluralists, on the other hand, deny the former and affirm the latter. Inclusivism, Pinnock asserts, permits us to hold both particularity and universality at the same time (142). Pinnock points out that inclusivism is not a tightly defined military capability. He says his form of inclusivism is cautious or modal. Unlike another influential inclusivist, Karl Rahner, Pinnock stops short of stating that other religions birth salvific status or are vehicles of sal vation. Pinnock holds that Religions can be pathways to eternal damnation (113). He does believe, though, that the Holy Spirit is operative in human religion in a way that prepares people for the gospel of Christ (96). He also claims that wherever the triune God is present, grace must be present (98). Using the examples of Melchizedek and Cornelius, Pinnock states, I believe that the Bible supports inclusivism (109).Important to Pinnocks inclusivism is the belief that God can use both full general and special divine revelation in salvific ways (117). Pinnock rejects the traditional idea that God reveals himself in such a way that worsens the condition of sinners and makes their plight more forlorn (117). Pinnock should be credited for emphasizing the vastness of Gods mercy and encouraging particularists to reexamine their beliefs. As a reader, though, I was disappointed with Pinnocks defense of inclusivism. First, Pinnock appears to have a higher view of human religion than Script ure does.Scripture consistently presents the other religions as wicked and idolatrous. God viewed the religion of the Canaanites as an abomination (Ezra 91). Paul was persecuted for teaching that the gods of the Gentiles were no gods at all (Acts 1926). In his letter to the Thessalonians Paul commended his readers for turning to God from idols (1 Thess. 19). Second, Pinnocks anthropology is not true to Scripture. He does not address Scriptures strong emphasis on mans depravity. He appears to share with Hick the idea that people are basically good and are deserving of a chance at salvation.Salvation in Scripture, though, appears based more on Gods choice than on something God owes the human race. His claim that general revelation can save is also not supported by Scripture. Pinnocks inclusivism is most impinging in his assertion that people of other religions may still be saved even if they reject the Christian gospel and remain in their current religion (120). How can this be recon ciled with Jesus meat in Matthew 1037-39 that no one who is unwilling to deny mother, father, and even his own life to follow Him is worthy of salvation?McGraths Post-Enlightenment Particularist View McGrath presents a post-Enlightenment particularist approach to salvation, but the main focus of his chapter is to highlight the major problems with pluralism. After acknowledging that the issues raised by pluralists are important, McGrath shows why he believes pluralism is disadvantageously in error. According to McGrath, the whole issue of religious pluralism has been fatally flaw by a mentality that demands that all religions be reduced to the same mold (156). The assumption by pluralists that all religions are asically saying the same thing reflects an outdated foundationalism and a view of religion that reflects a Western cultural bias. McGrath argues that interaction between people of different faiths is good. He disagrees, though, with religious discussions that overlook impor tant landing fields of disagreement. Proper discussion can enhance understanding of other religions and cause Christians to reexamine long-held views that rest on inadequate scriptural foundations, but it should never be at the expense of downplaying key beliefs (159).McGrath, therefore, calls on theologians to respect all religions and their unique elements. Christianity, for example, holds to key beliefs that separate it from other religions. As he states, The New Testament thus affirms the particularity of the redemptive act of God in Jesus Christ (163). This foundational difference should not be ignored or merged into the various concepts of divinity found in other religions (165). McGrath also draws attention to the Reformed view that God has revealed himself to all people through natural revelation.Thus, McGrath, unlike Karl Barth, does believe that people of other religions know some true things about God from the creation. Knowledge of God from natural revelation, though, d oes not necessarily translate into salvation. In the last 4 pages of his chapter, McGrath specifically addresses his personal views on salvation. He states that we can be ensure that all who respond in faith to the explicit preaching of the gospel will be saved. He does not, though, conclude that only those who respond to the explicit preaching of the gospel will be saved.According to McGrath, We must be nimble to be surprised at those whom we will meet in the farming of God (178). He cites the Ninevites, the queen of Sheeba and those who lived in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of people who may have experienced salvation in untraditional ways. McGrath says the traditional evangelical view that a verbal proclamation of the gospel is always requisite for salvation is flawed (178). This approach, he says, limits Gods modes of action, disclosure, and prudence force out (178). For McGrath, A human failure to evangelize cannot be transposed into Gods failure to s ave (178).Gods prevenient grace is at work and may bring salvation to people even if their act of hope and trust may lack the fully orbed character of an inform Christian faith (179). Although giving no documentation or explanation, McGrath claims that many Muslims are becoming Christians through dreams and visions of the risen Christ. For McGrath, then, human preaching is a means that God uses to bring salvation, but it is not the only means. In the end, McGrath states his confidence that the Judge of the earth will do what is right (Gen. 1825).As mentioned, McGraths discussion is mostly a critique of pluralism. In this area he does well. McGrath rightly charges Hick with disregarding the particularity of Christianity and overlooking the major differences between the worlds major religions. I also agree with McGraths emphasis on the particularity of Christianity and the urgency of belief in Christ for salvation as it relates to Christianity. He may also be correct in his assertio n that we may be surprised as the number of people we will meet in heaven (178), although the texts he uses to support this assertion are questionable.His use of the Ninevites, queen of Sheba, and the cities of Tyre, Sidon, Sodom, and Gomorrah are not true challenges to traditional exclusivism. The Ninevites and the queen of Sheba had access to special revelation. The Gentile cities he mentioned may be less guilty than Jewish cities that rejected the message of Christ, but this is no evidence that people in those cities were saved. McGrath may also be correct that human preaching is not always necessary for a person to be saved. God may use crotchety means outside of human proclamation to bring people to saving faith.Like McGrath claims, God may use visions of the risen Christ to bring people to faith. How much of this activity takes place is not known. I wish McGrath would have documented his statement that many Muslims are coming to Christ through special visions of the resurrect ed Christ. Geivett and Phillips Evidential Particularist View Geivett and Phillips promote the view that individual salvation depends on explicit personal faith in Jesus Christ (214). Their position is a version of Christian particularism that is sometimes called exclusivism or restrictivism.This view has been the traditional view of Christianity up until the Enlightenment and still has many adherents today. Geivett and Phillips set forth their methodology for engaging inclusivists and pluralists. The discussion with inclusivists is a first-order intramural contestation between those who accept and believe the Bible. Thus, debate over what the Bible says becomes primary. In this context, they do a theological analysis of texts they believe support particularism. The texts they use include Acts 412 John 316, 18 Romans 109-15 and John 146 1720.Geivett and Phillips argue that these texts affirm the necessity of explicit belief in Christ for salvation to occur. With pluralists, however , there is a second-order intramural debate. Here arguments from Scripture are not the starting point since pluralists do not accept the Bibles authority. For Geivett and Phillips, discussion with pluralists is possible, but the starting point must be natural theology. In particular, they bring with arguments for the existence of God to set the base for their eventual conclusion that we can trust Gods special revelation as found in the Bible.To them, natural theology and Jesus resurrection from the dead give strong evidence that the Bible is true and that we can trust it when it speaks to how one must be saved. I am mostly in agreement with the position of Geivett and Phillips. The strong emphasis in the New Testament on faith in Christ for salvation and the emphasis on taking the gospel to the ends of the earth are strong evidences for Christian particularism. Plus, although John 146 and Acts 412 do not present an airtight case for particularism, these texts do emphasize the excl usive nature of Christianity.Geivett and Phillips are to be commended on two points. First, they are to be commended for their scholarly and humble attempt to fix the truth of their position. As they say, We have not argued merely for the coherence of our position we have argued that it is true (245). They not only offered the most specific exegesis of any of the writers, they also interacted seriously with the texts most emphasized by their opponents. Geivett and Phillips also point to a practical issue in their favor. If the pluralists are correct there is little danger in preaching inclusivism or particularism.If the inclusivists are right there is little danger in promoting particularism but it is risky to promote pluralism. If particularists are correct, however, there is great danger in promoting pluralism and inclusivism for many will be deceived into thinking they are saved when they are not. The consequences of this last scenario are disastrous. Not all of the points made by Geivett and Phillips were equally good. I did not find their discussion on Christian evidences as being particularly helpful. Though I am in agreement with their conclusions about general revelation, this discussion appeared out of place.Perhaps this space could have been devoted to more important matters and amplifications of other points made in the chapter. Plus, one could believe in the particularism of Geivett and Phillips and also hold to a presupposition apologetic that would not start with evidences for the existence of God. In sum, Four Views is a significant work that presents the major views on salvation in a pluralistic world. It is a helpful read for those who want a basic overview of the major positions on this important issue.