Matt Seaton
Joined: 13 Sep 2004
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:42 pm Post subject: Christianity and a monopoly of truth Reply with quote
Quote:
when jesus said he was the way, the truth, and the life he was saying that what he taught and lived were the physical embodiment of the eternal way, the eternal truth, and the eternal light. Some of the best christians in history weren't christians at all--buddha, lao tzu, ghandi, the dhali lama, ...
I've heard this argument before. To be honest I find myself believing it most of the time. But I am curious to what the rest of us think.
I am sure this topic has been discussed exhaustively on this site. So, please feel free to redirect me if this is redundant.
Peace,
Matt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike Friesen
Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 1172
Location: Dublin!
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:45 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Some of the best christians in history weren't christians at all--buddha, lao tzu, ghandi, the dhali lama
Tremendously arrogant as well as wrong. N.T. Wright pointed it out that a lot of the (post)modern views about anonymous Christians tend to be highly condescending. In essence, it amounts to saying that if anyone is/was good he/she is/was a Christian. If you were to say to a Buddhist that, no, she was not a Buddhist at all, but a Christian why would the Buddhist agree? Perhaps a compliment was meant, but why can't one say that she was a good Buddhist, better yet a good person, and leave it at that? The anonymous Christian gimmick is a way of saying Christianity has a monopoly on virtue rather than truth which is wrong as well as arrogant.
Christianity is about entering into right relationship with God through the mediation of Jesus Christ. One author I read put it this way: original revelation in all religions, yes ; salvation, no. St. Paul taught that humans maintained even after the fall a memory of the one, true God. G.K. Chesterton points out that it is probable paganism is a degeneration of monotheism since many polytheistic religions emphasize one high god or sky god that is infinitely beyond the other, lesser gods, but who remain more accessible. God made himself accessible in a unique way to the Jews who were to become a light for the world. The mission Jesus sent his followers on was to share that light with the world.
Christians should not dismiss those truths which are present in other religions, but it would be naive to think all religions teach the same truths, more or less. The current teaching of the Catholic Church says that the truth in other religions exists as a preparation for the gospel. Furthermore, the Church rejects nothing that is holy in the major religions. Nevertheless, the Church, out of fidelity to Christ, must recognize the fullness of truth resides within the Christian Church. That does not rule out salvation of people of other faiths. Indeed, the Church teaches that such salvation is part of God's plan. What's important to stress is that all salvation comes from the Church of Christ.
'There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.' Acts 4:12
Peace and blessings.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jacob
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 542
Location: airtha
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 8:25 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
A pagan could turn Chesterton's argument around (some have). A Jew or Muslim could call Christianity a religion degenerating from monotheism. To use it we would have to establish that religions diverge from Christianity itself, not from some other monotheism, and not from polytheism.
I would ask whether God prepared for those outside Christianity. Has God comndemned those who came before Jesus Christ? Has He condemned those who came before missionaries reached their lands? Has He condemned those who arrogant churchmen, talentless missionaries, or us blindly offensive Christians have driven away?
I cannot think so.
Has he condemned those born deaf, who cannot know the spoken name of Jesus Christ?
Of course not!
He has provided for those who cannot know the sound of His name (of the Son). Has He also provided for those who cannot know the particulars of His life? Has He also provided for those within other religious systems to find some sign of Him?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike Friesen
Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 1172
Location: Dublin!
PostPosted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 11:59 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Rom 1:19-23:
Quote:
Ever since God created the world his everlasting power and deity - however invisible - have been there for the mind to see in the things he has made. That is why such people are without excuse; they knew God and yet refused to honour him as God or to thank him; instead, they made nonsense out of logic and their empty minds were darkened. The more they called themselves philosophers, the more stupid they grew, until they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for a worthless immitation.
Before beginning, I do mean to show that St. Paul hints at what Chesterton was saying here about the one true God being neglected for pagan worship. Actually I find the argument advanced in Triumph that the anti-Trinitarian theology of Islam flourished mostly in those areas that had difficulty accepting the notion of the Trinity. If I were to invent my own religion it would resemble Islam; it would not resemble Christianity. Regardless, both Christianity and Islam share the truth that God is one, however they may understand that. Christianity, as you know, is monotheistic. It is interesting to note, however, that the God who would become Allah in Islam was the high god of pagan Arabians prior to the advent of Muhammad. Could it be Muhammad proves Chesterton right?
Quote:
I would ask whether God prepared for those outside Christianity. Has God comndemned those who came before Jesus Christ? Has He condemned those who came before missionaries reached their lands? Has He condemned those who arrogant churchmen, talentless missionaries, or us blindly offensive Christians have driven away?
A couple points. First, the Church reveres those who anticipated the coming of Jesus as saints having been saved as all other souls by his work on the cross. Second, those who have not heard the gospel do not stand to account for it. That is the teaching of Vatican II. They will be judged according to how they respond to the grace of God as revealed in their lives. Which brings me to my third point: humans do not convert humans. I actually was rebuked for having that belief by an evangelical this New Year's Eve. It is the Holy Spirit that converts souls to Christ. There is more to conversion than the good or bad example of Christians. I was raised by loving atheist-agnostics who had awful experiences with the Church, which I also experienced, but I ended up converting. I know I converted in part because, after much struggle, I chose to cooperate with the Spirit of God in my life. As scripture affirms, 'By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.' (1 Jn 4:2-3). In any event, every Mass I've attended has prayed for those souls who have been turned off by the poor example of Christians. I believe God hears those prayers.
When I converted to Christianity I started out as an inclusivist. Then I moved towards a kind of pluralism before returning to inclusivism. Currently, I still consider myself an inclusivist, but think inclusivists overstate the hope of salvation for those of other religions. I am willing to grant that I do not know who will or will not enter into heaven, but I am aware of the urgency of preaching the gospel. I think you and I would both agree here. Jesus taught in no uncertain terms that all salvation comes from him and that humanity would be judged according to its response to him. We can quarrel about those people who for whatever reason have not heard the gospel, but to that I reply all the more reason for missions! Not only that, but are either of us living in societies where not knowing Jesus is an excuse? I can't speak for you, but I can say that the almighty secularism rampant in Canada is infidel rather than heathen.
Peace in Christ.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rebekah
Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 65
Location: Lake Country, BC
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 1:57 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
its good, blackemma. i appreciate your ability to speak truth with such clarity. i always get all muddled. i feel like i’ve learnt so much from you so far! thanks…Happy
i’ve never labelled myself before, but i suppose i am also an inclusivist, though as you said, there is definitely a line to be drawn where one begins compromising truth. there comes a place where we must trust that our God IS a Just Judge, and that our God looks at so much more than technicalities, whether one has prayed the “sinners prayer” or not, whether one knows the Word, or even knows Jesus’ name! I have to trust that no man is with excuse, and because of the boldness of that statement and its possible implications, i also must trust that God loves the lost so much more than i, that God desires everyone to spend eternity in Heaven so much more than i, and that God will do everything S/he can without violating free will to draw humanity to His heart. when we stray into believing that surely other religions lead people to heaven, then the equal reality is that if that is not true, God is a harsh, cruel god that lacks the love he claims. we must have faith in Gods character. we must trust Gods love and Gods ability to see the truth and Gods justice and mercy. God looks at what we know, not what we don’t know, to hold us accountable. God looks at the heart. the motivations. the things we cannot see. it is through those eyes that S/he derives judgements. and that is amazing.
blackemma:
Quote:
I am willing to grant that I do not know who will or will not enter into heaven, but I am aware of the urgency of preaching the gospel.
let us never lose or water down that urgency.
i’m so glad that God is God.
(since i’ve now tentatively labelled myself…in brief what are the definitions of inclusivism and pluralism?) Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Matt Seaton
Joined: 13 Sep 2004
Posts: 46
PostPosted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:32 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
I am willing to grant that I do not know who will or will not enter into heaven, but I am aware of the urgency of preaching the gospel.
Well said indeed.
Peace,
Matt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mike Friesen
Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 1172
Location: Dublin!
PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:59 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow. Thanks for the feedback. I was expecting to be shot down by someone for being too evangelical. Thanks to Rebekah especially for saying the nicest thing to me I've heard all week. Cheers!
To address your question though, the difference between pluralism and inclusivism is that pluralism states that all religions are (more or less) true and that salvation can be obtained from many sources. Inclusivism states that there is one source of salvation though people may access it through secondary mediums. So a Christian pluralist would say, 'Jesus is my Saviour and Buddha is yours.' A Christian inclusivist would say, 'Jesus is the only Saviour, but it is conceivable that Jesus would save a Buddhist.' It's a small but, I think, important distinction. Exclusivism says that only Christians who meet the requirements, whatever those may be, enter into heaven with the saints. Using those categories, I would call myself a conservative inclusivist. People of other faiths will be saved, but we shouldn't overstate our confidence in that belief or allow it to soften our committment to evangelism.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jacob
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 542
Location: airtha
PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:18 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
If there is one idea which I hold so firmly everything else shifts around it, I know it is this: that salvation is available to all. I guess it is the core, if not the whole, of my faith. Everything else is commentary.
So salvation does not depend on anything that could be taken away from us but depends only on those which can never be taken away from us. I believe that salvation does not depend on access to some inerrant scripture, because it could be taken away, and it has been unavailable to many. I believe that salvation does not depend on knowing the name of our savior because many have not known the name of our savior (my example of deafness was a bit strange). I believe that salvation does not have to come before death because some have died without salvation, so I also believe that in His love and wisdom He has provided for those who die without salvation.
But I do not believe this necessarily comes in other religious traditions; I believe this comes within other people, that is that everyone already has whatever is necessary for salvation within themselves (not, that is, to work salvation, but to accept salvation). Since we are talking about teaching, I might say that everyone has the necessary knowledge independent of any religious teaching, including Christianity, but that brings gnosis to mind and it is not really knowledge, and not only knowledge, that is necessary anyway. And knowledge is taught, but this is already there. I do believe that other religious traditions come from this, or from some basic understanding, from a search for understanding, from a mythmaking impulse, from a storytelling impulse, etc. that are closely allied with this. I do believe that other religious traditions may express some aspect of this which Christianity does not express.
At the same time I am a Christian particularist. The life of Christ does recount the incarnation, and it is worth recounting, not because recounting it will save anybody, but because recounting it is, well, just worth doing in itself. I am uneasy with the suggestion that this was the only time God has been incarnate. I don't have any strong opinion on whether He has been incarnate at some other time/place but I do believe other religions and philosophies are relevent regardless of whether He has. (Even false ones are worth studying, and they cannot all be entirely overliterally true.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mike Friesen
Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 1172
Location: Dublin!
PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:22 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Call me a conservative, but I look at good old S&T when unable to answer questions by myself. S&T, of course, referring to Scripture and Tradition, which inform one another by the way. (I don't see them as being in competition.) I recognize that much of what you say appeals to me, but then I wonder to what extent I'm project my notions of justice onto God. As Michael Novak put it recently, 'He judges us. We don't judge Him.' The teachings of Jesus were offensive in His day as they are in our day because they demand total obedience. They weren't touchy-feely nice stuff that one could accept or reject without consequence. This was a man who claimed that people's eternal destiny depended upon how they reacted to Him. This was a man who claimed He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Even if one goes only by the synoptics, the picture that emerges is of someone who believed Himself to have authority as high as God. Now normally I wouldn't take such claims seriously, but when God raises this individual from the dead in order to validate His teaching then I'm astonished. Subsequently I submit to Him as my Lord.
In the end, Scripture as read through Sacred Tradition settles the matter for me. The above passages express how I feel though, like you, I hope and pray for the salvation of many.
Peace and blessings.
