Pluralism and theology

Exclusivism

Christianity is the one true religion and it is only through this that one can be saved

Inclusivism

Christianity is the one true religion but it is possible for non-Christians to be saved through other religions

Pluralism

All religions are equally true and equal paths to salvation

Christian view on exclusivism

Jesus died for our sins. If you don’t believe it then you are not partaking in the atoning power of his sacrifice as you aren’t accepting it. Faith in Jesus is required for salvation.

Biblical basis of exclusivism

John: I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me (Jesus)

• However, this only claims Jesus is the route, not that belief in him is required

John: Whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only son

• Clearly states belief in Jesus is required for salvation - alongside following teachings and doing good works

The parable of the sheep and the goats - Matthew

Supports unlimited election and therefore inclusivism. Suggests exclusivism is false. Based on good vs bad actions, not beliefs. Not confined to religion.

• Luther claimed doing good works is the result of being a faithful Christian but it is the faith that is relevant to salvation

• Analogy of fire and heat - faith is like a fire and the works/actions we do are the heat produced by the fire. Faith is primary.

Augustine’s exclusivism

We are so corrupted by original sin that genuine persevering faith in Jesus is only possible with God’s grace. This predestines some people to have and keep faith in Christ and therefore be one of the elect who will be saved.

Augustine on grace

Humans don’t have the power to achieve getting into heaven themselves. This is due to original sin. We are so corrupted that we are unable to deserve salvation. Only the granting of undeserved grace will save us.

Grace in the Bible

St Paul - it is a ‘gift’ which we cannot ‘take credit’ for earning

Predestination

Our fate in the afterlife is already fixed and unchangable

Double predestination (Augustine)

If we cannot get ourselves into heaven then God has either predestined us for heaven or he hasn’t and our original sin damns us to hell ()

Pelagius critique of predestination

If we have original sin and are completely unable to avoid doing evil, it is unjust for God to punish us for our sinful behaviour. It’s not ethical for all of humanity to be blamed for the actions of Adam and Eve. This takes from our free will.

Augustine’s defence against Pelagius

It is not God’s fault, it is Adam’s. As a result of his sin it was a factual consequence that all future humanity, in Adam’s loins, became infected with original sin.

God’s reasoning and justice is beyond our understanding and we should just accept this, it doesn’t make him any less loving etc.

Karl Rahner

Agreed that Christianity is the one true religion but rejected exclusivism. People unaware of Christ shouldn’t be disadvantaged

Rahner on other religions

They have valid natural theology but are mixed with error and depravity so they can at most be said to have a degree of lawfulness

Anonymous Christians - Rahner

People of other religions respond to the Christian God’s revelation in the world and receive his Grace in their religion despite being unaware.

When they come into contact with Christianity, they have no excuse for continuing to believe another religion and so need to convert in order to be saved.

Hick view and response to Rahner

A loving God wouldn’t send ppl who haven’t heard of Jesus through no fault of their own to hell.

Rahner didn’t go far enough in drawing out the implications of omnibenevolence

Argues an all loving God would never send anyone to Hell - universalism

Hick on purgatory

After death, people continue existing in another life where they continue to have a chance to redeem themselves and become better - soul making. Takes different times for everyone.

No human crime is infinite so they don’t deserve infinite punishment, it must be proportional - Hume

Pluralism and John Hick

• Became a pluralist after living in Birmingham

• Ancient Islamic parable of the blind men and the elephant (they each described different attributes of the elephant and were correct, this could be the case with religion)

• They were too blind to see that in reality they were all touching the same thing

Hume against pluralism

All religions cannot be true as they make contradictory truth claims. Either Jesus was the son of God or he wasn’t. There are multiple claims that cancel each other out and make it more likely that none are true because not multiple can be right but all can be wrong.

Hick’s response to hume - they can all be right

Different religions may contradict each other but they can still all be right in a deeper sense. Believes things like Jesus’ divinity or the number of Gods are just ways that different cultures interpret the same ultimate reality. A different understanding of the same thing. The centre of all these religions is the higher, divine reality and all religions have this.

Critique of Hick’s pluralism

He is overgeneralising about the core of religions all being the same. E.g. Greek and roman religions are not about opening the mind up to a higher reality etc. Plenty of Pagan religions are about making sacrifices to please Gods. Buddhism is not about a personal and good, higher, divine reality