theology - pluralism:

what is pluralism?

refers to the variety of beliefs and practices within a particular religion such as Anglicanism and Methodism

• the world religions are true and equally valid in their communication of the truth about God, the world and salvation

what are the two problems for pluralism?

• Epistemological problem – to what extent can truth claims outside Christianity be deemed as true (if we believe in pluralism then we have two conflicting messages e.g. Christianity sees God as a trinity whereas Islam does not -> logically contradicts as God cannot be divisible or inadvisable at the same time)  

• Soteriological problem – can people of non-Christan religions or who hold no religious belief receive God's salvation 

who is the chief expounder of pluralism?

Hick who first propounded it in the book Good and the universe of faiths (1973)

what did Hick say about pluralism?

Christianity is one among several ways to salvation

• assert validity of all religions and deny finality of all religions

what view does Hick challenge?

older view that Christ or Christianity must be seen at the centre of religions - says God must be seen at the centre of religions

how does McGrath criticise exclusivism?

religions are fundamentally different - each differs in its view of God, sin, salvation, death and eternity

• pantheistic notion of the world as God and the monotheistic notion of the world as creation of God are not the same

• only way to call them same is the notion of absolute truth - would mean no absolute statements can be made including the statement that all religions are the same

what is inclusivism?

belief that God is present in non-Christian religions to save the non-believers through Christ

what is exclusivism?

the theological position that holds to the finality of the Christian faith in Christ

• means there is no salvation in non-Christian religions

what is exclusivism based on?

Aristotelian concept of truth as one and not many - regard all other religious claims as false and invalid since the Christian revelation is accepted as true

what does exclusivism say about salvation?

• through Christ alone

• personal experience of commitment to Christ that one receives assurance of salvation - non-believers cannot receive this as not awareness of uniqueness of Christ or do not acknowledge his lordship

where do exclusivists draw this view from?

Bible as the source of all knowledge about spirituality and salvation - criterion of all religious truth

• gives a foundation to personal faith, is a guidebook of the Christian community and tells us the future of the world that links up with meaning and purpose

what does exclusivism do?

establishes uniqueness and identity of Christianity among world religions

what is the extremist view of exclusivism?

all non-Christian religions as demonic and enemies of Christian truth

what is the moderate view of exclusivism?

some non-Christian religions as containing elements whereby a dialogue with them can be imitated

what do all exclusivists agree on?

salvation is exclusively only through Christ and revived by a personal commitment to the lord

what is the phenological/cultural argument as to why humans believe in religion?

Different cultures have developed their lifestyles based on belief-systems adapted to a particular environment. Therefore, it is natural to assume that religious belief is connected to society in some way but is not exclusive or unique.  

what did Russel quote about pluralism?

‘it is evident as a matter of logic that, since they disagree not more than one of them can be true’

what issues does exclusivism raise about the nature of God?

• Can God be known outside Christianity – can non-Christian people know God  

• Is knowledge of God the same as receiving salvation – if you are not religious can you have knowledge of God and know God personally 

 

who created the two kinds of exclusivism?

Gavin D’Costa

what are the two types of exclusivism?

RAE and UAE 

what is RAE?

Traditional version of theology of religion -> emphasis on sinfulness of human nature and therefore Christ is unique as he is our only method of salvation (sola Christus) 

• Humans are inherently sinful -> relationship with God is fractured and epistemic distance 

 

Salvation is only possible by directly hearing the Gospel (fides ex audita) and accepting baptism into the Church.

what could be an issue with RAE?

Can people who have not heard the gospel because they lived before coming of Christ or non-Christian culture still receive salvation?  

• Multiple means of salvation before Jesus -> but makes it not as exclusive as it suggests  

• Non-Christian: anonymous Christians – Rahner, God is all-knowing and is above time so would know if you would have adhered to the gospel or not  

Seems contradictory for a just and loving God to condemn people who have not encountered Christianity 

what is the response to this question?

Calvin – double predestination:  

Since humans are inherently sinful, God does not need to save anyone but since he is loving he chooses the elect because of their devoted lives 

Antelapsarian divine decree – belief that God selected the good for heaven and wicked for hell at the moment of creation

Contemporary scholars (William Lane Criag and Alvin Plantinga) justify the criticism that double predestination limits human freedom and the purpose of faith using the middle knowledge argument  

what does the middle knowledge argument state?

Middle knowledge: God knows all the possible events in the world performed by free agents. 

• Although God is omniscient and humans have free will it is possible God would know who would truly receive the Gospel if it was preached to them – they would include those who were born before the Gospel was revealed in Christ  

what is the difference between RAE and UAE?

when St Paul writes ‘in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself’

RAE = the world is the elect 

UAE = means everyone  

who is UAE supported by?

UAE is supported by Roman Catholics and Protestant theologians such as Clark Pinnock and John Sanders 

what is an issue with UAE?

if God wills redemption of everyone, how are those born before Christ or into non-Christian societies to be saved if they lack fides ex auditu. 

what are the two broad answers to this?

• Preparation: following qualities might be considered good preparation for a person to receive the Gospel when it is preached to them: live the moral life according to conscience and natural law, practice and devotion to God through a non-Christian religion and have a sensus divinitatis  

• Life after death: in hell, purgatory or an intermediate state a person may encounter the Gospel and accept God's redemption in Christ  

what are Karl Barth’s views on exclusivism?

• Barth believed that God's revelation is the only way to know God, and that salvation is only possible through Jesus Christ.  

• His theology focuses on the argument that God may be known only when he reveals himself to those people who he chooses – appears to support the RAE position.. 

Barth also considers that the Christian teaching on the trinity is uniquely Christian – no other religion expresses God this way and Christianity has exclusive access to this knowledge 

why can the catholic church be seen as inclusive?

recognises rays of truth in other religions 

why can it be seen that Barth’s theology contains inclusivist aspects?

• Reinterpretation of doctrine of predestination – God's grace will be extended to humanity, not exclusivist 

• Everyone will still achieve salvation in some form  

-> calls himself an exclusivist but says that God's grace will be applied to all of humanity  

What are the arguments for Christ being the only way to salvation?

- Exclusivism is internally coherent -> Jesus was God incarnate -> uniqueness suggests that Jesus is the only way to achieve salvation

- Christ being the only way to salvation isn't the same as Christianity -> maybe Jesus' death saved all people (no matter the religion)

- Church seems to be mediator between God + humans -> Church's work is required for salvation (was founded by Jesus)

What are the arguments against Christ being the only way to salvation?

- Problem of omnibenevolence -> excluding much of his creation

- Exclusivism ignores the idea of the Trinity -> foundational belief of Christianity -> Father (grants salvation) + Son (only way to salvation) -> what is the role of the holy spirit?

- Parable of the Sheep + the Goats -> seems good people from all nations will be saved

- If other religions have rays of truth, why can't they be saved?

What are the weaknesses of exclusivism?

- RAE is the cause of Christian imperialism, religious conflict + suffering -> persecute each other for not believing their version of the truth, fought wars against non-believers, used to convert + colonise communities

- Barth's emphasis on the ineffable God (unknowable mystery) leads to theological agnosticism + incoherence -> unsatisfactory to say we'll never know what God intents + undermines theological attempts to compose a theology of religions

what is the main difference between inclusivism and exclusivism?

difference is exclusivists argue for explicit knowledge of God whereas inclusivists argue we may have an implicit knowledge of God  

what two types of inclusivism does D’Costa suggest?

• Structural inclusivism  

• Restrictive inclusivism

what is the SI position?

any religion whose structures develop an openness to God’s grace as revealed in Jesus Christ may receive God’s salvation

who was this developed by?

Karl Rahner

how was Rahner influenced by Heidegger?

• All human experience of knowledge is limited and finite 

• As knowledge is finite, humans have to accept that they can only have an unconditional openness to existence 

• Openness suggests all humans desire grace + salvation whether they consciously know it or not

how is Rahner’s view similar to Calvin’s sensus divinatus?

all humans are aware of their morality + limitations which prompts them to think about the nature of their existence of being -> when we reflect on being we realise it is something mysterious with no definition  

Thoughts about being comes from God – if you think about it correctly and enough you will get to God  

• At this point humans encounter that the unfathomable experience of God's infinite grace = source of being  

what separates Rahner from Heidegger?

At the heart of being we encounter God's grace which separates Rahner from Heidegger – not something which Rahner can prove -> claims that many of the great religions implicitly support the truth of his claim by encouraging people to behave selflessly, lovingly and charitable to one another and when the structures of worship create an openness to being and to grace.  

• Only religion that presents grace explicitly and fully is Christianity through the revelation in Jesus Christ  

Other religions have an implicit openness to God's grace whereas for Christianity is it explicit 

what does Rahner mean by anonymous Christianity?

Any religious institution which through its structures, practices and values is a means of grace -> model of lawful anonymous Christianity is the religion and history of ancient Isreal before Christ as recorded in the Old Testament  

• Issue is all people that existed before Jesus coming to earth being open to salvation 

what does anonymous Christianity say about incarnation?

Incarnation marks a new development within history – absolutism of Christianity has to be questioned or else the conclusion is that God doesn't wish humans to be saved = not compatible with e4xperience of grace and god's love for all of his creation.  

• Not the absolute way so there must be some other methods to salvation 

what does anonymous Christianity develop?

Aquinas' notion of votum ecclesia – even wanting grace by faithfully following a non-Christian religion is sufficient to receive God's grace

are all non-Christian religions legitimate?

no - religion = lawful -> needs to be judged by the quality of salvation which it offers  

religion must be more than personal experience; it also needs organisational authority to regulate truth and falsehood

Old Testament prophets existed outside Isreal's religion and still regarded as the main proponents of Isreal's doctrine of grace 

what 2 important Christian notions a priori does Ranher consider?

1. All humans are ignorant to some extent according to the doctrine of original sin  

2. All humans are loved unconditionally by God according to the doctrine of Grace  

how is anonymous Christianity not what the catholic church teaches?

Catholic church – all religions are soteriological (with regards to salvation) invalid unless they convert and become part of the historical and visible Catholic Chruch.  

Rahner – cites the famous speech given by St Paul at the Areioagus in Athens, where Paul refers to the alter of 'an unknown God' - basis for his argument that although the Greeks worship what they cannot see, Christians known this unknown God explicitly through their encounter with Christ.  

-> Rahner interpretation – Paul dosen't condemn the Greek religion but sees it as a way for those who have yet to hear the Gospel to know God 

what does Rahner say about the church’s role in salvation?

Chruch cannot be an 'exclusive community' has to be an important role to play in bringing teachings of Christianity into wider world – in increasingly secular world this is more significant  

Christian duty to make God known to the world 

 

how does Rahner cite St Paul’s speech to the Athenians?

'‘what therefore you do not know and yet worship that i proclaim to do (Acts 12:23). on such a basis one can be tolerant, humble and yet firm towards all non-Christian religions’

what does Rahner state the role of the visible church is?

to proclaim the explicit means of grace as expressed in the person of Christ

why does Rahner argue that someone would wish to become a Christian if all good people will be saved?

A moral action can only be good if it conforms to the example set by Christ who is the mediator of grace and judged by the visible church – although salvation is possible, only provisional 

In order to experience the fullness of God's grace – an anonymous Christian ought to convert to Christianity and become a member of the church  

• Depends how much of God's grace you open yourself up to 

why can it be argued that anonymous Christians can recieve salvation?

• maintains the central belief of Jesus as the saviour of the world but rejects belief in a God who allows majority of people to be condemned

• clarifies how other aspects of human experience can be said to come from God - naive to think that God only speaks to people through Christian practices

• acknowledges aspects of reality of world as a multi-faith environment

• accepts that all humans will fall short of perfection through life and nobody should be punished for trying to seek truth

why can it be argued that anonymous Christian can not receive salvation?

• some reject, especially Rahner’s version as it seems patronising to other religions - are not seen as having any benefits of their own

• little biblical evidence for this approach - what evidence there is could be said to be misinterpreted

• undermines importance of Jesus’ incarnation and dearth on the cross - only by directly accepting this, can salvation be found

• Catholics reject Rahner as he gives too little importance of the Church as a mediator to God

what do restrictive incluvists argue?

God makes provision for individuals who haven't heard of the Gospel BUT who respond positively to natural law, conscience + true elements of their religion

what are some examples of RI?

• many catholics

• orthodox theologians

• protestant theologians

What do restrictive inclusivists not consider?

- Non-Christians may not be salvific (leading to salvation) as Rahner does

- May, at best, be only a good preparation for salvation

What is a weakness of restrictive inclusivism?

No different from UAE -> is an exclusivist theology (isn't inclusive of non-Christian individuals, only a few exceptions)

why do people like theological pluralism?

People like it because it develops the belief that all paths lead to heaven and multiple religions can co-exist 

what kinds of pluralism does D’Costa distinguish between?

• Unitary  

• Pluriform  

• Ethical  

what was Hick’s motivation?

to develop a global theology which would give a philosophical and theological framework for greater co-operation and understanding between world religions

what is the starting point of Hick’s theological pluralism?

philosophical rather than theology of a particular Christian tradition

→ emphasis on traditional ideas of revelation

what are some of the key elements in which Hick bases his approach on?

1. Kant and the an-Sich

2. Wittgenstein, religious experience and ‘seeing-the-world-as’

3. Morality and the reality-centred life

what is Kant and the an-Sich?

became apparent to Hick that not all religions are theistic or have belief in God

• solution in Kants epistemological distinction between noumenal and phenomenal knowledge

Noumenal reality - what a thing is itself → can only postulate this through reason, cannot know directly

phenomenal - world as we experience and as it appears to us

how does Hick use this distinction?

although religions are phenomenally different, noumenally they are all referring to the same underlying reality

what is Wittgenstein, religious experience and ‘seeing-the-world-as’?

evidence of phenomenal-noumenal relationship is demonstrated by the wide range of religious experiences people have

• Hick does not think an an-Sich (noumenal) reveals itself to humans but we experience it according to the culture and time we live in

• using Wittgenstein’s analysis of language, expressing the experience of the world is naturally ambiguous

which of Wittgenstein’s examples does Hick refer to?

duck-rabbit picture - people may see it as a duck or rabbit

• as the real or an-sich is subject to the same ambiguity then it must be supposed that different religions express it as ‘Brahman’ in Hindusim or as the ‘Trinity’ in Christianity

what does Hick say about morality and the reality-centred life?

Hick’s test for authentic religions uses Kant’s categorical imperative test for moral behaviour - the Golden Rule

• argues all authentic religions are those who uphold categorical imperative and treat ones neighbours as one treats oneself

what great contribution do all authentic religions make to human existence?

by focussing on the Real they uphold the categorical imperative by turning self-centred behaviour to reality-centred unselfish concern for others

• even though moral laws may vary between religions and religion has caused suffering → Hick - been enough moral ‘sains’ to illustrate the positive contribution religions make to the world

what is Hick’s second task?

show where and how Christian theology has to adapt itself for the present age and important to note as a Christian pluralist theologian, Hick is not arguing for the superiority of Christianity over other religions, but its distinctive contribution to the world

what are the three ways in which Hick does this?

• theocentric not Christocentric

• myth of Jesus’ divinity

• Jesus as a gift to the world

what is theocentric not Christocentric?

first step is to argue that revelation emanates from God, not Christ

Hick’s suggestion is that Christianity should be theocentric and not Christocentric

• task of theologians is to reinterpret the doctrines of the incarnation, atonement and resurrection as myths not facts

what is the myth of Jesus’ divinity?

biggest hurdle of Christianity’s relationship to other religions is the belief that Jesus is uniquely the incarnate Son of God

why does Hick argue that sola Christus should be abandoned?

incarnation was originally a myth or metaphor to explain Jesus’ very special; consciousness of God - so close that could talk of God as a father,

→ become falsely objectified and treated as fact that he was ontologically God’s son

• Hick illustrates how this same processes is in other religions e.g. Buddha was transformed from the enlightened teacher

what does Hick state about Jesus as a gift to the world?

for the pluralist project to work and for Christianity to adapt to the modern world then it must rid itself of ancient doctrines which defend Christ’s divinity and established the Trinity

notions should be understood as myths as once Christianity rids itself of these exclusive doctrines, then Jesus can be appropriated by other religions

• his social teaching and example is a gift to the world just as other religious leaders have contributed to the world

what is the difference between pluriform and unitary?

UTPs - there is one underlying real

PTPs- argue that there are many reals as they are experienced by each religion

what does PTP state?

as no one religion can have a definite knowledge of the Real each religion has its own must version of salvation, liberation or knowledge

who supports PTP?

Keith Ward

what does Keith Ward state?

argues that sometimes we have to conclude that beliefs between religions are conflicting but reasons for them are equally valid

• makes the point that as knowledge is gained through religious experience and not revelation, then there cannot be a competition for exclusive truth

• as experience changes in any religion, so does the presentation of its truth claims over time

who developed ethical theological pluralism?

Paul Knitter based on the view that all religions share a soteriological aim of liberating humans from suffering, injustice, intolerance and falsehood

• all religions are soteriocentric not reality-centred

What is Knitter inspired by?

Liberation theology -> especially the idea that the primary purpose of a religious community is praxis (action) in dealing with social justice

what does Knitter argue about the primary aim of all religions?

justice + concern for others

What is the purpose of theology according to Knitter?

To provide the means whereby different religions can share + discuss their differing perspective of justice according to their belief systems

What does Knitter consider the point of dialogue between religions?

Enhance + develop each religion's distinctive interpretation of reality -> only required for religions to be open to new interpretations + share their common desire for a better world

Was Panikkar a pluralist?

No -> thought the title suggested he had an intellectual position on the relationship between Christianity + other religions BUT he believed that pluralism is a spiritual position

What was Panikkar's take on pluralism?

- Emphasised the mystery of the divine

- Find religious identity by losing it

- Is necessary to respect the freedom of the divine to work in ways which go beyond human attempts to define it + make into a system of doctrines (limits the nature of the divine)

- Religion/divine + life are the same

What did Panikkar mean by the mystery of the divine?

Need to discover truth by:

- Living it

- Choosing actions + words with a vision of harmony between people

- Trying to find the essential nature of what it means to be human in the presence of the divine without destroying different cultural traditions + diversity

What did Panikkar mean by "finding your religious identity by losing it"?

Not holding onto stubborn traditions of the past -> let go of them + treating life as a searching pilgrimage

How did Panikkar interpret Jesus?

Isn't a specific individual but is a name for God showing himself to people (how he made himself known -> Christophany)

- Can be found in other religions -> e.g ishwara in Hinduism (personal God through which people can have personal encounters with the divine)

What are the 2 choices Panikkar thinks Christians have about Christ and which one does he agree with?

1. Bring their own understanding of Christ to other people + other religions see in their way
2. Can recognise the unknown, mysterious dimension of Christ revealed in many different contexts + work towards developing in themselves a receptive attitude of love

Panikka thought that 2. was more Christian

Panikkar quote showcasing his mixed faith

"I left Europe a Christian, discovered I was a Hindu, returned a Buddhist without ever having ceased to be a Christian"

What are the weaknesses of pluralism?

- UTP presupposes that all religions have a sense of the real BUT many Buddhists reject this or other religions think their deity is the ultimate (no real beyond it)

- Knitter's praxis is a restrictive notion of what different religions are claiming (not only interested in social liberation)

- Suggesting religious claims are non-objective myths destroys what religious people actually

• Suggesting that all particular religions claims are myths and not to be treated objectively, pluralism destroys what religious people actually believe themselves. Global theology has no specific content, according to D'Costa.  

• Hick's use leads to agnosticism. Kant argued that we cannot know the noumenal an-Sich, yet Hick has tended to avoid this problem and presented the an-Sich with a certainty that Kant never gave it  

what are some of the criticisms of inclusivism?

• Has made Christianity imperialist and offensive to non-Christians – especially his use of anonymous to describe non-Christians

• As the fides ex auditu principle is not possible for anonymous Christians, then how are they able fully to confess their sins, repent and seek 'amendment of life'? As D'Costa considers this as a fundamental condition of being a Christian, then how can someone implicitly confess their sins in a way which is recognisably Christian?   

• Are anonymous Christians better off not being Christians? If, e.g. a devout non-Christian of a lawful religion were to listen to the gospel but reject it, would be better off not having heard it – is yes, then is the structural inclusivist position flawed?  

 

what are the criticisms of exclusivism?

• RAE has been the cause of Christian imperialism, religious conflict and suffering. Christians have persecuted other Christians for not believing in their version of truth. Christians have fought wars against unbelievers; Christianity has been used by states to convert and colonise communities.  

• The RAE position presents an unjust and unloving God because of his treatment of those who, no fault of their own are not Christian.  

• UAE lacks consistency. Vatican II, for example, appears to argue that non-Christian religions may have 'rays of truth' which are sufficient for salvation, but Dominus lesus argues extra ecclesiam nulla salus – without being a member of the Church the rays of truth are deficient for salvation 

• Barth's emphasis on the ultimate unknowable mystery of God leads to theological agnosticism and incoherency. It is not satisfactory to conclude that we cannot ever know what God intends as this undermines all theological attempts to compose a theology of religions.  

does it make sense to claim a loving God would deny humans salvation?

> Hick – idea that some people will be denied salvation is incompatible with belief in a God of love – argue that God could have revealed himself in different ways to people in different times and cultures, and that God is free to make himself known in whatever way he wishes.  

Since God is omniscient he never makes mistakes in judging people's actions and beliefs and always acts with perfect love, justice and mercy, forgiving sins and making sure everyone ends up saved.  

 

-> Other Christians, argue that if a relationship with God is to be meaningful, then it must come from a person's conscious decision to have that relationship. People must be free to choose not to have a relationship with God and not to be saved. People have to be free to make a choice about Christianity as a God of love would not force someone's choices by imposing salvation on all, whether they would want it or not.  

 

-> Christians e.g. Augustine and Calvin: argue salvation is only for the elect, the few whom God chooses for eternal life in heaven – believe everyone is tainted with the original sin of Adam and Eve, so that no one at all deserves salvation, sign of God's supreme love and grace that he offers salvation

> Christians – God is a God of justice as well as a God of love, argue God makes the opportunity of salvation available to everyone, as Christ died for everyone and accepts everyone who believes in him. However, if people do not want to take this opportunity they have chosen their own fate and cannot blame God for the consequences.  

Could be argued it is unjust of God to give salvation to everyone, even those who reject him and those who commit terrible crimes, alongside those who have dedicated their lives to Christianity.  

 

Could also be argued that if salvation is given to everyone then religion is pointless – Jesus died on the cross for no reason, because everyone would have been saved since there are many paths to God. Making a commitment to a religion is arguably unnecessary and leading a morally good life is unimportant.  

does Christian belief include the view that all good people will be saved?

-> Passages which emphasize the need for people to do the right things in order to be saved but does not always mention faith. E.g. in the OT, prophet Micah sums up what God asks of his followers 'To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God' 

 

-> parable of the sheep and the goats, in Matthew's gospel, shows the Son of Man judging people, not on the basis of their faith but entirely on their actions and their treatment of the poor, the sick, strangers and those in prison – could be used to support Christian inclusivist or pluralist positions, arguing Bible teaches God will judge people on the basis of their actions rather than on their adherence to particular doctrines  

• do all people have the same fundamental moral code:

  Issue that arises in the debate about whether all good people are saved is that whether all religions, or even all people, have the same fundamental moral code. Inclusivists and Pluralists often argue that it would be unjust of God to condemn the morally good non-Christians, but this carries the assumption that there is the same moral code inside Christianity as there is outside.  

  Assumption is questionable in practice – different people have different ideas about morality and what constitutes a 'good person'.  

  Even within one religion, although there are many moral rules that are common to all mainstream traditions, there can also be some significant differences of opinion.  Furthermore, if non-Christians have essentially the same moral code as Christians, so that they could be living a 'Christian' life in spite of lacking explicitly Christian beliefs, this suggests that acceptance of the central messages of Christianity does not make much difference to a person's moral behaviour.  

   

does pluralism undermine traditional Christian beliefs?

In the book God and the Universe of faiths (1993) - Hick lists aspects of traditional Christianity that he felt were 'either quite untenable or open to serious doubt'.  

These aspects include:  

• The idea that there are divinely revealed truths  

• The doctrine of the Fall  

• The idea of Christ coming to save people from their fallen state  

 

Hick thought that all of these ideas need to be understood as non-cognitive, mythological ways of expressing the human relationship with God, and cannot be taken literally. The list made his critics wonder whether anything was left of Christianity. Hick's view demands a radical understanding of the Bible as full of symbol and myth father than as a book of divinely revealed truth.  

 

• is difficult for a pluralist to assert that salvation can be found in all religions while still  holding on to many traditional Christian doctrines.  

  

Hick argued that doctrines such as those he lists are not centred to a relationship with God, but are examples of religious beliefs and practices that belong in the realm of the phenomenal rather than the noumenal. They arise out of human attempts to express their search for God in their different cultural contexts, though the use of symbol and myth. Hick – central Christian belief of the love of God is not lost or undermined by a pluralist position. Instead, in his view, the view, the central Christian belief in a God of unconditional love is undermined by the phenomena of a traditional Christian doctrine.  

 

Writers have criticised Hick because he explains that human religion is phenomenal and flawed and that we are unable to see things as they really are when he argues all religions essentially lead to the same end goal. It is as though he is claiming insight of a 'birds eye view' kind which is hidden from everyone else. His critics argue that the Bible contains God's revelation and can be trusted more than Hick's assessment of reality. 

 

what pluralism does Panikkar argue for?

spiritual pluralism

who argues for RAE?

• Calvin

• Augustine

• Kraemer

who argues for UAE?

• D’Costa

• Barth

who argues for RI?

• CC

• Anglican C

• Orthodox C