pluralism and theology !!!!!

exclusivism AO1

• Exclusivism – only one religion is true and only members of it can be saved.

• UNIVERSAL ACCESS D’COSTA- RESTRCTIVE ACCESS SOME PPL

• cyprian- ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’-outside church no salvation

• John 14:6 – Jesus said he is the way truth & life

• pluralism can’t be right because it would suggest Jesus is only ‘a truth’, one truth among many – not ‘the’ truth

• historical dominant position

• OT denounces non israelites

• Kraemer- cannot pick and choose as religions are whole systems

• barth- uniqueness of christ as gods self revelation

• relevance of mission and evangelism

• catholics- relate to church saved if in ‘bosom of church- protestants saved if hear the word of god and respons- fides ex auditu- faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ

exclusivism biblical evaluation

• compatible with inclusivism

• However, arguably Jesus was slightly ambiguous in his wording of ‘through me’. He doesn’t explicitly state that ‘faith’

• is sacrifice would enable all humans to be saved through him, since he died for the sins of everyone.

• Inclusivists argue that although Jesus is clearly saying he is ‘the truth’, so Christianity is the only true religion, nonetheless we could interpret the verse as suggesting that non-Christians could be saved.

• Perhaps by ‘through me’ Jesus meant that anyone who is a good person can be saved.

• ‘my fathers house has many rooms’

• barth was open to idea of universalism

Augustine’s ‘limited election’ version of exclusivism AO1

• Only some Christians will be saved by God’s grace

• Original sin gives all humans an irresistible temptation to sin

• original sin damns us to hell by default

• Not all Christians will be granted grace – only some limited ‘elect’ will

Augustine’s ‘limited election’ version of exclusivism counter and eval

• unjust for God to punish us for our sinful behaviour - not ethical

• suggests an indefensible view of moral responsibility

eval

• God punishes us because we are sinful beings

• Augustine is not actually arguing that God himself blamed all humanity

• Augustine argues that predestination is not unjust of God, since we are corrupted by original sin

• Augustine puts it down to the “secret yet just judgement of God”

inclusivism

• Only one religion is true, but members of other religions could be saved

• Rahner- unfair to those never heard of jesus

• seems to conflict with omnibenevolence for them to be sent to hell

• God works through Hinduism & Buddhism to try and save people in them

• have a supernatural divine in all of us allowing us to access divine - supernatural existential

• acting like good Christians – Rhaner calls them ‘anonymous Christians’.

• This could result in their being saved, despite not being Christian

• vatican 2- council- reform church towards a cautious inclusivism- change of attitudes- nostra aetate- ‘rays of truth’- truth but not salvation

inclusivism eval

• Universal access exclusivism – solves the problem of people who have never heard of Jesus without needing inclusivism. - D’COSTA- salvation but no truth

• It proposes that those who never heard of Jesus could still be presented with the Christian message after death and given an opportunity to accept and have faith in Jesus

• both still claim that some people go to hell

further eval

• all-loving God could never send anyone to Hell.

• Hick thinks only universalism is justified

• No human can ever deserve infinite punishment because we can only ever do finite crimes

• combined his universalism with his soul-making theory

pluralism AO1

• All religions are equally true and equal paths to salvation.

• Hick was an exclusivist but changed his mind after living in multicultural birmingham, where he had a chance to witness different religions

• “human beings opening their minds to a higher divine Reality, known as personal and good and as demanding righteousness and love” – Hick.

• golden rule- treat others as you wish to be treated- common denominator of many religions

• ancient Islamic parable of blind men each touching a different part of an elephant- trapped in phenomenal- views of same sea

• hick posits transcategorial real- above limited categories of god- ultimate real

• reliant on kant- exist in phenomenal world (acc world)- variety views of world- limited by faculties- religions limited- noumenal world is true world- none of us can access-

• Hick claimed the same was true for religion as different religions are just different human interpretations of the one true divine reality- religious ambiguity- foundation of world

• Panikkar- had multifaith family- openness to mystery of divine- cant limit god in the way he reveals himself- cant say one religion is better than another- manifest in christophanies- realisation of christ

pluralism counter and eval

• Hume argued that all religions cannot be true however since they make contradictory truth claims. 

• Either Jesus was the son of God (like Christians claim) or he wasn’t (like Muslims claim)

• undermines central christian beliefs

• ignores contradictory history- ignores consensus view of resurrection as reduces

• offends may religions

• reductive- reduces all religions into transcategorial

• is there an ethical core- religions differ in ethics

eval

• Hick responds that they can all be right. 

• He argues that those particular theological details such as the divinity of Jesus or number of Gods are part of the ‘conceptual lens’

• Hick claims they can both be right in the sense that they are both pointing to the same higher divine reality.

• Hick essentially discounts the contradictory truth claims

• “conflict in the sense that they are different’ - religion