critical evaluation

yes:

no:

the evidence for only 1 right viewpoint is thin, requires faith &makes it difficult to justify to ppl of a different faith » similar claims of their own revelation

John 14:6 » only one way to salvation = Christ

makes God seem unfair if only those who believe the Christian gospel are to be saved » some have much easier to access to the Christian message | someone who has been brought up in a Christian family would find it easier to accept than someone who was not

Christ’s death on the cross had a once-for-all cosmic significance » Jesus didn’t come to offer an extra alternative route to salvation but fulfilled God’s plan for atonement

what about those who lived before Jesus?

exclusivists » different religion teach different things ∴absurd » all of the religions could be wrong but they can’t all be right eg Islam, Judaism n Christianity = monotheistic vs Hinduism = polytheistic vs Buddhism = no deities | eg Christianity = Jesus was the Son of God vs Judaism n Islam = he was not

those with severe learning difficulties/short lives = can’t understand/don’t have the chance to choose to follow Christ

relativist position is fashionable in the modern world of respect n tolerance of all beliefs but exclusivists argue one should not be led by political correctness and fear offending others on matters of ultimate truth

pluralists n inclusivists: unacceptable to them that a God of love would deny ppl salvation, esp those who genuinely tried to find Him within their own tradition

inclusivism and pluralism undermine the work of those who have given their lives for Christianity » if it is one of many routes to salvation, it’s pointless for one to sacrifice their lives for Christian witness

William Lane Craig » God’s omniscience & ‘middle knowledge’ ie knowing every person’s heart and if they would follow the Christian faith having heard of it » can judge based on their faith & actions

middle knowledge = no point in Christians trying to convert others + extent of free will?

anonymous Christianity » truth = yes, Christ is the only means of salvation, but ppl don’t necessarily need to be aware they are following Christ in order to be saved

yes:

no:

meaningful relationship with God must stem from conscious decision » free will to choose Christianity, to choose belief in the Gospel, to choose/reject a religion

for Hick, Christian pluralists, exclusivists: the idea that some people will be denied salvation esp whilst genuinely trying to lead holy life = incompatible with belief in a God of love > God could have revealed himself in diff way to ppl in diff times n cultures & God is free to make Himself known however He wishes

Augustine, Calvin + other Christians argued that salvation is only for the few, whom God chooses for eternal life » God’s offer of salvation to everyone tainted with original sin = sign of His supreme love and grace

God’s omniscient will = perfect love, justice n mercy, forgiving sins = everyone ultimately ends up saved

God makes the opportunity of salvation available to everyone but those who wish not to take up this opportunity have chosen their own fate and can’t blame God for the consequences of their choice » unjust of God to give salvation to everyone inc those who reject Him n commit terrible crimes alongside dedicated Christians

universal salvation = no point for religion » Jesus would have died for no reason + no religious commitment necessary

yes:

no:

other passages emphasise the need for ppl to do the right things in order to do be saved, often without mentioning faith » Micah 6:8

John 3:16-18 | Ephesians 2:6-9 » passages in support of Christian exclusivism. no one is good enough to deserve salvation; everyone is guilty of sin, both because of the original sin of Adam n Eve, as humans are fallible creatures who always fall short of God’s glory. being ‘good’ cannot bring a person to salvation; salvation is freely offered to those who accept Christ explicitly n accept God’s grace, who forgives the sins of all who have Christian faith

parable of sheep n goats » shows ‘the Son of Man’ judging people not on the basis of their faith but entirely on their actions n their treatment of the poor, sick, strangers n imprisoned » inclusivist/pluralist positions

is the moral code in Christianity the same as that outside it

James 2:14-24 » faith is incomplete without the moral actions it inspires eg Abraham: didn’t have explicit faith in Christ, still ‘considered righteous’ » Christian inclusivism, rather than pluralism

yes:

no:

presents serious challenge to the belief that Jesus’ death n resurrection were unique events through which God made salvation possible » which Christian beliefs are to be considered ‘central’ and which, if any, can be regarded as expressions of culture n tradition rather than ‘the truth’?

Hick argued that doctrines such as those he lists are not central to a relationship with God, but are examples of religious beliefs n practices that belong in the phenomenal realm, not noumenal. doctrines:

• the idea that there are divinely revealed truths

• the idea that God created the universe out of nothing

• the doctrine of the Fall

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

• the idea that Jesus’ death paid a necessary price for human sin

• the doctrine of the Virgin Birth

• the belief that Jesus performed miracles that suspended the laws of nature

• the belief that Jesus’ dead body was resurrected from the grave and returned to earthly life

• the belief that people must have explicit faith in Christ to be saved

• the belief that the point of death ‘fixes’ someone’s eternal destiny

• the belief in heaven n hell

Hick also believed that the central Christian belief in a God of unconditional love is undermined by the phenomena of traditional Christian doctrine

Panikkar emphasises God’s revelation