3.4A- Religious pluralism and theology Flashcards
(21 cards)
The foundations of Christianity and religious pluralism
-From it’s beginning, Christianity has always existed as a religion alongside other world religions. When it first began, the earliest Christians developed their beliefs and traditions while living with people who believed in the Greek and Roman gods, with people who had Jewish faith and with people who had no religious beliefs of any kind.
-The first Christians saw themselves as having a unique kind of relationship with God, made possible through death and resurrection of Jesus. They did not choose to become a branch of Judaism alongside others, but instead set out to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ with the aim of changing people’s minds and converting them to Christianity. They did not see Christianity as an extra option for those who preferred a different kind of worship, but saw it as holding the key to salvation.
Contemporary Western societies and Liberalism
Liberalism considers that two notion are important:
- First, liberalism tolerates the freedoms of the individual, providing there is no direct threat to the wellbeing of society
- Second, liberalism permits the individual or individual groups to believe what each wishes- providing those beliefs don’t undermine the rights of others to believe what they consider to be true.
-Liberalism inevitably allows and even welcomes plural societies because it considers that a variety of beliefs and lifestyles make for happier, culturally richer and diverse societies.
Alan Race and the distinguishing of the three perspectives
The writer Alan Race identifies three broad perspectives that Christians might adopt when understanding their relationship to believers of other faiths.
-Race calls these perspectives ‘exclusivism’, ‘inclusivism’ and ‘pluralism’.
-He uses the term ‘exclusivism’ to encompass those views that hold that there is no salvation outside explicit commitment to the Christian faith.
-‘inclusivism’ is used to refer to those who agree that Christianity is the key to salvation, but think that it might be possible for non-Christians to be saved by Christ even if they do not recognise Christ as such.
-‘Pluralism’ is the term used for views that hold that there are many different paths to salvation and that truth and salvation can be found in many different religious traditions and contexts.
Exclusivism in general
-The starting point for exclusivism is that humanity is fallen and the broken relationship with God was restored by Christ.
-Nobody deserves to be saved and everyone needs God to help them to salvation- salvation is a gift form God and God intervened in the world first and foremost through Jesus’ incarnation, death and resurrection.
-Through Jesus, humans have a way to access God because Jesus is a mediator and therefore faith in Jesus is required to gain salvation.
-Betrand Russell argues that all religions are “untrue and harmful”. Whereas Christians would disagree with Russell that all religions are ‘untrue and harmful’, many would agree that if one religion is in fact true then the others must necessarily be untrue. This is the traditional Christian position and is the position known as theological exclusivism.
Restrictive Access Exclusivism (RAE)
-Restricted access exclusivism is understood as the most traditional form of exclusivism. This focuses on the idea that all humans are sinful from birth and are in need of salvation by Christ.
-Christ was unique because he was both fully human and fully God (as the Apostles’ Creed states). As such, Christ was without sin and was sent by God to be the only person who could redeem humans (Sola Christus) from their sins. Humans must hear the Gospel (fides ex auditu) and be baptized into the Church in order to be granted salvation.
-Some famous examples in the Bible are John 14:6, Acts 4:12, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19.
-A criticism of RAE, however, is that with this form of exclusivism is that those millions of people who have never heard the Christian Gospel will automatically be excluded from salvation. What about those who have heard the Gospel but have rejected it? What of the millions of people who lived before Christ?
-Augustine argues that humans have lost their free will as they are so lost to sin, therefore meaning it is up to God to choose who to save, as it’s their sovereign purpose.
-Calvin argues that after the Fall, all humans are inherently sinful, therefore meaning that God is not under any complusion to save anyone. Calvin does go on to argue that as a loving God, there are some people who will be saved by him because of their righteous actions and moral standards. Calvin also started the development of double predestination. He also argues that the amount of people who will be saved is set at 144,000 (12,000 from each of the 12 tribes). Jehovah’s Witnesses still support this today.
-The Catholic Church takes a ‘broad exclusivist’ view. This has been popular among some Roman Catholics, who teach that salvation will only be granted to those who are baptized members of the Roman Catholic church and who regularly receive the sacrament from a priest. This is still the official teaching of this church, encapsulated in the Latin phrase ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’ (outside the Church there is no salvation). The way in which is it described has changed somewhat since Vatican II, when the church began to be more interested in making links with Christians from other denominations.
Universal Access Exclusivism (UAE)
-A key difference between restrictive and universal access exclusivism is that when St Paul writes ‘in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself’, the RAE interprets ‘the world’ to mean the elect (in its limited sense) whereas the UAE considers it to mean everyone. An important supporting New Testament passage is: “This is right and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a ransom for all -this was attested at the right time.” (1 Timothy 2:3-6).
-UAE is supported by both Roman Catholics and Protestant theologians. The problem posed for theologians is that if God does indeed will the redemption of everyone (universal salvation), how are those born before Christ or into non-Christian societies to be saved if they lack ‘fides ex auditu’. There are two broad answers to this:
- Preparation: The following qualities might be considered good preparation for a person to receive the Gospel when it is finally preached to them: living the moral life according to conscience and natural law; practice and devotion to God through a non-Christian religion; having a ‘sense divinitatis’.
- Life after death: In hell, purgatory or in an intermediate state a person may encounter the Gospel and accept God’s redemption in Christ.
-Importantly, most UAEs distinguish between universal salvation and universalism (which they reject) because there can be no salvation outside the Church.
-Roman Catholics argue that whilst there is every reason to be respectful and non-judgemental of non-Christian religions as they ‘often reflect a ray of the Truth’, these religions lack the necessary ‘controlling beliefs’ as defined by the Catholic Church and cannot be means of salvation. Dominus Iesus clarifies that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ.
-A criticism however for the Roman Catholic position is that whilst many consider that the Catholic Church’s position is not exclusive but in fact inclusive because it recognises the rays of truth in non-Christian religions. This not only indicates the ambiguity and limitations of using the ‘exclusive-inclusive’ model but the problems inherent in the theology of religion of wishing to respect the integrity of each religion (a characteristic of exclusivism) while not wishing to limit God by human standards (a characteristic of inclusivism).
Exclusivism and Hendrik Kraemer
He claimed that salvation can be found only in Christianity and not through any other religion, however well-meaning its followers might be. -Another one of Kraemer’s arguments was that it does not make sense to look at religions other than Christianity and pick out beliefs and practices that seem to be the most Christian as if they are points of contact.
-His book was influential for Christian missionaries as he argued that non-Christians had to convert to achieve salvation.
Strengths of exclusivism
- Exclusivism is internally coherent because if Jesus was God incarnate, then this uniqueness suggests Jesus is the only way to achieve salvation.
- The biblical evidence seems very clear that God’s plan in Jesus was to save the world.
- To say that Christ is the only way to salvation is not necessarily the same as Christianity being the only way to access salvation. Perhaps Jesus’ death saved all people, no matter what religion (or none.)
- The Church seems to be a mediator between God and humans and so the Church’s work could be argued to be required for salvation. The Church was founded by Jesus and so only members of the Church can go to heaven.
-One of the great strengths of theological exclusivism as far as Christians are concerned is that it gives a reason for believing in Christianity. The weaknesses of inclusivism and pluralism are that they undermine the notion of specific or unique truth claims by suggesting that these may be shared by other non-Christian religions. Advocates of UAE argue that exclusivism is more respectful of non-Christian religions because it accepts that they also make specific truth claims, which may be true by Christian standards or untrue, in which case they are respectfully rejected.
Criticisms of Exclusivism
- Why would an omnibenevolent God want to exclude salvation from so many of his creations?
- If Jesus is the only way to salvation from God the Father, what is the role of the Holy Spirit? The Trinity is another foundational belief for Christians and exclusivism seems to ignore the idea of the Trinity.
- In the parable of The Sheep and the Goats, it seems that good people from all nations (not just Christians) will be saved.
- If other religions have ‘rays of truth’ then what is stopping members of those religions being saved?
-Restrictive Access Exclusivism has been the cause of Christian imperialism, religious conflict and suffering. Christians have persecuted other Christians for not believing their version of the truth. Christians have fought wars against unbelievers. Christianity has been used to convert and colonise communities.
-The Restrictive Access Exclusivism positions presents an unjust and unloving God because of his treatment of those who, through no fault of their own, are not Christian.
-Universal Access Exclusivism 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 Iesus argues extra ecclesiam nulla salus- that 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.
What is inclusivism in general?
-Inclusivism is the idea that, although Christianity is the true faith, a loving God would not condemn all non-Christians to hell.
-Jesus’ death on the cross had an effect on non-Christians as well and non-Christians can access this effect (without realising it) through participation in ways of life or institutions that share something with Christianity.
-For example, a member of another religion might well make the same moral choices as a Christian.
-Inclusivism relies on the idea that God is revealed in general ways, such as through creation and a ‘sensus divinitatis’ and so people can come to know God without the Church.
-Famous Biblical examples that support this view is Acts 17:16-34, Matthew 25:31-46, Romans 2:14-16.
Structual Inclusivism- Rahner
-Rahner’s theology is strongly influenced by the existential philosophy of Martin Heidegger. From Heidegger’s analysis of human experience, Rahner argues that:
- All human experience of knowledge is limited and finite
- Because human knowledge is finite, humans have to accept that they can only have an unconditional ‘openness’ to existence.
- This ‘openness’ suggests that all humans, whether they know it consciously or nor, desire grace and salvation.
-The final bold assertion is reminiscent of Calvin’s claim that all humans have, to a lesser or greater extent, a sensus divinitatis. However, what Rahner is arguing is that deep down all humans are aware of their mortality and limitations and this prompts them to think about the nature of their existence or ‘being’. When they reflect on ‘being’, however superficially this is done, they realise that ‘being’ is something which is deeply mysterious and defies definition.
-It is at this point Rahner claims, that humans encounter the experience of God’s infinite grace, which is the source of ‘being’. It is this claim that at the heart of ‘being’ we encounter God’s grace which separates Rahner from Heidegger.
-It is not something which Rahner can prove but he claims that many of the great religions implicitly support the truth of his claims when they encourage people to behave selflessly, lovingly, and charitably to one another and when the structures of worship create an openness to ‘being’ (and to grace).
-The only religion that claims to present grace explicitly and fully is Christianity through the revelation in Jesus Christ. It is the relationship between implicit and explicit knowledge which characterises Rahner’s theology and provides him with a framework to explain the nature of salvation before and after Christ, the relationship of non-Christian religions to Christianity (and more especially the Catholic Church) and the inculpably ignorant- those who through no fault of their own have no knowledge of God.
-By anonymous Christianity, Rahner means any religious institution which through its structures, practices and values is a means of grace. The model of lawful anonymous Christianity is the religion and history of ancient Israel before Christ as recorded in the Old Testament. So, although the incarnation occurred at a particular time and place among a particular people, its significance was a universal and timeless expression of God’s active place in history and creation.
-The incarnation doesn’t so much divide history in two as mark a new development within it. Therefore, the absolutism of Christianity has to be questioned or else the conclusion to be drawn is that God doesn’t wish humans to be saved. This cannot be compatible with the experience of grace and God’s love for all of creation.
-However, not all non-Christian religions are equally legitimate. This is called invisible Christianity. For a religion to be lawful it must be judged by the quality of salvation which it offers. A religion must be more than simply a personal experience; it also needs an organisational authority to regulate truth and falsehood. Even so, there are some individuals who do live morally and religiously good lives outside the institution- how should they be judged? The Old Testament prophets existed outside Israel’s religion and yet are regarded as the main proponents of Israel’s doctrine of grace. This suggests that in addition to anonymous Christianity there are also anonymous Christians.
-On the subject of Anonymous Christians, Rahner considers two important Christian notions apriori. First, that all humans are ignorant to some extent according to the doctrine of Original Sin. Second, all humans are loved unconditionally by God according to the doctrine of Grace.
-This is not what official Catholicism teaches. For the Catholic Church, all religions are soteriologically invalid unless they convert and become part of the historical and visible Catholic Church. Rahner disagrees.
-He cites the famous speech given by St Paul at the Areopagus in Athens, where Paul refers to the altar of ‘an unknown god’ he has seen in Athens as a basis for his argument that although the Greeks worship what they cannot see, Christians know this unknown God explicitly through their encounter with Christ. In Rahner’s interpretation of the speech, Paul doesn’t condemn the Greek religion but sees it as a way for those who have yet to hear the Gospel to know God.
-The final part of Rahner’s arguments in ‘Theological Investigations 5’ considers the Church’s role in salvation and the invisible and visible church. For Rahner, the Church cannot be an ‘exclusive community’ but has an important role to play in bringing the teachings of Christianity into the wider world.
-In an increasingly secular world, the role of the Church is therefore all the more significant. This may appear presumptuous to non-Christian religions and to non-religious people but a Christian has a duty to make God (who is greater than the Church) known to the world. It is the role of the visible Church to proclaim the explicit means of grace as expressed in the person of Christ.
-So, will all good people be saved and, if so, why would someone wish to become a Christian? The answer is that a moral action is only good if it conforms to the example set by Christ who is the mediator of grace and judged by the visible Church.
-Even then, although salvation is possible it is 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.
Restrictive Inclusivism
-Restrictive Inclusivism (represented by many Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant theologians) argue that although God makes provision for individuals who have not heard the gospel but nevertheless respond positively to natural law, conscience and true elements of their religion, they do not consider that a non-Christian religion can be salvific, as Rahner does.
-A non-Christian religion at best may only be a good preparation for salvation.
Criticisms of Inclusivism
- The chief criticism of restrictive inclusivism (RI) is that it is really no different from Universal Access Exclusivism (UAE). The problem is that although it uses the term inclusive it is really an exclusivist theology; it is not inclusive on non-Christian religions, only a few exceptional individuals. In this respect Rahner’s structural inclusivism is a much more successful attempt to value non-Christian religions for their own sake and to respect their integrity.
- John Hick thought that Rahner’s phrase ‘anonymous Christians’ was paternalistic and patronising, offering “honorary status granted unilaterally to people who have not expressed any desire for it.” For Hick, the ‘old dogma’ is the paternalistic, imperialistic, European Christian view that non-Christian religions are somehow second class by comparison with ‘the one truth faith’. From this mountain-top position, all other religions must be inferior. For Hick, this view fails to study sufficiently the, interior structure and core beliefs of the other religions. This is what makes it both patronising and paternalistic, and ultimately wrong-headed.
- However, there are many criticisms of Rahner’s structural inclusivism (also known as SI) which include: He has made Christianity imperialist and offensive to non-Christians - especially his use of ‘anonymous’ to describe non-Christians. It might be more accurate to say that Christians are anonymous Buddhists or Jews - if so, that suggests that Christianity is not the truth as it is supposed from the traditional Christian point of view. He has focused too much on grace independent from Christ- This is because despite his best efforts to maintain the sofa Christus principle, his idea that all humans have a general experience of God is more important. Anonymous Christianity and the invisible Church is unbiblical- The Church grew out of the Israelite religion so it is not in that sense an independent religion. It is therefore a false analogy to compare a non Christian religion to the Israelite religion of the Old Testament. As the ides ex auditu principle is clearly 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? He has misused the notion of votum ecclesia- The phrase refers to those who consciously wish to become members of the Christian Church; it does not make sense implicitly to become a member of something without knowing what it is.
What is pluralism in general?
-Pluralists tend to argue that different religions share the same ultimate goal. The beliefs and practices associated with different religions arise because of human culture, and the differences are only superficial.
-The religions all offer paths to the same destination, so people should not feel that they have to convert each other to the ‘true’ religion as there are many different ways for people to make their way to God, or Reality, or whatever term might be used.
-Hick supported pluralism, and wanted to develop a global theology (An overarching pluralist philosophical and theological framework to aid greater understanding between the great world religions), which would give a philosophical and theological framework for greater co-operation and understanding between the great world religions. Unlike exclusivists and inclusivists, the starting point of Hick’s theological pluralism is philosophical rather than the theology of a particular Christian tradition. His emphasis is on developing a natural theology; he places very little emphasis on traditional ideas of revelation.
A philosophical basis of pluralism
Kant and his categorical imperative
-It soon became apparent to Hick that not all religions are theistic (believe in God) or have any belief in God. Hick found a solution in Kant’s epistemological distinction between noumenal and phenomenal knowledge (In Kant’s philosophy noumenal reality is what a thing is in itself [’ding-an sich’ in German].
-Phenomenal knowledge is the world as we experience it and as it appears to us. We can only postulate a ding-an sich through reason, we cannot know it directly). Hick uses the distinction to argue that although religions are phenomenally different, noumenally they are all referring to our postulating the same underlying ‘an-sich’, or reality (which he also refers to as the Eternal One or the Real.)
-Hick’s test for all authentic religions uses Kant’s categorical imperative test for moral behaviour, i.e. what I will myself is only ‘the good’ if it is a duty for all- otherwise known as the ‘golden rule’. Hick argues that all authentic religions are those which uphold the categorical imperative and treat one’s neighbours as one treats oneself. The great contribution all authentic religions make to human existence is that by focusing 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 from religion to religion and even though religions have often caused terrible suffering, Hick argues that there have been enough moral ‘saints’ to illustrate the positive contribution religions make to the world.
Wittgenstein
-Evidence of the phenomenal-noumenal relationship is demonstrated by the wide range of religious experiences people have.
-As a natural theologian, Hick does not think that ‘an-Sich’ reveals itself to humans but rather it is we who experience it according to the culture and times in which we live.
-As we would expect using Wittgenstein’s analysis of language, expressing the experience of the world is naturally ambiguous.
-Hick refers to Wittgenstein’s famous example of the duck/rabbit picture to illustrate how people see things differently.
-As the Real or ‘an-sich’ is subject to the same ambiguity then it must be supposed that different religions express it differently also.
A theological basis to pluralism
Theocentric not Christocentric
-The first important step in Hick’s plural theology is therefore to argue that revelation emanates from God not Christ (or Scripture on the Church).
-Hick’s suggestion is that Christianity should be theocentric (focused on God- what he calls ‘Reality-centred’) and not Christocentric (Christ-centred).
-The task of theologians is to reinterpret the doctrines of the incarnation, atonement and resurrection as myths not facts.
The myth of Jesus
-The biggest hurdle of Christianity’s relationship to other religions, Hick and other pluralists argue, is the belief that Jesus is uniquely the incarnate Son of God. Hick provides a number of reasons why the ‘sola Christus’ should be abandoned.
-The first is that the incarnation was originally a myth or metaphor to explain Jesus’ very special consciousness of God- so close that he could talk of God as father. But over time this myth has become falsely objectified and treated as fact that he was ontologically (by nature) God’s son. Hick illustrates how the same process happens in other religions. For example, the Buddha was gradually transformed from the great enlightened teacher Gautama (as maintained by Theravada Buddhism) who taught the dharma to be revered, into the embodiment of the dharma as the eternal Buddha (as believed in Mahayana Buddhism).
Other generic points
-For the pluralist project to work and for Christianity to adapt to the modern world then, Hick argues, it must rid itself of the ancient doctrines laid down at the great councils of Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451), which defined the divinity of Christ and established the idea of the Trinity.
-These notions have never been well understood and should be understood as myths. Once Christianity rids itself of these exclusive doctrines, then Jesus can be appropriated by other religions who see in him a man who can “enlarge the relationship with God to which they have already come within their own tradition”.
-Jesus’ social teaching and example is therefore a gift to the world just as other great religious leaders contributed to the world.
Pluriform- Ward
-The main difference between pluriform and unitary theological pluralists is that whereas Unitary Theological Pluralists such as Hick argue that there is one underlying Real, pluriform theological pluralists argue that there are many ‘reals’ as they are experienced by each religion. Therefore, as no one religion can have a definite knowledge of the Real ( or ‘an-sich’) each religion has its own particular authentic version of salvation, liberation or knowledge (whatever term is used to describe a religion’s overall aim).
-Keith Ward, who supports this view, argues that sometimes we just have to conclude that beliefs between religions are different and conflicting, but reasons for them can be equally valid.
-Ward makes the important point that as knowledge is gained through religious experience and not revelation, then there cannot be a competition for exclusive truth.
-Furthermore, as experience changes in any religion so does the presentation of its truth claims over time.
Criticisms of pluralism
- The general criticism of all forms of theological pluralism is that it undermines the ‘sola Christus’ principle. In general, Christian pluralism tries to avoid the particular beliefs about Christ and his revelation of God, and so it is questionable whether Christian pluralism is in fact Christian, at least from the ‘controlling beliefs’ point of view.
- Many consider that Hick’s unitary theological pluralism is a form of exclusivism. His form of pluralism claims a privileged position of knowing what the Real is and then judges other religions by this.
- Hick builds his unitary theological pluralism on the foundations of Kantian epistemology and moral philosophy. But why should Kantianism be superior to the revelation or truth which religions claim independently of Kant?
- Hick’s use of Kant leads to agnosticism. Kant himself 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.
- Unitary theological pluralism presupposes that all religions have a sense of the Real, but many forms of Buddhism reject such a notion; other religions think their deity is ultimate- there is no really beyond it.
- Many suspect pluralism promotes a form of imperialist global power-based ideology just as the Church used exclusivism to do so in the past.
- Although it is right to judge religions by their contribution to moral outcomes, this is a very restricted notion of what different world religions are claiming.
- By 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.
Central question: Does theological pluralism undermine Christian beliefs?
Theological pluralism does undermine central Christian beliefs
- Christian beliefs are Christocentric but this is an error- they should be theocentric because Christians do not worship Jesus over God the Father.
- It accepts that other religious experiences of the divine and other religions’ claims about miracles are all equally likely to be valid. There is no reason that Christian claims should be better than the others.
- Combined with 2,000 years of human-centred mistakes, the idea of the Real allows Christians to accept that God is greater tan any human institution.
Theological pluralism does not undermine central Christian beliefs
- The Christian message through the Bible and tradition is clear: the Christ-event was unique and eternally significant and makes the Christian religion the true faith. Pluralism can question this, but this does not make it wrong.
- The idea of the Christian story being a myth does not explain why the early Christians founded a religion on the absurd ideas of God becoming a human and then rising from the dead.
- Hick’s pluralism does not fully explain why certain religions are valid and others are not, and so Christianity is not undermined. For example, there is no sense of what salvation or the afterlife will look like: heaven or reincarnation?
Conclusion
Perhaps all pluralism does it show us that the message of Christianity- and all religions- is wrong. Why should we not accept a sociological, psychological or anthropological explanation for religious belief without over-complicating the issue by inventing God?
Central Question(s): ‘if Christ is the ‘truth’ can there be any other means of salvation?’ and ‘will all good people be saved?’
Necessary Vs. sufficient
- Core to the debate about what will get a person to heaven is the discussion of what is necessary and what is sufficient for salvation.
Christian exclusivists and inclusivists believe that Jesus’ death on the cross is necessary for salvation (without his death, we cannot be saved).
- Some people might believe that having faith in Jesus is sufficient for salvation (all we need to believe to get to heaven) and others might believe that faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation (it is required but so is something else, such as a good life).
- Some Christians might believe that faith in Jesus is neither necessary nor sufficient because what is sufficient is a good life.
- However, this seems to raise more questions than it answers: what is a definition of good, what about those who reject Christianity, what is the point of being a Christian and so on.
Justification by faith or works
-The debate about whether we are justified or saved by faith or actions dates back to the early Church but was a central aspect of the Reformation as well.
-When the early Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church, Martin Luther stated that faith alone was sufficient for salvation.
-This has historically been a key area of debate within Christianity because Catholics believe that both faith and works (deeds or actions) are required to get to heaven.
-However, nowhere in the debate does there seem to be the suggestion that works without faith will save someone.
-In 1999, the Lutheran communities and the Catholic Church clarified that there is a common belief between them: that out of faith comes good actions - you cannot be saved by claiming you have a faith but not showing the fruit of that faith in your actions.
-The core difference between the two approaches is that the Lutheran belief is that God alone is in control of salvation but for the Catholic Church, it is the person and God who are in control of their salvation.
Biblical evidence
-The Bible is clear that everyone is made in God’s image equally, whatever their background and God continues to love all people the same.
-The parable of The Sheep and the Goats seems to suggest that we are judged based on our actions, as does The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31).
-However, it could be a mistake to take these two passages in isolation. The Bible is very clear, too, about the importance of believing in Christ! The parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16).
Here, the landowner pays an equal amount to those who have worked for him for the whole day as those who have worked just an hour.
One interpretation of the story is that people should not be jealous of those who have not worked as hard for salvation as them - everyone should accept that God can do what he wants with his grace.
Evaluation
All good people will be saved
-The Sheep and the Goats teaches that we will be judged on our actions; the Rich Man and Lazarus suggests that those who are not charitable will not be saved.
-God loves all people, made in his image and would never leave those who have tried to pursue truth behind from any background in life.
-The earliest traditions (found in the earliest Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke) seem to put more emphasis on actions than faith, which could suggest that the emphasis in Jesus’ message has been lost.
Not all good people will be saved
-If people are to be saved according to the Christian faith, they need to have both faith and good works in their lives (see the parable of The Sheep and the Goats).
-It could be argued that you are not truly good unless you follow the right spiritual or religious way of life (as well as a moral one).
-Nobody deserves to be saved (Romans 3:23: ‘all have sinned and fall short’) either due to the Fall or free will in general. God’s love is ‘tough love’ and doesn’t necessarily mean we will be saved.
Central Question: ‘Would a loving God ultimately deny any human being salvation?’
Human will and salvation
-If God is in control of who is saved, then a core question is what it means to call him (omni)benevolent.
-Some accuse a God who allows anyone to go to hell of not being loving but the most common response to this is that the love God has is not to be understood in human terms but it is a love that is fair and just; the closest human equivalent being a parent’s love.
-If, however, human free will is in control of salvation then the value that God places on free will can be used to explain why it is allowed.
Calvinism and Catholicism
-In exclusivist circles, a key belief is often that there is no salvation outside membership of a particular Church (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) - this is most commonly found in Calvinism and Catholicism.
-If being a member of a Church is necessary for salvation and God has created that Church, then perhaps it is valid to suggest that God is in control of those who are not saved.
-However, an argument often levelled against this approach is that exclusivism is essentially a poor, circular argument with no external evidence: only Christ because the Bible says so; only the Church because the Church (and the Bible) teach it.
The Bible and Calvinism
-Romans 10:13 states that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved”. This is another Biblical example of the centrality of human free choice, which was first seen at the Fall and continues throughout the human story.
-In this case, if we do not call on God then we do not deserve salvation. What about those who have never heard of Christianity?
-Some, such as in the Calvinist tradition, would suggest that as all people deserve damnation because of the Fall, those who have not heard the message will simply perish.
-Others would point to aspects of inclusivism that suggest that a truly loving God would never deny salvation to those who genuinely couldn’t have known the Christian message. God, who knows our hearts, knows who these people are.
Karl Barth
-Barth took quite a radical approach to this topic because, in his emphasis on Jesus as the ultimate mediator and the centrality of grace, he rejected the truth claim of any religion. All religions, even Christianity, fall short of gaining the full knowledge of Jesus required for salvation.
Karl Rahner
-Finally, Rahner places the emphasis back onto God, more so than many Catholics, because he re-emphasised that free will was a gift from God. Only God knows whom he will save and that includes anonymous Christians.*“[The power of God is sufficient to overcome] the limited stupidity and evil-mindedness of men … In Christ God not only gives the possibility of salvation, which in that case would still have to be effected by man himself, but the actual salvation itself, however much this includes also the right decision of human freedom which is itself a gift from God.
