Critically Assess The Argument That The Most Honest View Is That Only One Religion Can Actually Be True

Question 1

Introduction

Answer 1

• question is multi faceted
• two problems epistemological (what extent are non Christian religion truth claims true in Christianity) and soteriological ( can those of non Christian belief or no belief receive salvation)
• three broad subcategories pluralism exclusivist inclusivism

Question 2

1st paragraph

Answer 2

• exclusivism
• Bertrand Russell quote ‘since they disagree…’
• Christian’s would disagree with Russel but also agree
• raises two questions: can god be known outside Christianity and is knowledge of god same as salvation
• answer depends on which brand
• first brand RAE most traditional
• emphasis on sinfulness of human nature
• controlling beliefs, Sola Christus and Fides ex auditu
• John 14:6 ‘no one comes to the father unless through me’
• problem for those you haven’t heard gospel seems contradictory to omnibenevolence
• calvinists answer as humans are inherently sinful god has no obligation but still saves the elect because of their virtue

Question 3

Evaluation of 1st paragraph

Answer 3

• I find it unsatisfactory as even if no obligation his essence is all loving so regardless should want to save
• example of mother who has no obligation to be loving only obligation to sustain child life (debatable)
• Abrahamic god has love that supersedes a mother
• due to this controversy most denominations support doctrine of limited election and double predestination and antelapsarian divine decree

Question 4

Second paragraph

Answer 4

• difference between UAE and RAE when SAUL says ‘in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself RAE think elect, UAE think everyone
• N.T supports UAE ‘god our saviour desires everyone to be saved
• same question with UAE and RAE what about those who haven’t heard the word (fides ex auditu)
• two responses to this question
• Preparation: certain qualities seen as good preparation for gospel (sensus divinitatis/living morally)
• life after death: in hell/purgatory one can receive gospel
• unconvincing because eventually everyone chooses it
• UAE distinguish universal salvation and universalism reject universalism as extra ecclesiam nulla salus
• R.C.C adopt UAE seen in Nostra Aetate ‘reflect a ray of truth’
• should respect religions as they have rays of truth they lack controlling beliefs so can’t be means of salvation
• Dominus Iesus church makes clear pluralism undermines unicity of Church and ‘fullness’ of Christ salvation
• however Catholic Church position is inclusive as recognises rays of truth so we see ambiguities

Question 5

Evaluation of second paragraph

Answer 5

• don’t see it convincing lacks consistency as in Vatican II argues non Christian have rays for salvation but dominus iesus argues extra ecclesiam nulla salus
• if you argue former you are adopting inclusivist and if you hold latter seems pointless to consider rays of truth because in anyway to be useful you have to be member of church at which point your already saved
  Exclusivist wrongly judge universalism as undermining controlling beliefs as it’s eschatological emphasis recognises gods love for all his creation and all humans can enter beatific vision

Question 6

3rd paragraph

Answer 6

• difference between inclusivist and exclusivist is exclusivists argue explicit knowledge of god from fides, inclusivist argue this knowledge maybe implicit
• SI position is any religion whose structures develop openness to god’s grace may receive gods salvation influential for,a is Rahner (strongly influenced by Heidegger)
• from Heidegger rahner argues: human experience of knowledge is limited/finite and because it’s finite we can only have unconditional openness to existence and thus suggests all humans desire grace/salvation
• arguing all humans aware of their mortality/limitations, this prompts them to think about nature of their existence or ‘being’
• claims many religions support his truth claim when telling people to act selflessly/lovingly
• another aspect of Rahner’s theology is grace
• model of lawful anonymous is the religion of Israel before Christ recorded in OT
• although incarnation occurred at particular time among particular people it’s significance is timeless expression of God’s active place in history
• solves exclusivist issue of those who can’t have fides ex auditu
• in answering this raises another that by saying religions are anonymously Christian undermining truth claims
• absolutism of Christianity must be questioned otherwise god doesn’t wish humans to be saved incompatible with benevolence of god
• based on his argument all humans desire grace rahner develops aquinas’s votum ecclesia and states ‘non Christian religion can be lawful’
• not all non Christian religion equally legit as judged by its quality of salvation

Question 7

Criticism of 3rd paragraph

Answer 7

• more accurate to say Christians are anonymous Jews suggests Christianity might not be truth
• as fides ex auditu impossible for non Christian’s how can they confess their sins as this is fundamental for D’Costa, how can one implicitly confess sins
• wouldn’t be better off not being Christian because if you hear gospel and reject it your condemned
• I disagree with anonymous Christianity as it’s undermining

Question 8

4th paragraph

Answer 8

• pluralism attractive as wants secular liberal goal that best societies are when different beliefs co exist
• differing versions of pluralism common view is that there are many ways to salvation, Christianity one path
• hick big influence aimed to create global theology which would provide framework for greater co operation between world religions
• hicks starting point philosophical rather than theological wanted to create a natural theology
• when hick saw not all religions theistic or believe in god he found solution is kant epistemological distinction between noumenal and phenomenal
• noumenal reality is the thing in itself (ding an sich) and phenomenal is world as we experience it and we can only postulate ding an sich through reason not direct
  -hick argues religions are phenomenally different but noumenally refer to same an sich (he calls the Real)
• Wittgenstein picture of duck and rabbit some see duck and some rabbit and Real can’t be known so religions interpret differently
• after establishing foundation of UTP hick task was to show where and how Christian theology adapt to present age
• note hick isn’t saying Christianity superior but it’s contributions to world this is why I think this kore convincing
• first step for hick is to argue revelation emanates from god not Christ and Christianity should be theocentric (focused on god) not christocentric ( Christ centred)
• theologians must reinterpret doctrines of incarnation, ateonement, resurrection as myths not facts
• for him + others biggest problem of Christianity relationship with other religions is belief that Jesus is uniquely the incarnate Son of god and thinks sola christus needs abandoning
• reason one is incarnation was originally a myth/metaphor to explain Jesus special consciousness of god but this was warped to Jesus ontologically son of god
• he sees the same problem elsewhere as the Buddha went from enlightened teacher to embodiment of Dharma
• for Christianity to work must adapt to modern world and rid of ancient doctrines laid down at Nicae and Chalcedon

Question 9

Criticism to 4th paragraph

Answer 9

• undermines sola christus as avoids particular beliefs about Christ and revelation of god so questionable whether Christian pluralism is Christian from controlling beliefs viewpoint
• in response I think kant says it isn’t undermining just bring back to reality and conflating to what Christianity is essentially could say this is more Christian as this is intended interpretation
• not abolishing principle just reading more realistically
• criticism of UTP presupposes all religions have sense of the Real some think their deity ultimate and no real beyond it
• hick I think responds phenomenally they think their deity is ultimate but noumenally these ultimate deity beliefs are the same deity