PLURALISM AND THE UNIQUENESS OF JESUS CHRIST

by

Cherif Arif

June 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………. 1

Chapter 1

I. PLURALISM………………………………………………………………........ 2

a. Pluralism Defined………………………………………………………. 2

b. Christology According to Pluralist John

Hick………………………….. 4

c. Major Problem of Religious Pluralism ………………………………… 8

Chapter 2

I. THE UNIQUENESS OF JESUS CHRIST ……………………………………. 13

a. Is the Christ of Faith a Reproduction of the Early

Church?.................... 14

b. Why Is Jesus Christ the Only Way? …………………………………… 19

CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………... 23

BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………………... 24

INTRODUCTION

One of the dangerous movements spreading rapidly around the

globe and penetrating churches today is religious pluralism. A

large number of individuals now believe that all religions lead

to the same end. World religions walk hand in hand toward one

destiny. Therefore, the teachings of Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, and

others all tell us how to reach to the same end. Bottom line,

there is no superiority of one religion over another. Is this

belief system true?

This paper has two purposes. First, it will offer a general

definition of religious pluralism and trace its roots, focusing

on one remarkable representative of the movement, John Hick. Hick

is a strong and influential proponent of pluralism. He degrades

orthodox Christology and teaches that Christology, from the first

century until today, is only a reconstruction of the Christ of

history by the early Church. Christ Himself, according to Hick,

never had the conception the church had of Him. Thus, to maintain

1

the exclusivity of Christ is intolerant. This section explains

how far Hick has gone with his own Christology and what the major

problem of pluralism is.

The second goal of the paper is to show that Hick’s position

is wrong. Christ is not one among many ways to God; He is the only

way to God. This thesis is evidenced by both internal and

external proofs, showing the self-consciousness of Christ’s

divine person and work, and how deeply sentient the early Church

was to this fact, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Jesus’ words, “I am

the way, the truth, and the life,” are either true or false. If

they are false, then religious pluralism can have its way. If

not, then it is better for its adherents to reconsider their

position because their eternal state will then depend exclusively

on their beliefs about Jesus.

CHAPTER 1

PLURALISM

2

The warning alarm of religious pluralism is ringing not only

outside Christendom but also within the evangelical realm.

Rolland H. Nash points out the extent to which pluralism can go.

He notices, “When people adopt Pluralism, they must abandon every

core doctrine of the Christian faith, including the Trinity, the

deity of Christ, the incarnation, and the atonement.”1 Nash’s

remark, unfortunately, is not a prediction but a fact. After

thorough research in Evangelicalism, James Hunter, seven years

before the appearance of Nash’s book, observed that sixty percent

of the students in Christian schools and seminaries question

whether or not Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation.2 There

is a great danger out there. It is important now to define

pluralism from two points of views, that of the pluralists and

that of the church.

Pluralism Defined

An inclusive definition of pluralism is not an easy task. D.

A. Carson perceives that defining pluralism sometimes is

1 Rolland H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior? (Grand rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Preface, location 40-3174.2 James Davidson Hunter, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987), 36.

3

“tricky.”3 The reason is that the camp espousing pluralism

contends that it is the finest and most tolerant school of

thought, allowing people to live in harmony regardless of what

religion they embrace. R. Kent Hughes elaborates, “This kind of

thinking… demands that you don’t only make space for a neighbor

to believe what he believes, but that you also refrain from

publicly disagreeing with him.”4 On the other hand, Christians

who reject pluralism argue strongly about the deceitfulness of

pluralism and refuse to adopt any of its beliefs. Nash argues,

“Any Christian who would become pluralists must cease being

Christian.”5 Nash is dogmatic because if one allows an open door

for pluralism, it will lead to compromising the substance of the

Christian faith. If Christianity solely depends on the person,

work, and claims of Jesus Christ, then any other means for

salvation except through Christ is heresy. Religious pluralists

have another opinion.

3 D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 13. 4 R. Kent Hughes, Set apart: Calling a Worldly Church to a Godly Life (Wheaton, IL: CrosswayBooks, 2003), 106.5 Rolland H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior? (Grand rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), Kindle Electronic Edition: Preface, location 1342-3174.

4

Pluralism, according to theologian Millard Erickson is, “The

idea that no one religion is exclusively true, to the exclusion

of the others, but that there is truth in each religion.”6

According to John Hick, a famous proponent of pluralism,

religions can be seen as “embodying different perceptions of and

responses to the Real from within the different cultural ways of

being human.”7 Hick admits the validity of multiple embodiments

of religion. Because each religion has its path toward the Real,

all religions must be on the right track, regardless of who or

what the Real is for each religion. Consequently, religious

pluralism is “the belief that every religion is true.”8 In light

of that, no religion has the right to claim to be the only true

religion. Also, it is not allowed to accuse different religions

of being wrong or to attack those who embrace other religions.9

The power of pluralism, according to pluralists, rests on the

fact that the movement “not only extends the hand of fellowship

to hundreds of religions, but it also congratulates them for

6 Millard Erickson, God the Father Almighty: A Contemporary Exploration of the Divine Attributes (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 31.7 John Hick, God Has Many Names (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1980), 98 Norman Geisler, “Religious Pluralism: A Christian Response,” Christian ApologeticJournal 4:2 (Fall 2005), 1.9 D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism, 18.

5

being expressions of religious truth.”10 Pluralism promotes all

religions to be true, valid, and effective in leading to the same

Real or Ultimate. It is also important to mention that, for

pluralists, Jesus is one way among many ways to this Real, but

one must never think of him as the one and only Real. For

pluralists, the uniqueness of Christ has no place in their

beliefs.

Pluralist John Hick’s Christology

It is doubtful that a researcher in the field of religious

pluralism would not encounter John Hick. Hick is recognized to be

the most familiar and most influential proponent of pluralism.11

In his early years, while he was a student, Hick writes that he

experienced “a spiritual conversion in which the whole world of

Christian belief and experience came vividly to life.” Hick adds,

“And I became a Christian of a strongly evangelical and indeed

fundamentalist kind.”12 He also confesses that he believed in the

verbal inspiration of the Scripture. This means that all that has

10 Dan Story, Christianity on the Offense: Responding to the Beliefs and Assumptions of Spiritual Seekers (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998), 15.11 Rolland H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior? Kindle Electronic Edition: Chapter 2, location 276-3174. John Hick was born in 1922 and died in 2012.12 John Hick, God Has Many Names, 14

6

been said of Christ in the Bible, Hick considered to be

foundational to orthodox Christianity. Hick announced that he

held to a strong Christology. He affirmed the following

doctrines: that Jesus is “God the Son incarnate, born of a

virgin, conscious of his divine nature, and performing miracles

of divine power; redemption by his blood from sin and guilt;

Jesus’s bodily resurrection, ascension, and future return in

glory.”13 What happened then? Why is there a turning point in his

theology?

Between 1960 and 1970, the ethnic and religious

controversies in England became Hick’s primary concern. His deep

thoughts on social justice opened various doors for him to

interact with famous leaders from other religions. Hick thus

felt compelled to spend more time in countries like India and Sri

Lanka to learn different worldviews from Buddhists and Hindu

scholars.14 The effect of his encounters was to acknowledge the

validity of different worldviews along with the Christian

worldview. From this point and on, Hick was forced to start

13 Netland A. Harold, Christianity and Religious Diversity: Clarifying Christian Commitments in a Globalizing Age (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015), 125.14 Netland A. Harold, Christianity and Religious Diversity: Clarifying Christian Commitments in a Globalizing Age, 125.

7

considering how the Christian faith could cooperate with other

religions.15 His interest in contemporary theology led him in

“reformulating and in redirecting the Christian attitude toward

other world religions.”16

To support his assumptions, Hick’s view of Christ turned

upside down. For example, instead of being a proponent of the two

natures of Christ, Hick sought alternative ways to create common

grounds with other religions.17 Later, Hick stressed that to

embrace the divine nature of Christ is misleading because the

Jesus of history is unlike the Jesus of the kerygma. Hick asserts

that Jesus’ deification is merely a gradual, historical

development in the mind of the early church. He writes, “It was

not the Jesus of history but the Christ of faith as officially

defined at Nicaea (325 CE) and Chalcedon (425 CE) who proclaims

himself as sole savior of the world.”18 He adds, “And the

Chalcedonian definition was in error when it claimed that the

theory of Jesus’ two natures, one divine, and the other human, is

15 Ibid.16 Douglas McCready, “The Disintegration of John Hick’s Christology,” in Journalof Evangelical Theological Society (June 1996), 257-270, 257.17 Netland A. Harold, 125.18 John Hick, John Hick: An Autobiography (London: Oneworld Publication, 2002), n.p.

8

‘as our Lord Jesus himself taught us.’”19 Hick concludes that

Christianity is definitely fanatical if it insists that salvation

is brought only through Jesus. Also, to think of any uniqueness

of the Christian revelation or any uniqueness of Christ as the

only means to salvation is very elusive.20 Hick concludes that

“Jesus is unique only for Christians since other traditions have

their own independent and equally valid access to God.”21 The

shift in Hick’s Christology is obvious, but still there is more

to say.

Hick goes a step further with his view of Christology. He

considers the Christian doctrine of the incarnation to be a myth.

Hick argues that if Christ was truly God incarnate then

“Christianity is the only religion founded by God in person, and

must as such uniquely be superior to all other religions.”22 Hick

refutes this claim and offers six reasons to prove that

incarnation ought to be understood in a metaphorical rather than

19 Ibid.20 John Hick, “Christology at the Crossroads,” in Project for Theology, e.d. F. G. Healy (London: Nisbett, 1966), 139.21 Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Second Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 553.22 John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate (Louisville: Westminster John Knox press,2005), VIIII.

9

a literal sense.23 In Hick’s words, “That Jesus was God the Son

incarnate is not literally true, since it has no literal meaning,

but it is an application to Jesus of a mythical concept whose

function is analogous to that of the notion of a divine sonship

ascribed in the ancient world to a king.”24 McCready elaborates

on Hick’s previous statement: “In his book, The Myth of God Incarnate,

Hick and his colleagues argued that the incarnation is a myth –

not in the technical language of religion but in the sense of not

being literally true.” He continues, “Myth intends to create an

attitude, not teach literal truth.”25 Thus, one should regard

incarnation only as an allegory aiming to help impact lives

rather than being a factual truth. It is obvious how pluralists’

underlying agenda is the “elimination of the sheer

distinctiveness of Christianity,” 26 and, of course, the

uniqueness of Christ.

Evangelical Christianity strongly rejects such notions. The

doctrine of the incarnation is the cornerstone of orthodox

23 Ibid.24 Hick quoted in Douglas McCready, “The Disintegration of John Hick’s Christology,” 264.25 Ibid. 26426 Allister McGrath, “The Christian’s Church Response to Pluralism,” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35, no. 4 (1992): 486.

10

Christianity. To confess a genuine incarnation of God in Christ

is the core of Christianity. The apostle John writes, “By this

you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that

Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit

that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is

not of God” (1John 4:2, 3). Gerald L. Borchert comments,

“Although Christians may differ on a number of theological

issues, the incarnation has been one of the few boundary

doctrines that applies to all who are legitimately called by the

name of Christ.”27 If the incarnation falls, Christianity

certainly falls.

To Hick, Jesus Christ is similar to other religious founders

whom he considers presenters of the divine. According to Hick,

this is the proper way to understand the incarnation. Jesus and

other religious leaders are God’s agents on earth “incarnating

the divine purpose for human life.”28 It is false to attribute

any form of divine characteristics to Jesus or any other

religious leaders. Rather, they are reflectors of the divine. By

27 Gerald L. Borchert, John 1–11, vol. 25A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 119.28 John Hick, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, 12.

11

seeing incarnation this way, Hick reasons, “all the great

religious figures have in their different ways ‘incarnated’ the

ideal of human life lived in response to the divine Reality.”29

Being aware of such facts, Christianity in Hick’s mind undergoes

a deep crisis. The crisis is the global realization that

Christianity is one among the great world religions and not the

only one true religion.30

Finally, it is helpful to conclude with Hick’s words on

equality among religions, especially Christianity in light of

other religions. Hick writes, “I have not found that the people

of the other world religions are, in general on a different moral

and spiritual level from Christians.” He states the reason, “The

basic idea of love and concern for others and of treating them as

you would wish them to treat you is, in fact, taught by all the

great religious traditions.”31 This is how universalism

penetrated Hick’s theology. Thus, salvation is found within other

world religions as well as in Christianity. Salvation simply

means following any religion. Hick amazingly announces:

29 Ibid., 98.30 John Hick, A Christian Theology of Religions: The Rainbow of Faith (Louisville: Westminster John Knox press, 1995), XIIII.31 Ibid.

12

Each of the great world traditions has produced profound and inspiring scriptures, successions of saints and prophets, mystics and thinkers, and has provided a spiritual home for hundreds of millions of people over many centuries, opening their lives in varying degrees to the divine and setting them on the human pilgrimage to the Kingdom of Heaven…salvation iswhat religion, in all its forms, is all about.32

The Major Problem of Religious Pluralism

Religious pluralism is nothing new. The Bible provides an

example of one religious pluralist, Cyrus, the great king of

Persia. Though he was aware of the true God of Israel, Cyrus was

“a firm believer in pluralism.”33 Cyrus’ main strategic plan was

to restore the people dispersed in exile back again to their

homeland. His policy was to reestablish temples and religious

worship in his empire. Cyrus viewed it as “nothing more than

restoring another tribal god to its territory.”34 The motive

behind his decree was to release the captives from every

cultural, social, and political pressure. This way, when people

feel at home, they can willingly serve the king who has set their

lives and religious notions free from any compulsions.

32 John Hick, “Christology in an Age of Religious Pluralism,” in Journal of Theology for Southern Africa (June 1981) 4-9, 5-6.33 Knute Larson, Kathy Dahlen, and Max E. “Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,” in Holman Old Testament Commentary (Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group, 2005), 13.34 Ibid.

13

Tolerance, acceptance, freedom, and peace among people are

the targets of religious pluralism. Edwin C. Cook explains,

“Governments that are established upon the principles of

religious plurality and freedom provide the most stable political

structure that promotes peace among their citizenry.” 35 Though

Cyrus’ agenda was primary political, his thoughts concerning

religious diversity reveal his theology about truth. He was

convinced that by placating all the gods (apparently, he believed

in them all) he would win the public favor.36 For Cyrus, the

truth was embedded in every religion. In the same vein,

pluralists contend that religions are a response to similar

divine reality, whether personal or impersonal. For instance, the

famous Mahatma Gandhi informs, “The root of all religions is one

and is pure, and all of them have sprung from the same source,

hence all are equal.”37 Religions are all the same and reach to

35 Edwin C. Cook, “The Political Utility of Religious Pluralism,” in A Magazine of Religious Freedom Liberty (November/December 2006), http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/the-political-utility-of-religious-pluralism.36 Knute Larson, Kathy Dahlen, and Max E. “Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther,” in Holman Old Testament Commentary, p. 12.37 Netland A. Harold, Christianity and Religious Diversity: Clarifying Christian Commitments in a Globalizing Age, 141.

14

the same end. They are different facets of different divine

truths.

Common sense asks how it is possible for dissimilar beliefs

to both be true. Is there one truth or many truths? Is truth

subjective or objective? Are Christianity, Islam, Buddhism really

the same when they are clearly different?

To ascribe religious diversity only to pluralism is a

misguiding approach to finding the problem. Outward appearances

are the embodiment of the essence but not the essence in itself.

The problem with religious pluralism originally emerges from

relativism. Relativism is, “The conviction that humans are so

conditioned by their social experiences and biological makeup

that they can never know absolute truth.”38 The truth is relative

only to its claimer. For pluralists, to maintain a conviction of

any absolute truth is erroneous. The one absolute is that there

are no absolutes. Therefore, it is invalid for any religion to

either hold to or contend for absolutes. Accordingly, relativism

becomes the call for separation and isolation of individuals so

that they may embrace their truth leaving others to embrace 38 Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009), 339.

15

theirs as well.39 In other words, what is true for me is true for

me, and what is true for you is true for you. No problem!

The root problem of pluralism is that there are no

absolutes. The truth is relative. If that is the case, then the

Bible’s claims that Jesus was crucified on the cross, paid the

penalty for the sin of the world, and rose from the dead on the

third day and the Koran’s emphasis that Jesus was neither the son

of God, nor was he crucified can both be true! However, it is

hard to believe that two contradictory statements to be true at

the same time. Aristotle’s old law of non-contradiction explains

this point. He wrote, “ To say of what is that it is not, or of

what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it

is, and of what is not that it is not, is true; so that he who

says of anything that it is, or that it is not, will say either

what is true or what is false; but neither what is nor what is

not is said to be or not to be.”40 The truth must correspond to

reality. Each statement is either true or false. Thus, either the

39 Leith Anderson, “Theological Issues of 21st Century Ministry,” in Bibliotheca Sacra (April 1994) 151:602 (128-139), 13840 Norman Geisler, “Religious Pluralism: A Christian Response,” 3.

16

Bible’s claim about Jesus is true or the Quran’s claim, but they

cannot both be true.

Another problem for pluralists is their view on salvation.

Who said that Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism would agree that

salvation has many paths as pluralists postulate? In Islam, there

is no concept of salvation. Buddhism argues that salvation comes

through personal illumination. In Christianity, salvation is

through trusting Christ. Pluralists reply that salvation should

be seen only as a movement from a state of self-centeredness to

Reality-centeredness.41 For this reason, pluralist Hick

“transforms religious doctrines into myths, or pictures that help

direct humans toward the infinite, unknowable, divine reality.”42

All figures like Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad are only salvific

mediators between individuals and the Real or the Ultimate one.

This idea beyond this concept of salvation is derived from

the Kantian philosophy of the two worlds: the noumenal and

phenomenal worlds. The world as it appears to humans is not

necessarily what the real world is. If the noumenal world is the

41 Rolland H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior, Kindle Electronic Edition: Location 559-3174.42 Ibid., Location 814-3174.

17

real world, then the phenomenal world is the world that exists in

our mind.43 Hence, salvation exists only in the individual’s

mind. For this reason, we can no longer say that Jesus is the way

to salvation. True humility, according to pluralists, is to say

Jesus is my way of salvation.

Pluralists’ problem with the law of non-contradiction

emerges again. For either Jesus is the only way to salvation or

He is not. He cannot be both at the same time. If a statement is

true, then it must correspond to reality. If not, then it is

false. Paul Knitter objects. He thinks that “truth is no longer

defined according to the Aristotelian notion of science…truth is

no longer seen as the pursuit of understanding –even greater

understanding.”44 Knitter’s conclusion is that any true

understanding must be open to change and revision. This way, any

notion of attaining objective truth is aimless. That is

definitely against common sense. Allister McGrath responds, “To

allow ‘relevance’ or ‘openness’ to be given greater weight than

truth, is, quite simply, a mark of intellectual shallowness and

43 Ibid., Kindle Electronic Edition: Location 559-317444 Knitter quoted in Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism, 90.

18

moral irresponsibility.”45 Mortimer Adler adds this, “The

metaphysical principle of contradiction gives rise to the logical

principle which should govern our thought if we aim at the truth;

namely, that we should not answer a question by saying both Yes

and No to it at the same time.”46 After all, it remains difficult

for pluralists to deny the objectivity of the truth by making an

objective claim that truth is subjective!

To conclude, it is obvious that religious pluralism refuses

to ascribe any salvific uniqueness to Christ as the Son of God

and the only Savior of the world. Pluralists’ theology is rooted

in relativism. The consequence is the departure from all

absolutes and certainties related to the knowledge of the truth.

The human mind now becomes the determining factor of the truth.

Thus, it is impossible to hold to any dogmas. So, to think of any

religion to be the only right religion ought to be rejected.

Hence, pluralists advocate that Christian’s view of Christ’s

uniqueness must change. Exclusivism must give way to pluralism.

Is that concept true? The next chapter will show that such a

45 Allister McGrath quoted by W. Gary Phillips, “Evangelical Pluralism: A Singular Problem,” in Bibliotheca Sacra 151:602 (April 1994): 142.46 Norman Geisler, “Religious Pluralism: A Christian Response,” 7.

19

claim is, and that there are no other ways to God apart from

Christ. Christ is the only path.

CHAPTER TWO

THE UNIQUENESS OF JESUS CHRIST

Christianity rises and falls on the beliefs concerning the

person and work of Jesus Christ. Who Christ is and what Christ

20

did on the cross of Calvary are what make Him distinct from and

unique to any other religious leader or system. One of the main

arguments pluralists use to refute Christianity is to distinguish

between the Christ of history and the Christ of the kerygma.

According to them, Christ, the God-Man, who walked on earth and

taught great spiritual truths, is called the Son of God because

this is how the ancient world normally described important

figures. Hick argues that this title is merely an honorary title

and was never meant to be a title reflecting any reality.47

Kerygmatic Christ is the fabrication of the early church leaders

and the first century’s church (e.g. Paul and others).48

Pluralists, in order to propagate religious diversity, must

first refute Jesus’ incarnation and deity. For this reason,

pluralist Hick emphasizes that the incarnation is one common and

well-articulated myth among many. It is “the greatest poetic

picture in terms of which we traditionally speak of the

significance of Jesus.”49 By supporting Hick’s observation,

47 John Hick, “Christology in an Age of Religious Pluralism,” in Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, 8.48 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology., 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 679.49 John Hick, “Christology in an Age of Religious Pluralism,” 8.

21

pluralism appears to be a revival of the old Ebonite heresy that

rejected the preexistence of Christ (his deity).50 However, if

such a claim proves to be false, then pluralism falls, and

Christianity proves to be an exclusive religion.

Is the Christ of Faith a Reproduction of the Early Church?

If Jesus did not live in history then Christianity turns out

to be a myth. Alternatively, if the Christ of history is

different from the Christ of faith, then Christianity proves to

be fanciful. Pluralists acknowledge that Jesus is a historical

figure who lived in Palestine. However, they strongly deny that

He is God incarnate. They affirm that Christ’s deity is a

formulation of the early Christian Church. Jesus evolved into

Christ only in their perception. Is this claim true? The

following are several arguments showing that this was never the

case.

If history is not interpreted, then it provides no meaning

in reality. It is interesting to know that subjectivity- based

historiography was the norm of the first century. Paul Barrett

explains: “The writer’s discernible tendency to report and

50 Allister McGrath, “The Christian’s Church Response to Pluralism,” 488.

22

interpret events according to his values and prejudices with the

intent that the reader (or hearer) adopts the writer’s values and

prejudices in the interpretation of the events”51 was expected.

Throughout history, authors typically report events and relate

their significance to the authors’ time in history. It is

noticeable how the early Christian community elevated the

apostolic preaching and writings. The apostles themselves were

consciousness that their own writings concerning Jesus were based

primarily on the Old Testament and the teaching of Christ

concerning Himself and His work (Galatians 1:12; Romans 1:1-4;

2Peter 3:2; Jude 17). It was clear to them that their teaching

originated from Jesus, and they were proclaiming it in a

secondary sense as Jesus’ apostles and representatives.52

Therefore, what they wrote is what they already saw and believed.

The uniqueness of Christ was never something new to them. It was

a fact rooted in their hearts and minds.

Second, one of the arguments that Hick uses to separate the

historical Jesus from the Jesus of the kerygma is to question the

51 Paul Barnett, Finding the Historical Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009), 5.52 Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2006), 261.

23

reliability of the NT documents. On this basis, Jesus of history

is ambiguous, and it is hard to formulate a clear picture of who

He was. Thus, to build a doctrine on unproven data is unsafe.53

Nash comments, “This adoption of historical criticism is

understandable, given Hick’s objective.”54 On one hand,

historical criticism is very useful, but it becomes problematic

when not used properly. That is the case with Hick. First, he

deals with the Biblical text as an isolated text from the past;

he separates the fact from its value. Second, Hick does not look

at the entire Biblical text as an inspired document declaring

God’s plan for salvation, in which the deity of Christ is of

crucial importance. Third, Hick neglects the fact that historical

methods are limited and sometimes lead to probable hypotheses.

However, Christianity is fundamentally “grounded in a historical

narrative; it depends upon the claims of external events.” And,

“To separate the ideas and values of the faith from their history

is to cut the nerve of Christianity.”55 Like any other historical

documents, the gospel manuscripts (a basic historical source of

53 Rolland H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior? Kindle Edition: Location 1000-3174.54 Ibid.55 Robert Thomas, “Evangelical Response to Jesus Seminar,” The Master’s Journal, (Spring 1996) 75-105, 103.

24

Christology) ought to be considered reliable until the contrary

is proven. Craig Blomberg is correct, “The gospels deserve to be

treated at least as generously as any other purportedly

historical narrative from the ancient world.”56

Third, by examining what Jesus actually said of Himself in

the gospel accounts, and by checking the trustworthiness of His

utterances in comparison to His actions, an intimate correlation

between historical Jesus and the Jesus of faith is observed.

Darrel Bock writes, “Any study of Jesus that does not regard

Jesus as having made some level of unique claims surely

understates the thrust of his life and ministry.”57 Jesus taught

with authority that those closest to Him (the apostles or others)

thought of Him in a very exalted sense. They acknowledged He was

the Messiah, the true Son of God, and never in the sense of an

honorary title. It is true that they did not fully grasp this

revelation, but that does not mean that they did not know it.

Jesus also prophesied about His death and resurrection. The

resurrection not only proved that Jesus was the Son of God, but

56 Craig Blomberg, “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?” in Jesus under Fire, ed. Michael Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995), 25.57 Darrell L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 152.

25

it also confirmed the authenticity of His claims during His

earthly life. These were such significant statements. After Jesus

ascension, the apostles, along with the church, heralded Him the

only Lord and Savior. If Jesus contradicted His claims, then one

would argue that the historical Jesus is different from the Jesus

of faith. However, this was never the case.

Fourth, did Jesus ever claim to be God in the gospel

accounts? Pluralists answer that Jesus has never thought of

Himself as God, but as a man of God whose life was only a form of

a divine radiance but never the original divine Himself.58 This

argument falls short from the gospels’ portrayal of Jesus. Though

He did not plainly say, “I am God,” Jesus made poignant

statements that, if uttered by someone less than God within the

monotheistic Jewish culture, would be considered blasphemy. For

instance, Jesus publicly forgave the sins of certain individuals,

a divine prerogative only God possesses (Mark 2:8-10). Jesus

demonstrated that He had the power to judge the spiritual state

of humans; God alone is the judge of souls (Matt. 25: 31-46). In

addition, Jesus described Himself the Lord of the Sabbath. By

58 John Hick, “Jesus and the World Religions,” in The Myth of God Incarnate, ed. John Hick (London: SCM, 1977), 172.

26

that, Jesus asserts His deity. The Israelites were aware that it

was God who made the Sabbath (Mark 2: 27-28). Jesus also claimed

that He was one with the Father (John 10:30). John Chrysostom

interestingly comments on this verse: “Speaking here with

reference to Power, for concerning this was all His discourse;

and if the power be the same, it is clear that the Essence is

also.”59 Furthermore, Jesus’ assertion of His preexistence before

Abraham (John 8:58) must not be neglected. Also, during His

trial, the reason the high priest accused Him of blasphemy was

because He equated Himself with God. (Matthew 26:64). According

to Leon Morris, Christ’s announcement “was the kind of reverent

periphrasis that was often used in order to avoid pronouncing the

divine name, and it would thus be readily recognized by his

hearers as meaning God.”60

One last, but not least consideration is the teaching of

Christ through His parables. Jesus’ parables were more than

59 John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Gospel of St. John,” in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospelof St. John and Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. G. T. Stupart, vol. 14, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), 224.60 Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 685.

27

earthly stories aimed at teaching certain life principles. Their

primary intention was to compel the audience to make a clear

decision about the person of Christ and His mission.61 The

parables also convey Christ’s self-consciousness of His divine

nature. Finally, the early church relied on gospel accounts

(along with the epistles) to formulate the Christian faith based

on historical facts, not to produce a new form of faith based on

psychological speculations. The early church worshiped Jesus, and

the evidences are poignant in the New Testament doxologies

(Romans 9:5; 2 Peter 3:18; Revelation 1:5b-6; Hebrews 13:20-21; 2

Timothy 4:18).

Another vital subject to consider is Jesus’ resurrection.

According to Erickson, it is “One of the most significant,

probably the most significant of Jesus’ distinctive marks.”62 It

is amazing that no prominent leader walked on earth, claimed his

divine nature, prophesized his death, rose from the dead, was

seen by many witnesses, and returned to heaven except Jesus.63

61 Millard J. Erickson, The Word Became Flesh (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1991), 44262 Ibid., 482.63 Murray J. Harris, Three Crucial Questions about Jesus (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Sock Publishers, 1994), 49.

28

These events transformed the disciples’ entire lives. Murray,

emphasizing the resurrection writes, “It was not the church that

mothered the resurrection; it was the resurrection that mothered

the church.”64 Not only did the early Christians believe in His

resurrection, but they also proclaimed it boldly (Acts 2:14-36).

They devoted their entire lives, and sometimes their lives were

at stake because of the message they heralded (2Timothy 4:7). The

account of the resurrection occupied a crucial place in the

preaching of the early church because her members viewed it as a

divine master plan (Acts 4:27-28). Those who reject this

historical fact decide to do so not because of the insufficiency

of evidence, but rather because they decided to do so. According

to Paul Althaus, “The resurrection Kerygma [proclamation] ‘could

have not been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a

single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been

established as a fact for all concerned.’”65 It is true that the

rapid rise and growth of the early church will remain unsolved to

64 Ibid., 59.65 Josh McDowell, Evidence for Christianity (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers,2006), 298.

29

any historian who refuses to rely on the explanation attested to

by the church itself.66

Considering the previous arguments altogether, the Christ of

history and Christ of faith ought not to be separated. The

apostles and the early church never made this attempt. Christ is

not the reproduction of the early church. Pluralists misuse

historical criticism to affirm such an erroneous distinction.

However, the Biblical data speaks boldly for its accuracy and

reliability. Jesus is God incarnate who died for the sins of the

world and was raised from the dead on the third day. Jesus once

said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). Does

that mean that He is the one and the only way to God, or as

Pluralists hold, Jesus is one among other ways to the Real? The

answer to this is our next discussion.

Why is Jesus Christ the Only Way?

To accept that two contradictory religions are both true is

irrational. Likewise, to approve all religions are equally true

66 Ibid.

30

is self-contradictory. It is hard to believe in polytheism and

monotheism simultaneously. It is difficult to swallow that hell

does and does not exist at the same time. In the same vein, Jesus

cannot be divine and less than divine in one breath. Jesus’

statement, “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” (John 14:6),

by implementing the Aristotelian law of non-contradiction, is

either true or false. It cannot be true (accepted) for some and

false (rejected) for others at the same time. Astoundingly,

pluralist Hick, mindful of orthodox Christianity, hypothetically

admits that if Christ is truly the Son of God incarnate, then

Christianity is the one religion that is superior to all other

religions, and thus Jesus is not to be compared with any other

leader or religious system.67 The following arguments will show

why Christianity is exclusive.

By looking at the Old Testament, it is evident that the

Jewish nation and their prophets rejected religious pluralism.

The Israelites believed in only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4; 2

Chronicles 19:19; Ecclesiastes 12:13). The primary reason behind

67 John Hick, “A Pluralist View,” in Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 51– 52.

31

divine judgment upon Israel and the nations was idolatry -

worshipping other gods rather than Yahweh. In Jewish theology,

there is no plurality of divines. There is only one Divine,

Yahweh. For instance, Isaiah, the prophet, stresses that

salvation, whether of the Jews or Gentiles, rests on believing in

the true God, Yahweh, and Him alone (Isaiah 45:21, 22). In fact,

salvation is rooted in monotheism: “Not only is Yahweh the One,

he is the only One; other gods are not simply powerless,

ineffective; they do not exist.”68

The narrow gate of salvation in the Old Testament is

apparent. Salvation apart from turning to Yahweh is impossible.

The promised Messiah of the Old Testament granted eternal

blessings of salvation to the entire world. He is the promised

‘seed’ through whom all the world will be blessed (Genesis 12:1-

3). There is no other means of blessing apart from Him. It is

obvious that there is no room for religious relativism or

pluralism in the Old Testament. Strickland correctly states,

“God’s love and dealings are universal, but the message of

68 Wayne G. Strickland, “Isaiah, Jonah, and Religious Pluralism,” in Bibliotheca Sacra 153, no. 609 (January 1996): 23-33, 31.

32

salvation presented in the Old and New Testaments allows for only

one God and one means of salvation.”69

By turning back to Jesus’ statement in (John 14:6), one

would wonder whether this claim contradicts what has been

previously said about salvation in the Old Testament or not. Is

Christ speaking the truth? Is He the only way to God? The answer

is simply this: if salvation comes from God alone, and Christ is

God70, then His claim in John 14:6 is true and exclusive for He

is God. Jesus, as we mentioned, was aware of his full deity. His

use of words like αμεν, εγω δε, λεγω is to convey the sense of

confidence and self-authority.71 Jesus also applied Old Testament

prophecies to Himself. It is especially intriguing when He

assumes the role of Yahweh (Mark 13:31; Matthew 11:28; 21:26;

36:64, Luke 10:19). Though the number of these passages is

limited, “the cumulative effect is to present a striking and

daring claim.”72 Hence, Jesus’ claim in John 14:6 is not in

contradiction to the Old Testament view of Yahweh; rather it is

an emphasis on His divine person and work.

69 Ibid., 33.70 See the previous chapter71 Millard J. Erickson, The Word Became Flesh, 436.72 Ibid., 446.

33

The uniqueness of Jesus Christ is incontrovertible in John

14:6a. Jesus’ words, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” is a

direct reply to one of his disciples, Thomas, who asked Him, “How

can we know the way?” (John 14:5b). The reason behind Thomas’

skepticism is possibly because he sought clarity. Certainly,

there was some confusion among the disciples. The destination to

which Jesus is referring requires an explanation.73 The way Jesus

is pointing to is not a paved road; it is a person - it is Jesus

Himself. Commentator Lenski elaborates, “This is not a dead road

that one travels with his own strength, but a way such as never

existed on earth, that picks us up in its arms and carries us to

the destination.”74 Jesus is the only way to God because He is

the embodiment of the truth of God, and He is the life of God.75

He is the only one who has the authority to say, “No one can come

to the Father except through me” (John 14:6b). Brochert correctly

affirms, “Any hint at universalism, syncretistic patterns of

73 D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 490.74 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 978.75 D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, 491.

34

salvation, or reaching the Father through any other means than

Jesus is here completely eliminated.”76

There are other Scriptures pointing to Jesus as the only way

for salvation besides John 14:6. In Acts 4:12, Peter, when put

in prison with John because they were Christ followers, boldly

proclaimed, “Salvation is found in no-one else, for there is no

other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”

The language is evident that salvation comes through no one else

except Christ alone. This is the “exclusivistic scandal of

Christianity.”77 There is no middle ground. In the words of

Martin Lloyd-Jones, it is “Christ or nothing, Christ or judgment,

Christ or hell; no other way to be saved except through

Christ.”78 In the same vein, Paul the apostle writes, “For there

is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the

man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 4:5). The word ‘mediator’ depicts

someone neutral who is trusted by both sides.79 If Jesus, the

76 Gerald L. Borchert, John 12–21, vol. 25B, The New American Commentary, 110.77 Robert James Utley, Luke the Historian: The Book of Acts, vol. Volume 3B, Study GuideCommentary Series (Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 2003), 69.78 H. A. Ironside, Lectures on the Book of Acts. (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1943), 106.79 Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., TheologicalDictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 599.

35

God-Man was the one whom the Father entrusted to accomplish the

divine plan for salvation, then no one else deserves to be a

mediator of salvation between God and man except Him alone.

Through the long history of the church, these verses have been

employed to confirm one fact - apart from Jesus, no one can be

saved. Jesus is the only way.

36

CONCLUSION

Although the world today moves toward religious pluralism,

Christian believers are to stand firm in their faith and contend

earnestly for the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Religious pluralism

is a manmade religion. It is the product of sinful minds.

Pluralists, while attempting to create peace and tolerance among

themselves, make peace with themselves but not with God. The Old

Testament declares that there is one God to be obeyed and

worshiped - Yahweh. God’s plan to save and bless the world

through a mediator is obvious in Genesis 3, Genesis 12, and

throughout the entire Scripture. The Old Testament unfolds God’s

divine plan for salvation. The Gospels offer biographical and

theological accounts of Jesus Christ, the one means of blessing

to the entire world. They affirm what has been already

prophesized in the Old Testament concerning His person (deity)

37

and work (substitutionary death). The New Testament letters

uphold these truths as well. To deny these facts requires

twisting clear truths in the Bible and developing new stories to

support one’s assumptions.

To confess Christ as Savior and Lord is the core of

Christianity. God, the Father, sent Jesus to die for the sins of

the world. His death was substitutionary. He paid the penalty for

our transgressions and appeased the wrath of God eternally. There

is no other way of salvation apart from explicit faith in Christ

alone. According to the Apostle John, people on earth will face

one of two fates. “Whoever believes in Christ has eternal life;

whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life; but the wrath

of God remains on him” (John 3:36). Jesus is the only way; apart

from Him no one can be saved.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Leith. “Theological Issues of 21st Century Ministry.” In Bibliotheca Sacra (April 1994) 151:602.

38

Barnett, Paul. Finding the Historical Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009.

Blomberg, Craig. “Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?” In Jesus underFire, ed. Michael Wilkins and J. P. Moreland. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1995.

Bock, Darrell L. Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.

Borchert, Gerald L. John 1–11, vol. 25A, The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996.

Boyd, Gregory A. and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009.

Carson, D. A. The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

__________. The Gospel according to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991.

Chrysostom, John. “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop ofConstantinople, on the Gospel of St. John.” In Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. Philip Schaff,trans. G. T. Stupart, vol. 14, A Select Library of the Nicene andPost-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889.

Cook, Edwin C. “The Political Utility of Religious Pluralism.” InA Magazine of Religious Freedom Liberty (November/December 2006), http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/the-political-utility-of-religious-pluralism.

39

Davids, Peter H. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2006. Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology: Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.

Erickson, Millard J. The Word Became Flesh. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1991.

_______________. Christian Theology., 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: BakerBook House, 1998.

_______________. God the Father Almighty: A Contemporary Exploration of the Divine Attributes. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998.

Harris, Murray J. Three Crucial Questions about Jesus. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Sock Publishers, 1994.

Harold, Netland A. Christianity and Religious Diversity: Clarifying Christian Commitments in a Globalizing Age. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015.

Hick, John. A Christian Theology of Religions: The Rainbow of Faith. Louisville: Westminster John Knox press, 1995.

_________. “A Pluralist View.” In Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

_________. “Christology at the Crossroads,” in Project for Theology, e.d. F. G. Healy. London: Nisbett, 1966.

_________. “Christology in an Age of Religious Pluralism.” In Journal of Theology for Southern Africa (June 1981).

_________. God Has Many Names. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1980.

40

_________. “Jesus and the World Religions.” In The Myth of God Incarnate, ed. John Hick (London: SCM, 1977), 172.

_________. John Hick: An Autobiography. London: Oneworld Publication, 2002.

_________. The Metaphor of God Incarnate. Louisville: Westminster John Knox press, 2005.

Hughes, R. Kent Hughes. Set apart: Calling a Worldly Church to a Godly Life. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2003.

Hunter, James Davidson. Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Ironside, H. A. Lectures on the Book of Acts. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1943.

Kittel, Gerhard, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964.Larson, Knute, Kathy Dahlen, and Max E. “Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.”In Holman Old Testament Commentary. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Publishing Group, 2005.

Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961.

McCready, Douglas. “The Disintegration of John Hick’s Christology.” In Journal of Evangelical Theological Society (June 1996).

McDowell, Josh. Evidence for Christianity. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2006.

McGrath, Allister. “The Christian’s Church Response to Pluralism.” In Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35, no. 4 (1992).

41

Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to Matthew, The Pillar New TestamentCommentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 685.

Nash, Rolland H. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.Kindle Electronic Edition: Preface.

Phillips, W. Gary. Evangelical Pluralism: A Singular Problem.” InBibliotheca Sacra (April 1994) 151:602.

Story, Dan. Christianity on the Offense: Responding to the Beliefs and Assumptions of Spiritual Seekers. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1998.

Strickland, Wayne G. “Isaiah, Jonah, and Religious Pluralism.” InBibliotheca Sacra 153:609 (January 1996).

Thomas, Robert. “Evangelical Response to Jesus Seminar.” In The Master’s Journal, (Spring 1996) 75-105.

Utley, Robert James. Luke the Historian: The Book of Acts, vol. Volume 3B,Study Guide Commentary Series. Marshall, TX: Bible Lessons International, 2003.

42