How pluralism distorts biblical salvation

September 27, 2008 Matthew Keedy Clifton Apologetics

Introduction

There are strange things afoot in the realm of Christianity. Many today who claim to follow Christ seem more reminiscent of the main character in Walt Disney’s film adaptation of the Lewis Carroll novel, Alice in Wonderland:

If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrarywise; what it is it wouldn’t be, and what it wouldn’t be, it would. You see?[1]

Like Alice, has Christianity “fallen down the rabbit hole?” Have those claiming to be Christians created worlds of their own? Among professed Christians, it was once taken for granted that John 14:6, in which Jesus says no man comes to the Father but by Him, was a foundational truth upon which the Christian faith rests. But in this present time, the atmosphere of popular opinion is shifting: From the “man on the street,” to televangelists, to talk show hosts, the necessity of understanding the person and work of Jesus Christ and exercising faith and obedience in response to that understanding is no longer necessary for salvation.

In a June 2008 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 57 percent of Christians classified as evangelicals and 83 percent of those from mainline churches say that Jesus is not the only way to the Father,[2] in contradiction of John 14:6. Currently popular televangelists such as Joel Osteen have shown themselves to be hesitant to uphold John 14:6.[3] Christian Zionists like John Hagee proclaim that the Jews do not need Jesus Christ to be saved.[4] Even old-time evangelist Billy Graham has dabbled with this view:

I think there’s the body of Christ which comes from all the Christian
groups around the world, or outside the Christian groups. I think
that everybody that loves Christ or knows Christ, whether they’re
conscious of it or not, they’re members of the body of Christ….
What God is doing today is calling people out of the world for His
name. Whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist
world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are
members of the body of Christ because they’ve been called by God.
They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their
hearts they need something that they don’t have and they turn to the
only light they have and I think they’re saved and they’re going to be
with us in heaven.[5]

The list of evangelicals holding such views could continue indefinitely. Even mainstream media figures have gotten into the act as well. Talk-show host Oprah Winfrey, for instance, has gone on record as saying that Jesus “can’t possibly be the only way.”[6]

What has happened to those who claim to know Jesus? Have they created for themselves a world where everything is nonsense, like Alice in Wonderland? Is everything now “what it is not, because what it is not, it is?” The answer lies in the influence of postmodernism upon Christianity and the world in general. Specifically, we are talking about a facet of the postmodern thought pattern called “pluralism.” But until we understand a little more about postmodernism, we cannot understand the current wave of pluralism and irrationality of thought that is sweeping the Christian world.

What is Postmodernism?

A clear definition of postmodernism can be elusive. One might say the view of postmodernism is characterized by irrationality of thought. Instead of saying a thing is either black or white, postmodernism says a thing can be black and white at the same time. Or, though a thing is obviously white, it can be non-white at the same time. The definition of postmodernism can be just as slippery as the phenomenon it attempts to label.

The historian Sir Arnold Toynbee was one of the first scholars to use the term “postmodernism.” In studying the rise and fall of 21 world civilizations, Toynbee recognized that societies in decline were rarely conquered, but instead seemed to suffer from a moral decline that weakened the foundation of society.[7] While the United States has avoided foreign conquerors, is there a decay that is eating this nation from the inside?

Sometimes nations are overthrown from the inside through ideas, not bullets. Gene Edward Veith says postmodernism is an ideological movement that “attempts to re-order thought and culture on a completely different basis, accepting reality as a social construction and avoiding ‘totalizing discourse’ altogether.”[8] So while physical invasion from outside forces can turn countries upside down physically, spiritual and moral attacks from within can likewise destroy and remake a society in a completely different form.

But what form does the current attack on rationality and logic take? What are the basic ideas that drive it, and what does it teach? In his book Truth and the New Kind of Christian, R. Scott Smith says that there are several core philosophical ideas that drive postmodern thought. He lists these ideas as:

1. There is a real world that exists, but all we can know about it is what we know by our talking about it.

2. This is because we are on the “inside” of language and cannot get to know the real world as it truly (i.e., objectively) is.

3. There are no universal truths that can be known—true for all people in all places at all times. If we could know such things, this would mean that we could know some things that are true regardless of language use. But that is not possible.

4. Thus, there is no essence, or nature, to language. There are only many languages.

5. Meaning is not a matter of what a person meant by a statement, that is, his or her intentions in making the statement. If it were, we each could have that intention in our minds. But that would mean that there is a universal truth we could know apart from how we use language. Instead, meaning is just a matter of how words are used within a social setting, or community, according to the grammatical rules for its language.

6. Since we cannot know the real world as it truly is, and our only contact with it is by how we talk, each community “makes” its own social world by the use of its language.[9]

As Smith demonstrates, postmodernism expresses the idea that there is no absolute truth, and no foundation upon which a society can stand. The only “truth” one can obtain is the truth of his own culture. Since truth is a social construct, “truth” can vary from culture to culture, and even person to person.

While a firm definition of postmodernism is difficult to formulate, many scholars have offered good summaries. Douglas Groothius calls postmodern thinking “truth decay.” He says, “Truth decay is a cultural condition in which the very idea of absolute, objective and universal truth is considered implausible, held in open contempt or not even seriously considered.”[10] This is perhaps the simplest and most straightforward definition.

Phillip Gray, quoting Genz, says, “This term (postmodernism) refers to an intellectual mood and an array of cultural expressions that call into question the ideals, principles, and values that lay at the heart of the modern mindset.”[11] The intellectual mood Genz refers to is one of surrender of all possibilities of absolute truth. The array of cultural expresses utilized by postmodernists includes literature, art, music, television, film, the internet, and even architecture.

Some Christians who have embraced postmodernism deny that the issue is one of black and white. In an article defending postmodernism in the church, Scot McKnight writes, “Postmodernity cannot be reduced to the denial of truth. Instead, it is the collapse of inherited metanarratives (overarching explanations of life) like those of Marxism. Why have they collapsed? Because of the impossibility of getting outside their assumptions.”[12] Many see this collapse of all “overarching explanations of life” as a good thing. When it comes to metanarratives such as Marxism and Darwinism, this writer would agree. However, when it leads to doubt among the public that absolute truth exists, then it leaves society on shaky ground, having no solid foundation on which to build and sustain community.

How did we get here? Mohler says it began with the Enlightenment, as philosophers like Kant, Locke, and Descartes began asking difficult questions about truth and knowledge. The results, Mohler says, is a “confluence of movements all seeking to answer the question of how truth could be known.”[13] Rationalists and empiricists made their best efforts to be the force that would ground human knowledge, and the “objective scientific method” became the preferred way of finding truth. But there was an undercurrent behind the scenes of all this, Mohler claims.

In the background of all this, of course, were those whom Paul Ricoeur called the “high priests and prophets of the hermeneutic of suspicion.” Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin and their heirs intentionally attacked the reigning truth claims of the day in an effort to subvert them, transform them, and ultimately replace them with a very different understanding of reality.[14]

The coup that overthrew the prevailing Modernist mindset was forged by these “high priests and prophets of the hermeneutic of suspicion.” These men replaced the truth claims of the day, indeed. And those who follow their ideas are continually replacing them even to this day. But the “truths” they replaced them with are cheap ones, because they are merely re-workings of previous concepts fashioned in such a way as to gain or maintain power by tearing down existing institutions based on absolute truth. Postmodernism is a revolution against existing foundations.

J.P. Moreland says that as a philosophical position, postmodernism is primarily a reinterpretation of what knowledge is and what counts as knowledge.

More broadly, it represents a form of cultural relativism about such things as reality, truth, reason, value, meaning, the self, and other notions. On a postmodernist view, there is no such thing as objective reality, truth, value, reason, and so on. All these are social constructions, creations of linguistic practices, and as such are relative not to individuals but to social groups that share a common narrative.[15]

James Edwards says in his work Jesus: The Only Savior? that a barebones description of postmodernism would be that it is a “theory of knowledge asserting that there is no real knowledge of an external objective world perceivable to the human senses.”[16] Edwards adds that the most essential tenet of postmodernism is its denial of universal truths. So as the first postmodern philosophers broke down the walls of logic and rationality, they paved a way for future followers of non-truth.

The suspicion of the “high priests and prophets of the hermeneutic of suspicion” carries on in the young adherents of postmodernism. Owen C. Thomas describes a modern “romantic” movement that began in the 1960’s, and he affirms that among the younger practitioners of this movement, there is a “suspicion of clarity, precision, analysis and rationality, and a favoring of the Romantic themes of the vague, the complex, the irrational, the anarchic, the chaotic, the wild, the Dionysian, the exotic, the esoteric, the heretical, the ancient and primitive, the apophatic, the holistic, the mystical, and the divine darkness.”[17] He speaks of a religious movement that seeks to push itself to the edge of chaos. Some may even feel the movement revels in chaos.

And so, here we stand. Today’s youth, being influenced down through the past decades toward a distrust of logic, clarity, and truth, are wallowing in the anti-foundationalism and suspicion that was created by those who sought to uproot society and replace it with one of their own creation. What has this anti-foundationalism bred among this generation? To hear modern “Christian” preachers such as Osteen and Graham and celebrities such as Winfrey, what has been born is a universal pluralism that accepts the “truths” of all religions, and denies the idea that Jesus alone is the way to salvation.

What is Postmodern Pluralism?

While postmodernism can be dealt with in a broad manner, this paper specifically seeks to examine the effects of postmodernism in the realm of salvation. One facet of postmodernism that has had a huge impact on Christianity is the concept of religious pluralism, and the best way to understand pluralism is by example.

Jim Leffel and Dennis McCallum relate the story of a lady who wrote a letter to the newspaper column Dear Abby criticizing the writer for the way she responded to a person seeking help with religious differences in her family.[18] The letter writer thought it was wrong to tell the members of the family to keep religion off limits as a topic of conversation. In response Abby wrote, “In my view, the height of arrogance is to attempt to show people the ‘errors’ in the religion of their choice.” Leffel and McCallum say Abby’s response reflects a common public sentiment in our time.

The grossest possible sins one could commit in the religious arena are showing intolerance and claiming objectivity. You don’t have to think long to recognize these as the cardinal sins reviled by postmodernism in general. Those who differ with others based on reason are using “truth claims” to exclude other cultural groupings. Those who think they are objective are naïve, and dangerous.[19]

While postmodernists abhor the idea of intolerance, they do make one exception. For postmodernists, religious fundamentalism is okay to single out for questioning and criticism. In this example we see that religious pluralism is about accepting all religions as being valid, except the religion that says not all religions are valid.

In agreement with this idea, William Lane Craig comments that religious pluralism is the idea that it is inconceivable that any one religion should be true, and all others false.[20] This religious pluralism is a radical response to our world’s heightened awareness of religious differences. Carson breaks the practitioners of religious pluralism into two groups: unsophisticated and sophisticated.

The unsophisticated pluralist says that all religions are true, because they are basically all teaching the same thing. The sophisticated religious pluralist says that all the world’s religion are in fact false, because they are merely cultural constructs representing inefficient and incomplete ways of viewing “the ultimate reality,” which is a phrase sometimes put in place of God.

In today’s society, the unsophisticated pluralists abound. They are found whenever one speaks to a teenager on the street who claims all religions can “get you to heaven.” They abound in congregations where tolerance is preached as doctrine. Sophisticated pluralists, on the other hand, are academic spiritualists who claim that no one knows God in useful or complete way, and that therefore all religions are false ones.

Having a rudimentary definition of postmodern pluralism, attention should be turned to what this idea means in terms of the gospel of Christ and salvation.

What Postmodern Pluralism Says About Salvation

There are two kinds of pluralism in this writer’s view. First, there is the “hard pluralism” as represented by the views of John Hick. Second, there is the “soft pluralism” as represented by theologians such as C.S. Lewis, Clark Pinnock and John Sanders, among others. This type of pluralism is often called “inclusivism,” and this view will be detailed further along.

First, let us look at the hard pluralism. John Hick, one of the most influential pluralists of our time, says that the theological world is experiencing an intense flurry of activity in the area of Christology. In The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Hick, who denies the resurrection of Christ, says:

This is because we are (I believe) on the moving hinge between the structure of Christian belief that dominated Western civilization for many centuries and the still forming new structure of a Christianity that is aware of itself as one valid response among others to the infinite transcendent reality that we call God.[21]

In an older work, Hick asks the question, “Are Adonai and God, Allah and Ekoamkar, Rama and Krishna different gods, or are these different names for the same ultimate Being?”[22] In response to this question, Hick says there are three possibilities. His first possibility is that many gods exist. However, this would conflict with the idea that each culture has that their god is the creator of everything that exists. Therefore, he rejects this possibility.

A second possibility that Hicks presents is that one “faith community” worships the true God, while others vainly worship images which exist only in their imaginations. He rejects this idea also, citing instances where different groups within Christianity, for instance, worship God in different ways and with different “images” of who God is.

This leads Hick to his third possibility, and that is that there is but one God and maker of all things, and that His infinite fullness and richness of being is so deep and complex that no religion can grasp Him in any way, and that the devout of all religions are worshipping God acceptably. Therefore, Hick bases his pluralism upon the idea that all religions are worshipping God, only incorrectly and incompletely.

This incompleteness plays right into the postmodernist view of salvation. Since postmodernists see us all as “playing a role” in life, just like an actor on a stage, they also see salvation as a process of learning a role and playing it out. Describing the postmodern view on justification, R. Scott Smith writes:

It is not a once-for-all act that occurs when a person puts his or her trust in Christ as Savior. Rather, it is a process of adopting the Christian way of life as one’s primary communal affiliation and identification. That process requires learning the language (and thus the verbal and non-verbal behaviors) as an insider of the Christian community, and it takes time and effort to cultivate skill and fluency in Christian language and behavior.

It is easily seen that Hick would believe people partaking in various religions around the world are “playing a part” and striving toward salvation. They all go through the motions, acquiring the language and fluency in their system as R. Scot Smith would say, and will reach salvation in this way.

Although the pluralism of John Hick is easy to grasp, the “soft pluralism” that some hold to today is a little more difficult to get a grip on. Whereas hard pluralism says all religions are basically flawed, but they can all lead to eternal life, soft pluralists usually agree that Jesus is the only way to salvation. But how Jesus saves those who have never heard of Him is a point of contention in the inclusivist view.

When Billy Graham says that a person could be saved by Jesus Christ without ever knowing who He is or what He did, he is expressing an “inclusivist” position. Inclusivists believe that people can be saved without knowing who Christ is and what He did, and that just having a general, even vague, belief in God is enough to warrant eternal salvation.

One of the most well-known Christian apologists of the modern era is C.S. Lewis, and almost everyone is familiar with his writings, both religious and secular. However, many may not be familiar with his inclusivists views. While Lewis affirms that salvation can come only through Jesus Christ, he refused to draw the conclusion that all who had not heard of Christ would be damned.

Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? . . . We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.[23]

John Sanders points out that Lewis affirmed that people from all lands are saved by faith in God because God is seeking all those who worship Him in spirit and truth. Sanders said, “Those who commit themselves in trust to that which lies behind all truth and goodness will be saved even though they are ignorant of the Savior.” No doubt Lewis’ public statements affirm his agreement on this point:

There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points.[24]

In recent decades, inclusivist beliefs have been on the increase among Catholics and Protestants alike. Clark Pinnock was a strong influence during the last 30 years of the 20^th century.[25] Pinnock called his position “inclusive finality,” and he formed his viewed based on two axioms: 1) salvation is only in Christ Jesus, and 2) God’s universal will is to save all. Basically, Pinnock rejects universalism (all will be saved, regardless of belief and obedience to Christ) and exclusivism (only those who believe and obey will be saved). His position is that salvation is made available outside the church through what he calls the “faith principle.” He cites Hebrews 11:6 on this point, and claims that anyone who believes God exists and believes that He rewards those who seek Him will be saved. According to Pinnock, all people are saved by trust in God, rather than any specific knowledge of who Christ is and what He did. Pinnock additionally believes in “postmortem evangelization,” in which there is an opportunity for sinners to repent after death.

And so we have many varied views on salvation in our postmodern times. Religious pluralism has caused a definite shift in the Christian landscape, with popular evangelists and personalities proclaiming that those who never knew Christ can be saved through Christ, although they never were exposed to Him. This writer agrees with Edwards, in that these ideas are very attractive.[26] However, are they Biblical? What does the Bible say about salvation?

What the Bible Says About Salvation

There are many ways that religious pluralists approach the Bible. Inclusivists have their own interpretations of certain scriptures, such as Pinnock with Hebrews 11:6. In this passage, the Bible says that without faith it is impossible to please God, and the he who comes to God must believe that He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Pinnock argues that this passage means anyone who has faith that God will reward them if they seek Him, will be saved. But Pinnock does not seem to consider that true faith is contingent upon knowing the real God. As Paul says Romans 10:17, “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Faith is derived from the word of God, and the word of God is truth (John 17:17). How can a man have true faith in God by hearing the word of Buddha or Mohammad?

The hard pluralists such as John Hill will say that the Bible is simply a socially constructed “best guess” of how we should worship God. So discussing passages like John 14:6 with such a person would likely be fruitless. But for people who will heed the word of the scriptures, what does the Bible say in regard to the nature of salvation? Is it an exclusive proposition? Or can salvation be found in other religions? Though we do not have space to examine every scripture in the Bible on this point, let it suffice to approach a few key passages which will define the exclusive nature of salvation in Christ only.

Matthew 7:13-14. In these familiar passages, Jesus says that there are two distinct paths that one may walk. One path is broad. Many will enter its gate, resulting in destruction. The narrow path, however, leads to life, and few will find it. With the billions of adherents to various non-Christian religions, does the world situation really reflect Jesus’ words? If those who believe there is a God sill be saved, would it not turn Jesus’ words on end? D.A. Carson says this passage establishes proportions of those who will be redeemed.[27] Only a minority will be saved, even though many will claim they have tried (Matt. 7:21). Additionally, Jesus says in Luke 13:24 that many will seek to enter, but will not be able. So despite Pinnock’s objections and claims about Hebrews 11:6, faith in the existence of God is not enough.

John 14:6. Perhaps the classic passage that must be considered in regard to religious pluralism is John 14:6. Here Jesus says that He is the “way, the truth, and the life.” More importantly, Jesus says that no man comes to the Father but by Him. How could there ever be a clearer statement of the exclusive nature of salvation? Christ says that He is the Way (path) to God, and that God can be reached only through Him. As William Hendriksen wrote:

Since men are absolutely dependent upon Christ for their knowledge of redemptive truth and also for the spark that causes that truth to live in their souls (and their souls to become alive to that truth), it follows that no one comes to the Father but through Him. With Christ removed there can be no redemptive truth, no everlasting life; hence, no way to the Father.[28]

Mankind has been spoken to by way of the revelation given by Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:2). If it is by His word that we will be judged in the last day (John 12:48), how can some claim that there is a way to salvation that does not depend upon believing that Jesus is the Son of God (John 8:24)? To claim such is to deny the plain statements found in God’s word.

Acts 4:12. Addressing the rulers of the people and the elders of Israel, Peter plainly affirms that there is no salvation outside of Christ. He said, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Polhill comments that “if there is salvation in no other name (v. 12), then obviously one must make a commitment to that sole name that brings salvation.”[29] And yet, there are those today holding the exclusivist view that will claim Buddhists can be saved, even though they never knew Jesus. This concept seems far and away from the words of Christ Himself, who said “unless you confess Me before men, I will not confess you before My Father” (Matt. 10:32-33).

Acts 10-11. The conversion of Cornelius should also be kept in mind when thinking about this issue. It is understood that Cornelius was a “God fearer,” and tried to adhere to Jewish worship, though he was a Gentile. His prayers were recognized, and he gave alms (Acts 10:2). But in Acts 11:14, the Bible says that Peter would be sent to Cornelius so that he would hear words by which he would be saved. If the devout Cornelius was faithful enough to be saved without Christ, why send him the word of the gospel? The reason it simple: he could not be saved without it.

Eph. 2:12-13. Some of the best evidence that salvation is an exclusive proposition for those who know Christ comes from the teaching of Paul. Speaking to the Christians who were at Ephesus, Paul says there was a time when the people there were cut off from God, and that they were without hope:

that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Although some inclusivists and pluralists would have us believe that salvation is possible outside of the gospel of Christ, Paul seems to see it differently. He sees a situation where the Gentiles were without God and without hope, being outside of Christ. What happens to a person who remains without Christ? It would seem he remains without God in the world, and without hope. So those worshipping false gods are not “worshipping God in a different way,” but rather they are worshipping gods of their own making. This was the situation with the Ephesians, and it is the situation with all those who worship idols to this day.

1 Tim. 2:5. Finally, let it be said that Christ is the one mediator between God and man, as Paul tells Timothy in his first letter to the evangelist. Can man be saved without the Mediator? It would be like crossing a river across which there is but one bridge. If there is only one route across the wide and raging river, how can one cross without knowing the one safe route? He cannot.

And so it is with salvation. The New Testament shows us that Jesus is the only way to the Father. It shows us that there is no other name by which a man can be saved. It shows us that without Christ man is alienated from the promises and without God and hope. It shows us that God calls man to move away from improper and impure forms of worship, and instead be converted to the faith once delivered.

Defending Biblical Salvation Against the Postmodern View

Understanding what the Bible teaches about salvation, how do we defend the Biblical view against the postmodernist view of salvation? As Mohler comments, “We still stand where Paul stood in Acts 17. We have to give the same answer he gave.”[30]

Walking amongst the myriad altars and idols of Athens, Paul’s spirit was provoked within him (Acts 17:16) when he saw that the city was given over to the worship of manmade gods. We, too, walk amid a society that is given over to idols. Some worship at the altar of materialism and humanism, others worship the earth and nature. Some worship themselves. Many today are worshipping a god they believe is the Creator of the Bible, but like the Athenians they worship what they do not know, because they seek to make Him in their own image. What answer must we give? The same one Paul gave.

The Bible says that Paul reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshippers, and with whoever happened to be in the marketplace. We must follow Paul’s example and use logic and reason with those who are interested, and with whomever we can come into contact with in the public forum as well.

What must we proclaim to them? We must proclaim what is to them an unknown god. Unknown, at least, to the postmodernist who sees no foundation for truth, and therefore no Builder of foundations. We must recognize the basic religiosity (spirituality) of many unsophisticated pluralists, and reason with them as Paul reasoned with the Athenians. We must show them that despite their desire to accept the worship of a broad range of peoples and cultures, there is in fact one God, and He cannot be reached by tools (or religions) of man’s own devising. Finally, we must proclaim to them that these “times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30).

Now more than ever, in the face of the prevailing winds of postmodern pluralism, Christians must stand firm on such Bible passages as John 14:6 and Acts 4:12. We must proclaim Jesus Christ as the only path to salvation to our brethren during Bible study, to our religious friends in our private discussions, and to our acquaintances in the marketplace. As in Paul’s experience, some who hear us will mock. “How can there only be one way, with so many religions in the world!” But some will hear, and desire to know more.

As Christians in postmodern times, it is our responsibility to walk amongst the idols and altars of 21^st century America and proclaim the One God and the gospel and name of Jesus Christ, by which all men must be saved.

postmodernism, religious pluralism, truth,