All religions are not equal

The Citizen ^ | Ap 24 05 | Fr. David Epp

[churchillbuff]

From time to time, some people will suggest that all the world’s religions are of equal value and accomplish the same end. “All roads lead to God,” these folks say. “Whatever name you call him (or her), it’s still the same God,” others proclaim.

I am not among these people. I do not believe that all religions are of equal value, though there is value in most forms of religion, and I do not believe they accomplish the same end. Neither do I believe that, whatever name is used, all names for God refer to the same God.

As an historic, orthodox Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ was telling the truth when he said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6 NIV).

This, of course, is a scandalous statement. Either Jesus was deluded and should be denounced as a madman or he was speaking the truth.

If he was deluded, then Christianity is a farce and 1.5 billion people are ensnared in false hope.

If he spoke the truth, however, then all religions are not of equal value.

Religious pluralism says that “there are many, many ways to God and all of these ways are good.”

But Jesus claimed that he was the way. Not just that his teachings were the way but that he himself was the way to the Father. Not only that, he claimed that, outside of him, there was no other way.

Further, he claimed not only that he taught truth but that he was the truth.

Certainly, all religious faiths contain truth, but Jesus claimed that all truth regarding spiritual matters was found in his own person. If he is the repository of truth and if truth cannot be found outside him, then other religions contain error. And, if one is seeking God, then error can lead one away from, rather than toward, God.

Jesus also declared that he was the life. Much of religion is a search for fullness of life on the earth and a quest for any life that may exist beyond this temporal plane.

In addressing this first consideration, Jesus said, “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (John 10:10 KJV). The reason he came at all was to bring a quality of life never before known or experienced. He also came to insure eternal life for those who would believe and put their trust in him.

As John 3:16-17 states: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (NKJV).

But the claim to exclusivity is found in his words, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” That means that the way, the only way, to God is in a relationship with Jesus Christ.

That is offensive and repugnant to some, but it is still what he claimed. If there is a “Plan B,” it is not found in the scriptures.

Christianity makes for itself the claim that the only true path to finding one’s destiny, one’s ultimate plan, in fact the only path to God the Father, is found in Christ.

“So,” someone will ask, “are you saying that Christianity is the only true faith and that all others are wrong?”

That is, in fact, the claim of historic, orthodox Christianity. Christians believe that all that God began in the Book of Genesis and continued in the books of the Old Testament was brought to consummation in the person of Jesus Christ.

Scandalous? Yes. Absurd? So it may seem. Outrageous? Many think so.

A number of years ago, I was looking for a small town in Colorado and became lost. I stopped and asked directions of a man who owned a filling station. The directions he gave described a curvy and treacherous trek over some mountains. I asked if there was a shorter or safer way to get there. “Nope,” he said, “there’s only one way to get there from here.”

The New Living Translation puts it this way: “For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved” (Romans 10:9-10).

It’s the only way to get there from here.

[caseinpoint]

I don't presume God is not in control but there are billions of God's children who never heard of Christ and was never baptized as required. Do you presume that God automatically condemns such to hell because they lived and died in an area or a time when the gospel was not preached? I know that is the gut of the predestination argument but I think the Lord respects each person's free will, not just those hearing the gospel now. I believe each person will have a chance to accept or reject the Lord Jesus Christ and that their ultimate destination in the hereafter depends on that decision, freely made. To do less is not love and God is the very definition of love.

This does not presume that God is not in control of who hears the gospel. Think through, if every individual is to hear the gospel in his or her lifetime, then it requires a whole lot more than missionary work on the part of evangelical churches. It would require the trump of angels to reach them all and that would overcome free will, so necessary in that decision. Why should the Lord give you a choice to hear the gospel and not another?

I suggest you consider reading C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce". It really makes you think.

[Murtyo]

http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=16&f=s#x - Great Old School Translation

[caseinpoint]

Well, I don't know that I totally comprehend it because I don't know how one can not accept the Savior in the hereafter, but I do believe somehow it happens that the chance is given for those who didn't have it here. (Doesn't work for those of us who heard it here.) Another of our teachings warns us that, whatever the state of the interim hereafter where the choice might be given, the same type of spirit that possessed us here possesses us in the hereafter. So it means that those who would have accepted the gospel in this life had they been given the chance will accept it there. But those who wouldn't accept it here won't be different on the other side.

The Lord loves all His children and has not prechosen His saved ones. He has always respected our will, from Adam on down. As C.S. Lewis has said (I'm paraphrasing here), "There are two kinds of people in the end: Those who say to the Lord, 'Thy will be done' or those to whom the Lord says, 'Thy will be done.'" In either event, man's free will is respected.

[siunevada]

http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=16&f=s#x - Great Old School Translation

Douay Rheims. That is a good translation.

[caseinpoint]

Missed your post. What makes you so sure that ultimate judgment comes at the moment of death? If that were the case, what of the pre-crucifixion who had to wait until the resurrection to experience that ultimate saving act themselves? Billions of souls held in abeyance until the Savior completed His eternal and infinite work upon the cross. I don't think it happens immediately to us who are post-crucifixion either. I always understood the ultimate judgment to come at the end of time. What happens in the meantime is a time of peace and rest or dismay and regret but it is not the ultimate judgment. What I mean by that is we return to the presence of the Father but we don't partake of the glory of the Father and the Son until the ultimate judgment. In the interim, some may have a chance to accept the Savior that they didn't have on earth.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

>>If they have never had the chance to hear about Jesus, I believe God will receive them,<<

"No man comes to the father but by Me."

>>if they have lived a good life.<<

All our righteousness is as filthy rags - we can't "earn" our way in.

There's no middle-of-the-road. Sheeps or Goats, Hot or Cold, Saved or Unsaved, Wheat or Chaff.

[SuziQ]

Oh, I think we should let God be God. He'll know who is supposed to come to Him, if they have not had the opportunity to learn about Jesus.

[mel]

thanks so mucy

[klossg]

"Didn't Christ actually tell you not to broadcast your praying."

Yes, when doing so for hypocritical reasons. He talked about not giving alms in public and praying in public so that others see you: in Matt 6: "And when you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But you, when you pray, enter into your closet, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father which is in secret; and your Father which sees in secret shall reward you openly."

I did not go against this teaching of Jesus. I have at other times, and need to be vigalent that I do not pray for show or the wrong reasons. But, I did not talk about praying in public so that others would see me and be ashamed or think I am better than I. My intent was to join in prayer with you. I asked for prayers and told you I would pray. As you know well, Jesus taught about being hypocritical when praying to show up others! when he told the parable about praying like a Pharisee - listing all the good things about himself (the Pharisee) and condemning the publican. (Luke 18:10-14) "Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."

In that parable Jesus puts both the publican and the pharisee in the temple (in public, not a closet in this case). Jesus said the publican was justified in his prayer because the publican acknowledged that he was a sinner, unlike the Pharisee.

Jesus prayed in public. He went to the temple and prayed every year of his public life for Passover. He read scripture in public. He preached in the temple and in public. He did not think public praying itself was wrong! He brought his disciples to the garden to be with him while he prayed before he was handed over. Again, He prayed out loud when he raised Lazurus (John 11:41-43). Also, He prayed on the cross out loud for the forgiveness of those who crucified him (Luke 23:34).

Christ's message was not that you must pray alone or in hiding and never let anyone else know you are ever praying. He did not want us to remove the word prayer from our vocabulary and never talk about prayer or praying for friends or people we meet on discussion boards. He prayed for his disciples at the last supper out loud (John 7). Jesus, my Lord and my God, wanted us to avoid being hypocritical in prayer, public or private.

Heck he taught us to pray the "Our" Father, he expected us to pray together.

[frogjerk]

A "strange god" to those Moses was addressing in Deut 13 would be the Triune mystery religion, pagan type of gods that came out of the heavens and incarnated. Which is what the writers claim of Jesus.

What is your supporting proofs of your claim that all of New Testament writers were not telling the truth about Jesus?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

What is your supporting proofs of your claim that all of New Testament writers were not telling the truth about Jesus?

Duet 13

[Invincibly Ignorant]

His message was humility. you fail the test.

[frogjerk]

What is your supporting proofs of your claim that all of New Testament writers were not telling the truth about Jesus?

Duet 13

We've been down this road before...but explain your reasoning to me, please.

[frogjerk]

His message was humility. you fail the test.

How could He have a message if you state all of the New Testament writers were liars?

[klossg]

"His message was humility. you fail the test. "

Pot calling the kettle black.

The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity. ~André Gide

[Religion Moderator]

Stay on the issues, do not make it personal - last warning.

[visually_augmented]

caseinpoint: I don't presume God is not in control but...

He either is in complete control, or He isn't. I believe God has the power to intercede in any and all aspects of creation - if he does not intercede, it is by His own will.

caseinpoint: Do you presume that God automatically condemns such to hell because they lived and died in an area or a time when the gospel was not preached?

I presume only what Scripture teaches:

Romans 10 (NKJV)
13 For "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!"
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?"
17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: "Their sound has gone out to all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world."

Verse 13 above clearly states that those who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. The converse is also implied - those who do not call upon the Lord, will not be saved. Sorry, no exceptions.


caseinpoint: To do less is not love and God is the very definition of love.

Perhaps you are prompted to redefine your understanding of Love...

[caseinpoint]

Just a quickie as I have to leave for awhile, but question, if verse 13 automatically saves those who call on the Lord and automatically condemns those who don't ("no exceptions") what about Matthew 7:21-23? Or does the "no exceptions" only apply to those who don't call on the Lord? I don't think that verse was meant to be absolutist, as least as far as those who have no chance to know upon whom they should call for salvation.

[visually_augmented]

What are you trying to insinuate with this line of reasoning? Do you propose that it is not necessary to "call upon the name of the Lord" for salvation? Are there other ways to salvation besides through Christ?

Perhaps you are proposing that someone could be saved without consciously calling upon Christ even though Christ is the vehicle of salvation?

Not sure I understand what you consider a minimum requirement for salvation. What, in your opinion, MUST God do and what MUST man do to be saved?

When God struck down all the first born of Egypt due to Pharoah's defiance, do you think He saved all those who had no "chance" to hear the gospel??

[caseinpoint]

I was trying to imply that the scripture you specifically quoted is not necessarily to be read as absolutely the last word on salvation since Matthew 7:21-23 seems to qualify salvation even for those who call upon the name of the Lord.

I believe that all the children of the Lord must eventually acknowledge Jesus Christ as the sole Savior and Redeemer of the world but I am also convinced that those souls who do not learn of Jesus Christ in this life through no fault of their own will be given a chance to learn of Him and accept Him voluntarily in the hereafter before they face final judgment. For those of us who have the gospel and scriptures, the standard is clear: accept Him in this life or else it is too late. I don't know if that completely answers your question but I do not believe any person can be saved without calling upon the infinite mercy of the Anointed One. No one can earn their own way into heaven and no one can get there on anyone else's mercy except the mercy accorded by The Perfect One who gave His blood for us.

It just seems to me that to think otherwise is to say that all those children of the Lord who die without knowledge of Jesus Christ, who lived before Jesus Christ was upon the earth, or who died before the age of accountability where they had the capacity to accept or reject the Savior have been rejected by the Lord without any action on their part to deserve such rejection.

I know many Christians believe the Lord has the capacity to know who will or will not accept Him and that is how it works but I still believe He respects and allows us to exercise our free will, even if He knows exactly how we will exercise it. Think of this: Because of the way the Lord structured this earth life, many of our ancestors had to come down in less-than-favorable times and live their lives in spiritual darkness. I refuse to believe that these ancestors who came here to give me my gene line and chance for earth life are lost souls to God. I think they are every bit as good as me but I was blessed enough to come to a time of gospel richness compared to their lives. I believe these people will have as much chance to learn of Christ as I did and they will have a free chance to accept or reject it. And some will reject it, I have no doubt. And in the end they will have to acknowledge that it was their own free choice and not something imposed on them by the Lord because of His foreknowledge. They will have no one to blame but themselves for their choices.

So I do not believe one can come unto the Lord except by Christ and I would never teach or listen to that doctrine which taught of any other path. I do not question your interpretation of scriptures but I also know scriptures have to be read in conjunction with other scriptures.

As for those struck down in Egypt, their death was not a judgment upon them. I believe those children struck down in that incident did have a chance to learn of the Savior in the hereafter and that, if they accepted Him, they are in heaven or paradise with Him awaiting the final judgment that awaits all of us. Some may even have been resurrected at the time of the Savior's resurrection. Ditto with the children of Sodom and Gomorrah, and with many other innocents caught up in disasters allowed or even caused by judgments of the Lord. Each one is still judged on their own decision to rely on the merit of the Savior, freely offered, fully given. Christ's Atonement was infinite and I interpret that to mean offered to all, contingent on their voluntary acceptance of it, along with repentance, baptism and faith.