I once was telling someone that I believe that salvation is only through Jesus Christ, and they said to me, "So everyone who disagrees with you is going to hell?" There are a lot of sincere religious people out there, and it’s unpopular to tell people that only Jesus can save them. Some people have pointed out that Christianity cannot be the one true religion because so many Christians are hypocrites, and Christians all fight over what the Bible means. How do I answer these challenges?"Pluralism" is a major challenge to Christian exclusivism (by "exclusivism" I mean the idea that only people that trust in Christ, and no one else, is going to be saved). Pluralism refers to the presence of many competing systems of belief in the world. The fact that many sincere people believe that they have salvation from their god(s) or belief system seems to make Christian exclusivism an intolerant and/or arrogant position. I have often heard, "Why would you think people are going to hell just because they don’t agree with you?" And the implication is that having this opinion makes me a bad person, or at least an arrogant and narrow-minded person.
This is a very large topic, and really to do a good job I should talk about problems with other religious systems, and why it is not rational to think that all religions must be equally true. In short, this ideal (that all religions are equally true) is irrational. It’s like being in a debate where one person says, "Women should have the right to abort" and another person says, "No woman has a right to take the life of a fetus," and then a third person comes in and says, "Well, you both are so sincere, so I guess you must both be right." (Or, "Well, you both are so sincere that I’m not going to take a position on either side.") This is how people approach pluralism in American society. We use the fact that there are many contradictory beliefs to argue that all are equally right (or none are right, which is to say that they are all equally wrong), or as an excuse not to think through the problem at all.
Both of these are not reasonable positions. Let me explain why, and then I’ll return to the "political incorrectness" of Christian exclusivism, and give some scriptures to support it.
1. Religions are not mutually compatible. They contradict one another (e.g., in the Koran it states that Jesus did not come back from the dead; Buddhism believes that there is no Creator; we are all "God," and the goal of life is to transcend the illusion that we are individual people and lose our individual selves. In other words, Islam and Buddhism specifically contradict Christianity).
To say that all religions are true is like the abortion debate I mentioned. A reasonable person cannot say, "2 plus 2 equals 5, and 2 plus 2 also equals 6." These cannot both be true, and to say that two (or more) inconsistent positions are true is unreasonable.
2. The fact that there are many competing perspectives offered by sincere people does not mean that they must all be true (a conclusion which I just noted was unreasonable), or that someone is exempt from evaluating and choosing the one that makes the most sense.
If I walk into a room where everyone is screaming out a different answer to the sum of 2 plus 2, it would never occur to me to think, "Gosh, these people are really sincere. Maybe 2 plus 2 really is equal to all these things." Nor would I think, "Well, I guess we’ll never know what 2 plus 2 is equal to." Rather, I would think, "These people are all wrong. They obviously have never even counted on their fingers." (Sorry if that’s mean; it’s just an example!)
This is precisely the situation we find in contemporary pluralism. Everyone is screaming out an answer, with great sincerity, and so it might feel bad or arrogant or narrow minded to say, "You’re all wrong about this. I actually counted 2 plus 2, and it equals 4." But it would be right. The point the Christian must make is that the diversity of opinions does not mean that none can be right, nor does it mean that they are all equally true (which is, again, unreasonable). You have to face pluralism the way you would any other disagreement—you evaluate all the positions to see which one tests out. If none are worth believing, then you conclude, "They are all incorrect," but this can only be said by the person who has actually evaluated them. (It could also be said of the person who has correctly evaluated the evidence for the right answer; thus, a Christian can exclude other perspectives after determining that Christianity is true, even though they know very little about other religions. All that matters is that they disagree with the truth. It’s the same on a multiple choice test, when you realize that "A" is the right answer, you don’t really have to study answers "B" through "E." But it’s usually wise to do so anyway.)
So I challenge the pluralist, "You say I’m being narrow-minded by thinking that Christianity is the only way to be saved. But I think I’m just being reasonable. Christianity is not compatible with other religions. I’ve evaluated the claims of Christ, and they’re reasonable. I’ve then experienced His power, confirming the evidence." Choosing one answer and rejecting others is not narrow-minded; that’s what we do everyday we drive our cars on the road, or on any multiple choice test. I don’t think that just any road will take me to work. Why should I treat salvation the same way? People approach religious beliefs differently than other matters of rational enquiry, though (it relates to the spread of postmodern thought in Western culture, a subject too large for this present work). But they shouldn’t, because it still boils down to simple logic.
Christian exclusivism is unpopular because it is treated as a person or emotional issue, and not as a rational decision. The claim that people who reject Christ are going to hell is not a popular position to adopt. I think the basic response, already given, is simply to point out that you are treating religious beliefs the same way you treat every other decision in life that involves competing choices. You are evaluating and selecting the one that makes the most sense. You could say, "Sorry if it offends you. I also believe that abortion on demand is morally unjustified. Sorry if that offends you also. But in both cases, I have certain reasons for what I believe. I am not just adopting the positions to put you down!" Here are some other points to make.
1. Christian exclusivism was taught by Jesus Christ. Jesus believed that belief in Him was life and death, that there was no other means to have salvation. As a follower of Jesus Christ, we are compelled to adopt His position, even if it is politically incorrect.
Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of Gods one and only Son. (John 3:16-18)
4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we liv e. (1 Cor 8:4-6)
Note the John 3:18 passage especially. What brings condemnation to people is the simple fact that they have not believed in Jesus’s name (by "name" is meant the biblical concept of authority. To believe in Jesus’ "name" means to acknowledge that He is Lord). It doesn’t matter whether they are good or bad, or how sincere they are. Jesus teaches that He is the only provision God has made for the sins of the world. To reject Him is to reject life. This is not a politically correct position, but it’s not that people who disagree with Christians (me or any other) are going to hell. It’s people who reject the Lord Jesus. The fact that I happen to believe Him has nothing to do with it. Jesus doesn’t want people to be condemned, but the only means God has provided is faith in Him. I’ll come back to this in a moment.
Paul also makes it clear that the "gods" of other peoples are merely "so-called" gods, but there is only one true God and Lord, and it is through God that all things came into existence (this is an objective fact, which is set against other positions that deny it) and it is through Jesus Christ that we have life. The so-called gods of the world cannot match these.
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: Rulers and elders of the people! 9 If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 He is the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. 12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:8-12)
Here Peter makes faith in Christ an absolute necessity for the Jewish leaders. The implication is obvious: If the Jews do not accept Jesus as Lord, they will not be saved. This is not a politically correct position in Peter’s time either! The Jews got very mad. But this is the Christian position.
2. God does not want anyone to go to hell. God wishes that everyone would accept Christ and be saved. But people freely choose to reject Christ, and thus choose to be separated from Him for all eternity. That’s what hell is—the choice of people who don’t want Christ.
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Pet 3:9)
When I talk to people who feel that the idea of sending anyone to hell is unloving, I often say, "If it was up to me, I would let everyone into heaven (except maybe Hitler and a few mass murderers). But then again, I’m not a perfectly just person. I give ‘A’s out to students that don’t deserve it. I’m a sinner myself. But God is perfectly holy. He is loving, but He must be just. The balance point between His love and justice is the provision made through the death of Christ. It satisfies His justice, and is an expression of His love for us. But if people pass this up, and reject Christianity for a religious system that doesn’t make sense, God must hold them accountable as part of His justice. I don’t believe that people are going to hell because it makes me feel proud or happy; actually, it makes me feel bad. (And that’s why I talk to people about Christ!) But that’s God’s decision. Not mine. So sorry if it offends you."
3. If all sincere religious people were going to heaven, there would be no reason to evangelize people. But Jesus gives the church this as its mission—to make disciples in His name.
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19).
And not only to make disciples, but to make disciples of (i.e., "from", in the Greek) all nations. If everyone with sincere beliefs was going to heaven, why would Jesus tell us to go make disciples of all nations? So when you are sharing your faith, you are not being "pushy" or "arrogant," or merely pressing your opinions on someone else. You are simply being obedient to Jesus’ command, and the reason He commands it is because He is the only means for salvation.
A related point I often hear made in connection with pluralistic assumptions is that Christianity cannot be the one true religion because (1) many Christians are hypocrites (or are outright evil people, like those who committed the Inquisition or Salem Witch Trials), or (2) Christians can’t agree themselves on what they believe, so how can it be true?
Neither of these are valid objections to Christianity. Christianity is NOT what we make of it, or what any individual represents through their life. Christianity is the faith taught by Jesus Christ, and which was exemplified by His life. What He taught was truth, not what any given Christian (or so-called Christian) claims is true. Christianity stands or falls based on the historical validity of His death and resurrection, not the deeds of anyone who calls themselves a Christian.
This is very close to Paul’s teaching in Rom 3:3-4. Does the faithlessness of some people imply that God is unfaithful? Do our mistakes reflect on the character and truthfulness of God? Paul says, not at all. Even if every so-called Christian is a liar, God is still true.
3 What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify Gods faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge. (Romans 3:3-4)
To attack the teachings of Jesus Christ because a "Christian" does evil things or is a hypocrite is a fallacy. For example, let’s say that some of the students from my Christian Thought class this summer went out and murdered some people. When they are caught, they mention that they just finished my class, and fully believe all the things I taught them. In fact, they identify as my followers. Hopefully it is clear that it would be fallacious to assume that the things I taught in the class were false or invalid just because my students did a terrible thing. Especially if the things I taught were all about loving and caring for people in Christ’s name. (Which is, in fact, what I teach.) If someone went out and did a terrible thing in your name, and said they did it for you, how would you feel if everyone concluded that you were an evil person also?
Similarly, let’s assume that my students left my class and were confused about what I taught on a few issues, and began to debate among themselves. Imagine a bystander witnessing this debate and concluding, "Well, I guess everything that professor taught them was completely invalid." This too would be a fallacious conclusion. The most you could assume is that some of the things I taught were left vague enough to allow for different interpretations, not that what I taught was not true.
This is the reality of contemporary Christendom. There have been many hypocrites and terrible things done in Christ’s name, but this has nothing to do with the truth of Christianity. It is an indictment of the sinfulness of humans, not the love and truthfulness of God. Similarly, the fact that there is debate among Christians on secondary issues (like the role of baptism in the Christian life, or certain manifestations of the spiritual gifts) does not mean that there is not substantial agreement on the principal tenets of the faith, or that the lesser disagreement invalidates the truth of the faith as a whole. Christians agree on far more than they disagree, and this is the core of the Christian message—love and unity in spite of disagreements.