"World Religions and the Christian Witness"

Compiled by:

By Professor Jim Roane, Ph.D.

The Theology of Religion is a branch of Christian theology that explores the relationship between Christianity and other world religions, particularly in regards to soteriology, or the study of salvation. In other words, one of the main concerns of the theology of religions is whether adherents of other religions can be saved, and if so, how can they.

The three primary theologies of religion are:

1.      exclusivism,

2.      inclusivism and

3.      pluralism.

Exclusivism

Exclusivism is the view held by many conservative Protestants that only faith in Christ can lead to salvation, so followers of other religions cannot be saved. This theology of religions is rooted in Jesus' statement that he is "the way, the truth, and the life."

Exclusivists believe strongly in the uniqueness of Christ among religious teachers, since according to their view his teachings are the only ones that lead to eternal salvation. People holding to this view generally interpret the Bible more literally than other Christians and are more likely to engage in mission work that focuses on converting and teaching others.

'Oh, no single piece of our mental world is to be hermetically sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: 'Mine!'’—Abraham Kuyper [1837-1920]

Inclusivists

Inclusivists also believe that Christ is the only way to salvation, but claim that followers of other religions are also brought to salvation through Christ. According to the inclusivist theology of religions, God accepts any sincere religious practice as being offered through Christ, even if its followers are not aware of it. Such people are known in Catholic theology as "anonymous Christians," a term coined by 20th-century theologian Karl Rahner. Some say that only people who have not had the opportunity to hear about Christ can be anonymous Christians, while others think all religious people will be saved regardless of their exposure to Christianity. Critics say that such a view of salvation attempts to maintain Christ's uniqueness through wordplay, but salvation that is not through belief in Christ cannot really be called salvation through Christ at all.

Pluralist

Pluralists in the theology of religion believe that all religions are equally valid means of reaching God and that Christianity is no better or worse than any other. A helpful analogy for understanding pluralism might be to consider heaven as a city with many roads leading to it; the road, or religion, a particular person follows is largely dependent on where he or she started, but eventually all the roads will converge and lead to God. Critics of pluralism argue that claims made by different religious groups are inherently contradictory, so cannot all be true. For instance, many Islamic sects teach that salvation comes through good works, whereas most Christians believe that salvation comes by faith rather than deeds. Others, however, see pluralism as a force capable of promoting peace among adherents of all religions.

Apophatic vs. Cataphatic Theology

Now, within the systems of theological enquiry there are basically two approaches:

1.      Apophatic theology (from Ancient Greek: ἀπόφασις, from ἀπόφημι – apophēmi, "to deny")—also known as negative theology, via negativa or via negationis[1] (Latin for "negative way" or "by way of denial")—is a theology that attempts to describe God, the Divine Good, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God.[2]

2.      It stands in contrast with cataphatic theology which is best understood as God revealing Himself to us, either through direct revelation or reason or both.[i]

Although these two approaches are not limited to one particular religious system it is generally considered that Buddhist use the apophatic approach; whereas, Christianity and Judaism takes the cataphatic approach. However, within must—if not all, since I cannot think of an exception—each religious system has elements of both, something more and sometimes less. Islam claims that we cannot know God, but none-the-less insist that he has revealed His will through the Prophet Muhammad and the Holy Quran. In Christianity the Eastern Orthodox is more inclined to apophatic and therefore mystical theology. For them, as well as many in the Western Church, one best experiences God, rather than defines Him. Others, but again not all, in the Catholic and Protestant churches take a more scholastic approach—God is revealed through nature, or direct revelation, however, as  such our knowledge of Him is not contrary to reason.

Theology of Religions Criticisms

Some have criticized theology of religions for focusing on views of heaven and salvation after death, to the exclusion of the earthly relationship between religions. Inclusivism, for example, has been attacked on the basis that it devalues the need for mission work. If inclusivists do, however, believe that Christianity is the best way of living on earth regardless of the effect on what happens after death, they may still participate in missionary efforts. Many theologians are working toward a theology of religions that balances both earthly and heavenly concerns, but soteriology remains the dominant question within this branch of study.

Where Do We Begin?

All religious thought must begin somewhere, the question is: “Where?” Some insist that the very thought of a supreme being is intuitive, a priori, something like 2+2=4. Others say that religious thought is a posteriori, that is after the fact, or something learned or inductive reason. The latter it is argued is the result of trying to make sense out of the a posterior facts [or observations].

Some of course refer to this process of knowing as deductive or presumptive reasoning: that is, “being without examination or analysis.” Whereas on the other hand, inductive reasoning; that is, that the observed facts persuade or influence us towards certain conclusions.

Apologists Cornelius Van Til [1895-1987][ii] is of the persuasion that all religious knowledge is based on presuppositions, or in essence one’s world view; or as the German’s would say, one’s Weltanschauung.

In light of Van Til’s position consider the following conversation:

Allen:  I am an atheist and evolutionist.  Prove to me there is a God.
Paul:   I do not think I can do that, because of your presuppositions.
Allen:  Why not?
Paul:  Because your presuppositions will not allow you to examine without bias the evidence that I present to you for God's existence.
Allen: That is because there is no evidence for God's existence.
Paul:  See?  There you go.  You just confirmed what I was stating.
Allen:  How so?
Paul:  Your presupposition is that there is no God; therefore, no matter what I might present to you to show His existence, you must interpret it in a manner consistent with your presupposition: namely, that there is no God.  If I were to have a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you'd say it was a special effect.  If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying they saw Him, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.  If I had Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the New Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly, or not real prophecies.  So, I cannot prove anything to you since your presupposition won't allow it.  It is limited.
Allen: It is not limited.
Paul:  Yes it is.  Your presupposition cannot allow you to rightly determine God's existence from evidence -- providing that there were factual proofs of His existence.  Don't you see?  If I DID have incontrovertible proof, your presupposition would force you to interpret the facts consistently with your presupposition and you would not be able to see the proof.
Allen:  I see your point, but I am open to being persuaded, if you can.
Paul:  Then, I must ask you, what kind of evidence would you accept that would prove God's existence?  I must see what your presuppositions are and work either with them or against them.

Thus, Cornelius Van Til appears to be right. Has he however painted himself into the proverbial corner? Or to put it another way, is he like they also using circular reasoning to reach his conclusions? The facts are that he is; however, as he would argue, his facts are more reliable. So, we are back to square one.

Square one for Van Til is that the belief in a self-existing, all-powerful, eternal Supreme Being of which there is no likeness in His primal essence is universal. It goes without saying that men must conceive of such a God before they can deny such a Being. Thus belief in God is intuitive, a priori in nature and it is only in His outer workings, or self-revelation that can know Him through a variety of a posteriori facts or observations.

Now we as theists must cull out or separate the bad suppositions from the good, or legitimate ones.

How do we do this?

Well, how we do it is the basic question of all theologies of religion. So, basically at this point we are dealing with what philosophers call the study of epistemology—or to put it another way, “How do we know what we [think?] we know?”

Normally, this is done by the use of at least one if not all of the five senses. To gain knowledge in this way is known as empirical knowledge. Really, there is not a lot we can argue about here. All of us use our five senses to discover as it were “truth.”

However, the big question here is, “Can we trust our five senses?”

The answer is “Yes, but not always.”

In the final analysis, however, in most cases we come to what we consider to be a logical conclusion. That is, after considering all the facts [sensory data] we make a decision to either accept or reject certain propositions.

Can we be fooled? Certainly. Otherwise, magicians would be out of business. Most certainly we can be tricked or fooled but in most cases we continue to operation on what we consider to be true.

None of us, for instance, would willfully walk into the side of a solid brick wall; however, I have seen people walk straight into a solid sheet of glass. Why? The answer is a simple one, “Because they did not see the glass, they was right though it and continued [or at least tried] to keep walking.

So, in a real sense, the theology of religion is mankind’s attempt in knowing what constitutes reality and how reality got here.

Therefore, as we go down this path called “The Theology of Religion” let us keep in mind what we are attempting to do.

---

[i] http://en.wikipedia.org/

[ii] Cornelius Van Til Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987), born in The Netherlands, was a Christian philosopher, Reformed theologian, and presuppositional apologist.