|
|
|
|
|
Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World (16)
|
|
|
Paul Jang
|
2008-12-03 14:50:29, hit : 3,165 |
|
|
(B) Other Biblical Consideration
(1) Several broader biblical themes deserve to be mentioned.
1) In both Testaments other religions are viewed at best nonredemptive, and at worst as partaking of the domain of darkness (e.g., Ex. 20:3-6; Chron. 13:9; Isa. 37:18-19, 40; Jer. 2:11; 5:7; 16:20; Acts 26:17-18; Col. 1:13).
2) Other religions are considered devoid of salvific truth and reality (Acts 19:26; 1 Cor. 1:21; 8:4-6; 10:19-30; Cal. 4:8; 2 Thess. 1:8; cf. 1 Thess. 2:13).
(2) The Bible presents a consistent pattern of "fewness" in redemption and "wideness" in judgement (Noah's family).
(3) There are cases in the Bible of individuals who, even though they had received some special revelation, were required to believe further redemptive truth in order to be saved. (Samaritans, John 4:9, 24, and Acts 2:5, 38; Rom. 10:1-3; Acts 9:2; cf. 10:33, 34).
(5) Conclusion of Particularistic View:
1) It does not exclude the cultural and religious diversity of the world. It does claim the uniqueness of the essential doctrine and the diversity of the cultural and religious diversity of the world.
2) Christianity is uniquely true, and explicit faith in Jesus Christ is a necessary condition for salvation. In other words, the singular truth of Christianity must be distinguished from religious pluralism.
3) Particularistic conviction that the Bible presents faith in Jesus Christ as a necessary condition for salvation distinguishes them from inclusivists.
4) their approach is "evidentialist" in the sense that they believe that particularism is the position best supposed by the available biblical and extrabiblical evidence.
① In contrary to popular belief, particularism does not entail dogmatism, because there is also room within appropriate interreligious dialogue for trying to convince one another.
② Even if they assume epistemic parity for particularism, inclusivism, and pluralism - where the question would then be too close to call on the available evidence - it would seem more prudent to adopt the particularist position over that of either the inclusivist or the pluralist.
③ They doubt that Christian particularism stands in epistemic party with either pluralism or inclusivism. Religious pluralism seems to be seriously defective in the light of the abundant evidence for the existence of the personal, self-revealing God of biblical proportions. And inclusivism seems to be suspect in the light of the biblical data.
5) Christian particularism offers the most intellectually and spiritually satisfying account of the available evidence with a minimum of difficulty.
. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introduction
Theology 