Assuming that ultimate truth is to be found in religion, is Christianity the one true religion? Or is it simply first among equals? In the West an affirmative answer to the second question, if the first is denied, is usually not seriously disputed. Attention is drawn to the higher culture, enlightenment on both moral and intellectual levels, extensive progress particularly in science and technology, high standards of living even for the lower classes, widespread humanitarianism, and a general superiority in many other areas, all of which would claim to be largely the fruit of the Christian religion or the concomitant of it.
The first question is both topical and crucial; yet merely to pose it so bluntly will give offense to many in the Church today.
At one time the exclusive truthfulness of Christianity was taken for granted in Europe. One of the mainsprings of the Crusades was an open acknowledgment of this, and the Roman Catholic Church still claims supremacy not only among religions in general but also in the specifically Christian, sphere. Her cry in the ecumenical movement that is now taking place is for the “separated brethren” to return to the “Mother Church,” for “only through the Catholic Church of Christ, the universal aid to salvation, can the means of salvation be reached in all their fullness” (Council Speeches of Vatican II, p. 11).
Protestants, too, as a matter of historical fact, have had no doubt about the exclusive character of their faith; and the motive behind the evangelistic drives of the last four hundred years has been to carry out the divine commission of winning souls by the proclamation of the Gospel. To be Christian was to be exclusive and intolerant on the religious level (not bigoted, but unable to accept the teachings of other faiths because of incompatibility with their own), and Protestants held as tenaciously as the Catholics to the unquestioned assumption that “outside the Church there is no salvation,” though their interpretation of it differed somewhat (Westminster Confession of Faith, XXV, 2).
But today there is a new spirit abroad. For example, the American historian H. J. Muller, in The Uses of the Past, speaking of the “religious prejudice, the exclusiveness that has distinguished Western civilization from all others except Islam,” says:
Despite the growth of tolerance most Christians still assume that theirs is the only true religion and that their Christian duty is to convert the rest of the World. The rest of the World, which happens to include the great majority of mankind, still resents this assumption; and in the light of religious history it does look like an arrogant assumption [p. 45].
A little later he says that there is “too little appreciation of the significance and the value of cultural diversity. One result is that almost all Western nations are plagued by the problem of cultural minorities, intensified by racial, religious and even linguistic prejudice.” One hardly needs a penetrating mind to follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion or even to agree with it in part. Yet it begs the whole question of the truth of religion and of Christianity in particular. The fact that religion (Muller does not distinguish among the many forms) has beyond doubt exacerbated and on occasions created social crises both for good and for ill, racial tensions, and even international difficulties is no good reason why we should attempt to eviscerate our faith in the interests of a temporary peace; for peace bought at the price of truth that Christianity claims to bring could never be anything but transient. Whether we like it or not we live in a world in which truth ultimately matters, and without it we face anarchy, chaos, death, and destruction. Men like Muller, who describes himself as a liberal humanist, would do well to note the words of R. Brow:
Whatever the strongest critics of religion rightly have to say, Jesus Christ said more strongly (cf. Matt. 23). He calls man to be man, to live vigorously in the world, and all forms of science, culture, art, literature and social righteousness have flourished wherever he has been known and the Bible obeyed [Religion: Origins and Ideas, p. 122],
Yet in our conformist, tolerant, and inclusivist age, our question does not often receive a direct answer even in the Church, though it is answered by implication. The ecumenical fervor has tended to blur important doctrinal distinctions once evident in the different denominations, thus facilitating closer cooperation on the surface. It has also led to adoption of an inclusivist policy that embraces other religions, apparently on the basis of equality, as evidenced by a service that took place in Westminster Abbey some time ago. Many rejoice to see Hindu and Christian worshiping together and regard it as a sign of progress, tolerance, mutual love, and respect. Others seem to view it as an example of what has been called “the vice of insensibility” and lean toward the opinion of the Rev. Thomas Shepard of Harvard—“Tis Satan’s policy to plead for an indefinite and boundless toleration.” Those of us who claim to be biblically oriented and committed to the Gospel of love, unwilling to share these outbursts of enthusiasm for what may well turn out to be an eclectic religion, may find ourselves charged with sub-Christian conduct.
Clarifying The Issues
It is of paramount importance, then, to try to appraise the situation and to clarify issues that have become clouded in recent years. We cannot be content with hurling a text at the heads of those who feel that to fulfill its proper role Christianity must be denuded of all claims to supremacy; rather, we will attempt to understand the foundation of its unequivocal assertion.
First, the charge laid at the door of those who are called “traditionalists” or “conservatives” must be carefully examined. One point immediately presents itself. If the Christian religion is true, the accusation of intolerance and arrogance cannot be substantiated. For Christians who accept the Bible as God’s revelation, the teaching epitomized in Acts 4:12 (“And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved”) is fundamental truth, and so they have no option but to proclaim it as such. In doing this they are not in the grip of bad motives such as a desire to flaunt their superiority or to demonstrate their supremacy. They feel compelled to preach this aspect of the Gospel revealed to them for two main reasons: first, because they are commanded to do so by God; and second, because they have a sincere compassion for those who they believe are lost souls in desperate need of being reconciled to God. (In other words, they simply seek to fulfill the law of God as summarized by Jesus: see Matthew 22:37–40.) From the human standpoint, the only way in which this can be achieved is by the proclamation of the word of the Cross. As James Denney once said, “If God has really done something on which the salvation of the world depends … then it is a Christian duty to be intolerant of everything which ignores, denies or explains it away.” The orthodox Christian then may be mistaken in his understanding of the essence of the Gospel, though it is difficult to see how; but his motives are pure and worthy of the Christ he seeks to set forth as the Saviour of all men.
Appealing To Revelation
We must now look at biblical teaching to discover the pervasive attitude toward other religions. In doing this Christians believe they are appealing to revelation, a procedure that is not to be lightly dismissed as common among devotees of various faiths. For, as Emil Brunner says:
The facts of the history of religion … show us that the common assumption that the Christian claim to revelation is opposed by a variety of similar claims of equal value is wholly untenable. The amazing thing is the exact opposite, namely that the claim of a revelation (by a Revealer) possessing universal validity in the history of religion is rare. The claim of revelation made by the Christian faith is in its radicalism as solitary as its content [Revelation and Reason, chap. 15].
The need to appeal to revelation at all must appear obvious to any who recognize that the Infinite God, if there is a God, must be beyond the reach of man (cf. Job 11:7; 23:3; 1 Cor. 2:11). If those who deny any form of natural revelation go too far, at least we can appreciate Chalmers’s point when he said, “Apart from Christ I find that I have no hold of God at all.”
The Old Testament position seems perfectly clear. There the Jews are presented as the chosen race of God, designated to be a channel of grace, truth, and light to the world. Their call and election (see Deut. 8:6 ff.; Ps. 147:19, 20) involved, as Isaiah said in speaking about the Servant of the Lord, opening “the eyes that are blind, [bringing] out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness” (Isa. 42:7). The law was to go out from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem (Isa. 2:3). It was in Abraham that the nations were to be blessed (Gen. 12:3). In the words of John (4:22), “salvation is from the Jews” (cf. Isa. 2:3).
Because the chosen people largely failed to carry out their covenant obligations, they were severely punished. But the Bible makes it quite evident that God nonetheless achieved his purpose through the true Israel, the faithful elect remnant (cf. 1 Kings 19:18; Rom. 3:3; 9:6, 11), and of course ultimately through Christ himself, born of a Jew. The Redeemer came from Zion, as was promised (Isa. 59:20; cf. Rom. 11:26).
Old Testament Separatism
Throughout the Old Testament and especially in the Pentateuch, the Jews were taught to avoid imitating or adopting the religious customs of the heathen peoples whose lands they occupied (see, for example, Deuteronomy 6). The first commandment is absolute and final in its demands that the covenant people remain faithful to God and give allegiance to him alone. Foreign religions were anathema because of their tendency to lead the Israelites away from the one true God. The danger of religious and moral contamination was considered so great as to warrant the annihilation (cf. Joshua 10:8) of various tribes that had exceeded the bounds of wickedness. Intermarriage was forbidden, and refusal to heed warnings threatened the guilty with dire vengeance (cf. Joshua 23:11 ff.; Deut. 29:16 ff.; Ezra 9:10). Trifling with false religions involved a bend toward idolatry, which was regarded as an abomination. For basically it brought (in the words of St. Paul), for those who did not know God, bondage to beings that by nature are no gods (cf. Isa. 44). The soteriological impotence of idolatry was contrasted sharply with the affirmation that the “salvation of the righteous is from the Lord,” a recurring Old Testament refrain (cf. Ps. 37:39 and the story of Elijah in First Kings 18). The refusal of the Jews to have truck with idols in their later days is underlined by the Romans’ surprise, during their occupation of Palestine, at the absence of images, to which they themselves were so accustomed.
So much then for the Old Testament, where the position seems very clear. In principle and largely in practice, the Jews were exclusive in their religion. As J. G. Machen wrote, “The people of Israel, according to the Old Testament, was the chosen people of God; the notion of a covenant between God and His chosen people was absolutely central in all ages of the Jewish Church” (The Origin of Paul’s Religion, p. 11). To a believer, tolerance of another faith would have seemed a contradiction that necessitated rejection of his nation’s calling. He clung firmly to the belief that God would eventually vindicate his people, and despite much trial and tribulation he awaited the coming of the Deliverer, the Messiah. We know that his faith was not in vain. The truth of Israel’s religion involved the repudiation of all others (cf. Jewish persecution of Christians), for God himself, speaking through Isaiah, had said, “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other” (45:22). (It should be noted that the attribute of jealousy that offends many superficial thinkers today serves to underline the essential monotheism of the Old Testament. The God who could not say, “I am the Lord, that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to graven images” [Isa. 42:8], would not be worthy of the biblical revelation.)
When we turn to the New Testament we find nothing to soften the view already established. First, the claims of Christ himself provide incontrovertible evidence that our faith is unique and without rival. Jesus, on whose witness to himself God set his seal by raising him from the dead, said that he was the bread of life (John 6:35), the light of the world (8:12), the door of the sheep (10:7, 9), the good shepherd (10:11, 14), the resurrection and the life (11:25), the true vine (15:1), and the way, the truth, and the life (14:6). This language is unambiguous; yet in case there should be any doubt Jesus makes statements like the following: “All who came before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not heed them. I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly” (John 10:8–10).
There is little need to stress Jesus’ own view of himself and his mission further, though a great deal more evidence could be adduced. The position is clear, and all who accept Christ as Lord will not be of two minds about so-called rival religions, for they know that Christ alone, as Peter discovered long ago (see John 6:68), has the words of eternal life. The contemporaries of Jesus, whether friendly or hostile, consciously or unconsciously underlined his uniqueness.
The Apostolic Witness
As we should expect, the apostolic witness also supports all we have so far found. Paul is at pains in his epistle to the Romans to show that all men, both Jew and Gentile, with or without the law, have sinned (3:23; 11:32), so that all might find salvation through faith in Christ. God’s condemnation and utter rejection of the false religions fabricated in the perverted imaginations of sinful men is graphically portrayed in Romans 1. And even if the Gospels do intimate that those who have never heard the message of life will be beaten with few stripes, never is it suggested that their spurious worship should be tolerated, let alone considered on a par or seriously competitive with the Christian faith. Paul sounds the death knell on such ideas when he says, “So they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20; cf. 2 Thess. 1:8).
The New Testament with its insistence on truth, light, understanding, and revelation simply underlines that salvation is through faith in Christ alone. “This is the work of God,” says Jesus, “that you believe in him whom he has sent” (John 6:29); and there is not an iota of evidence that such belief is optional or offers a choice. While it remains gloriously true that whoever comes to Christ will never be cast out, all men are under obligation to close with him, for “he who does not believe is condemned already” (John 3:18). Jesus confirms this when he says that “no man comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6). There are no alternative ways, and the idea that all religions and systems of philosophical or moral belief lead to the same thing in the end is scouted absolutely. The Christian faith demands all or nothing. One is either for God or against him (cf. Matt. 12:30).
Why The Incarnation?
Looking at the question from another point of view, it is extremely difficult to see why the incarnation of Christ ever occurred at all, if its ultimate purpose was not to effect the salvation of his people (cf. John 10:14–18). To accept the notion that the world’s religions are all more or less useful ways of achieving the same object—that is, universal salvation, or at least salvation for all religious people—is to make a mockery of the core of the New Testament message. On this hypothesis God sent Christ into the world without adequate reason. Indeed, the implication is that his death on the cross achieved nothing that would not have been achieved anyway. The New Testament doctrine of the atonement in all its aspects is superfluous, on this assumption. And why the apostles should have been so at pains to teach it is a complete mystery. In this view it would seem that the New Testament writers, instead of confining themselves to the exposition of moral precepts, have taken up undue space formulating doctrine that can have no possible relevance to anyone. A genuinely biblical understanding of the incarnation and the atonement rejects once and for all every suggestion of inclusivism. If the veracity of these central doctrines is established and accepted, then Christianity stands distinct and supreme as the only true religion.
Similar reference can be made to the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. Writes G. W. Bromiley:
The fact that Christian life begins with this sovereign act of the Spirit also has important implications: (1) It destroys comparative religion at the root. (2) It rules out the Pelagian heresy that believes that self-salvation is possible.… Only when the Christian sees that he is grounded in God’s work by Word and Spirit can he be sure that he is a Christian, that Christianity is authentic, and that it is exclusive and unique [“The Holy Spirit,” in CHRISTIANITY TODAY, August 30, 1968, p. 24 u].
If it can be shown, as surely it can, that the Holy Spirit plays a vital and indispensable role in salvation, then it is equally demonstrable that one of his primary functions is to point to Christ (cf. John 16:14). It is perhaps worth adding at this juncture that the doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit is confined to the Christian religion alone.
Some think the resurrection solves the whole question of “which religion?” on its own, since it virtually proves the divinity of Christ. Most Christians feel that the evidence for it is overwhelming, though few, I imagine, were brought to faith merely by satisfying themselves that this is so. In these days when even church members deny Jesus’ bodily resurrection, its value as a starting point in an apologetic against other faiths must be questioned. One of Christ’s own disciples was skeptical enough to claim he would not believe until he had put his fingers in the nailprints and thrust his hand into the wounded side of his Master. It is noteworthy, however, that when he was eventually confronted with Christ he seemed to find it unnecessary to do this, presumably because he realized that his skepticism had been unreasonable. This is also implied by Jesus’ words, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (John 20:29).
The moral of this would appear to be that if people are to be convinced by him, Jesus must be presented in all his New Testament fullness. It is when he is known as a person, and not simply as the end product of evidences, that the resurrection can be believed as the logical—in fact, inevitable—conclusion of his life. Death, we feel, could not hold him (Acts 2:24). If this is so, we can hardly escape the inference that modern deniers of the resurrection are broadcasting the poverty of their knowledge of the Christ of the New Testament rather than their inability on intellectual grounds to accept a particular doctrine.
There is one final point of deep theological significance that again sets Christianity apart from all else. If man was originally created in the image of God but through sin that image has become sadly distorted, the only way it can be restored, according to the Bible, is in Christ, who himself as the God-Man reflects the divine glory (Heb. 1:3; Phil. 1:5–11; Col. 1:15–20).
In the last analysis the whole body of New Testament theology, undergirded by the Old Testament, asserts the uniqueness and exclusiveness of the Christian religion. For Christ to be placed on a par with Confucius or Buddha the Bible must be radically metamorphosed, indeed mutilated.
Salvation Through Christ Alone
It is no part of our task to seek to gauge who or how many will eventually be saved. The Bible lays it down that all men will be judged according to their light and their works. What is stressed is that if anyone is saved, it is through Christ and him alone. When Paul said, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith,” he was in deadly earnest. And that he understood his statement to mean salvation could be gained in no other way is shown by the passion with which he pursued his missionary course, overcoming incredible obstacles and suffering untold miseries. We need to adopt the same stance today; but the spirit of unbelief is abroad, undercutting the best intentions of some and leading others into open infidelity. Despite this, we have the glorious promise that the time will come when an innumerable throng of men and women from every nation will be saved to give honor to the Lamb of God, who achieved their salvation.
In the present situation we do well to recognize that the most insidious enemy of the faith on which both we and the world depend for reconciliation with God is not so much specific religions as their prevailing spirit. There are three principal dangers of which we must be wary. First, as the inevitable juxtaposition, confrontation, and interaction of cultures and religions take place in our rapidly shrinking world, the tendency toward syncretism will increase. This is the fusion of the elements of each into a common belief. Some religions, such as Hinduism, readily assimilate and borrow from others without materially altering their basic position. This is not so with Christianity, where to add is to impregnate with cancer (cf. Mark 7) and to subtract is to dismember (cf. Unitarianism).
Eclecticism is another peril with similar effect. The eclectic thinks he can sift all systems and select any parts that please him. He fails to realize, however, that Christian doctrine is like the robe of Christ—without seam and woven from top to bottom (John 19:23). To take away a part is to emasculate the whole and render it impotent.
Third, there is universalism, which is rearing its ugly head in no uncertain manner today. It is an obvious tendency in some systems of belief. But salvation on biblical principles is essentially particularistic. If it were not so there would be little point in preaching the Gospel. Universalism cuts the nerve of evangelism. It is death masquerading in the name of love.
Only Two Religions
Behind all these tendencies and indeed all spurious versions of Christianity there is an attempt, conscious or unconscious, to minimize the grace of God. As someone has said, basically there are only two religions in the world: salvation by works and salvation by grace. Now grace is the feature of the religion of Christ that sets it apart from all religions that find their center of reference in man rather than in God. It is this characteristic that emphasizes its divine origin, qualifies it to meet the needs of men, and makes it self-authenticating. It is essential to grasp the point that Christianity does not compete with other creeds; it confronts them with truth at its most exclusive in Christ: It never attempts to prolong them nor to extend their sphere of influence. It undeniably has common elements with other beliefs, but its distinguishing features are located where it diverges from them. As Dr. Camfield wrote:
Its consciousness of a universal mission and a universal validity does not arise from a sense of mere superiority to other religions, but of a fundamental and decisive otherness in relation to them. It arises from the sense that God has come, that something final and all-decisive has happened … not on a conviction of the superiority of its thought-content to anything that can be discovered elsewhere, but purely on the nature of the divine event to which it witnesses … a great divine event which is essentially “once for all” and non-repeatable, an event on which the salvation of the world depends [quoted by H. R. Mackintosh in Types of Modern Theology, p. 197].
Or in the words of L. W. Grenstead:
Christianity holds no brief whatever for false gods. The vague modern idea, which has even infected a good deal of our missionary work, that there is much truth in all religions and that the task is to bring out and strengthen this indigenous approach to God rather than preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, is no part of the authentic Christian tradition [Psychology and God, p. 60].
History surely shows that if Christ is denied his biblical exclusiveness, worship and service of God sink into idolatry and superstition. The fact is, as R. E. Speer remarked, that “Calvary closes the issue of comparative religion.” There may be attractive aspects of the world’s religions capable of enhancing a nation’s morals and bringing a degree of psychological comfort. But Christianity and Christianity alone can save on all levels; and it is this fact that proves to all the genuinely poor in spirit that it is the one true faith that must be propagated for the well-being of men in this world and the next.
In light of this the Christian has no option but to present his faith as intolerant and exclusive in its very essence; to present it as being otherwise is the work of the devil. Christians who accept a biblical orientation, far from allowing themselves to be moved by the superficial accusations so often leveled at them, will perceive that in this matter they are dealing with life and death. By the grace of God they will choose life (cf. Deut. 30:19), for “he who has the Son has life; and he who has not the Son has not life.” The conviction of every Christian who is true to his calling is similar to that of John in the early days of the Church: “And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols.”
