Breaking Boundaries

From Gospel Translations

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to:navigation, search
(New page: = Only One Way = By Dr. Bruce A. Ware Three positions abound today on the question of whether Christ is the only way to salvation. All three can be detected by how each answers these t...)
m (Protected "Breaking Boundaries" ([edit=sysop] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite)))
 
(15 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
-
= Only One Way =
+
{{info}}Pluralism has found a home among the people of God. While pluralism — the acceptance of nonbiblical ideas and practices as compatible with biblical faith and life — is not a new phenomenon, its persistence in church history and the pervasiveness of its influence today is a matter of deep concern for believers. What differentiates old from new pluralisms is how pluralism was opposed in the Bible and early church but enthusiastically embraced by the church in recent eras.
-
By Dr. Bruce A. Ware
+
Evidences of pluralism appeared early in Israel’s life. Idolatry existed alongside traditional worship in the temple in Jerusalem. Israelites worshiped the god Baal through grossly immoral acts and engaged in child sacrifice to the Ammonite god Molech while maintaining a semblance of traditional worship in yearly festivals and sacrifices in the temple (see Jer. 7:8-10). Prophets repeatedly castigated Israel for engaging in magical practices forbidden in Deuteronomy 18. Second Kings 23 reveals the great diversity of idolatrous practices that infiltrated Israelite religion but purged under King Josiah. Prophets called Israel back to the Mosaic covenant as the singular basis for Israelite belief and practice.  
 +
In the early church pluralism took several forms. Judaizers insisted that in addition to faith in Christ, Gentiles must also follow Jewish law, particularly the rite of circumcision. Gnostics proposed texts in addition to the Gospels and prohibited marriage and certain foods as the only way to higher spiritual knowledge. Still others insisted on worshiping angels and an array of ascetic rules. Paul attacked pluralism by denouncing it as “a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9). He spoke of the Gospel as a singular “good deposit” consisting of “sound words” (1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13–14).
 +
Contrary to Paul’s teaching, the most recent mantra of church historians is that from the beginning, Christianity was not a unity but a vast plurality in which competing views existed with no need to discern what was genuine and illegitimate. According to this view, each gospel writer expressed a unique perspective on the life of Jesus and His teaching, which differed radically from the others. The Pauline letters represent still another Christianity based on justification by faith. Historians no longer speak of Christianity in the singular. Now they invoke the term “Christianities” each with its respective text, theology, and practice. Only much later did the Great Church emerge, unified in doctrine and practice. “Heresy” and “orthodoxy” were fourth-century innovations — creations of ecumenical councils — and forcefully imposed by imperial decree, which quashed movements like the Gnostics. Since the winners write the history, many of these views were long lost and are only now being uncovered through meticulous historical research.
-
Three positions abound today on the question of whether Christ is the only way to salvation. All three can be detected by how each answers these two fundamental questions: First, is Jesus the only Savior? More fully: Is the sinless life of Christ and His atoning death and resurrection the only means by which the penalty of sin is paid and the power of sin defeated? Second, is faith in Christ necessary to be saved? More fully: Is conscious knowledge of Christ’s death and resurrection for sin and explicit faith in Christ necessary for anyone to become a recipient of the benefits of Christ’s atoning work and so be saved?
+
These historians are clearly wrong in their revisionism. Just as prophets of the Old Testament and Paul in the New rebuked false teachers, so apologists in the early church repudiated rival teachings of the Gnostics. Hippolytus in the early third century wrote ''Refutation of All Heresies''. Irenaeus and Tertullian stand as irrefutable evidence that the church taught a unified message along Pauline lines long before the fourth century. Irenaeus wrote in 185 A.D. that although the church was scattered throughout the world “it occupies but one house, and believes as if it had but one mind, and preaches as if it had but one mouth. And although there are many dialects in the world, the meaning of the tradition is one and the same.” Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.) added: “My first principle is this. Christ laid down one definite system of truth which the world must believe without qualification.” Apologists gloried in the one strand of truth inherited from apostolic Scripture.
-
<br>Pluralism answers both questions “no.” The pluralist, like John Hick, believes that there are many paths to God, Jesus being only one of them. Since salvation can come through other religions and religious leaders, it surely follows that people do not have to believe in Christ to be saved.
+
Although pluralism appeared in biblical times and the early church, it has exercised an especially potent influence in modernity and postmodernity. Advocates of worldviews alien to Christianity have produced numerous alternatives by introducing various philosophical and cultural phenomena into their reinterpretations of Christianity. Each has claimed that only by including these elements into the faith could Christianity survive. The result was a series of “Christianities” in the nineteenth century that bore more resemblance to the cultural norms of the day than to the historic faith of the apostles.  
-
<br>Inclusivism answers the first question “yes” and the second question “no.” To the inclusivist, like Clark Pinnock, although Jesus has accomplished the work necessary to bring us back to God, nonetheless, people can be saved by responding positively to God’s revelation in creation and perhaps in aspects of their own religions. So, even though Christ is the only Savior, people do not have to know about or believe in Christ to be saved.
+
Immanuel Kant in the wake of English deism transformed Christianity into a rational moralism. In ''Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone ''(1793) he contended that only those acts that are explicitly moral count as genuinely Christian. He dismissed the Old Testament; he rejected the historical fall; and he disdained Christ’s substitutionary atonement as the height of moral irresponsibility. People are “born again” — he frequently borrowed traditional terms only to give them new meanings — by converting their innermost disposition to follow the Golden Rule. In addition, prayer, worship, and other devotional activities are superstitious substitutes for correct moral behavior.  
-
<br>Exclusivism answers both questions “yes.” The exclusivist, such as the late Ronald H. Nash, believes that Scripture affirms both truths; first, that Jesus alone has accomplished the atoning work necessary to save sinners, and second, that knowledge of and faith in Christ is necessary for anyone to be saved. The remainder of this article offers a brief summary of some of the main support for these two claims.<br>Jesus is the only Savior
+
When rationalism gave way to romanticism as the primary worldview in Germany, Friedrich Schleiermacher faced a crucial decision. Would he counter the cultural tendency to accommodate to the latest movement by calling the church back to biblical and Reformation principles? Instead of doing so he continued the thrust of modernity forward with another reformulation of the faith — a romantic Christianity in which subjective God-consciousness prevailed over objective doctrinal teaching. The Bible is not the Word of God but a record of human religious experience. Thus, doctrines are not objectively true but expressions of religious consciousness. Like Kant he rejected the fall, and he dismissed Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross as “magical.” In its place he advocated a “mystical” view in which Jesus draws people into the influence of His God-consciousness.
-
<br>Why think that Jesus is the only Savior? Of all the people who have lived and ever will live, Jesus alone qualifies, in His person and work, as the only one capable of accomplishing atonement for the sin of the world. Consider the following ways in which Jesus alone qualifies as the exclusive Savior:<br>First, Christ alone was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:18–25; Luke 1:26–38); as such, He alone qualifies to be Savior. Why does this matter? Only as the Holy Spirit takes the place of the human father in Jesus’ conception can it be true that the one conceived is both fully God and fully man. Christ must be both God and man to atone for sin (see below), but for this to occur, He must be conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a human virgin. No one else in the history of the world is conceived by the Spirit and born of a virgin mother. Therefore, Jesus alone qualifies to be Savior.
+
Both Kant and Schleiermacher became models for theological inclusivism, which stood for broadening the boundaries of Christian faith. Theologians and pastors followed their leads by advocating new interpretations of Christianity as equally acceptable to traditional doctrinal statements. Orthodoxy gave way to “tolerance” as the goal of the church. Liberal factions grew until in the 1920s they gained control of the major Protestant denominations.  
-
<br>Second, Christ alone is God incarnate (John 1:1–18; Heb. 1:1–3; 2:14–18; Phil. 2:5–11; 1 Tim. 2:5–6); as such, He alone qualifies to be Savior. As Anselm argued in the eleventh century, our Savior must be fully man in order to take the place of men and die in their stead, and He must be fully God in order for the value of His sacrificial payment to satisfy the demands of our infinitely holy God. Man He must be, but a mere man simply could not make this infinite payment for sin. But no one else in the history of the world is both fully God and fully man. Therefore, Jesus alone qualifies to be Savior.
+
In the aftermath of liberalism’s success in promoting pluralism within mainline churches, the most remarkable feature of the current religious scene is the extent to which pluralism has made its way into evangelical churches. Several studies (historical, theological, and sociological) have documented changes within evangelicalism — in its colleges and seminaries, and among pastors and theologians. Historically, evangelicalism represented a stalwart effort to resist the incursion of worldviews alien to historical orthodoxy that threatens the integrity of its teaching. The irony of the rising tide of pluralism is that such changes occurred within schools that were founded to combat the ideas that are now gaining acceptance.  
-
Third, Christ alone lived a sinless life (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 7:23–28; 9:13–14; 1 Peter 2:21–24); as such, He alone qualifies to be Savior. As Leviticus makes clear, animals offered as sacrifices for sin must be without blemish. This prefigured the sacrifice of Christ who, as sinless, was able to die for the sins of others and not for Himself. But no one else in the history of the world has lived a totally sinless life. Therefore, Jesus alone qualifies to be Savior.
+
The most pressing need of the church in the light of these developments is the articulation of a distinctly biblical worldview — unified, coherent and comprehensive in scope. It would address, in principle, all dimensions of life and thought utilizing biblical content. Such a view rests on the fundamental assumption that God is the creator, providential ruler, and ultimate redeemer of all that He has made. Thus in the Bible He has not only revealed Himself as transcendent sovereign but also as the ultimate source of predication — He stands as the source of truth behind all that can be known. Likewise, He has also revealed an objective law appropriate to who we are and the universe in which we live.  
-
<br>Fourth, Christ alone died a penal, substitutionary death (Isa. 53:4–6; Rom. 3:21–26; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:10–14); as such, He alone qualifies to be Savior. The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). And because Christ lived a sinless life, He did not deserve to die. Rather, the cause of His death was owing to the fact that the Father imputed to Him our sin. The death that He died was in our place. No one else in the history of the world has died because He bore the sin of others and not as the judgment for His own sin. Therefore, Jesus alone qualifies to be Savior.
+
Thus our worldview must not only affirm a correct theology, view of human nature, and means of redemption. Our worldview must extend to all of life, for all of life is religious. Just as James 1:26 makes the use of the tongue a test of whether one’s religion is true or not, our ideas and moral behavior do so as well. No matter what academic subject we study, no matter what vocation we follow in life, and no matter what cultural activities we participate in — each has its legitimacy and ultimate order in God’s self-revelation. Our task as twenty-first century believers is to take not only all thoughts captive to Christ (2 Cor. 10:5) but all of life; to make it obedient to Christ and His revealed Word.  
-
<br>Fifth, Christ alone rose from the dead triumphant over sin (Acts 2:22–24; Rom. 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:3–8, 16–23). As such, He alone qualifies to be Savior. The Bible indicates that a few people, other than Christ, have been raised from the dead (1 Kings 17:17–24; John 11:38–44), but only Christ has been raised from the dead never to die again, having triumphed over sin. The wages of sin is death, and the greatest power of sin is death. So, Christ’s resurrection from the dead demonstrates that His atoning death for sin accomplished both the full payment of sin’s penalty and full victory over sin’s greatest power. No one else in the history of the world has been raised from the dead triumphant over sin. Therefore, Jesus alone qualifies to be Savior.
+
If we must take all of life captive to the Gospel, then we must also free ourselves from the competing approaches that avoid or violate biblical principles. Some of these false ways are obvious — atheistic naturalism that reduces reality to mere material, Machiavellian politics that makes power an end in itself, and scientism that attempts to reduce what is qualitative to mere quantitative analysis. More difficult is the ongoing task to ferret out assumptions that subtly infiltrate everyday thought and life — pragmatism in which the ends justify the means or subjective spiritualities that substitute vague feelings or intuitions for clear, logical analysis.  
-
<br>The conclusion is unquestionable: Christ alone qualifies as Savior, and Christ alone is Savior. Jesus’ own words could not be clearer: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). And the apostle Peter confirms: “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” (Acts 4:12). These claims are true of no one else in the history of the world. Indeed, Jesus alone is Savior.
+
If pluralism has indeed captured the church, the church must respond. The task of developing and acting upon a biblical worldview falls upon us as individuals and collectively as the church of Jesus Christ. Pastors and theologians cannot fulfill the mandate alone. All of God’s people must accept the challenge. Paul addressed his letters to churches as well as individuals. We must therefore be worldview ambassadors corporately in our teaching and preaching, and individually in our everyday vocations.<br>
-
 
+
-
<br>Faith in Christ is necessary to be saved
+
-
 
+
-
<br>&nbsp;Why think that faith in Christ is necessary to be saved? The teaching of the apostles is clear, that the content of the Gospel now (since the coming of Christ) focuses directly upon the atoning death and resurrection of Christ and that by faith in Christ one is forgiven of his sin and granted eternal life. Consider the following passages that support the conviction that people are saved only as they know and trust in Christ as their Savior:
+
-
 
+
-
<br>First, Jesus’ own teaching shows that the nations need to hear and repent to be saved (Luke 24:44–49). Jesus commands that “repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47). The people Jesus here describes are currently both unrepentant and unforgiven. To be forgiven they must repent. But to repent they must hear the proclamation of Christ’s work in His name. And this is true for all the nations, including Jews who haven’t trusted Christ. Jesus does not envision the “nations” as already having saving revelation available to them. Rather, believers must proclaim the message of Christ to all the nations for people in those nations to be saved.
+
-
 
+
-
<br>Second, Paul teaches that even pious Jews, and everyone else, must hear and believe in Christ to be saved (Rom. 10:1–4, 13–15). His heart’s desire and prayer is for the salvation of his fellow Jews. Even though they have a zeal for God, they do not know that God’s righteousness comes only through faith in Christ. So these Jews, even though pious, are not saved. Whoever will call upon the name of Christ (see Rom. 10:9, 13) will be saved. But this requires that someone tell them. And this requires that those are sent. Missions, then, is necessary, since people must hear the Gospel of Christ to be saved.
+
-
 
+
-
<br>Third, Cornelius’s story demonstrates that even pious Gentiles must hear and believe in Christ to be saved (Acts 10:1–2, 38–43; 11:13–18; 15:7–9). Far from being saved before Peter came to him, as some think, Cornelius was a pious (10:2) Gentile who needed to hear of Christ and believe in Christ to be saved. When Peter reports about the conversion of the Gentiles, he declares that only when he preached did Cornelius hear the message he needed to hear in order to “be saved” (Acts 11:14; see also 15:8–9). Despite his piety, Cornelius needed to hear the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ to be saved.
+
-
 
+
-
<br>Again, the conclusion is clear: Jesus is the only Savior, and people must know and believe in Christ to be saved. May we honor Christ and the Gospel, and may we manifest our faithfulness to God’s Word by upholding these twin truths and living in a manner that demonstrates our commitment to them.
+

Current revision as of 04:08, 10 June 2013

Related resources
More By Andrew Hoffecker
Author Index
More About Church Issues
Topic Index
About this resource

© Ligonier Ministries

Share this
Our Mission
This resource is published by Gospel Translations, an online ministry that exists to make gospel-centered books and articles available for free in every nation and language.

Learn more (English).

By Andrew Hoffecker About Church Issues
Part of the series Tabletalk

Pluralism has found a home among the people of God. While pluralism — the acceptance of nonbiblical ideas and practices as compatible with biblical faith and life — is not a new phenomenon, its persistence in church history and the pervasiveness of its influence today is a matter of deep concern for believers. What differentiates old from new pluralisms is how pluralism was opposed in the Bible and early church but enthusiastically embraced by the church in recent eras.

Evidences of pluralism appeared early in Israel’s life. Idolatry existed alongside traditional worship in the temple in Jerusalem. Israelites worshiped the god Baal through grossly immoral acts and engaged in child sacrifice to the Ammonite god Molech while maintaining a semblance of traditional worship in yearly festivals and sacrifices in the temple (see Jer. 7:8-10). Prophets repeatedly castigated Israel for engaging in magical practices forbidden in Deuteronomy 18. Second Kings 23 reveals the great diversity of idolatrous practices that infiltrated Israelite religion but purged under King Josiah. Prophets called Israel back to the Mosaic covenant as the singular basis for Israelite belief and practice.

In the early church pluralism took several forms. Judaizers insisted that in addition to faith in Christ, Gentiles must also follow Jewish law, particularly the rite of circumcision. Gnostics proposed texts in addition to the Gospels and prohibited marriage and certain foods as the only way to higher spiritual knowledge. Still others insisted on worshiping angels and an array of ascetic rules. Paul attacked pluralism by denouncing it as “a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9). He spoke of the Gospel as a singular “good deposit” consisting of “sound words” (1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13–14).

Contrary to Paul’s teaching, the most recent mantra of church historians is that from the beginning, Christianity was not a unity but a vast plurality in which competing views existed with no need to discern what was genuine and illegitimate. According to this view, each gospel writer expressed a unique perspective on the life of Jesus and His teaching, which differed radically from the others. The Pauline letters represent still another Christianity based on justification by faith. Historians no longer speak of Christianity in the singular. Now they invoke the term “Christianities” each with its respective text, theology, and practice. Only much later did the Great Church emerge, unified in doctrine and practice. “Heresy” and “orthodoxy” were fourth-century innovations — creations of ecumenical councils — and forcefully imposed by imperial decree, which quashed movements like the Gnostics. Since the winners write the history, many of these views were long lost and are only now being uncovered through meticulous historical research.

These historians are clearly wrong in their revisionism. Just as prophets of the Old Testament and Paul in the New rebuked false teachers, so apologists in the early church repudiated rival teachings of the Gnostics. Hippolytus in the early third century wrote Refutation of All Heresies. Irenaeus and Tertullian stand as irrefutable evidence that the church taught a unified message along Pauline lines long before the fourth century. Irenaeus wrote in 185 A.D. that although the church was scattered throughout the world “it occupies but one house, and believes as if it had but one mind, and preaches as if it had but one mouth. And although there are many dialects in the world, the meaning of the tradition is one and the same.” Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.) added: “My first principle is this. Christ laid down one definite system of truth which the world must believe without qualification.” Apologists gloried in the one strand of truth inherited from apostolic Scripture.

Although pluralism appeared in biblical times and the early church, it has exercised an especially potent influence in modernity and postmodernity. Advocates of worldviews alien to Christianity have produced numerous alternatives by introducing various philosophical and cultural phenomena into their reinterpretations of Christianity. Each has claimed that only by including these elements into the faith could Christianity survive. The result was a series of “Christianities” in the nineteenth century that bore more resemblance to the cultural norms of the day than to the historic faith of the apostles.

Immanuel Kant in the wake of English deism transformed Christianity into a rational moralism. In Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone (1793) he contended that only those acts that are explicitly moral count as genuinely Christian. He dismissed the Old Testament; he rejected the historical fall; and he disdained Christ’s substitutionary atonement as the height of moral irresponsibility. People are “born again” — he frequently borrowed traditional terms only to give them new meanings — by converting their innermost disposition to follow the Golden Rule. In addition, prayer, worship, and other devotional activities are superstitious substitutes for correct moral behavior.

When rationalism gave way to romanticism as the primary worldview in Germany, Friedrich Schleiermacher faced a crucial decision. Would he counter the cultural tendency to accommodate to the latest movement by calling the church back to biblical and Reformation principles? Instead of doing so he continued the thrust of modernity forward with another reformulation of the faith — a romantic Christianity in which subjective God-consciousness prevailed over objective doctrinal teaching. The Bible is not the Word of God but a record of human religious experience. Thus, doctrines are not objectively true but expressions of religious consciousness. Like Kant he rejected the fall, and he dismissed Christ’s substitutionary death on the cross as “magical.” In its place he advocated a “mystical” view in which Jesus draws people into the influence of His God-consciousness.

Both Kant and Schleiermacher became models for theological inclusivism, which stood for broadening the boundaries of Christian faith. Theologians and pastors followed their leads by advocating new interpretations of Christianity as equally acceptable to traditional doctrinal statements. Orthodoxy gave way to “tolerance” as the goal of the church. Liberal factions grew until in the 1920s they gained control of the major Protestant denominations.

In the aftermath of liberalism’s success in promoting pluralism within mainline churches, the most remarkable feature of the current religious scene is the extent to which pluralism has made its way into evangelical churches. Several studies (historical, theological, and sociological) have documented changes within evangelicalism — in its colleges and seminaries, and among pastors and theologians. Historically, evangelicalism represented a stalwart effort to resist the incursion of worldviews alien to historical orthodoxy that threatens the integrity of its teaching. The irony of the rising tide of pluralism is that such changes occurred within schools that were founded to combat the ideas that are now gaining acceptance.

The most pressing need of the church in the light of these developments is the articulation of a distinctly biblical worldview — unified, coherent and comprehensive in scope. It would address, in principle, all dimensions of life and thought utilizing biblical content. Such a view rests on the fundamental assumption that God is the creator, providential ruler, and ultimate redeemer of all that He has made. Thus in the Bible He has not only revealed Himself as transcendent sovereign but also as the ultimate source of predication — He stands as the source of truth behind all that can be known. Likewise, He has also revealed an objective law appropriate to who we are and the universe in which we live.

Thus our worldview must not only affirm a correct theology, view of human nature, and means of redemption. Our worldview must extend to all of life, for all of life is religious. Just as James 1:26 makes the use of the tongue a test of whether one’s religion is true or not, our ideas and moral behavior do so as well. No matter what academic subject we study, no matter what vocation we follow in life, and no matter what cultural activities we participate in — each has its legitimacy and ultimate order in God’s self-revelation. Our task as twenty-first century believers is to take not only all thoughts captive to Christ (2 Cor. 10:5) but all of life; to make it obedient to Christ and His revealed Word.

If we must take all of life captive to the Gospel, then we must also free ourselves from the competing approaches that avoid or violate biblical principles. Some of these false ways are obvious — atheistic naturalism that reduces reality to mere material, Machiavellian politics that makes power an end in itself, and scientism that attempts to reduce what is qualitative to mere quantitative analysis. More difficult is the ongoing task to ferret out assumptions that subtly infiltrate everyday thought and life — pragmatism in which the ends justify the means or subjective spiritualities that substitute vague feelings or intuitions for clear, logical analysis.

If pluralism has indeed captured the church, the church must respond. The task of developing and acting upon a biblical worldview falls upon us as individuals and collectively as the church of Jesus Christ. Pastors and theologians cannot fulfill the mandate alone. All of God’s people must accept the challenge. Paul addressed his letters to churches as well as individuals. We must therefore be worldview ambassadors corporately in our teaching and preaching, and individually in our everyday vocations.

Navigation
Volunteer Tools
Other Wikis
Toolbox