Skip to content

Course 18 · Lesson 7.1

Exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism examined

12 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 18 outline

Module 1: Studying Religions Fairly

  1. Describing a religion in its own terms
  2. Insider and outsider views, and the limits of comparison
  3. Pluralism, inclusivism and exclusivism: the basic terms
  4. The comparison grid: God, revelation, authority, humanity and salvation

Module 2: Judaism and Islam

  1. Judaism: Torah, covenant and the shape of Jewish life
  2. How Judaism understands Jesus, Messiah and the Christian claim
  3. Islam: the oneness of God, the Prophet and the Quran
  4. How Islam understands Jesus, the Trinity and the Christian claim

Module 3: Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism

  1. Hinduism: its diversity and central ideas
  2. Buddhism: the Four Noble Truths and the path
  3. Sikhism: the Gurus, the one God and the Guru Granth Sahib
  4. Karma, rebirth and liberation compared with Christian hope

Module 4: Deism, Atheism and Agnosticism

  1. Deism: history and beliefs
  2. Atheism: varieties and arguments
  3. Agnosticism and the question of burden of proof
  4. Meaning, morality and hope in nonreligious positions

Module 5: New Religious Movements

  1. What a new religious movement is, and why the term is debated
  2. Movements with Christian roots and their relation to historic Christianity
  3. Other modern movements and spiritualities

Module 6: Comparing the Great Questions

  1. Revelation compared: word, law, awakening and incarnation
  2. Divine nature compared: one God, the Trinity, the Absolute and no creator
  3. Human nature and the human problem compared
  4. Salvation compared: forgiveness, submission, liberation and awakening
  5. Scripture and authority compared

Module 7: Christian Approaches to Other Religions

  1. Exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism examined
  2. Catholic and Orthodox approaches to other religions
  3. Protestant approaches to other religions
  4. Witness, dialogue and respect

All courses

Program / Course 18: World Religions / Lesson 7.1

What you will learn

  • State the strongest biblical and philosophical arguments for each of the three positions.
  • State the strongest objections to each.
  • Distinguish the question of how salvation is accomplished from the question of who is saved.
  • Identify intermediate positions and the point at which each position departs from historic Christian teaching.

The big idea

Module 1 defined the three positions. This lesson tests them. Exclusivists appeal to texts that name Christ as the only way, and argue that truth cannot contradict itself. Inclusivists appeal to texts about God’s universal will to save and to the work of the Spirit beyond the church. Pluralists appeal to the diversity of religious experience and the moral fruits of many faiths. Each faces serious objections. Examining them honestly lets a student hold a position for reasons, while understanding why thoughtful people hold the others.

Key terms

Particularity
The Christian claim that God acted in specific persons and events, in Israel and in Jesus, and not in a general way only.
Universal salvific will
The teaching that God desires the salvation of all people (1 Timothy 2:4).
Anonymous Christian
Karl Rahner’s phrase for a person who lives by God’s grace without explicit knowledge of Christ. Many Catholics and Protestants have criticized the phrase, and many other Catholics use the idea in a careful form.
Fulfillment
The idea that what is good in other religions is completed in Christ, not destroyed.
Universalism
The teaching that all people will finally be saved. Rejected by the councils and creeds as a doctrine of the Church, though hoped for by some Christian theologians.
Evangelization
Proclaiming the gospel so that others may come to know Christ.
Epistemic humility
Recognizing the limits of one’s knowledge, even while holding firm convictions.

Background

The three positions are positions about the relation of Christianity to other religions, and each has defenders among serious scholars. The debate has practical consequences for missions, dialogue, worship and daily life with neighbors.

A helpful discipline is to state each argument in its best form before answering it. The sections below do so. They draw on Scripture and the three branches of the church, and on philosophers who have argued for and against. The next lessons examine how the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions have reasoned in more detail.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: The case for exclusivism

Exclusivists begin with the New Testament. Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). Peter says that there is no salvation in any other name (Acts 4:12). Paul says there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). The early church preached that Jesus alone is Lord, and was persecuted for refusing to say that Caesar was Lord.

Philosophically, exclusivists argue that religions make claims that conflict, so they cannot all be true. If Christ rose from the dead and is God incarnate, then religions that deny this are mistaken on that point. They add that the claim is made with humility and not with arrogance, since it says that salvation is God’s gift in Christ and not something Christians have earned. Alvin Plantinga has argued that a person may be rational in holding exclusive beliefs even after learning of others.

Step 2: The objections to exclusivism

Critics ask about the fate of those who never hear the gospel, who are the majority of people in history, and whether a loving God would let them be lost. They note that where a person is born largely determines his religion, which makes exclusive claims look arbitrary. They also point to the moral and spiritual qualities found in people of other faiths and to the history of coercion and violence done in the name of exclusive claims.

Exclusivists respond in several ways. Some say that God judges justly and that his dealings with the unreached are in his hands (Genesis 18:25). Some hold that God gives each person enough light to respond. Others say that the arbitrariness objection proves too much, since all views are shaped by upbringing, and that the claim of Christ is about his identity and not about who deserves what. Careful exclusivists add that Christian history of coercion contradicts Christian teaching, and does not refute it.

Step 3: The case for inclusivism

Inclusivists begin with God’s desire that all be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), with Christ’s role as the light that lights everyone (John 1:9), and with Paul’s remark that God-fearing Gentiles without the law show the law written in their hearts (Romans 2:14-15). They cite Peter’s statement in the house of Cornelius that God accepts those in every nation who fear him and do what is right (Acts 10:34-35). The Fathers, such as Justin Martyr, spoke of seeds of the Word in the philosophers.

Philosophically, they argue that a good God would not make salvation depend on accidents of birth or history, and that Christ’s work can be effective for those who respond to the grace they have received, even if they cannot name him. The Second Vatican Council taught this in careful terms, while keeping that Christ is the only way.

Step 4: The objections to inclusivism

Critics from the exclusivist side say that inclusivism weakens the urgency of the gospel and does not do justice to texts that call for faith in Christ (Romans 10:13-14). Some say that the idea of anonymous Christians is condescending, since a Muslim or Buddhist does not wish to be called a Christian by another. Critics from the pluralist side say that inclusivism keeps a claim of superiority while appearing generous.

Inclusivists respond that they keep both the particularity of Christ and the breadth of God’s mercy, and that the urgency of mission remains because the fullness of truth and the sacraments are gifts to be shared. The charge of condescension is taken seriously by many Catholic theologians, who stress that dialogue must respect the other tradition in its own terms.

Step 5: Pluralism and its alternatives

Pluralists such as John Hick argue that the great religions produce similar moral transformation, from self-centeredness to concern for others, and that the best explanation is that they respond to one transcendent Real. They add that it is arrogant to rank traditions, and that doctrines like the incarnation should be read as myths or metaphors of devotion. Critics reply that this requires re-reading the central claims of each religion against their own self-understanding, that the comparison of moral fruit is hard to measure, and that the Real is so unknown that nothing can be said about it.

Between the three lie other proposals. Some, like Heim, hold that the religions aim at different ends and that these are all real. Some, like the Orthodox, simply refuse to answer and trust God’s mercy. Some Christian thinkers hope that all may be saved while declining to assert it. A student need not accept the three labels as the only ones.

  1. Which biblical texts support each position, and which seem to challenge it?
  2. Does accident of birth make exclusive claims implausible?
  3. Can a person honor the beliefs of another and still hold that they are wrong on important points?
  4. What does the urgency of mission imply under each position?
  5. Is it condescending to say that God may be at work in a person who does not know it?
  6. Which objection to your own present view is the hardest to answer?

Examples

Cornelius

In Acts 10, a Roman centurion named Cornelius prays and gives alms, and an angel tells him to send for Peter. Peter says that God shows no partiality and accepts those who fear him. Then he preaches Christ, and Cornelius and his household receive the Spirit and are baptized. Exclusivists and inclusivists both read this story, and each stresses a different part of it.

The blind men and the elephant

A well-known parable has blind men touching different parts of an elephant, each describing it differently. Pluralists use it to say that religions describe one reality partially. Critics note that the one who tells the story claims to see the whole elephant, which is the claim that the story rules out.

A conversation over dinner

A Christian, a Muslim and a Hindu share a meal and talk about whether one of them is right. They agree that each believes his or her own tradition to be true, and that each can speak about it without insult. They do not agree about the rest, but they leave as friends. (A constructed example.)

Different perspectives

Catholic

The Catholic Church holds that Christ is the one mediator and the Church the means of salvation, and also that those who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel but seek God and follow conscience can be saved (Lumen Gentium 16). The 2000 declaration Dominus Iesus rejects relativism and the claim that all religions are equally paths, while affirming dialogue.

Orthodox

Orthodox teaching holds that salvation is in Christ and in his Church, and declines to define the fate of those outside, leaving it to God’s mercy. Some Orthodox theologians, such as Gregory of Nyssa in history and Kallistos Ware in recent writing, have spoken of hope for the salvation of all, while declining to assert it as doctrine.

Protestant

Protestant exclusivists include many Reformed, Lutheran and evangelical writers. Inclusivists include C. S. Lewis in some of his remarks and Clark Pinnock in his later work. Pluralists include John Hick, who was a Presbyterian. Many Protestants take intermediate positions and hold that the Bible does not give a full answer to the question of the unreached.

Adherents of other traditions

Muslims, Jews, Hindus and others commonly ask Christians to be honest about what they believe, and are often more comfortable with an exclusivism clearly stated than with a pluralism that changes their own claims. Many also dislike being labeled as anonymous Christians.

Philosophers

Philosophers of religion such as Plantinga, Hick, Paul Griffiths and Keith Ward have argued each side. The literature shows a developed debate about whether religious diversity is evidence against any one religion. No view has persuaded a majority.

Why it matters

The question of the truth and salvation of those outside the church will arise in every conversation with a thoughtful neighbor of another faith. Knowing the best arguments on each side prevents both a hasty exclusivism and a hasty pluralism, and allows a Christian to hold a conviction with reasons and with charity.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: Exclusivists are those who do not care about the people who disagree.

Correction: Exclusivism is a claim about Christ, and many exclusivists have given their lives to serve and to share the gospel with others out of love for them.

Misunderstanding: Inclusivism is the same as universalism.

Correction: Inclusivism says that salvation may reach people who do not know Christ. It does not say that all are saved.

Misunderstanding: Pluralism is simply tolerance.

Correction: Pluralism is a theory that religions are equal responses to the Real. Tolerance is a virtue that people of all positions can practice.

Misunderstanding: The Bible gives a clear answer to what happens to the unevangelized.

Correction: The Bible speaks of Christ as the only Savior and of God’s will for all to be saved, and Christians have drawn different conclusions. Honesty requires saying that texts are read differently.

Knowledge check

State the main biblical arguments for exclusivism.

Exclusivists cite John 14:6, where Jesus says no one comes to the Father except through him, Acts 4:12, which says there is salvation in no other name, and 1 Timothy 2:5, which speaks of one mediator between God and men. They also appeal to the early church’s confession of Jesus as the only Lord.

What is the main objection to exclusivism and how do exclusivists respond?

The main objection is about those who never hear the gospel, and the arbitrariness of birth. Exclusivists respond that God judges justly, that he may give light to each person, and that the claim concerns who Christ is. They add that every view is shaped by upbringing, so the objection proves too much.

Which texts do inclusivists emphasize?

They cite 1 Timothy 2:4, God’s will that all be saved, John 1:9, the light that lights every person, Romans 2:14-15 on the law written in hearts, and Acts 10:34-35, where Peter says God accepts those in every nation who fear him and do right. They add the early Fathers’ idea of seeds of the Word.

What is a common objection to pluralism?

Critics say pluralism requires re-reading each religion’s central claims, such as the incarnation or the finality of the Qur’an, in ways its adherents would not accept. They also say that if the Real is entirely unknowable, nothing can be said to show that the religions respond to it. Pluralists dispute both points.

Think it through

  1. Which argument in this lesson did you find the most persuasive and which the weakest?
  2. How can a Christian hold a firm conviction and still speak with real humility?
  3. What does the story of Cornelius suggest about God’s work outside the visible church?
  4. How would the answer you hold change the way you speak with a neighbor?

Independent assignment

Steelmanning three positions

In your notebook, write about 150 words stating the best case for each of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism, using Scripture where the position uses it. Then write about 100 words on the hardest objection to each. Finish with 200 words stating the position that seems best to you and what you are uncertain about. Do not caricature any of them.

Further study