Chapter 02.2 - Why Christianity of All Religions?

Why Christianity of all Religions? (Part II) John Hick and the relativism of all religions

A more recent advocate of religious relativism is John Hick who has written or edited several books on the subject. Hick rejects much of traditional Christianity. He wrote, "For my part, I find the idea that God has ordained a scheme under which the large minority of the human race are, through no fault of their own, condemned to perdition, so morally repulsive that it would undermine the Godness, or worship-worthiness, of any being who was said to be God. It would thus be a religiously self-refuting view."¹ ( Disputed Questions in Theology and Philosophy of Religion, New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1993, p.110) This seems to be the central issue for Hick in this work. To arrive at this conclusion Hick deconstructs (destroys) Christology claiming that it was ’not authorized by Jesus himself."(p.49) Modern New Testament scholarship rejects Christology, (p. 149) the finality of revelation, and historic creeds have not met with success in explaining how the God-man can be understood, at least in Hick’s mind. In addition Hick claims that Christians have no higher moral achievement than anyone else. The anti-semitism against the Jews and the low subordinate role of women in Christianity are examples.(p.79) (Are we supposed to conclude that women’s status in India and Muslim cultures is higher?) Hick does admit that the Hebrews claim that Yahweh is the Creator, but that in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna is believed to be the sole source of the universe. Both cannot be true he admits. He does not raise the question about Krishna, or for that matter of Hindu gods, who are subject to the laws of karma and that eventually their position will be changed due to the karma running out on them. In effect these "gods" are not really God at all. Because of the problems of moral achievement in life Hick says, "very few people can be said to be morally fitted, by the time of their death, for either eternal bliss or eternal torment." (189) Because of this he proposes multiple tries as in reincarnation.(ibid.) What can we think in regard to the issues Hick raises? First, we have to ask questions about modern scholarship of the Bible. Modern scholarship refers to those people Hick finds in agreement with his own negative view. The dividing line in authentic and inauthentic statements of Jesus seems to be drawn at the issue of deity. Was he God in the flesh or not? Hick does not think so, and hence all statements in the Bible about this are regarded as later accretions by well-meaning followers. What appears in the examples used by Hick is that where Jesus talks about "reasonable" things we have authentic statements. Where there are statements relating to being Messiah or claiming equality with God,(unreasonable?) then these are not authentic. (Cf. 90, authentic statements, pp.149 for inauthentic) Obviously we have to recognize that some modern scholars of the Bible interpret the statements of the Bible from the standpoint of their own philosophies rather than taking the words of Jesus at face value. There are two kinds of quotes in the New Testament. First, there are quotes that affirm Jesus to be the Son of God, God incarnate, etc. But for modern scholars these words don’t count since Jesus did not utter them. These words are in the writings of Paul, Peter, John and reflect the resurrection (which moderns don’t accept)but which these men experienced. If Jesus had flat out said, "I am God in the flesh" what would have happened immediately. He would have been put to death the first day of his public ministry. Instead he began a period of training his disciple to come to their own conclusions about who he was. After a period of time Jesus asked his disciples (Mat 16:13) "who do people say the Son of Man is? "Some say John the Baptist," they answered, "while others say Jeremiah or some other prophet." "What about you?" he asked them. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, " You are the Messiah, the son of the Living God." ’Good for you, Simon, son of John," answered Jesus, "for this truth did not come to you from any human being, but it was given to you directly by my Father in heaven..." From the standpoint of modern scholars this cannot be a true account because it confesses too much that modern scholars reject! There are a number of instances in which Jesus teaches and he speaks of "my father in heaven," not "your father, or even our father." (He teaches the disciples to pray, Our Father), but see Mat 18:19; Mat 18:35; Mat 20:23; Mat 26:39; Mat 26:42. In Mat 19:28 Jesus claimed a glorious throne in the future age. In Mat 21:33 he told a parable about a landowner who rented a vineyard to tenants and the tenants did not pay their shares. He sent servants (prophets) to collect and they killed them, and then he said, "I will sent my son, surely they will respect my son. But when they saw him, they grabbed him and killed him." The parable is about Jesus himself as the son of the Landlord. In Mat 22:41-45 he speaks of the Messiah as the descendent of David, but David calls him Lord. The Pharisees were bewildered with the question and did not know how to answer it.

Mat 25:31 declares, "When the Son of man comes as King and all the angels with him, he will sit on his royal throne, and...judge the nations. God is described as King in the Old Testament and is the judge of mankind here.(Mat 25:31) In this passage Jesus, the son of man fulfills this role as God.

The founding of the New Covenant in Mat 26:26 has the same high view of God. Jeremiah prophesied thatGod would make a New Covenant (Jer 31:31) and this passage in Matthew is the fulfillment of this prophecy. Covenants were made with blood (See Gen 12:1-20) and the blood of animals was inadequate in the long run. In the death of Jesus he pours out his blood and seals this Covenant which is the new covenant that is eternal. Only God can make these kind of covenants. When Jesus was arrested and asked the question: In the Name of the Living God I now put you under oath: tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God?" Jesus answered, "So you say. furthermore, I tell all of you, from this time on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right side of the Almighty and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Mat 26:62-64) If this were not an authentic saying of Jesus, why would they charge him with blasphemy and put him to death? His crime was claiming equality with God. If he had answered no, then he would have been set free. The last thing in Matthew are the words of Jesus, Go, make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. And I will be with you always, to the end of the age." There are other sayings of Jesus that have not been mentioned here. Jesus forgive people their sins, only God can do that. The enemies of Jesus believed this and believed that Jesus was committing blasphemy by claiming to forgive sins, equating himself with God. These are statements in Matthew only. To maintain that Jesus said nothing about being the Son of God, or the Messiah, is to rip the New Testament into little statements here and there that do not conflict with one’s naturalistic philosophy. Second, Hick states that "Buddha himself recognized that nirvana is not a practical possibility for most people in their present life." (p. 126) In general most people are not ready for heaven or hell in this life. While Hick rejects Christian faith’s once for all decision as immoral, what about a system such as Buddhism or Hinduism in which most of the followers are not going to make it in this life. Is it because they cannot, or do not want to. Does the possibility of another chance in reincarnation bring moral slumbering and lack of trying? Hick admits elsewhere that people do not remember the past life. If this is not possible how is it possible to know to make improvements so one may do better in their present life? Can we presume that a person not concerned about his spiritual life now will be more concerned in the next life? Is this system more morally defensible when only a few make it to Nirvana on the first round. If karma brings one to a lower form of life what is moral achievement in a monkey, or cow, or rat, or worm (all possibilities in reincarnation) that would enable one to return as a human? Third,. the crux of the matter for Hick is the nature of the Real. "The hypothesis that I should like to consider is that the nature of the Real in itself, independently of human awareness of it, is the ultimate unanswerable question. Our human concepts, drawn as they are from our earthly experience, do not apply to the Real in itself, but only to the Real as humanly thought, experienced and responded to within the different traditions." (p.116) Thus the Muslim experience of the Real, or the Hindu, or the Buddhist, or the Christian are all equally valid expressions of the Real. How do we know we are experiencing the Real which is unknowable? We cannot. Only the possibility of the Real revealing itself can bring any reliable understanding. The fact that one can be an atheist, a polytheist, a pantheist, a dualist, or an agnostic in Hinduism raises the question of what is the experience of the Real? They are all legitimate in Hick’s view. Fourth, Hick stresses the issue of moral achievement. He wrote, "I know a small number of people in whom I can see very clearly the fruits of this transformation, and I know by report a larger number of others. These are spread over the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh communities." (p.157) Rarely does he refer to Shinto. There is no doubt that there are large numbers of people who have matured in some form of spirituality. There is little good news in this standard. The Gospel that Hick rejects is the story of good news for the failures of people and their continuing frailty, and they outnumber by vast numbers the accomplished people that Hick declares he knows about. The Gospel of Christ means that He has done for us what we could not do, while the Hindu and Buddhist model is you must do it yourself, or you have failed. There is no one else to help. Karma and reincarnation are ruthless concepts without forgiveness where it is needed the most--with God.

Paul and "God Is Not Without a Witness"

The issues Smith and Hick raise are serious problems. But their solutions leave much to be desired. . Can one deal with this issue within the context of the Scriptures? Smith does not develop this beyond saying that the "exclusive" viewpoint has been dominant in Christian faith but that it is not the only one. He refers to Clement of Alexandria and a more liberal strand developing after that. There are men who seek to develop a solution to the problem of relationship between Christian faith and other world religions on he basis of certain Scripture texts. First, one might begin with a statement like that found in Rom 1:1-32; Rom 2:1-29. God has not left himself without a witness, "for what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them" ( 1: 19 ) . Since the beginning of creation--presumably of man- -God’s power and deity have "been clearly perceived in the things that have been made" (v. 20). One might further add the words in Rom 2:1-29 : "When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what he law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts" (vv. 14-15 ). On the basis of the foregoing, one might argue that much of the insight that is common to Christianity and other world religions might be accounted for. The insight in Buddhism that the world is transient may be compared to the Christian statement that the "world and its lust shall pass away, but he that doeth the will of God abides forever" ( John 2:17). A similar truth could be expressed in the quotation of the non-Christian poets that Paul refers to in his address to the Athenians (Acts 17:1-34 ) . Paul agrees with the insight of the pagan poet who wrote that in God we live and move and have our being (v. 28 ) . The common insights growing out of man’s religious heritage, such as the prohibition against killing, the concern and care for one’s own family, and other ethical concerns, could be accounted for on the basis of God’s witness of himself. A second principle comes into play in this line of argument. Man tends to corrupt his faith and relationship to God. This corruption is second generation movement. Smith’s thesis that faith becomes religion is sound as it relates to the second generation’s reception of founder’s faith. This is why a return to the original deposit is necessary for each generation. Faith in the Christian movement became the "assent to intellectual acceptance" of truth in the second generation and thereafter. The Puritans emphasized conversion in the early days in America. The second generation got by with acceptance of the theology as true. The third generation changed the structure of Puritanism. The Quakers have had difficulty transmitting the "experience" to their children. Numerous instances can point up the corruption of faith. Paul pointed this up long ago. Men have known the true God, but "they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened" (Rom 1:21 ) . They claimed to be wise, but really were foolish. To make their aberration worse they "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles" ( v. 23 ) . In their exchange of truth for a lie, they "worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (v. 25 ) . A third principle supporting the "exclusive" viewpoint is related to God’s reaction to the knowledge man has had of God. Three times the passage in Romans speaks of the people’s being "given up" (Rom 1:24; Rom 1:26; Rom 1:28 ) to go their own way into moral, intellectual, and spiritual sin. The words of judgment make it difficult to conclude that God regards the worship of the idolater with indifference. A final principle may be found also. The book of Romans traces an argument that concludes in the inability of any man to redeem himself either without the law or under it. In the third chapter (w. 19-20) the conclusion of the section is reached: The "whole world may be held accountable to God." Immediately thereafter is introduced the righteousness from God--the gift which is bestowed-- that a man receives in faith. Certainly it is a gift to the obedient who receive it. Can it be a gift to all people? Some theologians argue thus on the basis of chapter 5 (w. 17-18), where a parallel exist between the death of Christ and the fall into sin by the first man Adam. A further implication would be found in Rom 11:32 where "God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all." It is easy on the basis of the above passages to speak of man’s departure into sin, and it is also easy to see how man has universally taken to sin. But it is not easy to justify the universal redemption of man on the basis of the Scriptures. However, if one could speak of a confrontation with God for every man the matter might be resolved. John Wesley attempted to build such a viewpoint based on John 1:9 : "The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world." Wesley argued that every man shall not come to the point of death without a moment of truth, a moment in which he is personally confronted with the decision that determines his eternal destiny. This viewpoint has been expressed in a different way by Thomas Aquinas.

"It belongs to Divine Providence to provide each man with what is necessary for salvation, as long as man himself does not raise obstacles. For if a man who has been brought up amongst the beasts of the forest were to follow the lead of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we ought to consider it certain that God would either make known to him by interior inspiration the truths which must necessarily be believed, or send someone to preach the faith to him as he sent Peter to Cornelius."²

While the above line of argumentation can be supported by the Scriptures, it must be balanced out with the statements in the New Testament that there is one God and there is "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1Ti 2:5). It was the apostolic preaching that declared, "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). Thus joining the two lines of thought in tension, one could say that if men anywhere are to be redeemed their redemption must come through Jesus Christ. If God so chooses to work beyond the normal pattern set forth in the New Testament that is his business. The New Testament stresses the righteousness of God in redemption. Where judgment is declared, it is also a righteous judgment. It must be maintained that for the Christian the Great Commission still stands. It has not been abrogated. Even if God so chose to save men--on the basis of Christ--without knowledge of Christ it would be inferior to one’s knowing Jesus Christ in this life personally. But to not take the Great Commission seriously is to deny Christ. We also have to recognize that God is not limited. There are many stories of men and women in cultures were the Gospel is forbidden in which Christ appears to them in dreams. They have been converted and give their testimony of serious commitment to Jesus Christ. A Functional Approach to the True Religion

If a Christian confronts a religious man in another tradition, particularly in the Orient, in dialogue about the relative merits of the non-Christian faith, he is beset with problems of misunderstanding from the outset. The Oriental generally thinks differently from the Westerner. We define truth as logical consistency between propositions arising from experience or reasoning. In some Oriental cultures this is not the case. Some Buddhists, for example, meditate upon a one-handed clap which is a logical impossibility. In many cases the traditional beliefs are so ingrained with rituals, festivals, and the social system that inconsistency is not felt. Thus a "true" religion is not raised as an issue. If one is to argue for Christianity in its truthfulness it must be done from the standpoint of function. That is to say, Christian faith will better meet the needs of humanity than Buddhism or Hinduism. Thus Christian faith would have greater value in its function in the person’s life. The first area of function is the realm of motivation. This area can be viewed as having four aspects. First, the brand of faith in the New Testament takes seriously the deliverance from bondage to fear. "Perfect love casts out fear" ( 1Jn 4:18 ) . It mounts a battle against ignorance, lust, and hate. A second aspect of motivation is in relation to truth. Christian faith makes a sharp discrimination between truth and error, between idols and the reality for which they are substitutes. A third factor is Christian faith’s claim to bring the man of faith to a knowledge of the Creator, who has revealed himself. Along this line, knowledge of the Creator places the creation or nature in proper perspective. The fact that nature is not divine, that man has it for his sustenance and life, gives the groundwork for an adequate view of society. Thus Christian faith gives the best view of society and the self. The fact that man is demands a dignified explanation of his existence. A fourth area in motivation relates to the possible hope for the present life as well as the meaningful personal existence of the life to come. The second area of function is in explanation. Christian faith, it might be argued, gives a simple but highly consistent and meaningful explanation of important issues. Christian faith offers an explanation of the origin and cause of our universe with its uniform laws and processes. Christian faith explains in a more realistic way the facts of human misery in their various forms in terms of sin. Thus Christian faith takes seriously the fact of sin and the holiness of God in ethical dimensions. Along the same lines it gives a better explanation of the origin and destiny of man in terms of life and the meaning of death. Christian faith has a more meaningful eschatology than other faiths regarding the fulfillment of personality. A similar approach is that of Donald Walhout. In describing the relationship between Christian faith and world religions, he speaks of Christianity as being the existential fulfillment of other religions. He sees this in the "fulfillment of man’s basic need for reconciliation with God and his neighbor." ³ In light of this, the desire of a Buddhist to rid himself of desire finds its fulfillment in Christian faith in the consecration of human selfhood to God. The striving of the Yogi to achieve release from life is fulfilled in Christ, who makes life real, abundant, and divinely ordained. Where religion reaches out for the absolute principle of the universe, Christian faith identifies the unknown power as coming from the God who reveals himself. However, where a religion is going in the opposite direction to "Christ and the practice of Christian love,"⁴ then Walhout holds that Christian faith stands in judgment over it. The opposite direction that a religious person may take is to go away from reconciliation to God. When men turn away from reconciliation, they turn from the means of a basic fulfillment in their lives. Christian faith in regarding itself as the true and final revelation of God has no ground for boasting. Truth knows only responsibility and humility, but often suffers because it is the truth. If the claim of Christian faith is true, how can one know of the content of it? How may a seeker inform himself of God’s revelatory act? How can one have the experience of faith? Is this knowledge that someone tells me? Is it internal in myself? Is it open for all to read and know? To this problem we now turn in the next chapter. The Demands of False Gods

It is difficult to see the appeal of false gods. One may see examples of this in the Old Testament and in one way or another many of these evil things still exist. There were a variety of gods and goddess in the many cultures around Israel. Baal worship, the goddess Astarte, Moloch, the worship of the stars, divination, and magic were in competition to the worship of Yahweh, the Creator. The demand of the gods were great. Mesha, a king of Moab suffered defeat against Israel and offered his son, his successor to be, as a burnt offering (2Ki 3:4-27) to the god Chemosh. The Moabite stone reflects a later battle of Mesha against Israel in which he was victorious and he destroyed the cities of Israel, and devoted the spoils to Chemosh, and the women and girls to Ashtarte. One of the worst kings in Judah was Manasseh who sacrificed his sons to Moloch as burnt offerings.(2Ch 33:6) Later, the people were accused of killing their children as sacrifices to idols, and then going to the Temple of God as though nothing was wrong in what they did. Baal worship could also require the sacrifice of the first born son when one had displeased Baal and this is reflected in Ahaz’s actions in 2 Kings (16:3). The worship of the gods in Canaan involved sexual overtones. The temples were gigantic brothels with religious authority. Baal worship with its implications for sexuality in which people prostituted themselves for their god or goddess were powerful temptations for the Hebrews. After it was stamped out in Israel, it made a return, and had to be fought again. One can imagine what he did for marriage. One can gain some interesting lessons in reflecting on false gods. The first remark is that false gods demand too much. Take the example of burning your son or daughter alive as an offering to a god. Why offer someone else? Why not yourself? The pagan will offer anything to a god but himself literally. From a simple rational view life has some sense of destiny about it. Life has been given to us by birth and if it is not terminated by some means one grows old to the point of death. There is a destiny in reaching death. If one looks at the Hebrew/Christian tradition life is a gift of God. God created human life and the intention is to live to a ripe old age with your family. The two great commandments, love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself implies that life before God is good and life in relation to your neighbor is also good. Our world today has many religious ideas in which life is negated. Many Westerners view yoga as a body discipline, but the aim of yogi is really the destruction of the body. India has many examples of people who forsook their wives and families to wander in search of release from many rebirths in future lives. They have endured many hardships deliberately, ignoring their bodies, starving themselves, and concentrating on their inner spirit. Life is to be rejected. The Jains can draw the conclusion that if one has made such a mess of life now, it would be better to commit suicide and start all over in the next rebirth. The words of Jesus give us the view that He has come to give us life and to give it more abundantly. (John 10:10) Life is God’s gift and is to be lived in thankfulness and gratitude.

2. The body is good, not evil. In many cultures the body is not good. There are lots of body mutilations going on in various cultures. In Taiwan, one can see young men putting swords and knives thru their jaws, hooks in their lips, and back, walking on nails, walking through fire. In other cultures women are mutilated in the genitals, removing any possibility of sexual pleasure. Millions of girls have been forced circumcised. In Africa some tribes have their faces scared with the mark of the tribe, and others have their women’s lips enlarged. In Islam one prominent mullah in Saudi Arabia recently declared that slavery is a part of Islam, and anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant. Even within Christendom the defacement of the body has come to be common place.

What began as a simple penetration of the ear lobes for ear rings in times past has now gone to piercing various body parts, the navel, the nose, the lips, and even the tongue. Tattooing is a deface of the body which the Torah prohibits.

The Judeo-Christian tradition stresses the goodness of the body, care of the body, and sacredness of the body.

3. The gods are not God. There are various kinds of god ideas around the world. Gods come and go. In the case of many ancient gods that were worshipped, they are no more. In the case of contemporary culture, there are many gods. India has a epigram that there are as many gods as there are people. With all the gods in India they are not permanent. Even Brahma in India is trapped in the cycle of rebirth. The great gods of India, Vishnu, Shiva,etc. "are none other than reincarnations of superrighteous individuals from the past who eventually will fall from their high positions."⁵ One explanation for making offerings to the gods is that they have to be fed to avoid being weakened and the world running down. In Japan, the kami (gods) are so general in content that a tree, mountain, people, streams, rivers, etc. are kami. There are about 2000 kami revered in Japanese society. Kami come and kami go. They are not creative, eternal, or powerful. In Buddha’s thinking, there were no gods. In Jainism there are no gods. However, in Chinese culture where Confucius and Lao-tzu were influential they were both made into gods even though neither claimed such a title. After Lao-tzu, Taoism created gods to compete with the Buddhist pantheon that has come to China in the form of Mahayana, a corrupted form of Buddhism. It is debated with reference to Islam who Allah is. The word Allah means "the god" and Allah referred to a god in Mecca related to the Moon god, Nannar. Mohammed claimed that the moon god was the greatest and the only god in Arabia. The crescent is the symbol of the moon god and the crescent moon adorns mosques and minarets, the flag of Islamic counties, and the fast of Ramadan begins and ends with the appearance of the crescent moon. The Muslims sought to identify Mohammed’s god with the Creator of the Bible. The God of the Bible and the god of Islam are two different concepts. Long ago in Israel, King David sang a song of praise to Yahweh, with these words, "The gods of all other nations are only idols, but the Lord created the heavens." (2Ch 18:26) It is important to find out who is really God. 4. How is Yahweh different? l. He is the Creator. There are ancient stories about the gods being in battle and the loser’s body becomes the material for the earth. In the Indian Rig Veda the gods decide to sacrifice a giant man and from his body the world came into existence, his eyes became the sun, his mind the moon, his head the sky, and his feet the earth. In the Japanese myths some of the world existed in order that Izanagi and Izanami could descend the rainbow and stir up the brime of the ocean so that the Japanese islands came into existence. Nothing is known of other lands. The story of Creation in the Bible is that God created the world without pre-existing materials. He spoke it into being. 2. He is the Redeemer. The story of the exodus has this application: is there any nation in the world in which God rescued them from slavery and took them out of a nation to be their own nation? The answer is no. Redemption has more applications than the exodus itself. Redemption applies to the evils we have done. He brings back from the slavery that we commit ourselves to. 3. He is forgiving. Forgiveness is one of the unusual features of the Judeo Christian tradition. There is no forgiveness in the karma system of India. There is no concept of sin in Chinese and Japanese religion, only legal criminal acts. Buddhism and Jainism also operate on the karma system. Mahayana Buddhism has lots of beings that are god-like in quality but they are really humans who have achieved "release" from the cycle of rebirth and stay around to help people. They are certainly not the Creator, nor Redeemer, nor forgiver. Only a concept of a holy God involves the idea of sin. 4. He is the giver of life. Idolatry takes away life and its substance. Since God has given life and created it, it is good and not to be negated. The joy of life comes from God. Love of family and friends is one of God’s blessings, not to be rejected. Love of tasty food with its enormous variety is possible because God has blessed his world with all kinds of fruits, vegetables and nuts. Our sense experience in smelling, tasting, touching, hearing, and seeing is something that God created for our enjoyment. Yes, all these things can be corrupted, but that is our doing, not God’s intention. The idols of mankind have done much damage to man’s existence.

Addenda: Those Who Have Never Heard

The so-called problem of the "heathen" or those who have never heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ, poses a real question in theology. There is also the problem of those who have heard. We are often raising questions about those who have not heard the name of Jesus and the good news of the Gospel, but what about those who have heard of Jesus and the gospel and have rejected it. This has been going on for centuries. Not only personally have many rejected it but governments have decreed that no one can convert to Christianity and if they do, they will be put to death. In countries not so strict there are people who have heard but who chose to stay in Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto, etc. and reject God’s gift of a Savior. The usual question is the first, not the second one. Various proposed answers can be drawn from the history of religious thought. Universalism has had a recurring appeal to many. Universalism is the belief that God will ultimately welcome all to heaven. Universalism has assumed two general forms: rational and biblical. These are not always distinguished as such. Rational universalism tends to argue that it is unreasonable to suppose that a God of love and justice would condemn the greater part of mankind. It is often associated with the biblical concept of love and the argument that God’s love will not be defeated. Apocatastasis, or universalism, is found in the works of Clement and Origen in the second and third centuries of the church. The biblical form is found--not always without the rational association--in modern theologians.⁶ The charge is made that Karl Barth has taught a biblical form of universalism. The primary line of argument is that the death of Christ is universal in its scope. Barth starts from the doctrine of election in John Calvin. The fact that God elects man is the heart of the gospel. Its place in theology comes before one can consider the person and accomplishment of Jesus Christ. Using the term "predestination" with reference to God’s electing man, Barth says: "Predestination means that from all eternity God has determined upon man’s acquittal at His own cost. It means that God has ordained that in the place of the one acquitted He himself should be perishing and abandoned and rejected-the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. . . . Predestination is the non-rejection of man. It is so because it is the rejection of the Son of God."⁷ Calvin had spoken of double election: the election of some to heaven and the election of others to hell. Barth rejects the so-called "horrible decree" to damnation. However, there is yet a double election and all of it takes place in Christ. Man is elected in Christ, and man’s rejection because of his sin also takes place in Christ who becomes the rejected man. Thus election does not refer to a few chosen people but to Christ. Man is redeemed in Christ. "Belief in our rejection is the perverse belief in what God has not decreed." ⁸ Outwardly Barth rejects the doctrine of universalism, but his view of the death of Christ seems to harmonize with the idea of apocatastasis. At the opposite extreme of universalism can be located Calvinism in which all men are condemned in sin. Inasmuch as the sin of man is universal, both through his relation to the first man who sinned as well as sins of his own experience, judgment may universally fall upon all men. All of mankind could be condemned justly on this basis. However, God does have mercy upon the elect and delivers some through the death of the Son of God. Besides the views associated with Wesley above, there is another middle-ground approach. Among some Roman Catholic theologians a distinction is made between the ideas of redemption and salvation. Redemption is what Christ did for all people. All men are redeemed. salvation is related to the individual and what he does personally concerning his relation to God. The redemptive act brings man back to a state of decision like that of Adam who started man in sin. Man must then decide whether he will receive salvation. However, this solution is only a beginning one for the problem of those who have never heard of Jesus Christ. Salvation in the Roman sense is related generally to the reception of the sacraments in the Church. It would offer little hope to those who are yet in ignorance or those who lived in antiquity. One would have to argue beyond this like Aquinas does in the quotation above. In conclusion, a few remarks are in order. The Christian has a consummate faith that God is just and merciful in his dealings with man. God seeks to do good to man. The reason that there exists something and not nothing is attributed to the motive of God’s love. In viewing the problem of those who have never heard, the Christian sees deep profundity in Abraham’s question to God in arguing for mercy toward the man Lot, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen 18:25 ) . Any solution must not abrogate the implications of the Great Commission. Yet, it must be fairly remarked that if the Great Commission had been taken seriously by Christian people, the communication of the gospel to men and women would not have been impossible. However, the larger question of people before Christ’s Commission remains. In this we return to Abraham’s faith. Last, while there are records in which men have been converted by unusual experiences in distant lands without the help of a missionary, these are unusual. A theology of evangelism and missions must be built upon what the individual Christian is commanded to do, and not what God does in his way.

Chapter II, Part II ¹ John Hick, Disputed Questions in Theology and Philosophy of Religion, New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1993, p.110.

²George D. Smith, The Teaching of the Catholic Church (New York: The Macmillan Colossians, 1960), p. 610.

³InterpretingReligion (Englewood, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963), p. 433.

⁴Ibid., p. 434.

⁵(David R. Kinsley, Hinduism, a Cultural Perspective, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall, l993, p.90)

⁶ Cf. John Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1966), p. 322.

⁷Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons 1957), II-2, 167.

⁸Gerrit C. Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of KarlBarth (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Colossians, 1956), p. 107.