Are All Religions Equally True?

 Professor Larry Timbs of Winthrop University has written that in one of his courses there is a discussion taking place of an article entitled "Religious Diversity".   He refers to a passage in the article that makes the claim that "being a Christian does not commit one to to the view that all other religions are completely wrong".  I would agree with that statement, provided that the word "completely" is emphasized.

Surprisingly, I took a little encouragement from the fact that 14-15 of the 17 students in the professor's class identified themselves as Christian, but was disappointed at their commitment to their faith and the lack of clarity in their thought process.  The church obviously has a lot of work to do in the area of discipleship and critical thinking.

Professor Timbs tells a cute little story of Joe not minding which church van he gets on as "we are all trying to get to the same place".  The conclusion that he draws from the story is  a polar  opposite of the conclusion that I would draw.  To Professor Timbs, the story illustrates the idea that one single religion or faith cannot be  the one and only way to salvation or eternal life because there is such a diversity of faiths.  Never mind that, in the story,  each van that shows up will take Joe to a Christian church.  Not being particular about a Christian denomination is a far cry from not being particular about a specific faith.

When he says that one person's truth or faith cannot possibly be the only path to salvation, Professor Timbs reveals a world view that seems to be decidedly "modernist", the idea that absolute truth doesn't exist, i.e., you have your truth and I have my truth and his worldview may even extend to being "post-modernists", that there is no such thing as truth at all, i.e., that we each get make up our own truth. 

Now, in logic, the law of non-contradiction says that two opposing claims to truth cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense.  While each of the world's religions contain a glimmer of truth (hence the insistence on emphasizing "completely"), at some point they each make a truth claim that directly opposes the claims of Christianity.  For Christians, it is when these claims differ from Biblical teaching that other religions must be considered false.

The entire history of Judaism points to a coming Messiah, but according to Christianity the Messiah arrived in the God-Man Jesus Christ and he was rejected.  Now either Jesus was the long awaited Messiah or he was not, but the claims of Judaism and Christianity oppose each other on this point and many others.  Those claims cannot both be true.

Islam  rejects all of the key doctrines of the Christian faith.  It certainly rejects the idea that Jesus was God incarnate and it denies his death on the cross. It rejects the Bible as the authoritative Word of God.  Hence, Islam not only differs from Christianity, but opposes it on all counts.   If its claims are true, then the claims of Christianity are false.

The Eastern religions of Buddhism and Hinduism deny the existence of a personal God and also deny the existence of sin.  For Hindus and Buddhists God is an impersonal being and there is no such thing as the need for salvation.  These beliefs are a direct refutation of Christianity and either they are true or Christianity is true, but both cannot be true.

Christian apologist Peter Kreeft, of Boston College, says, " Christianity is like no other religion.  Instead of the founder pointing to the religion, the religion points to the founder.  Buddha said: "Look not to me, look to my doctrine".  Christ said, "Come unto me....I am the way the truth and the life."  If He is God, then all other religions, however many great truths they may contain, can be nothing more than torn pieces from Christ's seamless garment.....The traditional Christian "triumphalistic" claim of superiority over all other religions is not a claim about Christianity (and certainly not about Christians) but about Christ.  That is why it is non-negotiable".

Anyone who claims to be a Christian and would agree that Christ is "just one path to God among many" either have not read the Gospels or if they have read them, don't understand the fallacy of making such a statement.

The great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis saw the issue clearly when he wrote, "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him: "I'm ready  to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God."  That is the one thing we must not say.  A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.  He would either be a lunatic--on a level with  a man who says he is a poached egg-- or else he would the Devil of Hell.  You must make your choice.  either this man was, and is, the Son of God or else a madman or something worse.  You can shut him up for a fool,  you can spit at him and kill him as a demon, or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God.  But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher.  He has not left that option open to us.  He did not intend to."

  Peter Kreeft is right.  The question  of salvation is not about Christianity or other religions, it is about Christ.  C.S. Lewis is right.  Christ is either who he said he was, and his claim was that he was God incarnate,  or he is not worth bothering with.   So when Jesus says that he is the only way to salvation, is he right?  The evidence is there for anyone to investigate and I daresay an honest investigation will lead to the conclusion that yes he is.