3/03/2004 12:13:00 PM|||Andrew|||On Christian Pluralism

I came up with this line of argument half as an exercise in logical thinking, and half because I had worked myself into a state where I was genuinely concerned about the issue at hand. It is not intended to be an attack on pluralism in general or even christians who have a pluralistic outlook on life. It is simply my thoughts on a subject of some interest to me. It represents a very personal journey of faith, presented here because this is my place to publish the various strange thoughts that run through my head from time to time.

To begin...

I begin with the assumption:
(1) Pluralism is true. Well, I begin with a definition really. Pluralism: the idea that God has presented himself to different peoples at different times in different forms and ways. In other words, all (or perhaps most) of the major religions of the world should not fight each other, because they are all equally true, having a common source in the Divine. I fully realize that this definition is a very specific kind of pluralism; it is this specific idea, the idea that all religions have a common source, that I address here.

(2) Then, God presented himself to me in the way that he did (traditional Christianity) for an appropriate reason; he knew that this presentation was the best for me.

(3) Therefore, to deviate from how he presented himself to me would be to reject his presentation, to flout his will and plan for my life.

(4) Now, God presented himself to me through a religion of exclusivity. The primary source for Christianity, the Bible, clearly* presents a message of exclusivity. The bible makes no allowance for people who never heard the gospel of Christ, nor for people who had their hearts in the right place but just happened to follow a different religion. Jesus Christ himself claimed "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except by me."

(5) So, from 3 and 4, I ought not to violate God's presentation. It is right that I should believe the Bible's message of exclusivity, since it is the way in which God presented himself to me.

(6) But this message of exclusivity directly conflicts with the idea of pluralism, leading to the conclusion that pluralism must be false.

(7) Since the assumption that pluralism is true has led me to a contradiction, I reject the assumption.

This is a classic example of reductio ad absurdum, a basic tool of classical logic. If you think that the structure of my argument is flawed somehow, let me know.

*The primary weakness in this argument lies in the fact that Christianity's message of exlusivity has been challenged as unbiblical by some. To me, it's pretty straightforward, but obviously that doesn't make it so for everyone. Perhaps another post can address this very issue though.

|||107834478096919830|||