Is Jesus the only way?

What you'll learn

• Explain pluralism, inclusivism and exclusivism, and show why the pluralist's 'blind men and the elephant' picture refutes itself
• Defend the exclusivity of Christ from John 14:6, Acts 4:12 and 1 Timothy 2:5, showing how it follows from who Jesus is and what he did
• Answer 'What about those who never heard?' from Romans 1-2 and 10:13-17 with both God's justice and the urgency of mission, distinguishing it from the separate question of infants who die

Why this question matters

Of all the hard questions, this is probably the one you will hear most often in Australia. It rarely comes as a formal argument. It comes as a feeling: 'Surely it's arrogant to say only one religion is right.' You met it in Secular Society, where Jess said all religions are different paths up the same mountain, and in Progressive Christianity, Lesson 3, where the exclusivity of Christ came under fire from inside the church. In this lesson we go deeper.

The question matters because it touches the heart of the gospel. If many roads lead to God, then Jesus is one helpful teacher among many, and the cross was unnecessary. If Jesus is the only way, then the stakes for every person you know could not be higher. Our aim is to answer with conviction and with tenderness: firm about who Jesus is, and warm toward the person asking.

Three answers: pluralism, inclusivism, exclusivism

Christians who study this question usually describe three main positions.

Pluralism is the view that the major religions are equally valid responses to one ultimate reality. Its best-known academic champion was the British philosopher John Hick (1922-2012). In God and the Universe of Faiths (1973) he called for a 'Copernican revolution' in theology: just as the planets orbit the sun, not the earth, so the religions all circle around God, and Christianity is not at the centre. In An Interpretation of Religion (1989) he called that ultimate reality 'the Real', which no religion describes as it truly is.

Inclusivism holds that salvation comes only through Christ, but that some people may be saved by him without ever consciously knowing about him, by responding to the light they have. The Catholic theologian Karl Rahner spoke of 'anonymous Christians'. Among evangelicals, Clark Pinnock argued for a form of inclusivism in A Wideness in God's Mercy (1992).

Exclusivism (sometimes called particularism) holds that salvation comes only through Christ and, for those capable of hearing the gospel, only through conscious faith in him. This is the historic Protestant view and the conviction of this course. The Westminster Confession says those who do not profess the Christian faith cannot be saved by living according to the light of nature or the laws of another religion (WCF 10.4). John Piper defends the same conviction in Let the Nations Be Glad!

The blind men and the elephant

Pluralism's favourite picture is an old Indian parable, retold in Jain, Buddhist and Hindu settings. Several blind men touch an elephant. One feels the trunk and says it is a snake; another feels a leg and says it is a tree; another feels the side and says it is a wall. Each has part of the truth, and none has the whole. So too, we are told, each religion grasps only part of God.

It sounds humble, but notice who is telling the story. The narrator can see the whole elephant and knows that every blind man is partly wrong. Lesslie Newbigin, a missionary bishop in India for decades, pointed out in The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (1989) that the story is told from the standpoint of the one who sees everything. It is, he said, 'the immensely arrogant claim of one who sees the full truth'. The pluralist claims that no religion sees God as he is, while claiming to see God well enough to correct them all. The view refutes itself.

Greg Koukl adds two further points. First, the religions do not merely describe different parts of one thing; they contradict one another. Christianity says Jesus died on a cross and rose again; the Quran says he was not crucified (Quran 4:157). Both cannot be true. This is a logic problem, not a discovery problem. Second, the parable assumes the elephant is silent. Christianity claims that God has spoken (Heb 1:1-2). If the elephant speaks, the blind men should listen.

Why exclusivity follows from who Jesus is

Christians did not invent exclusivity to feel superior. It comes from Jesus himself and from his apostles.

The claim is not that Christians are better than anyone else; it is that Jesus is unlike anyone else. He forgave sins as only God can (Mark 2:5-7) and claimed God's own name, 'before Abraham was, I am' (John 8:58); you studied these claims in Doctrines Under Fire, Lesson 2. If Jesus is God the Son made man, there cannot be other saviours beside him. And consider the cross. If there were another way to God, the Father sent his Son to die for nothing. Paul says exactly this: 'if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose' (Gal 2:21). The cross is God's own testimony that there was no other way.

It is also worth noticing that every view is exclusive in some way. The pluralist excludes the exclusivist. Islam says God has no Son. Even 'all paths are valid' rules out the view that they are not. The question is not whether we will make an exclusive claim, but whose claim is true.

• John 14:6: 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' Jesus said this to his disciples the night before the cross.
• Acts 4:12: 'there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.' Peter said this to the same Jewish council that had condemned Jesus.
• 1 Timothy 2:5: there is 'one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus'. Only one who is both God and man can bring God and humanity together.

What about those who never heard?

This is often the most sincere form of the question. Begin with what Scripture says plainly.

First, no one is truly without knowledge of God. Romans 1:18-20 teaches that God's 'eternal power and divine nature' are clearly seen in creation, but people suppress that truth, 'so they are without excuse'. Romans 2:14-15 adds that God's law is written on every heart, with conscience bearing witness. Second, God judges people by the light they had. 'All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law' (Rom 2:12). No one will be condemned for rejecting a Christ they never heard of; they will be judged justly for real sins against the light they did have. 'Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?' (Gen 18:25).

But Romans 2 is not a back door to salvation. No one has lived up to their own conscience, which is why 'all have sinned' (Rom 3:23). Paul's answer to the unreached is not speculation but mission: 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?' (Rom 10:13-14). 'Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ' (Rom 10:17). This is why inclusivism does not fit the text: Paul makes hearing about Christ necessary. When God was at work in a seeker like Cornelius, he sent Peter to preach Christ to him (Acts 10). The right response to the unreached is not to make the gospel unnecessary but to go.

A separate question is what happens to infants who die. The Westminster Confession says 'elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit' (WCF 10.3), without saying how many such infants there are. The Canons of Dort (I.17) say godly parents ought not to doubt the salvation of their children whom God takes in infancy. Many Reformed theologians, such as B. B. Warfield and John MacArthur (Safe in the Arms of God, 2003), hold that all who die in infancy are saved; others leave the matter with God. Either way, any infant who is saved is saved by Christ, not by innocence. Answer grieving parents gently, and do not treat this as the same question as adults who never heard.

Arrogance or a free gift?

Arrogance is about how a claim is held, not about whether it is exclusive. A doctor who tells a patient there is only one cure is not arrogant; she would be cruel to say anything else. Christians did not invent the gospel, and we are not saved because we are better. We are beggars who have been fed, telling other beggars where the bread is.

In fact, the gospel is the most open message in the world. Most religious paths are ladders of human effort: climb high enough and you may reach God. The gospel turns the mountain upside down. God came down to us in Christ, did all the work, and offers salvation as a free gift to anyone at all: 'whoever believes in him should not perish' (John 3:16); 'let the one who desires take the water of life without price' (Rev 22:17). The way is narrow because there is only one Saviour. The door is wide because anyone may come.

Example: Talking with a colleague who thinks exclusivity is arrogant

Colleague: I just think it's arrogant to say Christianity is the only true religion. Who are you to say my Buddhist friend is wrong?

You: That's a fair question, and I'd hate to come across as arrogant. Can I ask what you think happens when two religions say opposite things? Christianity says Jesus died and rose again; Islam says he wasn't crucified at all.

Colleague: I guess they're just different perspectives on the same God.

You: That's the elephant story, right? Each blind man has a piece. But whoever tells that story is claiming to see the whole elephant. So the view that no one sees the whole truth only works if you see the whole truth.

Colleague: Huh. I hadn't thought of it like that.

You: And I'm not saying Christians are better. I'm saying Jesus is unique. He claimed to forgive sins as God does, and then he died and rose again. If that's true, he isn't one path among many; he's God coming down the mountain to get us, because we couldn't climb it.

Colleague: So what about my friend?

You: I'd love her to know the Jesus I know. The offer's free for anyone, me included, and I needed it as much as anyone. Would you be up for reading one of the Gospels with me and seeing what you make of him?

In their own words

“The religions are like planets circling one sun. Christianity is not at the centre; God, or 'the Real', is, and each faith is a culturally shaped response to the same ultimate reality.” (John Hick, God and the Universe of Faiths (1973), the 'Copernican revolution' in theology; An Interpretation of Religion (1989))

“Each religion is like a blind man touching one part of an elephant. All are partly right and none has the whole truth, so no one should claim theirs is the only true way.” (The parable of the blind men and the elephant, an ancient Indian story found in Jain, Buddhist and Hindu forms and widely used in popular pluralism)

“You hold your religion mainly because of where and when you were born. If you tested Christianity with the same scepticism you apply to other religions, you would reject it too.” (John W. Loftus, The Outsider Test for Faith (2013))

“God's grace is wider than the church. People who have never heard of Christ may be saved by him if they respond in faith to the light God has given them.” (Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy (1992); compare Karl Rahner's idea of 'anonymous Christians')

Key texts

• John 14:6: Jesus' own claim to be the only way to the Father. Exclusivity starts with Jesus, not with the church.
• Acts 4:12: 'No other name under heaven' by which we must be saved: the apostles preached exclusivity before hostile authorities, at personal cost.
• 1 Timothy 2:5-6: One mediator, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all. Only the God-man can bridge the gap.
• Romans 1:18-20; 2:12-16: All people know God through creation and conscience and are judged justly by the light they had. Use this for the 'never heard' question.
• Romans 10:13-17: Calling, believing, hearing, preaching, sending: the answer to the unreached is mission, because faith comes from hearing the word of Christ.
• Galatians 2:21: If righteousness could come another way, Christ died for nothing. The cross itself shows there was no other way.
• Revelation 22:17: The water of life offered 'without price' to anyone who desires it: exclusivity of the Saviour, universality of the invitation.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

Written task

A friend at work says: 'I respect your faith, but it's arrogant to think Jesus is the only way. What about my grandparents in a village in India who never heard of him?' Write a 250-400 word reply in your own voice. Explain briefly why pluralism cannot be true as stated, show from Scripture why Jesus is the only way, answer the question about those who never heard with both God's justice and the urgency of mission, and end with a warm invitation.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

• Explains accurately why pluralism (or the elephant parable) refutes itself or fails to handle contradictory claims
• Grounds the exclusivity of Christ in who Jesus is and in at least two of John 14:6, Acts 4:12 and 1 Timothy 2:5
• Answers the 'never heard' question accurately from Romans 1-2 and 10:13-17, without inclusivism and without implying God is unjust
• Distinguishes the gospel as a free gift from arrogance, in a gracious, personal tone
• Stays within 250-400 words and ends with a concrete invitation to consider Jesus

Further reading

• The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller: Chapter 1, 'There Can't Be Just One True Religion', is an accessible, gracious treatment of pluralism and exclusivity for beginners.
• Let the Nations Be Glad!: The Supremacy of God in Missions by John Piper: Includes Piper's biblical case that conscious faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, and why that fuels missions.
• The Gospel in a Pluralist Society by Lesslie Newbigin: A classic by a missionary to India, including his critique of the elephant parable. More demanding, but rewarding.