A Big Issue
Here I am publishing my own essays again. I'm a bit embarrassed reading parts of this one again but I think it has a couple of good points as well. I guess I'll bring up those points, for good or ill, after this initial post. (I hope it works this time as I treid to do this on Tuesday but the post disappeared immediately after I published it.)
-
Discuss the teaching of John Hick with respect the relationship between Christianity and other religions.
-
In 1973 John Hick called for a Copernican revolution in the way Christians approach their theology of religions.[1] The paradigm shift that he was calling for was from one of ecclesiocentrism and Christocentrism to one of theocentrism believing God to be the God of all religions. Since then, he has modified his position and has called for a Realitycentred outlook in order to accommodate those of non-theistic religions and certain secular ideologies. This is typical of the way in which his model has been refined over time. It also demonstrates his efforts to accommodate all. However, in the process it seems that the ‘Real’ has become such a vague and elusive concept that it is almost impossible to talk about it.
-
Hick categorizes three main approaches to the interrelation of religions, Exclusivism, Inclusivism and Pluralism.[2] The Exclusivist believes his religion to be the one true normative religion through which salvation is exclusively available. Although other religions may contain some truth, they are ultimately false and adherents, no matter how devout, cannot attain salvation or liberation. The Inclusivist like the Exclusivist believes his own religion to be true and divinely founded but unlike the Exclusivist believes that many who follow other religious paths will be saved or liberated despite their false religion because they earnestly seek the truth and a righteous life even though they are ignorant of the one true way or salvific act. The Pluralist, such as Hick, takes this a step further and asserts that all true religions are divinely instituted and reflect different responses to the ‘Real’. Not all religions qualify; most pluralists would not count Satanism as a true religion. The main criterion for a true religion is its effectiveness in producing saintly lives.
-
It appears that there are two main motivating factors that have influenced Hick’s journey into pluralism. Firstly, there is an ongoing inability to accept an orthodox Christology; although in his early work he defended the Chalcedonian formula he began to struggle with it in the 1960s before adopting his pluralist stance.[3] In his article, Christology at the Crossroads (1966) he still defended the doctrine of incarnation but he was evidently bothered by the implications this has for other religions.[4] The second factor, more crucially, stems from his dialogue with people from other religions and his observation that followers of other religions are often more devout than many Christians. If other religions can be as effective as Christianity in producing good character who is to say that God (or the ‘Real’) does not work in and through that religion?
-
The most positive insight of pluralism is the recognition that God can speak to people wherever they are and whatever religion they follow. More than this, that other religions can help people to discover the true God and to lead moral lives.[5] There is some biblical evidence for this sort of thing, for instance, Balaam was not an Israelite but he had counsel with God.[6] Also, it seems that God intervened in the work of the witch of Endor when Saul consulted her,[7] and the psychic slave girl mentioned in Acts 16 proclaimed Paul and Silas’ message for them. There is also evidence that the Bible borrows from other traditions, the book of proverbs draws wise sayings from many ancient traditions, not just Jewish.[8] Moreover, the Golden Rule is present in all major religions, and Christianity was not the first to affirm it.[9] The principle at work here seems to be, ‘if it is good then it is of God’.
-
The obvious objection to pluralism is that the world religions have radically different teachings about the nature of the Divine; while Muslims believe that God is one, Hindus believe that one God, Vishnu, is manifest in three million personalities. Meanwhile, certain schools of Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism are not theistic religions at all. Anticipating this objection, Hick finds a philosophical basis for pluralism in Kant’s distinction between the noumenal world and the phenomenal world,[10] i.e. the difference between the world as it actually is, and how it is perceived by the human mind. Hick compares religious founders to blind men who have felt different parts of an elephant; one has felt the trunk and thinks that it is a “great snake”[11] another has felt a tusk and believes it to be “like a sharp plough-share”[12] and yet another feeling one of the elephant’s legs believes he has contacted a “great living pillar”.[13] Thus, each of the great world religions has some understanding of The ‘Real’ but none has grasped the totality of the ‘Real’. The incompatible truth claims of rival religions are to be understood as mythology inspired by insights of the ‘Real’; “statements about the Ultimate are metaphors that are validated by their efficacy in bringing about salvation or personal transformation”.[14] Hick’s definition of myth is something that although not literally true “invites a particular attitude in its hearers.”[15]
-
Ironically, Hick’s system backfires because in asserting that all religions are valid he implies that all religions are in some ways mistaken. “His attempt to be genuinely accommodating to the religions of the world ends up being accommodating to none.”[16] As Pinnock puts it:
-
-
Discuss the teaching of John Hick with respect the relationship between Christianity and other religions.
-
In 1973 John Hick called for a Copernican revolution in the way Christians approach their theology of religions.[1] The paradigm shift that he was calling for was from one of ecclesiocentrism and Christocentrism to one of theocentrism believing God to be the God of all religions. Since then, he has modified his position and has called for a Realitycentred outlook in order to accommodate those of non-theistic religions and certain secular ideologies. This is typical of the way in which his model has been refined over time. It also demonstrates his efforts to accommodate all. However, in the process it seems that the ‘Real’ has become such a vague and elusive concept that it is almost impossible to talk about it.
-
Hick categorizes three main approaches to the interrelation of religions, Exclusivism, Inclusivism and Pluralism.[2] The Exclusivist believes his religion to be the one true normative religion through which salvation is exclusively available. Although other religions may contain some truth, they are ultimately false and adherents, no matter how devout, cannot attain salvation or liberation. The Inclusivist like the Exclusivist believes his own religion to be true and divinely founded but unlike the Exclusivist believes that many who follow other religious paths will be saved or liberated despite their false religion because they earnestly seek the truth and a righteous life even though they are ignorant of the one true way or salvific act. The Pluralist, such as Hick, takes this a step further and asserts that all true religions are divinely instituted and reflect different responses to the ‘Real’. Not all religions qualify; most pluralists would not count Satanism as a true religion. The main criterion for a true religion is its effectiveness in producing saintly lives.
-
It appears that there are two main motivating factors that have influenced Hick’s journey into pluralism. Firstly, there is an ongoing inability to accept an orthodox Christology; although in his early work he defended the Chalcedonian formula he began to struggle with it in the 1960s before adopting his pluralist stance.[3] In his article, Christology at the Crossroads (1966) he still defended the doctrine of incarnation but he was evidently bothered by the implications this has for other religions.[4] The second factor, more crucially, stems from his dialogue with people from other religions and his observation that followers of other religions are often more devout than many Christians. If other religions can be as effective as Christianity in producing good character who is to say that God (or the ‘Real’) does not work in and through that religion?
-
The most positive insight of pluralism is the recognition that God can speak to people wherever they are and whatever religion they follow. More than this, that other religions can help people to discover the true God and to lead moral lives.[5] There is some biblical evidence for this sort of thing, for instance, Balaam was not an Israelite but he had counsel with God.[6] Also, it seems that God intervened in the work of the witch of Endor when Saul consulted her,[7] and the psychic slave girl mentioned in Acts 16 proclaimed Paul and Silas’ message for them. There is also evidence that the Bible borrows from other traditions, the book of proverbs draws wise sayings from many ancient traditions, not just Jewish.[8] Moreover, the Golden Rule is present in all major religions, and Christianity was not the first to affirm it.[9] The principle at work here seems to be, ‘if it is good then it is of God’.
-
The obvious objection to pluralism is that the world religions have radically different teachings about the nature of the Divine; while Muslims believe that God is one, Hindus believe that one God, Vishnu, is manifest in three million personalities. Meanwhile, certain schools of Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism are not theistic religions at all. Anticipating this objection, Hick finds a philosophical basis for pluralism in Kant’s distinction between the noumenal world and the phenomenal world,[10] i.e. the difference between the world as it actually is, and how it is perceived by the human mind. Hick compares religious founders to blind men who have felt different parts of an elephant; one has felt the trunk and thinks that it is a “great snake”[11] another has felt a tusk and believes it to be “like a sharp plough-share”[12] and yet another feeling one of the elephant’s legs believes he has contacted a “great living pillar”.[13] Thus, each of the great world religions has some understanding of The ‘Real’ but none has grasped the totality of the ‘Real’. The incompatible truth claims of rival religions are to be understood as mythology inspired by insights of the ‘Real’; “statements about the Ultimate are metaphors that are validated by their efficacy in bringing about salvation or personal transformation”.[14] Hick’s definition of myth is something that although not literally true “invites a particular attitude in its hearers.”[15]
-
Ironically, Hick’s system backfires because in asserting that all religions are valid he implies that all religions are in some ways mistaken. “His attempt to be genuinely accommodating to the religions of the world ends up being accommodating to none.”[16] As Pinnock puts it:
-
A major problem with imposing religious relativism on religions in general… is
its unfairness. It rules out people’s most precious beliefs in things normative.
It asks Muslims, in effect to deny that the Koran is central to God’s purpose.
It asks Jews to deny that God spoke definitively through Moses. It asks
Christians to deny that Jesus is the incarnation of God in history.
-
In short, the relativistic principle that pluralism imposes falls foul of self-referential incoherence because by arguing that there are no religious absolutes it asserts the absoluteness of pluralism. Furthermore, even considering Hick’s model it is hard to imagine how such fundamentally different worldviews as polytheism and atheism could all be inspired by the same Reality. Either, the Real is personal or it is not, so why would it allow itself to be so misrepresented?
-
If all religions lead to a salvific knowledge of the ‘Real’ then Christ is necessarily not the unique saviour. Hick launches a two-pronged attack against orthodox Christology. Firstly he argues that high Christology ‘evolved’ in the early church and that the incarnation is true only in a mythological sense. Secondly, he asserts that the orthodox understanding that “Jesus of Nazareth was also God is as devoid of meaning as to say that this circle drawn with a pencil on paper is also a square.”[17]
-
Did a high Christology evolve over a long period or was Jesus always thought of as divine? Hick compares the way Christians have deified Jesus with the way Buddhists have elevated Gautama to the status of a Buddha.[18] Gautama never made any claim to divinity and it is possible that Jesus did not make any such claim either (not explicitly anyway); in this way they may be analogous. However, Pinnock points out that the Buddhist analogy involves several centuries of development whereas Jesus appears to have been worshipped as God from a much earlier point.[19] Martin Hengel argues that the designation ‘Son of God’ was first used in relation to Jesus between A.D. 30 and 50.[20] Nevrtheless, Hick maintains that ‘Son of God’ was metaphorically and honorifically used of Israelite kings, not just of Jesus and so should be regarded in the same way when pertaining to Jesus. The ‘Son of God’ appellation however, is not the sum of high Christology in the early church or the New Testament. Netland citing the work of Moule argues, “Some of the most elevated Christology in the New Testament is present, either explicitly or implicitly, in the Pauline epistles - widely accepted as the earliest documents in the New Testament”.[21] To be fair, there is not really any explicit high Christology in the Pauline literature. The kenotic hymn of Philippians 2:6-11 is regarded by many as the apex of Paul’s Christology and yet in its context Paul is using it to exhort the Philippians to humility pointing to Christ as the supreme example who made himself the lowest. Moreover, it is widely agreed that Paul is quoting the words of a pre-existent hymn, so although he clearly agrees with the statements that he quotes they are not his own words.[22] This however, strengthens the case against Hick’s view because it demonstrates that the Christological hymn was in existence before Paul wrote his letter to the Philippians. Furthermore, being monotheistic Jews the apostles would have been very cautious about making any explicit Christological statements, especially as they had probably not yet worked out how the pieces all fit together.[23]
-
Could Jesus be both God and man? As Hick argues, there have been many attempts to explain how Jesus was both human and divine but the early church found none of them to be adequate, and so at Chalcedon settled on a simple reiteration of the two natures formula without attempting to explain it.[24] If the exact outworking of how two natures could fully dwell in one man is unknown does that mean that it is meaningless? John Stott argues that the orthodox formula has proven to be meaningful to millions of Christians over the centuries.[25] This is intellectually less satisfying than having a clear and logical model by which it can be understood but as Carson argues, pluralists are comfortable with the idea that God or the ‘Real’ is so nebulous that he/she/it cannot be described with human words then the idea of a Christological mystery should not really trouble them.[26]
-
The thrust of Hick’s argument in The Non-Absoluteness of Christianity is that if Christianity (or any other religion) is superior to others then it should have a history that compared with other religions produces more saints and fewer embarrassing despots. When looking through religious history he not surprisingly finds that “each tradition has contributed its own unique mixture of good and evil”.[27] From this he concludes, “the world traditions seem to be more or less on a par with each other.”[28] If any group of people is given a code to live by it is inevitable that some will live by this code more successfully than others and some will abuse the code. Those who manage to live by the code will be the saints of that tradition. However, speaking from a Christian angle at least, producing righteous lives is not the ultimate end of religion but rather to be united with God, righteous living is more a desirable side effect. The Christian is not saved through righteous acts but through the redemptive work of Christ. The uniqueness of Christianity is not in the church, which is made up of human beings like any other religion, but in Christ the incarnate saviour who achieved the impossible on behalf of those who would receive him.
-
In conclusion then, it could certainly be said that Hick’s motive of promoting tolerance is an admirable one, but being discerning about competing truth claims and disagreeing fundamentally with others is not equivalent to being intolerant. Neither does being tolerant necessitate accepting others views without evaluating them rationally.[29] Furthermore, by trying to impose unity onto a disparate collection of belief systems the core of most traditions is effectively compromised to the point that they lose their distinctive character. Hick’s assertion that high Christology ‘evolved’ over time clearly does not hold water either; the evidence of the New Testament shows that despite Jewish reservations about identifying Jesus with Yahweh he was revered from very early on. As to how Jesus embodied both humanity and divinity remains a mystery but there is no need to reject a doctrine just because we do not understand it. The claim that all the diverse religions have come from one source seems unsustainable but there may be some truth in the Vatican II affirmation that all true religions contain ‘rays of truth’.[30] However, God’s mode of salvation is the same for all, that is, by through Jesus Christ his incarnate son.
-
[1] D’Costa (1991) pp.66-7
[2] Peterson, et al, (1998) pp.262-73
[3] Netland (2001) pp.165-6
[4] Netland (2001) p.166
[5] Peterson, et al, (1998) p.269
[6] Numbers 22
[7] 1 Samuel 28
[8] Clifford (1999) pp.8-19
[9] Hick (1987) p.29
[10] Hick (1990) pp.117-8
[11] Hick, God and the Universe of Faiths (1977) Macmillan, London. Cited in Peterson, et al, (1998) p.265
[12] Ibid
[13] Ibid
[14] Peterson, et al, (1998) p.265
[15] Hick (1977) p.178
[16] D’Costa (1991) p.67
[17] Hick (1977) p.178
[18] Hick (1977) p.168-9
[19] Pinnock (1992) p.69
[20] Martin Hengel, The Son of God, The origin of Christology and the History of the Jewish-Hellenistic Religion, (1976) Fortress, Philadelphia, cited in Netland (2001) p.176
[21] C. D. F. Moule, The origin of Christology, (1977) cited in Netland (2001) pp.175-6
[22] Cf. Hawthorne (1983) pp.71-96
[23] McGrath (1994) pp.279-80
[24] Hick (1977) pp177-8
[25] John Stott, The Contemporary Christian, (1992) IVP, Leicester, quoted in, Carson (1996) pp.322-3
[26] Carson (1996) p.323
[27] Hick (1987) p.30
[28] Ibid
[29] Peterson, et al, (1998) p.266
[30] Vatican II (1962-5) quoted in Wright (1988) p.135
-
Bibliography
Bosch, D. J., Transforming Mission, (1991) Orbis, New York.
Burrows, W. R., Theology of Religions, in Muller, K. et al, Dictionary of Mission, (1997) Orbis, New York.
Carson, D. A., The Gagging of God, (1996) Apollos, Leicester.
Clifford, R. J., Proverbs, (1999) Westminster John Knox Press, Kentucky.
Cotterell, P., Pluralism, in Moreau, A. S., et al, Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, (2000) Paternoster Press, Cumbria.
D’Costa, G, The New Missionary: John Hick and Religious Plurality, in Anderson, G. H., et al, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol. 15, No. 2, (1991) Overseas Ministries Study Centre, Conneticut.
Evans, C. S. Philosophy of Religion, (1982) IVP, Leicester.
Hawthorne, G. F., Philippians, (1983) Word Books, Texas.
Hick, J. H., Philosophy of Religion, (Fourth Edition) (1990) Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Hick, J. H., The Non-Absoluteness of Christianity, in Hick, J. H., and Knitter P.F., The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, (1987) SCM Press, London.
Hick, J. H., Jesus and the World Religions, in Hick, J. H., The Myth of God Incarnate, (1977) SCM Press, London.
Jason, N., Hick, John Harwood, in Ferguson, S. B., et al, New Dictionary of Theology, (1988) IVP, Leicester.
McGrath, A. E. Christian Theology, An Introduction, (1994) Blackwell, Oxford.
Netland, H., Encountering Religious Pluralism, (2001) Apollos, Leicester.
Newbigin, L., Religious Pluralism and the Uniqueness of Jesus Christ, in Anderson, G. H., et al, International
Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol. 13, No. 2, (1989) Overseas Ministries Study Centre, Conneticut.
Onunwa, U., Religious Exclusivism and the Challenge of Contemporary Evangelization, in Adeyemo, T., et al,
Africa Journal of Evangelical Theology, Volume 14.1 (1995) American Theological Library Association, Chicago.
Peterson, M., et al, Reason & Religious Belief, (Second Edition) (1998) Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Pinnock, C. H. A Wilderness in God’s Mercy, The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions, (1992) Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
Wright, C. J. H., Theology of Religions, in Moreau, A. S., et al, Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, (2000) Paternoster Press, Cumbria.
Wright, D. F. Christianity and Other Religions, in Ferguson, S. B., et al, New Dictionary of Theology, (1988) IVP, Leicester.
-
If all religions lead to a salvific knowledge of the ‘Real’ then Christ is necessarily not the unique saviour. Hick launches a two-pronged attack against orthodox Christology. Firstly he argues that high Christology ‘evolved’ in the early church and that the incarnation is true only in a mythological sense. Secondly, he asserts that the orthodox understanding that “Jesus of Nazareth was also God is as devoid of meaning as to say that this circle drawn with a pencil on paper is also a square.”[17]
-
Did a high Christology evolve over a long period or was Jesus always thought of as divine? Hick compares the way Christians have deified Jesus with the way Buddhists have elevated Gautama to the status of a Buddha.[18] Gautama never made any claim to divinity and it is possible that Jesus did not make any such claim either (not explicitly anyway); in this way they may be analogous. However, Pinnock points out that the Buddhist analogy involves several centuries of development whereas Jesus appears to have been worshipped as God from a much earlier point.[19] Martin Hengel argues that the designation ‘Son of God’ was first used in relation to Jesus between A.D. 30 and 50.[20] Nevrtheless, Hick maintains that ‘Son of God’ was metaphorically and honorifically used of Israelite kings, not just of Jesus and so should be regarded in the same way when pertaining to Jesus. The ‘Son of God’ appellation however, is not the sum of high Christology in the early church or the New Testament. Netland citing the work of Moule argues, “Some of the most elevated Christology in the New Testament is present, either explicitly or implicitly, in the Pauline epistles - widely accepted as the earliest documents in the New Testament”.[21] To be fair, there is not really any explicit high Christology in the Pauline literature. The kenotic hymn of Philippians 2:6-11 is regarded by many as the apex of Paul’s Christology and yet in its context Paul is using it to exhort the Philippians to humility pointing to Christ as the supreme example who made himself the lowest. Moreover, it is widely agreed that Paul is quoting the words of a pre-existent hymn, so although he clearly agrees with the statements that he quotes they are not his own words.[22] This however, strengthens the case against Hick’s view because it demonstrates that the Christological hymn was in existence before Paul wrote his letter to the Philippians. Furthermore, being monotheistic Jews the apostles would have been very cautious about making any explicit Christological statements, especially as they had probably not yet worked out how the pieces all fit together.[23]
-
Could Jesus be both God and man? As Hick argues, there have been many attempts to explain how Jesus was both human and divine but the early church found none of them to be adequate, and so at Chalcedon settled on a simple reiteration of the two natures formula without attempting to explain it.[24] If the exact outworking of how two natures could fully dwell in one man is unknown does that mean that it is meaningless? John Stott argues that the orthodox formula has proven to be meaningful to millions of Christians over the centuries.[25] This is intellectually less satisfying than having a clear and logical model by which it can be understood but as Carson argues, pluralists are comfortable with the idea that God or the ‘Real’ is so nebulous that he/she/it cannot be described with human words then the idea of a Christological mystery should not really trouble them.[26]
-
The thrust of Hick’s argument in The Non-Absoluteness of Christianity is that if Christianity (or any other religion) is superior to others then it should have a history that compared with other religions produces more saints and fewer embarrassing despots. When looking through religious history he not surprisingly finds that “each tradition has contributed its own unique mixture of good and evil”.[27] From this he concludes, “the world traditions seem to be more or less on a par with each other.”[28] If any group of people is given a code to live by it is inevitable that some will live by this code more successfully than others and some will abuse the code. Those who manage to live by the code will be the saints of that tradition. However, speaking from a Christian angle at least, producing righteous lives is not the ultimate end of religion but rather to be united with God, righteous living is more a desirable side effect. The Christian is not saved through righteous acts but through the redemptive work of Christ. The uniqueness of Christianity is not in the church, which is made up of human beings like any other religion, but in Christ the incarnate saviour who achieved the impossible on behalf of those who would receive him.
-
In conclusion then, it could certainly be said that Hick’s motive of promoting tolerance is an admirable one, but being discerning about competing truth claims and disagreeing fundamentally with others is not equivalent to being intolerant. Neither does being tolerant necessitate accepting others views without evaluating them rationally.[29] Furthermore, by trying to impose unity onto a disparate collection of belief systems the core of most traditions is effectively compromised to the point that they lose their distinctive character. Hick’s assertion that high Christology ‘evolved’ over time clearly does not hold water either; the evidence of the New Testament shows that despite Jewish reservations about identifying Jesus with Yahweh he was revered from very early on. As to how Jesus embodied both humanity and divinity remains a mystery but there is no need to reject a doctrine just because we do not understand it. The claim that all the diverse religions have come from one source seems unsustainable but there may be some truth in the Vatican II affirmation that all true religions contain ‘rays of truth’.[30] However, God’s mode of salvation is the same for all, that is, by through Jesus Christ his incarnate son.
-
[1] D’Costa (1991) pp.66-7
[2] Peterson, et al, (1998) pp.262-73
[3] Netland (2001) pp.165-6
[4] Netland (2001) p.166
[5] Peterson, et al, (1998) p.269
[6] Numbers 22
[7] 1 Samuel 28
[8] Clifford (1999) pp.8-19
[9] Hick (1987) p.29
[10] Hick (1990) pp.117-8
[11] Hick, God and the Universe of Faiths (1977) Macmillan, London. Cited in Peterson, et al, (1998) p.265
[12] Ibid
[13] Ibid
[14] Peterson, et al, (1998) p.265
[15] Hick (1977) p.178
[16] D’Costa (1991) p.67
[17] Hick (1977) p.178
[18] Hick (1977) p.168-9
[19] Pinnock (1992) p.69
[20] Martin Hengel, The Son of God, The origin of Christology and the History of the Jewish-Hellenistic Religion, (1976) Fortress, Philadelphia, cited in Netland (2001) p.176
[21] C. D. F. Moule, The origin of Christology, (1977) cited in Netland (2001) pp.175-6
[22] Cf. Hawthorne (1983) pp.71-96
[23] McGrath (1994) pp.279-80
[24] Hick (1977) pp177-8
[25] John Stott, The Contemporary Christian, (1992) IVP, Leicester, quoted in, Carson (1996) pp.322-3
[26] Carson (1996) p.323
[27] Hick (1987) p.30
[28] Ibid
[29] Peterson, et al, (1998) p.266
[30] Vatican II (1962-5) quoted in Wright (1988) p.135
-
Bibliography
Bosch, D. J., Transforming Mission, (1991) Orbis, New York.
Burrows, W. R., Theology of Religions, in Muller, K. et al, Dictionary of Mission, (1997) Orbis, New York.
Carson, D. A., The Gagging of God, (1996) Apollos, Leicester.
Clifford, R. J., Proverbs, (1999) Westminster John Knox Press, Kentucky.
Cotterell, P., Pluralism, in Moreau, A. S., et al, Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, (2000) Paternoster Press, Cumbria.
D’Costa, G, The New Missionary: John Hick and Religious Plurality, in Anderson, G. H., et al, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol. 15, No. 2, (1991) Overseas Ministries Study Centre, Conneticut.
Evans, C. S. Philosophy of Religion, (1982) IVP, Leicester.
Hawthorne, G. F., Philippians, (1983) Word Books, Texas.
Hick, J. H., Philosophy of Religion, (Fourth Edition) (1990) Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Hick, J. H., The Non-Absoluteness of Christianity, in Hick, J. H., and Knitter P.F., The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, (1987) SCM Press, London.
Hick, J. H., Jesus and the World Religions, in Hick, J. H., The Myth of God Incarnate, (1977) SCM Press, London.
Jason, N., Hick, John Harwood, in Ferguson, S. B., et al, New Dictionary of Theology, (1988) IVP, Leicester.
McGrath, A. E. Christian Theology, An Introduction, (1994) Blackwell, Oxford.
Netland, H., Encountering Religious Pluralism, (2001) Apollos, Leicester.
Newbigin, L., Religious Pluralism and the Uniqueness of Jesus Christ, in Anderson, G. H., et al, International
Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol. 13, No. 2, (1989) Overseas Ministries Study Centre, Conneticut.
Onunwa, U., Religious Exclusivism and the Challenge of Contemporary Evangelization, in Adeyemo, T., et al,
Africa Journal of Evangelical Theology, Volume 14.1 (1995) American Theological Library Association, Chicago.
Peterson, M., et al, Reason & Religious Belief, (Second Edition) (1998) Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Pinnock, C. H. A Wilderness in God’s Mercy, The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions, (1992) Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
Wright, C. J. H., Theology of Religions, in Moreau, A. S., et al, Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, (2000) Paternoster Press, Cumbria.
Wright, D. F. Christianity and Other Religions, in Ferguson, S. B., et al, New Dictionary of Theology, (1988) IVP, Leicester.
posted by Rowland @ Thursday, September 29, 2005
1 comments
