A topic that, or perhaps complaint is a better word, arises when discussing Christianity with folks that do not follow the Christian faith is that Christianity is exclusive. My first reaction is yes, it is exclusive. In giving it further thought, no, Christianity is not exclusive at all. Christianity is not universal. Christianity is also not exclusive for no one is denied if they desire to be saved.
But from there you will seek the LORD your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul. (Deu 4:29 ESV)
"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. (Mat 7:7-8 ESV)
The complaint really is that Christianity is not universal. The criticism people have with Christianity is that scripture teaches that while all are welcome, it is on God’s terms. People do not want to enter on His terms but on their own terms. Unfortunately for those that do not like the terms that God has established, He is God and He will grant redemption only to those that seek Him but no one comes to the Father except through Jesus.
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (Joh 14:6 ESV)
Universalism teaches that all will be saved. Sadly for those that follow that belief, God does not teach that. God has laid out the plan of redemption for mankind. He will save any that seek Him but not those that do not seek Him.
Photo Credit: Narrows national park by Jon Sullivan
Related posts:
16 comments
2 pings
Carolina Maine
September 30, 2009 at 10:56 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I believe that instead of saying sadly some aren’t saved–we should pray that they have a change of heart and that they accept G-d as they lay dying–
Also, as a Catholic married to a Hindu-I believe that G-d is merciful.
Have a nice day:)
The Lead Heretic
September 30, 2009 at 2:35 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
This is another of those places that the differences between languages and cultures can create a myriad of plausible meanings.
For example. The Jewish people often referred to God as ‘I AM’. In other words it is possible that Jesus was was referring to God and saying “I AM is the way, the truth, and the life.” Their language would not have required a word for “is” to be there for that interpretation.
When looking at “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” there is also another very plausible interpretation. Take a closer look at the word that has been translated “me”. In the original language it is ‘emou’. This word can most definitely mean me. Another acceptable translation of ‘emou’ is mine. However it can also be the possessive pronoun “my” referring to the idea being talked about. The thing is in that language the noun immediately following ‘my’ would not be required. As an exampe the same word ‘emou’ is used in Mark 8:35. The one word emou is translated as “my sake”. There is no word for sake in the original. But ‘me’, ‘mine’ or ‘my’ by itself simply wouldn’t make sense in our language. So the translators added the word sake. In other words ‘emou’ in this instance could just have easily been translated in this instance as “my Father”.
Take both of these things into account and see how this verse could have been translated.
“I AM is the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but through my Father.”
Yes, I realize that doesn’t sound quite perfect in our language, but when you are translating from one language to another that is very different a perfect sounding equivalent isn’t always possible even if you get it right.
When those translating the Bible run across one of these type words they have to do their best to figure out which way it was meant to be used. In this instance they had to try to figure out whether ‘emou’ should have been me, mine or my Father. Any could have been true to the original language, but if they picked the wrong one they completely changed the meaning.
My intent is not to change your mind. It is to give you another perspective. I think challenging our beliefs only makes us stronger. As a matter of fact I don’t see the verse the way I just described, but I can at least realize it is possible that I am wrong.
tishrei
September 30, 2009 at 4:41 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hi, I can tell you I UNDERSTAND differences in languages and agree with you. In fact, I happen to speak a Semitic language that is not very different than Hebrew so I can appreciate culture and word challenges when translating.
A friend who read your comment pointed out something to me (I wish he would have replied). If the correct translation was “No man comes to the Father but through my Father” then Jesus’ death was unnecessary and pointless.
In order for the Gospel to make sense based on even the OT prophecies, the only correct translation would be that no man comes to the Father except through Jesus. When I translate from the Semitic language that I speak to English, I bear in mind what is being said by context as well as the culture of the originating language.
The Lead Heretic
September 30, 2009 at 5:15 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Let me start by saying that you may wish you had never told me you speak a Semitic language. I am always looking into scripture trying to get a more culturally relevant point of view. Probably future emails coming your way now.
As for the rest of it I’m looking at it more from the perspective that we are all biased to a degree when we do anything, including interpret scripture. No matter how hard I try to be put aside all preconceptions I will always be me and my interpretations will always be shaped to some degree by my experiences and worldview.
Take for example your post “Is Jesus God”. One of my friends grew up as part of a church that did not believe Jesus was the son of God. I don’t claim to understand what he believes about Jesus. I just know it wasn’t exactly the way I believed it. He grew up in a great home with fantastic parents. They were staunch Adventists themselves. His whole life he was presented a completely different view of much of scripture by parents and a church family. He would approach this verse from a completely different angle and see it saying something completely different. I’m not sure how he would have actually interpreted it other than he would have not believed Jesus to be saying he was the way to God.
I asked him one time why Jesus had to die on the cross if he wasn’t God’s son. It’s been too long ago to remember his complete explanation. The one thing I never forgot though is it presented no conflict to him. Because of his preconceptions and own personal biases it didn’t make it pointless based on his theology. Everything still made sense to him.
I guess what I am saying is a translation that would make a portion of scripture pointless to me or you might be the exact thing that makes it full of meaning to someone else.
tishrei
September 30, 2009 at 5:56 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I speak the language but I do not read or write it. I grew up in the culture so I understand the culture. I lived in the Middle East for many years so the culture is very familiar to me as well as it being the culture I was born into. So don’t start sending me things to read and translate
Regarding interpretation, I agree with you. We will always interpret based on a bias, we can’t help it. However, scripture interprets scripture and to be correct, we have to allow scripture to determine our theology. That being said, if we can, to the best of our ability, put aside theological church bias that we may have grown up in or spent many years in and try and allow scripture to form our theology.
While we cannot, as fallible humans, totally remove bias, we can do it. I can say that I have changed my views on theology when I just allowed scripture to lead me to the truth. That is not a pat on my back just a simple truth.
Scripture has one meaning but may have several applications in our life.
Carolina Maine
September 30, 2009 at 4:27 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I read the Catholic approved translation so I don’t worry that my translation is inaccurate.
tishrei
September 30, 2009 at 4:43 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hi, I did not realize that the Catholic approved translation had verses that said one did not have to put their faith in Christ. Actually, I had thought that the Catholic approved translation was basically the same as the Protestant except for the extra books that are not part of the Protestant or Jewish canon. I’m a little confused by the point of your comment.
Carolina Maine
September 30, 2009 at 5:35 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’m not confused at all. Catholic scholars have closesly studied translations and have sought accuracy. By the way, I speak six languages so I understand translation issues. Oh, and I have studied how Catholic translations were derived so that makes me informed about the accuracy of the translation. I hope this explanation helps clarify things:)
Carolina Maine
September 30, 2009 at 5:36 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
In addition, my blog features a great deal of translated poetry from all over the world.
tishrei
September 30, 2009 at 6:01 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Thanks. I did take a look at your blog this morning but I did not have time to spend much time there. Thanks for the invite to have a look around.
Carolina Maine
September 30, 2009 at 6:09 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Sorry, I was confused as I read quickly and was working with my kiddies here–hence the second post follow up. I agree–knowing culture is super important as so many things don’t translate. My husband is Nepalese and it is funny to learn from him about his culture that don’t fit with ours. Protestant Bibles have different translations. Some people say they are dangerous and can lead worshippers astray. I don’t know…I think language evolves and to make it more understandable to moder worshippers–without tons of footnotes (most people don’t read) is okay with me.
One blogger said the NKJ version has a symbol in the front that represents 666 of the devil. I’m very tolerant of other people’s beliefs, but when it causes harm I think I draw the line there.
Have a good night:)
Carolina Maine
September 30, 2009 at 6:10 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
things that don’t fit…
tishrei
October 1, 2009 at 7:59 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hi, the guy that started Jews for Jesus has an interesting story. One of his best friends was a Christian pastor but this Christian pastor did not share the Gospel with him. Anyway, to make a long story short, David Brickner (the founder of Jews for Jesus) came to know the Lord apart from this Christian pastor. Within days of his conversion, he went to his friend’s house (the pastor) and layed into him for not sharing the gospel for he realized that apart from Jesus, he was bound for damnation.
Another person, who is Jewish and a believer in Christ, said to me that gentiles, for fear of offending and their love for Jewish people, are loving them right to hell.
Apart from Christ, there is no salvation and I agree with you, God has mercy. He provided the way through the death and resurrection of our Redeemer and if we but seek Him, He will save us. It was well within his just right to not have provided a means of salvation but in His mercy and grace, He did just that.
In Christ,
tishrei
September 30, 2009 at 6:00 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hi, I didn’t say you were confused, I said I was based on your comment about the Catholic bible. It’s the same as the Protestant bible except for the extra books that were not part of the Jewish Canon and is not part of the Protestant canon.
Are there differences in the books that we have in common that are different in the Catholic translation that would render the meaning different.
Well, you have a leg on me as you speak more languages than I do. What I was saying was not so much as language though that was a big part of it, but culture. The language that I do speak is part of the culture that I grew up in. Sometimes understanding a culture is useful and that was the point I was making.
Take care,
The Lead Heretic
September 30, 2009 at 6:07 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I really wasn’t going to jump in here, but I can’t help myself. I’m glad the Catholic version of the Bible works for you and that you feel you can trust it. That’s important. I’m not in any way diminishing your Bible or those that translated it.
I guess what I don’t understand is this. Are you saying the the scholars that translated all the non-Catholic versions weren’t striving for accuracy? Or is it impossible to be accurate unless your a Catholic scholar?
I’m not being sarcastic. I’m really only trying to understand. Whether it is someone telling me about the Catholic Bible or one of the KJV only folks I have never understood.
I have looked into lots of different versions of the Bible myself. I have checked into the work and processes that went into them. In my personal opinion scholars that translated other versions of the Bible were just as smart and worked just as diligently. They were just as devoted and sincere. Anyway, I’ll quit. Just never understood.
The Lead Heretic
September 30, 2009 at 6:55 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
tishrei – it won’t let me reply under your latest comment to me. So I’m starting a new one.
I guess for me I think we can learn to do much better with working past our biases, but I’m not convinced anyone can ever put them aside well enough to be able to to be certain of reaching truth. I say that from my experience. I still find my biases slipping in at places I thought I had put them to rest. Sometimes I don’t even see them slipping in. I have a friend who will sometimes say “Theres some of of the old Mark slipping in there.” Yeah my name is Mark.
That doesn’t mean I don’t think we should try. That doesn’t even mean there aren’t times that I don’t think someone is wrong. I just always hold to the possibility that I could be the one wrong.
Compromising the Gospel « Fruit of the Word
October 5, 2009 at 9:36 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
[...] is one of the more common “gospels” that is contradictory to the Word of God. Universalism, in its most basic form, is the theological doctrine that everyone will be saved. Unitarians [...]
Palestinians vs. Israel « Fruit of the Word
January 10, 2010 at 11:03 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
[...] Universal or Exclusive Christianity [...]