**Guest post by Demian Farnworth at Fallen and Flawed.**
Great question. It’s one I’ve often struggled with and felt very awkward at times defending, whether that be with friends or family or strangers.
But what I’ve found is simply this: Jesus is very explicit that he—and he alone—is the only way to God.
Think John 14:6: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.”
How do people who reject Jesus as the only way to God deal with that?
They can’t.
See, if anyone reads the Gospels it’s clear that Jesus thought of himself as God. And also thought of himself as the way to God.
The rest of the letters in the NT bear witness to this.
What this means is that either Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. If he was either of those, then why grant him the status of “great teacher” who is just among many to point us to God. Why trust what he says?
But there’s a third alternative: He is actually who he said he was. He is, indeed, Lord. And in fact, his resurrection validates his claims as the son of God.
So it was Jesus—a man who died and rose again—that claimed he was the only way to God. That’s how I’d explain—clearly, reasonably—that Jesus is the only way to God to anyone who believed there is more than one way to God.
But what if someone says that all religions lead to the same God?
Well, that question deals with how people define God.
Understand, if anyone says that all religions lead to God, then there’s a good chance he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Listen: A close examination of Christianity and any other religion reveals deep differences. Fundamental differences.
Cool thing is, you don’t really need to know what those differences are. All you have to do when you run into someone who believes that all religions lead to God is ask him how he knows that’s true.
Ask yourself, and that person, these few questions:
- 1. How did he come to that conclusion?
Likely he hasn’t done his homework and has simply adopted the pluralist party line so he can do what he wants and enjoy his life.
In the same vein, people will say “God is too big to be limited to one man—Jesus.” They basically are saying the same thing, that all religions lead to God.
Okay.
- 2. Ask him what he means by that.
Again, how’d he come to that conclusion?
Ravi Zacherias wrote a great book on this topic: Jesus Among Other Gods. This book is a great introduction into comparative religion that will show you that not all religions are on the same page.
Finally, some people will insist that all truths are equal. Again, baloney. A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same place. That’s the law of noncontradiction.
Elementary logic.
A great, easy-to-read book you should pick up is Greg Koukl’s Tactics if you want to learn how to answer challenges. Read it and with a few tries you’ll have this apologetic thing down pat.
So tell me what you think? Dead on? Or way off? Got any other ways you answer the above challenges? I’m curious. Looking forward to hearing from you.
- New here? Consider Subscribing via RSS feed. It’s the best and fastest way to get content!
Related Articles
Photo credit
Twitter Updates
You make a good point in that looking at the way Jesus thought about himself tells us a lot about who he was/is. Good post, Demian.
My recent post Att: Local Superheroes
Thanks for the opportunity, Jonathan. I stole all I know from Lewis, Zacherias and Koukl. Who am I forgetting?
My recent post Absolutism [What You Need to Know--and Why]
Wisdom from God.
My recent post Att: Local Superheroes
Lord, Liar, Lunatic… or the correct answer: Wrong
I would argue that if there is a God the express bus if you will, is to stand in front of a truck. You will find out quickly if there is a god or not. Faster even then reading this article.
I came to the conclusion that Jesus was NOT the only way to god over at least 10 years of hard search, study and honest deliberation, so I find your comment "Likely he hasn’t done his homework and has simply adopted the pluralist party line so he can do what he wants and enjoy his life" condescending and arrogant. It's also insulting that you assume that non- or ex-christians are so because of their desire to fulfill their hedonistic impulses. Possibly true for some, but I think it's more your own rationalization.
Brent, okay, great. You are the exception. But I'm not really sure why you'd find that condescending and arrogant. You should be proud of your hard work and not be so insecure. Your search obviously means a lot to you. So Christians and Hindus affirm the same God? I mean they worship the same God? You'd come up with the same profile if both orthodoxes spelled out their image of God? I find that VERY hard to believe, but I'm open.
Rollout: I'm an impatient guy, but not nearly as you! Feel free to find out. But promise me you'll send me a report by Monday.
Ivan: I don't get it.
My recent post Absolutism [What You Need to Know--and Why]
Demian, It is not that I am impatient, rather I get disturbed with the arguments in the religious community as to who is correct. Stand in front of a truck why wait to find out, is my normal response to any religious argument. Who is to say who is right or wrong, no one honestly knows for sure until they die, and those people are not talking (at least to me, anyone hear dead people?).
Demian, Jon, et al,
The more I engage in discussion with skeptics & professing atheists the more convinced I become that debate and argument lead nowhere. Not that they are completely without value, but nearly so because the only one who may doubt his error is one who is sincerely seeking to know the truth no matter what it will cost him. There are few like that today.
My point is this: lurkers. Lots of folks frequent these sites just to read the posts & follow the discussions. They never enter in, so you don't know they are there, but some of them are hungry for real knowledge because they have deep needs. For their sake I don't want to waste time answering insincere questions that are designed merely to muddy the waters and inflate the egos of those who ask them. What these folks need is not to see us confound the rebels in their ill-thought arguments, proving what they don't know– what they need is to learn what we DO know. (continued below…)
(…continued) So when someone suggests that all religions lead to the same God, rather than let him paint himself into a corner then watch him squirm to extricate himself, I simply agree with him. Shortcutting across thedifferences in religions, I go straight to the point: There is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and without whom no man can come to the Father. All other gods are false so, when life comes to its end, no matter what one has believed and pursued, he will appear before the only true and living God, Yahweh who, by His Son Jesus will judge the earth. We who have believed in Him will have already been forgiven because of Christ's sacrifice on our behalf, and we will pass from death to life. But the rest will know God as the harshest of judges because they have lived in rebellion toward Him, as His enemies. They will be struck dumb by the clear evidence of their guilt, and will be cast out of His presence, condemned to everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his messengers, among who they will be numbered. (continued below…)
(…continued) That's what they need to hear, first because it is the truth and second because God may grant them the opportunity to repent of their sins and be forgiven and saved.
Thank you, al, for bringing in a focus on the GOD-Man Jesus.
Pure, condensed Evangelism 101. Al, you hit it right out of the ballpark!
He has a way of doing that, doesn't he?
I think the first premise begs the question. To turn things around a bit, how do you know with such certainty that a god exists in the first place? To give any credence to Jesus’ claims you must first accept that gods are real. What is this first premise founded on?
Pulp fiction and its devoted fanatics
• Chatter about ‘God’ is mere scripticism —
just like Baker Street Irregulars parsing the holy canon of ‘The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes’. The BSI deny the existence of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, preferring instead to believe that Dr Watson is indeed the chronicler and that Holmes once really was ‘consulting detective’ in residence at 221B Baker Street, London, England.
The BSI gather together to iron out contradictions in the received “Word”. They write learned “theological” papers. Of course, Sherlock Holmes has also taken on a life of his own outside the canon, just like the ‘Jesus’ character — witness Meyer’s clever Holmesian novel and film adaptation ’The 7% Solution’. At least the Irregulars know that the object of their devotion is a fiction.
The almighty lords of middle eastern dualism: Ahura Mazda, Yahweh, Allah, Christ are moral equivalents of Holmsian super-villain Dr Moriarity. Lurid pulp (scriptures) about these all-too-human fictional characters enjoys fanatical mega-cult followings.
• I can have opinions about a fictitious character
’Sherlock Homes’ as presented by Sir Arthur in ’The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes’. I can also have opinions about a fictitious character ‘Christ’ as presented by Paul’s psychologically diseased mind, or about a commonplace1st century CE fictional wonder worker ‘Jesus’ as presented in a fantasy history attributed to “Mark”.
All I can know about these fictional characters is what I can read on “authorized” pages — in the case of xian texts, those carefully selected by synods of proto-Catholic bishops at least 5 centuries after the alleged events took place.
• Not even today’s fundies dare deny the work of the Councils
which created an ideologically pure xian text — after all, some Gnostic works are extant which give a very different picture of ‘Jesus’. See, for example, the gospel of Thomas. It’s very funny to see fundies bound by the same party hacks among the learnèd ‘fathers’ as the RCs. (No learnèd mothers need apply.)
No one will ever locate a genuine quote from Sherlock Holmes, or Jesus, or the hellenistic world avenger, Christ. And for exactly the same reason.
• Xianity is a lying fiction
which arose recently as part of the big-3 near-eastern group of male supremacist religions — ruled by paternalistic, misogynistic, morally perverted, puerile, prudes and chest thumping anti-intellectual losers. (Look at islam today if you want to see what xianity was once and could easily be again.)
Theology adds nothing.. Theology is fifth-rate fan fiction.
When you consider that there is no evidence at all that the character Jesus ever existed, this seems like a silly question.
There is not one contemporary account of and anyone names Jesus, Yeshua, or anyone performing the miracles and having the public effect of the mythical jesus.
There are legends of Mithra, Osiris, and other figures that pre0date jesus. That bear an amazing resemblance to the jesus myth. That should make anyone wonder what this is really about. Unless that person has completely rejected facts, logic, and independent thinking.
Anti-supernaturalist, are you drunk?
James Smith, is that some kind of joke? No evidence? Please, tell me how you came to that conclusion.
Demian, Jonathan, interesting this concerted onslaught.
Call me suspicious – I bet these individuals know each other and have decided to do “their thing” on this blog.
One really has to wonder why they make the effort.
For those of us who know the reality of God in our lives, such outrageous diatribes seem so laughable. But, at the same time, they fill us with fear and awe.
Fear that they dare blaspheme – awe that God withholds His terrible judgement.
DB, you’ve spoken of a wonderful and disastrous truth. And once again I am reminded of the mercy of God, by which I should respond in awe. It’s the awe that C.S. Lewis described as wonder intertwined with dread.
I agree, Don, thus my minimalist approach to answering their comments. You summed it up here, “For those of us who know the reality of God in our lives, such outrageous diatribes seem so laughable. But, at the same time, they fill us with fear and awe.”
My heart is broken. Indeed.
“See, if anyone reads the Gospels it’s clear that Jesus thought of himself as God.”
I don’t remember reading anywhere in the bible where Jseus thought he was God. I only read that he talked about God to other people.
“And also thought of himself as the way to God.” Now this part I’ve read.
“Finally, some people will insist that all truths are equal. Again, baloney. A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same place. That’s the law of noncontradiction.”
This is funny, the whole trinity statement seems to me to be the most contradictory statement in all of organized religion. Not good to put down people for this when Christians are the most contradictory. There’s more Christian denominations than any other religion, obvious something contradicts something, lol.