A (0:00)

If I've been persuaded that Jesus is in fact the only way to God, and that I see that he says he's the only way to God, and if I believe him to be speaking the truth, then for me to deny that uniqueness would be unspeakably arrogant.

B (0:23)

So it is far more arrogant to claim all roads lead to God than to than to declare the words of Jesus that He is the Way, the truth, and the life. Welcome to the Thursday edition of Renewing youg Mind. I'm Nathan W. Bingham. It offends many people today when Christians state that Jesus is the only way of salvation. What about all those people born in other countries where Christianity isn't dominant? Well, that's the objection R.C. sproul will deal with today. This message on the uniqueness of Christ is the final message in this series. So it is the final day to request lifetime digital access to these classic Messages, along with Dr. Sproul's 32 message series, defending youg Faith, and our Field Guide on False Teaching. So give your gift and request this Apologetics resource bundle before midnight tonight@renewingyourmind.org so how did RC Sproul respond when a teacher in the middle of class called him arrogant for believing Jesus is the only way? Here's Dr. Sproul to tell the story.

A (1:35)

One major field of scholarly endeavor that developed as a separate science in the 19th century was the field of comparative religion. Scholars became very much interested in trying to discover a basic common denominator that could be found in all of the world religions in an attempt to find that common essence that would give some basis for unity or at least toleration of different religious and theological viewpoints. This was a very important dimension of 19th century liberalism, which in their quest sought to give a naturalistic understanding of the Christian faith and reduce the Christian faith to the essence of the teaching of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. And in that viewpoint was expressed the notion that God is universally the Father of all men and that all men are brothers. On the basis of that motif, then it became a complementary notion that that all religions are in some way worshiping the true God, and that all religions are having their unique expression to their confidence in the fatherhood of God and their particular peculiar idiosyncrasies with respect to their expression of the brotherhood of man. And so if you would peruse the literature of the 19th century, particularly in the liberal school of theology, you will see scores and scores and scores of books published under titles such as Feuerbach's title the essence of Christianity or the essence of religion. And so this notion of the universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man, along with the notion that all world religions, the great world religions, are at the core, at the basic roots, believing essentially in the same thing. You've heard, I'm sure, the mountain image that sees the whole situation this, that God is at the top of a great mountain, and there are many roads that lead up that mountain. Some of the roads go by a very circuitous route to the top, others go directly to the top from one side, and perhaps another one goes directly from the top from another side. Or there were all kinds of different variations, but ultimately all of the paths lead to the top of the mountain. And so in the final analysis, it doesn't really matter which path you are on. As long as you're on the mountain, you're going to be moving towards the top. Now, how many of you have heard of that kind of. Probably many of you have used it and embraced it all right? Now add to this notion also the climate of the culture in which you're living, which has embraced at the secular level, basically a pluralistic worldview. I remember talking to a girl on a college campus not too long ago who said to me, Mr. Sproul, do you believe in God? And I said, yes. Do you find the belief in God meaningful to your life? Yes. She says, well, I don't believe in God and I don't feel the need to believe in God. If you have people say that to you, they don't feel the need to believe in God. She said to me, so therefore, that means that for you there is a God. For me, there is no God. That's what relativism is all about. When I sat down with a girl and I played with her for a moment, I said, wait a minute. I said, do you realize what you've just said to me? You're not talking sense to me at all. Now, do you really think that if, in fact, apart from us, there is no God? If I believe in a God and pray to a God and find that belief very meaningful and give my life to be burned for that God, is that personal, subjective affirmation and belief on my side gonna create an eternally self existent thing? Do I have the possibility to create something out of nothing? There is no God in fact, but I, because I believe him, that means there is for me. Are you suggesting that on the other hand, if there is a God such as I believe in, who is holy and just and eternal and for whom you are ultimately responsible. If you don't feel the need to believe in him and you don't affirm his existence and find it utterly irrelevant to your life, is that going to destroy that God who exists out there? I said what we're debating here is not the question of what you find meaningful and what I find meaningful in my own private lives. What we're discussing is whether or not there really is a God apart from you and apart from. We are discussing objective truth, not subjective feelings about truth. But it's inevitable that relativism has to produce subjectivism. These three isms, pluralism, relativism and subjectivism are inseparably related to each other. And what I would like to show you today is that subjectivism, which comes across in an outward attitude of extreme broad mindedness and extreme toleration because it gives allowance for any viewpoint to be held with impunity, is in the final analysis an extremely arrogant human position. Because truth for me is determined to be true simply on the basis of the fact that I believe it. It's true for me because I find it meaningful. That is arrogance. That allows for no objective criticism outside of myself. That allows for no objective evidence of outside of myself. Truth is determined by the individual and it can be determined arbitrarily, capriciously, purely on the basis of personal whim and desire. As if in the final analysis I determine what is true by what I declare to be the truth. Now, obviously, the attitudes that are extolled in relativism and pluralism are the very opposite attitude of arrogance. And the thing that appears to the person who is into a pluralistic worldview when he hears a Christian walking around saying Christ is the only way that strikes the person as being the most arrogant thing that he's ever heard, doesn't it? That's why our conviction that Jesus Christ is the only way to God creates so much flak and, and so much static to the world. So when I say that people hear that as the most arrogant claim in the world at this point, they're projecting, okay, that's projection. And I think that we need to expose that projection. Let me give you an illustration of that, of how this works out. I remember sitting in a college classroom in an English class. We had a woman English teacher who had been a war correspondent during World War II. And she was one of these women that was extremely masculine, very hard and very domineering and indeed intimidating. She scared the liver out of us. And she was very cynical as an intellectual person. And her cynicism betrayed a kind of bitterness. I don't know what the roots of that were, but I remember we lived in fear and trembling in her classroom because she could just verbally lash you out and wipe you out in no time at all. And I remember sitting in the hair classroom as a freshman, and I was a new Christian. I've been a Christian about two months. And she knew it. And she was very hostile to the Christian faith. And she said in front of the whole class, she said, Mr. Sproul, do you believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God? Well, I knew. Well, I knew how she felt about that. I knew if I answered truthfully, she was going to make mincemeat out of me in front of the whole class. But I knew if I answered falsely that I was committing treason. So I really had a tough time. So I just very calmly said, yes, ma', am, I do. And then the tirade came. She lit into me in front of the whole class. She just humiliated me, reduced me to nothing. She just started all around saying, that's the most arrogant, egotistical thing I've ever heard anybody say. What makes you think that just because you believe in the Christian faith, that makes it the only way to God? And she just made me look like the most self centered, egotistical, subjectivistic person in the whole world. And her whole response indicated how arrogant my position was. And I didn't say anything because, for one thing, I was scared to death and I didn't want any more of it. I just thought it'd be easier to sit there and take it than to try to debate with her in front of class. But when the class was over, I went up to her, I asked her, I said, I know you don't agree with me, but maybe you could have a different understanding of why I believe that Christ is the only way of God. If I believed that Christ was the only way to God because Christianity happened to be the religion that I believe in, and that the assumption being that anything I believe in must be the truth and can only be the truth because I'm the one who believes in it, that would obviously be a radical form of arrogance. But if I've been persuaded by other evidence that Jesus is in fact the only way to God, there at least he is one way to God, and that I see that he says he's the only way to God, and if I believe him to be speaking the truth, then for me to deny that uniqueness would be unspeakably arrogant. And she finally got that. She began to see. I mean, she didn't like Christianity. And she still said, that's one of the reasons why I can't buy Christianity, because I can't believe in a God who would limit salvation, redemption to one man. But I understand now why you believe that. I mean, if you believe in Christianity, you have to be committed to believing in Jesus. And if Jesus says, I am the way, the truth and life, no man cometh to the Father except by me. If you're going to be faithful to Christ, you've got to make that affirmation. Otherwise you are standing in direct conflict with the teaching of Jesus. If you say something contradictory to what he says, he says he's the only way. If you say there's other way, then you're standing in opposition to Jesus. You're no disciple of his. You're an enemy of Christ. You can't have your cake and eat it too. She understood that. So then the real problem became how could it be possible for God to limit redemption to one mediator? That's the real problem that people just can't fathom. The charge that you hear so often is that God is unfair, that people who live in a Christian culture have an advantage over those who don't live in a Christian culture. Those who have heard the gospel are in great advantage over those who have not heard the gospel. That's not fair. And if God is really big, if he's really loving, if he's really compassionate, if he's really merciful, if he's all those things that we say he is in the name of Christ, then certainly he's not going to limit redemption to one way. Do you feel the brunt of that particular objection? Well, how do you handle that? The way that I have found practically to deal with that, I just simply go through the Bible in a nutshell. I should suppose there is a God. And let's suppose that that God is perfectly holy, perfectly pure, perfectly righteous. And suppose out of a spirit of love, he created man, and he created him special. Let's just suppose this and this God who created man special, created man in his own image and gave him the priority mandate to mirror and reflect his holiness. The ultimate purpose of man was to glorify God. Suppose that's the case. And suppose all men, out of a base spirit of ingratitude and out of a lust for power beyond their status as creatures, acted in total open defiance to the clear commandments of that God. And suppose then that God, in response to man's rebellious defiance, instead of electing to destroy these ungrateful creatures, decided to provide a way for them to be redeemed. And suppose the first thing he did was that he sent messengers to this world to once again call the people to respond to his commandments and to announce the opportunity for forgiveness, to call attention to the central motif of God's mercy. And then those people who were in disobedience first refused to hear the voices of the messengers of God and then killed the messengers of God. Suppose that happened. And suppose instead of God reaching a boiling point in his anger, instead of saying, well, that's it, you've had your chance, you're all going to hell. Suppose he takes another step. Suppose rather than sending a message, he decides to come himself in the form of a man, and in coming, decides not only to again repeat the message of a call to repentance and an invitation to eternal life, an invitation to experience total forgiveness. Suppose, in addition to that verbal announcement, this one, who is God incarnate, decides to pay the penalty himself. And then God says about his son, I have one requirement that you embrace my son. Now, suppose God did all of that. How would you respond to the person who came to God and said, you haven't done enough. You haven't done enough. Why do I have to honor this one who died for me? Why can't I just as soon honor one of his competitors? Why can't I honor Buddha, who was an atheist, who didn't believe in God, who only offers to me enlightenment? Why can't you be satisfied, God, if I believe in Mohammed, who denies the deity of your son, why can't I embrace Judaism, which is a conscious alternative to the messianic vocation of Jesus that involves a clear repudiation of your son? Why should it possibly matter to you, o God, that I would honor this one rather than any of the others? Now, people may not believe that there is a God, or that God is a holy God, or that man is accountable, or that man has sinned, or that they've killed the prophets, or that Jesus was God incarnate. But certainly they ought to be able to see that. If it's true that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, that should be reason enough for people to understand why we consider him somewhat unique. We consider him to be alive. The last time we looked, Buddha was dead, Mohammed was dead, Moses was dead. Do you realize that to mention the name of Buddha in the same breath with Jesus is an affront to God? God has declared, this is my beloved Son, this is my only begotten Son. But the point that I press is do you think that God hasn't done enough? People don't understand the amazing character of what God has done in Christ. And we have to keep getting their attention back and back to the incredible depths to which God has stooped to provide a way of redemption for a creature that is in constant and utter rebellion. I've personally found that to be very effective in dealing with people to get them to consider it from the biblical perspective. And they would certainly be able to see that if the opening premises are true, the conclusion would certainly follow. And it would be absolutely absurd to talk about other ways. There's one other point that I like to call attention to in dealing with the innateness of Christ, and that is that in terms of other world religions, we find no real basis for dealing with human sin, no real way of atonement, no real soteriology. We don't even find a claim. And I really wish that people would sit down and analyze objectively and value judgment way the difference between Jesus and Mohammed. How can we talk about Christianity in the same breath with Hinduism, where in Hindu countries the life of a cow is considered more valuable than the life of a human being just at a human level, how could somebody compare that in the same breath with Christianity? One last point, and that's just for your consideration. I think we see a tremendous commitment in Scripture that God has to man. And we see this inordinate desire of God to redeem man. It's God who's doing the chasing all over the place, providing all kinds of ways of salvation historically and culminating in the person of Christ. I think it's fair to say that there's a certain sense in which God has committed himself to the well being of me. I think Christianity certainly teaches that and certainly reveals that. But I think there's a point that people overlook here that God has also committed himself to His Son. And there's passages galore in the New Testament that call attention to the fact that when the pushing comes to shoving, if the Father has to choose between you and His Son, you've had it. Because the Father is absolutely committed to the glorification and exaltation of Jesus Christ. God is the one who will not tolerate pretenders to the throne. God is the one who has absolutely determined that Christ and Christ alone be exalted above the nations. For he alone has done consistently and impeccably that which pleases the Father. The only way we get saved at all is for Christ's sake. The only reason I can give under heaven that God would bother to save anybody is that Christ might be the firstborn of many brethren, that he might see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied. We are the gifts of the Father to the Son. Redemption, in the final analysis, is for no other purpose than for the glorification and vindication of Jesus of Nazareth. It's for Christ's sake that anybody is saved, and it's by Christ that anybody is saved that he might be. All in all, that's the commitment of God, and I think it's imperative that we get people to see that.