Universalists will object to the religious belief of some believers that their religion is the only right one. This seems to be an embarrassment to some. How does one answer? This would be my response:

Let's look at science and nature. There have been many theories to explain things like electricity, heat, star formation, etc... But there is only one correct one. We see this in virtually every other area of inquiry, whether it be physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, history, etc...

To then start discussing the issue of religion with the bias against a "right answer" is not reasonable, but unreasonable. It is the unbeliever's beliefs that are proven unbelievable. Would such a bias be allowed in any other area of study? No. Thus, even at the very beginning of the discussion of religion, we see the Universalist, not the Christian, to first using "faith" in an unsupported presumption that is easily refuted.

It may seem very pompous for us Christians to accept this belief that only through Christ there is salvation, but again, this position is the only reasonable one. Some would say that all roads lead to God, and all that is needed isn't religion, but just intent, reducing it to what's "in the heart".

News Flash: There is only one correct formula Coke. Other formulae give you other things. The addition of integers has only one correct answer (those who fail to grasp this fact often wind up taking the 3rd grade over again). Some medical conditions have only one operation or course of action to remedy them. In other words, "narrow mindedness" is nothing new. Frankly, I would be shocked if I didn't find this in religion too.

One must also ask oneself regarding the Universalist position: What roads can't lead to God? Is running away from God even possible? Surely there must be some line past which we aren't coming closer, but growing farther from the benevolent Creator of the universe, but where is it? Who can make that decision? And when we do draw that line, aren't we back to the conundrum as to which religion is correct? For different religions by definition, give different answers as to where that line is. Thus, we can't escape the notion of objective truth in religion.

As everyone can plainly see, the Christian position has nothing to fear from good ol' philosophical inquiry.

Some actually accept all religions as true in a sort of "synthesis" (take Baha'i for example). Is this really a solution? No.

What is the difference between the "synthesis" and other religions? Doesn't Christianity also teach that it is the fulfillment of all of man's attempts at religion? So then, what is the qualitative difference between the two religions?

The "synthesis" solution also fails because those beliefs and doctrines of many those different religions stem from the claim that they are the ONLY way. Take away that, and you not only take away the Muslim cry, "Allah is God, and Mohammed is His prophet", but also Christ's death on the Cross for our sins. Once you take the inherent exclusivity out of the religions, you turn those same religions into something else, something of your own making. And that is when the one who finds comfort in "synthesis" actually shoots himself in the foot. Because at that moment, he becomes another Buddha, Mohammed, Moses, or any other religious founder, which was the very thing he was trying to escape.

"Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever does not enter a sheepfold through the gate but climbs over elsewhere is a thief and a robber. But whoever enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens it for him, and the sheep hear his voice, as he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has driven out all his won, he walks ahead of them, and the sheep follow him, because they recognize his voice. But they will not follow a stranger; they will run away from him, because they do not recognize the voice of strangers...Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the gate for the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy; I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. A hired man, who is not a shepherd and whose sheep are not his won, sees a wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away, and the wolf catches and scatters them. This is because he works for pay and has no concern for the sheep. I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I will lay down my life for the sheep. I have sheep. I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd." (John 10:1-5,7b-16)

Jesus Christ is the good shepherd who has, and will continue to unite and gather a new family, that of His Church. A new fold under one Shepherd. A new fold in freedom.And that is why the stance Universalists take is so imperialistic, it demands a dogmatic interpretation of the gospel of Jesus Christ (including His Crucifixion). An interpretation that isn't even His. Mohammed, Buddha, and Moses were all very great, wise, and moral men, I'm sure, but they aren't the Good Shepherd. Did Buddha die for so that I may be free from sin? The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. Everyone else is either a thief or a robber. Jesus alone is the gate. Other religions may be rich, and beautiful, and may contain a lot of religious truth, but they can never take away my sin. Yep, it's all about sin, with the awful stain of sin in our lives, there is no way to truly and consistently love our neighbor. Isn't it odd that the religions that feature this "love for one's neighbor" (virtually all of them) almost always have a code of ethics too? It isn't odd. It's true, what we have here is a very strong argument based on quality and quantity. Sin is not a Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, religious problem, it's a human one. The cure must also be universal.

Religion in general (and Christianity in particular) are much more than a set of ethics and doctrine, but that the common problem of humanity (call it sin, irrelgion, or what have you) exists. Just what that cure is, the different religions differ. But it most be one, or a combination of more than one. It must be a something, not somethings, for the disease that most religions say that we have is not a collection of somethings, but a something. There must be one answer, one cure.

The cure that Christ presents is his Passion, Death, and Resurrection.

Universalists try hard to separate faith from reason, for it faith and reason were inseparable, then religion must also (among other things, of course) be a search for truth, and arriving at a destination. If it can be shown that the two are inseparable, than the case for objective truth in religion becomes much stronger. A "test-case" we could look at is Agnosticism vs. Christianity.

Agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible to determine whether or not God exists.

One common argument for Agnosticism is this: There is no way we could, by our limited intelligence discover the Supreme Being, what arrogance we must have to think we could find out!

Refutation: There's a difference between us discovering Him on our own initiative, and Him revealing Himself to us on His own initiative. The Supreme Being would be perfectly able to reveal Himself to us, and if He were absolutely perfect, He would be willing to do so too.

It's not that we are so smart, but that He goes out of His way to reveal Himself to us.

Thus, if the Agnostic wants to maintain his/her position he/she must maintain that:

1. God can't then be a Supreme Being; and
2. He can't be perfect if He existed.

Let's consider 1) If an agnostic wants to maintain that knowledge that God exists can be reached, he/she must first change his/here definition of God. For if God is supreme and infinite, then He would be perfectly able to reveal Himself to us, in spite of our infinitely inferior reason and senses. Revelation to mankind in and of itself poses no obstacle to an infinite God. It would however, be a problem with a finite God, whose powers were limited.

Let's now turn to 2). For if all of God's qualities were perfect, His wanting to reveal Himself would, by necessity, follow. God's love must be perfect, and love wants to spread and propagate itself. For love wants not the vain desires of the lover, but the ultimate good of the beloved. That's where the rub is. how can God love us or anything else? if He does not take the initiative to draw us to Himself. For by definition, drawing one to the Ultimate Benevolent Creator would be for the ultimate good of the beloved. The Agnostic must change his/her definition of love, or his/her definition of God, which would mean that the Agnostic must believe one view of the matter to be superior over the other. To do this, a certain amount of information must be collected on the subject by some means, which is something no faithful Agnostic could admit to doing.

Most if not all Agnostics wouldn't object to the possibility of a merciful God (if He existed). A merciful God would, by definition, commit acts of mercy. What then is the objection to a revealing God who by acts of Revelation on His initiative reveals Himself? What is the qualitative difference between the two acts?

It would seem that the Agnostic is okay with a charitable God, as long as he stays silent.

The only options are Atheism and Theism. For by definition, any kind of God at all would act in accordance with His qualities. Then the dilemma becomes even worse. What is the qualitative difference between acts of mischief, benevolence, mercy, wrath, and revelation?

What in and of itself prevents any attempt of God revealing Himself from being successful?

That's why Agnosticism won't work.

Questioning why doctrines really matter is a perfectly honest inquiry. When one asks this, there are several angles the Christian apologist can take this. One will soon discover, however that the issue of doctrines is seldom about just doctrines. For this is just one of the more convenient battling grounds for pseudo-Christian Universalists and Biblical Christians to have it out. The way my mother posed it to me and her explanation and the reasoning behind her view have compelled to really do some big-time philosophical thinking. This is what thought:

People get mistaken about various things almost every day. My former ceramics teacher told my class a story about a female artist who used rocks in her work. My teacher was then in the student lobby of a university throwing on a potter's wheel when she came in. She saw some very beautiful rocks lying on a table and asked my teacher if she could buy them. He said yes. The artist backed up her car outside nearer to the student lobby, then came back and was ready to lift the pile of stones when she, in the process of doing so, nearly flung them into the air. The "rocks" were not rocks at all. They were made of clay and completely hollow in the center.

The artist mistook the fake rocks for real ones. This is really the essence of mistaking one thing for something else. Magicians are in the business of doing this. They want you to mistake a well executed series of events using smoke, mirrors, ropes, etc... for some magical feat. It looks all so believable to us (until of course someone from inside the trade exposes the whole thing on a FOX Television special).

Which brings me to my next point, it is only when we make an investigation into a matter can we tell that we are being deceived. The audience could try to sneak backstage and see everything, and the artist could have tapped the rocks and discovered that they were hollow.

Let's now suppose that in both cases the two mistaken parties were to ask their respective deceivers a series of questions to which the deceivers could only give truthful answers. The artist may have wanted to ask my ceramics teacher, "In what riverbed did you find these?" My teacher would certainly be in a conundrum. From his point of view, that question is meaningless. He made, not found those "rocks". And after lifting those clay rocks, she would certainly understand that. Only after some truth of the matter has been discovered can we really inquire any further without questions that are utterly meaningless.

Suppose also that the audience of a magic show in which the magician makes an elephant disappear, asked, "Did that elephant go anywhere?" as opposed to, "Where did that elephant go?". The audience would be on slightly firmer ground than the artist, but still is stuck with a potentially meaningless question. For if the magician was a real extravagant techie, he could have pulled the whole thing off without using a real elephant at all. For without some knowledge of the magical feat in question, all questions that the audience could possibly ask would assume too much.

How does this apply to the original question, "Why does it even matter?" Let's recap: As we learn from our hypothetical artist, asking a question that is too have any meaning whatsoever to whom one asks it presupposes that the questioner and the one questioned have some specific beliefs about the issue in common. The artist believed that my teacher believed that those "rocks" were real, and thus, to her at least the question was a meaningful one. When one is asked whether or not all the fuss over doctrine really matters in the grand scheme of things, the questioner has already in a way assumed something about the reality and concreteness of this life Some philosophies, religions, and spiritualities don't regard this life as "real" in the same sense as the rest of us normally do, some even regard the physical world as an "illusion" and thus believing the supernatural realm to be more "real" than the physical (Christians believe this too, of course, but that's because when we say that, we are emphasizing the reality of the supernatural, and not de-emphasizing the reality of the natural realm). It's not that this earth is an illusion, but that the supernatural is so real.). Thus if one questioned the relevance of the supernatural realm to such a person because of the questioner's insistence on the physical realm, our friend would be in a conundrum. For to him/her the physical life is meaningless. Thus, the question would be meaningless to him/her. Only when we know to some degree the relationship between the supernatural and the natural, can we ask, let alone answer, meaningful questions like, "Why does doctrine and theology really matter?".

When we think of religion as more of a search for ultimate truth (even a personal relationship with that Ultimate Truth), we man back where he belongs: on a path. Man is the seeker, the one struggling to put the pieces together. It puts in man in the same position as an astronomer, completely bewildered and awed by what he is observing. The more he learns, the more he appreciates. His knowledge doesn't make the universe any smaller, but rather more certain of just how big it is. He can know the facts and memorize the statistics in scientific notation, but can he comprehend? Nope. Religious objective truth puts man under trial, and God in the judge's seat, but by that same token, it puts man in the boat and God in the lighthouse.

Return to Catholicsource Articles Page

Return to Catholicsource Main Page