• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Supersessionism and beyond - Can Christianity meaningfully address religious pluralism?

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Depends what you mean.

If you mean "Can you live with people who believe differently?" The answer is a resounding "Yes". Coming to Jesus is a free will / no pressure response to His love.

If you mean, "Will Christianity accept that there are many paths?" I don't think there is ANY religion that believes any faith is good. If Christianity believes "Jesus is the only way", by the nature of that statement, every religion that doesn't agree with that statement will not embrace that statement

Thanks Ken. A couple of points.

1/ No one Christian can talk for all Christians.

2/ It is clear that Catholicism (based on @Vouthon ’s posts) is able to accept the validity of other religious faiths, particularly Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.

It is clear that whatever denomination or stream of Christianity you belong to, it rejects the validity of other religions. John 14:6 is the most quoted verse I’ve heard from Christians justifying this position.

Depends on your definition

Supersessionism - Wikipedia

Direction is simply more of Isaiah 58:6... loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?

As we preach Jesus, of course :D But given regardless of the response to Jesus

Do you believe Satan is going to rule the earth and we’re all going to have 666 branded on our foreheads and wrists?:D
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
1/ No one Christian can talk for all Christians.
True.... true...

2/ It is clear that Catholicism (based on @Vouthon ’s posts) is able to accept the validity of other religious faiths, particularly Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.

That is correct, Adrian. There is a reason why Protestantism began. Then again, in Jewish history, there was a time where they adopted that philosophy too and got into troubler for it.

It is clear that whatever denomination or stream of Christianity you belong to, it rejects the validity of other religions. John 14:6 is the most quoted verse I’ve heard from Christians justifying this position.

Well.... it is what Jesus said... you know "No man cometh to the Father but through me" and that sort of stuff.

but let's look at this carefully as to why it would be an impossibility even without Christianity...

1) Islam, one God - not the Hindu thinking of many gods
2) Jewish thought, one death not reincarnation
3) Buddhism -- no gods

It would be impossible to merge these into one.

Do you believe Satan is going to rule the earth and we’re all going to have 666 branded on our foreheads and wrists?:D

There is no point where Satan rules the whole of the earth--not even in scripture. However, I do believe in the influence of a spirit world, seen it. We are still trying to figure out what the "branded" actually means. There is some thought about a chip... ;)
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
That is correct, Adrian. There is a reason why Protestantism began. Then again, in Jewish history, there was a time where they adopted that philosophy too and got into troubler for it.

There are also reasons Protestantism has splintered into seemingly endless sects and divisions with competing and contradictory claims.

You are yet to divulge which of these sects you belong to Ken btw? No pressure.

Assuming Catholicism bears some of the responsibility for the Schism that arose in Europe centuries ago, why should we take the position ‘The Protestants are right and the Catholics are wrong?’ Sounds a little too black and white don’t you think?

Well.... it is what Jesus said... you know "No man cometh to the Father but through me" and that sort of stuff.

So what do you think Jesus meant when He was speaking to His Jewish disciples with John 14:6?

but let's look at this carefully as to why it would be an impossibility even without Christianity...

1) Islam, one God - not the Hindu thinking of many gods
2) Jewish thought, one death not reincarnation
3) Buddhism -- no gods

It would be impossible to merge these into one.

Of course. It would be like trying to merge Catholicism and Protestantism. Yet both are right and both are wrong in their own way.

There is no point where Satan rules the whole of the earth--not even in scripture. However, I do believe in the influence of a spirit world, seen it. We are still trying to figure out what the "branded" actually means. There is some thought about a chip... ;)

I’ve lost track of all the competing and contradictory predictions based on the book of Revelation. I suppose when one imagines they have the gift of prophecy ...

Back to supersessionism though:

Supersessionism, also called replacement theology, is a Christian doctrine which asserts that the New Covenant through Jesus Christ supersedes the Old Covenant, which was made exclusively with the Jewish people.

In Christianity, supersessionism is a theological view on the current status of the church in relation to the Jewish people and Judaism.[1] It holds that the Christian Church has succeeded the Israelites as the definitive people of God[1][2][3] or that the New Covenant has replaced or superseded the Mosaic covenant.[4] From a supersessionist's "point of view, just by continuing to exist [outside the Church], the Jews dissent".[5] This view directly contrasts with dual-covenant theology which holds that the Mosaic covenant remains valid for Jews.

Supersessionism has formed a core tenet of the Christian Churches for the majority of their existence. Christian traditions that have traditionally championed dual-covenant theology (including the Roman Catholic, Reformed and Methodist teachings of this doctrine), have taught that the moral lawcontinues to stand.[6]

Subsequent to and because of the Holocaust, some mainstream Christian theologians and denominations have rejected supersessionism.

Supersessionism - Wikipedia

Sound familiar? That’s the main focus of this thread. Where do you stand?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
There are also reasons Protestantism has splintered into seemingly endless sects and divisions with competing and contradictory claims.

You are yet to divulge which of these sects you belong to Ken btw? No pressure.

Assuming Catholicism bears some of the responsibility for the Schism that arose in Europe centuries ago, why should we take the position ‘The Protestants are right and the Catholics are wrong?’ Sounds a little too black and white don’t you think?

I was never asked. I am, first of all, a Christian. Although the church I serve in is called non-denominational, we understand that the whole of the Christian church is simply one church with many parts. The parts may differ but yet still part of the body of Christ

As far as "the Protestant are right and the Catholics wrong" - I don't think either has the corner on the market of being right. We can learn from each other. I don't think the Bahai has it all together either. (Who knows everything?)

What I do subscribe to is "Jesus, don't forget to enroll everyone of us to Christianity 101 when we get to your presence" :) so we can all get on the same page.

So what do you think Jesus meant when He was speaking to His Jewish disciples with John 14:6?

I don't think we can just take one scripture at the expense of all others. But addressing it very superficially, He is truth and His way is the way that produces life. His very words are truth and the words he speaks spiritual words that produce life. The only way to the Father is through His mediator Jesus, there is no other way.

Now, how does God make all that happen in light of the sacrifice of Jesus? I'm not the judge. He that loves, knows God for God is love.

So, if a Hindu loves... how does God judge him in light of his religion? LOL Don't ask me. But the sacrifice was for the Hindu too!

Of course. It would be like trying to merge Catholicism and Protestantism. Yet both are right and both are wrong in their own way.

As noted above :)

I’ve lost track of all the competing and contradictory predictions based on the book of Revelation. I suppose when one imagines they have the gift of prophecy ...

Back to supersessionism though:

Supersessionism, also called replacement theology, is a Christian doctrine which asserts that the New Covenant through Jesus Christ supersedes the Old Covenant, which was made exclusively with the Jewish people.

In Christianity, supersessionism is a theological view on the current status of the church in relation to the Jewish people and Judaism.[1] It holds that the Christian Church has succeeded the Israelites as the definitive people of God[1][2][3] or that the New Covenant has replaced or superseded the Mosaic covenant.[4] From a supersessionist's "point of view, just by continuing to exist [outside the Church], the Jews dissent".[5] This view directly contrasts with dual-covenant theology which holds that the Mosaic covenant remains valid for Jews.

Supersessionism has formed a core tenet of the Christian Churches for the majority of their existence. Christian traditions that have traditionally championed dual-covenant theology (including the Roman Catholic, Reformed and Methodist teachings of this doctrine), have taught that the moral lawcontinues to stand.[6]

Subsequent to and because of the Holocaust, some mainstream Christian theologians and denominations have rejected supersessionism.

Supersessionism - Wikipedia

Well... yes and no. (I'm not sure who wrote above but one Christian can speak for all Christians but I'm sure true for some people beliefs).

When you have a Last Will and "Testament" but then you make a NEW Last Will and "Testament" - the Old is no longer in force for those it is addressed to. But the NT has all the OT but then has new and better promises.

But for Christians, we are of the Abrahamic Covenant not the Mosaic Covenant which was for the Jews. In the Abrahamic Covenant, it was for "and all nations shall be blessed". The Mosaic Covenant was for the Jews "and if you do these commandments, you will be blessed".

Is God finished with Israel? Absolutely not. Revelations still mentions God's purpose for them. They were the holders of the promise of Grace and God's promises have not stopped towards Israel.

However, the preaching of the Gospel now includes Gentiles and priests and kings as well as Jews. God has no exception of people.
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
In this thread I’d like to explore Christianity’s capacity to adapt to modernity generally and religious pluralism in particular. The heart of the problem for Christianity and a Bible based theology is the existence of other religious and non-religious world views whose adherents live outstanding lives worthy of admiration.

At one end of the spectrum are theological narratives that view a particular framework within Christianity as being the exclusive truth and THE only true path to God. All other paths are considered false including many other paths under the umbrella of Christianity itself.

At the other end of the spectrum are theological approaches the employ historical-critical methods that more readily accept the validity of approaches to life outside a Christian framework. A Baha’i approach is an example I’m most familiar with along with Post-Vatican II Catholicism and more liberal and modern Protestant Churches.

A critical turning point in Christianity’s move towards more pluralistic theologies arose after WW II in the aftermath of the holocaust. Theological approaches moved away from long held doctrines such as supersessionism.

Supersessionism - Wikipedia

However it is apparent with the rise of fundamentalism in most mainstream religions that a vocal minority of Christians insist on the exclusive nature of Christianity for salvation.

1/ So can Christianity meaningfully embrace religious pluralism?

2/ To what extent do doctrines such as supersessionism prevent this movement.

3/ If you are a Christian what direction would you like to see Christianity move and why? If you are not a Christian does it matter to you whether Christianity retains its traditional exclusivity or moves towards embracing religious pluralism? Why?


Any questions or constructive comments welcome? If you’ve made it this far, thanks for dropping by.

1. I do not believe Christianity can embrace pluralism.

2. I do not view supersessionism as correct but I doubt it has any affect on the outcome.

3. I believe Christianity has to stay focused on the Gospel because that is what Jesus came for.

I believe as a side not I would say that religious pluralism acts as a stumbling block for people to be saved.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Christian Fundamentalism seems to come in waves. Right now in the US, there is a huge push for it. Before Trump got elected, his majority of voters were said to be largely men. But women seem to have accepted him now too, though I’m not sure the ratios now. And they stand behind him for religious reasons. People in my country don’t really like me much since I adopted Hinduism. There’s a certain knee-jerk reaction. I can talk to foreign people who had to learn English, better than I can Americans.

I think it may be an interpretation on your part that people don't like you. We have had a few Hindus who were required to come to our church and I liked all of them but I do tend to argue religion with them and maybe that is what you think as people not liking you.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Why have you picked up on Christianity and not included Judaism or Islam in your topic? True, they deny even the existence of other religions. But I think Bahai religion is most insideous of all. It seems to accept all religions but at the same time rejects all in reality. At least Christianity and Islam accept to be adversaris. Bahais knife other religions even when claiming to be friends.

Christianity is meaningfully accepting all other religions wherever it exists, take for example your own country. Are there not people of religions other than Christianity? Are they discriminated against? Are they suppressed? Does New Zealand not have citizens belonging to faiths other than Christianity? Are they not allowed to vote? Can they not apply for government positions? Are they taxed more than the Christian citizens? Tell me how can New Zealand accept other religions 'more meaningfully'? I am surprised that of all religions, you pick Christianity to blame!

And what do you mean by your last sentence? That is very subjective. What would you consider to be 'a constructive comment' and which one you would reject as being not? Let me see whether you take my post as constructive or destructive! I know Bahais are very fun-loving people. :D

I believe you must be referring to the fact that Bahai's don't embrace the most important parts of Christianity. It isn't that they don't recognize some value and that is probably what makes them think it is plurality.

I don't believe Muslims and Christians have to be enemies. I think it is possible that Iblis (satan) has more to do with that than God.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Premium Member
It is clear that Catholicism (based on @Vouthon ’s posts) is able to accept the validity of other religious faiths, particularly Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.

It should be noted - as regards Nostra Aetate's theological articulation of the semina verbi doctrine of the Patristics (the seminal seeds of the Word of God in other religions and natural philosophies) - that the aforementioned faith traditions (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism) were highlighted because they represent, on the Jewish front, the foundation of the Church's own belief system and in the other three cases the most influential, widespread and (by adherence) numerous manifestations of the sacred in the world today.

In one of my previous posts, I cited St. Clement of Alexandria's (c. 150 - c. 220) Stromata in which he explained how the divinely bequeathed gift of 'wisdom' - participation in the eternal Wisdom of God incarnate in Christ but universally active - through philosophy, had diffused itself among "the prophets of the Egyptians; and the Chaldeans among the Assyrians; and the Druids among the Gauls; and the Sramanas among the Bactrians; and the philosophers of the Celts; and the Magi of the Persians, who foretold the Saviour's birth, and came into the land of Judaea guided by a star. The Indian gymnosophists are also in the number, and the other barbarian philosophers. And of these there are two classes, some of them called Sramanas, and others Brahmins".

Pagan traditions (Egyptian hermeticism, the Celtic Druids), Zoroastrianism (Magi), the Sramana movement which gave rise to both Buddhism and Jainism and many more besides are described therein by this ancient, pluralistic church father.

Another fourth century patristic text - from circa A.D. 350 - called the Recognitions refers to Indian priests (Brahmins) in a positive light:


CHURCH FATHERS: Recognitions, Book IX (Clement of Rome)


Chapter 20. Brahmans.

There are likewise among the Bactrians, in the Indian countries, immense multitudes of Brahmans, who also themselves, from the tradition of their ancestors, and peaceful customs and laws, neither commit murder nor adultery, nor worship idols, nor have the practice of eating animal food, are never drunk, never do anything maliciously, but always fear God. And these things indeed they do...nor have malign stars compelled the Brahmans to do any evil.

As you can see, the author praises the Hindu Brahmins and the "tradition of their ancestors" for its pacifism, high moral standards, vegetarianism and reverence for the divine.

The 1960s Declaration was clear in not limiting its scope to these 'mega-creeds' alone: "likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing ways, comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites.” The document clearly states that the “The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.”

This is as open-ended and inclusive as can be.

Subsequent magisterial texts, from papacies following in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, explicitly referenced these 'other religions' and speak with sincere respect of the ethical-mystical-social principles they have to offer, for example Pope St. John Paul II's 1998 encyclical Fides et Ratio which extends the discussion to Zoroastrianism (by mentioning the Avesta), Taoism (courtesy of its founder Lao-Tze), Confucianism and Jainism (by means of its founder the Tirthankara Mahavira):


Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998) | John Paul II


"In both East and West, we may trace a journey which has led humanity down the centuries to meet and engage truth more and more deeply. It is a journey which has unfolded—as it must—within the horizon of personal self-consciousness: the more human beings know reality and the world, the more they know themselves in their uniqueness, with the question of the meaning of things and of their very existence becoming ever more pressing. This is why all that is the object of our knowledge becomes a part of our life. The admonition Know yourself was carved on the temple portal at Delphi, as testimony to a basic truth to be adopted as a minimal norm by those who seek to set themselves apart from the rest of creation as “human beings”, that is as those who “know themselves”.

Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle...

They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives...In preaching the gospel, Christianity first encountered Greek philosophy; but this does not mean at all that other approaches are precluded...

My thoughts turn immediately to the lands of the East, so rich in religious and philosophical traditions of great antiquity. Among these lands, India has a special place. A great spiritual impulse leads Indian thought to seek an experience which would liberate the spirit from the shackles of time and space and would therefore acquire absolute value. The dynamic of this quest for liberation provides the context for great metaphysical systems. In India particularly, it is the duty of Christians now to draw from this rich heritage the elements compatible with their faith, in order to enrich Christian thought
"


9 September 1998 | John Paul II


"Every quest of the human spirit for truth and goodness, and in the last analysis for God, is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The various religions arose precisely from this primordial human openness to God. At their origins we often find founders who, with the help of God's Spirit, achieved a deeper religious experience. Handed on to others, this experience took form in the doctrines, rites and precepts of the various religions."
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
In regards to Christianity, the Church was always meant to be "one body", as Paul called it, with one set of leaders, which is not what Christianity is today.

Jesus appointed the Twelve-- not the twelve hundred or twelve thousand-- and they in turn appointed others to replace them and to carry on the Word to distant audiences. The "mark" of the true Church was not which set of books you had but whether your leaders could trace their appointments back to the Twelve. And it was this "one body" that chose the canon of the Bible that the vast majority of Christians use worldwide.

But what about corruption within the Church? Glad you asked.:) One should remember that there always were "issues" within the early Church, including with the Twelve themselves. In many of the epistles, the authors chided some within the flock as doing things they shouldn't have been doing.

Thus, we should always remember that the Church was made for us whom are imperfect, not the ones whom are perfect. If we sit during services looking for the hypocrites, then we should bring a mirror with us so as to see another one.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I'll take the bait. What happened in 2000 BCE?
They were talking about Satan. The Indo-Europans in their original homeland in sub-Arctic talked about demons of darkness like Vitra who hid the sun for two months. In fiction or in imagination, I can go back to any period of human existence.

stone-age-celebrity-chef-cartoon-chris-madden.gif
I think it is possible that Iblis (Satan) has more to do with that than God.
This is 21st Century, Muffled; and you are talking about Satan! Your way is not my way.
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I was never asked. I am, first of all, a Christian. Although the church I serve in is called non-denominational, we understand that the whole of the Christian church is simply one church with many parts. The parts may differ but yet still part of the body of Christ

As far as "the Protestant are right and the Catholics wrong" - I don't think either has the corner on the market of being right. We can learn from each other. I don't think the Bahai has it all together either. (Who knows everything?)

What I do subscribe to is "Jesus, don't forget to enroll everyone of us to Christianity 101 when we get to your presence" :) so we can all get on the same page.

Going non denominational has become increasingly popular within Christianity in New Zealand. Its as if people are tired of labels like Baptist, Methodist and the like. Still every Church comes with its ideas about what is and isn’t Christianity that will probably conflict with another Christian’s view. One person’s view of what the body of Christ (the Church) looks like is very different from another’s opinion about what it is or should be.

What I see are some Churches promoting ecumenism which seems positive. Other Churches want to remain seperate and to demonise other churches. So the Catholic Church has my admiration as they are looking to build relationships within Christendom and with other faiths. Other Churches shamelessly demonise other faiths as well as their sister Churches.

Baha’is are similar to the Catholics in our sincere desire to build collaborative Interfaith relationships. We look for common ground and would share beliefs in the Divinely Inspired nature of the Bible, Jesus as the Promised Messiah, the Son of God and so on.

I don't think we can just take one scripture at the expense of all others. But addressing it very superficially, He is truth and His way is the way that produces life. His very words are truth and the words he speaks spiritual words that produce life. The only way to the Father is through His mediator Jesus, there is no other way.

Now, how does God make all that happen in light of the sacrifice of Jesus? I'm not the judge. He that loves, knows God for God is love.

So, if a Hindu loves... how does God judge him in light of his religion? LOL Don't ask me. But the sacrifice was for the Hindu too!

When Jesus said He was the way, the truth, the light and no one would go to the Father, He was comforting His disciples who had just learnt of His imminent martyrdom. He was reiterating He was the promised Messiah. The use of “I am” statements in the Gospel of John are also thought to be linked to the Words spoken by Yahweh in Exodus.

Jesus mediated a New Covenant as we all appreciate but then so too did Muhammad after Him. I would see a clear Abrahamic line from Abraham through to Bahá’u’lláh. There is also the Dharmic line of Revelation that would include Krishna and Buddha. I wouldn’t expect you to believe in any of that of course.

Well... yes and no. (I'm not sure who wrote above but one Christian can speak for all Christians but I'm sure true for some people beliefs).

When you have a Last Will and "Testament" but then you make a NEW Last Will and "Testament" - the Old is no longer in force for those it is addressed to. But the NT has all the OT but then has new and better promises.

But for Christians, we are of the Abrahamic Covenant not the Mosaic Covenant which was for the Jews. In the Abrahamic Covenant, it was for "and all nations shall be blessed". The Mosaic Covenant was for the Jews "and if you do these commandments, you will be blessed".

Is God finished with Israel? Absolutely not. Revelations still mentions God's purpose for them. They were the holders of the promise of Grace and God's promises have not stopped towards Israel.

However, the preaching of the Gospel now includes Gentiles and priests and kings as well as Jews. God has no exception of people.

I agree.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I would see a clear Abrahamic line from Abraham through to Bahá’u’lláh. There is also the Dharmic line of Revelation that would include Krishna and Buddha. I wouldn’t expect you to believe in any of that of course.
You doubt the words of Bible, but you accept what Tanakh says about Abraham. You accept the prophecies mentioned in Bible but not that Jesus was the son of God. Same with Dharmic religions, you change them to suit your scheme. Just as you do not accept what others say, the others too do not accept what you say, including the supposed divine mission of that 19th Century Iranian preacher. For us he was just a juggler of words - manifestation.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
You doubt the words of Bible, but you accept what Tanakh says about Abraham. You accept the prophecies mentioned in Bible but not that Jesus was the son of God. Same with Dharmic religions, you change them to suit your scheme. Just as you do not accept what others say, the others too do not accept what you say, including the supposed divine mission of that 19th Century Iranian preacher. For us he was just a juggler of words - manifestation.

Baha'is believe Hinduism is a religion of Divine origins and both Krishna and Buddha were avatars of Vishnu.

Baha'is believe Jesus was the Son of God and both the Gospel and Torah were Divinely Inspired.

Obviously Baha'is don't agree with every Hindu and Christian.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
In this thread I’d like to explore Christianity’s capacity to adapt to modernity generally and religious pluralism in particular. The heart of the problem for Christianity and a Bible based theology is the existence of other religious and non-religious world views whose adherents live outstanding lives worthy of admiration.

At one end of the spectrum are theological narratives that view a particular framework within Christianity as being the exclusive truth and THE only true path to God. All other paths are considered false including many other paths under the umbrella of Christianity itself.

At the other end of the spectrum are theological approaches the employ historical-critical methods that more readily accept the validity of approaches to life outside a Christian framework. A Baha’i approach is an example I’m most familiar with along with Post-Vatican II Catholicism and more liberal and modern Protestant Churches.

A critical turning point in Christianity’s move towards more pluralistic theologies arose after WW II in the aftermath of the holocaust. Theological approaches moved away from long held doctrines such as supersessionism.

Supersessionism - Wikipedia

However it is apparent with the rise of fundamentalism in most mainstream religions that a vocal minority of Christians insist on the exclusive nature of Christianity for salvation.

1/ So can Christianity meaningfully embrace religious pluralism?

2/ To what extent do doctrines such as supersessionism prevent this movement.

3/ If you are a Christian what direction would you like to see Christianity move and why? If you are not a Christian does it matter to you whether Christianity retains its traditional exclusivity or moves towards embracing religious pluralism? Why?


Any questions or constructive comments welcome? If you’ve made it this far, thanks for dropping by.
The problem with Supersessionism is not that Christianity is not embracing religious pluralism. It is that it is laying the groundwork for hatred of Jews and 2000 years of our persecution, torture, and murder. Replacement Theology is the manure that fertilizes the soil in which anti-Semitism grows. We aren't talking about some pie in the sky religious multiculturalism. We're talking about people dying.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
You doubt the words of Bible, but you accept what Tanakh says about Abraham. You accept the prophecies mentioned in Bible but not that Jesus was the son of God. Same with Dharmic religions, you change them to suit your scheme. Just as you do not accept what others say, the others too do not accept what you say, including the supposed divine mission of that 19th Century Iranian preacher. For us he was just a juggler of words - manifestation.
It's this way for all religions that are based on prior religions. They pick and choose what they want to keep and what they want to throw away. Thus they feel they can claim the previous religion as theirs, yet in reality they have no clue of the previous religion.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Premium Member
The problem with Supersessionism is not that Christianity is not embracing religious pluralism. It is that it is laying the groundwork for hatred of Jews and 2000 years of our persecution, torture, and murder. Replacement Theology is the manure that fertilizes the soil in which anti-Semitism grows. We aren't talking about some pie in the sky religious multiculturalism. We're talking about people dying.

I concur with your outline of the grave effects of replacement theology throughout history and how it laid the groundwork for persecution of the Jewish community.

It is indeed the manure fertilizing the soil in which anti-Semitism grows. That's an accurate metaphor, in my opinion, as it allows one to recognise that whilst replacement theology is not directly anti-Semitic (it is not a racial, ethnic prejudice directed towards Jews as a people but rather a form of supremacism in relation to the Jewish religion as a set of beliefs), it nevertheless sets in place a fulcrum of assumptions, attitudes and images of Judaism which, in a different context, can and sadly did result in pogroms, massacres and xenophobic assaults.

There is really nothing I can say as a Christian other than that replacement theology is a pernicious doctrine (in my assessment) that has no foundation in the New Testament (as modern scholars have amply demonstrated time and time again since the 1940s) and that any, and all, proselytism of Jews by Christians is immoral.

Contemporary Christians cannot undo the errors of our forbears. But we can, and must, strive to make sure that their wrongful attitudes and misdeeds do not surface again in the future on account of bad theology.

I would say that my own church, in renouncing supersessionism after the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s as well as proselytism of Jews and by initiating interfaith dialogue with the Jewish community, has done it's best in this respect. It cannot unwrite the past or rewrite it's history but it can and is inculcating in today's Catholics a benign understanding of Judaism as a sibling Abrahamic faith from which Christianity emerged and to which it owes a great debt, as well as reverence and a willingness to learn from.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Going non denominational has become increasingly popular within Christianity in New Zealand. Its as if people are tired of labels like Baptist, Methodist and the like. Still every Church comes with its ideas about what is and isn’t Christianity that will probably conflict with another Christian’s view. One person’s view of what the body of Christ (the Church) looks like is very different from another’s opinion about what it is or should be.

I'm not sure "conflict" would be the word I would use.

We had a retreat some years ago, with Catholic Priests, Baptist pastors, Methodists, Pentecostals and so on and so on... Do we view differences? Yes, as much as I am different from my wife... we are different. Do we war against each other? Not when we realize that they are part of the body of Christ. I believe worship should be expressive with no hymnals. Baptists want hymnals but when I am at a Baptist church I sing with hymnals. Different? Yes. But hardly conflict.

Catholics believe in that the bread becomes the body of Christ, we don't. When I went to a Catholic Church, I received communion. Different? Yes. Conflict. no.

Can there be conflict? Yes! When there are Biblical grounds. If one part builds a Golden Calf and say "this is now our God", there would be conflict.

What I see are some Churches promoting ecumenism which seems positive. Other Churches want to remain seperate and to demonise other churches. So the Catholic Church has my admiration as they are looking to build relationships within Christendom and with other faiths. Other Churches shamelessly demonise other faiths as well as their sister Churches.

OK. It can happen. I believe Catholic churches have done the same to Protestants so it makes me wonder if this is more of a "talking point" that was ingrained than actual truth.

Baha’is are similar to the Catholics in our sincere desire to build collaborative Interfaith relationships. We look for common ground and would share beliefs in the Divinely Inspired nature of the Bible, Jesus as the Promised Messiah, the Son of God and so on.

Ok... I'm glad.

When Jesus said He was the way, the truth, the light and no one would go to the Father, He was comforting His disciples who had just learnt of His imminent martyrdom. He was reiterating He was the promised Messiah. The use of “I am” statements in the Gospel of John are also thought to be linked to the Words spoken by Yahweh in Exodus.

Agreed.

Jesus mediated a New Covenant as we all appreciate but then so too did Muhammad after Him. I would see a clear Abrahamic line from Abraham through to Bahá’u’lláh. There is also the Dharmic line of Revelation that would include Krishna and Buddha. I wouldn’t expect you to believe in any of that of course.

Here we would disagree.) Muhammad was not "the way, the truth and the life". He wasn't The Messiah nor is he the mediator between God and man. So, you are right, I wouldn't believe that.
 

Vouthon

Dominus Deus tuus ignis consumens est
Premium Member
At the same time, whilst we must remember with sorrow the history of supersessionist theology, pogroms and discrimination by Christians (whether Catholic Spanish Inquisition, Roman Ghetto, medieval pogroms or Martin Luther's anti-Judaism tracts) towards Jews, I think it's also worthwhile and important to bear in mind the more benign elements of Christian-Jewish relations from our past - as there were brighter moments in the darkness, when some in the Christian community (including high-ranking officials) tried to mitigate the evils.

Key here, in my mind from a Catholic point of view, is the papal constitution Sicut Judaeis which was first issued by Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century against Christian persecution of Jews and forced conversions, and which was reiterated in later generations by those medieval pontiffs who were kindly disposed towards the Jewish community (in spite of the prejudices they might have been brought up with as a result of replacement theology):


Sicut Judaeis - Wikipedia


Sicut Judaeis (Latin: "As the Jews") were papal bulls which set out the official position of the papacy regarding the treatment of Jews. The first bull by that name was issued in about 1120 by Calixtus II and served as a papal charter of protection to Jews. It was prompted by attacks on Jews by the First Crusade, during which over five thousand Jews were slaughtered in Europe. The bull forbade Christians, on pain of excommunication, from forcing Jews to convert, from harming them, from taking their property, from disturbing the celebration of their festivals, and from interfering with their cemeteries.

Following further attacks, further bulls by many popes reaffirmed the doctrine, including Alexander III, Celestine III (1191-1198), Innocent III (1199), Honorius III (1216), Gregory IX (1235), Innocent IV (1246), Alexander IV (1255), Urban IV (1262), Gregory X (1272 & 1274), Nicholas III, Martin IV (1281), Honorius IV (1285-1287), Nicholas IV (1288-92), Clement VI (1348), Urban V (1365), Boniface IX (1389), Martin V (1422), and Nicholas V (1447).[1][2]


From the Jewish Virtual Library:

Papal Bulls

Sicut Judaeis. First issued by *Calixtus II around 1120, it was a general Bull of Protection for the Jews, who had suffered at the hands of participants in the First Crusade (1095–96) and were being maltreated by their Christian neighbors. It forbade killing them, using force to convert them, and otherwise molesting them, their synagogues, and cemeteries. The bull was modeled on a letter, which began with the same phrase, sent to the bishop of Palermo by Pope *Gregory I in 598, objecting to the use of force as a conversionary method. Calixtus' formulation was repeated by most of the popes from the 12th to the 15th centuries. They often added references to problems current in their day. Several of them condemned the accusation of ritual murder (see *blood libel ).
 
Last edited:
Top