An Objection to Exclusivity: Response Part 1

Here again is the first part of my friend's objection to the exclusivity of Jesus:

The Bible says that "without faith it is impossible to please God." Since non-Christians have faith (though in something different), they should not be excluded from heaven even according to the statements the Bible makes.

I think this is a good question that deserves an honest answer. So, here it goes...

I see a problem with saying "non-Christians have just as much faith in what they believe as the Christian does in what he believes." The problem I think is that it ignores the object of the faith and assumes that the mere possession of faith is all that is necessary to achieve the goal of faith.

First from a simple philosophical perspective, I think everyone would agree that the object of one's faith (or trust) is VERY important. Take for instance two people racing. One is a teenager who is so psyched up about his new Honda Civic that he thinks he's the hottest stuff on the road. The other is an experienced driver in a Lotus Exige S2. The teenager has never heard of a Lotus S2, nor does he care to find out about one. Both are convinced they will win the race, but everyone that cares to honestly compare the two cars should come to understand the Lotus is most likely to win. So, though the teenager had full faith in his car, he loses - the object of the faith matters.

Second, the Bible says that "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." The meaning would be completely changed if in this sentence “Jesus” was replaced with “anything.” The point is that the Bible here and in many other places claims that the only saving faith is faith that trusts in Jesus Christ as the only means by which a person can be freed from the damnation he deserves because of his sin. So, the claims of the Bible are not that faith is the requirement, but rather that faith in Jesus is the requirement.

A second problem is also apparent to me, and carries what I've said a step further. Without a doubt, all of us respect sincerity, and with the low supply of it these days, we hate to see it not rewarded. So, when we come to the issue of religion, we tend to want to carry that sympathy with us. The religious person who comes to us without pretense or condemnation, expressing genuine concern for what we care about in this world, and being fully convinced of what he/she believes has much more sway with us than the average Joe. After all, that person would make a good neighbor. The problem with this is very similar to what I said above. Nothing I mentioned so far in what that religious person is bringing to us said they have brought us the truth! So, such a person can be ignoring something crucial to the foundations of what gives this life meaning – namely, truth. In other words, the worldview that fails to embrace the truth is incohesive to giving life meaning. See “Why I am a Follower of Jesus” for background on the tests for truth and components needed for meaning. We must bring truth along with sincerity if we are going to transform the world we are in and free mankind from that which binds us. Truth must be real, or we wouldn't be arguing about its existence. Life must have meaning, else my words would not and we are all just “empty bubbles floating on the sea of nothingness.”

So, in conclusion, the object of the faith matters, and that object must be consistent with the truth. I have found (by God's grace) the Bible's claims that Jesus is the proper object of that faith to be not only sincere, but also logically consistent, empirically adequate, and very relevant to my experience. And yes, it still requires faith, but so does any other worldview.