The Uniqueness of Christ in World Religions, Part 1

How does one really ever come to grips with truth if it is not put in contrast with conflicting truth claims? What do you do when there are conflicting truth claims?

Hello and welcome to Let My People Think. Can all religions be true in their own way? Does Jesus really stand above other religious figures such as Buddha, Muhammad or the Dalai Lama? Pluralistic thinkers have little problem grouping Jesus alongside other religious leaders, naming him as a good teacher or an enlightened leader. Some are even willing to call him a prophet. But to acknowledge him as deity is going too far. However, Christ's own declarations about himself allowed no peers. He claimed to be the only way to God. So how does his claim stand up? We're going to find out in the first part of a message from RZIM's founder, the late Ravi Zacharias, entitled The Uniqueness of Christ in World Religions.

Here's Ravi. I have a difficult task. This is not an easy subject that has been assigned to me. Although my field of study is philosophy of religion, and I do an awful lot of lecturing on the theme around the world, I also want to be very, very sensitive because it is easy to bring offense when you're dealing with something like this. It is easy to trample underfoot truths and ideas that others greatly treasure. And none of us wants that done to that which we believe and why end up doing it to what someone else believes.

That is the positive and the noble aesthetic side of it. But the counterpoint is how does one really ever come to grips with truth if it is not put in contrast with conflicting truth claims? What do you do when there are conflicting truth claims? And therefore, what I would like to do, ladies and gentlemen, as I introduce my message, is first of all set the foundation for the laws of logic that two contradictory statements, both cannot be true. Only one of them may be true. Both of them may be false, but both of them cannot be true unless the laws of logic do not apply to reality. And if one denies that the laws of logic apply to reality, how do we ever even converse? The moment you open your mouth, you assume a meaningful statement is about to be made. And if somebody challenges that statement, how do you anchor anything in reality? I mean, a scientist cannot possibly take two conflicting measurements for the same thing.

A pilot listening to the guidance that is coming from the tower is not going to take two opposite numbers both to be true, unless in one sense one of them becomes qualified asserting something else. So what I'd like to do is first establish the laws of logic. Some of you may be familiar with that argument, but many of you may not be, and so I'd like for you to hear that. But the second thing I want to do is deal with the major attacks that Christianity has had to face, particularly from Islam. So I'm not going to deal with Islamic doctrine.

I'm not going to try and debunk any of their doctrines. I'm just going to try to present to you what is the problem the Christian faces in trying to communicate, somebody who holds to a Muslim worldview, what is the difficulty the Christian faces in communication? And I can assure you I will do that as sensitively as I can for at least a couple of reasons, not that it is, first of all, the proper thing to do. But I have the privilege by many Islamic governments around the world to be in their country and lecture and dialogue.

And this year is no exception. I will be in three Muslim countries speaking and they are kind enough to host me. I want to be respectful of the fact that they are willing to give us a hearing. And the other thing is I have some of the greatest respect for one or two fine Islamic scholars around the world today, particularly one by the name of Jamal Badawi in the United States, who is a very fine gentleman and makes dialogue much easier as we talk.

I will highlight the tensions that I have presented in such situations and they realize it, but it is important to know that. Having set the logical base, then having set the greatest tension in a dialogue with the other monotheistic worldview that is principally trying to in some way undermine the Christian faith, if not explicitly implicitly, then I will move on to the uniqueness of Christ in world religions. I won't have time to deal with the pantheistic worldviews that other Eastern beliefs adhere to. If those of you who are interested, we have a lot of material where you analyze pantheism again within itself rather than just in a comparison of the two. JND Anderson, who now writes under the name of Norman Anderson, has written very heavily in the field of comparative religions. One of the finest books he has written is called Christianity and World Religions. Sir Norman Anderson, operating out of England, was a scholar, is a scholar, still writing, although in his senior years, very much an authority in history, philosophy and law. And in his book, Christianity and World Religions, he gives three major distinctives that come under the category of a unique proclamation, a unique salvation and a unique disclosure.

I greatly encourage you to get a hold of that. It is very succinct and very well done by a fine contemporary thinker. Here is the law of logic as it applies to reality. I remember speaking, please bear with me for those of you are familiar with this illustration, but it is the most incisive one that I can give to you. I remember speaking in one of the United States western cities when one of the professors was attending the lectureship and asked me to speak against an Eastern religion, which I said I would not do. He said, I'm an American. I belong to that other Eastern religion.

Let's just call it X. And he said, and I have taught this X religion in my lectures and so on. I want you to speak on the subject why you do not subscribe to the dogma of religion X and my students will take you apart after your lecture. I said, no, I really don't want to do that. I said, I've learned when you throw mud at others, not only do you get your hands dirty, but you also lose a lot of ground. And he accepted that. I said, but I will tell you why I am a Christian.

I will speak on that subject. At the end of the talk, he was quite vociferous in his denunciation of what I'd said. And he basically took me to task at the front of the lecture room, attacking the fact that I didn't understand logic and so on. I said, look, we're not going to get anywhere. Let's go out for lunch.

You pay and I'll pray and we'll get together. So we got together for lunch and he brought a professor of psychology with him and the psychologist and I finished our lunch while the philosopher hadn't even started his. His food had become congealed in front of him and he had taken off these paper placemats of all the tables to draw out his argument. And basically what he was trying to say was this, that there are two kinds of logic. Actually, he was wrong.

There are more. But he said there are two kinds of logic. One is the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction means if something is true, the opposite of it is false. If something is true, the opposite of it is false. It is called an either or logic. If I say to you, for example, there is a red car parked immediately outside the steps there. If that statement is true, the opposite of it is false. I'm not at the same time saying that red car is not parked out there. It is either true or false.

I've just given you a simple illustration. If it is A, then it is not non-A at the same time. You basically establish the either or dogma.

And he says, Ravi, that is the law of non-contradiction. That is either or. That is a Western way of thinking. Westerners think either or. I said I disagree with the last statement.

Why don't you rub it off? He wouldn't do it. So then he moved to the Eastern way of thinking. He said in the East you do both and. It is a dialectic. You don't say either this or that.

You say both this and that. Karl Marx used the dialectical system. It was not either the employer or the employee. You put them together and you find a classless society. Both employer and employee join together in a classless society.

Funny thing, they never show you one, but they talk about it. That there is a both and dogma in the dialectic two poles of an argument there. And he says, you see, Ravi, he said the dialectical system is Eastern.

The dialectical system is Eastern. And I said, why don't you cross out that last line? Because I don't agree with you, but he refused to cross it out. What he was trying to say was this. I had talked about the many contradictions in certain pantheistic world views. Very strong contradictions. And he said, you see, Ravi, if you took the dialectical system to be true, any time you came into a contradiction, you won't be puzzled by it. You'll say this is the way they think.

They make opposite statements and both of them are right. So if you ask one follower of religion X, is God personal? He says, yes.

You ask a second follower of religion X, is God personal? And he says, no. You go to the third person and say, which of these two is right? And he says, both of them. He says, that's the Eastern way of thinking.

So you've got the either or, which is Western, the both hand, which is Eastern. And he was waxing eloquent on this going on and on and on. Finally, I said, can I say something to you, sir? He said, yes. And he picked up his knife and fork and started to cut into his first morsel of food.

And as he was cutting into the morsel of food, I said, here's what you've told me. There is an either or, which is Western. There is a both hand, which is Eastern. And you want me to study religion X, right?

Now, here's my question to you, doctor. Are you telling me when I'm studying religion X, I either use the both hand system or nothing else? Is that right?

That I either use the both hand system or nothing else. Is that right? Do you know what he did? He put his knife and fork down.

And with a very nervous expression, I wish I had the cameras there to film it. He says to me, the either or does seem to emerge, doesn't it? I said, yes.

In fact, I've got some shocking news for you. Even in India, we look both ways before we cross the street. It is either the bus or me, not both of us. Do you see what he was doing? He was using the either or with which to prove the both hand. He was telling me I either use the system or nothing else.

And he was staggered to realize that he used it every day. So it's not got nothing to do whether it's Western or whether it's Eastern. It's got everything to do with that which best reflects reality. And when Jesus says, I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes unto the father, but by me, it is a most reasonable statement.

The question is, is it true? It is a most reasonable statement because truth, by definition, is exclusive. The moment you affirm something, you exclude anything that challenges that. And the way you prove the law of non-contradiction is by just talking. And if anyone else stands up and challenges you against it by challenging you, they are proving you right. That it is either what you're saying or what they are saying.

Now, the Easterner understands this melody. That's why the Easterner says, when the mouth opens, all are fools. But the problem is his mouth opens to tell us that. Or as one of the famous mystics said, he who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know. Well, did he speak? And if he spoke, then he does not know.

And if he does not know, does it really matter if he spoke? The law of non-contradiction must apply to reality. If you deny the law of non-contradiction, you may as well talk about a one-ended stick.

It cannot even be pictured, leave alone stated. Because the opposite poles are very much in your mind of an either or there. Now, it is therefore more logically possible that all the religions in the world are wrong. But it is not logically sensible to say that all the religions in the world are right.

It just can't be. The pantheist affirms something very different to the theist. The theist affirms something very different to the atheist. And you go on and on and right down the line and you find out that two contradictory systems cannot really be true. Now, this is really the fundamental problem that I find as a Christian lecturer and a philosopher dealing with the Islamic worldview. I find at least four basic challenges that they give to us that are impossible to meet, that are absolutely impossible to meet. Because in the process of them stating those arguments against Christianity, those arguments end up in a sense self-destructing. And by the way, I have debated some of the best of them in the other part of the world.

They have never really responded to this challenge. I'm not talking about their fundamental doctrines. I'm talking about their philosophical assumptions.

The first problem I find is this. You see, if their prophet is espoused by them, which he is, as being a prophet to the world. He is espoused by them as being a prophet to the world, not just to Arabia or to the Middle East. He is the last and the final prophet to the world. And he, they say, performed no miracles because there was no need for it. The Koran is in itself a miracle.

But here's the problem. The Koran is an Arabic. And I do not, I am not given the privilege of even challenging its word usage. Please remember, this is vital because, you see, when you take words or changes in the Koran, which they will tell you have never been made.

Although some great scholars like Ali Dashti from Iran challenge that assumption. The fact of the matter is, unless I know the language, I cannot perceive the miracle. Unless I know the language, I cannot perceive the miracle. Which basically means there are millions of people in the world to whom the language in which their scriptures are written will ever remain completely foreign. And the miracle becomes purely one affirmed by those who know the language.

It can never be tested in your experience because the English translations they tell you and any other translations are not accurate except the original as given in the original language. How does one deal with a miracle that is not recognizable by the masses in society? That presents a first problem. There is a second problem it presents to me. They abolish our authority, which is the scriptures, without an original with which to condemn ours. So we are told by the scholars representing that view that the Bible we have is not the original Bible given. It is a corrupt Bible that there are many contradictions in it. It is not an accurate reflection of Jesus Christ. For example, they espouse that Jesus never really died on the cross and therefore the resurrection was purely a fabrication of later collectors of the ideas.

Now let me ask you this. How does one ever know something to be truthful if there is not a unit by which to measure it? There is no point of reference. If I were presented with an original that clearly debunks what we do have, then the dialogue can begin.

But if I'm told what I have is error-prone and wrong on the basis of something they have never shown to me, how does one begin to dialogue? Do you see the problem? It is like talking about the moon being so far away from here but saying we have no way to measure it but take my word for it.

That's how far it is. It has destroyed our original authority and told us we have no authority now. Therefore the Bible has been taken away from the Christian and the Christian has got nothing left to defend because he does not have the original Bible.

How does one begin a dialogue with that? Thirdly, and very importantly here now, as you know the Quran was written about six centuries after Jesus Christ. Now their problem was that what has happened is that the original absolute which was given has been lost.

Now remember their belief in a sovereign God, a very sovereign God, but the original revelation as given in what they call the Injil, the Gospels, has been lost. Now 600 years later comes the latest and the greatest and the final revelation which means B succeeds A 600 years later and B overrules A because A is lost. And what we believe is now false therefore B has to overrule A. Question, if that is the way an absolute can be overruled what is to keep C from coming in six centuries from now and overruling B? And after all isn't that what Joseph Smith really did in the founding of Mormonism? That's precisely what Joseph Smith did. He said all of the religions of the world coming centuries after Islam for example Mormonism said all of the revelations have all become corrupt.

Now he has come out with the last and the greatest and so on. So absolutes keep overruling absolutes without any point of reference for the previous absolute. It is philosophically unarguable. You cannot talk about it because there is no more possibility of discussing absolutes. That is number three.

And number four, this is a sad one but it is true. Many scholars of that school of thought reserve the right to impugn and debunk truths that we hold about our Lord. But you cannot do the same with the names that are precious to them. You follow what I'm saying? I can be told in the Quran that Jesus never died which is what it is said out there. And I can have people look at me and say that this is a blasphemy. Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God which is completely wrong. He does claim to be the Son of God. There are all kinds of concepts that are treasured truths.

The very cross and the empty tomb are so precious to us and the very person of Christ so precious to us. How does one dialogue with two people talking while A reserves the right to impugn what B is defending but B is not given the same privilege of closely scrutinizing what A is defending? These points of tension make meaningful dialogue very, very difficult with all respect for the scholarship. That's all I want to say to you about that system. And I believe it is a hatpin in the heart of that system because it philosophically does not really cohere in its fundamental assumptions.

I have several others and I've got hours of material on that but I just leave that with you. So we've established the law of non-contradiction that the laws of logic apply to reality. We've established the fact that we have been attacked by one principle other philosophy around our belief system around today but that belief system self-destructs in its philosophical assumptions. So let me take the person of Christ and his uniqueness in the religions of the world.

And if you bear long enough you will see how marvelously the applications move from one mind to another each with its distinctive strength. First is Jesus' description on the reality of human nature. The reality of human nature. He knew what was in the hearts of men and women. Many times as he talked to his antagonist or as he talked to those who had bitter questions about him or against him when he replied to them the Bible says he knew what was in the heart of man. And he faced the temptations that Satan cast his way also without sinning himself. But he showed us the reality of the human nature with which we all live. I have not gone into a detailed study of this hellish act that has taken place recently of that little two-year-old child so brutalized and savagely murdered by two ten-year-olds.

How do in England, how do you explain that? Where does all this come from? If you've ever wondered why Christians are passionate about the singularity of their faith or if you're a believer looking to answer the pluralists in your life this message is quite worthwhile. If you'd like to order a copy of this message for yourself or someone you know call us at 1-800-448-6766 and order The Uniqueness of Christ in World Religions. Our number again is 1-800-448-6766.

Or you can order online at rzim.org or rzim.ca for those in Canada. Here's another slice of infinity with Ravi Zacharias. The Bible tells us that no one can, quote, see God in this lifetime and live. For his presence is overwhelming. Anyone in the Bible who has had that encounter felt quite overwhelmed. Yet we read how Moses cried out that he would not cross over into the Promised Land unless God revealed to him his glory.

God gave him a fascinating answer. There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by.

Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back. But my face, said God, must not be seen. How life-changing that was for Moses. He merely saw the after effects of God's presence and that was enough. Although we may not be able to see God with our physical eye we are certainly able to seek him with all of our heart and to know him in our innermost being. The words of the great preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon surely apply to every seeker.

Here's what he says. The highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy which can engage the attention of a child of God is the name, the nature, the person, the doings and the existence of the great God. There is something exceedingly improving to the mind in a contemplation of the divinity. It is a subject so vast that all our thoughts are lost in its immensity, so deep that our pride is drowned in its infinity. Other subjects we can comprehend and grapple with. In them we feel a kind of self-contentment and go on our way with the thought, behold, I'm wise. But when we come to this master science finding that our plumb line cannot sound its depth and that our eagle eye cannot see its sight, we turn away with the thought, I am but of yesterday and know nothing.

End of quote. The prayer of Moses was not unreasonable. He wanted a glimpse of God's presence. Interestingly, the Hebrew word for glory is kavod, which literally means weight or weightedness. The truth is that when we get a glimpse of God, we see the hollowness of our own lives and the fullness of knowing him. Even an after effect of God's presence, which is what Moses got, was sufficient to move him with fresh strength. Friend, I sincerely hope that you will make a glimpse of the glory of God the most important prayer of your life.

Your life can be changed as a result also. For a transcript of today's program or for more information, visit our website at sliceofinfinity.org. The mission of RZIM is to reach and challenge those who shape the ideas of the culture with the credibility of the gospel of Jesus Christ. To continue in this goal of carrying the gospel of Jesus Christ, we need your prayers and donations.

We hope you will consider partnering with us. To donate, you can call us at 1-800-448-6766 or visit our website at rzim.org and click on the donate tab. For those listening in Canada, that website is rzim.ca. And if you have comments, questions or prayer requests you'd like to share, you can email us at rzim at rzim.org or you can write to us at RZIM post office box 1820 Roswell, Georgia, 30077. And when you contact us, be sure to let us know how you listen to the program. Let My People Think is a listener-supported radio ministry and is furnished by RZIM in Atlanta, Georgia.