Truth and Dialogue in World Religions: Conflicting Truth-Claims. Edited by John Hick. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974. 164 pp. $5.95

1977 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 140-140
Author(s):  
J. Breckenridge
1987 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 493-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerard Loughlin

How is Christian theology, as the self-understanding of the Christian life, to understand the world religions? How is it to understand them in relation to itself? In recent years Professor John Hick has proposed a pluralist paradigm of the world religions which would, if acceptable, answer these sort of questions. In this article we are going to consider the acceptability of Hick's paradigm to Christian theology. The question we want to put to it is simple: Will it do as a model for how Christian theology may begin to think its relation to the world religions?Our discussion is in three parts. In the first part we present Hick's paradigm in, what we take to be, it's strongest form, defending it against certain criticisms. In the second part we consider its phenomenological foundations and the possibility of its judicious evaluation. Finally, in the third part, we offer a critique and come to a conclusion about it's acceptability to Christian theology. However, our answer is only a small contribution to a much larger task: ‘the theological understanding of non-Christian religions’.


2003 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 227
Author(s):  
Alexander FIDORA

During the last few years several criticisms concerning the possibility of an authentic interreligious dialogue within the traditional doctrine of the Church have emerged under the title of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions. The present paper tries to show how many of the problems pointed at by the pluralistic theologians, as for instance John Hick, can be solved by Ramon Llull 's concept of apologetics without abandoning the universal truth-claims that characterize each religion. To this end, first the actual criticisms concerning the interreligious dialogue will be analized, secondly the most distinctive features of the lullian approach will be presented, i.e. doubt and philosophy, and finally a Philosophy of Religions inspired by Llull and current theology will be proposed.


2001 ◽  
Vol 8 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 274-297
Author(s):  
John R. Meyer

AbstractWhile denying that belief in Jesus Christ is an essential element for personal salvation, John Hick presupposes Christian concepts of salvation. Even though he denies the universality of Christ vis-à-vis other world religions, the Christian doctrine of salvation is at the very heart of his project, albeit in a controversial form (as universal salvation or apocatastasis). I explore the influence of Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schleiermacher in Hick's thought and discuss how his theology of religions and his concept of inter-religious dialogue are related to Christianity and yet are divorced from some of its central tenets.


1975 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 359-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Lipner

In a short but pithy article entitled ‘Christ's uniqueness’, which appeared recently in an issue of the publication ‘Reform’, Professor John Hick outlines very compactly one of his latest presentations against the traditional Christian acceptance of Jesus' theological pre-eminence. My paper is not intended to present a full-blown argument either in defence or criticism of ‘the uniqueness of Christ’ (Except where another sense is clear, I use ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ throughout as they are commonly used, viz. as proper names referring to one and the same person). More directly, its aim is to point out what appear to be serious objections to a view that is gaining increasing support from thinkers who study the inter-relations between the world religions at various levels; and which for the committed Christian raises fundamental issues any seraiousminded believer, scholar or layman, must eventually face. Professor Hick repeats and summarises here a position he discusses at length elsewhere, and perhaps it is fitting that the stance we shall now examine will be made in the context of a presentation of one of its leading exponents.


1987 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-232
Author(s):  
John Churchill

There are three well-developed sorts of answer to the question ‘What kind of meaning is possessed by religious beliefs?’ The first sort regards religious beliefs as truth claims of the kind encountered in the natural and social sciences and in everyday life. Religious beliefs are claims about how things stand in some part of the world. They are to be counted as true or false depending on whether those claims correspond with how things in fact stand. On this reading, religious beliefs are at least in principle verifiable or falsifiable through experiences of appropriate types. There are of course different notions of ‘experiences of the appropriate type’. A Russian cosmonaut returned from space saying that there was no God. He regarded religious beliefs as falsified by the observations he made when he went into the sky and looked around. Others (for instance, John Hick in his concept of eschatological verification) think of religious beliefs as testable, not through ordinary sense experience, but through rather similar kinds of experiences (if any) after death. In either of these versions, the sort of meaning possessed by religious beliefs and the sort of truth or falsehood of which they are susceptible are not radically different from the sorts of meaning and truth typical of claims about empirical facts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document