Gloria Bulaya
Dr. Nicholas Kerton-Johnson
POS 374
12/4/2016
Ethic Paper,
What does it mean for Christians to be tolerant of other views?
As followers of Christ, we are to be salt and light in this broken world. On the other hand, does this imply that we have a duty to be tolerant of other religious convictions and beliefs?
Acceptance has many meanings. The situation is to be determined by the person who is asked. In general, language, tolerance is the capability of respecting and identifying the principles or practices of others who are contrasted from our own. Plainly, it is the will or the ability to put up with the reality of opinions, beliefs, or conducts that one does not certainly approve with our practice themselves. I might have a family member or friend that has a much unlike conventional of standards and beliefs than I do and so by accepting his or her views and principles and continuing civil in their attendance, it can be understood of us that I am tolerant of them. I can be tolerant of something while at the same time disagreeing with it. I can agree to disagree, but then again not be disagreeable. As a result, should my brothers and sisters in Christ be tolerant of other religions outside of their own faith? What does the word of God say about such tolerance?
Christians are over and over again named intolerant and prejudiced for the reason that they believe that there is merely one true way to obtain eternal life on the other hand is this “one way” conviction of our own origination otherwise imagining? On no account, this is what Jesus said; “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). He under no circumstances said I am one of the ways, I am one of the truths and I am one of the ways of eternal life; rather He said that He is the way, the truth, and the life and there is no other. If we believe that there is only one way to be saved, we only believe what Jesus said and this is Jesus’ teaching, not ours. If people disagree with us about this, it is in fact their discordant with Jesus. Evidently, this is what the Scriptures give a grounding in, “For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Rom 10:13). This automatically means that if someone appeals on the Lord’s name with their willpower will be saved. The direct opposite of this must also of requirement be true; “Whoever does not call on the name of the Lord will not be saved.” There is only one name given to men, women, and children by which they can be saved and that name is Jesus Christ’s (Acts 4:12). It must not surprise us that Jesus is the only way to be saved on the other hand bear in mind the sinfulness of mankind, it is incredible that there is any way at all to be saved.
If one was to follow a narrow path on a mountainside and following a conductor, one wouldn’t think that their God is narrow minded or prejudiced for the reason that he knows the only way across the side of the mountain. He has been there a lot of times and therefore to think that he is being intolerant of other ways is to misinterpret that there is no other way than the way that he is taking. To agree with another way or one’s own belief could result in death.
I’ve received this statement repeatedly; “sure, that may perhaps be true for you on the other hand that is not accurate for me. What you have faith in makes it true for you, however it doesn’t make it factual for me.” Is there neutral truth? One individual told me that there are no absolutes. My problem to the person is this; “If you are saying that there are no truths, by what means am I supposed to believe you? Are you completely certain of that?” What’s to stop us from dragging into a gas place and just putting water into our containers instead of gas? They’re equally liquids aren’t they? Am I being constricted minded to express this to guy, “Hey, that’s water and not gas?” Grounded upon the trust that there are no resolutions or not at all neutral trait, uncertainty a person feels that it is right for them to place water into their tank as a replacement for of gas, they would maintain, and who am I to say what’s right for them? Designed for anyone to strictly say that there are not at all total truths or no complete right or wrongs since they’ve just made an absolute privilege of truth saying that there are no truths. That is pure madness and is an extremely irrational declaration.
If I comprehend that it is not our responsibility to save people who are misled and outside of saving faith, I should be more understanding of the views of others. Deprived of the Holy Spirit to expose a person’s want for the Savior, there is certainly not way that I can persuade them by in disagreement that their belief or religious conviction is false. No one has ever been argued into paradise that I know of. It is not my obligation to save any person, it is their answer to His ability, even though it is my responsibility to tell them. I can direct them to Christ, but then again, God alone does the saving (John 6:44) and without the Spirit’s effort in a person, they cannot ever apprehend that Jesus is the one and only way. Openly, “these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God” (1 Cor 2:10) and “So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 2:11b) as a result that “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor 2:14). The theme Paul is constructing here is that I cannot persuade individuals that they are wrong.