#STRask - Are Other Religions Different Expressions of the Same God?

Episode Date: September 3, 2026

Questions about whether other religions are different expressions of the same God, and how to reconcile the idea that people who have never heard the gospel are guaranteed to go to Hell with the fact that God is a good judge who shows mercy on whom he chooses to show mercy.   Are other religions different expressions of the same God? If the Bible centers on one region, how did isolated people come to know him? Could their native religions have been another way God revealed himself? How do you reconcile the idea that people who have never heard the gospel are guaranteed to go to Hell (per Romans 10) with knowing God is a good judge who shows mercy on whom he chooses to show mercy?

Welcome back to hashtag S-HCRASK, and we are going to start with a question from Hannah today. All right. Are other religions different expressions of the same God? If the Bible centers on one region, how did isolated people come to know him? Could their native religions have been another way God revealed himself? This is a fairly common concern that people raise so glad that Hannah brought it up. And here's the parallel that I could give. I mean, it's kind of a loose parallel, but what if we were talking and we thought we met somebody that was, let's say, I don't know, I'm trying to identify the, I thought this guy was the president, the, the principal of the school down the street, the elementary school.

And I'm familiar with this guy. And you say, I said, really, was he a redhead? And you say, no, he wasn't a redhead. Well, it couldn't have been the same guy because the guy who's the principal of the school is a redhead. So all we're doing is looking at significant features of an individual to determine if that one is the same that somebody else had in mind. Okay. And every once in a while, you can have a misperception or whatever. They say, yeah, he's a red's head. Well, he's 5'10. No, he's about 5'8. Well, the other guy's 5'10. Well, you might be making a mistake about the 5'8 and somebody about the 510. So you can be talking about the same person and have a little bit of a variation on the expression. But you're not going to have a massive variation. They said, yeah, I thought I saw the president, really? Did he have red hair? It wasn't even a he.

It was a she. Oh, that's not the same person. No way. Okay. So this gives us a little bit of a handle on how to answer these questions. Is it the case that what we know about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and by the way, we know a lot about him. We have lots and lots of details of the Bible.

And since the stipulation is the God of those people, will they know about him by what's been revealed? We'll use that as a source. Does this match any of these other religions? A massive amount of religions in the world are animistic. For example, I lived in Thailand. Okay, Buddhism is the official religion of the people, but they're not, that's not their visceral religion. That isn't what drives them. What drives them is spiritism. And so will spirit, Puritism is not anything like monotheism, and Buddhism is not like anything like monotheism. In fact, in Buddhism, there is no God. It's irrelevant. The question of God is not even relevant. It's a non-theistic religion. So if the question is, could have God reveal himself in these other religions, the answer

is going to have to be no. God couldn't have done that because the only way he did. might have done that is to contradict who he is. So God is not going to reveal himself in a religion that says there is no himself. It's a non-theistic religion. Okay. So that would be contrary to God's nature and contradiction, a basic fundamental contradiction. Now, I'm just talking about two different religious views that are quite pervasive, a major religion like Buddhism, and then kind of a folk religion that penetrates a lot of these developing countries' cultures, right? So, all right, what about Judaism?

Well, Judaism and Christianity work with the same revelation. And the answer is that I would give is God did reveal himself to the Jews, and he revealed himself to the Jews through Jesus. And they said, no. So you have the same revelation that we're working with here, but just a different response and a different conviction about at least the New Testament revelation there. So, okay, let's keep working. Okay, what about Hinduism?

Well, in Hinduism, God, at least in one major type of Hinduism, God is not – God is everything. And in a certain sense, we are nothing. We're part of God's dreams. Maya, M-A-Y-A. And it's an illusion. We're in our thinking, we don't remember that we are part of God, and God is impersonal. This is monism, classical monism, and also known as oneism is what it means. And so there isn't a God and a created order as separate things.

There is just this divine being. Atman is Brahman and Brahman is Atman. They're the same. Brahmin being God and Atman being. men, so to speak. So, when you look more closely at these religions, you realize, well, there's no compatibility there. They're talking about something entirely different.

So the motif that I'm going through here to answer your question, Hannah, is to see how these other religions, how they understand who God is. And it turns out these other religions have wildly divergent ideas of who God is, divergent from the biblical theism. And so it doesn't make any sense to say that God of the Bible revealed himself in a bunch of religions that reject him. Now, it's a very popular notion and is captured by certain metaphoric statements like all roads lead to. to Rome and all roads lead to the top of the bound. Now, those are helpful metaphors, if you will, or illustrations, but illustrations are arguments. The question would be, why would someone think that all roads lead to Rome in the religious sense or all roads lead to the top of the mountain?

The fact is, all roads don't lead to Rome. I mean, if you just think about the nature of the metaphor, they don't. All roads don't lead to the, all trails paths don't lead to the top of the road. of the mountain, some lead elsewhere or to the top of other mountains, right? So even the metaphor is deficient, and it's appealing because it sounds good. But when you think about whether it accurately captures the circumstances, the answer is no, it doesn't. These religions are wildly different in their, the way they understand the structure of reality, the worldview. So they can't be compatible. And, I mean, there's more to this question, but that's the biggest part.

I'd like to hear your response, too, before we get to whatever rest there is there. But the key there is this process that I'm just going through. So I hope people see not just the answer. No, not the same. It's not revealed by God. But the process I go through to find out, oh, common sense. here. And it's not bigotry, as some might characterize it. It's math. They can't all be the same. Now, if somebody else's view is true, which is entirely possible in principle, then my view is false.

You know, like the Buddhist, the non-God of Buddhism isn't revealing himself to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They're just different worldviews, completely different. I was thinking back to the beginning, like the time of Abraham. And what we see there is that at the time of Abraham, there were other people outside of Abraham who had some memory of who God was because we see Melchizedek. Right. And my guess is that what happened over time is that maybe some of those memories lasted but got distorted over time. But that doesn't mean God was revealing himself through their religion if some of that actually ended up making its way down. I keep in mind, by the way, the First Commandment.

I am the Lord your God have no other gods before me. So now that might have been understood in terms of I'm your God. That's a Moloch is his God, you know. And to some degree that's the way they understood it at the time. But further revelation made it really clear, you are the only God. All the rest are false gods. And even back then, even back that early, the worldviews, as you pointed out, Greg, in religions today, the worldviews back then were radically different. There's a book called The Bible

Among the Myths, and he talks about how different all of these other Near Eastern religions were from the Bible and how radical the Old Testament was in its view of God and its view of religion. Very radically different. So I think sometimes people don't realize how different it is from these other religions. So that would be a good place to start. Now, part of this is, could their native religions have been another way God revealed himself? But the answer is, God did not desire to reveal himself to everyone because he had a purpose in revealing himself to Abraham and making a distinction between that nation and the other nations. And what he was doing was revealing who he was compared to who their gods were.

So if you look in the Old Testament, you'll see over and over that he was purposefully making a distinction between the two so that people could see the difference between their laws and the difference between their gods. And he could show himself to be radically superior to the other gods. Because he has this long-term view of revealing himself and his goal. and His glory and bringing Jesus. And so there's a long-term view that's happening. So ultimately, and we've been talking about this in the last few episodes,

but his goal was to bring about Jesus for the world. But he did that through the one man and then the one nation. So here's where people say, well, that's not fair. But this goes back to the idea that God does not owe grace to anyone. and this is very hard for us to comprehend. But he doesn't have to do anything. He could have just left us alone and not revealed himself to anyone. But the fact that he reveals himself to anyone is purely by grace.

He did not owe it to everyone. And even, you know, all you have to do is you have to look at the way God responded to the people who worshipped other gods to see that those were not him. Right, right. He came down hard on the Israelites when they worshipped other gods. And he was constantly saying, comparing himself to these other gods and punishing them for worshipping the other God. So it couldn't be that those other religions are expressions of him. And then finally, what I do think God has done in some cases is there's a book called Eternity in their hearts. Yeah, I was thinking of that.

I was right. Don Richardson's name. down here to remind me, but yes, it's really great. So he noticed, he pointed out where these other cultures had things within their culture that were good hooks for the missionaries to come and use to give illustrations of who God was. So it wasn't that God was revealing himself directly, but there were ways in which he was revealing himself to the extent where he would have them Like they were, I don't know if they were asking for missionaries or if they were expecting missionaries. I'm trying to remember the whole—

Well, there's a couple of books. One is Peace Child, and the other one is Eternity in their hearts. And in the second one he talks about in these different folk lores and stuff, there were these concepts. Now, they took them very seriously. They weren't just folklore. Oh, these are stories. Let's tell our kids about, you know, Hansel and Gretel or something like that. These were strongly held beliefs that.

related to their broader worldview that they took seriously as true, and some of these anticipated people coming to tell them about the totally pure spirit, for example, and they had language in their vocabulary for that, and there's some amazing stories about how they had a prophetic word and follow the, take this, follow this donkey. This is in the golden triangle, right in Burma area, for example, Burma Thailand and Laos, and follow this donkey, and they follow the donkey through the jungle for a hundred, and he's going to lead you right to this person. And that was, and I don't know the nature of that communication, but there was something like that, for example, in this, because they've been talking about this God, and now they're, this special

God overall, and then there was this word of sorts. And so they followed the donkey, and it led them to a compound after a hundred miles or so. Then the donkey just stood by a well. Now, they were told to follow the donkey, and the donkey would lead them to this man. So they look around, they didn't see anybody. So they looked in the well. And the missionary was down in the bottom of the well. I didn't remember that one. Yeah. And so, and in the, in the, in the, in the account, he said he's actually seen a picture of the particular donkey that led them there. So, but this is just kind of a, give you a taste of the kind of things that can happen in different cultures.

And it's very common nowadays for Muslims who encounter, who become Christian, to have become Christians in virtue of some supernatural element in their life, some revelation of a sort, a vision or a dream. And Nabil Qureshi, for example, which did you know Nabil? I'm not sure. No, I didn't know. Okay, well, I knew from when he was a new Christian in 2005. And, of course, the Lord took him in, what, 2017 or something like that.

But his own, many people have read Seeking Allah finding Jesus. And he explains in there about the supernatural element. And this seems to be characteristic. So you have these ways that God is penetrating these cultures. when he is not required to, and this is, I'm so glad you brought that up. The fairness issue, I wrote it down here, is that fair? The fairness issue comes up all the time because there is this sense in our culture that everybody ought to get the same. Everybody ought to get the same.

That's what fairness is. Hey, that's not fair. You gave that to him, but you didn't give it to me. That's the way we think. and fairness is not a characteristic of God's personality. He's just, and he's merciful, but not fair. He doesn't treat, he didn't have to treat everybody the same. Jesus makes this clear in a particular parable.

So I'm glad you brought that up, because we have this impulse to think in that fashion that God's got to treat us fairly. In the case of Peace Child, this is actually done... Don Richardson's own characterization, his own life. It's autobiographical when he went to Papua New Guinea and seized upon some detail of their culture that allowed him to contextualize the message of the substitutionary toment of Christ because they'd have warring tribes, and they were warring all the time, unless one person, one side, one tribe gave a peace child to the other child.

to the other tribe to care for and grow up in their tribe. And that kind of connection is what created peace. And he would use this and say, Jesus is the peace child from God who you are at war with. And by the way, he is at war

with you because he's your sovereign or whatever, however they characterize it. But he talks about all of these different kind of things in people's cultures the way he characterized it. I took a class from him, so I remember some of this more vividly. And he said, not only has God prepared the gospel for all people, but he's prepared

the people for the gospel. And these are these redemptive analogies, I think is what he called them like a peace child. So this is just part of the story of answering how, it isn't just as if he's just totally forgotten all of those people. He has different ways of doing these things, But God is not going to work through false religions in this way to affirm falsehood. Right. He was not going to share his glory with another God. That's right. He wouldn't save through some other understanding of who he is.

Because the whole point, again, is for us to know him and for the glory of his grace. So why would he save through some other God or some other understanding of God? It wouldn't even accomplish what he's accomplishing. Good point. What his goal is, his purpose. Right. So here's one that a question that follows from that, comes from Adam. As motivation for missions, pastors like David Platt teach that people who have never heard the gospel are guaranteed to go to hell if we don't tell them, citing Romans 10.

Can you help me reconcile this, knowing that God is a good judge that shows mercy on whom he chooses to show mercy? Well, okay, Adam, I don't know if you're going to really like this answer, but your statement is the answer. God is a good God, and he will show mercy on whoever he chooses to show mercy on. Whoever does not respond to or does not—I'm thinking the best way to put this now. To the—I'm going to speak now in a more general sense. Whoever does not respond to the revelation that is already given and adequate for them to know that that there is a God and things about his character, and we get this out of Romans 1, there he is, there's his divine attributes, there are aspects of it that are clearly seen

to what has been made, but people then suppress the truth and unrighteousness. So there's a moral motive for ignoring whatever revelation God has given to himself. That means these people are guilty. And in fact, in the text, it says they are without excuse. So this is very instructive. What about these poor people who never heard as if they're going to go to hell because of some accident of geography? They didn't hear. No, that isn't why they're going to be condemned.

They're going to be judged according to their works, not to what they did or didn't believe about a Jesus they never heard of. And if their works are condemnable, then God's justice is manifest in his judgment. If he wants to extend mercy to some, he can do that. And he'll do that in his own way. And sometimes are very unique ways like we were just talking about. But it is up to God to extend mercy as he will. So, Adam, that's the answer to your question. I'm trying to read the, could you read the last half where he says, can?

Can you help me reconcile this, knowing that God is a good judge that shows mercy on whom he chooses to show mercy? Okay, there's no need for reconciliation because there is no conflict between that statement about God being a good judge and shows mercy on who he wants to show mercy, and what was told to him about motivation, David Platt's motivation, for missionary work, because without Christ, they will be lost. and God is going to use the missionary efforts to communicate the truth of the gospel to those he desires to hear it. And if they don't respond, they are responsible. If they hear it and don't respond, they are responsible. If they don't hear it and don't respond properly to general revelation, then they're still guilty. This is such a clear teaching out of the book of Romans.

especially the first chapter. Paul is setting up an argument in chapter one, the second half, and then chapter two, in chapter three, that no one is innocent, and we are all guilty and shut up under sin. So nobody can say it's not right. It's not just. If I say it's not fair, but that's not a factor here. What's interesting about this Romans 10 passage, and this is something I've recently discovered as I've thought more carefully about this chapter. These questions that Paul is asking, what I think he's doing is I think he's giving the objections people will have. So he just, in chapter nine, he talked about how, well, has God's faithfulness failed because the Jews have not come to Christ just on mass? And so when he comes

here, and he's saying, well, my prayer is for their salvation, but they are seeking their own righteousness. They're not seeking Jesus. So then he comes to the objection, and I think, I think this is an objection. How, they haven't heard. How is this fair? They haven't heard. They haven't believed. No one's gone to tell them. But then Paul, Paul makes a few points. And the first one is, but they didn't, they didn't all heed what they did here. And he says, he quotes Isaiah, Lord, who has believed our report? Then he has another objection, but I say, surely they have never heard. And then Paul shoots down that objection.

Their voice has gone out into all the earth and their words to the ends of the world. And then he has another objection, but I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? And then here we get to something really interesting, because what he says is, first Moses says, I will make you jealous by that which is not a nation, by a nation without understanding, will I anger you? Because that was a judgment that God made against them. He said, you, back in the Old Testament, he said, you are making me jealous by going to other God. So I'm going to make you jealous by going to another nation. And basically what he's saying is, God has purposes for showing grace. and then or showing judgment. So just because he just finished explaining this in chapter 9, because he was saying that there were reasons, you know,

that they aren't going to be saved without God calling them to salvation. But the objections that you have to that, his response is, no, God, it's God's choice. Yeah. It's God's choice. God will show mercy. on whom he will show mercy. But it does also emphasize that there are their choices that are making, too, in rejection to him, you know, suppressing the truth, Romans 1, and then later on, yes, they have heard.

So you can't offer that as an excuse. Well, how have they heard? You know, first he says, there's no preacher, but okay, no preacher, but they have another preacher, and then he refers back to the Psalms. The heavens are telling of the glory of God. I think that's the psalmy cites there. Psalm 19 or something like that. But he's speaking of general revelation there.

So there's a two-way thing going on there that people are rebellious, and they just want to do their own thing. Yeah. So God is, it's up to him. The mercy is up to him. And the problem isn't that they haven't heard because they've already rejected. And it's up to God. It's up to God. And this is the only way to make sense of this is to understand what we deserve, and that's where we,

that's where we have trouble, I think. Soteriology, good soteriology starts with good anthropology. In other words, you have to understand man and his actual condition before you can understand how God responded to that condition to save man. One comes before the other. Here's one thing, and maybe you don't want to speak to this, but I know we're almost out of time, but I never really understood the jealous part because I don't see how. the Jews are in any way jealous of Gentiles who have Christ, at least at the moment.

Well, I think when he used—you're talking about when he says that the salvation has come to the Gentiles to make them jealous, correct? I think he's going back to this verse, which is a quote from the Old Testament, I will make you jealous by that which is not a nation. In other words, they had gone to other gods. Sure, I follow that. Yeah. So I think he's using the language of that where, God is going to go to other nations now, and just as they rejected God and went to other gods, now he's going to other nations. So I think it's just the parallel of that situation. Okay, but he's not talking about a sense of or a feeling of jealousy that they would have that would motivate them to turn back to God. Well, I mean, in the part where he says, yeah, I think ultimately, yes, but he's referring back to this situation. Does that make sense?

It makes sense because you're keeping the notion very general. And I was thinking of jealousy as something one feels in their heart. You know, I'll make you jealous. I'm going over here. And then they feel jealous and then they adjust. But I don't – apparently that's not what he had in mind, according to you. Well, I think, okay, I'm looking at the passage now where he's talking about – let's see. Oh, here we go.

I magnify my ministry if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. Yeah. So I think his idea is you display God's grace and glory in the Gentiles, and then they will see that and desire that. I think that's what's going on. Okay. But he's using the language of what God promised to do in judgment against them. Right, right. Yeah.

Does that help at all? A little. But I'm not troubled by it at all. It was just a curiosity I thought I'd bring it up and let everybody know that I don't know everything. I think the point here is just that the mercy is up to God and we are guilty. Those are the two points that Paul is making throughout all of Romans. Yeah, that's great. All right.

Thank you so much, Adam and Hannah. You got a long episode today. Thank you so much for listening. This is Amy Hall and Greg Cookell for Stand to Reason.