I don't think Christians normally believe that God "created" other religions: rather, other religions have sprung up for normal historical reasons, the same as any other social phenomena.
But different Christians have had very different ideas about the status of other religions and their followers. It's usual to distinguish between three main different views, but I think there are really four main different views:
The first is
exclusivism, according to which anyone who is not a Christian won't be saved, so tough luck, basically. And yes, the major objection to this is that it's terribly unfair. I suppose the response to that would be to say that there are many things in life which are unfair, and where God seems to have treated some people worse than others: for example, if one person is born into poverty while another is born into wealth, then things are very different for them through no fault or merit of their own. So if God can allow that, he might allow people to be born into the wrong religion through no fault of their own too.
So, for example:
Cyprian of Carthage said:
And do not let them think that the way of life or of salvation is still open to them, if they have refused to obey the bishops and priests, since in Deuteronomy the Lord God says, “And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest or judge, whosoever be shall be in those days, that man shall die, and all the people shall hear and fear, and do no more presumptuously.” God commanded that those who did not obey his priests must be killed, and those who did not listen to his judges who were appointed for the time. And so they were indeed killed with the sword, when the circumcision of the flesh was still in force. But now that circumcision has begun to be of the spirit among God’s faithful servants, those who are proud and arrogant are killed with the sword of the Spirit, in that they are thrown out of the church. For they cannot live out of it, since the house of God is one, and there can be no salvation to anyone except in the church.
Exclusivism is probably most associated with Augustine, because his endorsement of it helped to make it the mainstream view for many centuries. Augustine argued that because all people have sinned, it would be good and just of God to damn
everyone. The fact that he chooses to save
some people just shows how amazingly merciful he is. Since he isn't obliged to save anyone at all, and everyone deserves to be damned, we can't complain that he chooses to save only a few.
The second major position is
pluralism, which basically says that all religions (or at least most of the major ones) are equally valid routes to salvation, and it doesn't really matter which one you follow as long as you do it sincerely and act morally. This is a much more common position today. John Hick is especially associated with it. He argues that Christians need a new Copernican revolution: instead of putting their own religion at the centre and judging others according to its standards, they ought to put "Reality" (his word for God) at the centre and see all religions as revolving around it, though in different orbits.
John Hick said:
Each of the great religious traditions affirms that in addition to the social and natural world our ordinary human experience there is a limitlessly greater and higher Reality beyond or within us, in relation to which or to whom is our greatest good. The ultimately real and the ultimately valuable are one, and to give oneself freely and totally to this One is our final salvation/liberation/enlightenment/fulfilment. Further, each tradition is conscious that the divine Reality exceeds the reach of our earthly speech and thought. It cannot be encompassed in human concepts. It is infinite, eternal, limitlessly rich beyond the scope of our finite conceiving or experiencing.
Probably the major objection to this is that it seems very woolly, almost to the point of inconsistency: different religions disagree with each other on fairly important points, so they can't all be
true; so how can they all be equally valid routes to salvation? Moreover, you must have some standards to say some religions are better than others, otherwise you can't say that Buddhism or Christianity are preferable to satanism. Now in response to this, Hick suggests that the "great" religions are those which have certain features:
John Hick said:
These many different perceptions of the Real, both theistic and nontheistic, can only establish themselves as authentic by their soteriological efficacy. The great world traditions have in fact all proved to be realms within which or routes along which people are enabled to advance in the transition from self-centredness to Reality-centredness. And, since they reveal the Real in such different lights, we must conclude that they are independently valid.
But as soon as you introduce standards such as this, you seem to be drifting away from pluralism altogether. And it seems to be getting close to the third major position, which Hick rejects.
That third major view is what I'd call
realised inclusivism, according to which you do need faith in Christ to be saved, but you don't have to be explicitly a Christian. Justin Martyr argued for this in the second century AD. He believed that Christ is the Logos, that is, the divine Reason; so anyone who follows reason is really following Christ, although they might not know it. So he thought that the pre-Christian prophets, and pagan philosophers, were saved because of this.
Justin Martyr said:
We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that he is the Logos of whom every race of men were partakers. And those who lived according to reason [logos] are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious.
This view retains the traditional belief that Christ is essential to salvation, but it aims to remove what it regards as the overly parochial insistence upon the Christian religion. So someone who holds this view might think that, say, a good and sincere Muslim could count as a Christian (even if they don't know it) because they are following that element of Christ that is present in their religion. In the twentieth century, the Catholic theologian Karl Rahner put forward a version of this.
Karl Rahner said:
It is senseless to suppose cruelly – and without any hope of acceptance by the man of today, in view of the enormous extent of the extra-Christian history of salvation and damnation – that nearly all men living outside the official and public Christianity are so evil and stubborn that the offer of supernatural grace ought not even to be made in fact in most cases, since these individuals have already rendered themselves unworthy of such an offer by previous, subjectively grave offences against the natural moral law.
Rahner said that it is true that, when someone has heard Christianity preached and really understood it, explicitly becoming a Christian really is essential for their salvation. But that moment (the personal Pentecost moment) comes at different times for different people, and for many people, it never comes at all. Until it does, they may be following Christ in their own way. Once it has come, if they are really a follower of Christ, they will choose to follow the fully revealed version. Just as a fan of the Stones will go to a tribute band in the absence of the real thing, but if the Stones themselves come to town, the true fan would never be content with an imitation.
Karl Rahner said:
However little we can say with certitude about the final lot of an individual inside or outside the officially constituted Christian religion, we have every reason to think optimistically – i.e., truly hopefully and confidently in a Christian sense – of God who has certainly the last word and who has revealed to us that he has spoken his powerful word of reconciliation and forgiveness into the world... Once we take all this into consideration, we will not hold it to be impossible that grace is at work, and is even being accepted, in the spiritual, personal life of the individual, no matter how primitive, unenlightened, apathetic and earth-bound such a life may at first sight seem to be... Hence, if one believes seriously in the universal salvific purpose of God towards all men in Christ, it need not and cannot really be doubted that gratuitous influences of properly Christian supernatural grace are conceivable in the life of all men (provided they are first of all regarded as individuals) and that these influences can be presumed to be accepted in spite of the sinful state of men and in spite of their apparent estrangement from God.
The major objection to this is that it's rather patronising to say that, for example, sincere Muslims are really Christians even if they don't know it, and even if they deny it themselves. The response to that is that something can be true even if it is patronising to say it; moreover, the idea isn't that you go around saying this to members of other religions. Rather, it is something to help Christians themselves reconcile their faith in divine mercy with the
The fourth major view on this is
unrealised inclusivism. On this view, you do indeed need to be a Christian in order to be saved, but ultimately, everyone will become a Christian - if not in this life, then after death. The most famous proponent of this view was Origen of Alexandria in the third century. Origen believed that those who reject Christ will end up in hell, but hell is only temporary, because the purpose of punishment is reformation and rehabilitation. Moreover, good is infinite, but evil is finite, so no-one can persist in evil forever. Ultimately, everyone will turn to God.
Origen said:
There is a resurrection of the dead, and there is punishment, but not everlasting. For when the body is punished the soul is gradually purified, and so is restored to its ancient rank. For all wicked men, and for demons, too, punishment has an end, and both wicked men and demons shall be restored to their former rank.
Others who accepted this view in antiquity include Titus of Bostra and, more significantly, Gregory of Nyssa, who was far more explicit about it than Origen himself. But the opposition of Augustine meant that it lost popularity after the fifth century. Most later inclusivists have been of the "realised" kind rather than "unrealised".
