Page History

If Ferguson's interpretation is sound, as I, on the whole, take it to be, it seems clear that Bultmann's view converges toward my own \-\- or vice versa. ln my terms, "To be a Christian and to take Christianity to be the formally true religion are one and the same thing. . . . \[Persons\] cannot really be Christians at all, as long as they are such, without thinking and speaking of themselves and others and of reality generally in specifically Christian concepts and symbols" (_ITOOTR?_: 100 f.). But this in no way precludes that the Christian, as much as anyone else, can objectively compare the Christian religion with other religions and assess its relative adequacy -- any more than being a Christian and taking Christianity to be the formally true religion precludes inquiring objectively into the normative Christian understanding of existence by which the appropriateness of all religion claiming to be Christian has to be judged. Bultmann's point is simply that the Christian as such, as soon and as long as she or he is a Christian, is obedient to Christ and, therefore, has no need to look elsewhere for revelations, at least not for decisive revelation. But he does not understand this in any way to preclude the Christian's doing what any human being as such can and should do in face of claims (and counterclaims) to religious truth.