So, we already talked about in this IRL, but for the record... exclusivist/inclusivist/pluralist is a spectrum, and people aren't necessarily going to be purely one of the three. I think Paul was willing to use the language of inclusivism and even pluralism to sway his Athenian audience. I think Romans 2 is inclusivist, too: there is truth outside our faith, but it's a watered-down version of OUR truth.
The other thing I didn't mention is that I think Eck sees a fourth choice, relativism, as the other end of the spectrum. A pluralist acknowledges other truths but still professes her own truth. The relativist has given up on capital-T Truth entirely.
Where are pluralist views in Christianity? You'll have to read the Eck book. :-) I think there are interpretations of Christian scripture and tradition that encourage pluralism, though. Jesus said he had other sheep not of this fold, and that the Spirit blows where it wills, to give two examples. Those can be interpreted inclusively by saying that Christ's salvific purpose can be accomplished through other faith traditions but that it's still Christ's salvific work and not, say, Amida Buddha's. But I think they can also be interpreted pluralistically by saying: who are we to place limits on how the Divine Presence may have been manifested to those other folds? And if Jesus truly has sheep in other folds, then the ideas of those sheep may be true in their own right, not only true insofar as they imitate the "real" truths that were revealed to us sheep over here.
no subject
The other thing I didn't mention is that I think Eck sees a fourth choice, relativism, as the other end of the spectrum. A pluralist acknowledges other truths but still professes her own truth. The relativist has given up on capital-T Truth entirely.
Where are pluralist views in Christianity? You'll have to read the Eck book. :-) I think there are interpretations of Christian scripture and tradition that encourage pluralism, though. Jesus said he had other sheep not of this fold, and that the Spirit blows where it wills, to give two examples. Those can be interpreted inclusively by saying that Christ's salvific purpose can be accomplished through other faith traditions but that it's still Christ's salvific work and not, say, Amida Buddha's. But I think they can also be interpreted pluralistically by saying: who are we to place limits on how the Divine Presence may have been manifested to those other folds? And if Jesus truly has sheep in other folds, then the ideas of those sheep may be true in their own right, not only true insofar as they imitate the "real" truths that were revealed to us sheep over here.