在宗教對話上，多元論是主流的思想，無怪乎很多神學家企圖為之建立神學的基礎。據《開放與委身：田立克的神學與宗教對話》的作者賴品超的詮釋，保羅•田立克是眾多神學家中之一位二。按賴氏的研究，有別於更正教的傳統，田立克在建立其三一論時特別強調聖靈的位置及角色，意圖為多元論建立神學的基礎。在建立的過程中，田立克所持的主要論據是：三一上帝有「自由」與「主權」向不同的宗教啟示救恩的信息，於是不僅基督教擁有救恩的知識，其他宗教也擁有。由於其他宗教擁有救恩的知識，因此唯有基督教才擁有救恩的真理這主張再不可能成立。而且，如果我們想全面認識三一上帝的救贖計劃，宗教對話是無可避免的。本文最主要的目的是要駁斥田立克的論證，闡明其論證不是有力的。筆者所持的主要理由有二：一、若三一上帝真的有自由與主權的話，他就可以「只」向塞督教啟示救恩的真理。二、如果三一上帝向其他宗教啟示救恩的真理，則宗教間的衝突及宗教內的矛盾在田立克的三一論中不可能得到恰當的解決，從而對其三一論構成致命的威脅。另外，筆者嘗試說明：由於多元論不能解決諸宗教問在真理宣稱上存在的衝突性，又在知識論上不比排他論優越，所以神學家並不需要汲汲於為之建立神學的基礎。

Religious pluralism continues to thrive in modern societies. It is not surprising that many theologians attempt to justify it theologically. According to Lai Pan-Chiu, the author of Towards a Trinitarian Theology of Religions: A Study of Paul Tillich's Thought, Paul Tillich's trinity can justify it with the accentuation of the role of the Holy Spirit. Paul Tillich's main argument is this: since the triune God has freedom and right to disseminate the knowledge of salvation to different religions instead of only to Christianity, the claim that only Christianity possesses the knowledge of salvation is no longer true. Furthermore, if we want to have the complete knowledge of salvation, religious dialogue is inevitable. The aim of this essay is twofold. Firstly, I endeavor to refute Paul Tillich's argument with the reason that if the triune God has freedom and right, He can actually disseminate the knowledge of salvation only to Christianity. If that is so, the conflict of religious truth claims cannot be settled properly, which poses a great challenge to Paul Tillich's venture. Secondly, in response to the attempt of theologians, I strive to prove that since religious pluralism cannot settle the conflict of religious truth claims and is not epistemologically superior to exclusivism, theologians do not need to justify it.