Name:

Number:

Course:

Tutor:

Date:

Is Jesus the only savior? By Ronald Nash

Introduction

Ronald Nash attained his doctorate degree from Syracuse University after which he

became professor at Western Kentucky University, Southern Baptists Theological Seminary, and

Reformed Theological seminary where he taught in various theological classes. His major area o

focus was religion, spirituality and philosophy. His favorite philosopher was Augustine but he

also favored teachings from Carl Henry. Ronald Nash died in 2006 after writing many

theological books and diving in to a lot of theological research. His major writing include: Life’s

Ultimate Question, World view in conflict: choosing Christianity on a world of ideas, The

meaning of history, Faith and reasons, when a baby dies: answers to comfort grieving parents,

and the word of God and the mind of man among others. Nash was well known for his firm

spirituality and excellent communication skills…….He always seem to chooses his themes
through a wide angle of perspectives and his major themes consisted of world views, history and

philosophy which allowed his audience and readers to gain a broader sense and perspective of

the subjects in more than one dimension. In his book titled, ‘Is Jesus the only savior?’ Nash

writes a preface that alerts the reader about the consequent examination throughout the entire

book. Nash humbly recognizes the input and assistance of other academicians and scholars and

appreciated their immense contribution to the work. In the early stages of his book, Nash clearly

states that atheism, universalism and other non-Christian religions are beyond the scope of what

he intends to write about. This declaration allows Nash to for an academic precision that

focalizes his examination. Additionally, the preciseness and concern for his readers is highly

exemplified when he chooses to make this declaration very early in the book.

Part 1: Pluralism and exclusivism

In chapter one of the book, Nash sets out to journey the reader in to the most important

focus of the books which is centered on Christ’s exclusivity as the savior. The book is centered

on three primary concerns regarding the debate: pluralism, exclusivism and inclusivism. He

briefly explains the definitions of the terms inclusivism and pluralism due to the fact that he

spends a lot of time on the said topic in the rest of the book. His reasons for exclusivism are

purely based on the authority of the Bible. In this chapter, Nash briefly summarizes his

theological understanding of exclusivism. To begin with, Nash stood firm in the foundational

truthfulness of the Christian view of the world and all his arguments were clear and concise in

order to bring glory to God (Yahweh) who made man as a rational creation. Nash argues that The

Lord Jesus Christ is the only foundation of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:2-3). His argument is

clear in the very early stages of the exclusivism topic where he sets forth a clear explanation of
Christian Exclusivism and biblical positions by proclaiming that “exclusivism is a belief that a)

Jesus Christ is the only savior and b) explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for Salvation of

mankind (Nash p. 11).

He goes ahead to prepare the reader for the criticism that exists in regards to this issue

coming from the other two philosophies of pluralism and inclusivism. He apologetically defends

exclusivism saying that it is neither radical nor subjective to Christianity and this goes a long

way to defend his argument about the incoherency of pluralism later on in the book. The topic if

Christian exclusivism takes a big part of the first chapter. Nash employs the use of spiritual

evidences and biblical authority to describe this topic and he convincingly shows the first view

which sets a mindset that the views that follow will be evaluated by showing their inadequacies

of opposing this initial definition. By doing this, he leaves the burden of proof to pluralism and

inclusivism and his thesis aligns with these lines: “The major question I will seek to answer in

the rest of this book is whether pluralists or inclusivists have produced arguments strong enough

to justify the repudiation of exclusivism, which is the position of historic Christianity.”(p. 25).

Nash introduces a key distinction of the traditional Christian exclusive in chapter one when he

says that, “theology has been replaced by personal encounter, religious feeling, trust, or

obedience.” (P. 25). This becomes a recurrent theme throughout his analysis of pluralism I the

first chapter and he clearly notifies the reader of this structure thus allowing them to look

forward to his analysis of John Hick’s work on the same topic.

It can be appreciated that Nash took the time to highlight the numerous levels of Hick’s

pluralism starting from Hick beginning as a self-proclaimed radical who was aimed at improving

pluralism to the later Hicks who went ahead to adopt Smith’s relativists views. Nash presented
his opponent Hicks in a manner that was worthy and he additionally presented great ability to

show the fallacies and contradictions present in his opponent’s work which made it easy for him

to expose the circularity of Hick’s Philosophy.

Nash was in opposition of Hick’s argument that said that God was both personal and

impersonal. He says that this notion contradicts the logical absolute which is popularly known as

‘the law of non-contradiction’. Nash says that, “It is logically impossible for God to be both

personal and impersonal at the same time.”(P. 23). This point is very important because it shows

that Nash was not simply trying to be arbitrary in his argument about inconsistency but rather his

argument was that Hick’s position went against universal standards of reasoning which are

important to forming rational discourses. Nash explains that, “John Hick is generally

acknowledged to be the best known and most influential proponent of pluralism”……….but

when Nash sets to refute and oppose such a credible source, he exhibits great confidence and

courage to potraying the weakness of a highly influential and braod view. Nash first explains

Hick’s early arguments and their influences to society and by doing this, he exhibits strength and

a very deep understanding and knowledge of Hick’s approach to pluralism.

Nash shows great knowledge and deep understanding of Hick’s work by first highlighting

his early influences leading to his thoughts on pluralism and by refuting the origins of pluralism

he clearly shows why accepting it in today’s world is a failure. Nash clearly shows how Hick’s

came about the idea of pluralism and how he later on saw the weaknesses of this philosophy and

decided to change his perspective. This refutation of pluralism and Hick’s change of mindset

makes the reader skeptical of Hick’s work and also pluralism.

 In chapter two of his book, Nash goes ahead to explain the second stage of pluralism as

argued by Hick. Nash shows that Hick’s failed to align with the law of logic by trying to fix the

mistakes from the first stage by highlighting the falsehoods that existed in Hick’s arguments. He

argues that if the beginning of any philosophy is based on falsehood, then the conclusion of the

same philosophy is also false. Nash shows the fault that existed in Hick’s philosophy using the

‘excluded middle’ principle. Nash argues that, “If pluralists really object to exclusivism because

of its reliance on such logical laws as the principle of excluded middle or the law of non-

contradiction, pluralism is in serious trouble” (P.55).

Nash further opposes Hick’s work by arguing against the idea of relative truth. He argues

against pluralism through the use of scriptures from the bible where in chapter 5, he highlights

the Christian understanding of Jesus Christ as it relates to pluralism. Hick says that the

resurrection and ‘incarnation’ of Jesus was a myth and Nash refutes this argument in a distinct

way by quoting the scriptures that prove that resurrection of Jesus was not merely a myth but

actually the truth. According to Nash, Hick’s fails to “make adequate distinctions about the

properties of humanness dooms his charge that the Incarnation is a self-contradictory and

logically incoherent doctrine.” (P. 91). Hick’s strongest argument was that a loving God would

never be exclusivist but Nash goes ahead to state that God is unable to ignore sins from human

beings because by doing so, it would mean that he is not a just God. Nash goes ahead to say that

the just nature of God is a “fundamental matter of Christian belief” (P. 99) which pluralists

choose to ignore. Nash says that through the cross God proved his immense love for all human

beings.
 Nash employs the use of important Christian beliefs to portray the inconsistencies that

Hick showcases by calling himself a Christian. He argues that Hick’s calls himself a Christian

yet he contradicts major Christian beliefs and goes ahead to say that, “Any Christians who would

become Pluralists must cease being Christians” (P.100).

Nash did an amazing job at highlighting the faults that existed in the pluralistic

arguments. Nash talks about the existential foundations pluralism and deconstructs the pluralist’s

language (P. 61). Using the law of modus ponens, Nash successfully showed the faults of Hick’s

critique of Jesus Christ saying that pluralism is in “deep trouble” (P. 70). In his detailed

argument, Nash uncovered the arbitrary and relativistic attitude attached to pluralism and in

every way he exposed the incoherence therein. Nash successfully defends the biblical exclusivist

understanding and clearly exposes the logical inconsistencies that exist in Hick’s philosophy of

pluralism.

Personal opinion

I personally found these chapters of Nash’s book very delightful in content and

apologetic. Nash presented coherent and logical arguments based on the view of the world by

Christians and Nash deserves credit for such amazing work. However, I feel that Nash could

have made additional statements as it pertains to epistemological justifications because this

would have been very enlightening to Christian scholars and readers in general. For example,

one would ask what the foundation to understanding their experiences are. The answer to this

question would be that there exists a non-arbitrary reasoning standard that transcends all
experiences which can only be found in the Christian world view. Human experiences preclude

any challenges of the Christian world view because there is no other worldview that can clearly

explain the immaterial and universal abstractions. Nash’s work reduced Hick’s philosophy to

mere nonsense through exposing the denial of logical absolutes, exposing positional circularities

and the numerous logical fallacies. Nash invoked many moral standards which all seemed to be

applied to exclusivists. This shows that pluralists do not have an absolute moral standard with

which they can condemn exclusivists. Logical incoherence and inconsistency is a bog sign of

failure and Nash brilliantly exposed all these inconsistencies in Hick’s principles terming

pluralism as a big failure.

Part 2: Exclusivism and inclusivism

In part two of his book, examines the principle of inclusivism and focuces majorly on

exploring the various positions of this principle and what he views as the theological, practical

and logical dilemmas concerning the whole principle o inclusivism. Nash draws attention to the

growth of the influence of inclusivism and its popularity as compared to exclusivism over the

years. He highlights some of the major proponents of inclusivism and explains why they hold to

its beliefs with an aim to determine which principle is true in regards to inclusivism and

exclusivism, (ibid. p.9). In an attempt to obtain the truth, Nash states that Inclusivism is s

concept that believes that although Jesus Christ is the savior, people can obtain salvation with or

without believing in him and can also do so even without having heard or had any knowledge of

him.

He further says, “Inclusivists see their position as a middle ground between exclusivism

and pluralism that preserves the most important insights of the other two views.” That is, (1.)

“That God’s salvation is not restricted to the relatively few people who hear the gospel and

believe in Jesus Christ. And (2.) “That God’s universally accessible salvation is nonetheless

grounded on the person of Jesus Christ and his redemptive work. (P. 108). By saying this, Nash

explains to the reader the foundational meaning taken by the inclusivists. In the introduction,

Nash also looks at the work of ome of the major proponents of inclusivism such as John Sanders

and Clark Pinnock who apart from being inclusivists, they also happen to be evangelicals. He

further mentions a Catholic inclusivists by the name Karl Rahner who said that, “God desires the

salvation of everyone [the universality axiom] and this salvation willed by God is the salvation

won by Christ [the particularity axiom].” (Ibid).

 During this analysis, Nash explores subjects such as, Inclusivism and the Roman

Catholic, Inclusivism and Evangelism, Evangelical inclusivism and the non-Christian religions,

and universalim and inclusivism. Nash observes that although all the three men mentioned above

support inclusivism, they all have differing views about what it entails. In the chapters that

follow, Nash looks at specific differences between exclusivists and inclusivists and explores

theological issues by majorly focusing on the different values and beliefs held by each principle

in regards to biblical teachings.

He further expounds of Sander’s and Pinnock’s arguments regarding certain issues such

as post-mortem evangelism, biblical requirements for salvation and general revelation. Using

well written, organized and wel constructed examples, Nash exposes the strengths, weaknesses,

biblical teachings and differing beliefs in regards to salvation between exclusivists and

inclusivists. By focusing and exploring these subjects, Nash clearly explains what he sees as the

most common and important scriptures from the bible used by inclusivists and exclusivists

separately to defend and appeal to their beliefs. Some of the texts that Nash highlighted are: Acts

10, 14:16-17 and 15 majorly used by inclusivists. Nash expounds on these texts and points out

their weaknesses and instabilities as interpreted by inclusivists. He then points out to scriptures

which support exclusivism citing, Romans 10:9-10, John 14:6 and Acts 4:12. Through these

exclusivists scriptures, Nash objects to the inclusivists interpretation of scriptures and further

emphasizes that the bible teaches Christians that there is only one way through which human

beings can obtain salvation and that is through Jesus Christ.

 Unlike inclusivism, exclusivism reveals that an individual can only receive salvation by

accepting the existence and having faith in Jesus Christ. By placing emphasis on these scriptures,

Nash is able to thoroughly and accurately highlight the accuracies, validity and strengths that

exist in the exclusivists theory. To show the strengths of Nash’ argument, he says, “In chapter 8 I

took issue with the inclusivists’ taking the two points in Hebrews 11:6 (believing that God exists

and seeking him) as exhausting the content of saving faith. But their treatment of Acts 10:35 falls

to the same error. Unless we challenge this approach, we will be left with the suggestion that one

can approach the Father without the Son, a claim clearly contradicted by John 14:6 and 1 John

2:23. (Ibid)

By using an exhaustive and accurate amount of scriptural citing, Nash manages to refute

many of Sander’s and Pinnock’s arguments which ultimately highlight their misinterpreted and

distorted biblical theologies and teachings. Nash adds that inclusivism is made up of emotional

appeals and logical fallacies which are meant to attract many people and this goes against

biblical teachings. Nash quotes theologian J.I. Parker who felt that inclusivism dishonors Christ

and undermines the relationship between a believer and the creator. He also echoes theologian

Roger Nicole who said that the inclusivist beliefs resemble heresy. These statements further

strengthen Nash’s arguments being made against inclusivism.

Although Nash is strongly opposed to the theory of inclusivism, he admits that both

excllusivism and inclusivism support the idea that Jesus Christ is the only savior as stipulated by

the particularity axiom. Nash successfully presents both sides quite well and also makes very

compelling and appealing arguments in support of the exclusivism theory.

In the chapters that follow, Nash draws attention to some questions that are very real which seem

to separate the Christian community. Nash does not claim to know everything and he does not

claim that his arguments are completely right by admitting that there are difficulties in answering

the complex questions about salvation, death, eternal salvation of children and the salvation of

those who are mentally challenged.

In regards to P.ME, Nash uses scriptures to explain his stand and provides several

scriptures from the bible such as Matthew 7:13-23, Matthew 24:4-46 and revelation 20:11. He

encourages further reading and evaluation of scriptures regarding the same issue. Nash makes it

clear that many exclusivists “have no problems with recognizing some elements of truth in non-

Christian religions…”and draws attention to Bruce Demarest who explains, “the Christian

conviction is that Christ is the only Savior.” (P. 155)

While discussing these issues together with many others, Nash draws attention to the

scriptures that have been misinterpreted and distorted by inclusivists to gain an alternative

understanding of them. Further, Nash says that inclusivists attack on exclusivists is biased,

hypocritical and self-exalting. He says that, “The inclusivists’ attack on exclusivism is more

strident and the support for their views is much weaker than many realize upon their first

encounter with these issues.” (P. 162). Nash further says that with an in-depth and careful study

of the principle of inclusivism, people will be able to faults in its components. Once again, Nash

does well in making a compelling argument and supports his theological and logical arguments

in an impressive manner.
 Through his book, Nash makes the reader aware of the fact that both exclusivists and

nclusivists use biblical teachings to support their arguments but he goes ahead to reveal the

misinterpretations and flaws that manifest in the inclusivists proving that exclusivism is a far

much more truthful and moral theory based on true biblical interpretation. He writes, “it seems

evident that, on the surface at least, exclusivism is on much firmer ground biblically than

inclusivism. Not only is there a host of well-known Bible texts that teach the precise opposite of

inclusivism, but also the whole thrust of New Testament evangelism and missions seems to run

contrary to inclusivist assumptions. (P. 163)

The arguments made by Nash against these misinterpreted and false teachings of

salvation are so well constructed, organized and intense that it makes his perspectives quite

irrefutable. Specifically, he boldly says that, “I have argued that inclusivism is seriously flawed

in its theology. The way that inclusivists handle Scripture is disturbing in many respects.” (P.

163). He effectively uses the scriptures and outside sources like Roger Nicole and others to

highlight the theological, practical and logical faults that exist within the concept of inclusivism

and he strongly opposes its components.

Nash successfully captures the attention of his readers and urges the Christian believers

to seek and reflect upon the divine truth of God’s word. He exposes how the inclusivists

misinterpret the bible and the scriptures and by doing so he shows that they undermine and deny

the authenticity of God’s word. Nash also proves that exclusivism firmly holds to the

authenticity and truth of the word of God and all the workings of Jesus Christ. Nash therefore

accomplishes his purpose successfully by revealing the half truths and utter lies that are
contained within the concept of inclusivism and he manages to persuade his readers to accept

and embrace exclusivism with no fear or repression.

Personal Opinion

Is Jesus the only savior? Different people will answer the following question with

different answers such as no, yes, but…or just yes! Many inclusivists such as Sanders and

Pinnock, their answers would be “yes, but….” Or they will say that Jesus is the ultimate savior

who died on the cross for the sins of the world but one does not require to personally know him

or have faith in him so as to be able to obtain salvation. Nash, however, will answer this question

with a staunch “yes” and there will be no further additions. Like Nash, I say that Jesus is the one

and only savior and that for one to gain salvation, they have to personally know him and have

complete faith in him. The bible says that, “Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and no one

comes to the father but through him” (John 14:6). I fully agree with Nash and I find true

confidence and validity in his position. The Christian foundation is held together by all that Jesus

Christ has done and his death on the cross was a way for him to give us salvation. The bible says

in Romans 10:9 that, “if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in

thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved”. For this reason, as

Christians we should believe that faith is the ultimate way for us to obtain salvation. Even

Roman 5:8 states that “…while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us”. This only shows that for

our sins to be forgiven and for us to receive salvation, we must first confess the knowledge and

complete faith in Jesus Christ without which, salvation will not be possible. Additional scriptures

say that, “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to
become children of God” (John 1:12). As a Christian, I solidly stand on God’s word and his

commands and I believe that my salvation and the salvation of all human kind solely comes from

Jesus Christ. Just like Nash, I refuse to adhere to any theories and principles that contradict the

bible.
Work cited

Nash, Ronald H., Is Jesus the Only Savior (1994, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House)