The title of Nash’s book accurately reflects its content, which is different from traditional arguments in Soteriology. Initially expecting a book on a well-covered topic, the author was pleasantly surprised by its contents. In the introduction, Nash introduces three main philosophical views on Jesus Christ’s redemptive work and provides concise definitions for each view: pluralism, inclusivism, and exclusivism.
In the opening chapter of his book, Nash provides three reasons for writing it.
- To examine pluralism to see if it succeeds in presenting a strong enough case against Christianity’s teaching that Jesus is the only Savior,
- to examine inclusivism to see if it presents a strong enough case against exclusivism
- to present the reasons for espousing exclusivism.
Nash defines Christian exclusivism as the belief that salvation is only possible through Jesus Christ and requires a genuine faith in him.
Before Nash dives into a discussion of pluralism and inclusivism, he spends some time explaining the significance of exclusivism and how it is grounded in the authority of Scripture. Nash emphasizes that individuals who disagree with the authority of Scripture will inevitably replace it with another form of authority. This point is crucial because one’s perspective on the authority of Scripture ultimately shapes their stance on exclusivism and their ability to counter arguments against it.
Nash discusses the belief of a pluralist, who thinks that salvation can be achieved through different religious traditions and saviors. The passage then introduces inclusivism, which is a philosophical viewpoint. While many inclusivists are Christians, it is important to note that this doctrine is even more perilous than pluralism as it is linked with exclusivism.
Inclusivism is the belief that salvation for human beings can only be achieved through one savior, without requiring a specific expression of faith. Nash simplifies inclusivists’ argument by defining two commonly used terms. According to Nash, inclusivists differentiate between the ontological necessity of Christ’s work as a redeemer and the assertion that Christ’s redemptive work itself is ontologically necessary. Inclusivists contend that Jesus Christ’s atonement is the exclusive method of salvation for all humanity.
Despite this, it is argued that having knowledge of one’s ontological beliefs is not necessary for salvation. The next five chapters focus on pluralism and its main proponent, John Hick. As previously mentioned, pluralism asserts that all religions can lead individuals to salvation. However, Hick’s version of pluralism has experienced modifications and inconsistencies as he has wrestled with the logical contradictions inherent in this philosophy, as Nash astutely points out.
According to Nash, Hick initially presented arguments with logical inconsistencies resulting from his attempt to deduce conclusions without a logical flow. One such inconsistency is his claim that God cannot be known in any way. Additionally, he argues against referring to God by name since His unknowability means that we do not know His name. Despite the truth of these claims remaining uncertain, Hick’s argument at this point is logically founded. Nash highlights that Hick’s belief in a pluralistic philosophical view stems from his conviction that God is a loving being.
His argument has evolved over time and has been criticized by Nash and other scholars. While Kick’s arguments for a pluralistic system have become more robust, they still have significant flaws similar to his initial system. Hick shifts his focus from God’s character to his own definition of salvation in an attempt to address inconsistencies, but ultimately repeats the same mistake he made in his first system.
Nash elucidates that Hick’s system has established criteria for evaluating religions to determine their authenticity and potential for salvation. Nash adeptly highlights the logical issues present in this supposedly improved perspective on pluralism. He cites the logical laws of the excluded middle and non-contradiction as instances of such problems. It is evident even to individuals unfamiliar with philosophy or logic that Hick’s views lack common sense.
In the concluding remarks of chapter 3, Nash effectively summarizes the system. Nash asserts, “The distinction between the phenomenal gods and the noumenal God only leads him into considerable conceptual challenges.” It is amusing to observe that in chapter 4, Nash examines the leaders of pluralism and their perspectives on truth and reason. This is amusing because Hick, throughout his two pluralistic systems, has demonstrated a limited understanding of both truth and reason. Both of Hick’s systems for a pluralistic understanding of salvation have fallen significantly short in terms of truth and reason.
In his refutation of John Hick’s position, Nash has performed admirably thus far. In addition to addressing Hick’s flaws, Nash now focuses on other prominent pluralists who share a similar mindset. This strategy enables Nash to demonstrate that Hick is not the only pluralistic philosopher with such beliefs. Throughout this book, Nash has remained committed to writing in a clear and accessible language and style.
Nash excels in this particular aspect of his book, Chapter 4, as he tackles the challenge of navigating through complex philosophical language. He remains focused on his objective of debunking pluralistic philosophical perspectives while ensuring that his arguments are comprehensible. Accomplishing this daunting task, he employs analogies, like comparing Ross Perot, to explain the core principles of logic. Specifically, he effectively teaches the principle of the excluded middle and the law of non-contradiction, which are likely to be grasped by the majority of readers.
Chapter 5 of Nash’s book acknowledges that the pluralists’ perspective relies on the conventional understanding of Jesus Christ. John Hick shares this view and criticizes the traditional perception of both the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. In addition to challenging the idea of Christ’s divinity, Hick also questions the fundamental teachings of the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity. Nash highlights that Hick regards the Incarnation as a myth. According to Hick, although myths may not be literally true, they can still hold practical significance.
In this section, Nash challenges the traditional interpretation of “Jesus is my Savior”, the Atonement, and the Resurrection by presenting biblical evidence. Up until now, Nash has effectively countered pluralist claims using logical reasoning. However, he now shifts his focus to examine Jesus Christ’s self-proclaimed identity as supported by Scripture. This strategic approach marks a departure from Nash’s earlier emphasis on the authority of Scripture without directly relying on it for his arguments.
In this light, it is evident that pluralism’s claims are lacking in true logic and reasoning. Furthermore, Nash provides biblical evidence to support this claim, serving as the proverbial “nail in the coffin”. Nash addresses the challenge presented by Hick and other pluralists regarding the credibility of the New Testament. He argues that the two forms of textual criticism employed by pluralists are insufficient grounds to question the credibility of the New Testament. In concluding chapter 5, Nash highlights the flaws in Hick’s arguments against the dual natures of Christ.
Nash’s work on the arguments for pluralism presents a paradoxical argument. Nevertheless, he utilizes Thomas Morris’ argument to affirm that Jesus Christ is fully human, rather than just partly human. Consequently, Nash’s book provides valuable information and employs a straightforward writing style that enhances readability and accessibility. This accessible approach is particularly beneficial for both bible college students and lay individuals who wish to comprehend pluralism’s arguments more effectively. Despite its scholarly focus, the book caters not only to academics but also aims to assist average readers in gaining a better understanding of pluralism.
Although this book does not contain the rebuttals of John Hick and his contemporaries, it does define and exploit the major arguments in defense of exclusivism. Ronald Nash defends the faith and has a high view of Scripture and an exalted view of Jesus Christ. Despite the growing pressure for Christians to change their perspective on Christ and salvation, this work not only informs Christians to stand strong in their faith, but also serves as an apologetic tool.
A tool that will empower genuine followers of Christ to embrace their cross and champion their faith. Ronald Nash’s work arrives at a crucial time. Although it was written and published in 1995, it seems perfectly timed and perhaps even divinely orchestrated as a precursor to the current state of affairs, particularly following the release of Rob Bell’s book “Love Wins”. Nash concluded the initial section of his book with a powerful quote that I believe strongly resonates with those who adhere to the pluralistic teachings of Hick, Smith, Knitter, and now Rob Bell. Any Christian who embraces pluralism must renounce their Christian identity.
Bibliography
- Nash, Ronald H. Is Jesus the Only Savior. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.
