Analyses
In his book Is Jesus the Only Savior? Ronald Nash appears to have a strong theological background in exclusivism. He uses many Bible verses in his first chapter to state what his position is and where his opponents are incorrect. Nash argues his point with support from other sources which demonstrates a thorough understanding of the topic of exclusivism vs pluralism. The arguments are constructed to give anyone a good understanding of the topic to a person who is not familiar with exclusivism, pluralism or inclusivism which gives great strength to the chapter. Nash deals extensively with opposing views in his opening chapter by describing the pluralist view and the inclusivist view before presenting valid oppositions to these arguments. …show more content…
He seems to have extensive knowledge and understanding of Hick’s pluralism as seen in the many descriptions and refutations of the theory. Nash constructed his argument to first present the history behind Hick’s evolution from professing to be a Christian to being against Christian exclusivism before going into the reasons why the arguments are not logical. There are many opposing views in this chapter which Nash presents and gives the background for before debating. He also uses logical arguments to defend against Hick’s idea that God is both personal and impersonal. By strictly using the idea that it is logically impossible for God to be personal and impersonal at the same time it adds a lot of strength to Nash’s argument because it appeals to common sense and makes it very difficult to refute. This chapter seemed too focused mainly on the history behind Hick’s views and why he believed them however there were several arguments against these views as well so the chapter appeared to be well balanced. Nash focused very specifically on presenting and refuting the early pluralism of John Hick and giving the background for Hick’s later pluralistic arguments. This chapter was very convincing because of the varied use of logic, other religions’ views on pluralism and Hick’s own rejection of his early …show more content…
Nash writes of Hick’s attempts to say that Christianity is incorrect in saying that Jesus is God or that he is the only method of salvation. He appears in this chapter to have a lot of experience in defending the Christian faith from those who are in support of pluralism using these allegations because he presents various Scripture verses such as Matthew 20:17-19 and Mark 10:33 in which Jesus speaks of his own coming death for the salvation of the world. He also uses Hick’s own claims about Christianity to support exclusivism from the pluralist view. Nash first presents the full argument of Hick’s pluralism with relatively few comments before detailing the biblical and logical evidence to contradict these views. This chapter deals extensively with opposing viewpoints and refutes them in a convincing fashion while still being kind in the delivery. Nash points out that Hick ignores Jesus’ act of foreign sins in Mark 2:8-12 which is something God Himself claims to do. Isaiah 43:25 KJV “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.”This chapter is well balanced between presenting Hick’s pluralistic view of Jesus Christ and defending the Christian faith in affirming the deity of Christ and that salvation is through faith in Him alone. Nash focused this chapter on pointing out Hick’s definition of Jesus Christ and his own reasoning to discredit those views using God’s Word and
In his book Is Jesus the Only Savior? Ronald Nash appears to have a strong theological background in exclusivism. He uses many Bible verses in his first chapter to state what his position is and where his opponents are incorrect. Nash argues his point with support from other sources which demonstrates a thorough understanding of the topic of exclusivism vs pluralism. The arguments are constructed to give anyone a good understanding of the topic to a person who is not familiar with exclusivism, pluralism or inclusivism which gives great strength to the chapter. Nash deals extensively with opposing views in his opening chapter by describing the pluralist view and the inclusivist view before presenting valid oppositions to these arguments. …show more content…
He seems to have extensive knowledge and understanding of Hick’s pluralism as seen in the many descriptions and refutations of the theory. Nash constructed his argument to first present the history behind Hick’s evolution from professing to be a Christian to being against Christian exclusivism before going into the reasons why the arguments are not logical. There are many opposing views in this chapter which Nash presents and gives the background for before debating. He also uses logical arguments to defend against Hick’s idea that God is both personal and impersonal. By strictly using the idea that it is logically impossible for God to be personal and impersonal at the same time it adds a lot of strength to Nash’s argument because it appeals to common sense and makes it very difficult to refute. This chapter seemed too focused mainly on the history behind Hick’s views and why he believed them however there were several arguments against these views as well so the chapter appeared to be well balanced. Nash focused very specifically on presenting and refuting the early pluralism of John Hick and giving the background for Hick’s later pluralistic arguments. This chapter was very convincing because of the varied use of logic, other religions’ views on pluralism and Hick’s own rejection of his early …show more content…
Nash writes of Hick’s attempts to say that Christianity is incorrect in saying that Jesus is God or that he is the only method of salvation. He appears in this chapter to have a lot of experience in defending the Christian faith from those who are in support of pluralism using these allegations because he presents various Scripture verses such as Matthew 20:17-19 and Mark 10:33 in which Jesus speaks of his own coming death for the salvation of the world. He also uses Hick’s own claims about Christianity to support exclusivism from the pluralist view. Nash first presents the full argument of Hick’s pluralism with relatively few comments before detailing the biblical and logical evidence to contradict these views. This chapter deals extensively with opposing viewpoints and refutes them in a convincing fashion while still being kind in the delivery. Nash points out that Hick ignores Jesus’ act of foreign sins in Mark 2:8-12 which is something God Himself claims to do. Isaiah 43:25 KJV “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.”This chapter is well balanced between presenting Hick’s pluralistic view of Jesus Christ and defending the Christian faith in affirming the deity of Christ and that salvation is through faith in Him alone. Nash focused this chapter on pointing out Hick’s definition of Jesus Christ and his own reasoning to discredit those views using God’s Word and