Analysis Of Is Jesus The Only Behavior By Ronald Nash

In this paper, it will critique the book “Is Jesus the Only Savior”, by Ronald Nash. Nash does an excellent job of explaining to the reader the different views on this topic. They are the following: exclusivism also known as restrictivism, inclusivism, and pluralism. It is interesting how Nash presents this. Nash eloquently presents this book in a way that it is easy to understand these terms. He says that there are three answers to the question “Is Jesus the Only Savior?” Either your answer is “yes period”, “yes but”, or “no.” Nash sets the stage of his argument by pointing out these three beliefs. However, the one of focus in the paper would be the belief of pluralism. In this book, Nash highlighted the inconsistency of the pluralistic

Christians get this view from John 14:6, which states, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Jesus has empathically spoken these words, that the only way to the Father is through having faith in Him. This view is one the whole Christian faith rest on. Nash believes that the biblical doctrine of Christianity has been heavily attacked by religious pluralism. Religious pluralism believes that there are many ways to God, in addition, religious inclusivism. Religious inclusivism believes that Jesus Christ is the only Savior, however, one don’t have to attain salvation apart from the explicit knowledge of Him. Nash feels that it is important to understand these other views, because it alters the Christian’s foundation. Nash presents his central purpose of writing this book is threefold: to see do pluralism have success at combating exclusivism, and can it persuade people to leave the Christian church’s teaching on Jesus is the only way to salvation. In addition, does inclusivism has success in making a strong case against exclusivism, and to prove why Christians continue to follow Biblical teaching of Jesus is the only

It is interesting to note, that Hick’s first stage of pluralism totaling took Christ out of being the center, to a God center focus. During this second stage Hick decided to take some ideas from the eighteenth-century philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant had his own view of the Copernican Revolution. Kant begins to look at this view into different worlds. There are as follows: the phenomenal world and the way the world is the noumenal world. The phenomenal world deals with the human consciousness, and it reflects the human mind. Kant believes, “the world that appears to us is not necessarily the way the world is; it is more correct to think of the phenomenal world as a product of the ways our mind forces us to conceive it. All this points to another world “behind” the world of appearance; this is, for Kant, the real world or, in his phrase, the noumenal world.” He tries to present this case in the fact that religions are culturally determined appearances corresponding to the actual God. By stating this it aided Hick to escape his dilemma. Nash made it known that Hick tries to correct his first stage of thought by clarifying terminology. Therefore, “Hick is attempting to get away from the mistakes he made in the first stage of his pluralism, which often found him operating with elements of an older, more theistic, even the Christian concept of God. A serious