Is Jesus the Only Savior? By Nash
According to Christian’s historic perspective, they believe that Jesus is the only savior and they have also belief that He is the only hope for salvation. This has been asserted in the Christian Bible; John 14; 6. However, such an exclusive is in controversy in the present moment by a view known as the Pluralism. The view states that there are diverse and numerous ways that leads to God or the Ultimate reality. This has been endorsed by the pluralist such as the John Hick, whose arguments composes of many difficulties for their own view. If for instance, God is all loving as claimed by Christians and pluralists, then this may heave up a controversy to others who views God as being non-personal, since being an all- loving means being personal. If then pluralists argue that, Christians really cannot have an idea of how God looks like, then they must be contradicting their own view on God being all-loving .
Pluralists have also maintained their argument against Christians as they consider them as being intolerant. For these view to hold, then they ought to exclusively define the term intolerant, apart from their usual definition which means disagreeing. If they take intolerant to mean disagreeing then their view holds no truth in it since they have always been in heated arguments with the exclusivists. Furthermore, pluralism seeks out to consider their view as being on the right track concerning religion as opposed to exclusivists. Honestly, any person embracing pluralism views should be ready to desert his or her faith, as these views have been considered as misleading and a failure .
Nash, R. 1994. Is Jesus the Only Savior? New York: Zondervan
According to my own view, Nash critique on Hick’s pluralism covers the best part of the book. He analyses pluralism entirely and as noted by the end of the critique, the reader of the book is left an intuition that that Hick’s Pluralism ought to be discredited on intellectual and emotional perspectives. To put emphasis in his writings he goes a step ahead and quotes from John Hick’s. This allows him have a better analysis using Hicks’ own words. As a result, his conclusion about the philosophy presented by Hick and the ramifications thereof becomes more compelling to the reader. In my own perception, I would say that Nash in his analysis has tried to use different levels of success all over the book. It’s not that his analysis is bad, but in a way some of them contradict the views presented by the inclusivist. However, I would also contradict with Nash as he does not in any part of the book present a positive aspect regarding the exclusivism .
Personal Conclusion
In an environment, where there is a likelihood to have people of differing faiths, professing Jesus as the only Saviour may be viewed as conceit and fanaticism. Pluralism is thus gaining popularity. According to Nash, he holds that one’s stand on the issue of whether “is Jesus the only saviour” is very crucial to have knowledge on the Christian faith. He thus perceives pluralism as a threat to Christianity. In his analysis, he has successfully explored the divergent views of pluralism. In doing so, Nash particularly brazens out John Hicks’ Pluralism and the inclusivism of Clark Pinnock and John Sanders. He presents his case impressively, in accessible terms and a readable style.
Nash, R. 1994. Is Jesus the Only Savior? New York: Zondervan
Reference
Nash, R. 1994. Is Jesus the Only Savior? New York: Zondervan
