Analysis of Ronald Nash’s “Is Jesus the Only Savior?”
Analysis
In Chapter one Nash goes about laying the foundation for what is to be the focal point of his book, the argument and defense of the fact that Jesus Christ is the only Savior. Along with this Nash shines a light on the three views that are central to the debate. They are Christian exclusivism, pluralism, and inclusivism. This paper will focus on the difference between Christian exlusivism and pluralism.
The bulk of the first chapter is spent focusing on Christian exclusivism. By way of evidences found in scripture and the stance of biblical authority Nash establishes its definition. He places such a strong emphasis on this view that the reader is put in a place of analyzing the other views against the view of Christian exclusivism, and does so in a way that it is understood the other views will more than likely come up short with regard to proving their case. Nash makes this clear with the statement, ““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.”
It is important to note that a key element when it comes to what is known as Christian exlusivism is its view of Theology. The book states, theology “has been replaced by personal encounter, religious feeling, trust, or obedience.” These thoughts are evident throughout Nash’s expressed views on pluralism through the first six chapters of his book. He doesn’t hide this as he prepares the reader for his views with regard to a focus on John Hick.
Nash also points the reader to the fact that the intent of this book isn’t to focus on such arguments as atheism, non-Christian religions, and universalism. This frees our author to maintain a hyper focus on the stated examination.
Next he gives a very introductory level definition of both pluralism and then inclusivism. He gives just enough to provide the reader with a basic view, and allow them insight to a beginner’s knowledge that will come in handy in the later chapters. At the end of chapter one Nash outlines his goal as to how to properly view the material going forward: 1. “Jesus Christ is the only Savior” and 2. “No one can be saved unless he or she knows the information about Jesus’ person and work contained in the Gospel and unless he or she exercises explicit faith in Jesus Christ.”
Chapter two begins by continuing a focus of criticism on the person of John Hick. Hick as stated is “generally acknowledged to be the best-known and most influential proponent of pluralism today.” While critical of Hick, Nash is never disrespectful; this can be seen in quotes such as, ““Hick’s pluralism did not suddenly appear in a mature, fully developed form.” This serves two purposes. It again pays respect to Hick while allowing the author to be critical of his work.
Nash then begins his summary of Hick’s body of work. It quickly becomes obvious to the reader that this isn’t a brief overview but a detailed history of study and examination. Nash laces his on writing with several quotes from Hick, in an attempt to bring the reader to not only a better view of Hick’s stance, but Nash’s arguments against those very views.
Though this first section Nash allows Hick to be critical of his own works, Nash is quick to point out these contradictions. He does so for the purpose of allowing the reader to discover the apparent flaws in Hick’s argument. Because of this approach Nash doesn’t fall into an accusatory attach on Hick. Instead Hick himself somewhat discredits his entire argument. The reader is given the option of devaluing Hick’s points, or as Nash puts it, “Hick’s first attempt at a Copernican Revolution was a philosophical and theological disaster.”
Next in chapter 3 the beginning focuses on Hick’s next stage and how Kant’s thoughts are woven in. Nash however continues to place his focus on the work of Hick. Nash limits his focus on Hick to maintain a concise focus of his analysis. Nash’s confidence in his work shines through this section because he maintains his line of thinking without wavering. Nash is quick to point out how Hick attempts to make corrects from his first stage by placing focus on terminology. Nash is dismissive of this attempt, because he questions, what are the principles that are guiding it? Nash states, “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 Christian concept of God. A serious pluralist does not want to do that.”
The author then spends some time looking at Hick’s shift to an “unknowable God”, then Nash brings to light the primary fault. The discussion goes nowhere, “When you begin by stating that point A in your system is the recognition that humans cannot know anything about God, how can you rationally get from point A to point B – or anywhere, for that matter?”
Nash moves forward by dissecting the possibilities associated with Hick’s views. A view of salvation and other religions falls into this category. Upon studying Hick, it is assumed that all religions are equal, but Hick himself doesn’t come to this conclusion. Nash points out that Hick’s second stage falls short of fixing his errors found in his first stage of pluralism. Nash states, ““Every time Hick is confronted by a difficulty, he takes another step backward into the epicycle.” Hick’s argument continues to fail, but must be acknowledged do to the continued academic support he has gained with regard to his basic beliefs.
The next chapter focuses on the pluralist claims that exclusivists are guilty of having a system of outdated reasoning. In this section Nash pulls from other practitioners of pluralism such as W.C. Smith and Paul Knitter. Nash’s approach to his defense is to focus on basic logic. The reader benefits through here because the author never assumes that his audience has knowledge of fundamental truth. Nash comes across as only desiring to reach truth and show valid points for his argument.
Nash then sets out to show the link between truth and logic as it relates to religious claims. This is evident in his statement, “while belief certainly includes more than mental assent to a proposition, belief always includes believing something, and that something is a proposition.” The point Nash is making is that if Religion or more specific Christianity is going to make truth claims, then it is required that they be treated with the same rules of logic and must be affirmed as such.
In Nash’s study of W.C. Smith, he draws much support from Harold Netland. With this scholastic backing he brings to light a large community that stands opposed to what are the pluralistic views. By doing so Nash strategically shows he is not alone in his opposition and adds credibility to his stance. This also serves to show that Christianity isn’t alone in its opposition to pluralism, in fact by this argument all religions should have to stand against this pluralistic line of thinking, the reason being that all religions are based on the argument that their way is the correct way. It is Nash’s assertion that pluralism is damaging beyond his own personal bias, because of this Nash continues to remove himself from the center of the debate. Nash ends Chapter four by making this declarative statement, “we contend that any theory that so mishandles truth and logic cannot stand.”
Chapter 5 takes on the task of opposing pluralism by expressing a Christian view of the person of Jesus Christ. Nash states, “if Jesus really is God, and if his atonement is the only ground of human salvation, then pluralism must be false.” In this section Nash uses words often used by pluralists to refute their own line of thinking. To make it clear if Jesus was and is God then pluralism has to be false. This line in the sand is a clear expression to the reader that a distinction can and should be made.
The author then begins to tackle the attempts of Hick to discredit and destroy the divinity of the person of Jesus. Nash shows how Hick examines Jesus through his own claims, next Hick looks at the early church’s expression of who Jesus was and finally addresses the supposed Myth of Christian Uniqueness. Nash uncovers the truth of Hick’s arguments by explaining, “he attacks the documents that Christians use to ground their belief in a divine Christ.” Nash dissects these views and comes to the conclusion that, “It appears that Hick’s only criterion for distinguishing between authentic and inauthentic biblical material is compatibility with his own position.” This is a full frontal assault on Hick’s central theme and argument. Nash adds more and more evidence that serve to stand against Hick and his method. This also takes away any credence to Hick’s claim against who Jesus truly was. Nash’s systematic dissection of Hick and his views allows the reader to make an easy conclusion with regard to their view of pluralism.
The last chapter that this paper will address is six, and it provides a summary of thoughts on pluralism. Nash acknowledges principles that are needed to support a pluralist point of view. The first addressed is the issue of tolerance. Nash expresses the fact that having a difference of opinion doesn’t imply rejection. He states, “Any respectful attempt to persuade another person to change his or her beliefs can be an instance of intolerance.” This is foundational to the discussion because, the discussion is finished before it ever begins.
The next point that Nash brings against Hick is point that his geographical and cultural placement views are without excuse and shouldn’t be allowed. Nash quickly puts it aside by pointing out its lack of relevance to the topic in anyway shape or form. The third principle that Nash addresses is that of a supposed inconsistency between an all-loving God and the view of Christian exclusivisim. Nash points out that this argument falls short because of a lack of focus on the divine holiness of God, an argument that as a Universalist, Hick can’t afford to have.
The last one is the topic of eschatological verification, while not fully addressed by Nash, who treats it simply as a moot point after so completely discussing pluralism. It is the author’s way of stating that there really isn’t anything left to discuss on the topic because so many supports have been discredited that this lone point can’t stand on its own merit.
This section of the book concludes by Nash definitively stating, “Any Christians who would become pluralists must cease being Christians.” He then gives his final thought on Hick in this section when he says his, “ideas are having a far greater influence than they deserve.”
Personal conclusion
Nash gains credibility by way of his extensive knowledge regarding the subject matter and those who hold opposing views. He never wavers in his treatment of the views expressed by the opposition and gives a fair and balanced portrait of where they stand. Even thought critical of John Hick, he does so in a way that shows respect, while giving an accurate portrayal of his opinions. This is made evident by his constant reference to Hick’s work as well as his continued focus on him throughout this portion of the book. Once Nash has adequately dealt with Hick he finally moves on to other scholastic critiques. While using outside critiques it remains clear that Nash isn’t dependant on them in the formation of his own clearly expressed opinion. Nash comes across as confident and sure of his stance and work.
The author is correct in his categorization of pluralistic claims with regard to Christianity and its exclusivity. He doesn’t bother himself with faulty claims or irrelevant points of view. He digests his information in such a way that allows him to identify the perspectives and biases regarding what pluralistic thought truly are. Nash strategically yet consistently reminds the reader what the main focus should be, and not to be distracted by trains of thought that are not central to the discussion at hand. They don’t go unaddressed however as Nash returns to many after the discussion has been adequately been addressed. Nash is intentional in this endeavor as it serves to equip the reader for a possible debate regarding the topic.
In conclusion, Ronald Nash excels at providing the student with enough information to discredit a pluralistic attack on exclusivists’ view of Christianity. It is presented orderly in a manner that the reader can confidently come to a clear conclusion with regard to the faulty claims of pluralism. Nash’s work pays off by clearly presenting his analysis in such an accessible way. By dissecting pluralism it has the effect of affirm the exclusivity of scripture. He constantly refers to the authority of Scripture and this is expressed in his argument throughout. With the understanding that God’s word is absolute truth, it continues to prove itself absolutely.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Ronald H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savior? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 25
[ 2 ]. Ibid., 13.
[ 3 ]. Ibid., 25.
[ 4 ]. Ibid., 29.
[ 5 ]. Ibid., 29
[ 6 ]. Ibid., 38
[ 7 ]. Ibid., 41.
[ 8 ]. Ibid., 44.
[ 9 ]. Ibid., 51.
[ 10 ]. Ibid., 64.
[ 11 ]. Ibid., 68.
[ 12 ]. Ibid., 69.
[ 13 ]. Ibid., 76.
[ 14 ]. Ibid., 81.
[ 15 ]. Ibid., 95.
[ 16 ]. Ibid., 100.
[ 17 ]. Ibid., 100.