Ronald Nash Pluralism

Ronald Nash is the author of Is Jesus the Only Savior?. In Chapters 1-6, he examines the issues of pluralism and exclusivism in a comprehensive fashion. Even in the preface, there is found important information: He addresses important terms needed when one is discussing the divinity of Jesus Christ and ensures that the reader understands just what the terms “pluralism” and “exclusivism” mean. He also examines various beliefs concerning Christ and His claims of divinity. As this book is intended to address these beliefs, Nash appropriately establishes from the very beginning what the basic forms of these beliefs are. To make a simple review of the subject matter, pluralism is the belief that one has many paths by which to reach God. Conversely,

According to Nash, Hick believed in pluralism all along and constructed his own arguments in order to support his theories. Nash reveals how Hick used the Copernican Revolution to support his views. Nash states that Hick “reached a point in his life where he rejected Christian exclusivism. ” Nash believes that Hick used this as a means to come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ must not be the only savior and that He must be one of many pathways to God. Nash strengthens his refutation of Hick’s beliefs by pointing out that Hick’s opinions on pluralism were inconsistent. This seems to indicate that Hick’s argument lacks credibility as he does change his mind on a whim. Nash indicates, though does not outright state, that Hick lacks credibility due to his being easily swayed. Hick’s credibility in theology is also called into question by the fact that he uses scripture to back up his opinion rather than drawing his opinion from scripture. Again, while Nash does not outright address this, such an approach leaves the reader feeling that Hick’s approach is backward and contrary to

Hick does not believe that Christ was truly incarnated. Hick’s position indicates that he believes the incarnation story is not meant to be taken literally, as if the incarnation of Christ is meant only as a metaphor for a relative truth. The analogy that Nash includes from Hick is almost laughable. He likes the incarnation to “the story of a man in love who declares that his Helen is the sweetest and prettiest girl in the whole world. ” Clearly this is not a strong argument to make against Jesus Christ not being literally incarnated but he does this to attempt to illustrate that truth is only relative and not absolute. Conversely, Hick maintains that the incarnation was not a historical event that actually happened. Hick’s position is that the incarnation is a relative truth that only applies to Christians who truly believe that believe in Jesus Christ as Lord. Hick seems to think that Christians only believe in the literal incarnation as a means to make their belief real to them as opposed to the incarnation being truly real for all