What do you think?
Rate this book
Is Jesus the Only Savior?
Today many question the idea that there is only one way to heaven (or that Christianity is the only true faith) -- even some people who identify themselves as Christians. In a world where we are likely to have neighbors of differing faiths, to profess Jesus as the only Savior may be viewed as arrogance and intolerance. Religious 'pluralism' is gaining popularity. Ronald Nash believes that one's position on the issue is crucial to an understanding of the Christian faith and sees pluralism as a significant threat to Christianity. He explores the divergent views of pluralism ('No') and inclusivism ('Yes, but') and makes a case for exclusivism (Yes, period'). In doing so, Nash especially confronts the pluralism of John Hick and the inclusivism of Clark Pinnock and John Sanders. He presents his case compellingly, in accessible terms and a readable style.
192 pages, Paperback
First published July 12, 1994
16 people are currently reading
110 people want to read
About the author
Ronald H. Nash
48 books39 followersRonald H. Nash (PhD, Syracuse University) was a longtime professor at Western Kentucky University, Reformed Theological Seminary, and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
He was an heir of the theological tradition of Carl F.H. Henry, and was an lifelong admirer and student of Augustine of Hippo, his favorite philosopher.
He was the author of numerous books, including The Concept of God, Life's Ultimate Questions, and Faith and Reason.
He was an heir of the theological tradition of Carl F.H. Henry, and was an lifelong admirer and student of Augustine of Hippo, his favorite philosopher.
He was the author of numerous books, including The Concept of God, Life's Ultimate Questions, and Faith and Reason.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 29, 2018
Dr. Ronald Nash’s book “Is Jesus the Only Savior” examines three particular views in regards to salvation: the pluralist, the inclusivist, and the exclusivist. The pluralist is a proclaimed Christian who is essentially a universalist: in the end, God wins and all will come to salvation no matter what religious belief you held on earth. Inclusivists see the modern world and wonder what will happen to all of those who have never had a chance to hear the Gospel. They reason that since God is loving and desires all to come to salvation, surely He will not damn all of those who never had a chance to hear the Gospel? Inclusivists believe that through general revelation and a tenet of faith in any other religious belief is good enough for salvation. Lastly, the exclusivist looks at the Bible and Christianity and holds that the only way to salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone.
This book breaks down the first two view points in part one and part two with: an introduction of the doctrine, a refutation of the doctrine, and finally, a section entitled, “Why I am not a pluralist/inclusivist.” Each part looks at several theologians who ascribe to these belief systems. For example, John Hick is the target in Dr. Nash’s crosshairs for the first half of the book. In the second, men like Clark Pinnock and John Sanders are a heavy part of the discussion.
This is really a fascinating topic and Dr. Nash provides an interesting look at each position. I also believe this is a subject that is so pertinent to our world today. I was in Philadelphia this past week and met some ladies who are/used to be Catholic. One lady said that a religion class should be required for all students in high school to give them a rounded perspective of all the different beliefs. She also commented that it doesn’t matter what religious system you believe in. These are tell-tale signs of a pluralist.
Further, I had a discussion with a young man who said that there are probably “saved” Mormons. I’ve heard things like “When we get to heaven, I think we will be surprised to see Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists,” etc. This is obviously an inclusivist position.
This is an important topic that Dr. Nash does a fantastic job of hashing out how these two particular views are not biblical. When something doesn’t sit right with our humanness, the tendency is to fabricate doctrines that make us feel good. When we approach the Bible however, we must remember that while we may not understand everything, God is holy and loving and good and he is a perfect judge. In this sense we can have confidence that the judge of the earth will do what is right.
This is an awesome book that I highly recommend if you having lingering questions.
This book breaks down the first two view points in part one and part two with: an introduction of the doctrine, a refutation of the doctrine, and finally, a section entitled, “Why I am not a pluralist/inclusivist.” Each part looks at several theologians who ascribe to these belief systems. For example, John Hick is the target in Dr. Nash’s crosshairs for the first half of the book. In the second, men like Clark Pinnock and John Sanders are a heavy part of the discussion.
This is really a fascinating topic and Dr. Nash provides an interesting look at each position. I also believe this is a subject that is so pertinent to our world today. I was in Philadelphia this past week and met some ladies who are/used to be Catholic. One lady said that a religion class should be required for all students in high school to give them a rounded perspective of all the different beliefs. She also commented that it doesn’t matter what religious system you believe in. These are tell-tale signs of a pluralist.
Further, I had a discussion with a young man who said that there are probably “saved” Mormons. I’ve heard things like “When we get to heaven, I think we will be surprised to see Mormons, Hindus, Buddhists,” etc. This is obviously an inclusivist position.
This is an important topic that Dr. Nash does a fantastic job of hashing out how these two particular views are not biblical. When something doesn’t sit right with our humanness, the tendency is to fabricate doctrines that make us feel good. When we approach the Bible however, we must remember that while we may not understand everything, God is holy and loving and good and he is a perfect judge. In this sense we can have confidence that the judge of the earth will do what is right.
This is an awesome book that I highly recommend if you having lingering questions.
June 21, 2024
This book was a good read, and I feel gives a good (given the size) examination of Pluralism and Inclusivism from a Exclusivism point of view. I do wonder how much has changed in the 30 years since this book was written. Sadly, the author passed some time ago.
I’ve enjoyed other books from Nash, and would argue that as a philosophy professor he sometimes comes over a little harsher than I like. However, he does make good arguments - and does good analysis of the arguments of others.
Nice bibliography at the end.
A worthwhile read for Christians interested in the arguments for Pluralism and Inclusivism, while realising that both of these approaches no doubt have newer arguments :)
I’ve enjoyed other books from Nash, and would argue that as a philosophy professor he sometimes comes over a little harsher than I like. However, he does make good arguments - and does good analysis of the arguments of others.
Nice bibliography at the end.
A worthwhile read for Christians interested in the arguments for Pluralism and Inclusivism, while realising that both of these approaches no doubt have newer arguments :)
August 2, 2022
Really good interaction with and critique of theological pluralism (John Hick) and inclusivism (Clark Pinnock, John Sanders). Nash was not only spot on exegetically, he made good use of his philosophical expertise also. Ron Nash is seriously underrated and under read. Highly recommended.
January 17, 2017
In this book, Dr. Ronald Nash puts pluralism and inclusivism on trial and makes a case for Christian exclusivism. A few definitions may be in order:
- Christian exclusivism is the belief that Jesus Christ is the only savior with faith in Him necessary for salvation.
- Pluralism is essentially the belief that there is no single path to salvation, that a person may be saved through any number of different religious traditions.
- Inclusivism is the belief that the redemptive work of Jesus Christ is the source of salvation but faith in Him is not necessary for salvation.
In his evaluation of pluralism, Nash critiques the works of John Hick primarily because of Hick's prominent standing. Because different proponents of pluralism have different arguments, he also looks at some of the arguments of Wilfed Cantwell Smith. Nash does a thorough job of critiquing these arguments and their logical inconsistency, but it seems apparent that those who hold this position either have an inherent bias against Christian exclusivism or are thinking with their heart. There are many pious and saintly non-Christians, and who really wants these “good” people to have a bad outcome.
In his evaluation of inclusivism, Nash critiques the works of Clark Pinnock and John Sanders. Because inclusivism is built on a Christian foundation, its proponents appeal both to logical arguments as well as various proof texts. Consequently, Nash's critique considers logical inconsistencies as well as biblical interpretation, exegesis and theology. Nash also devotes a chapter to post-mortem evangelism, a belief that those who haven't had an opportunity to hear the gospel in life will have an opportunity to hear it after death. Although Nash critiques PME in the section on inclusivism He does not consider its advocates to be inclusivists because they, unlike inclusivists, believe that explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. Like pluralism, inclusivism and PME appear to be rooted in an understandable desire for “good” non-Christians not to go to hell.
Finally, Nash makes his case for Christian exclusivism, but it is covered in a single chapter of an eleven chapter book, not nearly as exhaustive as his case against pluralism and inclusivism. At one level, this is understandable. If pluralism and inclusivism are bankrupt, then exclusivism is all that is left. Nash primarily appeals to the tireless evangelism documented in the book of Acts. If explicit faith in Jesus Christ is not necessary for salvation, then why did the apostles go to all that effort and put their very lives on the line repeatedly? He also appeals to the conversion of Paul, whose pre-Christian piety and zeal should have been adequate if either pluralism or inclusivism were correct. In this chapter, Nash also addresses the consequences of inclusivism on missions. Apparently, proponents of inclusivism or pluralism are more likely to see the purpose of missions work as relief and charity rather than evangelism. Nash acknowledges that the consequences of a position have no bearing on its validity but uses this point to emphasize that ideas have consequences.
I enjoyed this book and see value in it. Its primary weakness is that Nash spends a disproportionate amount of effort debunking positions other than his own. They needed the debunking, but the book would have been better if he had further developed his arguments for Christian exclusivism.
- Christian exclusivism is the belief that Jesus Christ is the only savior with faith in Him necessary for salvation.
- Pluralism is essentially the belief that there is no single path to salvation, that a person may be saved through any number of different religious traditions.
- Inclusivism is the belief that the redemptive work of Jesus Christ is the source of salvation but faith in Him is not necessary for salvation.
In his evaluation of pluralism, Nash critiques the works of John Hick primarily because of Hick's prominent standing. Because different proponents of pluralism have different arguments, he also looks at some of the arguments of Wilfed Cantwell Smith. Nash does a thorough job of critiquing these arguments and their logical inconsistency, but it seems apparent that those who hold this position either have an inherent bias against Christian exclusivism or are thinking with their heart. There are many pious and saintly non-Christians, and who really wants these “good” people to have a bad outcome.
In his evaluation of inclusivism, Nash critiques the works of Clark Pinnock and John Sanders. Because inclusivism is built on a Christian foundation, its proponents appeal both to logical arguments as well as various proof texts. Consequently, Nash's critique considers logical inconsistencies as well as biblical interpretation, exegesis and theology. Nash also devotes a chapter to post-mortem evangelism, a belief that those who haven't had an opportunity to hear the gospel in life will have an opportunity to hear it after death. Although Nash critiques PME in the section on inclusivism He does not consider its advocates to be inclusivists because they, unlike inclusivists, believe that explicit faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. Like pluralism, inclusivism and PME appear to be rooted in an understandable desire for “good” non-Christians not to go to hell.
Finally, Nash makes his case for Christian exclusivism, but it is covered in a single chapter of an eleven chapter book, not nearly as exhaustive as his case against pluralism and inclusivism. At one level, this is understandable. If pluralism and inclusivism are bankrupt, then exclusivism is all that is left. Nash primarily appeals to the tireless evangelism documented in the book of Acts. If explicit faith in Jesus Christ is not necessary for salvation, then why did the apostles go to all that effort and put their very lives on the line repeatedly? He also appeals to the conversion of Paul, whose pre-Christian piety and zeal should have been adequate if either pluralism or inclusivism were correct. In this chapter, Nash also addresses the consequences of inclusivism on missions. Apparently, proponents of inclusivism or pluralism are more likely to see the purpose of missions work as relief and charity rather than evangelism. Nash acknowledges that the consequences of a position have no bearing on its validity but uses this point to emphasize that ideas have consequences.
I enjoyed this book and see value in it. Its primary weakness is that Nash spends a disproportionate amount of effort debunking positions other than his own. They needed the debunking, but the book would have been better if he had further developed his arguments for Christian exclusivism.
February 21, 2012
This is a great apologetic. More people should read this in light of Rob Bell's recent book, it would answer a lot of questions, and correct the misconception that he a universalist, when in fact, as Nash would point out, he's a inclusvist.
April 3, 2011
I really do not want to write a critique of the first 6 classes for theologyl I will tell ya that!
October 10, 2012
Great book by a great apologist.
March 6, 2015
This was a decent book on Christian exclusivism. It's fine for an introductory level critique of Hick and Pinnock.
December 16, 2016
Very informative. Hard read though.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews