A Book Analysis of “Is Jesus the Only Savior” Essay

1857 WordsMay 16, 20138 Pages
Liberty University A Book Analysis of “Is Jesus the Only Savior” AN ANALYSIS PAPER SUBMITTED TO Dr. Daniel Light, PhD IN COMPLETION OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR Theology 313 BY Gabriel Lopez Lynchburg, Virginia June 18, 2012 Introduction The title of Nash’s book is fitting for the content in which it contains. One will not find the traditional arguments that come with Soteriology. Initially, the author thought that he would be reading a book that covers a topic that had been written numerous times and so pleasantly surprised with its content. Nash begins his book with an introduction to three main philosophical views when it comes to the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Nash does a great job in succinctly…show more content…
Now whether this is true or not, Hick has a logical argument at this point. Nash points out that Hick’s convictions for a pluralistic philosophical view are because he believes that God is a loving being. His argument has just become non sequitor and as a result exploited by Nash as well as other scholars. Although it seems that over the years Kick’s arguments for a pluralistic system have grown stronger in content, they reveal just as many problems as the first system. Hick moves his system from centering on the character of God to his own definition of salvation. Hick’s hoped this would resolve his inconsistencies with the character of God, but he ends up doing the exact same thing he did in His first system. Nash enlightens us to the fact that now Hick’s system has set up criteria to judge certain religions to see if they are indeed authentic and would therefore accomplish this salvation. Nash does a fine job once again at pointing out the logical problems in this supposedly better view of pluralism. He cites the logical laws of the excluded middle and non-contradiction as examples of two such problems. Even to non-Christians with little knowledge of philosophy or logic could clearly see that Hick's views don't even make good common sense. The conclusion to chapter 3 sums up the system really well. Nash states, “His distinction between the phenomenal gods and the noumenal God only serves to plunge him
Open Document