Is Jesus Really the Savior

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.

Robert Nash writes “Is Jesus the Savior”, copyrighted July 12, 1994 and he writes this great publication solely three reasons and they are: (1) To see whether pluralism succeeds in developing a strong enough case against exclusivism to lead thoughtful people to abandon the Christian church’s historic teaching that Jesus is the only Savior (part 1); (2) to see whether inclusivism succeeds in developing a strong enough case against exclusivism to lead thoughtful Christians to embrace inclusivism (part 2); and (3) to present at least some of the reasons why many thoughtful and conscientious Christians continue to espouse Christian exclusivism .

In chapter four, Nash attempt to look at the logical fallacies of Hick’s position. He examines other pluralist claims against exclusivism and its supposed outdated reasoning. The other pluralist that he cites is W.C. Smith, and Paul Knitter. Nash presents these claims by talking about the basic understanding of logic. Nash main point is to point out truth and validity of the very basic principles of this argument. He points out several rules of logic, in addition, he points out the idea of truth and its ties to propositions. Then he moves on to differentiate truth and logic with religious claims: “while belief certainly includes more than mental assent to proposition, belief always includes believing something, and that something is a proposition.” It is imperative to note, just like any other claim religion should be looked at in the same way. Nash disagrees with W.C. Smith also. Nash noted, “Smith’s way of handling religious “truth” might appear to solve a serious problem for pluralists (the problem created by their apparent rejection of logic), it only raises new and equally troubling questions.” Therefore, pluralist like these two men that downplays logic and truth will never be able to support they beliefs.

In chapter four, Nash attempts to look at the logical fallacies of Hick’s position. He examines other pluralist claims against exclusivism and its supposed outdated reasoning. The other pluralist that he cites is W.C. Smith, and Paul Knitter. Nash presents these claims by talking about the basic understanding of logic. Nash main point is to point out the truth and validity of the very basic principles of this argument. He points out several rules of logic, in addition, he points out, the idea of truth and its ties to propositions. Then he moves on to differentiate truth and logic with religious claims: “while belief certainly includes more than mental assent to proposition, belief always includes believing something, and that something is a proposition.” It is imperative to note, just like any other claim religion should be looked at in the same way. Nash disagrees with W.C. Smith also. Nash noted, “Smith’s way of handling religious “truth” might appear to solve a serious problem for pluralists (the problem created by their apparent rejection of logic), it only raises new and equally troubling questions.” Therefore, pluralist like these two men that downplays logic and truth will never be able to support their beliefs.

Smith, and Paul Knitter are in direct opposition to each other. Nash affirms that if two truths, which are diametrically opposed to one another, cannot still both be true. This would violate one of the primary laws of logic being the law of non-contradiction. Hick argues that truth can be relative and subjective to the person believing in the truth. In a sense, two truths that are opposite to each other can still be true despite their undeniable contradiction to each other. Conversely, Nash states “truth is a property of some propositions.” Therefore, pluralists have attempted to redefine truth with something other than propositions. However, Nash rebuttals this ideal held by pluralist revealing the usages of truth has to have a basis in property. Truth is not merely a difference in opinion as Smith attempts to define it. Pluralist according to Nash will state that when someone from a certain religion is affirming or denying religious truths they are only stating their opinion or preference for that religion. However, this is not an accurate statement and in order for it to be true, Smith is required to change propositions of all people groups and from a vase array of world religions. Nash relates these arguments like Smith’s idea of pluralist finds their basis in existentialism. Nash affirms that if Smith’s theory is correct, then every follower of each of the worlds’ major religions are wrong and

Dr. Iwuchuko defines inclusivists as a Religious group that opens their hearts to others in a way, suggesting that people by extension are part of them. For someone to open his/her heart to you, shows a loving concern and the willingness to cooperate with you. One can welcome somebody verbally but the heart will not be there. There is this proverb: “where your treasure is, there will your heart be.” This implies that Inclusivists, treasure non-Christians for whom they are and also, respect their religion. The heart is a very important organ; biologically, the heart receives oxygenates blood and send to the entire body organs. The deoxygenated blood is send to the lungs for purification. Non-Christians are welcome by inclusive but for those

I do believe that Nash’s proposition is the beginnings of a biblical worldview, however, it is definitely incomplete. There are many people that believe that God is the creator of the universe. However, this statement leaves out the entire message of hope that Jesus Christ brings to humanity.

Be that as it may, it is outside and survives for all intents and purposes only at a talkative, friendly level, instead of very extreme. In “Thinking, Love, Doing: Thinking for the Sake of Global Faithfulness a writer by the name of Thabiti Anyabwile, states “Pluralism at its best honors basic human rights such as individual freedom and freedom to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience (Anyabwile, 84). Contingent upon the way of life in which God has put an individual, pluralism can be complete of amazing knowledge about a best way. Although one might enjoy the advantages of good pluralism, a follower of Christ has as of now been given an arrangement of ordinate correspondences with respect to perspective that overlooks pluralism. We might savor it outwardly however are to incline toward God, His Word, Christ, and the Holy Spirit for reality. In the Bible it states, "Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God” (1 Peter 2:16

The Destiny of the Unevangelized Debate has been a concern for Christians throughout the years. There have been questions to arise as to what actually happens to those who have never heard the Gospel. According to Body and Eddy, “the issue of the destiny of the unevangelized forces Christians to wrestle with the seeming tension between the universality of God’s love and the particularity of the path to salvation or one’s personal relationship with Christ.” Exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism are three ways that theologians address the issue of the destiny of the unevangelized. The text takes on these three ways through four views which are the Restrictivist View, Universal Opportunity View, Postmorten Evangelism View, and Inclusivist View.

The thrust of the supportive text for inclusivism is found in the book of Acts. The story of Cornelius (Acts 10) , The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), Paul’s speech in Lystra (Acts 14), and Paul’s speech to the Athenians (Acts 17). Additional scriptures in Timothy (1 Tim 2:3-4), Titus (Titus 2:11), 2 Peter (2 Peter 3:9) and 1 John (1 John 2:2) are examined. Most of the inclusive arguments revolve around the idea that God is obligated to make salvation available to all people. Nash skillfully dissects each point and shows a universal weakness to their thought. Each of these verses revolve around an inclusion of people outside of the Christian or Jewish perspective. In summery he implies that his assessment and the information of Chapter 8 should encourage inclusivist to reexamine their position. Jesus did die for all people, but within the divine context of His requirements (CITE SOMETHING).

Was Jesus the Messiah? What is a Messiah? A Messiah is a long-awaited savior sent by God to the Hebrew people. Literally translated from it’s Hebrew origins this name means “anointed” or “chosen” one. To the Hebrew people, Messiah is a person who is sent forth to come better the world. While the idea of a messiah originated in Hebrew thought, the notion spread forth to many of the other Abrahamic religions – Judaism being where it originated, and Christianity being possibly the second most notable. There are multitudes of differences between the two aforementioned religions, but one of the easiest to distinguish is that notion of a Messiah and how it may digress amongst the two.

Non-Catholics through the inclusive perspective are seen to be on a pathway to Christ and his Church. Through the grace of God these other religions can lead to the fullness of truth or be obstacles in attaining it.

Is Jesus the only Savior? This question does not seem to come up in daily conversation

John 14: 6 says “I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”. Jesus’ ministry was based off of this principle. If you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that he was raised from the dead, and you confess you have sinned, then you are a Christian according to Jesus and his father God. That is what Jesus taught when he was alive on Earth. His ministry started Christianity, influencing so many people around the world. With his ministry came a lot of controversy, over his teachings and the way he--to some people--spoke very wrongly about the church and God. Also, many people followed him for many reasons. Along with that, Jesus whole ministry comes to a close after he rose from the dead. His

Due to this topic’s controversy in the evangelical church, I am very grateful to learn about these two different views. The variation of the views even within the egalitarian and complementarian perspectives was interesting. It reminded me that in ourselves alone unity cannot be found. Only in Christ can we obtain unity displaying a countercultural attribute that reflects His light and hope for this world. I am praying for our Great God’s faithful help in this.