Ronald Nash's critique of John Hicks's religious pluralism

¶ … Jesus the Only Savior?

Part I Pluralism

It must first be noted that the author, Ronald H. Nash, was a Calvinist/Baptist philosopher and apologist and a professor on theology and history for more than four decades. He earned many more honors and occupied more positions than will open him to questioning as to his vast knowledge of the theological discipline.

His book introduces the philosophies surrounding salvation, i.e., exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. The first Part of the book discusses pluralism, which argues that all religions offer all men a way to salvation. Nash replies most adequately to the repudiation of pluralism, as presented by John Hicks, its most influential proponent, and inclusivism. Pluralists, like Hicks, and inclusivists wage ferocious attacks against the long-held Biblical doctrine of Christianity that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, as explicitly stated in John 14:6. Pluralism holds that there are many paths to salvation and inclusivism concurs that Jesus is the only Savior for all people but argues that salvation is still attainable without knowing Him explicitly. Nash and fellow exclusivists, in contrast, maintain that Jesus is the only way to the Father and to attain salvation, as belief in Him is the only condition for it.

The first six chapters evaluate the work of John Hicks, whom Nash acknowledges as possessing prominent standing among teachers and writers on world religions.

This was why ideas about Christianity and world religions are evaluated or even screened through Hick's teachings.

His admirers like Robert Smid and Keith Ward acknowledged him as among the most, if not the most, "significant religious philosopher of the last century" and "the greatest living philosopher on global religion."

He drew his philosophy from his deep involvement in interfaith and non-Christian groups. In his works, "More than One Way?" And "God and the Universe of Faiths," Hicks wrote about other peoples of other faiths who believed in and practiced the same principles and morality that Christians do. This created an uneasy feeling in him and led him to question why a supposedly loving God would discriminate against non-Christians and sentence them to eternal punishment for belonging to non-Christian faiths.

But Nash is firm on his position that Christians who would adhere to pluralism cease to be Christians and pledge themselves to "a version of non-Christian faith."

In earlier pages, Nash succinctly more than repudiates pluralism as directly opposed to the Christian doctrine of salvation in Christ alone. He writes that pluralism is also "unthinkable."

He discusses and investigates the two stages of the development of Hick's philosophy then summarizes his views on salvation, on truth and Jesus Christ.

Readers must be reminded or informed about Hick's Copernician view of salvation. Hick proposes an alternative to a Christ-centered concept of religion with a mere God-centered one in the same design as the solar system. Nash describes this proposed substitution as "a philosophical and theological disaster."

And while Nash admits that Hick's philosophy enchants and influences many, Hick's pluralism teems with many serious flaws and is not at all a responsible alternative to the Christian faith.

He initially attempted to convince others of the reasonableness of what he advocated by starting with unbiased premises and proceeding to some logical conclusions about pluralism. His often-mentioned and classic example was that God is unknowable. Yet he also taught that God saves out of divine love. Nash sharply counters this reasoning and exposed its inconsistency. If Hick believed that God is unknowable, he then could not possibly know that God is love. It was clear to Nash that Hick wanted to either rescue his proposition on the unknowability of God or resolve the inconsistencies Nash exposed. Hick was aware that pluralism would collapse if anything about God's character could be known. If the belief in One personal God is proved true, belief in many gods or in the world as God can only be false. These beliefs cannot be viewed equally reasonable and acceptable. By asserting that God is unknowable, Hick actually admitting knowing at least that He exists and that He is unknowable. The mere assertion of God's unknowability is an admission of knowing something about Him, which is that He is not knowable. The other assertion that Hick made that contradicts pluralism is his very appeal to the love of God as the basis of the availability of salvation for all religions. Claiming the existence of God's love is another proof of Hick's knowing something about God whom he claims is not knowable.

Hand-in-hand with this failed claim of unknowability, Hick argues that a loving God must make salvation available to all religions and therefore, non-exclusive. And that His love is both personal and impersonal in an effort at embracing all religions and making salvation open equally to all of them. His pluralism possesses the distinction of tolerance. But Nash counters this by asserting that an all-loving God must be personal. If Hick insists on God being personal, his pluralism would cease to be global or universal because it would exclude those with non-personalistic views of God, like the pantheists. And if he changes his mind and says that God is, after all, non-personal, he would be excluding a number of religions like Judaism, Islam and Christianity itself, which worship a personal God. Pluralism per se is supposed to be tolerant towards all religions and Hick's dual claim of God being both personal and impersonal in advocating inclusivism necessarily falls.

Nash delineates that Hick's argument violates the Law of Non-Contradiction by refuting that God cannot be personal and impersonal at the same time. His use of a concrete law of reasoning illustrates his proper use of discourse. He continues to elaborate on the Laws and their necessity to the conduct of rational discourse. He straightway declares that the consistent rejection of absolutes of any system of belief must mean a rejection to the truths professed by that system. This exposes pluralism's denial of the Law of Non-Contradiction in itself as a denial of the truths it holds. The serious reader can make this inference from Nash's lines. .

Hick must have discovered the weaknesses of the first stage of his philosophy and changed his mind. In the first stage, he pressed for the elimination of Christ at the center of religion and the replacing Him with God. In the 80s, he developed the second stage of his pluralism, which placed salvation at the center. When salvation is used to test the authenticity of a religion, what matters is how salvation is defined and understood. He experimented on the various applications of this new method. If salvation is illumination, then Buddhism is the only true religion that saves If it means unity with the One Universal Deity, then only Hinduism can save. And if salvation requires repentance, forgiveness and justification by a Savior, then only Christianity can save. But this muddles the issue much more. What if a society believes that forming a classless society, infanticide, mass murders, or idolatry would mean salvation? There are just too many interpretations as there are individuals on what saves. Hick's attempts at a borderless salvation of ultimate human fulfillment can only lead to disaster and annihilation at the worst.

He attempts some more by suggesting that all proper forms of salvation necessarily exhibit a common movement from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness. But this concept is at best a simplistic one. And the issue of what saves has for ages and in cultures never been a simple one. Religions not only conflict with one another on the understanding of what is ultimate and the human condition and the means of being delivered completely from this condition.

Hick's pluralism also toys with the truth and religious doctrines. He reduces them into mere subjective experiences, which transform the individual. Christ's resurrection, for example, and in Hick's mind, is not an objective event and is true only if it changes something in the believer's spiritual state. He cannot reduce or alter the very significant and very real meanings of events among the religions of the world the religious experiences. The real difference among religions lies in their respective doctrines and pluralism cannot underplay doctrines as irrelevant or merely subjective. Almost all religions correctly believe that authentic doctrines are basic to the attainment of salvation. Acts 16:31 and John 3:16 state this position very clearly and non-Christian religions have parallel doctrines to these.

Nash discusses how pluralism accuses exclusivists, such as Christians, of immorality through intolerance. Christianity, in particular, is accused of arrogance and intolerance for the boastful claim that all incompatible religious beliefs are necessarily false. Yet the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus make the very same claim. Intolerance is not an automatic consequence of exclusivism.

Geographic and cultural conditioning in the choice of religious belief is another ground for Hick's rejection of exclusivism. Hick implies that what peoples of a certain region believe in as a result of culture must be true and what others in other regions believe in if opposed or different from their must be false. So is pluralism the product of geographic and cultural conditioning and is therefore as narrow. Hick's struggle to afford equal respect and acceptance to all religious on the basis of geographical and cultural conditioning will also validate the absence of religion, as it is also a consequence of geographical and cultural conditioning.

Nash calls attention to the presuppositions upon which Hick builds his arguments. One is the Existential foundation

Nash also applies the Law of Modus Ponens to Hick's critique of the Orthodox understanding of the deity of Christ,

keeping Hick and other pluralists in check. Most importantly, Nash exposed Hick's entire argument as relativistic, arbitrary and necessarily incoherent and inconsistent. Nash succeeds in defending the exclusive acceptance of the Bible in clear and graceful ways while exposing and defeating the weaknesses of pluralism.

Analysis: Part II Inclusivism

Nash defines inclusivism as a religious conviction that Jesus may be the only Savior but there are those who will be saved without believing or trusting in Him explicitly or even knowing or heard about Him.

He surveys and investigates what the two best-known proponents of inclusivism, Clak Pinnock and John Sanders, have to say to support the view. Nash deals with them for the purpose of gathering and weighing the different positions of inclusivism ad universalism from both Catholic and Protestant points-of-view. And his consideration of the two proponents' positions on General Revelation,

Post-mortem Evangelism,

and the Bible's requirements to earn salvation is well delineated. He rejects Pinnock's argument about pagan saints, such as Melchizedek, Naaman and Cornelius, in that they ceased to be pagan when they learned about God and placed their trust I Him. His response to other disturbing issues was just as brilliant. These concern the destiny of infants or unborn babies who die, the mentally deficient and others who never come to know about Christ. He acknowledges that there is a limit to what God reveals to human knowledge and these issues are within that limit and cannot be speculated over.

Nash also proficiently handles the specific mis-alignment between inclusivism and exclusivism in Chapters 8 and 9. In these chapters, he investigates and explains the theological and Biblical arguments, which support the view. He presents the theological issues in Chapter 8 and their differences with Biblical teachings in Chapter 9. This organized presentation enables the reader to see both the strengths and the weaknesses of both views. He reveals the irony that the very Biblical passages used by inclusivists to support their philosophy are the very ones, which expose its weakness.

Nash's arguments begin from the Biblical standpoint, a perspective on life with Jesus Christ and on to the infallibility of Scripture. This procedure makes for a sound argumentation, which concurs with Scripture. He discusses the inclusivist's position fairly and soundly. As in Part 1, Nash's logic is stirringly sound, as on the matters of Modus Ponens and Affirming the Consequent.

The soundness of his argumentation is also evident in his discourse on Particularity and Universality Axioms

The style is both informative and engaging. He provides a broad overview of general and special revelation and achieves his goal of tightly and rightly dismissing the inclusivist logic on the sufficiency of general revelation to merit salvation.

Nash counters it by asserting that central to the Gospel are Christ's death, burial and resurrection upon which salvation is built and becomes possible.

Nash also uses Biblical passages to reject inclusivism by quoting Romans 1-3 and 3:23. This is enhanced by the statement of Bruce Demarest who says that general revelation intends to condemn rather than save man. It condemns those who are outside God's sole provision for salvation.

Nash lists the three specific claims upon which inclusivism is founded and then refutes them. These are: 1. The undeniably inclusive nature of faith, 2. The acknowledgment that there will be Old Testament believers in heaven who did not become Christian believers, and 3. The Old Testament's holy pagans. Nash's responses to these basic claims were entirely and appropriately theological and philosophical. To the first claim, he points to Biblical passages, such as John 14:6, Acts 4:12, and Romans 10:9-10. To the second claim, he departs from the Scriptures and focuses on the inconsistency of both the need to evangelize and the lack of necessity to evangelize.

And on the matter of holy pagans in the Old Testament, Nash sharply refutes that Old and New Testament believers share the Covenant relationship with God and that this relationship is supported by special revelation. Nash capably shows that the saving death of Christ applies to believers in the past as well as the present and the future. These believers share a common Covenant leader and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Throughout this second part of the book, Nash displays staggeringly valid, clear and theologically and philosophically grounded arguments. He deals with the conflict between the monergistic and the synergistic systems of salvation as the contest between the Old Gospel and the New Gospel. A synergistic system of belief puts man where God should be. The teaching is without support and unacceptable as well as a dishonor to Christ of the New Testament, in the words of famous theologian J.I. Packer.

The book will be a most valuable help to all interested evangelical Bible believer and reader. It offers substantial information like food to the soul and there are very many souls hungry for correct information. Nash clarifies that the admission that inclusivists are not universalists is not enough to depart from the legitimate issues surrounding their teachings. The four chapters of Part 2 are guaranteed to unsettle the evangelical believer who hears about "anonymous Christians, holy pagans, faith rather than theology, trust rather than orthodoxy, of justifiable elements in other religions, saving faith but without a knowledge or relationships with Christ and what it means for God to love the world. These inclusivist concepts cry out for salvation for everyone and demand that general revelation be sufficient to gain salvation.

Chapter 9 on Inclusivism and the Bible illustrates the wrong use or abuse of the Scriptures to support and justify inclusivism and in driving away the legitimacy and rationality of its opposite, exclusivism. Scriptural warnings about false doctrines and false teachers in all eras should not surprise the diligent Christian believer. This is the message of Romans 1-3 and 10, Acts 4, 10, 14, 15 and 17 and John 14.

A chapter is devoted to questions on other religions, hell, salvation after death and salvation by works. As earlier mentioned, emotional issues, such as deaths of infants, the unborn and the mentally defective or disordered may be exploited by inclusivists to insist on the validity of their philosophy and the invalidity of exclusivism. It is wise and tactful for Nash to admit that there is no use in griping over the lack of answers to issues, which God has intentionally left un-answered at the present tie. Believers must be content with the revelations God chooses to make at the moment.

There are noticeable weaknesses of the book as well. One is Nash's oversight in explaining the shared doctrine on omniscience between the inclusivist and the Arminian. A theological view, which professes that God is omniscience and provides everyone the opportunity to be saves, necessarily errs theologically and philosophically. Another weakness concerns the salvation of an immature infant or unborn as opposed to a mature and rational person who is capable of recognizing his sins. Nash is unable to note or misses out on a provision for Covenant children who die in infancy or before birth. They qualify as saved believers. An example is David's infant faith as evidenced in Psalm 22:9-10. King David does not recall any signal conversion experience, which culminated in his knowing God. He could only look back at the start of his spiritual life from birth. His relationship with God started there and was always there.

Nash refers to the faith of King David as a "paedo-faith." Nash supports his belief in infant salvation with 2 Samuel 12. But he fails to add that David's child, Solomon, was a Covenant child like himself. There are cases of known and consecrated persons like Jeremiah before birth. John the Baptist stirred in the womb of Elizabeth with the presence of Christ in Mary's womb. At that very moment, unborn John was already filled with the Holy Spirit. And in 1 Cor. 7:14, Paul states and preaches that Covenant children or infants are separate and superior to unbelievers by testifying that the children of at least one believer are set apart or "holy." And Jesus Himself rebuked His own disciples who tried to drive children from His presence. He declared that the kingdom of heaven belonged to those children. In Matthew 19:13-15, Jesus even places His hands on those children. In Mark 10:13-16, He blesses them. Other examples of Covenant children who die in infancy are saved by paedo-faith, the faith of their parents who bind these children to God, or as "elect infants." This privilege may extend to the mentally deficient. These examples take away a lot of the inconsistency heaped pon inclusivism, which Nash should not have lost sight of.

Nash concedes that inclusivism strongly appeals to many people. Evangelists take comfort in it when they are unable to bring the Gospel to those who need it. Those who are uncertain that their deceased loved ones had a saving relationship with God will be attracted to it. This is more so those who fear that their loved ones compromise their salvation. And many more may find comfort from it for their various life circumstances. But Nash asserts his stand why he chooses against inclusivism. The wise Christian does not sacrifice the truth in order to sympathize or provide comfort.

Inclusivism must be evaluated and taken by reason and the mind rather than by the heart or the emotion. Its consistency or inconsistency with Scripture far outweighs people's feelings. He states in no uncertain terms that he is not an inclusivist because inclusivism is heavily flawed theologically.

His other reasons are that the philosophy is based on emotion rather than reason and that it teaches salvation by works. Most of all, it is inconsistent with the Book of Acts, which clearly emphasizes the death and resurrection of Christ as the two events central to salvation. These events are repeated many times in the early Biblical messages as when Paul preached to the people of Corinth. If he were an inclusivist, he would not have preached the message of the events to those who rejected Christ's offer of salvation.

Personal Conclusion

Inclusivism sidesteps the centrality of Christ's redeeming death and resurrection. It renders core role of Christ optional. It is a denial of Christ in itself. Scripture infallibly declares that core role of Christ in the plan of redemption. There is no redemption or salvation without Him. Christ is the sole provision by God to man who is capable of and free to accept or reject that free offer of salvation. But there is no salvation outside of Christ who took the place of sinful man to retrieve his place with God.

Exclusivism is completely grounded in Scripture. Christ Himself declares that no one can go to the Father except by Him. Inclusivists raised questions, which they had hoped to eliminate the boundaries set by Christians. One was the denial of salvation to infants or unborn who are not capable of knowing Christ and choose salvation. Nash capably discusses Covenant children like David, Solomon and John the Baptist. They are also called "elect children" who are set apart for God before they could even become conscious of their nature.

Inclusivism has great appeal to many people. Those whose loved ones died without the assurance of a saving relationship with God in their lifetime would find it attractive and calming. Preachers who are unable to attend to the un-evangelized find solace in it too. But Nash is correctly uncompromising about the true function of the Christian believer, which is to impart the truth rather than cause confusion or teach false doctrine. He chooses against inclusivism because it appeals to the emotion rather than reason or the mind. It is inconsistent with Scripture, particularly the Book of Acts. It teaches that salvation comes from man's good works while exclusivism teaches that salvation comes only by faith in Christ. Nash has managed to reveal the flaws and inconsistencies of this philosophy and re-emphasizes the centrality of Christ's substitutionary death and resurrection for those who will choose and believe in Him.