Ronald H. Nash - Is Jesus the Only Savior?

Once upon a time Christians were identifiable by an unqualified commitment to Jesus Christ as the one and only Savior of the world. But the unity of Christians on this fundamental issue has disappeared. Today many people who claim to be Christians choose among three fundamentally different answers to the question, Is Jesus the only Savior? These answers can be stated succinctly:

No!

Yes, but

Yes, period!

The negative answerthe belief that Jesus is not the only Savioris commonly called pluralism. People holding this view think that there are many paths to salvation and that Jesus is only one of them.

The unqualified affirmative answer (Yes, period!) is undoubtedly the one that most readers of this book identify with. This view is often called exclusivism because it teaches that there is one exclusive way whereby men and women can approach God and receive his salvation: Jesus Christ. Sometimes this position is called restrictivism because it teaches that salvation is restricted to people who come to have explicit faith in Jesus Christ.

The qualified affirmative answer (Yes, but) is the favored view of a growing number of Christian college and seminary professors. But it is also held by many pastors, Christian workers, and denominational leaders who were introduced to the theory by their professors. This position is commonly called inclusivism because its adherents believe that the scope of Gods salvation is significantly wider than that held by exclusivists. It is so wide or broad that it includes many people who have not explicitly believed in Jesus.

This book examines these three competing views, identifies some of their major proponents, and explains why they believe as they do, with a view to determining which is true.

When people adopt pluralism, they must abandon every core doctrine of the Christian faith, including the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the Incarnation, and the Atonement. Inclusivism has a significant deleterious effect on the nature and importance of such Christian activities as evangelism and missions.

My book is hardly the first on this subject, as the bibliography shows, but right now it is the only book I know of that defends the exclusivist position in the context of the current debate. This book also differs from others by what I trust is its greater accessibility to the nonspecialized reader. Where the material gets difficult, I have tried to simplify as much as possible without doing an injustice to my sources. The reader will encounter a minimal number of technical terms and complex ideas. But I believe I have managed to explain the terms and ideas in a way that even novices will find understandable.

I want to acknowledge the help and assistance of a number of people. Dr. Doug Geivett of Talbot Theological Seminary and Dr. Ken Gentry, Jr., of Christ College (Greenville, S.C.) read the entire manuscript and offered many helpful suggestions. I also appreciate the help provided by Paul Eddy, Brad Stetson, and David Melvin of the National Association of Evangelicals; Dr. Roger Nicole, my colleague at Reformed Theological Seminary Orlando; and Amy Sherman, editor of Stewardship Journal.

I have examined these other challenges in various books. For discussions of liberation theology, see Humberto Belli and Ronald Nash, Beyond Liberation Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), as well as my Poverty and Wealth (Dallas: Probe Books, 1992) and Liberation Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988). For treatments of process theology, see Ronald Nash, ed., Process Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987) and my book The Concept of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983). For an introduction to feminist theology, see my Great Divides (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993).