Book Critique Ronald Nash's book, “Is Jesus the Only Savior?”(Chapter 1-6)4
"Why God Became Man" by Lehman Strauss9
Book Review “Is Jesus the Only Savior?”(Chapter 7-11)12
"The Resurrection of Christ: Theological Implications" by Daniel B. Wallace19
The Destiny of the Unevangelized22
The Nature of Hell25
The Salvation Debate - Calvinism and Arminianism29
The Charismatic Gifts Debate - Are the Sign Gifts Present Today?33
Book Critique Ronald Nash's book, “Is Jesus the Only Savior?”(Chapter 1-6)
This book by Ron Nash is good and significance reading. There are several very good things about this publication, but there are furthermore a twosome of things about it that in my outlook, manage not warrant a five celebrity rating.
Nash endeavours to contend supportive an exclusivist outlook of salvation mostly by seeking to present contradictory facets of both the pluralist and inclusivist views. He thus dedicates the first part of the publication to critiquing the pluralism of John Hick, and the second part to critiquing the inclusivism of Pinnock and Sanders.
His critique of Hick's pluralism was effortlessly the best part of the book. Nash methodically investigates the pluralism of John Hick and by the end of the critique, the book reader is left with the effect that Hick's pluralism has been methodically discredited not only on thoughtful surrounds, but on emotional ones as well. As in his other writings, one of Nash's analytical power is his insistence on citing from applicable causes at length. Nash dedicates a important part of the pluralist part on citing from John Hick and letting Hick's own phrases be the cornerstone for Nash's analysis. Nash's deductions about Hick's beliefs and the ramifications thereof become all the more assuring as a result.
In my own outlook, I will not state that Nash had the identical grade of achievement in investigating inclusivism in part 2 as he had with illustrating the falsity of pluralism in part 1. It's not that this part is awful, because it isn't, there is a allotment about his investigation that is good, especially his investigation of PME and how Pinnock's adopt of it completely contradicts the inclusivist worldview that Pinnock furthermore embraces. But especially in his investigates of the Scriptural quotation that inclusivists often use to support their worldview, I sensed that Nash's critique was too abstract oriented and not adequately comprehensive to climb on a assuring case contrary to inclusivism. To his borrowing, I considered that Nash did a good job in the very last section of releasing his exclusivism contention a bit, but I still sensed that his investigation of inclusivism required to be more comprehensive in alignment for him to competently illustrate what he was seeking to demonstrate.
The one other contradictory facet of the publication, in my attitude, is that Nash does not present a affirmative case for exclusivism. His contention for exclusivism is founded nearly absolutely on contrary critiquing pluralism and inclusivism. And while these critiques absolutely required to be finished in alignment to illustrate that these worldviews run into ...