Writter A_

Nash deals with the introduction of inclusivism as it relates to religion. Inclusivists is as he states,” the middle ground” between exclusivism and pluralism.

In this chapter Clark Pinnock is being targeted by Nash’ critique of inclusivism. Where Gavin D’Costa and pluralist Jon Hicks have a very different idea of what inclusivism is. Inclusivism according to Nash is is defined as the religious view that although Jesus is the exclusive Savior, many are included in his salvation who have never explicitly trusted in him, nor perhaps even heard of him. John Sanders also goes into a detail explanation on why he believes in inclusivism.

There is even a general statement on being saved by God, even if you don’t necessarily known or have even heard the Gospel, yet God gives you a general chance to be saved. This chapter gives you a general idea of the difference in the position of inclusivism and universalism from Catholics and Protestants. Nash looks into how Pinnock and Sanders evaluate the situation.

Pinnock outlook is the thought of Jesus’s love shouldn’t be watered down. Yet Nash disagrees with Pinnock thought process that the Bible allows people such as Melchizedek, Naaman came in contact with God. These men are pagan saints. Nash also touches on Inclusivism and evangelism. Evangelicals are more traditional, yet evangelicals take Christ more seriously.

Yet non evangelicals can’t be saved. God forgives and gives you the tools to be saved. Sanders is both evangelist and inclusivist. Of course Nash doesn’t agree with this, because he believes that it’s all misleading to others. Nash continues to point out flows with Pinnock and Sanders beliefs throughout the chapter.

In Chapter 8, Nash talks about God having special people or special revelation like Abraham, Moses, and Paul being preserved for the Bible. Putting life lessons in the Bible to glorify God. Pinnock and Sanders hold a different opinion of the salvation of God. Pinnock believes the knowledge of God is all over even to those who are not religious. Nash seems more emotional in this chapter.

When salvation is discussed by the other authors. Nash uses Bible verses to contradict statements regarding the Inclusivist view. Roman 3:10, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” While Nash uses Paul to contradict Sanders statements regarding the argument, but he uses scriptures to prove his point as well. Sanders point doesn’t come across as strong as Nash’s does. Psalm, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands”.

Sanders also begins to define the difference between believes and non-believers. He believes simply that there are believes and non-believers in heaven. This is a general statement from inclusivist. There were three different theories: 1) a distinctly understanding the nature

Of faith. 2) Non-believers being in heaven. 3) An appeal to an alleged Old Testament tradition of so called holy pagans. Nash began to depict the three theories that Sanders began stating.

Pinnock voices his opinion on faith, “People are saved by faith no the content of their theology.” Pinnock has differs of opinion. Pinnock believes that we should acknowledge what people believe not how they believe in it.

In Chapter 9, Nash address exclusivists and evangelical inclusivist, he goes into the background and history of each view. Nash uses scriptures such as Acts, Romans and John to explain the commitment and objections. He also gives you the strengths and weakness of the Bible. He began talking about the relationship of the church and Cornelius. Cornelius was a God-fearing man and a messenger.

He became a messenger through Peter sharing the Gospel. This story is supposed to support inclusivist distinction between believers and Christians. Nash began to breakdown each point and use various scriptures to support each theory. Pinnock has opinions also about different scriptures. He believes and teaches that God overlooks our sin, because of our ignorance.

He is theorizing the works of Paul’s meaning of different scriptures. These verses and scriptures that Nash talks about are supposed to support the theories of inclusivist. Then Nash goes into discussing exclusivism in the same light as he did for inclusivism. Discussing different texts that are dignified supposedly by exclusivism.

There verses are reportedly supporting the views of exclusivism. Such as Romans 10:9 that whoever confesses Jesus as Lord and believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead will be saved. Sanders voices his logic and conditional reasoning. Pinnock flows suit, an exclusivist name Darrell Bock responds to Pinnock statement. Ultimately, Nash shows the weak arguments of an inclusivist and the weak argument between the exclusivists too.

In Chapter 10, Nash began to question if Pinnock is actually an inclusivist. Pinnock points became questionable. He talks about Pinnock being a post-mortem evangelist. Which is a “view that everyone who has not had a chance to hear the gospel in the life (before physical) will be presented with the gospel after death. Nash believes Pinnock has chosen the wrong side.

In Chapter 11, Nash began to state that Clark Pinnock isn’t really an Exclusivist and who believes the question. He questions the rejection of inclusivism. Nash believes Sanders doesn’t give enough information to validate his case. Douglas Geivett makes a parallel between John Hick and Clark Pinnock. Hick identifies as a Christian. Geivett recognizes the similarities between Hick and Pinnock. Overall, Nash talks about the Book of Acts as examples of inclusivism again. He says these are the verses that are too validate inclusivism.

Personal Conclusion:

Overall, Nash talks about inclusivism, but he only made Pinnock and Sanders seem weaker. Each point they made was only knocked down by the points of Nash. Nash had strong cases such as using scriptures to validate his statements. Even though Sanders and Pinnock tried it seemed they would constantly contradict themselves. In my opinion Pinnock wasn’t an inclusivist, because he contradicted himself.

When the authors could say that non-Christians could go to heaven, even if they never heard the Gospel. This statement seems unrealistic! While post-mortem evangelism talks about after death, you can seek salvation. God gives salvation as a gift, it’s not earned. A lot of the statements Sanders and Pinnock talks about I don’t necessarily agree with, but everyone is entitled to own their opinion. I’m like Nash they need to choose a side, and stick with it. It seems as if Pinnock will state something and lean to the exclusivist view and inclusivism. Nash overall makes a strong case throughout Chapter 7-11 and backs his case up with facts.