All Paths Lead to God


This essay is an analysis of  the theological philosophy of Pluralism as Presented by Dr. Ronald. (Presented to the School of Divinity at Liberty University, THEO 313-B05 – The Person and Work of Christ)


quote Hick

The weight of this essay will focus on Dr. Randall H Nash’s book, Is Jesus the Only Savior? Particularly, it will analyze the first six chapters; which treat the theological issue of pluralism as it opposes Christian exclusivism. Nash primarily uses the pluralism philosophy of Englishmen, John Hick, to explain the tenants of pluralism. Nash goes to great lengths to give a concise understanding of Hick’s philosophy, and how his pluralism undercuts and absolutely dismisses the authoritative nature of Scripture.

As a matter of fact, when studying the theoretical hodgepodge of the proponents of pluralism; one will immediately notice in their literature, a gross absence of Scripture is replaced with wild speculation, with no support for their positional arguments. Nash mentions that pluralism asserts “knowledge about God is simply declared impossible and replaced by personal encounter, religious feeling, trust, or obedience” (Nash, 12, 13). This amounts to no more than theological agnosticism, because of the unreliability of feeling and personal encounters. Obviously, this flies in the face of Christian exclusivists who take as their sole authority the revealed truth of the Bible. (Christian exclusivists believe the Bible teaches that Jesus is the only Savior, and that no one can be saved unless they know the information about Jesus, as contained in Scripture; then express a personal and real belief in the person and work of Jesus Christ.)

Hick enters the discussion in the first chapter. He is described as a man who had an “evangelical kind of Christian conversion” (Nash, 13) experience. At first, he held to a generally orthodox theology; however, he lacked a belief in divinely revealed truth. Ultimately, this orthodoxy was abandoned and gave way to a neo-liberal view of theology which paved the way for his pluralistic views. Hick’s pluralism is encapsulated in his following statement: “There is not merely one way but a plurality of ways to salvation or liberation… taking place in different ways within the context of all the great religious traditions” (Nash, 22).

In the second chapter, Nash begins to break open the mind behind Hick’s early pluralism to reveal the evolution of Hick_biohis radical shift from orthodoxy to a purely pluralistic position. “Hick proposed to replace the historic Christian view that Jesus is the center of the religious world with the claim that God is the center” (Nash, 31). Clearly, in the mind of a pluralist like Hick, this major shift made salvation possible without the central figure of Christianity (Jesus). For Hick, this opens the door to most all major religions; but reduces Jesus to little more than an insignificant historical figure. Hick would claim that his knowledge of devout and pious non-Christians gives validity to the notion that an all loving God would not exclude anyone from His salvation.

This logic appeals to the pluralist; but ignores the practical agnostic premise of pluralism itself (specific knowledge about God is deemed impossible). One immediately recognizes that the acknowledgment of and all loving God is an admission of specific knowledge about God. If God is a God of love; then he cannot be the God of a different religious system which does not ascribe love to God. Nash makes this clear on page 33. Nonetheless, Hick remains unshaken in his understanding that God is, in fact all-loving. The logical pluralist leap from this assumption is that such a God would not limit his salvation based on a mere geographic inaccessibility to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The self-defeating nature of this argument is evident in the following question: How can an unknowable God be known as a personal and loving God and at the same time remain unknowable? Moreover, it begs the question: How can one know that God is unknowable? If God were, in fact unknowable; how could anyone claim there to be a salvific intention in God? Nash concludes that Hick’s defeasible delusions are the effects of starting with a conclusion then seeking premises to support it.

move to pluralismFor Hick to avoid this philosophical dilemma, Nash notices that he makes a bold shift from a God- centered theory to a salvation-centered model (Nash, 39). Hick even demands that one drop usage of the name God from religious language. He replaces it with Reality or the Real or Ultimate Reality. The “unknowable-ness” is the foundation for Hick’s evolution to a salvific centered pluralism. His reasoning is that the finite mind of man can only perceive the existence of Ultimate Reality through imagery and symbols that provide the mind with a direction toward perceiving the Ultimate Reality. This speaks to man’s awareness of the Real; but maintains an unknowable-ness. Yet for Hick, these symbols and images presented by the Real are found in various cultures and traditions. Thereby, making this unknowable Reality perceivable through the vehicle of various cultural traditions found throughout the world. Of course, from Hick’s standpoint of unknowable-ness; he can only present his claims of the Ultimate as confidently hypothetical.

all savedIt is incredible that Hick does not believe that all religions are adequate for salvation. He even goes so far as to propose a grading system for religions, in order to qualify them for salvific properties. Yet, not all sects or religions past this criteria. According to Hick, some religions are better than others and some are unworthy of support (Nash, 45). In the end though, Hick believes, “Ultimately and eventually, every member of the human race will be saved. This salvation will encompass even the worst moral monsters of history, including at of Hitler and the Nazis, Joseph Stalin and his secret police, and the entire gamut of serial killers, rapists, child molesters and the like” (Nash, 45). However, Hick has a very broad concept of what salvation entails. He maintains that all religions have the same fundamental theme of sudden or gradual change of the individual from an absorbing self-concern to a new centering in the supposedly unity-of-reality-and-value (Nash, 46). This is more easily explained as a move from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness. But, if Hick is to maintain his Universalist understanding; there is no need to give thought to the supposed commonalities of the world’s major religions.

The problem with this supposedly commonality is, as Nash states, an oversimplification. Nash explains that the human predicament is understood differently in the various world religions; and is therefore, sought to be delivered from in undeniably different methods and beliefs. Nash’s quote of Harold Netland’s question sheds light on this predicament: “Is the human predicament brought on by sin against a righteous and holy God, or is it due to maya (illusion) and avidya (ignorance)?” (Nash, 48). Clearly, different understandings to the problem present differing means of reaching the goal of salvation/deliverance.

Chapter four deals with the apparent contradictory claims of the world religions and the response of the pluralist. Nash rightly sets forth the laws of logic, as they apply to reason and truth. He ultimately shows that a proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time. Hick and other pluralist attempt to avoid this crushing blow by denying that the truth claims of competing religions actually contradict each other. These pluralist attempt to prove that it only appears contradictory. They go so far as to say that the truth claims of the world’s great religions actually complement each other.

Nash gives a summary of pluralist, W. C. Smith’s idea that essentially, “We should stop concentrating on the idea of ‘religion’ and focus instead on external cumulative traditions and internal faith” (Nash, 59). Smith basically concludes that these truth claims can become true if one appropriates them personally. In other words, “If it works for you; then, good for you.” This makes the truthfulness of truth claims relative to the belief of the one who holds them. However, the strength of Nash’s argument is that if one person’s belief is, in fact, true; then it is not logically possible that someone who believes the opposite to be, at the same time correct. Yet pluralist’s hold to their idea “that the many different conceptions of the divine or religious ultimate… are all various culturally and historically conditioned images of the same single divine reality” (Nash, 66). For the one who knows something of the basic tenants of the world’s major religions; it is impossible to ignore the contradictory and competing conflicts found among them.

The logical question is: What do you do with the incarnate God, who died a sacrificial death to atone for the sins of all; but, only those who placed their faith in Him alone will be saved? For Hick, the answer is simple; the incarnation of Jesus is a myth. Nash indicates that Hick believes the early church transformed a sentimental declaration of the Lordship of Christ into a metaphysical claim that only Jesus can be Lord and Savior. In Hick’s way of thinking, Jesus is not actually the only Savior; but merely, the Savior of the individual believer. Hick treats the resurrection similarly, in that it was not fully an actual event, and that it makes no claims about Jesus’ divinity.

RunzoNash shows that Hick’s idea of Jesus is less than that of Him being God. He holds Jesus in high regard, living in a remarkable consciousness of a relationship with God; but he denies that Jesus ever claimed or thought Himself to be God. Nash contends that Hick believes the church to have deified Jesus, and that, was never the intention of God. Hick argues that the New Testament is vague and ambiguous and that Jesus is largely unknown and unknowable. But, Nash counters by saying that Hick’s skepticism of New Testament reliability is hypocritical considering what Hick claims to know about the historical Jesus. In essence: How does he know so much about Jesus and what Jesus believed about Himself; unless the authentic Jesus is discernible in the Gospel record? This amounts to nothing more than wild assertions, with no relevant arguments to substantiate his claims.

Nash strikes at the heart of the problem, by citing Joseph Runzo’s attack on exclusivism as, “neither tolerable nor any longer intellectually honest in the context of our contemporary knowledge of other’s faiths” (Nash, 92). The issue here is that of tolerance. Pluralism accuses Christian exclusivism as being intolerant of any competitors, and the promoter of an elitist mentality that promotes much of the ills of society. Nash negates such assumptions by stating, “that I do not believe in all the things that you believe hardly makes me guilty of intolerants, imperialism, egotism, arbitrariness, or oppression” (Nash, 93). Therefore disagreement does not demand intolerance. “Nor does exclusivism obligate Christians to believe that everything taught by a non-Christian religion must be false” (Nash, 95).

It seems that Nash’s reason for writing is unveiled at the end of chapter six. “Someday we will all finally discover whether this or that religion, whether this or that theory about religion, is true or not. Hick cannot rule out the possibility that after death, during the process of eschatological verification, one religion will turn out to be true after all and one definitive concept of God will prove correct” (Nash, 99). If the Christian exclusivist discover that pluralism is accurate, nothing will be lost. But the price tag of pluralism is way too high. Pluralism is a gamble that is not worth the eternal risk.

Personal Conclusion

Pluralism, (at least Hick’s view) has been demonstrated to be dogmatically speculative, with absolutely no basis in truth. Hick’s view of pluralism promotes annihilation after death; therefore religion is only retained while living on earth. If this be the case, there is no reason to hold to the tenants of any religion, unless those reasons are driven by ideas of self-improvement. Self-improvement can be found in many of the world’s great religions. There is peace to be had through transcendental meditation. There is self-purpose to be found in the jihad of Islam. But, none of the other great religions offer salvation from a fallen human nature (sin). Christianity is unique in this matter.

Christianity solves the sin problem by providing the Sin-bearer in the person of Jesus Christ. Without the atonement provided by Jesus, an eternal existence separated from God would be the fate of humanity.

Pluralism is a philosophy about religion, not a religion itself. Hick’s pluralism especially, is simply a rejection of the infallibility of Scripture. If Hick had held a high view of Scripture he would have never become a pluralist. It is the my quoteScripture that demand Christian exclusivism. From the proto-evangelium, Old Testament typology and prophecy, to the gospel record and New Testament epistles; the Scripture demands that Jesus is the only Savior from eternal punishment. Further, it demands that any relationship with God must come through the person of Jesus Christ. These are exclusive statements; yet, they are inclusive in the sense that “whosoever” believes in Him will have eternal life.

It may not be politically correct in contemporary society; but it is a fact that differing competing claims cannot be absolutely true at the same time. Today’s society demands tolerance, inclusivity and relativism; however, these come with the price of rejecting the person and work of Jesus Christ. He is absolutely the Savior, regardless of the shifting sentiment of today’s pragmatic culture. If Jesus is Lord and Savior; then salvation originated with God. To be saved and reconciled to God cannot and did not originate with man; therefore, Jesus is the only Lord and Savior.


Works Cited

Nash, Ronald H. Is Jesus the Only Savior? Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.

“Ronald H. Nash (May 27, 1936 – March 10, 2006) was a philosophy professor at Reformed Theological Seminary. Nash served as a professor for over 40 years, teaching and writing in the areas of worldview, apologetics, ethics, theology, and history. He is known for his advocacy of Austrian Economics, and his criticism of the evangelical left.”
Source: Reformed Theological Seminary –

[powr-hit-counter label=”Enter a Label”]

Reflections of the “Anabaptist Heritage Tour 2014”

It all began for the Anabaptist 2014 tour group in Worms, Germany. It was at the Diet of Worms that Martin Luther stood against all of Catholicism on April 16-18 of 1521.

“Since then your sere Majesty and your Lordships seek a simple answer, I will give it in this manner, neither horned nor toothed. Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen.”

It just seems fitting to begin this tour of Light on the shoulders of the great reformer, upon whom the light of God’s Word broke forth. Yet to the south in Zürich, a fiery young preacher by the name of Ulrich Zwingli was stoking the flames of Reformation from the pulpit at the Grossmünster. Zwingli’s preaching was not the only kindling he was pitching on the fires. He was gaining a following of some special young men who would move from their love of the Greek language to a bright and burning passion for the Living Word of God.

In Zürich, Conrad Grabel, Felix Manz and others were moved by the spirit of the Reformation and an insatiable desire to see the Church return to the New Testament model. Zwingli, the champion of Reformation in Zürich soon became the arch enemy of these zealous young men, whom he had once fathered in the faith. The tipping point came about when, before the city council, Zwingli surrendered the authority of God’s infallible Word to the determination of the council; concerning church decisions. In the midst of the Reformation, it would seem that the hero loses his nerve and becomes a fierce defender of the government’s sword in church affairs. For the young men he had mentored; this just simply would not stand. Disillusioned by the second Disputation in Zürich these notable men committed the whole of the matter into the capable hands of God.Arising from the prayer, George Blaurock requested Conrad Grabel to baptize him upon a confession of faith in Christ. Grebel did so, and afterwards Blaurock proceeded to baptize the others who were present.


The Anabaptist movement was now underway. Immediately following the baptisms of that January night, “the Brethren” begin to share the Gospel: declaring a church solely composed of believers, solely for believers and governed solely by God’s very own Words. Seemingly everywhere but in Zürich, the good news was absorbed among the people. People were being baptized by the thousands. However, this type of success also brought persecution (hot persecution) from the Catholics and Protestants, alike.

The name “Anabaptist” was actually given to them by their detractors. It means “the re-baptizers”. Thus, putting the capstone of their collective hate in the very name Anabaptists would carry for centuries. Simply put, the Anabaptist refused to baptize their infants, as was the custom of the state church. The Brethren believed in regenerate church membership and baptism for the born again. They began baptizing people who were professing personal faith in Christ Jesus. For this they were hunted down like animals and forced to recant or die.

The Emmental Valley, below the Swiss Alps rendered refuge to Anabaptists who were forced to flee the larger towns. The Anabaptist Tour 2014 went into the Emmental Valley. It was easy for the mind to begin to sing, “Rock of Ages, Cleft for Me.” However, Transvaal Castle prison was a grim reminder that many Saints were slaughtered in the valley “of whom this world is not worthy”.

A stop in Schleitheim warmed the heart and proved that the devil’s persecution could not stop the Word of God. It was here at Schleitheim, that one of 4 existing copies of the Schleitheim Confession is under glass, in a small museum. These Seven Articles of Schleitheim, February 24, 1527 cemented forever what it meant to take hold of the Gospel plow, as an Anabaptists.

A small detour in Augsburg gave the group a chance to see the location of a great gathering of Anabaptists missionaries in the home of Susanna Doucher, located along the Bürgergässchen. Here a number of Swiss Anabaptists, as well as Austrian and German Anabaptists gathered to plot out a method to fulfill the Great Commission. After a year’s time only two of these great Anabaptist missionaries remained. The rest could not escape the executioner’s blade. Their lives were taken because they believe in the Light of the World.

On to Vienna, Austria where many Anabaptist; most notably Balthasar Hubmaier were tortured and burned at the stake. In the shadows of St. Stephen’s Cathedral, one could sense the spirit of the harlot who rides upon the scarlet beast. Not far from the city was Falkenstein Castle were many Anabaptist were held and sentenced to be gallery slaves. (This was a fate worse than death.)

From the castle, Mikulov, Czech Republic, (Moravia of former times), could be seen at a distance. This next stop at Mikulov rendered evidence of a more religiously tolerant environment governed by Lichtenstein family. It is documented that even one of the princes of this prestigious family was won to the gospel by Balthazar Hubmaier, who enjoyed a 3 year stay in this hospitable town. Here in Mikulov, it is believed that Hubmaier found his peace with his recantation in Zürich, which forever haunt him. He successfully wrote, published works, and shined the bright light of the Gospel during his stay in Mikulov. However, when Ferdinand took control of the territory it would not be long before Hubmaier and his wife Elizabeth were arrested and taken to Vienna, for his ultimate torture and death.

The story does not end with execution. It actually ends in triumph. Although Anabaptists of the 16th century had to hide, worship in secret and suffer many things for the precious treasure of the Word of God; the Word is not bound. Their faith has survived and the sacrifices have not been in vain. The Word of God, revealed to the common man, brought about this great movement called “Anabaptistism”. The word of God has moved people into action for centuries. The Word of God is truth. And in the words of Balthazar Hubmaier, “truth is immortal”.

by Pastor Craig Layton

Pastor Leary Baptist Church, Leary GA

Member of the Anabaptist Heritage Tour 2014

Read about our Baptist Heritage


Hollow Religion and Vain Rituals

Generic Concrete Quote (ES)Throughout the last century in America, people have labored to build houses of worship. The old “Home Mission Board” was stocked with pioneers who would seek out rural locations to build church buildings for the people to have a place to gather and hear the Word of God and assemble for the purpose of prayer and intercession. During the Great Depression, men like Dr. Percy Ray would organize the building of many rural churches and the people of the communities would come, filled with enthusiasm and expectancy, to help in the building of these houses of worship.

Once established, these buildings would be filled (almost continually) with the saints of GOD. Prayer meetings would last for days on end; petitioning God for the souls of a lost loved one or a friend across town. Revival meetings would last through the evenings and onto the mornings as countless souls would be won to the Lord. As a result of these clap-board, one- roomed buildings, saints united in success to bring about a great change in the communities all across the southeastern United States, for the glory of GOD. It would seem that the opportunity to gather as one, for worship was received with great gladness and Christian fervor. It was a grateful heart that brought about such love for fellowman and abounding adoration of a Savior, who would look so kindly upon them as to provide a building for worship and service.

Sadly, as that generation has gone on to be with their LORD, a new breed of Christians has emerged. They don’t know what it is to ” pray the price” or labor for the sake of the gospel. They’ve forgotten the purpose of the building in which they sit week after week and give their money to maintain. All too often, people come to these stained glass empires to strut the latest fashion or get some feel good message that will bolster their already inflated ego. More often than not, this house, where God was once the object and the lost its mission; is now a place to get the latest “pop-psychology” of self-help in a prepackaged drive-thru manner. This feel good nicety-nice message has replaced a repentant heart and a tearstained alter with a hollow religion that has no power to save. The hard doctrines of repentance and sanctification have been tossed aside for an emotionalism that offers a temporary excitement but offers no lasting Peace.

The focus of the Contemporary Church has shifted from the service and worship of GOD to the exaltation of self and the sustaining of a bulging church budget. The Church of the living God has taken on the image of a Shopping Mall. The pastor’s latest Publications or DVDs are being peddled in the foyer next to  “Coffee Bars” that could rival Starbucks. Moreover,  The sights and sounds of the Worship Center mirror the production seen at a Rock Concert. What is the reason for this? To be more relevant to a society that has no room for GOD? True are the words of the Apostle, “In the last days…men will become…. lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power.” In truth, is this the house of the Living GOD, or has the Glory departed? Paul followed this statement with these words, “And from such people turn away!”

Is this not the same sin as the prophets charged Israel with? Where is the care for the widow, the fatherless and the poor? Where does surrender to Christ find its place in this man made ritual? Is this behavior what the contemporary Church considers taking up our cross and following Him? Has not the Cross ceased to humble us and the Blood to make us weep? Has the idol of “self and status” eclipsed the bloodstained banner? Is not what we call “Church” nothing more than a stench in the nostrils of Almighty GOD? Will we come to see this hollowed out charade for what it is and repent; humble ourselves before GOD and do the first works? Judgment must first begin in the house of GOD. If we will not judge ourselves; there is ONE who will judge by the Blood He shed for it!

Saints, Be encouraged, for the day Declares the coming of Our LORD!

So Come LORD Jesus,
Pastor Craig 


Craig Layton is pursuing a BA in Christian Studies with a Great Commission Minor.  He is a conference speaker and Revivalist who speaks to issues from Christian Worldview issues to how to prepare for genuine revival within a body of believers.  He is senior pastor of Leary Baptist Church in Leary Georgia; which is presently experiencing a protracted season of true God sent revival..  Married for 6 years to his wife Kimberly, they have two children and two grandchildren.  You can follow Craig on Twitter at And on Facebook  at



A Cry For Revival    The heart of God is continually upon the renewal of His purchased children. He purchased them not to be servants only; but to grant them the privilege to be adopted into His Holy-Royal family. If we are taking the name of our dearly beloved then He truly wants us to bear the image of His SON. 

This is the cry for revival that is being heard by the One who sends the former and latter rain. Yet, blessed ones, we must understand that judgement must first begin in the house of God. If you will look around you at your Church family, you will see a mass of broken people who are hurting in a multitude of ways. They are pressed hard to come to the conflict of: true faith in Him or rejection of our Father as sole provider of every need. Whether it be sins or want of something, people are facing one crisis after another. All of this is God responding to our Cry for Revival. True broken hearted prayer and repentance always precedes Genuine Revival. These seeming impossible circumstances you find yourself facing are nothing more than God’s invitation for you to return to a genuine faith in His Sufficiency and to the Authority of His Word. When this is a reality in the Church, we will see what we expect revival to be. It starts in the individual believer; moves into the corporate body; then, it is carried into the communities as a great refreshing rain to all who are weary and with out Christ. People you never would have imagined will get saved & the UNTARNISHED Glory of Christ will truly shine forth from a “people called by His Name”. 

Lift up your weary heads Children of GOD. The winds of Revival are blowing through the hearts of a great multitude.
Bro Craig
Craig Layton is pursuing a BA in Christian Studies with a Great Commission Minor.  He is a conference speaker and Revivalist who speaks on issues of Christian Worldview  to how to prepare for genuine revival within a body of believers.  He is senior pastor of Leary Baptist Church in Leary Georgia; which is presently experiencing a protracted season of true God sent revival.  Married for 6 years to his wife Kimberly, they have two children and two grandchildren.  You can follow Craig on Twitter at And on Facebook  at