| Accessories By Manufacturer | |
|
|
Email Newsletter
Get info on Sales, Events, New Products, and More!
|
|
|
|
|
| Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World | 
 enlarge | Author: Alister E. Mcgrath
Creators: Dennis L. Okholm, Timothy R. Phillips, John Hick, R. Douglas Geivett, W. Gary Phillips, Stanley N. Gundry
Publisher: Zondervan
Category: Book
List Price: $17.99
Buy New: $8.32
You Save: $9.67 (54%)
New (28) Used (21) from $6.00
Avg. Customer Rating:  14 reviews
Sales Rank: 288844
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 288
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.6
Dimensions (in): 7.8 x 5.5 x 0.9
ISBN: 0310212766
Dewey Decimal Number: 261.2
UPC: 025986212766
EAN: 9780310212768
ASIN: 0310212766
Publication Date: August 19, 1996
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: New. may have remainder mark. MULTIPLE COPIES AVAILABLE. PLEASE READ AMAZON'S SHIPPING RATES AND ESTIMATED DELIVERY TIMES BEFORE ORDERING.
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Four views, from salvation in Christ alone to the belief that all ethical religions lead to God, presented by advocates of each, help Christians understand and meet the challenges of our pluralistic culture.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 9 more reviews...
 Good book in the Counterpoint Series May 31, 2008
This book is part of the Zondervan Counterpoint Series which I would highly recommend. For the lay person who has a full time job, the various views presented can get you up to speed quickly. What is lacking in depth is made up for in breadth. This book on religious pluralism is just as fresh today as in was when this book was written. All four views are well represented and the format where each author responds to the others is very good. For those who want to dig deeper on this topic, I would recommend Sander's "No Other Name".
Challenging but worthwhile... August 6, 2007
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
This book offered an expansive and surprisingly lively exchange between four streams of theological thought pertaining to the relationships between Christianity and other religions, specifically in connection with salvation. John Hick represented the pluralism camp, Clark Pinnock represented the inclusivist camp, Alister McGrath represented a more broadly defined camp within particularism, and Douglas Geivett and Gary Phillips jointly represented a narrower branch of particularism.
I found the experience of reading this book to be extremely rewarding. It was a difficult read, probably as philosophical in nature as anything that I've ever read. The language that the authors used was more complicated and intricate than typical (though they would certainly argue that they dumbed-down and truncated their standard arguments to fit within the confines of this particular format). And I was amazed and pleased by the honesty and direct nature of the dialogue. There were no punches pulled, and these great thinkers were perfectly willing to challenge and even insult each other (or at least each other's ideas).
Though I was drawn to Hick's narrative introduction, I was immediately put-off by his aversion to the Bible. I instantly disconnected when he essentially decried the Bible as a series of man-made texts that were culturally/politically/theologically crafted for particular earthly purposes. I was further frustrated by the tenor of his writing throughout the book and found him to be less gracious than his colleagues. And without any foundation in the Bible or traditional Christian thinking, I found his arguments to be disconnected from any truth-source. Though he brought great challenge to my thinking, I remain unconvinced by his arguments.
Pinnock was hard to understand, as he claims to fall within evangelicalism but seems to press very hard against the walls of that distinction. He makes a very compelling case against the notion of a loving God who would choose billions for hell, but I found his argumentation to be rather scattered and unconvincing.
Geivett/Phillips were most closely aligned to my own spiritual upbringing, and they had the advantage of having me in their camp at the start. And though I found their approach to be comfortable for me (very Scripturally-based and well-organized), I was unimpressed by their logic and argumentation. The other authors seemed to be able to poke some significant holes in their reasoning, and I found their responses to be inadequate.
Ultimately, I finished this book most impressed by the case and position of Alister McGrath. This result was somewhat surprising, as I've mentioned that I expected to align most closely with Geivett and Phillips. Instead, I found McGrath to have a very winsome tone through his writing. Though very direct and confrontational when needed, he was never patronizing like Hick, never desperate like Pinnock, and never careless like Geivett/Phillips. I appreciate the clarity of his logic, as I was not lost in his thoughts as I occasionally was with the others. And I found that he struck a helpful balance between commitment to the Scriptures and the history of Christian thinking while honoring God's sovereignty by leaving a few important questions essentially unanswered. He did not bash the Bible (like Hick), he did not insult Augustine and Calvin (like Pinnock), and he did not proof-text (like Geivett/Phillips). He simply made a solid case for the reality that salvation is available in and through Christ, and our job as Christians is to spread that message everywhere, regardless of whether we know for sure what God plans to do with anyone that we miss. This gives us a vital job to do but leaves the final work in God's hands.
 Informative, but limited in scope December 20, 2006
3 out of 4 found this review helpful
This will be brief. Overall I am pleased with the Counterpoints series Zondervan has published, but like the publisher, these works are filtered through a fairly conservative lens. The present volume is a case in point. The editors admit in their introduction they agree with a particularist approach to salvation (i.e., exclusivist, traditional, etc), and while I certainly appreciate this nod towards being transparent in their editorship, as I read through the book it didn't take long to realize I would need to seek out other sources - none evangelical in tone and stance - to inform my understanding of the debates in soteriology and today's church. John Hick and Alister McGrath offer particularly strong arguments in their essays - their writing is cogent and informative. Clark Pinnock is perhaps misrepresented in this volume, because his brand of inclusivism teeters on the edge of particularism. In fact, he sounds like a disillusioned traditional evangelical who doesn't know how to make sense of salvation so he just takes a vague middle road. The Geivett/Phillips article is pretty useless in my opinion - they reiterate nothing new or interesting that you can't hear on a Sunday morning at your local Baptist church. Furthermore, their responses to the other authors are spurious and at best nothing more than piecemeal critiques. Their writing and responses are just as close-minded and tired as is their theology of salvation.
With that said, you should judge the book for yourself. I do recommend it, but with the caveat that it should be read with a critical eye and an understanding that this discussion of salvation is somewhat narrow, but there is value in the book. Again, Hick and McGrath are the highpoints.
One of the Better Works in Four Views Series April 4, 2006
4 out of 4 found this review helpful
Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World edited by Okholm and Gundry discusses the issue of salvation in light of the multiplicity of contemporary worldviews. This is part of the Four Views series published by Zondervan.
The following four perspectives of salvation are discussed:
*John Hick - Pluralism - all religions lead to God
*Clark Pinnock - Inclusivism - universally available but through Christ
*Douglas Geivett/Gary Philips - Exclusivism - only through acceptance of Christ
*Allister McGgrath - Exclusivism (slightly nuanced)
Although the Four Views series is normally characterized by solid argumentation, it has been criticised for its narrow perspective. This limited scope often makes the texts come of as a bit of an hair splitting exercise between conservative American Protestants. In this regard, the current instalment is notably better - John Hick's extreme liberal if not non-Christian perspective helps to significantly widen the discussion.
With regard to the quality of the contributions, I thought given the limited space they were generally good (McGrath's piece struck me as hastily written and a bit off tone). As one of the most recognizable proponents of religious pluralism, Hick's comments were especially helpful and interesting. Without a doubt he advocates the most politically correct position in the current Western intellectual climate. At the same time, however, it is the most at variance with scripture and tradition - indeed, while hopeful; Hick's position is arguably not truly a Christian one. Pennock's piece and the one by Geivett and Philips were also useful in filling out the spectrum of viewpoints. McGrath while sometimes an able commentator added little to the debate.
Overall this is a good read for those interested in Christian theology. I encourage Zondervan to continue this series, but with a wider range of contributors (Catholic and/or Orthodox might be helpful). As it is Four Views is a good series - with a wider range of perspectives it could be outstanding.
Good exchange from four respected theologians January 17, 2006
6 out of 8 found this review helpful
Four Views On Salvation in a Pluralistic World manages to accomplish what most counterpoint books do not. It gathers four assertive, yet respectful theologians who can adequately express the view they represent, and challenge the positions of the others.
The editor's preface is pretty helpful in laying the groundwork for the book. Terminology is always important in theology and in this case it is rather confusing. The editor does a good job, especially in trying to normalize the labels given to each position so as to not start out with prejudicial names. Mainly, this occurs on exclusivism/restrictivism being renamed to particularism. Two terms not distinguished well enough are Universalism and Universality. Universalism is the view that everyone will be saved by God without specifying the mechanisms or a Savior per se'. Universalism is Hick's view and it is a natural fit with pluralism. The Universality (axiom) is one of Pinnock's Inclusivist devices, saying everyone will be saved, but only through Christ (even if they never have heard of him). The Universality axiom and Universalism are similar but they are not the same.
Hick opens with an expose' centered on his journey from orthodox Christian belief to his well-known pluralism. He considers himself Christian but feels this is just a function of the culture he was raised within. His theological descriptions are much more like a pantheist or perhaps a deist. Hick's conception of God, does not (or cannot) transcend the gap between itself and man well enough to deliver a clear, unambiguous message. Instead, man is left groping in the dark, and manufactures something that will transform personal lives to move away from self-centeredness. This is much of what spirituality has to offer in Hick's view.
On the flipside of Hick's theology, he critiques other views by pointing out in his experience (all anecdotal), he feels the amount of sainthood to villainous behavior is about the same in all cultures irrespective of underlying religion so Christianity has no special claim to God. This is one thing to discuss, but it does not have the crushing weight Hick ascribes to it. Something in Hick obviously favors pluralism and now he rationalizes it through personal experience. I have read other works by Hick and frankly have always been amazed he receives the degree of credibility as a theologian he commands. He is intelligent and kind, but his theology seems ridiculous. He seems to find the supernatural so dubious that he distances it with vague language saying very little that is specific enough to matter in religous practice. For Hick, theology is whatever he makes it up to be. McGrath observes Hick's theology is often improperly considered a marquis of post-modernism. In fact, it is a sad remnant of modernism. Hick is behind the times, not defining them.
Pinnock shows he is his own theologian who (unlike Hick) holds the Bible in high regard. He makes some good points about Melchizedek, Cornelius and others being righteous pagans (this point is briefly addressed by other authors in the book). Pinnock gave me some things to think about, and I would not mind reading more from him, but he also proof-texts the Bible as obviously as any theologian I know of. Pinnock does not engage many widely discussed- passages that undermine his position (again, the other authors take a little of this up with him). Perhaps the page limits in a short essay held him back from presenting a significantly more robust case, but frankly I have some doubts.
Allister McGrath does a fine job of showing why it is disrespectful to each religion when the pluralist lumps them all together to sooth his own conscience. "Dialog implies respect, but it does not presuppose agreement." (p156) McGrath makes the case for a rather nuanced position, which (like Pinnock) expects other religions may be used, by the Spirit, as a type of pre-evangelism before its adherents hear the gospel of Christ. He remains agnostic on the issue of there being salvific power in those non-Christian practices if the gospel is never heard. McGrath is interesting and definitely has a voice of his own. Pinnock does catch him in an inconsistency. McGrath critiques Universalism by saying it denies humanity the right to say no to God, but as Pinnock points out, McGrath is a Reformed theologian. His Calvinistic theology has no place for men to say no (or yes) to God on salvation since it is predetermined, by God. So why critique Universalism for having an extremely similar attribute? Great point Pinnock.
Geivett/Phillips present and defend the traditional evangelical view that Christ is the only way to salvation, and it is a narrow path according to scripture. If anyone thinks the traditional view must sacrifice something in these kind of discussions, this article may challenge that thinking. Geivett/Phillips use a fair portion of their article to present a classical apologetic for Christ starting with evidence for the existence of God. I love apologetics, but I believe this is somewhat out of place in their article. Perhaps they felt it provided necessary background, but much of the information would support Pinnock's position as well as it does theirs. Hick goes too far in saying this classical argument is "such as to convince only those who already believe their conclusion."(p248) Of course, most of us know classical apologetics are used everyday to help inform honest seekers. Hick is not moved because he has made a dogmatic commitment to his strange concoction of deism, naturalism and inconsistent religious homogenization.
If you are interested in soteriology (biblical and non-biblical), you will like this book. One understated issue affecting the topic of the book is the authority behind religious statements. When Hick promotes pluralism, where does the authority for those religious claims come from? After all, he is saying things about God. The same question can be applied to all four views, but is not explored explicitly enough. I enjoyed the book and hope you do too.
Grace and peace to you, whatever your stripe
|
|
|
Site by: Troy Peterson | |
