cupotea
Puritan Board Junior
In Norm Geisler's Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Geisler lists Ronald Nash as a Neotheist (which is HIS word for Open Theist), right next to Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, Richard Rice, et al.
I was extraordinarily fascinated by his classification of Nash, so I looked into his book "The Battle for God" (pg. 171 and 172, I think) which is his book on neotheism, and Geisler has one page where he discusses impassibility. On this page, he says that "the reformed apologist" Ronald Nash has essentially questioned traditional impassibility and that Nash thinks that Christians should not hold to such a strict view of God's changelessness. Supposedly he does this in his book "The Concept of God," which I am not familiar with.
My question: Does anyone know what Geisler is talking about, or has anyone read anything by Nash to suggest he be considered a Neo-Theist? Also, do you think that questioning classical impassibility is enough to consider a person an open theist?
I was extraordinarily fascinated by his classification of Nash, so I looked into his book "The Battle for God" (pg. 171 and 172, I think) which is his book on neotheism, and Geisler has one page where he discusses impassibility. On this page, he says that "the reformed apologist" Ronald Nash has essentially questioned traditional impassibility and that Nash thinks that Christians should not hold to such a strict view of God's changelessness. Supposedly he does this in his book "The Concept of God," which I am not familiar with.
My question: Does anyone know what Geisler is talking about, or has anyone read anything by Nash to suggest he be considered a Neo-Theist? Also, do you think that questioning classical impassibility is enough to consider a person an open theist?