Geisler: Ron Nash is a NeoTheist

Status
Not open for further replies.

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?
 

Areopagus

Puritan Board Freshman
Geisler's recent folly...

Greetings,

As of late, Geisler is becoming increasingly "whacked out" in his views, and reviews of others. Although I have respect for the man, his diligence, and the time he's put into what he has done, he now resembles a man who became to caught up in a supposed profundity.

After I read his work [u:610ed44816]Chosen But Free[/u:610ed44816] I knew he had begun sliding down the slippery slope.

Wasn't it both he and Hank "the Bible answer man" Hanegraaff :lol: who coined the phrase "cosmic rapist" when speaking of the God of reformed theology?

Dustin...
 

mossy

Puritan Board Freshman
Yes, unfortunately Hank uses that expression whenever Calvinism is mentioned.

Terry
 

Ianterrell

Puritan Board Sophomore
My word. I'm adding him to a long list of people I should not meet alone without supervision.

:flaming:

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by Ianterrell]
 

Areopagus

Puritan Board Freshman
The "Cosmic Rapist" who reigns...

Yes, Hank does sling the phrase whenever the true God of Scripture is spoken of. However, when James White was on the show debating Dave Hunt, Hank shied away quickly from doing so. Odd how that happens.

Dustin...
 

Guest

Puritan Board Freshman
[quote:afa92741e1][i:afa92741e1]Originally posted by Areopagus[/i:afa92741e1]
Yes, Hank does sling the phrase whenever the true God of Scripture is spoken of. However, when James White was on the show debating Dave Hunt, Hank shied away quickly from doing so. Odd how that happens.

Dustin... [/quote:afa92741e1]

Heh. I understand White showed up on his motorcycle wearing his leathers.

Geezer and Hanky Graph--a pox on both of 'em.

:banana:
 

FrozenChosen

Puritan Board Freshman
Is his Dictionary of Apologetics worth having? I got it as a gift and noticed it was on the PB Library list as well.
 

Areopagus

Puritan Board Freshman
Open Theism

Stay,

While God has planned the beginning and the end (as defined by the Open Theist), He is not quite sure how He will make it all happen. Due to mans supposed libertarian "free will" that God refuses to transgress out of respect for the creation He conjured up, He must work things out alongside man as things go. Thus, we are left with a purely synergistic relationship with Creator and creation in all aspects of life.

Open Theists proclaim God's sovereignty while simultaneously proclaiming His mutability. They have a distorted definition of His omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and His omnipresence. It's odd, can you actually ascribe those words to a Deity that is limited, short sighted, and thwarted by a finite being?

At any rate, the Open Theists runs into many, many problems, per the norm, when taken to Scripture. Their 2 most prominent touters are Pinnock and Boyd.

If you want to pick up an incredible book that refutes this heresy, aside from Scripture itself, look to John Frame's [u:812edad834]No Others Gods: A Response to Open Theism[/u:812edad834]. It is incredible.

I hope that helps. Please remember that is a cursory, and somewhat sarcastic :D, definition of Open Theism.

In Him,

Dustin...
 

Ianterrell

Puritan Board Sophomore
I enjoyed Beyond the Bounds another anti-Open Theist book which was edited by John Piper.

[Edited on 6-10-2004 by Ianterrell]
 

cupotea

Puritan Board Junior
But my question is this:

Let's assume that Ron Nash HAS in fact said, "Hey, let's question traditional impassibility."

1. Does that make him a "neo-theist" or "Open Theist"?

and

2. Is it wrong to question traditional impassibility?

I do wish to say, however, that I also have been noticing the downward slope of Geisler's work. Johnny_Redeemed once pointed out to me that in Geisler's Systematic Theology, he doesn't deal with Open Theism, God and Time, or any other hot-button issues. He likes to stay on the fringes of conflict, one could say.

BTW: I stopped listening to Hank Hanegraaff when he started attacking calvinism and calling the one true God a "cosmic rapist" also. It's a shame, too, because when I first became a Christian, Hank was the one person who really challenged me to get intellectual about my faith and understand the ins-and-outs of Christian theology. [tisk tisk tisk] Tis' a shame.
 

Don

Puritan Board Freshman
Hank's book Christianity in Crisis is good. It exposes people like Benny Hinn, Marilyn Hickey, etc.
 

Areopagus

Puritan Board Freshman
Greetings,

Blade, you ask:

Let's assume that Ron Nash HAS in fact said, "Hey, let's question traditional impassibility."

1. Does that make him a "neo-theist" or "Open Theist"?

and

2. Is it wrong to question traditional impassibility?
___

Simply put, no. It's not [i:d00097f89a]wrong[/i:d00097f89a] to question the things of Scripture, per se. However, we must be willing to submit to its authority. It is the final arbitrator in all things. Thus, when questioning something of the Word, or of the nature and character of God (which quite honestly, I see no problem with), we must be willing to rest on what He says. Sometimes this means conceding to the blunt reality that there is no answer, because, He owes us no answers. It is only by grace we are revealed anything.

So is Nash now a Neo-Theist? Not if he is only questioning things with a pure pursuit to further the depth of His intimacy with the Redeemer. But if, in fact, he is trying to add or subtract to what is fact, then we must test his motives.

Those are some brief thoughts before I head out the door to get yet another coffee fix.

His,

Dustin...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top