Posted on 01/03/2005 8:18:33 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
Open or Closed Case? Controversial theologian John Sanders on way out at Huntington. By Stan Guthrie | posted 12/22/2004
While John Sanders and the Board of Trustees at Huntington College in Indiana disagree on whether God exhaustively knows the future, they agree that his days as a theology professor at the evangelical school are running out. The issue, according to both Sanders and G. Blair Dowden, the college's president, is not Sanders' belief in open theology, but his notoriety in advocating the doctrine. Both acknowledged that others on the faculty hold the same open theology views.
"You can be an open theist," Sanders told CT. "You just can't be a well-known one. That makes this a very interesting case."
After an executive session of the board was held in October, Dowden told members of the faculty that there "was very little support for John's continued employment at Huntington." Neither Sanders nor Dowden expect him back for the 2005-2006 academic year, which begins next fall. Dowden told ct that while the controversy is "directly related" to open theism, there is no requirement for professors on the issue.
"Not at all," Dowden said. "We have some other faculty who are open theists, but they're not teaching theology or Bible. It's not a litmus test."
Sanders, who has taught at the school of about 1,000 students for seven years, has been a focus of controversy over open theism for the past four years, he said. In November 2003, Sanders narrowly avoided being expelled from the Evangelical Theological Society over his beliefs. Some society members believe open theology violates the society's commitment to scriptural inerrancy.
Huntington removed Sanders from the tenure track over the controversy, but school officials attempted to give him some financial security by signing him to three-year rolling contracts, automatically renewable annually, unless the administration or board says No. In the event Sanders were to be dismissed, he would receive payment for the balance of the contract.
Sanders told ct he expects to be relieved of his position shortly, and that Dowden has "made it clear that my contract will not be renewed after the 2004-5 academic year." Sanders said that he is looking into other teaching positions and research grants, but that he has no other options waiting in the wings right now.
Earlier reports in ct and the Chronicle of Higher Education that Sanders had been "fired" were inaccurate. Dowden, who called Sanders a "brilliant scholar" and "excellent teacher," has been a defender of Sanders.
"John has done everything we have asked of him," Dowden said. But Dowden said that the United Brethren in Christ, which sponsors the school, "finds open theism troubling—some [leaders find it] very troubling."
Dowden added that academic freedom, while important, is not absolute. "For all Christian colleges, academic freedom is bounded in some way."
Sanders said the school is not following its own guidelines. "I do believe that the right to publish and academic freedom statements that the professors actually are working under are being violated," Sanders said. "They are being trodden upon."
Some students at the school are upset. Joni Michaud, a senior history major who is a leader in a student group supporting Sanders, said the controversy is "a case study in academic freedom." The group meets weekly to discuss strategy, has sent letters supporting Sanders to the board, and is seeking to raise awareness among other students. Michaud said the treatment of Sanders violates the school's statements lauding the "benefits of controversy" in an academic setting.
"If Dr. Sanders is indeed fired, I will graduate with a much lowered opinion of the institution," said Michaud, a pre-law major. "I will probably not make any financial contribution, and I will discourage people from attending."
Such talk is no doubt troubling to administrators, who have announced a freeze in tuition rates for the 2005-2006 academic year. Huntington College, to be renamed Huntington University in mid-2005, says the annual U.S.News & World Report survey of colleges consistently ranks it as one of the top comprehensive colleges in the Midwest.
Dowden said the board will next meet January 19-23, and the fate of Sanders could be formally decided then.
[Stan Guthrie is senior associate news editor for Christianity Today]
2Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is give by inspiration of God"
So, you don't trust the Bible because you don't believe God?
I would have a hard time believing God too, if I thought it possible that He would change His mind. That kind of God could change His mind about saving me.
nacham
naw-kham'
a primitive root; properly, to sigh, i.e. breathe strongly; by implication, to be sorry, i.e. (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself):--comfort (self), ease (one's self), repent(-er,-ing, self).
The point is a change had taken place. God said He intended to do one thing, but changes His mind and did aother.
Why was God sorry He had made man? Why did He repent of it? (Genesis 6)
Because they (man) were not acting in accord with His divine will. They were thwarting His will and He was sorry they were doing so. So sorry that He decided to destroy them all--save Noah and His family.
Change of plans. God is, of course, within His rights to change His own mind, and His plans. Always for the good, because God is GOOD.
Ah, but they already knew you didn't know.
I must be dense. I don't see how this leads to conclude that God changed his mind. I greatly regret that my son took some wrong actions when I gave him certain choices too, but it doesn't mean I would have done things differently had I known the outcome.
I think we have a language barrier regarding regret, repent etc. We cannot accept that God can be sad about the results and actions of his creation.
Oops, I forgot to ping you to #161, sorry.
re: my post 167. your review and opinion would be valued regarding my argument and logic.
So, you don't trust the Bible because you don't believe God?
I am sorry if I was unclear. I do very much believe in God - an all loving, all powerful, all knowing immutable, perfect God. It's the book I don't think is perfect.
I respectfully see no change except that he told Moses what would happen if he stepped aside. Moses didn't step aside.
Why was God sorry He had made man? Why did He repent of it? (Genesis 6)
I copied the meaning of repent above. It doesn't mean what you think it means in all its various uses. In fact it is mostly used to describe "comfort". The trouble we have with English translations is that Hebrews were accustomed to words having multiple meanings. We desire to be too precise sometimes. Other translations are that God was sad or he sighed. Is it your premise that God cannot be sad about the outcome of his creation or comforted by what he intends to do next ?
Because they (man) were not acting in accord with His divine will. They were thwarting His will and He was sorry they were doing so. So sorry that He decided to destroy them all--save Noah and His family.
Okay. Why is this a change in his original plans ? Can't his original plan be to allow certain generations to live before judgment occurs (recall he called Enoch to heaven), couldn't his original plan be that Noah would have seen how evil the world was before the flood ? God gave his first unilateral promise to the whole world after the flood. I he didn't do that, he would not have any covenant with the earth. You presume that God is saying he would have done things differently had he known the outcome. Sorry, I don't see that at all.
Change of plans. God is, of course, within His rights to change His own mind, and His plans. Always for the good, because God is GOOD.
I agree he can change his mind if he wanted to, I just don't see what you presented as examples of that.
Mine doesn't. I have the eternal security of knowing that Christ's death accomplished everything God set out for it to accomplish. Jesus acknowledged this.
"Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." -- John 8:58.
"And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." -- John 10:28-29
And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind." -- John 9:39
Every hair numbered. He's either God, or He's not.
Excellent post. By the grace of God alone, for His glory and our delight.
So, like the Clintons and the rest of the DemocRAT mentalities, you, too, probably believe that the Constitution is a "living document" subject to change on the whims of the pop-culture/society?
What is a moral relativist such as yourself doing on a forum whose sole founding principle for being is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?
You previously wrote this in #71: "I do not believe that a belief is an absolute."
That is quite the laughable statement since it proves that either you are incapable of comprehending that you have just stated polar opposite ideas in one short sentence as a absolute, or you are a totally incompetent, unserious person looking for attention.
It appears as if you are suffering from what is known as "cognitive dissonance" which is the mental confusion that is the result of holding polar opposite beliefs and ideas at the same time. Seek treatment.
I don't ride in the boats of one-armed boat-rowers more than two or three laps. I'm hopping out of your boat NOW!
The implied question in 1 Samuel 15:11 ""I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments."
is not if God changed his mine, it is did God had perfect foreknowledge or did Saul's freewill make the outcome unknown to God
Glory or pleasure. I don't think its up to us to bring God glory. Pleasure, maybe.
If so, what brings more glory to God?
Your question sets things up for us humans to decide what brings God glory. Apart from scripture, I'm not qualified. It is my understanding that Jesus's death and resurrection brought God glory and nothing we do can add or subtract to that.
A single filthy, sin ridden human that reaches out of his element to grasp salvation?
Jesus say we are spiritually dead. We have no way of reaching out if we are dead.
Or a God that can reach into that miserable creature's filthy, sin loving man and change him from the inside out enabling him to search after the invisible reality of God? However, if I can reach out, then its by my works that I am saved. God does 99.99 %, I still get credit for the .01 and therefore its my glory that accounts for my being saved.
If I am dead, this is about the only chance I have. Otherwise I'm doomed.
Jesus called God His Father. Does that mean God sired Jesus as the child of God's wife?
No. Scripture interprets Scripture. And the paradox of the Trinity means that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are ONE.
Logically, intellectually, experientially, this makes no sense. But it is true because it speaks to the divine and sovereign character of God. By the grace of God we understand this and believe it and live by it.
Left to oruselves, we cannot chose anything but sin.
Okay I'm dense. I don't see the dilemma. Of course God knew and of course God regrets Saul as king. Help me see the problem.
I knew my oldest child who was out of control would abuse the freedom I gave him and I regreted that. Even without having prefect foreknowledge I undersood he would abuse his freedom. I deeply regret it. I just deeply would not have changed my actions, its something he had to grow through.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.