Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Religious School Fires Theologian For "Open Theism"
Christianity Today ^ | 12/22/04 | Stan Guthrie

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]


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: christianschools; education; opentheism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 421-438 next last
To: Raycpa
Left to oruselves, we cannot chose anything but sin.


Left to ourselves, there would be nothing to choose but sin.
181 posted on 01/03/2005 3:05:54 PM PST by superskunk (Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

For His Glory. Amen. Thank you for the review.


182 posted on 01/03/2005 3:05:58 PM PST by griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Razorism

"An example of the debatable Bible verses is 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." Here it seems that God did not have perfect foreknowledge because of Saul's free will. .."~Razorism

"Incommunicable Attributes of God" by Wayne Grudem - excerpts:

"God's unchangeableness is defined as follows:

'God is unchanging in his being, perfections, purposes, and promises, yet
God does act, and he acts differently in response to different situations.'

The second half of that sentence guards against the idea that
unchangeableness means inability to act at all.

Does God sometimes change his mind?

"Yet when we talk about God being unchanging in his purposes, we may wonder
about places in Scripture where God said he would judge his people and then
because of prayer or the people's repentance (or both) God relented and did
not bring judgement as he had said he would.

Examples of such withdrawing from threatened judgement include the
successful intervention of Moses in prayer to prevent the destruction of
the people of Isreal [Ex.32:9-14], the adding of another 15 years to the
life of Hezekiah [Isa.38:1-6], or the failure to bring promised judgement
upon Nineveh when the people repented [Jonah 3:4,10].

Are these not cases where God's purposes in fact did change?

Then there are other passages where God is said to be sorry that he had
carried out some previous action. One thinks of God being sorry that he
had made man upon the earth [Gen.6:6], or sorry that he had made Saul king
[1 Sam.15:10].

Did not God's purposes change in these cases?

These instances should all be understood as true expressions of God's
*present* attitude or intention *with respect to the situation as it exists
at that moment*.

If the situation changes, then of course God's attitude or expression of
intention will also change. This is just saying that God *responds
differently to different situations*.

The example of Jonah preaching to Nineveh is helpful here. God sees the
wickedness of Nineveh and sends Jonah to proclaim, 'Yet forty days, and
Nineveh shall be overthrown!" [Jonah 3:4].

The possibility that God would withhold judgement if the people repented is
not explicitly mentioned in Jonah's proclamation as recorded in Scripture,
but it is of course *implicit* in that warning: the *purpose* for
proclaiming a warning is to bring about repentance. Once the people
repented, the situation was different, and God responded differently to
that changed situation:

'When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God
repented of the evil which he had said that he would do to them; and he did
not do it.' [Jonah 3:10].

The situations with Hezekiah and with the intercession of Moses are
similar: God had said that he would send judgement, and that was a true
declaration, *provided that the situation remained the same*.

But then the situation changed: someone started to pray earnestly (Moses
in one case, Hezekiah in the other).

Here prayer itself was part of the new situation and was in fact what
changed the situation.

God responded to that changed situation by answering the prayer and
withholding judgement.

In the cases of God being sorry that he had made man, or that he had made
Saul king, these too can be understood as *expressions of God's present
displeasure* toward the sinfulness of man.

In neither case is the language strong enough to require us to think that
if God could start again and act differently, he would in fact not create
man or not make Saul king.

It can instead imply that God's previous action led to events that in the
short term caused him sorrow, but that nonetheless in the long term would
ultimately achieve his good purposes. This is somewhat analogous to a
human father who allows his child to embark on a course he knows will bring
much sorrow, both to the parent and to the child, but who allows it
nonetheless, because he knows that greater long-term good will come of it."

[end of excerpts]

Source: Systematic Theology - Excerpted quotes from pages 160, 164-165 of Chapter
11 "Incommunicable Attributes of God" by Wayne Grudem. (Much more can be
found there on the subject)


183 posted on 01/03/2005 3:06:17 PM PST by Matchett-PI (Today's DemocRATS are either religious moral relativists, libertines or anarchists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: suzyjaruki
You said you "believe in God", but do you believe God?

Very much.

184 posted on 01/03/2005 3:07:33 PM PST by PFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

"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'."

How was God comforting the world by destroying everyone on it?


185 posted on 01/03/2005 3:07:39 PM PST by kidkosmic1 (www.InterviewwithGod.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: kidkosmic1
How was God comforting the world by destroying everyone on it?

By destroying evil and replacing it with a covenant. God promises mere mortals. What an amazing event.

186 posted on 01/03/2005 3:14:43 PM PST by Raycpa (Alias, VRWC_minion,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: PFC; Dr. Eckleburg
If you believe God, why do you not believe 2Timothy 3:16?

Which parts of God's word besides 2Timothy 3:16 do you think are not inspired by Him?

The Bible is infallible and inerrant. In its entirety, it has no mistakes because it was written by God.

187 posted on 01/03/2005 3:15:49 PM PST by suzyjaruki (Love God and do as you please - Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
Left to ourselves, we cannot chose anything but sin.

Precisely. All men are fallen and dead in sin and trespass through the imputed sin of the first Adam.

"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God." -- Romans 3:9-11

None can choose righteousness unless and until God first regenerates his deadened heart.

188 posted on 01/03/2005 3:25:52 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: suzyjaruki
If you believe God, why do you not believe 2Timothy 3:16?

Since I've already said I don't think the Bible is the perfect word of God, quoting scripture saying it is, won't be very effective.

Trust me on this, others have tried this with me. I have a very deep love for God. I live my life as a gift from Him. I believe in prayer (Though my prayers are for God to help me a better person, not to try to get God to do things.) I believe that I am put here to do good works.

But I read and studied the book very thoroughly and do not believe that God wrote it.

189 posted on 01/03/2005 3:37:23 PM PST by PFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

Comment #190 Removed by Moderator

To: PFC

Oh sorry, I didn't understand, I thought you believed in the God of Christianity, the God of the Bible.


191 posted on 01/03/2005 3:54:02 PM PST by suzyjaruki (Love God and do as you please - Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI; xzins; P-Marlowe; Corin Stormhands; Starwind; Revelation 911

It is a reality that many Calvinists are not fond of 'natural law' and it is true that the concept of natural law does not fit well with the concept of total depravity; at least as it is advocated by most of the Calvinists that are a part of the GRPL.


192 posted on 01/03/2005 3:56:46 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Don't start a battle of wits you cannot win.


193 posted on 01/03/2005 3:59:35 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
I don't think its up to us to bring God glory. Pleasure, maybe.

1Cor 10:31 "Whatever you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God"

Matt 5:16, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven".

Rom 4:20, (Abraham) did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God,

If glory, no and pleasure maybe, why do you think He created us?

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.

Isn't that the question of the thread though? I am not deciding...but duducing.....who chooses and who should get the credit for salvation of men? The thought is how can person A logically get the most credit (glory) for an accomplishment involving person B?

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.

Yes...slave to sin or spiritually dead. The latter is more illustrative.

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.

Agreed...without a correct choice from a spiritually dead sin enslaved person the deal can not be completed and therefore Christ's atonement is not complete and adequate by itself. Beyond reason.

194 posted on 01/03/2005 4:06:27 PM PST by griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

"By destroying evil and replacing it with a covenant."

Right, as God said, a change of plans. He was sorry that He made man. They were wicked, and He destroyed them.

However, God declared on other occassions that He was going to destroy a wicked generation or people, and then TURNED from it (i.e. repented).

Numbers 14
11 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?

12 I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they. [The same thing God said in Exodus 32 but didn't do it!]

13 And Moses said unto the LORD, Then the Egyptians shall hear it, (for thou broughtest up this people in thy might from among them;) [The same argument Moses used in Exodus 32!]

19 Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.

20 And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word: [And not according to His declaration in passage 12 above!]

According to thy word. He pardoned according to the word of Moses. IMPOSSIBLE??? No. NOT impossible...hang on!

The Lord is angry with wicked Israel again. But this time...

Jeremiah 15
1 Then said the LORD unto me, Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people: cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth.

6 Thou hast forsaken me, saith the LORD, thou art gone backward: therefore will I stretch out my hand against thee, and destroy thee; I am weary with repenting.

Israel had become so wicked, not even Moses could change God's mind (as he had now obviously done before). God had become weary of turning away from His justified wrath.

The Israelites were doing things so wicked, that they didn't even enter the mind of God. He did not forsee such wickedness. Do not take my word for it:

Jeremiah 19
5 They [The Israelites] have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:


195 posted on 01/03/2005 4:06:29 PM PST by kidkosmic1 (www.InterviewwithGod.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: suzyjaruki

More of a Deist in the tradition of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.


196 posted on 01/03/2005 4:07:31 PM PST by PFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
"Don't start a battle of wits you cannot win."

You're proving my previous point. Do any other than the stupid show up unarmed go to battle?. Hahahahaha

197 posted on 01/03/2005 4:09:08 PM PST by Matchett-PI (Today's DemocRATS are either religious moral relativists, libertines or anarchists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

I suppose if your syntax wasn't so awful, you might be worth the entertainment value. It's not worth the effort to engage with one so deficient in grammar.


198 posted on 01/03/2005 4:13:40 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: PFC

If God can throw galaxies around by the handfulls, you don't think it is possible for Him to preserve His unadulturated Word which He gave to Christ's bride, the church?
Christ is the Word made flesh. Does God allow His Word to become corrupt? What are the implications of that? I shudder to think! I guess now you can decide which passages you can keep and which you can toss if the difficulties in study Become too cumbersome? :(


199 posted on 01/03/2005 4:18:26 PM PST by griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: PFC
Naturalism?
I think of Deism as self worship. Is there a difference? How do you know who your god is, unless you have created that god yourself?
200 posted on 01/03/2005 4:19:29 PM PST by suzyjaruki (Love God and do as you please - Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 421-438 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson