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 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 421-438 next last
To: Mad Dawg
There are many interpretations of God and His abilities. The singular fact exists that in all of those interpretations we have a human being explaining God. If the belief is that God is above all that man can understand or know, it follows that our attempts to dissect God to the point of comprehension are futile. I want my God to be all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent and totally sovereign. If He is less, than I am more and I am very flawed. That just won't work.
281 posted on 01/04/2005 9:25:04 AM PST by elephantlips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; xzins
...Nor a son of man, that He should repent;...
There is no wiggle room for interpretation. The scriptures clearly says God does not repent.

Actually there is a little wiggle room Harley, and it simply isn't as clear as you would like it to be. The verse says that he is not a son of man that he should repent. All sons of men are required to repent, but not all do. God is not required to repent, as man is. But apparently he did.

282 posted on 01/04/2005 10:04:02 AM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots

If my grammar is correct, "wasn't" should properly be "weren't".


283 posted on 01/04/2005 10:12:56 AM PST by Gamecock (Exurge, Calvinisti, et judica causam tuam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; HarleyD; Raycpa; rwfromkansas
You guys are just dancing around this issue--it's not intellectually or even spiritually honest. rwfromkansas is running around calling people heretics as if it somehow serves the Lord to do so. Well, it serves Him as much as dunking folks under a lake in a chair did. At least rwfromkansas has downgraded me to "ignorant," but he hasn't repented, regretted, grieved, or even sighed for calling me a heretic earlier. Wonderful.

First, I was taking the Bible too literally and not filtering what I read through orthodox teachings. Then, someone found their Strong's Concordance and decided I wasn't reading what the Bible literally said. "Repent means to comfort" Wait! "Repent means to sigh." Actually, context is the key. So, let's look at Strong's to see if I have not used a verse in its proper context:

REPENT nacham {naw-kham'}

1) to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
a) (Niphal)
1) to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
2) to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
4) to comfort oneself, ease oneself
b) (Piel) to comfort, console
c) (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled
d) (Hithpael)
1) to be sorry, have compassion
2) to rue, repent of
3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
4) to ease oneself

Gen 6:6: And it repented (05162 nacham) the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved (06087 `atsab) him at his heart.

NIV
"The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."

NASB
"The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart."

KJV "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

NKJV
"And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart."

Darby
"And Jehovah repented that he had made Man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart."

This one is easy, yes? God was sorry that He made man and it grieved His heart. This God said in Genesis 6. But, just a few chapters back, in chapter 1 of Genesis, God said everything He made was "very good." Not flawed, not heading for heartache, not wicked, not so-so--very good.

We know what happened: man sinned. This downfall of man was not according to God's will because He told Adam in Genesis 2:17 not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. That was God's plainly stated will. To say otherwise is a gross contradiction.

After the fall, man kept sinning. It got worse, and worse, and worse. How bad did it get? The Lord saw that the thoughts of man's heart was only evil continually. Was this God's will for man my Calvinite brothers?

No, this wickedness was not by God's design, nor did He desire such a thing. How do I know? Let's go back to Genesis 6 now...

"And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." God was sorry that He made man and it grieved His heart. Then what?

"So the LORD said, 'I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.'"

Why would God be sorry that He made man if they were made and were acting in accordance with God's divine will? Why did God call everything He made very good and then decide to destroy man and beast (excepting the Ark's passengers) because He was sorry that He made them?

God was sorry He made man and flooded the world because things were not going as He desired them to go. This is not good Calvinist doctrine, I know, but it is clearly the record of Scripture.

Another quick example to show this is the correct take...
I Samuel 15:11: It repenteth (05162 nacham) me that I have set up Saul [to be] king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments."

Same as in Genesis 6. God set up Saul as King of Israel. He desired for Saul to follow Him and obey His commandments (that's God's desire for man) Saul didn't obey or follow, and the Lord...

I Samuel 15:35:

NIV
"And the LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel."

NASB
"And the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel."

KJV "...and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel."

ESV
"And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel."

NKJV
"...and the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel."

Darby
"...and Jehovah repented that he had made Saul king over Israel."

Then what? God made a change. He regretted or was grieved by His choice of Saul, and picked another to be king (David).

God doesn't lie. God is trustworthy. But, in opposition to Calvinistic doctrine, God hopes for and desires things that do not come to pass. Wicked mankind was grievously disobedient (i.e. acting outside the will of God), so God sent the flood. Saul was wicked and disobedient (i.e. acting outside the very plainly spoken will of God), so God picked another man to replace him.

The Lord has the power to make things come to pass, but this sometimes requires that He alter His plans along the way....

Jeremiah 18:7-10 (emphasis mine)
The instant I speak [God expresses His will] concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent [God will do differently than He said He would] of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak [God expresses His will] concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it [God's plans and designs], if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it [God will change His plans].

I posted the above yesterday, but it was neatly ignored.

So, take your pick--am I ignorant, heretical, maybe both? Or, or...perhaps I have presented something worthy of more investigation and consideration.
284 posted on 01/04/2005 10:15:00 AM PST by kidkosmic1 (www.InterviewwithGod.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Your uninformed personal opinion is at odds with Scripture, the Framers of our Constitution, and the Rule of Law that undergirds it. The Founders of this country did NOT view man as being "basically good" - quite the opposite. Here - this ought to get you up to speed (Second "up-to-speed post coming up): Actually what you said was basically evil and needing God to redeem us"

I did not commit to anything. Then you brought forth examples of why the framers set up their government the way they did to offer proof that they thought man was basically bad. (Never saying once how you thought this would prove that they believed only God could redeem them btw). I would say that they weren't making a judgement on the basic evil nature of man but the ability of some to be evil and others to be fooled.

The full answer to your question is that I have met many people who were good people in that they acted selflessly and had real caring for their fellow man, acted in a moral manner who were atheists. So it is hard for me to square that with someone who is "basically evil". And even they sometimes mentionned a belief in somethin. And I have known hedonistic bastards who have been transformed by the belief and prayer to a Higher Power - but not always the God of the Bible. I have friends of faith including Orthodox Jews, Southern Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, Anglican, etc. And also a couple of Buddhists and Hindus. And with all of them, their faith in whatever they believe pushes them to be better people. So I am not anti-religion by any means. I believe the teachings of Christ offer some of the best morals. My wife is Catholic and our children are being raised in that faith. That doesn't mean that I agree with all of the Church's positions but I don't bash it.

What I can't believe is that simply because someone does not practice the same faith or is not Christian is basically evil. That is why I evaded your question.

285 posted on 01/04/2005 10:22:38 AM PST by PFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: kidkosmic1
kid, the main problem is that you have to make an underlying assumption about God's omniscience (or lack thereof) in order to argue that these passages necessarily mean what you claim them to.

Would you not agree, assuming for a moment that God is in fact omniscient and omnipotent, that a perfectly righteous and holy God would be grieved by the sin of His creation even if He already perfectly foreknew it would happen? I am fairly certain that my mother will die before me one day. That will not stop me from grieving over the event, even if I "see it coming" well ahead of time.

The passage in Jeremiah draws similar conclusions. You assume that because He presents a choice that He does not therefore know which will be chosen or how to plan ahead of time and must "alter His plan."

God doesn't lie. God is trustworthy. But, in opposition to Calvinistic doctrine, God hopes for and desires things that do not come to pass. Wicked mankind was grievously disobedient (i.e. acting outside the will of God), so God sent the flood. Saul was wicked and disobedient (i.e. acting outside the very plainly spoken will of God), so God picked another man to replace him.

Do you honestly think that God did not know beforehand that Saul would do as He did and in fact chose to allow Him to be king specifically for the purpose of juxtaposing His reign and actions against that of David? Or was Saul just a divine crap shoot?

So what measure of foreknowledge does God have, or do you not believe He has any?

286 posted on 01/04/2005 10:41:08 AM PST by Frumanchu (I fear the sanctions of the Mediator far above the sanctions of the moderator...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins
And how would you wiggle out of:

"Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind." 1 Sam 15:29

287 posted on 01/04/2005 11:12:22 AM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

I saw that, too.


288 posted on 01/04/2005 11:15:47 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: PFC
"I did not commit to anything."

I guess what I inferred from your comment was off the mark, then, huh? :) If so, please excuse my lack of discernment.

"Then you brought forth examples of why the framers set up their government the way they did to offer proof that they thought man was basically bad. (Never saying once how you thought this would prove that they believed only God could redeem them btw). I would say that they weren't making a judgement on the basic evil nature of man but the ability of some to be evil and others to be fooled."

Number 1: You aren't a careful reader - better re-read my first post. Number 2: We're not taking about the subject of "redemption". Number 3: My personal opinions are totally immaterial. What's under examination is the underlying premise for our founding documents, not anyone's opinion about the implications of that premise, a premise which is a proven fact (look again at what underlies our copyright laws in my first post).

"The full answer to your question is that I have met many people who were good people in that they acted selflessly and had real caring for their fellow man, acted in a moral manner who were atheists. ...."

"Good" in whose eyes? Yours? Theirs? Other moral relativists who judge right and wrong based upon the situation? Lots of luck. :) "What I can't believe is that simply because someone does not practice the same faith or is not Christian is basically evil. That is why I evaded your question."

No one is asking you to BELIEVE it. I don't CARE whether or not you believe it. What you believe is God's business, not mine. Don't be so defensive.

I merely posted what I did to show that anyone who believes that people are "basically good", are at odds with what the Framers of our founding documents believed.

The belief that man is "basically good" is also at odds with common sense. If that was the case, little children wouldn't have to be taught not to lie, steal, etc.,etc., it would just ___come naturally___ to them and they wouldn't have to fight every day of their lives to "try" and love their neighbor as much as they love themselves.

Let's not kid ourselves.

289 posted on 01/04/2005 11:22:02 AM PST by Matchett-PI (Today's DemocRATS are either religious moral relativists, libertines or anarchists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; P-Marlowe

Harley, you are the guy who always insists on following scripture. Now...you can tinker with the interpretation of those below, but you should admit that the other side has a legitimate question. You have gone totally to the side of the verse that says that God doesn't repent. In that case, what do you do with these....say they aren't in the bible? Of course not, you interpret their meaning.

Ge 6:7 - Show Context
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

1Sa 15:11 - Show Context
It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

Joe 2:13 - Show Context
And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.


290 posted on 01/04/2005 11:26:15 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

That was ridiculous.


291 posted on 01/04/2005 11:36:05 AM PST by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: kidkosmic1; RnMomof7; Raycpa; rwfromkansas
This dribble of your's about God "repenting" is believed by Open Theist. It has nothing to do with Calvinism though I can see how you would like to make this an Arminian/Calvinist issue. There are many non-Calvinists who do not believe in God repenting.

"Why would God be sorry that He made man if they were made and were acting in accordance with God's divine will?"

God has two wills. His plan include things that He permits but He does not like. He is sorry that it has to be like this but it must be for whatever His divine reasoning hold.

If this seems stupid I would remind you of the story of Elisha and Hazael (2 King 8) in which the Lord showed Elisha that Hazael would be king but Elisha knew the evil that Hazael would cause. God knew that Hazael would burn the villages, kill children and women, etc. God didn't tell Elisha to go and kill Hazael before he could cause this great evil. God let it happened. And because He is the one who sets up kings God made it happened. Do you think that God "repented" that He made Hazael king?

If God changes His mind then our salvation is suspect. What happens if tomorrow God changes His mind about that? What happens if God changes His mind about the mode of salvation?

Open theist is heresy of the worst sort abscribing man's attributes to God. To say otherwise contradicts God's own words in Numbers and 1 Samuel. Of course I have seen no interpretation for those verses. The early church fathers never once felt God "changed His mind" and I'm shocked, though not surprise, to see some of our Arminian friend say otherwise.

Anyone who entertains such a notion has a VERY poor concept of God and a poor understanding of God's word.

292 posted on 01/04/2005 12:07:06 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
"The full answer to your question is that I have met many people who were good people in that they acted selflessly and had real caring for their fellow man, acted in a moral manner who were atheists. ...."

"Good" in whose eyes? Yours? Theirs? Other moral relativists who judge right and wrong based upon the situation? Lots of luck.

You kind of like putting words in my mouth, either that or jumping to conclusions without evidence. If someone does not lie, cheat, steal, hurt others, is faithful, is good to others, etc. - those are pretty standard societal mores. Not exactly the typical moral relativism of anything goes.

293 posted on 01/04/2005 12:12:39 PM PST by PFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; xzins
And how would you wiggle out of:

I'm not wiggling out of anything. I'm just stating the facts.

The scripture does not say that God "changed his mind" but it does state in several places that he "repented." Thus, there is clearly a distinction between changing your mind and repenting. I'm not sure what that distinction is with regard to God, but then I can't explain the trinity either.

When the scripture says in several places that God "repented" and then states in one single place that he is not the son of man that he SHOULD repent, it is clear that while God is not obligated to repent (as are all sons of men), nevertheless God has in times past "repented" of that which he had either done or had purposed to do.

Those are the facts. The question is what do you do with the facts once you have established them? Some pretend that the facts are not what they are and pretend that either God actually does "change his mind" (which could be said to border on heresy) or in the alternative ignore those verses where it is clear that God "repented" (which also could be said to border on heresy). (One man's orthodoxy is another man's heresy).

Perhaps on this question the best interpretation is one in which we admit that we aren't really sure how it all works. Simply stated, "God repents but he does not change his mind." Period.

Next problem?

294 posted on 01/04/2005 12:22:13 PM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; kidkosmic1; RnMomof7; Raycpa; rwfromkansas; xzins
God has two wills.

Do you think that most Calvinists would agree with that statement?

Other than Piper, is there any other renowned Calvinist that makes that assertion?

295 posted on 01/04/2005 12:30:24 PM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Your grammar is incorrect.


296 posted on 01/04/2005 12:32:05 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
Re 221

"Please show me how a dead person can make a correct choice."

I have already said it is beyond reason. A spiritually dead person can not reach out to God. I don't see where a disagreement is here between our two positions.

"Only God can bring Glory, not sinners."

On this we do disagree. Our only function on earth is to bring glory to God. Sinners can not...their works are as filthy rags to the Lord, but those alive in Christ can and do bring Him Glory....just as commanded in the 1Cor verse I gave you. The bible states Abraham gave Glory to God in Rom 4:20. We give Glory to God during worship on Sunday, corporately and in private whenever you pray. Have you never read John Piper's Desiring God? It is not scripture, but Piper is a good reformed theologian.

Anyway, thanks for the review of my post.

297 posted on 01/04/2005 12:39:17 PM PST by griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: kidkosmic1

Does God Change His Mind?

by Wayne Jackson
Christian Courier:


Some Bible passages affirm that God does not “change.” Other texts, however, appear to suggest that he does – especially in response to human activity. How does one reconcile these seeming discrepancies?


“How does one reconcile those passages which state that God does not change (e.g., Mal. 3:6), with others that seem to suggest that he does alter his course of action? One example is found in Exodus 32:14, which says: ‘And the Lord repented of the evil which he said he would do unto his people.’”

To begin with, it is important to refresh our minds with those principles that identify an actual discrepancy. The “law of contradiction,” briefly stated, is this: A thing cannot both be, and not be:


for the same object;

at the same time;

in the same sense.


To summarize: If different objects, time frames, or language usage should characterize statements that appear to contradict, there may be a perfectly reasonable resolution to the seeming problem.

With these premises in view, let us consider some biblical facts.


Scripture teaches the concept of God’s immutability, i.e., the notion that his essence, character, and will are stable and perfect. Thus, while ordinary things undergo transformation, the changeless Creator does not. He is the same forever (see Psa. 102:26-27). With the Lord there can be “no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning” (Jas. 1:17 ASV; cf. Heb. 13:8).

To suggest that God is whimsical – constantly changing his mind, as such fluctuations are characteristic of humanity – is to reflect upon the very nature of divine being.


The fact that God is omniscient also enters into this subject. The concept of omniscience suggests that the Lord knows everything there is to know – past, present, and future. He has never “learned” anything, nor has he “discovered” a new fact. He is never “surprised” by what men may do. He knows our thoughts (cf. Heb 4:12-13), and the very intricacies of our bodies (Psa. 139:1ff; Mt. 10:30). Not even a bird falls to the earth without his awareness of the event (Mt. 10:29).

As noted above, divine omniscience extends also into the future. One of the dramatic differences between the true God, and those that are false, i.e., mere inventions of illusory minds, is Jehovah’s ability to see the future. The prophets of the Old Testament challenged their heathen rivals: “Declare the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods?” (Isa. 41:23). The hundreds of prophecies that adorn the pages of the Bible are astounding evidence of the Lord’s foreknowledge.

In view of this amazing attribute, it is impossible to conclude that the Creator of the Universe vacillates back and forth, doing one thing now, then later changing his mind – in any literal sense of that expression.


It is a fact, however, that the Scriptures frequently employ figures of speech that seem to suggest that God alters his actions in response to man’s behavior. The passage in Exodus 32 is an excellent example of this sort of phraseology.

While Moses was upon the heights of Sinai, receiving the Ten Commandments, the children of Israel, in the region below, made an idol, a molten calf, and proclaimed it as their deliverer from Egypt. The corrupt act was wholly antagonistic to the will of God, and the Lord proclaimed his intention to “consume” them. Moses, as a mediator, interceded and pled with Jehovah to not destroy them. Accordingly, the biblical text represents God’s response in this fashion:


“Jehovah repented of the evil [destruction] which he said he would do unto his people” (Ex. 32:14).

The term “repented” reflects a figure of speech, common to many languages, known as anthropopathism (literally, man feelings). This is an idiom by which divine activity is described symbolically in terms of human emotion. It is rather similar to the kindred figure, anthropomorphism (man form) by which God is described as having physical parts (e.g., eyes, hands, etc.) even though he is not a physical being (Jn. 4:24; Lk. 24:39).

Anthropopathism, therefore, is a figure of speech by which human feelings or emotions are ascribed to God, in order to accommodate man’s ignorance of the unfathomable intentions and operations of deity (cf. Rom. 11:33-36). Professor Alan Cole has an excellent discussion of this figure as employed in the Exodus text under consideration.


“[Anthropopathism is a figure here used] by which God’s activity is explained, by analogy, in strictly human terms. The meaning is not that God changed His mind; still less that He regretted something that He had intended to do. It means, in biblical language, that He now embarked on a different course of action from that already suggested as a possibility, owing to some new factor which is usually mentioned in the context. In the Bible, it is clear that God’s promises and warnings are always conditional on man’s response: this is most clearly set out in Ezekiel 33:13-16. We are not to think of Moses as altering God’s purpose towards Israel by his prayer, but as carrying it out: Moses was never more like God than in such moments, for he shared God’s mind and loving purpose” (Exodus – Tyndale O.T. Commentaries, Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1973, p. 217; emphasis added).

It must be understood, therefore, that though certain biblical passages speak of the Lord being “changeless,” while others represent him as “changing” (in response to human conduct), that different senses are in view. In light of this fact, the “discrepancy” problem dissolves. But when one does not understand some of the common figures of speech utilized by the Bible writers, under the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit, he most certainly will draw many faulty conclusions – sometimes very dangerous ones.

Human languages are punctuated with dramatic figures of speech. This phenomenon is no less true in the case of the Scriptures than it is with other literary productions. A failure to recognize this principle leads to numerous flawed ideas.

http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/changingMindQuestion.htm


298 posted on 01/04/2005 12:39:18 PM PST by RnMomof7 (because I'm good enough , and smart enough and darn it I deserve it ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Sproul


299 posted on 01/04/2005 12:40:33 PM PST by griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Blackaby (sp?)


300 posted on 01/04/2005 12:41:19 PM PST by griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 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