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 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 421-438 next last
To: kidkosmic1
You do not believe that God is not immutable. I would guess he is not also omniscient ? He has no foreknowledge of future. He is whimsical and fickle , untrustworthy. he sounds more like a man than God huh?

By your reckoning tomorrow God could change his mind and void the work of the cross and his promises of salvation send all men to hell. The promise of salvation means nothing.

A powerless god victim to his own creation . That is your god not mine .

Meet mine

Psalm 102:25-27 says “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens [are] the work of thy hands.  They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou [art] the same, and thy years shall have no end.”  Also, Malachi 3:6 says “ For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.” And finally, James 1:17 tells us “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”  

He is faithful and I can trust Him to be true to his promises

301 posted on 01/04/2005 12:41:32 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: kiriath_jearim
This is a debate where both sides suffer from self-absorbtion in thinking God has to exist and react in the way some human group wants Him to.

The fact that God knows all things and is outside the limits of our time reality does not limit God. He set in motion the fact that actions (man's) have consequences (sin) and Him watching the consequences unfold in ways that humans disagree with does not stop Him from being God, it makes Him true to His nature.

A square is square and God does not need to intervene and make it round or triangular to satisfy our needs.

302 posted on 01/04/2005 12:42:52 PM PST by patriot_wes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Gamecock; connectthedots
1. Grammar: Traditional Rules, Word Order, Agreement, and Case

§ 61. subjunctive


the forms.  If she were coming, she would be here by now. I insist that the chairman resign! Their main demand was that the lawsuit be dropped. These sentences all contain verbs in the subjunctive mood, which is used chiefly to express the speaker’s attitude about the likelihood or factuality of a given situation. If the verbs were in the indicative mood, we would expect she was coming in the first sentence, the chairman resigns in the second, and the lawsuit is dropped in the third.     1
  English has had a subjunctive mood since Old English times, but most of the functions of the old subjunctive have been taken over by auxiliary verbs like may and should, and the subjunctive survives only in very limited situations. It has a present and past form. The present form is identical to the base form of the verb, so you only notice it in the third person singular, which has no final -s, and in the case of the verb be, which has the form be instead of am, is, and are. The past subjunctive is identical with the past tense except in the case of the verb be, which uses were for all persons: If I were rich …, If he were rich …, If they were rich….     2
  The present subjunctive is most familiar to us in formulaic expressions such as God help him, be that as it may, come what may, and suffice it to say. It also occurs in that clauses used to state commands or to express intentions or necessity:
  We insist that he do the job properly.
  The committee proposes that she be appointed treasurer immediately.
  It is essential that we be informed of your plans.
    3
  Other functions include use in some conditional clauses and clauses that make concessions or express purpose. In these cases the subjunctive carries a formal tone:
  Whether he be opposed to the plan or not, we must seek his opinion.
  Even though he be opposed to the plan, we must try to implement it.
  They are rewriting the proposal so that it not contradict new zoning laws.
    4
  The subjunctive is not required in such sentences, however, and you can use indicative forms if you prefer (whether he is opposed …).     5
  The past subjunctive is sometimes called the were subjunctive, since were is the only subjunctive form that is distinct from the indicative past tense. It appears chiefly in if clauses and in a few other constructions expressing hypothetical conditions:
  If he were sorry, he’d have apologized by now.
  I wish she weren’t going away.
  She’s already acting as if she were going to be promoted.
  Suppose she were to resign, what would you do then?
    6
if clauses—the traditional rules.  According to traditional rules, you use the subjunctive to describe an occurrence that you have presupposed to be contrary to fact: if I were ten years younger, if America were still a British Colony. The verb in the main clause of these sentences must then contain the verb would or (less frequently) should: If I were ten years younger, I would consider entering the marathon. If America were still a British colony, we would all be drinking tea in the afternoon. When the situation described by the if clause is not presupposed to be false, however, that clause must contain an indicative verb. The form of verb in the main clause will depend on your intended meaning: If Hamlet was really written by Marlowe, as many have argued, then we have underestimated Marlowe’s genius. If Kevin was out all day, then it makes sense that he couldn’t answer the phone.     7
  Remember, just because the modal verb would appears in the main clause, this doesn’t mean that the verb in the if clause must be in the subjunctive if the content of that clause is not presupposed to be false: If I was (not were) to accept their offer—which I’m still considering—I would have to start the new job on May 2. He would always call her from the office if he was (not were) going to be late for dinner.     8
  Another traditional rule states that you are not supposed to use the subjunctive following verbs such as ask or wonder in if clauses that express indirect questions, even if the content of the question is presumed to be contrary to fact: We wondered if dinner was (not were) included in the room price. Some of the people we met even asked us if California was (not were) an island.     9
if clauses—the reality.  In practice, of course, many people ignore the rules. In fact, over the last 200 years even well-respected writers have tended to use the indicative was where the traditional rule would require the subjunctive were. A usage such as If I was the only boy in the world may break the rules, but it sounds perfectly natural.     10
subjunctive after wish.  Yet another traditional rule requires you to use were rather than was in a contrary-to-fact statement that follows the verb wish: I wish I were (not was) lighter on my feet. Many writers continue to insist on this rule, but the indicative was in such clauses can be found in the works of many well-known writers.     11
would have for had.  In spoken English, there is a growing tendency to use would have in place of the subjunctive had in contrary-to-fact clauses, such as If she would have (instead of if she had) only listened to me, this would never have happened. But this usage is still widely considered an error in writing. Only 14 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the previously cited sentence, and a similar amount—but 16 percent—accepts it in the sentence I wish you would have told me about this sooner.     12
didn’t for hadn’t.  In speech people often substitute didn’t for the subjunctive hadn’t in if clauses, such as If I didn’t have (instead of if I hadn’t had) my seatbelt on, I would be dead. This usage is also considered nonstandard, however. Seventy-one percent of the Usage Panel rejects it, although 18 percent feel it is acceptable in informal contexts.     13
hadn’t have.  Another subjunctive form that is sometimes used in speech but is usually edited out of Standard English is the intrusive have occurring in negative constructions, as in We would have been in real trouble if it hadn’t have been for you. In speech this have is always reduced, as hadn’t a’. The hadn’t have construction often appears in conjunction with the verb happen, as in He would have been in real trouble if I hadn’t have happened to be there where standard practice requires if I hadn’t been there. The Usage Panel has little affection for hadn’t have in these situations; 91 percent of panelists find it unacceptable.     14
  More at should and wish.     15


The American Heritage® Book of English Usage. Copyright © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
 

303 posted on 01/04/2005 12:43:38 PM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Try Augustine.


304 posted on 01/04/2005 12:54:52 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: xzins; P-Marlowe
There are two concepts here; God either repents (changes His mind) or He doesn’t repent. Scripture is used in both aspects raising a seemingly contradiction. I would assume we would all agree there are no contradictions within scriptures so how do you reconcile these verses? Which view is correct?

We know that it says:

“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

“God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” Num 23:19

The verse in 1 Sam is very clear and there is no room for interpretation in my mind nor has one ever been offered that I’m aware of. The verse in Numbers contains a promise. God will make good on His promises and God will do what He said He will do because He is not like man in that He lies or repents. If we assume God indeed can repent like marlow has suggested then we must assume based upon the promise of Numbers God will not always make good on His promises.

Most of the other passages which says God repented can be reconciled by simply looking up the correct word in Hebrew or viewing the context and surrounding verses (like in Jeremiah). I don’t have my notes available at the moment but most of the words “repent” is generally translated God was “sorry” or “grieved” as listed above. This is a far cry from changing one’s mind.

I know before I became a Calvinist I went round and round these passages of text. Never in my 30+ years as a Christian have I’ve ever believed or read where God could repent of something He has done. To say so is to say God makes mistakes and God does not make mistakes. And if God could look down "through time" to see who would and would not be saved, couldn't He peek to see what the right decisions would be?

305 posted on 01/04/2005 12:58:29 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Thank you for posting, "Does God Change His Mind?".

God is exalted, the Lord is exalted on high! He is self-existent and absolutely independent, an Infinite Being, above even the possibility of change.

306 posted on 01/04/2005 12:58:36 PM PST by suzyjaruki (Love God and do as you please - Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

You are right, I do not believe that God has 2 wills. There is only one and it is perfect. However all of God's will is not revealed to us here.

Jesus spoke of his Fathers will, not wills.

The fact that Piper or Harley believe that God has 2 wills is not a matter of salvation

Those that want to read Pipers position on this can find it here .

http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/2wills.html

and another view

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/appendix_01.htm


Quote of the day

People who are not well grounded in the Bible take umbrage at the idea that God actually hardened Pharaoh's heart. Now, it is interesting to note that Pharaoh did not complain that God had hardened his heart. Pharaoh was quite satisfied. But others complain for him.
- Gordon Clark


307 posted on 01/04/2005 1:07:00 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; xzins
Really? Two wills, huh? So you agree that God really desires that all men be saved? That's his one will?

But he just doesn't save everyone because of his other will?

Did Augustine actually write that down somewhere?

308 posted on 01/04/2005 1:08:03 PM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; xzins
God either repents (changes His mind) or He doesn’t repent.

Where does it say that when God "repents" he changes his mind?

I sure didn't say that? The scriptures say quite explicitly that God does not change his mind. They also say quite explicitly that God has repented. So obviously repent does not mean to "change your mind". As far as it concerns God, it obvoiusly means something different.

309 posted on 01/04/2005 1:11:29 PM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
He does not know the free will choices >>

Can someone here please define for me what you mean by "free will"?
310 posted on 01/04/2005 1:32:55 PM PST by chronic_loser (The mindless violence of 99% of Muslims give a bad name to the rest of Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; RnMomof7

"God is not the lint behind your sofa cushions, although He created the sofa, the cushions and the lint."

I didn't say that. God is everything - both what we know and what we will never know, the physical universe and whatever is beyond that also. The piece of lint behind my sofa is minute particle of God's being but the piece of lint is not God; a single hair on my arm is a apart of me but I am not a piece of hair.

"To say God equals His creation elevates the creature to the status of the Creator."

I don't think so. A drop of water in the ocean is a part of the ocean, but it is not the ocean itself. Even an atheist is humbled by the incomprehensible vastness of the physical universe and the physical universe (i.e. what we can know through our senses, scientific instruments, etc.) is perhaps only a very small part of God's being.


311 posted on 01/04/2005 1:40:59 PM PST by Avenger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; HarleyD; xzins

*YAWN* Here we go again...


312 posted on 01/04/2005 1:45:41 PM PST by Frumanchu (I fear the sanctions of the Mediator far above the sanctions of the moderator...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Avenger
The Creator and His creation are two separate entities.

Respectfully, whether you know it or not, you're espousing heresy.

313 posted on 01/04/2005 1:50:00 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: Avenger
I don't think so. A drop of water in the ocean is a part of the ocean, but it is not the ocean itself. Even an atheist is humbled by the incomprehensible vastness of the physical universe and the physical universe (i.e. what we can know through our senses, scientific instruments, etc.) is perhaps only a very small part of God's being.

But the ocean is made up of those drops.. your theology leads to god being the sum total of his created parts.. yes heresy

314 posted on 01/04/2005 2:30:32 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins
"Where does it say that when God "repents" he changes his mind?"

Webster defines repent as:

a : to feel regret or contrition b : to change one's mind

I have ALWAYS heard repent used in the second sense or to "change direction" (e.g. God changed His mind.). But in fairness, looking back through these posts are you using the term "repent" in the first sense? (e.g. God felt regret.) Which term are you using? How do you use repent in terms of God?

315 posted on 01/04/2005 3:12:10 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; xzins
Which term are you using? How do you use repent in terms of God?

So now we rely on Websters to resolve our spiritual paradoxes, huh? I don't think we can or should turn to a secular dictionary to resolve this dilemma.

If the Bible explicitly says that God "repented" and if the Bible explicitly states that God does not change his mind, then obviously where it concerns God, to "repent" does not mean to "change one's mind."

By your dictionary we are left with regret or contrition, which would imply that God made a mistake. But God does not make mistakes, does he?

I don't think Webster's is going to resolve the paradox.

Do you deny that God "repented"? If not then are you willing to pick from "a" or "b"?

Or do you think that maybe there's some things we mortals just can't understand?

316 posted on 01/04/2005 3:23:51 PM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins
"Or do you think that maybe there's some things we mortals just can't understand?"

Well if we "mortals" can't define what the word "repent" means we might as well throw out the Bible. You asked me where I got my definition. To be perfectly honest I didn't get it from Webster but from the Navigators. They must have got it from Webster.

317 posted on 01/04/2005 3:29:40 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: PFC

"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." ~ PFC

"Moral relativism" is when everyone does what is right in his own eyes, and that will be based upon (subject to) "the situation".

And I have plenty of evidence for the conclusions I come to. You have previously said that you don't believe that God wrote the Bible; to wit:

"..I read and studied the book very thoroughly and do not believe that God wrote it. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1312985/posts?page=189#189

So from where do you get your ideas about what is "good"? What if someone else has different ideas about "good"? Who decides who is right? Who constitutes the court of final arbitration for you? You???

If you say yes, be aware that you are admitting that you have no OBJECTIVE standard of right and wrong to rely upon. That is moral relativism, my friend. http://www.carm.org/relativism.htm

And here's more:

You wrote here that you are a Deist in the tradition of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1312985/posts?page=196#196

Really????

Here is MORE of the type of EVIDENCE I use to arrive at my conclusions:

Deist: One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason. God is personal and transcendent but not immanent. He is a sort of "remote control" God. He "pushed a button" to create everythng and now passively watches what happens. He's a "hands off" God. This view acknowledges God but denies supernational intervention in the universe.

Ben Franklin is one of the 55 Framers of the Constitution - See here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1312985/posts?page=270#270

Benjamin Franklin, Christian in his youth, Deist in later years, then back to his Puritan background in his old age (his June 28, 1787 prayer at the Constitutional Convention was from no "Deist") http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/america's-foundation.htm


"We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that built it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that ____without His concurring aid____, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel." Benjamin Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, 6-28-1787.

NOTICE: This is not the "distant hand's off God" of the Deist.

"Thomas Jefferson, religious freak" by James Freeman - USA Today July 10, 2000
http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/columnists/freeman/ncjf81.htm

....."Jefferson was a big believer in religious liberty, but he certainly wasn't shy about mentioning God in official proceedings. In the final paragraph of the Declaration (available at http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm), Jefferson asks twice _____for God's help_____ in creating the country. ....."

NOTICE: This is not the "distant hand's off God" of the Deist.


318 posted on 01/04/2005 3:38:09 PM PST by Matchett-PI (Today's DemocRATS are either religious moral relativists, libertines or anarchists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; xzins
Well if we "mortals" can't define what the word "repent" means we might as well throw out the Bible.

Talk about an overreaction. Sheesh.

Ok. Don't have a hissy fit. We'll use Websters, if it is the only way to save the Bible from destruction.

The Bible states clearly that God "repented." Which definition of "repent" do you stand upon. Did God change his mind, or did he feel regret or contrition? You don't have any other choice, since you insist on relying upon Webster's. So which is it?

Or do you reject the notion altogether that God "repented"?

The burden is on you to express your view on this subject. I don't know what it means when it says that God "repented". I believe that he did, because the Bible explicitly says that he did. But what was God actually "thinking"? What does it mean when God "Repents"? We are not told.

So give us the HarleyD orthodox answer so that we may all be numbered either with the Harley Orthodoxes or Harley Heretics.

319 posted on 01/04/2005 3:40:28 PM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Perhaps I am unclear as to where you are going. I personally believe in God. Do I think that it is NECESSARY to be a good person to believe in God. The answer to that question is 'No' because there are atheists I know whose actions were "good" by most ethical standards or norms. You may call that moral relativism to me, it really doesn't matter what label you give it. I'd put there are actions up against others who claimed to be devout and saved by God.

But I am not an atheist, not because of what I read in the Bible but because I have seen God's work all around me. After thoroughly studying the Bible, I see things that don't make sense. I could follow the theologists who say what I read is not what it really says. Of course what they say it actually and clearly says varies depending on their sect. (The article at the beginning of this thread is a good example - both believe everything the Bible says is true but think what it says is different.) Or I can say, the book has errors, therefore it is not written by God.

320 posted on 01/04/2005 4:17:12 PM PST by PFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 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