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 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 421-438 next last
To: RnMomof7; Dr. Eckleburg

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

Excellent, then perhaps I am getting closer to the truth. Commiting heresy is absolutely the last thing I am worried about and if I am then at least I take comfort in being in good company.

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

Perhaps the whole is greater than the sum of its parts? In any case, I am not equating God with this physical world. There are certainly aspects of God's being that reach far beyond what you would call "creation."


321 posted on 01/04/2005 4:32:35 PM PST by Avenger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins
"So give us the HarleyD orthodox answer so that we may all be numbered either with the Harley Orthodoxes or Harley Heretics."

Well, I don't wish to sound like I'm having a "hissy fit". (Could you define that please? :O) )

I personally think you must take the verses of 1 Samuel and Numbers for what they say. They are plain and consistent with our understanding of God. In all other verses I think God, our loving Father, grieves with His creation. But this does not negate carrying out His sovereign will which must be done because of who God is.

God perfect plan made Saul king to carry out His divine plan. He was sorry He made Saul king but God did not cease to carry out His will. God could have told Samuel on the day He told him who to annoint but it might have seen pretty strange to say "I'm sorry I made Saul king." while Samuel was crowning him. Even from your Arminian perspective you might as well throw "those whom He foreknew..." out the window for you would be saying God did not foreknew Saul or how he would act. And I don't think that is what you're saying at all.

To me this whole Open Theist talk boils down to not having a systematic theology in place. You carry this to its natural conclusion and you might as well be worshiping the Greek gods who make mistakes and have human traits.

322 posted on 01/04/2005 4:36:51 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; xzins
I personally think you must take the verses of 1 Samuel and Numbers for what they say.

Which is exactly what I have done. I think the danger lies in trying to explain the paradox, i.e., that God's plan made God sorry. If indeed God had foreordained and predestined that Saul was going to be a bad king, then God would not be sorry that Saul was made king, as it would have "pleased" God not only to make Saul king, but to make him a lousy king to boot.

OTOH, if God didn't know that Saul was going to be a lousy king, then it would be pretty plain as to why God was sorry that he would have made him to be one.

Since God knew all along that Saul would make a lousy king, so much so that he would have "repented" of his decision to ordain him, then there is something else at work here that is difficult, if not impossible to properly convey, something beyond our understanding of the words predestine and sorry, something beyond the words foreordain and regret.

Here's one for you...

Jesus wept.

Think about the implications of that for a while.

323 posted on 01/04/2005 5:01:55 PM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: PFC

"...there are atheists I know whose actions were "good" by most ethical standards or norms. ..." PFC

I don't think you comprehended a thing I wrote. UNREAL!

"I could follow the theologists who say what I read is not what it really says." PFC

I can completely understand why they might say that, after my experience with you so far.

"Of course what they say it actually and clearly says varies depending on their sect. ....Or I can say, the book has errors, therefore it is not written by God." PFC

You can "say" that, but who would believe you were comprehending what you were reading? Not me, that's for sure (for the reasons stated above).

And, of course things are a bit more complicated than I suspect you even begin to realize.

For starters, which one of these Bibles did you read?:

How to Choose a Study Bible - By: John R. Kohlenberger III

Read the introduction.

Introductions usually inform one as to the author, readers, date, origin, and the content of the book or section of the Bible; outlines display the contents of a book.

Introductions and outlines differ in thoroughness and length, but introductions can also differ in perspective.

Those written by conservative scholars take the Bible's self-witness at face value. They agree that Moses wrote all or most of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible), that Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, and that Peter wrote 2 Peter because the books themselves say so.

Most non-conservative or liberal scholars, however, use criteria other than the text of the Bible to evaluate its statements and claims. Thus, most liberal scholars believe that a series of editors wrote the Pentateuch, that a disciple or disciples of Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles, and that 2 Peter was written a good half-century after Peter's death.

As a result, the introductions might be the first place to check to discern whether a study Bible takes a conservative or liberal interpretative perspective.

If the Bible has notes, they often betray an alignment with a particular theological or critical approach to the text.

For instance, the notes in the New Jerusalem and New American Bibles are noticeably Roman Catholic in certain texts.

The notes in the Scofield and Ryrie Bibles are conservative, but they are also dispensational.

The notes in the New Oxford Annotated Bible and the Harper Collins Study Bible take a liberal/critical approach.

The notes in the Dake Bible are pentecostal.

The Catholic study Bibles tend to emphasize the historical dogmas of the church at key texts such as Matt. 16:17-19.

Schofield and Ryrie emphasize distinctions between Isreal and the church and literal fulfillment of prophecy (e.g., Acts 15:15-17).

The New Geneva Bible takes a nondispensational approach at these texts.

Notes in liberal study Bibles often counter the literal understanding of the text (e.g., Josh.10-11) and point out stories and events they feel are contradictory or fabricated (e.g., Judg.1; 1 Chron.21).

Pentecostal and charismatic writers give extra attention to texts dealing with healing or spiritual gifts (e.g., Matt.8:17; Acts2).

Study Bibles reviewed (not an exhaustive list) ( *Not recommended ):

I Subjectively oriented:

A. Conservative Dispensational

1. Companion Bible (Kregel) KJV
2. Ryrie Study Bible (Moody, Expanded Editions) KJV, NASB, NIV
3. Scofield Reference Bible (Oxford) KJV
4. New Scofield Reference Bible (Oxford) KJV, NIV, (World) NASB (Nelson) NKLV

B. Conservative Evangelical

1. Disciple's Study Bible (Broadman & Holman) NIV
2. Harper Study Bible (Zondervan) NASB, NRSV
3. Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (AMG) KJV, NASB
4. Life Application Bible (Tyndale) KJV, LB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV
5. New Student Bible (Zondervan) KJV, NIV, NRSV
6. NIV Study Bible (Zondervan) NIV
7. The Quest Study Bible (Zondervan) NIV
8. Word In LifeStudy Bible ([NT] Nelson) NKJV, NRSV

C. Conservative: Pentecostal / Charismatic

1. * Dake's Annotated Reference Bible (Dake) KJV
2. Full Life Study Bible (Zondervan) KJV, NKJV
3. Spirit-Filled Life Bible (Nelson) KJV, NKJV
4. * The Word Study Bible (Harrison House) KJV

D. Conservative Reformed:

1. New Geneva Study Bible (Nelson) NKJV --- (My choice)

E. Conservative: Wesleyan / Holiness

1. The Wesley Bible (Nelson) NKJV

F. Nonconservative: Mainline Protestant

1. * Cambridge Annotated Study Bible (Cambridge) NRSV
2. * HarperCollins Study Bible (HarperCollins) NRSV
3. * New Oxford Annotated Bible (Oxford) NRSV
4. * Oxford Study Bible (Oxford) REB

G. Nonconservative: Roman Catholic

1. * The Catholic Bible: Personal Study edition (Oxford) NAB
2. * The Catholic Study Bible (Oxford) NAB
3. * New Jerusalem Bible (Doubleday)

II Objectively Oriented (ALL GREAT)

A. Dickenson New Analytical Study Bible (World) KJV

B. New Open Bible (Nelson, Expanded Edition) KJV, NASB, NKJV

C. Thompson Chain-Reference Bible (Kirkbride) KJV, NIV, NASB, NKJV

*
Note: As far as "versions" go, the KJV, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, and the NASB are all dependable and useful for serious study and personal devotions.

===

The preservation and correct assembling of the canon of Scripture was an integral part of the history of redemption itself. Just as God was at work in creation, calling his people Isreal, in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, and in the early work and writings of the apostles, so God was at work in the preservation and assembling together of the books of Scripture for the benefit of his people for the entire church age.

God's greatest revelation to mankind was written down by the apostles.

We have everything we need to know about the life, death and resurrection of Christ, and its meaning for the lives of believers for all time.

No more writings can be added to the Bible after the time of the New Testament.[Heb 1:1-2 Rev.22:18-19]

Only those who don't believe that God is sovereign would doubt his faithfulness to his people and think that he would allow something to be missing from Scripture for almost 2,000 years that he thinks we need to know for obeying him and trusting him fully. The canon of Scripture today is exactly what God wanted it to be, and it will stay that way until Christ returns.

New Testament Canon:

In A.D. 367 the Thirty-ninth Paschal Letter of Athanasius contained an
exact list of the twenty-seven New Testament books we have today. This was
the list of books accepted by the churches in the eastern part of the
Mediterranean world.

Thirty years later, in A.D. 397, the Council of Carthage, representing the
churches in the western part of the Mediterranean world, agreed with the
eastern churches on the same list. These are the earliest final lists of
our canon of Scripture.

"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets;
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son...". [Heb. 1:1-2]

God's speaking to us by his Son is the culmination of his speaking to
mankind and is his greatest and final revelation to mankind.

(The exceptional greatness of the revelation that comes through the Son,
far exceeds any revelation in the Old Covenant as noted over and over again
in the first and second chapters of Hebrews.)

Once the writings of the New Testament apostles and their authorized
companions were completed, we have everything that God wants us to know
about the life, death, & resurrection of Christ, and its meaning for the
lives of believers for all time. In this way Hebrews 1 & 2 shows us why no
more writings can be added to the Bible after the time of the New
Testament. The canon is now closed.

Old Testament Canon:

“Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he [Jesus] expounded unto them in
all the Scripture the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:24; cf. Rom. 1:2)

The entire OT canonical Scriptures are deemed in the following way:

1) the prophets; 2) Moses and the prophets; 3) Moses, the prophets, and the
psalms.

Augustine so shows this in his writings against Cresconius the grammarian:
“Not without cause was the canon of the church framed with so salutary a
vigilance, that certain books of the prophets and apostles should belong to
it.” (Lib. 2. cap. 31);

also “Let them shew us their church, not in the rumors of the Africans, but
in the injunction of the Law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the
songs of the Psalms; that is, in all the canonical authorities of the
sacred books.” (De Unit. Eccles. C. 16.)

That the apocryphal books were not written by the prophets are clear and
certain.

All confess that Malachi was the last Jewish prophet. Between Malachi and
John the Baptist, no other Jewish prophet arose, but the writers of the
apocryphal books lived after Malachi.

The Major premise rests on Scripture: Peter says the OT is the “prophetic
word.” (2 Peter 1:19);

Paul calls it the “scriptures of the prophets” (Romans 16:26);

Zacharias the priest says “As he spake by the mouths of his holy prophets,
which have been since the world began.” (Luke 1:70);

“They have Moses and the Prophets” as Abraham said (Luke 18:39);

Heb. 1:1, “God spake in divers manners by the prophets.”;

the church is built upon the “apostles and prophets” (Eph. 2:20);

“All things must be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in
the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me:” and it follows
immediately, “And he opened their understanding, that they might understand
the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:44-45);

Paul asks Agrippa, “Believest thou the prophets?” ­ that is the Scriptures.
(Acts 26:27);

When Paul dealt with the Jews at Rome he tried to convince them “out of the
law of Moses and the prophets.” (Acts 28:23).

From these we see that the major assertion is true, that the whole OT was
given to us by God’s prophets.

There is no part of the OT which was not given by the prophets.


324 posted on 01/04/2005 5:08:33 PM PST by Matchett-PI (Today's DemocRATS are either religious moral relativists, libertines or anarchists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

Great post.


325 posted on 01/04/2005 5:51:39 PM PST by Raycpa (Alias, VRWC_minion,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: elephantlips
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.

First of all, oh yeah, and certainly.

But then what are we doing when we discuss God? In what way is our conversation meaningful? (I'm looking over my shoulder at stuartcr when I ask this, because, as far as I -- no doubt imperfectly -- recall he introduced the term "absolute" so were getting all philosophical here ...)

Actually, I'm pretty comfortable with saying "God is all powerful, but I'm not sure what that means," but it makes the apologetic enterprise at least interesting.

326 posted on 01/04/2005 5:53:37 PM PST by Mad Dawg (My P226 wants to teach you what SIGnify means ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu

"Or was Saul just a divine crap shoot?"

If God gave humans true free will (and He did), there's risk involved in that extraordinary venture. Otherwise, it's all a facade.

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

God knows everything there is to know. If He says something will come to pass in the future, He will make it come to pass. That might mean some changes along the way (see Saul and Noah for starters).

There is no such thing as free will in modern calvinistic doctrine. Free will is a "divine paradox." It's not free will, but somehow God's not responsible for anything a predestined creature does. Or, it is free will, buuuut not really.

God told Adam not to eat of the forbidden fruit, and He meant it. He didn't want Adam to eat it. He didn't program Adam to eat it. He didn't create Adam knowing He WOULD eat it. Why? God is love. God loved Adam. He sincerely desired for Adam to obey. How can a preprogrammed creation be individually responsible for anything? Wait! Let me guess your answer: "We can't understand that."


327 posted on 01/04/2005 6:06:41 PM PST by kidkosmic1 (www.InterviewwithGod.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
That was ridiculous.

You say that like it's a bad thing .... No, wait, I already said that.

Okay, how about if I just thank you for the compliment?

Look, when you used the term "absolute" and criticized some kinds of theological discourse, and then developed your use of "absolute", I think there were lots and lots of assumptions you were making that are useful to identify. One (which I generally share) is the validity of the empirical method in the natural sciences. (your message #71) Another, and I always get confused talking about this, might be that discourse is ultimately meaningful -- that it matters what you believe, that one can be "right" or "wrong" about the way things are.

I personally think that all these issues are raised when one brings "absolute" into the conversation. Is your entry into this conversation just for kicks or is there some general truth, some 'absolute', you are trying to describe or even proove? Why would you do that if the only absolutes are the evanescent propostions of Bacnoisn science? (And then to say "the only absolutes are things which are provable" .... WHere do we go? What's a "proof"?

Then the last part of my ramblings comes from a statement of IHS according to John: I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. If a personal type of entity says,"I am ... the Truth", while most of us are thinking that truth has to do with propositions, then maybe what we are bringing to the table is off base from the start. Maybe the truth is a person, an entity which wills and chooses and loves and does stuff rather than just sort of lying there and being true.

That seems to be at least PART of the normative Xtian proclamation, and it's very interesting and exciting and seems to me to refresh the entire enquiry.

328 posted on 01/04/2005 6:17:39 PM PST by Mad Dawg (My P226 wants to teach you what SIGnify means ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

"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?"

Would you create a being knowing it was predestined to suffer an eternity in Hell? I'm not talking about the Bible or doctrine here...I'm asking about you personally. What would you do?


329 posted on 01/04/2005 6:25:55 PM PST by kidkosmic1 (www.InterviewwithGod.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7

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

What if God divinely chooses to be victimized and humble? Can He do that?

Philippians 2
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.


330 posted on 01/04/2005 6:36:35 PM PST by kidkosmic1 (www.InterviewwithGod.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: kidkosmic1

17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.


331 posted on 01/04/2005 6:41:30 PM PST by Raycpa (Alias, VRWC_minion,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa; All
Regarding Exodus and whether God changed his mind (repented).

Lets assume that God did change his mind based on Moses's intercession. Lets see what supposedly changed God's mind. From Exodus 32:

12Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.

13Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

This is Moses's argument in total. In simple terms, his first appeal is "what will the neighbors think" ? Do you really think God cares what the Egyptians think ?

The second argument is almost as lame. It boils down to reminding God of his promise. Does anyone think God needs to be reminded ? Or does God get so angry he cannot he forgets his promises ?

Next, how effective was Moses's intercession ? Look at 35

And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made

Well that went well. God didn't consume them, he sent them a plague.

332 posted on 01/04/2005 6:53:29 PM PST by Raycpa (Alias, VRWC_minion,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: kidkosmic1
If God gave humans true free will (and He did), there's risk involved in that extraordinary venture. Otherwise, it's all a facade.

Define "true free will." See, I'm guessing you subscribe to the libertine view that says a decision cannot be perfectly foreknown because if it were that person could not decide otherwise and therefore the decision wasn't really free. This is logical ineptitude at its finest.

God knows everything there is to know. If He says something will come to pass in the future, He will make it come to pass. That might mean some changes along the way (see Saul and Noah for starters).

So God only knows things AFTER they happen. He can say something's going to happen, but He doesn't really KNOW it's going to happen until after He MAKES it happen. It's not really prophecy, just promise.

There is no such thing as free will in modern calvinistic doctrine. Free will is a "divine paradox." It's not free will, but somehow God's not responsible for anything a predestined creature does. Or, it is free will, buuuut not really.

There's no such thing as your definition of free will in Calvinist doctrine. Of course, there's no such thing as your definition of free will in Scripture either. The "divine paradox" of which you speak is quite Scriptural. Your solution to it is to uphold an extreme view of man's will at the expense of God's divine attributes.

God told Adam not to eat of the forbidden fruit, and He meant it. He didn't want Adam to eat it. He didn't program Adam to eat it. He didn't create Adam knowing He WOULD eat it. Why? God is love.

So sings the modernist. Your song is as old as the hills. For God so loved the world that all His other divine attributes disappeared, that all may have truly free will.

Tell me. If God "didn't create Adam knowing He WOULD eat it" why then was Christ chosen before the foundation of the world as the Redeemer? Why is He the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world if the need for a Savior was never known until AFTER the world was created?

Oh, wait...maybe God decided beforehand that there would be a Savior and then kept His promise by adjusting His plan in Eden to make sure there was a need for one so He could fulfill His prophesy promise. Oh...the whole God of love thing. Drat.

How can a preprogrammed creation be individually responsible for anything? Wait! Let me guess your answer: "We can't understand that."

LOL! Please, keep trying to answer for us Calvinists. It's amuzing.

Seriously, please tell me what makes you think Calvinists believe men are pre-programmed? Is it your libertine definition of free will that insists man is pre-programmed if his decisions are foreknown?

333 posted on 01/04/2005 6:55:53 PM PST by Frumanchu (I fear the sanctions of the Mediator far above the sanctions of the moderator...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: kidkosmic1; HarleyD
Would you create a being knowing it was predestined to suffer an eternity in Hell? I'm not talking about the Bible or doctrine here...I'm asking about you personally. What would you do?

There lies the fundamental flaw in your theology, kid: anthropocentric rationalization. You are not God. His ways are not your ways. It doesn't matter what you or I would do. It matters what God DID do, and our source for that is Scripture not vain speculation.

334 posted on 01/04/2005 7:00:24 PM PST by Frumanchu (I fear the sanctions of the Mediator far above the sanctions of the moderator...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

Pharaoh was God's enemy and a heathen minion of Satan. Does God want to harden hearts...or save them? Could Pharaoh have repented later? Your doctrine doesn't allow you to answer this last question.

Matthew 18
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.

14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

II Peter
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


335 posted on 01/04/2005 7:00:38 PM PST by kidkosmic1 (www.InterviewwithGod.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: kidkosmic1

Do you think it is possible for God to abdicate His sovereignty and cease to be God?


336 posted on 01/04/2005 7:01:30 PM PST by Frumanchu (I fear the sanctions of the Mediator far above the sanctions of the moderator...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: kidkosmic1

Don't let context get in your way, kid.


337 posted on 01/04/2005 7:03:23 PM PST by Frumanchu (I fear the sanctions of the Mediator far above the sanctions of the moderator...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

If Moses did not make a persuasive argument in Exodus 32 and again in Numbers 14, Why did God Almighty say this:

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.


338 posted on 01/04/2005 7:09:36 PM PST by kidkosmic1 (www.InterviewwithGod.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu

God can do as He pleases. He is not a slave to your opinion or doctrine. He is true to Himself. He is Holy. His nature does not change. He is trustworthy. He does not sin. If He chooses to humble Himself and be a servant to His creation, that was and is His prerogative as God and Creator of the universe.


339 posted on 01/04/2005 7:22:26 PM PST by kidkosmic1 (www.InterviewwithGod.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: kidkosmic1
Your doctrine doesn't allow you to answer this last question.

Your argument is with God, not me. God said he hardened Pharoahs heart.

340 posted on 01/04/2005 7:31:14 PM PST by Raycpa (Alias, VRWC_minion,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 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