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]
The sheep are saved but the goats are lost. God created the goats as well. Listen, not every name was written in the book of life at the begining of the world.
If God was swayed by arguments that even my children would know are too lame to use on my wife and I, then we have a problem.
And lest the same old argument be made, Scripture does NOT first present Pharaoh has hardening his heart and then God hardening it. The first mention of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart is in Gen 4:21
And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.
Notice, as emphasized, that it does not say He hardened Pharaoh's heart because he would not let the people go, but rather so that he would not do so. The results of Pharaoh's refusal of course was severe judgment.
He will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy, and harden whom He will harden.
Of course not. Didn't you know the book is under constant revision? ;)
"Why is He the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world...."
What is "the world" referred to here? When was it founded?
Here?
Genesis 1
31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.
At its foundation, the world was declared "very good" by God.
What world are we talking about? The fallen world, or the world God declared to be very good? Did God declare a wicked, evil, fallen world good? Of course not.
Galatians 1
4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
THIS PRESENT (current) EVIL WORLD.
I believe the scripture does not fail. So do you and so does Marlowe. We will all try to reconcile what appears to an outsider to be a contradiction. It would be nice if we could speak off the same sheet, so that unbelievers will see it as unity. Whatever we come up with, it is going to be an interpretation because the translations seem pretty clear.
How do I reconcile it? First, it seems to me that I cannot reject one passage and accept the other. Second, it seems I must allow the meanings of the words and the other words in the immediate context drive possible solutions.
You addressed nothing in my post.
18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.And he also assumed your next question
19You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
A 'slave' is forced to serve a master...a 'servant' of Christ chooses to do so. I choose to follow Christ by my own free will.
Oh, the potter and the clay!
Paul, a student of the OT was referring to:
Jeremiah 18
1 The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
9 And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
"And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it."
The clay was already marred, so He made it into another vessel to fit His purposes! (Pharaoh fits this criteria.)
Was Pharaoh and Egypt eternally doomed? Could he/it repent and be spared God's wrath?
Sure!
"At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them."
Can't wait to hear your explanation of Eph 1:4, Rom 8:29-30, 1 Peter 1:20, 2 Tim 1:9, especially since the term "before the foundation of the world" is used, requiring (even under your twisting the meaning of "the world") God's foreknowledge.
"But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
Sounds to me like we are slaves either way.
You're arguing from a conditional statement. The second half of this verse is just as true under Reformed theology as it is under your theology.
Blah, blah--Big Words. God said the world as created was "very good," not corrupt. Not in need of redemption or salvation. Agree or disagree?
Ephesians 1
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
We were chosen to be holy and without blame before him in love before the foundation of the world. That's what Ephesians 1:4 says, no?
Remember when the Bible said Adam and Eve were naked without shame? Men were created Holy (in God's own image). Men, in the original pre-sin world were created holy and without blame.
Uh, oh. Why did you use 1 Peter 20 as part of your argument?
1 Peter
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Christ was granted ministerial, priestly, and superior authority before the world was created. I agree with Peter! I also agree that Christ was revealed (manifest) as Savior and Lord in these last times!
Good night.
"You're arguing from a conditional statement."
So what? What's your point?
It says, right there in Jeremiah 18, that God can say one thing (i.e. He WILL destroy a nation), but do another IF they repent!
"If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them."
How can God NOT DO WHAT HE PREVIOUSLY PRONOUNCED in Calvinistic theology?
Not an argument. Good night.
Well, PM I do think I need to chill out.
I think we underestimate God's love but also God's desire to see His plan through. God had indeed foreordained Saul to be king. It was by Saul "free will" (gasp) that he did some of the things that he did which made him a lousy king but it did not surprise God. God knew it would happen but He still chose Saul for Saul was the right person to further His plan and God overlooked Saul's failings to accomplish His will.
Did it hurt God that Saul was not all that he could be? Yes. Did God know Saul would not be all that he could be? Yes. Did God still carried out His plan through Saul? Yes.
Frumanchu-“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.”
Frumanchu is right. We don’t know God’s way or why He does what He does. The fact of the matter is the Bible says there are some who are predestined to suffer an eternity in Hell. No matter whether you hold a Calvinist or an Arminian perspective, one can not escape this fact. How this happens is debatable.
Open Theist is the worst sort of heresy because it demeans the very nature of God by giving Him human traits and characteristics comparing God to man. The end of Open Theist is man is free to do what he wants and when he dies God will just welcome him into His arms or obliterate his soul because God is love. Sorry, it doesn’t work like that and we don't make the rules.
This line should cause you to realize that you, too, are still seeking to put it all together.
The issue remains what the scripture says versus our interpretation of what it says. We -- all of us -- desire so much to be faithful to the Word.
I have no "gasp" here, HD....I know exactly what you're going through. In Christ, X.
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.