 |
| 
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/22/2004 11:45 AM (GMT -6) |   | On November 26, 2004, The Chronicle of Higher Education published an article entitled "Can God See the Future?" by Burton Bollag. In it Bollag stated,
quote:
The debate over the scholars' ideas has taken on such fervor that last month an evangelical college told one of its professors, a believer in free will, to leave.The fired professor, John E. Sanders, at Huntington College in Indiana, is a leading proponent of an approach known as Open Theism, which declares that God and humans with their free will together determine the future.
Christianity Today had a brief note that announced John Sanders's being fired, but CT lifted the note from The Chronicle without checking out the story with Huntington College officials. Now CT has posted a more detailed note after speaking with officials from Huntington College.
I think they have cleared up some of the questions raised by the two earlier reports.
Here is the note that may be found at:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/151/32.0.html
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. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/22/2004 1:03 PM (GMT -6) | | | Dowden is a stand-up guy. I knew him. And many friends know him. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 12/22/2004 1:47 PM (GMT -6) | | .
quote:
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."
-------------
Alas, "closed" minds.
. | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 12/22/2004 2:13 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Mayflower
.
quote:
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."
-------------
Alas, "closed" minds.
.
Perhaps these men are only looking to create a place where they are not incessantly opposed by the views of those they disagree with and, like Tom, they are tired of having it continue. The comment regarding "closed minds" when applied to the "OV only forum" could be as valid or invalid when it is made in this context.
In as much as the leadership of the seminary are truly responsible for what is taught, it would seem that they have the responsiblity to act according to their conscience. It is too easy to simply say CLOSED MINDS and then run off to the OV ONLY site to complain about them. Sorry, but I find it a bit silly.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 12/22/2004 2:21 PM (GMT -6) | |
.
Again, we differ in our views.
Your choice; and, mine.
Peace & blessings,
<><
Spen wrote:
quote:
Perhaps these men are only looking to create a place where they are not incessantly opposed by the views of those they disagree with and, like Tom, they are tired of having it continue. The comment regarding "closed minds" when applied to the "OV only forum" could be as valid or invalid when it is made in this context.
In as much as the leadership of the seminary are truly responsible for what is taught, it would seem that they have the responsiblity to act according to their conscience. It is too easy to simply say CLOSED MINDS and then run off to the OV ONLY site to complain about them. Sorry, but I find it a bit silly.
Spen Lake
. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/22/2004 4:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Mayflower, it has a lot to do with "primary business." A college has its core mission and primary business.
That particular college (my inlaw's alma mater, in Dan Quayle's hometown) closed a painting exhibit of a friend of mine before it even opened. Huge nudes of Christ and the disciples were visible through the front window. I think another friend of mine should have built a buffer wall for that exhibit. But my artist friend didn't blame the town, the alumni or the college. He's more conservative than they are, and applauded their stewardship. They did what they felt best.
If Sanders has been too high profile, and can't gear his public platform, then the action both he and the college are heading towards would be appropriate.
A parallel thing is coaches who want to win at all costs conflicting with schools where universal participation is core.
Its an adult decision.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 12/23/2004 2:28 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
Follow the money!
When all the academic/religious/ rights fanfare is done, Institutions got to survive. They have a "market niche" they need to market themselves to. The "niche" Chrsitian colleges market themselves to wants both "academic freedom" AND "evangelical truth" (defined variously by various sub-niches). If a prof is costing the Institution more than he or she is benefiting the institution, and if getting rid of him or her will cost the Institution less than keeping him or her -- its bye bye.
The MARKET always wins.
It's just the way the world works. I don't think you can blame anyone.
I just hope John's able to get another teaching post.
Greg
Sadly, it almost always seems to reduce to funds, either in the form of gifts/endowments or in the form of students/tuition. Wouldn't it be refreshing if administrators of Christian institutions cared enough about ideas and truth to make their decisions concerning whom they hire and whom they terminate upon these issues instead of funds? Now there's a novel concept for institutions that are supposed to trade in and grapple with ideas and truth.
Regrettably, college and university administrators too readily operate their institutions as businesses in the marketplace where dollars lead. Instead of giving air to ideas so that the best ideas and truth prevail, those with the loudest voices and with the larger checks seem to prevail, submerging debates over ideas and truth.
I suppose that in this world it must be so.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 12/26/2004 11:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Ah cpoteet,
You'd make a nice Grand Inquisitor, ever thought of looking into that?
"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again."
Rob | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/26/2004 12:10 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 12/26/2004 4:06 PM (GMT -6) | | .
Greg Boyd wrote:
quote:
I just hope John's able to get another teaching post.
.
cpoteet wrote:
quote:
I hope he doesn't. Maybe we're finally weeding them out. The school should make an even stronger stance and remove all professing Open Theists at the school.
. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/27/2004 10:17 AM (GMT -6) | | One thing I think that needs to be clarified in this discussion is the question of the proper role of a professor of theology--is he simply there to regurgitate orthodoxy (be it Calvinian, Wesleyan, Arminian, or what have you), or is the role of a theology professor to teach students what the various theological views are, how to be good logical thinkers, able to use faith AND reason to explain the hope that is within them?
Having heard Dr. Sanders lecture at two conferences now, I can say with 100% assurance that it is simply NOT the case that all he does is indoctrinate students into becoming "Open Theists." He is very capable (as is Dr. Boyd) of accurately relating the views of Calvin, Aquinas, and many other eminent theologians and is himself a first-class thinker. In fact, I recall distinctly how Dr. Sanders said in one lecture that he is able to "put on my Calvin cap" and argue for the Calvinistic viewpoint in his classes. Dr. Sanders is very familiar with, and quite fair in his representation of, theological views that oppose his own, as is Dr. Boyd.
But for many evangelicals, a mind is a terrible thing to use.
As painful as all this may be for Dr. Sanders, I have every confidence that it will all work together for good. (That Dr. Sanders loves God is beyond question--anyone who's ever met him would have to say that he's one of the nicest, most genuinely Christian guys you'd ever want to meet. The same goes for Dr. Boyd).
Thankfully, at least they're not living in Calvin's Geneva.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
cpoteet
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 12/28/2004 2:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BJS
Well said, John. This is so sad, especially because the harsh nature of the attacks on Open Theism come mostly from an ill-informed and alarmist perspective on the doctrine. [Attention All Readers: for a brief but effective tutorial on what that last sentence means, please refer to the postings of one "cpoteet"]
This is fun, I love all of you (despite what my tone might imply).
A good professor of theology should teach the truths found in Scripture, a good professor of philosophy should teach all views without a regard to establishing the truth. Christians are not postmodernists! Nothing is relative or subjective here.
If I have mis-construed Open Theism in any way let me know. I'm here to work out my arguments.
"Thankfully, at least they're not living in Calvin's Geneva."
Obviously a sour attack on Calvinism. Calvin was a fallible man, he even thought that wealth was a sign of salvation. In fact, I wouldn't even use half of his Institues for napkins. I wish they would've just called it Doctrines of Grace or even Augustianism would've been better.
Could you clear up the following issues in my understanding of Open Theism:
1) Humans have Libertarian free will.
2) Due to this, God has knowledge of some settled events; but many are actualities, that is to say that He does not know what will happen (but He does know all the possible outcomes?).
3) What is the role of anthropomorphism in the Bible for Open Theists? They don't regard some texts as such (Genesis 6:6, Exodus 4:10–16), but regard some as anthropomorpic. What is the dividing line (figurative vs literal)?
4) What are the soteriological implications of Open Theism? Does God not know who will come to Him? Do we solely choose Christ for salvation (as LFW would imply)? What is "grace" in Open theism?
5) How does Open Theism vary from Molinism? (My first level of understanding is that Molinism attempts to put together LFW with complete foreknowledge.)
6) How do Open Theists regard passages that refer to complete depravity (John 8:47, Romans 3:11, Ephesians 2:1, 1 John 3:14)?
7) How do Open Theists regard the word "predestined" in the Bible?
That's enough for now...
"To confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly."
Augustine | | Back to Top | | |
|
cpoteet
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 35
| Posted 12/28/2004 2:28 AM (GMT -6) | | I found an answer for how Open Theists regard predestination.
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/index.asp?PageID=498
However, since classical theists and open theists believe that God’s omniscience is infallible, we must agree that there is nothing which God does not foreknow (whether the future is exhaustively settled or partly settled and partly open).
What am I missing? This makes no sense.
Restating my questions:
1) Humans have Libertarian free will.
2) Due to this, God has knowledge of some settled events; but many are actualities, that is to say that He does not know what will happen (but He does know all the possible outcomes?).
3) What is the role of anthropomorphism in the Bible for Open Theists? They don't regard some texts as such (Genesis 6:6, Exodus 4:10–16), but regard some as anthropomorpic. What is the dividing line (figurative vs literal)?
4) What are the soteriological implications of Open Theism? Does God not know who will come to Him? Do we solely choose Christ for salvation (as LFW would imply)? What is "grace" in Open theism?
5) How does Open Theism vary from Molinism? (My first level of understanding is that Molinism attempts to put together LFW with complete foreknowledge.)
6) How do Open Theists regard passages that refer to complete depravity (John 8:47, Romans 3:11, Ephesians 2:1, 1 John 3:14)?
"To confess that God exists, and at the same time to deny that He has foreknowledge of future things, is the most manifest folly."
Augustine | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 12/28/2004 2:31 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by cpoteet
7) How do Open Theists regard the word "predestined" in the Bible?
When God chose the nation of Israel, how did he do it?
Did he choose individuals?
No, He only chose one man, Abraham.
Any who would be born into Abraham's family would become part of that choosing.
Abraham was an empty "vessel" when God chose him.
God's promises to Abraham's "seed" were promises made to an empty vessel, yet to be filled.
Anyone born into Abraham, became part of the chosen people, those "pre-destined" to inherit the land, draw the nations, bring about the Messiah.
The second covenant is like the first, God chose one man, Jesus. Any born (again) into Him become part of the election. That's why Paul says our election is "in Him". Ephesians 1:4
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
That's why Paul quotes Genesis 25:23
and he answered her: "Two nations are in your womb, two peoples are quarreling while still within you; But one shall surpass the other, and the older shall serve the younger."
when he talks about God's election of groups for His purposes in Romans 9.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 12/28/2004 2:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by cpoteet
I'll defend individual election later, please answer the other questions I asked (I even stated I'd already found that answer you provided before you provided it)
I did number 7, "predestination". I'm not doing all 300 questions you post, I'll pick one or two, let others do the rest.
There's four elections of individuals in what I posted:
1. Abraham, the first covenant
2. Jesus, the second covenant
3. Jacob, the Jews that Paul is talking about in Romans 9
4. Esau, the nations not of the first covenant
Oh, and Pharoah, mentioned in Romans 9, he represents Egypt, the vessel that held the people of God for 400 years.
I didn't see your name anywhere in Romans 9.
Calvinists incorrectly think the potter illustration given in scripture represents a potter making individuals, it isn't.
The potter is making vessels. Vessels are containers for other objects. So if God fashions a vessel (Egypt) to contain Israel for 400 years, that has nothing to do with anyone's individual salvation
If God fashions a vessel (Abraham) in which to bless the world by bringing the Messiah through, that has nothing to do with anyone's individual salvation.
If God fashions a vessel (Jesus) for salvation, that has nothing to do with anyone's individual salvation. You get into the vessel, Jesus, by your confession and belief, Romans 3:16, Romans 10:9,10.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 12/28/2004 3:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by cpoteet
3) What is the role of anthropomorphism in the Bible for Open Theists? They don't regard some texts as such (Genesis 6:6, Exodus 4:10–16), but regard some as anthropomorpic. What is the dividing line (figurative vs literal)?
From wikipedia:
Anthropomorphism, also referred to as personification or prosopopeia, is the attribution of human characteristics to inanimate objects, animals, forces of nature, and others.
We know God is a spirit: John 4:24
When God uses "figures of speech" that utilize physical characteristics, we know it's anthropomorphic: arm, finger, wing, eye
partly because we know the alternative, "God is a spirit".
1. The main point of the figure of speech, though, does NOT contain the anthropomorphism.
He states He will do something with His "arm", the point is that He will do something, not the "arm" part.
He states He will shelter us under His "wing", the point is that He will shelter us, not the "wing" part.
The finger of God writes the prophecy on the wall, the point is the prophecy, not the finger writing it.
Subtract the illustrative method, the point remains the same:
God did it, God wrote it, God shelters us
2. We are made in God's image.
Genesis 1:
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
So take God's image, subject the physical (God is a spirit), what's left? Mind, Will and Emotions
Take them away and we're not made in God's image.
Genesis 6:
5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
7 The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."
8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
The use of sorry, grieve and favor go together in this passage, they're emotional/relational words. Throw them out, you have a dispassionate, mechanistic process controlling the universe.
Nowhere in scripture does God say He's not emotional.
The reason Noah was chosen was a relational reason, Noah found favor in God's eyes. The reason the others were destroyed was they had found disfavor in God's eyes. Subtract these reasons from the passage and you lose the point of the passage.
For Noah's favor and boat (a vessel) ride through trouble are mirrored in Jesus' favor (in God's eyes) and His passage to us (He's the vessel) through judgment.
To claim that God doesn't grieve or favor or disfavor is to turn Him into an "it".
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/28/2004 11:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by cpoteet
quote:
Originally posted by BJS
Well said, John. This is so sad, especially because the harsh nature of the attacks on Open Theism come mostly from an ill-informed and alarmist perspective on the doctrine. [Attention All Readers: for a brief but effective tutorial on what that last sentence means, please refer to the postings of one "cpoteet"]
This is fun, I love all of you (despite what my tone might imply).
A good professor of theology should teach the truths found in Scripture, a good professor of philosophy should teach all views without a regard to establishing the truth. Christians are not postmodernists! Nothing is relative or subjective here.
Who said they were? Of course, one could expect no different answer than that from a determinist, and I certainly realize you couldn't have answered otherwise.  So, in your view, theological education is simply indoctrination, right? A theology professor could just as well be a robot disseminating information.
By the way, it is neither postmodern nor relativistic to give a fair representation of all the various theological views; it's what's called humility.
quote:
If I have mis-construed Open Theism in any way let me know.
Where do I start....
quote:
"Thankfully, at least they're not living in Calvin's Geneva."
Obviously a sour attack on Calvinism.
Hmmm. No, actually, a reference to Calvin's incomprehensible cruelty and ungodly character.
quote:
Could you clear up the following issues in my understanding of Open Theism:
1) Humans have Libertarian free will.
2) Due to this, God has knowledge of some settled events; but many are actualities, that is to say that He does not know what will happen (but He does know all the possible outcomes?).
Huh? Open Theism teaches that God knows ALL settled/predetermined/fixed future events, and that some events in the future are possibilities, and as such, are known for what they are--possibilities (a "possibly this and possibly that").
quote:
4) What are the soteriological implications of Open Theism? Does God not know who will come to Him? Do we solely choose Christ for salvation (as LFW would imply)? What is "grace" in Open theism?
Open theists tend to hold to the classic Arminian concept of grace, the touchstone of which is what is known of as prevenient grace (grace that goes before or precedes one's justification, drawing one to repentance and faith). In any case, grace is unmerited favor and the enabling power of God in Open Theism, as opposed to grace as fate, as in Calvinism.
quote:
6) How do Open Theists regard passages that refer to complete depravity (John 8:47, Romans 3:11, Ephesians 2:1, 1 John 3:14)?
In light of Open Theism's general belief in prevenient grace, they can both affirm Total Depravity and Libertarian Free Will, in the sense that God gracious (preveniently) enables all totally depraved individuals to come to Him.
quote:
7) How do Open Theists regard the word "predestined" in the Bible?
As the Bible itself reveals--that believers are "predestined to be conformed to the image of His dear Son", not that predestination requires divine determinism of all events.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:17 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|