Sanders is best known for his promotion of open theism but he has also written on cognitive linguistics and religious pluralism (inclusivism).
He was the Frederick J. Crosson Fellow at The Center for Philosophy of Religion (1997–1998) at the University of Notre Dame.
[7] Pinnock and Sanders sought to reform evangelical theology, advocating what Brian McLaren calls “a generous orthodoxy.” Some referred to them as “postconservative evangelicals” or “postmodern evangelicals.”[8] The lightning rod issue was Sanders’ and Pinnock's affirmation of “dynamic omniscience” which denies that God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge of future contingent events.
[9] The Executive Committee of the ETS held formal hearings with Sanders and Pinnock and decided that they had no problems with Pinnock but said that they could not approve of Sanders’ belief in “probabilistic prophecy”, which claims that some biblical predictions about future events are not guaranteed since they are conditional upon what beings with free will decide to do.
[10] Also in 2003 several Calvinist pastors in the tiny denomination which owned Huntington University put pressure on the Administration to remove Sanders from the faculty (he was professor of religion and philosophy).
According to cognitive linguistics, the specific types of bodies humans have shape how we interact with and understand our world.
Theology in the Flesh shows that biblical writers used a wide array of metaphors to understand topics such as sin, salvation, and God.
Salvation, for example, is thought of in terms of release from slavery, as friendship with God, as healing, as returning from the dead, and as finding your way home to list but a few.
The book also emphasizes prototype theory, which is says humans often define things in terms of a "best example" of a category rather than with necessary and sufficient conditions.
For instance, Americans understand "bird" by thinking of an animal about the size of a robin that flies and has wings and feathers.
In light of cognitive linguistics, Sanders discusses how we should understand God, the nature of objective truth, moral reasoning, and various other theological topics.
The God Who Risks has a section where Sanders delineates his sources and four criteria for a successful theological proposal.
They believe that God graciously initiates the call to redemption by granting enabling grace but that humans are free to accept it or reject it.
Open theists believe this is incompatible with the biblical portrayal of God interacting with creatures in which there is a before and an after and a give and receive in the divine experience.
The second point of contention between freewill and open theists is exhaustive definite foreknowledge of future contingent events.
Freewill theists have traditionally affirmed what is known as simple foreknowledge according to which God, prior to creation, just “sees” or knows all that will ever happen in history.
Sanders argues that the simple foreknowledge view has conflicts with types of biblical texts mentioned below and has two philosophical problems.
Sanders argues that simple foreknowledge cannot explain such things as prophecy, divine guidance, or why God did not prevent particular evils.
The denial that God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge of future contingent events has been the single most controversial aspect of open theism.
According to Sanders, there are several types of scriptural texts that support the open view of divine providence.
Sanders provides a documented historical list of proponents of the dynamic omniscience view in order to show that it has had some support in theological tradition.
In the Christian tradition he lists Calcidius (fifth century), a number of Methodists such as Andrew Ramsay, Adam Clarke, Billy Hibbard, and Lorenzo Dow McCabe.
In the twentieth century Sanders cites biblical scholars Terence Fretheim and John Goldingay along with many theologians such as Jurgen Moltmann, John Polkinghorne, Paul Fiddes, Michael Welker, Clark Pinnock, Greg Boyd, Hendrikus Berkhof, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Barry Callen, and philosophers such as Richard Swinburne, Vincent Brummer, William Hasker, Peter Van Inwagen, J. R. Lucas, Peter Geach, and Keith Ward.
[26] Sanders also cites some non Christians who held the view including Cicero, Alexander of Aphrodisias (Second Century CE), Porphyry, and two significant Medieval Jewish theologians named Ibn Ezra and Gersonides.
The second view he discusses is universalism (or apokatastasis) according to which every human who has ever lived will be redeemed.
[32] First, he cites biblical texts which he takes to affirm “God’s radical love” for humanity such as the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15).
Third, he speaks about the “great reversal” in Jesus’ teaching in which Jesus “gave hope for those considered outsiders while challenging the assurance of those who considered themselves insiders.”[33] Fourth, Sanders argues that people in the Old Testament era were saved if they responded in trust to God.
Lewis: “every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god…is accepted by the true God,” and “Christ saves many who do not think they know him.”[35] Sanders gives four reasons why he does not believe that inclusivism deprives Christians of the motivation to evangelize.
Sanders has also written on the variety of views Christians affirm on the nature of hell with special attention given to how divine love and justice are understood.