The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Open Theism

The doctrine of prayer. Boyd emphasizes that the openness of God view is an encouragement to prayer since it makes it clear that God is prepared to change his mind in view of petitions addressed to him (95-98). My question to someone who endorses this position is this: “What do you know that God does not know?” Even if one conceded God’s nescience of future contingencies, it would appear that God still has a better grasp of the total present situation than any created being, and that he is likely to be as considerate, compassionate and ready to act as any who approach him in prayer. In this sense assuming that God will change his mind on account of what any of us can say is as bad as or even worse than praying to the saints or to Mary.

The DF 'parenthetical church age' seems a close kin to Open Theism. Especially with its cross as plan B and its Millennial return to fests and sacrifices.

Sorry, but I can't seem to see the relationship between the "church age" and Open Theism???

How about explaining the corollary you seem to find between the two.

The Body of Christ as a 'Parenthesis' or 'Intercalation'

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founding President of Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote the following in regard the Body of Christ's relationship to God's purposes toward Israel:

"But for the Church intercalation -- which was wholly unforeseen and is wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which precedes it or which follows it. In fact, the new, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the outcalling of a heavenly people from Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward Israel, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term 'parenthetical,' commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inaccurate. A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows; but the present age-purpose is not thus related and therefore is more properly termed an intercalation" [emphasis added] (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. [Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948; reprint, 8 vols. in 4, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993], 4:41; 5:348-349).

Charles Ryrie writes that "Classic dispensationalists used the words 'parenthesis' or 'intercalation' to describe the distinctiveness of the church in relation to God's program for Israel. An intercalation is an insertion of a period of time in a calendar, and a parenthesis in one sense is defined as an interlude or interval (which in turn is defined as an intervening or interruptive period). So either or both words can be appropriately used to define the church age if one sees it as a distinct interlude in God's program for Israel (as clearly taught in Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks in 9:24-27)" [emphasis added] (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press 1995] p.134).

According to traditional dispensational thought the present dispensation "is wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which precedes it or which follows it." The present dispensation has no "direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows." That means that the present dispensation has nothing whatsoever to do with the following "New Covenant" promised to the houses of Israel and Judah:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah" (Jer.31:31).

To return now to the dispensational teaching about the kingdom for Israel, they teach that Jesus came to earth the first time fully intending to establish an earthly millennial kingdom with his chosen people, Israel.

Clarence Larkin (Rightly Dividing the Word, p. 51), in describing the ministry of John the Baptist as a forerunner to Christ, said: 'Prepare the way of the Lord for what? Not for the Cross but for the Kingdom.'

M.R. DeHaan, well-known radio preacher, made the following statement with reference to the first advent of our Lord (The Second Coming of Jesus, p. 98): ... the kingdom of heaven is the reign of heaven's King on earth. This Jesus offered to the nation of Israel when he came the first time, but they rejected it and he went to the cross..

W.E. Blackstone (Jesus is Coming, p. 46), who is said to share the honor with C.I. Scofield as one of those who did most to perpetuate dispensationalism in this country, said concerning the first advent: 'He would have set up the kingdom, but they rejected and crucified Him.'

On page 998 of the Scofield Bible(2) we read that, when Christ appeared the first time on earth to the Jewish people, the next order of revelation as it then stood should have been the setting up of the Davidic kingdom.

Lewis Sperry Chafer (Systematic Theology) said:

The kingdom was announced by John the Baptist, Christ and the apostles. The Gospel of the Kingdom (Matt 4:23; 9:35) and the proclamation that the kingdom of heaven was at hand (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7) consisted of a legitimate offer to Israel of the promised earthly Davidic kingdom, designed particularly for Israel. However, the Jewish nation rejected their King and with him the Kingdom (Quoted from George Ladd, Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God, p. 50).

Why did the Christ fail in his attempt to establish a kingdom during his first advent? Dispensationalists say it was because his success depended on the consent of the Jewish nation. S.D. Gordon (Quiet Talks About Jesus, p. 131) says: 'Everything must be done through man's consent.' Commenting further on this he said (sec. 4):

God proposes, man disposes. God proposed a king, and a worldwide kingdom with great prosperity and peace. Man disposed of that plan, for the bit of time and space controlled by his will.


Let the dispensationalists themselves speak at this point. S.D. Gordon (Quiet Talks About Jesus, p. 114) says:

It can be said at once that His dying was not God's own plan. It was conceived somewhere else and yielded to by God. God has a plan of atonement by which men who were willing could be saved from sin and its effect.

Come on Pilgrim ,I didnt say church age.

The Body of Christ as a 'Parenthesis' or 'Intercalation'

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founding President of Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote the following in regard the Body of Christ's relationship to God's purposes toward Israel:

"But for the Church intercalation -- which was wholly unforeseen and is wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which precedes it or which follows it. In fact, the new, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the outcalling of a heavenly people from Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward Israel, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term 'parenthetical,' commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inaccurate. A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows; but the present age-purpose is not thus related and therefore is more properly termed an intercalation" [emphasis added] (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. [Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948; reprint, 8 vols. in 4, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993], 4:41; 5:348-349).

Charles Ryrie writes that "Classic dispensationalists used the words 'parenthesis' or 'intercalation' to describe the distinctiveness of the church in relation to God's program for Israel. An intercalation is an insertion of a period of time in a calendar, and a parenthesis in one sense is defined as an interlude or interval (which in turn is defined as an intervening or interruptive period). So either or both words can be appropriately used to define the church age if one sees it as a distinct interlude in God's program for Israel (as clearly taught in Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks in 9:24-27)" [emphasis added] (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press 1995] p.134).

According to traditional dispensational thought the present dispensation "is wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which precedes it or which follows it." The present dispensation has no "direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows." That means that the present dispensation has nothing whatsoever to do with the following "New Covenant" promised to the houses of Israel and Judah:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah" (Jer.31:31).

To return now to the dispensational teaching about the kingdom for Israel, they teach that Jesus came to earth the first time fully intending to establish an earthly millennial kingdom with his chosen people, Israel.

Clarence Larkin (Rightly Dividing the Word, p. 51), in describing the ministry of John the Baptist as a forerunner to Christ, said: 'Prepare the way of the Lord for what? Not for the Cross but for the Kingdom.'

M.R. DeHaan, well-known radio preacher, made the following statement with reference to the first advent of our Lord (The Second Coming of Jesus, p. 98): ... the kingdom of heaven is the reign of heaven's King on earth. This Jesus offered to the nation of Israel when he came the first time, but they rejected it and he went to the cross..

W.E. Blackstone (Jesus is Coming, p. 46), who is said to share the honor with C.I. Scofield as one of those who did most to perpetuate dispensationalism in this country, said concerning the first advent: 'He would have set up the kingdom, but they rejected and crucified Him.'

On page 998 of the Scofield Bible(2) we read that, when Christ appeared the first time on earth to the Jewish people, the next order of revelation as it then stood should have been the setting up of the Davidic kingdom.

Lewis Sperry Chafer (Systematic Theology) said:

The kingdom was announced by John the Baptist, Christ and the apostles. The Gospel of the Kingdom (Matt 4:23; 9:35) and the proclamation that the kingdom of heaven was at hand (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7) consisted of a legitimate offer to Israel of the promised earthly Davidic kingdom, designed particularly for Israel. However, the Jewish nation rejected their King and with him the Kingdom (Quoted from George Ladd, Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God, p. 50).

Why did the Christ fail in his attempt to establish a kingdom during his first advent? Dispensationalists say it was because his success depended on the consent of the Jewish nation. S.D. Gordon (Quiet Talks About Jesus, p. 131) says: 'Everything must be done through man's consent.' Commenting further on this he said (sec. 4):

God proposes, man disposes. God proposed a king, and a worldwide kingdom with great prosperity and peace. Man disposed of that plan, for the bit of time and space controlled by his will.


Let the dispensationalists themselves speak at this point. S.D. Gordon (Quiet Talks About Jesus, p. 114) says:

It can be said at once that His dying was not God's own plan. It was conceived somewhere else and yielded to by God. God has a plan of atonement by which men who were willing could be saved from sin and its effect.

YOU might not have used the exact term "church age", but to me it is identical to "parenthetical church age". And, Charles Ryrie also uses the term in the quote you provided; "So either or both words can be appropriately used to define the church age...".

All of history led to the cross and resurrection of Christ. If the DF are to be taken seriously this cant be true and the cross was a secondary plan, designed as a temporary measure by a God who changed His mind and plan to suit the circumstances. As I understand it,this is 'open theism'
revealed to Paul unknown and unforeseen before his ride to Damascus.

I wish there was a "Like" button for posts like this last one, Hitch! I grew up under DF and once believed as they do, that God is a frustrated, helpless deity who must pace heaven's floors wringing his hands, hoping someone on Earth would "let him have his way."

The rating feature, rates the whole topic but it doesn't allow for each comment to be rated individually. In other words, I cannot rate your answer above if I wanted to.