Donations for the month of January


We have received a total of $140 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
NH, USA
Posts: 13,354
Joined: April 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,587
Posts50,929
Members922
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,353
Tom 3,374
chestnutmare 2,895
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,750
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 48
Pilgrim 40
Kaylin 2
John_C 2
Meta4 1
Recent Posts
Overview of Scripture
by Pilgrim. Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:19 PM
Theotokos
by Pilgrim. Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:53 PM
Jesus vs Paul and the Church
by Pilgrim. Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:09 AM
John the Baptist
by Meta4. Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:53 PM
Paul on a Young Earth
by Pilgrim. Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:23 PM
Oregon Baker's ordered to pay 135k
by Anthony C.. Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:48 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#47717 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:09 PM Open Theism  
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
Hitch Offline
Addict
Hitch  Offline
Addict

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
PeoplesRepublikofOregon
Is there something in the archives about this?


Marxism is the opiate of the academy.
#47718 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:44 PM Re: Open Theism [Re: Hitch]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,354
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,354
NH, USA
Go here: God of the Possible?, by Roger Nicole.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#47720 - Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:22 PM Re: Open Theism [Re: Hitch]  
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
Hitch Offline
Addict
Hitch  Offline
Addict

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
PeoplesRepublikofOregon
Quote
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.

I can remember coming up with this notion that God changed his mind , but I was a bout 15 at the time.




Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it. - Isaiah 46:9




Marxism is the opiate of the academy.
#47753 - Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:51 PM Re: Open Theism [Re: Hitch]  
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
Hitch Offline
Addict
Hitch  Offline
Addict

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
PeoplesRepublikofOregon
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.


Marxism is the opiate of the academy.
#47754 - Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:11 PM Re: Open Theism [Re: Hitch]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,354
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,354
NH, USA
Originally Posted by Hitch
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??? scratch1

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


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#47755 - Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:20 PM Re: Open Theism [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
Hitch Offline
Addict
Hitch  Offline
Addict

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
PeoplesRepublikofOregon
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Originally Posted by Hitch
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??? scratch1
Come on Pilgrim ,I didnt say church age.
Quote


How about explaining the corollary you seem to find between the two. grin
I'll answer this part by tomorrow. Im surprised , are you really unfamiliar with 'great parenthesis in history' as per DF ?

Quote
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).
http://twonewcovenants.com/covenant/covenant1.html

Quote

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.


http://www.theologue.org/DispensationalistBeliefs-Israel&KingdomOfGod-WECox.html

Last edited by Hitch; Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:03 AM.

Marxism is the opiate of the academy.
#47758 - Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:23 AM Re: Open Theism [Re: Hitch]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,354
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,354
NH, USA
Originally Posted by Hitch
Originally Posted by Hitch
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.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Sorry, but I can't seem to see the relationship between the "church age" and Open Theism??? scratch1
Come on Pilgrim ,I didnt say church age.

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...".

Originally Posted by Hitch
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
How about explaining the corollary you seem to find between the two. grin

Originally Posted by Hitch
I'll answer this part by tomorrow. Im surprised , are you really unfamiliar with 'great parenthesis in history' as per DF ?

No, I am not "really unfamiliar with the 'great parenthesis in history' as per DF".

I look forward to your forthcoming explanation of how the you see a relation between Open Theism and the "parenthetical church age". smile


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#47759 - Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:11 AM Re: Open Theism [Re: Hitch]  
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
Hitch Offline
Addict
Hitch  Offline
Addict

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
PeoplesRepublikofOregon
Quote
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).



Accordingly the church age , and the church herself is 'wholly unforeseen', not to be found ,at all, in the prophets. One of the worst DF distinctives. On the contrary the church is culmination of history, the realization of God's purposes from before time, hardly an insertion of a new temporary program to fit between two eras of bloody sacrifice.


Quote


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.
So when Jesus began his ministry announcing The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. both the kingdom and the gospel he preaches are unrelated to the church, wholly national and temporal in nature. Note Larkin highlighted below.
Quote


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.
Scofield is telling us that according to 'revelation' that is the prophets, Christ came to inaugurate the Davidic, that is temporal kingdom, not the spiritual kingdom.
Quote


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.

I cant think of anything held by Christian believers further from the sovereign God of the Calvinsts.

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'


Quote
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...".
The 'church age' is the culmination of history, typified all through the OT. The 'great parenthesis ' or 'parenthetical church age' as per DF is the result a back up plan, a mystery revealed to Paul unknown and unforeseen before his ride to Damascus.

Last edited by Hitch; Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:58 AM.

Marxism is the opiate of the academy.
#47764 - Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:21 PM Re: Open Theism [Re: Hitch]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,354
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,354
NH, USA
Originally Posted by Hitch
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.

Actually, Open Theism is the logical end of Arminianism/semi-Pelagianism in that God cannot know the future until it actually occurs. Why? Because man, it is alleged, has a free-will and therefore the exercise of that will is out of the control of God. Looking into the future, or down the corridors of time, which most non-Calvinists explain how God "knows" what is to occur ahead of time, aka: foreknowledge, which is totally inaccurate, since God cannot know before hand what anyone will do until it happens. Thus, it would be more accurate to term what Arminians believe as "aft-knowledge". Again, Open Theists unabashedly hold that God cannot know the future, which is a step beyond the view held by the typical Arminian/semi-Pelagian.

As far as the the quotes from various authors you have provided being representative of Open Theism, I think in all fairness, it would be close to impossible to prove that is the case. Some of the quotes smack of Open Theism, but methinks all of the quoted authors would adamantly repudiate the Open Theism heresy. Bottom line, I think it would not be an accurate accusation to accuse them of holding to Open Theism.

Wiki definition of Open Theism can be found HERE.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#47766 - Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:08 PM Re: Open Theism [Re: Hitch]  
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
Hitch Offline
Addict
Hitch  Offline
Addict

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 371
PeoplesRepublikofOregon
Thats why I said it is a close kin of Open Theism.


From the Wiki site;

Practically, open theism makes the case for a personal God who is open to influence through the prayers, decisions, and actions of people. Although many specific outcomes of the future are unknowable, God's foreknowledge of the future includes that which is determined as time progresses often in light of free decisions that have been made and what has been sociologically determined. So God knows everything that has been determined as well as what has not yet been determined but remains open. As such, God is able to anticipate the future, yet remains fluid to respond and react to prayer and decisions made either contrary or advantageous to God's plan...

And from Blackstone;


'He would have set up the kingdom, but...


Purty close.

...but methinks all of the quoted authors would adamantly repudiate the Open Theism heresy.


LOL yup,Like the average pew sitting DF today would deny he wants to see a return to judaism, while he writes a check to the Temple Mount Faithful.

Last edited by Hitch; Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:07 PM.

Marxism is the opiate of the academy.
#47771 - Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:32 AM Re: Open Theism [Re: Hitch]  
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 983
Robin Offline
The Boy Wonder
Robin  Offline
The Boy Wonder

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 983
Florida
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."


#47773 - Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:47 AM Re: Open Theism [Re: Robin]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,354
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,354
NH, USA
Originally Posted by Robin
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."

A "Like" button is a Facebook thing, I believe. What we have here at the moment is a "Rate This Topic" button", which when pushed you can click on the number "stars" according to your "liking"; 1 star basically meaning you don't like the topic at all [Linked Image] and progressively you can click up to 5 stars which would mean you really liked the topic [Linked Image]. The rating is displayed on the forums list of topics and averaged out according to the number of people who rate it.

Now, this is going to change, if I remember correctly with the next upgrade along with a whole bunch more things. I've looked at most of the changes/improvements and they are great. I'll stick my old neck out here and estimate that the upgrade will be available around the end of March if all goes well. But, until then, you can use the "Rate This Topic". grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#47775 - Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:56 AM Re: Open Theism [Re: Hitch]  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,895
chestnutmare Offline
Annie Oakley
chestnutmare  Offline
Annie Oakley

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,895
NH
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.


The Chestnut Mare
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by frost.
- - - -JRR Tolkien "Lord of the Rings"
#47781 - Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:25 AM Re: Open Theism [Re: Hitch]  
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 983
Robin Offline
The Boy Wonder
Robin  Offline
The Boy Wonder

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 983
Florida
/|\
|
| "Like"

#47783 - Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:37 AM Re: Open Theism [Re: chestnutmare]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,354
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,354
NH, USA
Originally Posted by chestnutmare
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.

True... that feature does not exist. I'd have to check to see if that is part of the new update. grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 19 guests, and 116 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
SmallFry, drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron
922 Registered Users
Shout Box
January
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
Saved_n_kept
Popular Topics(Views)
686,378 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.056s Queries: 16 (0.003s) Memory: 2.7250 MB (Peak: 3.0373 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-01-20 06:48:18 UTC