DF&OpenTheism Cousins?

[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 feasts and sacrifices.

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).


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



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.

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.

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.'



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



I cant think of anything held by Christian believers further from the sovereign God. In reality 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.
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', defined below;





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...

 

[Former Christian]

Hitch

Interesting post. What is it you’re trying to say exactly?

Seems to me that if the New Covenant in Jeremiah and the New Covenant in Hebrews is referring to two different things, then the idea of being in Christ is a moot point because it doesn’t really exist. And modern Judaism has the right idea after all. There’s no practical basis for anything mentioned in the NT. Poor Christianity. It’s worse than I thought. Christianity isn’t just a man-made religion. It’s a totally false religion based on a totally false premise.

And if diatheke is referring to a last will and testament kind of thing, then the death of God is the only way the New Testament will ever come into being. Not just the death of a part of God, as the Trinitarians would put it. But the death of God period. In fact in order for the Old Covenant to come into being, God would have had to have died. The death of animals wouldn’t cut it. To an Atheist that would only go to show that maybe the God spoken of in the bible didn’t actually exist in the first place. Except in the minds of men.

Bible interpreters really need to take their interpretations to their ultimate conclusion.

Diatheke literally means something placed or established through. It can mean a will. It can carry the meaning that a death is required. But in the main it has to do with settling something in a definite way. The interpretive English translation of the Greek word with two different English words does tend to confuse the issue.

In the Old Covenant, the death of animals was necessary. The death of God didn’t enter the picture. In the New Covenant, the death of Jesus Christ was necessary. Again the death of God was not in the picture. In both instances death was in place of. In place of the death of man. Not the death of the one who initially made the Covenant. Man is already condemned to death. The Covenants, Old and New, were for the purpose of dealing with that issue. The Old in typical fashion, the New in real fashion. That is, the Old was intended to by a type for the first. Nothing like the last will and testament of God. If God is dead, it surely isn’t because God has died. It’s because he never existed in the first place.

FC

 

[Hitch]

Your response has no connection I can see with the topic. Troll elsewhere.

 

[Former Christian]

Nice attitude. Since you obviously don't care if anyone understands you or not, I'll be happy to leave you to what ever it is this thread is about.

FC