OV & Dispys only please

[GrayPilgrim]

I thought about putting this in the Liberal Arts section, as I'm not interested in debating this topic, I am more itnerested in having a question I have. It seem to me (from a more reformed perspective) that these two postions would be at loggerheads, yet RI and others if I am correct argue that these twoa re a match amde in heaven. Did I read you correctly? If yes, then how (not so much biblically as logically, although I generally am more interested int he Biblical support for a position this time I'm altering my tack).

[bar Jonah]

Wow, interesting question. As it is late, I won't give a thorough answer, but respond to my quick answer and I may go into more depth based on what more you want to know. :)

(Yes, it seems like most dispies are not open theists -- duh, OVers are rare so that's no surprise -- but also many OVers aren't dispies. I have no idea if it's more or less than 50%, but I'd be interested to know. It's interesting to note that John Bunyon, the famous author of "Pilgrim's Progress," was a dispensationalist. "Pilgrim's Progress" is one giant dispensational parable, seriously. But on the other hand, Bunyon was also a hardcore Calvinist, making him a true rara avis.)


Well, I would say the two are a "match made in Heaven" because they are both the truth! O! Forgot, you don't necessarily accept that notion. Hm. ;)

Then I would say that I think they're a perfect match because Open Theism is by far the best explanation of God changing His plan from one dispensation to another. Why would God go through all of these dispensations if He knew they would all end in failure? Why waste all that time, and create situations in which He foreknew the majority of people would go to Hell? (At the end of the so-called Dispensation of Conscience, all but 8 went to Hell! Not to mention 99.99% of those before them.)

Why would God make Man if He was going to repent of that decision right before the Deluge? Because He didn't expect that to be the outcome of His plan. He had great hope for us, but we (humanity) failed massively and catastrophically. He tried another plan, and that failed catastrophically. Another plan, and that failed massively.

And no, before you jump into another misunderstanding, the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Christ was not simply a Plan D or E or whatever, just a later plan in some later dispensation. This event was necessary and preordained since the fall of Man.

Hopefully, that gives you at least a glimmer of understanding into our line of thinking. Any questions, let us know. And any other Open Dispies are not only free to chime in, but they are encouraged!

[GrayPilgrim]

Let me try to repeat back to you your position so that I can see if I got it, and you can show me where I missed it:

________________________________________________

OV explains the dispensations not as a pre-ordained system to send the majority of people to hell, rather because man fell he is a mess and thus the various systems failed. The Cross was an original part of this plan, but he waited until the time was right to implement that plan according to the "fullnes of time".

_________________________________________________

Did I get anywhere near the ball park? BTW those of us who hold to a reformed soteriology but not to the reformed eschatology are not as rare as that. That is why I tend to refuse the label calvinist in many settings as there is a lot more to that label than I am willing to ascribe (and I think tulips are beautiful ;), so that's not what I don't like).

GP

[bar Jonah]

Close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades, my brother. :)

[GrayPilgrim]

Thanks for the answer!

[yxboom]

So why didn't you put this in the LA section :huh:

[GrayPilgrim]

Not thinking sttraight at quarter after 2 in the morning, and I thought it might get lost over there.