Open Dispensationalism

[GODISNOWHERE]

A few years ago I coined a term called Open Dispensationalism.

The joining of Open Theism and Dispensationalism seems to me a match made in heaven.

I have written an article that I would very much like reviewed by all you half-baked theologians and full fledge letterlings. Your challenges are deeply appreciated and asbestos is a friend of mine so feel free to go full throttle.

Open View Debate

I wrote this article as a lay person who has studied these independent views for several years.

Lastly, Dispensationalism with the addition of the open view is preferable to me because as most are aware whether their be 7 or 12 or 9999 dispensations they are all typically marked by the failure of man.

I believe it is abhorrent to hold to a view that God predetermined that His Elect would fail, and fail miserably over and over again.

Lastly, it is my presupposition that the future is not knowable because the future does not exist. Another term that more accurately describes my metaphysical view is "Divine-Human Simultaneity".

Daniel
GODISNOWHERE.org

[Philemon]

GINH,
Glad to see ya hear bro. Lets get it on!!! Owwwww!

YFS,
Phi

[Hitch]

Well its a match alright.

Take care

Hitch

[joelkaki]

I doubt you would want my commentary, since I am opposed to both Open Theism and Dispensationalism. Open Dispensationalism would just be a double tackle for me.

Joel

[GODISNOWHERE]

I am quite sure I would enjoy your response no matter how ill founded it may be.

Daniel

[Daywalker]

A few years ago I coined a term called Open Dispensationalism.

The joining of Open Theism and Dispensationalism seems to me a match made in heaven.

I have written an article that I would very much like reviewed by all you half-baked theologians and full fledge letterlings. Your challenges are deeply appreciated and asbestos is a friend of mine so feel free to go full throttle.

Open View Debate

I wrote this article as a lay person who has studied these independent views for several years.

Lastly, Dispensationalism with the addition of the open view is preferable to me because as most are aware whether their be 7 or 12 or 9999 dispensations they are all typically marked by the failure of man.

I believe it is abhorrent to hold to a view that God predetermined that His Elect would fail, and fail miserably over and over again.

Lastly, it is my presupposition that the future is not knowable because the future does not exist. Another term that more accurately describes my metaphysical view is "Divine-Human Simultaneity".

Daniel
GODISNOWHERE.org

What do YOU mean by "Open Dispensationalism"? I take it you mean dispensationalism PLUS Open View Theism. Am I correct. As an Acts 28 dispensationalist I would say that the Open View fits PERFECTLY with my form of dispensationalism for one reason...I believe that the "church, which is his body" began THROUGH Acts 28:28 (the setting aside of Israel). Unlike the Acts period, I don't see us as grafted into Israel at all.
Additionally, I don't think that every dispensation ends in judgement, per se. I just think that at times, God was ready to move on and change things around simply because "it was his good pleasure" to do so. I realize that there are some fine lines.
Have a great day and stay OPEN :P
-Mike

[themuzicman]

Just MHO, but the more I hear dispensationalists use the open view, I get the willies because it's taking the Open View where it ought not go.

Michael

[Daywalker]

Just MHO, but the more I hear dispensationalists use the open view, I get the willies because it's taking the Open View where it ought not go.

Michael

How is that?

[Solly]

Just MHO, but the more I hear dispensationalists use the open view, I get the willies because it's taking the Open View where it ought not go.

Michael

Since even God does not have exhaustive knowledge of the future, how can you possibly say that? This might be plan C.

[themuzicman]

Well, that's where I differ from other OVTists. I don't think there is a plan A and a plan B and a plan C.

This is all plan A, and there will be no other plan.

Michael

[Daywalker]

Well, that's where I differ from other OVTists. I don't think there is a plan A and a plan B and a plan C.

This is all plan A, and there will be no other plan.

Michael

Well, the way I see it, personally...is that this is all PLAN A in the sense of what took place in Ex.4. Plan A was for Moses to confront Pharoah and tell him to let Israel go. HOWEVER, there were other vairables that God was working with. God altered everything else all around that decision to accomplish his will. At first, there would have been no Aaron. BUT, God knew that it would be needed to work with Moses on that one-so here comes Aaron. Israel SHOULD NOT have needed a whole bunch of signs, BUT God worked with Moses and gave him a couple of signs just in case they did not believe. "In fact, if THESE signs did not work, then they MIGHT believe THESE OTHER signs.." That is a HUGE paraphrase, but you get the point.

I see dispensationalism like that. God's ULTIMATE PURPOSE will be to bring in the RECONCILLIATION OF ALL THINGS. I SEE THIS as being in the dispensation of the fullness of times (Rev.21-22). The way I view it, God is working the time periods TOGETHER. It is like a DOMINO effect , SORTA. God is using a series of changes that are set up SINCE the WORLD BEGAN to accomplish his ULTIMATE GOAL which was his goal from BEFORE the world began. To me, it is symantics. I know that you believe in different Covenants. Do you believe that they are plan a, b, c? With ME, this is basically how I view the dispensations.

[themuzicman]

I think you need to go back and read the story, because clearly God harded Pharoah's heart (in a free will kind of way) so that he would NOT let the Israelites go, and ultimately God's judgement would fall on them. If you read the story as a whole, it's pretty clear that the way it happened was God's will from the beginning.

Also, I think scripture pretty clearly shows that Jesus was at least the option for the atonement of sins from the beginning (lamb selected from the beginning), and in an OV sense, God said that if Adam chose to reject God, that Jesus would be the atoning sacrifice.

The rest of the OT is God's setting things up for Christ to come.

Michael

[Daywalker]

I think you need to go back and read the story, because clearly God harded Pharoah's heart (in a free will kind of way) so that he would NOT let the Israelites go, and ultimately God's judgement would fall on them. If you read the story as a whole, it's pretty clear that the way it happened was God's will from the beginning.

I really was not dealing with Pharoah. I was dealing with the children of Israel and their following of Moses. I was also dealing with how God did not ORIGINALLY plan for Aaron to join Moses. I did not mention anything about the hardening of Pharoah. The signs in Ex.4 was to get the children of Israel to believe Moses. Perhaps you should take a second glance at what I wrote..? I think you missed my point. No offense intended.

[themuzicman]

I really was not dealing with Pharoah. I was dealing with the children of Israel and their following of Moses. I was also dealing with how God did not ORIGINALLY plan for Aaron to join Moses. I did not mention anything about the hardening of Pharoah. The signs in Ex.4 was to get the children of Israel to believe Moses. Perhaps you should take a second glance at what I wrote..? I think you missed my point. No offense intended.

Yup. I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the plagues as signs.

It is possible that God's plan doesn't happen directly as He intended, and some reroutes occur, but doesn't indicate that God gives up on a plan to start a new one. In fact, I don't have any doubt that God figured Israel would walk away from its covenant many times and need to be judged. I think He knows enough about man to know what will probably happen.

That's still not evidence that God abandons a plan, tho.

Michael

[Daywalker]

Yup. I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to the plagues as signs.

It is possible that God's plan doesn't happen directly as He intended, and some reroutes occur, but doesn't indicate that God gives up on a plan to start a new one. In fact, I don't have any doubt that God figured Israel would walk away from its covenant many times and need to be judged. I think He knows enough about man to know what will probably happen.

That's still not evidence that God abandons a plan, tho.

Michael

I hear what you are saying. It sounds to me like we are dealing with how we are expressing this, more than anything else. If you call the covenants PLAN A, PLAN B, PLAN C but all are ONE-then I call the dispensations PLAN A, PLAN B, PLAN C-but all are ONE. If we call God sending Aaron for Moses and giving extra signs "God changing his dealings", then I call the dispensations "God changing his dealings". It all comes out the same no matter what words are picked. If you say that there is REROUTING with the giving of Aaron, then I say there is rerouting with the Covenants (Old Cov't, New Cov't, etc.). You know where I am going.
Have a great day!
-Mike