Is Progressive Dispensalism Becoming A Large Baptist Theological Viewpoint?

Baptists are a large part of ETS, of course, generally not "independent Baptists" such as yourself...

Bruce Ware was president last year. This year's board of leaders is heavily represented by Baptists.

 

And the Arminian perspective added up? Really?!? What was Christ purpose on the cross then? ....you can take it private if you wish....I dont want to delute the OP.

Blessings

 

Maybe I've missed something. I thought all dispys were pre-trib, and all pre-tribs were dispy. I'm historical pre-mil, but don't consider myself a dispy. Help me out here.

My main reason for wanting to be a dispy is to miss the Great Tribulation. I was really disappointed when I realized I wasn't.

 

I just read through the thread and it was a blessing to me. Lots of truth spoken in love. Lots of humility and wisdom on display. Very encouraging. Thanks.

In any discussion of dispensationalism, we must battle communications difficulties, because often times we use the same word, but we are intending to communicate different things.

Dispensationalism sounds like a discussion of various dispensations or relationships between God and man, and you can find articles that assert many different dispensations, such as (1) before the fall, (2) after fall but before the Law, (3) the Law until Christ died, and (4) the dispensation of grace in which we now exist until Christ comes again. Then more dispensations are added.

But none of that has anything to do with discussions of dispensationalism. Rather it is an end times discussion of how God will relate to those who received the Old Testament Promises, and those who received the New Testament promises.

Traditional Dispensationalism says the Church, meaning all of us born again, saved by the blood folks, will not be grafted in to "all Israel." Thus they see "Israel" as the children of the promise, but not including the Church. As I said, very difficult to support in light of Galatians chapter 3 which says the Church is grafted in. So Progressives, or at least some progressives believe "All Israel" includes everyone covered by the New Covenant.

Now to the discussion of dispensationalism and premillennialism views. If the 1000 year rein of Christ on a literal throne in Jerusalem is accepted, the dispensationists of every stripe view, but not accepted by amillennialists, then who will rein with Christ. Old Testament saints, or Old Testament Saints and the Church, making up "all Israel."

If you reject the premillennialist view that the church will be resurrected and available to rein with Jesus, then the earthly kingdom will have Old Testament saints only reining with Christ. Once we get to the final dispensation, the eternal kingdom, we all come back together, amillennialists, traditional dispensationalists, and progressive dispensationalist, everybody is there.

In my opinion, that is the issue in a somewhat long nutshell.

 

Off subject...I don't claim the Arminian view either.

 

Was that before or after he gave the assignment to find a single, unequivocal, not-subject-to-any-other interpretation passage which teaches that 1. The New Testament Church replaces and or supplants Isreael and gets all the goodies promised, 2. The covenant of works or that 3. Jesus returned in AD 70?

 

Naw, the assignment was to find a single passage which teaches a pre-trib rapture. That was the foundation stone of the dispy teaching back then, at least in most of the teaching I heard.

The rest of that stuff rarely got mentioned, even by proponents.