Premillenialism and Baptists

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, I think John Nelson Darby (the father of Dispensationalism) was Brethren and paedobaptist. There were other dispensationalists who were paedobaptists also. I think Lewis Sperry Schafer was one. The Baptist are a mixed bag historically. Hershal Hobbs, one of the most famous Southern Baptists, was an Amillenialist as were historical Particular Baptists. I know some Reformed Baptists who are Post-Mil. So to lump all Baptists in the Pre-Mil camp is just a bit overboard.
 
My family's background is heavily brethren and baptist - certainly my exposure to the church here in Aus and in the UK is that they are often premil and dispensational. Aggressively.
 
PuritanCovenanter said:
Actually, I think John Nelson Darby (the father of Dispensationalism) was Brethren and paedobaptist. There were other dispensationalists who were paedobaptists also. I think Lewis Sperry Schafer was one. The Baptist are a mixed bag historically. Hershal Hobbs, one of the most famous Southern Baptists, was an Amillenialist as were historical Particular Baptists. I know some Reformed Baptists who are Post-Mil. So to lump all Baptists in the Pre-Mil camp is just a bit overboard.
Click to expand...

I think there is no real connection between being a Baptist and being a Premillenialist. I think the connection is just that Baptists are sort of the default position of American Evangelicalism (most non denominational churches were originally baptist or functionally act as general baptists) and that Premillenialism because of fundamentalism and ruthless marketing has become the default eschatology of Americans.
 
Last edited:
yeutter said:
When did premillennialism become the dominant position held among Baptists?
Click to expand...

It probably coincided with the embrace of fundamentalism and the insistence that that the Bible must be understood literally whenever possible.
 
armourbearer said:
yeutter said:
When did premillennialism become the dominant position held among Baptists?
Click to expand...

It probably coincided with the embrace of fundamentalism and the insistence that that the Bible must be understood literally whenever possible.
Click to expand...

Yes, it seems that at some point in the early part of the twentieth century Dispensational Premillennialism came to be associated with conservative fundamentalism and all other eschatological views came to be associated with liberal modernism, and Baptists did not want to be associated with the latter.
 
In the UK, the prevailing view amongst reformed baptists would probably be amillennialism, with some being premil.
 
I was wrong in stating the question the way I did.. Many conservative Baptists are amillennial, but I think premillenialism is the majority position in the SBC and most other conservative Baptist denominations.
Perhaps a better question might be why and how did the fundamentalist movement shift from being amillennial to premillennial? Princeton was the flagship school of the fundamentalists. Did its reorganization make way for dispensationalist schools to dominate fundamentalist thought? Why did the Scofield Study Bible supplant Matthew Henry? This seemed to have happened somewhere between 1900 and 1930?
 
SeanPatrickCornell said:
armourbearer said:
... the insistence that that the Bible must be understood literally whenever possible.
Click to expand...

Taking the bolded part into account, I don't see how this could possibly be the WRONG way to approach things.
Click to expand...

We'll I wouldn't say it is wrong for the plain doctrinal or historical verses of the Bible which require the grammatical historical method of Interpretation but Prophecy is a wholly different genre of writing,particularly The Book of Revelation to be more specific, when a Literal Hermeneutic is used to Interpret it all sorts of fancy & ludicrous interpretations
are produced, pre-millenialism Doctrine is one that tends to be prominent in this type of interpretation,all Dispensationalists
are pre-millenial though not all pre-millennialists are Dispensationalists.Dispensationalism stress' a Literal Hermeneutic.
with the SBC being the largest Baptist denomination in the World & there being many Dispensationalists in its ranks
i think this tends give the perception that Baptists are pre-millenialists.
 
yeutter said:
I was wrong in stating the question the way I did.. Many conservative Baptists are amillennial, but I think premillenialism is the majority position in the SBC and most other conservative Baptist denominations.
Perhaps a better question might be why and how did the fundamentalist movement shift from being amillennial to premillennial? Princeton was the flagship school of the fundamentalists. Did its reorganization make way for dispensationalist schools to dominate fundamentalist thought? Why did the Scofield Study Bible supplant Matthew Henry? This seemed to have happened somewhere between 1900 and 1930?
Click to expand...

that seems just about right, Oxford University Press first published the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909,even a
premillennial Presbyterian denomination was born in 1937 not long after this time period, the Bible Presbyterian Church.
actually the most prominent Dispensationalist in 19th Century America was a Presbyterian minister,James H. Brookes
of Walnut Street Presbyterian Church in St. Louis, Missouri,he mentored Scofield which makes it all the more ironic!
 
I think I found the session Dr. Strange spoke on this kind of topic. It was in Session Three of his lectures on Christ and Culture found here I believe. He discusses the various theological influences that impacted our Churches and why in the past century I believe. It was very good, gracious, and clarifying. http://www.immanuelurc.net/graphics/UploadFile/5491/christ_and_culture_session_3_lecture_.mp3

I believe he starts on the topic of dispensationalism around the 30 minute mark.
 
SeanPatrickCornell said:
armourbearer said:
... the insistence that that the Bible must be understood literally whenever possible.
Click to expand...

Taking the bolded part into account, I don't see how this could possibly be the WRONG way to approach things.
Click to expand...

You have to ask what "genre" - I know that's a word that can be abused - you are dealing with. Would you say that Jesus' parables should be taken as literal? You're going to come to all the wrong conclusions if you believe our Lord was merely recounting true stories to no purpose.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
armourbearer said:
SeanPatrickCornell said:
armourbearer said:
... the insistence that that the Bible must be understood literally whenever possible.
Click to expand...

Taking the bolded part into account, I don't see how this could possibly be the WRONG way to approach things.
Click to expand...

It is the sure way to miss the true and full sense of Scripture, which is not manifold, but one.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that it's a BAD idea to understand the Bible literally whenever possible?

I'm baffled. Perhaps I misunderstand you. Or perhaps you misunderstand me.
 
Peairtach said:
SeanPatrickCornell said:
armourbearer said:
... the insistence that that the Bible must be understood literally whenever possible.
Click to expand...

Taking the bolded part into account, I don't see how this could possibly be the WRONG way to approach things.
Click to expand...

You have to ask what "genre" - I know that's a word that can be abused - you are dealing with. Would you say that Jesus' parables should be taken as literal? You're going to come to all the wrong conclusions if you believe our Lord was merely recounting true stories to no purpose.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

I wonder if we are all taking "whenever possible" in completely different ways?

Maybe I suppose "whenever appropriate" would have been a better rack to hang my hat on.
 
SeanPatrickCornell said:
Peairtach said:
SeanPatrickCornell said:
armourbearer said:
... the insistence that that the Bible must be understood literally whenever possible.
Click to expand...

Taking the bolded part into account, I don't see how this could possibly be the WRONG way to approach things.
Click to expand...

You have to ask what "genre" - I know that's a word that can be abused - you are dealing with. Would you say that Jesus' parables should be taken as literal? You're going to come to all the wrong conclusions if you believe our Lord was merely recounting true stories to no purpose.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

I wonder if we are all taking "whenever possible" in completely different ways?

Maybe I suppose "whenever appropriate" would have been a better rack to hang my hat on.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether we use the term "possible" or "appropriate" it must be the overall message of Scripture that determines this and not our own opinions. By trying to artificially force literalism into every text, the results are inevitably arbitrary, hence the Dispensational belief in a literal millennium and a non-literal 70 weeks. We must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.
 
If they ever come out with "The Bible For The Complete Idiot" I'm going to have to get a copy for myself .......... :doh:
 
SeanPatrickCornell said:
So you're saying that it's a BAD idea to understand the Bible literally whenever possible?
Click to expand...

It certainly is a bad idea to understand the Bible literally whenever possible. It will destroy the Christocentric unity of Scripture. Take Galatians 3:16. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." The original promise can quite naturally be understood in a literal way by referring it to Abraham's descendants, but as the history of redemption unfolds it becomes apparent that the text has a fuller sense. It is the fuller sense which we must seek from Scripture.
 
armourbearer said:
It certainly is a bad idea to understand the Bible literally whenever possible.
Click to expand...

Clearly I am not doing a good job getting my point across. Not your fault, and no big deal. Not a hill I want to die on. I am 100% certain if I had explain myself well the first time you guys would have been in full agreement.

I bow out. Thanks for your patience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top