(Followup of this post)
What's really surprising me is the people trying to tush-tush any objection to the absence of a dispensationalist speaker at this event.
First passSuppose Dallas Theological Seminary were to host an event called "An Evening on the Extent and Efficacy of the Atonement."
Further suppose that the event were hosted by Chuck Swindoll, and that there were three presenters: a semi-Pelagian, an Arminian, and an Amyraldian.
Do you think that five-point Calvinists would be pleased? Would they feel it was a well-rounded presentation, by a major institution, on the announced topic?
Suppose further that, when they made their objection, Swindoll (or a spokesman) responded, "Well, if we had a five-pointer on the panel, that would be two Calvinists, since we already have the Amyraldian."
Would that be a satisfying response?
Seriously: I think you could make a better argument that there is no need for a "historical" premill on the platform. They should have the a-, the post-, and a dispensationalist.
After all, you already have two presenters whose positions think that buckets of OT prophecies have a fulfillment that never could be gleaned from the words themselves, and never would have occurred either to the prophets or their audience; and you already have two presenters whose positions think that most of Revelation really isn't about actual events "that are to take place after this" (Revelation 1:19).
Why have a third ("historical" premil)?
It is just like that. Note: the event is titled An Evening of Eschatology. Again I ask, which has arguably been the most influential approach to eschatology among Bible-believers over the last century or so?
Note: I am not asking whether you like it, whether you agree with it, whether you're happy with the way things are or have been. I'm asking which has been the most influential in the area of eschatology in the past century or so.