Theologians from both ends of the dispensational-covenantal spectrum recognize that theological positions can be placed anywhere within this continuum. As John S. Feinberg, a Dispensational theologian, states,
“Theological positions can be placed on a continuum running from views which hold to absolute continuity between the Testaments to views holding to absolute discontinuity between the Testaments. The more one moves in the continuity direction, the more covenantal he becomes; and the more he moves in the discontinuity direction, the more dispensational he becomes.”
Feinberg continues to elaborate that most theological systems, in fact, fall in between the two extreme ends of this dispensational-covenantal continuum. He writes:
“Generally, systems that move toward absolute continuity fit more in the mold of Reformed or covenantal theologies. Systems that move toward absolute discontinuity fit more in the mold of dispensational theologies. While there are varieties of both kinds, it is unlikely that any actual systems are exactly at either end of the continuum.”
In order to properly identify the theological grid adhered to by a particular theologian, it is important to delineate the sine qua non of a system. The sine qua nons or the foundational principles of a theological system must be distinguished from views derived from the application of those foundational principles. Feinberg explains:
“Not all discontinuity or dispensational positions are alike. Nonetheless, it seems possible to delineate those elements essential to all dispensational systems. . . . As to the distinction, in assessing any conceptual system it is always crucial to distinguish foundational principles from notions which are applications of those foundational principles. The system is generated from the former, and without adherence to them one cannot properly claim to hold the system. Rejecting particular applications of foundational principles, however, does not disqualify one as an adherent to the system. This distinction is especially important for Dispensationalism, for both proponents and critics have too often treated applications of the system like foundational principles. Consequently, dispensationalists have assumed wrongly that rejection of such applications entails departure from the position. Likewise, nondispensationalists have wrongly understood adherence to Dispensationalism to mean agreement with every applicational point.”
Feinberg makes two important points. Firstly, he emphasizes the fact that a theological system is generated from the sine qua non of that system. One who adheres to the sine qua non of that system can, therefore, be rightly perceived as an adherent of that theological system. Secondly, the rejection of certain applications of the sine qua non “does not disqualify one as an adherent to the system.”
In our current discussion of what constitutes a Dispensationalist, we must define appropriately and precisely what the sine qua non of Dispensationalism is. Theologians who are adherents of this sine qua non can appropriately be regarded as Dispensationalists. But before I proceed to identify the sine qua non of Dispensationalism, I will briefly state what the sine qua non is not.
What the Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism is not
Dispensations or Economies
In his discussion of the term “Dispensationalist,” Poythress prefers a “neutral designation” for the “sake of clarity.” He calls the Dispensationalists, “D-theologians.” This is to avoid any misconceptions with regard to the definition of the term “Dispensationalist.”
A common error is to define Dispensationalism as a system of theology which arises from viewing Scripture in terms of dispensations. But a Dispensationalist is not simply a theologian who understands the Bible as consisting of distinctive dispensations.
“D-theologians [or Dispensationalists] have most often been called “dispensationalists” because they divide the course of history into a number of distinct epochs. . . . However, the word “dispensationalist” is not really apt for labeling the D-theologians. Virtually all ages of the church and all branches of the church have believed that there are distinctive dispensations in God’s government of the world, though sometimes the consciousness of such distinctions has grown dim. The recognition of distinctions between different epochs is by no means unique to D-theologians.”
It is obvious that a dispensationalist is not merely one who understands the Bible in terms of various divine economies or dispensations. Even Covenant theologians see at least two economies in God’s dealings with man: (1) the covenant of works and, (2) the covenant of grace.
Jeffrey Khoo recognizes this fact:
“It must be said that there is nothing wrong in seeing dispensations in the Bible. Covenant theologians like Charles Hodge, and Louis Berkhof have their own dispensational schemes but all under the umbrella of the covenant of grace. There are not seven dispensations, but only two: (1) the dispensation (or covenant) of works (Gen 1:1-3:14), and (2) the dispensation (or covenant) of grace (Gen 3:15-Rev 22:21).”
Interestingly, Mathison correctly observes that,
“Dispensationalism is too often defined in terms of its lowest common denominator and thus is not adequately distinguished from other systems of theology. For example, Stanley Toussaint defines dispensationalism as the theological system that “recognizes various administrations or economies in (the) outworking of God’s plan in history.” This definition omits anything that is unique to dispensationalism. Virtually every system of Christian theology recognizes various administrations or economies within God’s plan, yet it would be inaccurate to claim that all of these systems are dispensational. Dispensationalism must be defined in terms of its unique essence, namely that which distinguishes it from other systems of theology.”
Despite the fact that Dispensationalism is not defined by the identification of dispensations within the Bible, Khoo seems to suggest that a Dispensationalist is merely one who understands the Bible in terms of various “dispensations” or administrations. In his essay, Dispensationalism Examined, Khoo writes, “What then is dispensationalism? The word “dispensation” comes from the Greek oikonomia (literally “house law”) which means “stewardship,” or “administration.’” After defining the word “dispensation,” Khoo proceeds to give a brief history of Dispensationalism, and includes an introduction to the various dispensations advocated by Dispensationalists. He also discusses dispensational antinomianism, dispensational Calvinism, and the dispensational view of
subsequently concludes his treatise with this statement: Israel
“Therefore, have we as Bible-Presbyterians become dispensational? No, because we do not hold to a dispensational scheme but a covenantal one.”
Is it, then, true that a theologian is not dispensational simply because he does not “hold to a dispensational scheme”?
Dispensationalist John S. Feinberg realizes that a common error is to define Dispensationalism by defining a dispensation. He concurs with the observation that Covenant theologians, likewise, perceive various administrations or economies of the overarching “covenant of grace.” Therefore, the concept of dispensations is not unique to Dispensationalism.
“While οἰκονομία [oikonomia] is a biblical word, and a dispensation is to be defined roughly as these men [referring to certain Dispensationalists] have, none of this defines the essence of Dispensationalism, a system or approach to Scripture. . . . The initial error is thinking that the word “dispensation” and talk of differing administrative orders only appears in dispensational thinking. Which covenant theologian thinks οἰκονομία [oikonomia] is not a biblical word? Moreover, covenantalists often speak, for example, of differing dispensations of the covenant of grace. Since both dispensationalists and nondispensationalists use the term and concept of a dispensation, that alone is not distinctive to Dispensationalism. It is no more distinctive to Dispensationalism than talk of covenants is distinctive to Covenant Theology. Dispensationalists talk about covenants all the time.”
Tim Warner and other progressive dispensationalists see a single, unfolding redemptive plan within Scripture. Furthermore, all dispensationalists recognize various covenants (i.e. Abrahamic, Davidic, New) in God’s dealings with Man. Warner reveals that “Progressive Dispensationalists see a progression of dispensational economies in a single unfolding plan to redeem mankind. We acknowledge only one means of salvation for all time, by grace through faith.”
Covenant theologians would likewise affirm that there is “a single unfolding plan to redeem mankind,” and that there is “only one means of salvation for all time, by grace through faith”. Have Progressive Dispensationalists, therefore, become Reformed theologians? In the same breath, Warner emphasizes that, “surely progressive dispensationalists are true dispensationalists.” This is because they affirm the dispensational sine qua non.
While it is true that the recognition of covenants within the Bible does not necessarily make one a Covenant theologian, the acknowledgment of dispensations within Scripture, similarly, does not turn a theologian into a dispensationalist.
Feinberg goes further in his analysis of Dispensationalism. He explains that the concept of dispensations is not even a foundational principle of Dispensationalism. Also, “the number of dispensations one holds is not an essential of the [Dispensational] system. . . . The number of dispensations is not at the heart of the system.” Therefore, it is not essential whether a Dispensationalist adhere to three or even seven dispensations. The number of dispensations recognized does not make a theologian any more or less dispensational.
Feinberg continues his reasoning:
“The error, however, is at an even deeper level. The term and concept “dispensation” are not even at the essence of the system. The fundamental error of [Elliot] Johnson, [
] Toussaint, and others is thinking that
they can define a conceptual scheme (Dispensationalism) by defining a
term (“dispensation”). Defining a word and defining a concept are not the same
thing. Defining a word involves giving an analysis of the ways in which the
word is used in various contexts. Defining a concept involves delineating the
fundamental qualities that make it what it is. Dispensationalists apparently
have not understood the distinction and so have assumed they could define a
system of thought (a conceptual matter) by defining a word. Defining the term
“dispensation” no more defines the essence of Dispensationalism than defining
the term “covenant” explains the essence of Covenant Theology.” Stanley
Therefore, in the current theological dialogue between Dispensationalists and Reformed theologians, scholars “should not shift the ground in the discussion by maneuvering with the term “dispensationalist.’” Bible Presbyterians should not attempt to define Dispensationalism as a theological system by defining the term “dispensation.” In the same vein, a theologian is not Reformed simply because he does “not hold to a dispensational scheme but a covenantal one.”
In his essay, Dispensationalism Examined, Jeffrey Khoo attempts to argue that “Dispensational Antinomianism” is a distinctive of Dispensationalism. He claims that “the dispensational aversion to the Moral Law has led some dispensationalists to advocate that salvation involves receiving Jesus only as Saviour, but not as Lord. This has to do with the “Lordship Salvation” debate.” In this manner, he intimates that the Bible Presbyterians’ agreement with the Reformed view of the Moral Law distinguishes them from Dispensationalists.
However, it is recognized by Dispensationalists that the “dispensational understanding of the law is not an essential of the system. Some argue that Dispensationalism entails antinomianism, since dispensationalists claim that the law is done away, for Christ is the end of the law (
10:4). Though some may hold
this view, it is hardly the norm or necessitated by Dispensationalism. . . .
Dispensationalism is neither antinomian nor entails it.” Rom.
Once again, Khoo fails to address adequately the foundational principles of Dispensationalism in his essay, Dispensationalism Examined. Instead, he prefers to discuss certain applicational points of those foundational principles, and only briefly mentions the sine qua non of Dispensationalism at the close of his essay.
In his essay, Khoo argues that Dispensationalists are “four-point Calvinists.” He seems to suggest that “Dispensational Calvinism” is characteristic of Dispensationalism. Khoo writes,
“Most dispensationalists are four-point Calvinists. The point they reject is the third point - Limited Atonement. They believe that the atonement of Christ is unlimited in both its sufficiency and efficiency. Christ died sufficiently and effectively for the whole world, though only the elect are saved. This is no different from Arminian [sic] view of the atonement.”
Again, it is imprecise to define Dispensationalism via the applicational points of its foundational principles. This manner of argument is a red-herring at best.
Feinberg correctly observes that,
“Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism is at the essence of Dispensationalism. Some Calvinists are nondispensationalists, and others, like myself, are dispensationalists. The same is true of Arminians. This matter is not at the essence of Dispensationalism, because Calvinism and Arminianism are very important in regard to concepts of God, man, sin, and salvation. Dispensationalism becomes very important in regard to ecclesiology and eschatology, but is really not about those other areas. Some think salvation is at the heart of Dispensationalism, because they erroneously think Dispensationalism teaches multiple methods of salvation. Those who properly understand the position realize its emphasis lies elsewhere.”
Here, Feinberg makes some important remarks. The sine qua non of Dispensationalism has its greatest ramifications in the areas of “ecclesiology and eschatology.” Therefore, in Khoo’s definition of Dispensationalism, it is not helpful to evade a discussion of its foundational principles that have their furthest applications in ecclesiology and eschatology.
I agree most heartily with Khoo when he says “that taking a premillennial position does not necessarily make one dispensational.” Dispensationalism cannot be equated with Premillennialism. Covenant Premillennialists, such as George Eldon Ladd, do not adhere to the sine qua non of Dispensationalism. Not only do they disagree with dispensational ecclesiology, their concept of the Kingdom is diametrically opposed to that of Dispensationalism.
“Some have argued that the essence of dispensationalism is premillennialism. That would make it at least part of the definition of dispensationalism. But [Charles] Ryrie disagrees, noting that “being a premillennialist does not necessarily make one a dispensationalist.” . . . If dispensationalism is not simply the recognition of various dispensations, and if it is not premillennialism, then what is it? What distinguishes dispensationalism from other systems of theology?”
In the following pages, we shall begin our discussion of what truly constitutes Dispensationalism.
Who is a Dispensationalist?
We shall now attempt to define the term “Dispensationalist” generally. At the same time, we recognize varieties within Dispensationalism i.e. Classical, Revised/Normative, and Progressive.
Poythress rightly perceives that the Israel/Church distinction is what sets Dispensationalists apart from Non-dispensationalists. This distinction is applied through one’s theological-hermeneutical grid, as Poythress explains:
“What these men [i.e. Dispensationalists] primarily have in common is a particular view of the parallel-but-separate roles and destinies of
and the church. Accompanying this view is a particular hermeneutical stance in
which careful distinction is made between what is addressed to Israel
and what is addressed to the church. What is addressed to Israel is “earthly” in character
and is to be interpreted “literally.’” Israel
On the other hand, Tan correctly identifies Covenant theologians as those who do not see a distinction between
and the Church. This understanding falls at the other end of the
dispensational-covenantal continuum. Tan writes: Israel
“Covenant theologians believe that
and the church are one and the same people; dispensational theologians believe
and the church are two distinct peoples of God.” Israel
A dispensationalist is, therefore, one who sees a distinction between
and the Church. But how is this distinction applied by the Dispensationalist?
Tan elucidates that this Israel/Church distinction is primarily a hermeneutical distinction. That is, a
Dispensationalist applies the Israel/Church distinction in his reading,
interpretation and exegesis of Scripture. Tan also states that this
hermeneutical distinction is what qualifies a theologian as a
“The basic test of a dispensational interpreter is his willingness to distinguish, via normal reading of the Scriptures, the difference between
and the church. To see the church as the Body of Christ, an organism different
from Old Testament Israel ,
is to read Scripture dispensationally and to qualify as a dispensational
The Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism as Defined by Ryrie
What, then, is the dispensational sine qua non? According to Charles C. Ryrie, the well-known dispensational theologian:
“A dispensationalist keeps
and the Church distinct . .
. This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person
is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and
conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently
will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does
Therefore, according to Ryrie, “the most practical and conclusive” theological test to distinguish a Dispensationalist from a Non-dispensationalist is whether the theologian adheres to the Israel/Church distinction.
Ryrie continues to explain that Dispensationalists generally espouse a “consistently literal” hermeneutics:
“This distinction between
and the church is born out
of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation. . .
. Consistently literal, or plain, interpretation indicates a dispensational
approach to the interpretation of Scripture.” Israel
Also, Dispensationalists assert that God’s purposes center in his glory, rather than the single purpose of salvation. Russell Bowers, Jr. summarizes for us the sine qua non of Dispensationalism, which forms a threefold test to identify a Dispensationalist:
“[Charles C.] Ryrie proposed a threefold test to determine whether a theologian is a dispensationalist: (a) a distinction between
and the church, which grows
out of (b) a consistent use of literal (normal or plain) interpretation, and
(c) an understanding that the display of God’s glory is His underlying purpose
in the world.” Israel
Despite the threefold sine qua non as defined by Ryrie, Stanley Toussaint reminds us that the most foundational principle of Dispensationalism is the Israel/Church distinction. He writes:
“In his classic work Dispensationalism Today, Ryrie sets forth a threefold sine qua non of dispensationalism - a distinction between
and the church, a literal
hermeneutic, and the glory of God as His purpose on earth. Of these three,
undoubtedly the most important is the distinction between Israel and the church. Ryrie calls
this “the most basic theological test of whether or not a man is a
dispensationalist.” He calls it the “essence of dispensationalism.” He goes so
far as to say, “The nature of the church is a crucial point of difference
between dispensationalism and other doctrinal viewpoints. Indeed, ecclesiology,
or the doctrine of the church, is the touchstone of dispensationalism.” All
dispensationalists would agree that these statements are true.” Israel
With regard to the threefold sine qua non formulated by Ryrie, Khoo exclaims:
“The sine qua non (i.e. essential elements) of dispensational theology are the (1) distinction between
and the Church, (2) literal
interpretation of prophetic texts, and (3) unifying principle of the glory of
God. We, as reformed premillennialists, can
agree to all three points.” Israel
Elsewhere, Khoo reiterates:
“The BPCS [Bible Presbyterian Churches in
] and FEBC [Far Eastern
Bible College] – being covenant and premillennial in theology – are agreeable
to all three points [of the sine qua non
of Dispensationalism].” Singapore
Dispensationalists would agree that, if one embraces the sine qua non of Dispensationalism, one is essentially a Dispensationalist. This is because sane logic demands that “things equal to the same thing are also equal to one another.”
It is interesting to note that Ice, a Revised Dispensationalist, describes Dispensationalism in the following words:
“By Dispensationalism, I have in mind that system of theology that was developed by J. N. Darby that gave rise to its modern emphasis of consistent literal interpretation, a distinction between God’s plan for Israel and the church, usually a pretribulational rapture of the church before the seventieth week of Daniel, premillennialism, and a multifaceted emphasis upon God’s glory as the goal of history. This includes some who have held to such a system but may stop short of embracing pretribulationism.”
In previous blog posts, we have observed that Bible Presbyterian theologians in Singapore generally adhere to the pretribulation rapture of the Church. Therefore, even if we use Ice’s definition of Dispensationalism, we are confident that the Bible Presbyterians in
will fit that description perfectly. Singapore
It becomes necessary for us to recognize that, although covenantal, Reformed Baptists do recognize a distinction between Israel and the Church (national Israel as an Old Testament type of the Church, with the Church as the anti-type), Dispensationalists see Israel and the Church as distinct in the sense that there are separate redemptive plans and programs for national Israel and the Church, with the Church's inception on the Day of Pentecost in the New Testament. Reformed Baptist covenant theology (also known as 1689 Federalism) as developed and popularized by theologians like Pascal Denault and Samuel Renihan, and seminaries such as the IRBS Theological Seminary, are variations of Reformed covenant theology espoused by their Presbyterian and Reformed brethren in other denominations.
The Reformed Baptist understanding of a distinction between Old-Testament-national-Israel and the Church, and the type-antitype relationship between the two respective entities, should not be confused with the Dispensationalist's sine qua non. Reformed Baptists do not believe that God has separate redemptive plans or destinies for national Israel and the Church. In covenant theology, the Church includes Jewish and Gentile believers justified by faith alone from both the Old and New Testament dispensations, and from all nations. Ethnic Israelites do not have salvific privileges based upon the earthly, physical promises of the Abrahamic covenant of their patristic fathers. All salvific benefits of redemption are found in Christ alone, through the New Covenant or the Covenant of Grace in Reformed Baptist understanding. As such, one would be acutely confused to confound Reformed Baptist covenant theology with Dispensationalism.
The Consistently Literal Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism is not a Clearly Defined Distinctive
With regard to the threefold sine qua non proposed by Ryrie, the first two points are intimately interlinked. On a general note, one cannot apply the Israel/Church distinction in one’s interpretation of Scripture unless one attempts to adhere to a “consistently literal” meaning for the word “Israel.”
Concerning this “literal” hermeneutics, Poythress observes that “nearly all the problems associated with the dispensationalist-nondispensationalist conflict are buried beneath the question of literal interpretation.” But the definition for “literal interpretation” has received inconsistent, sometimes even opposing, answers from those who claim to adhere to this hermeneutics. Furthermore, the attempt to define “literal hermeneutics” has been confounded by the difficulty of conclusively answering the question of “what is meant by literal?”
Blaising, in fact, concludes that “consistently literal exegesis is inadequate to describe the essential distinctive of dispensationalism. Development is taking place on how to characterize a proper hermeneutic for dispensationalists. Many do not feel, however, that the hermeneutic itself will be distinctively dispensational. Furthermore dispensational interpretations of various texts are likely to modify as this development continues.”
Elsewhere, Blaising argues that a consistently literal hermeneutics is not a historically clearly defined sine qua non for dispensationalism.
As discussed in chapter 2, Reformed theologians do not allegorize or spiritualize Scripture. Covenant theologians, like Dispensationalists, understand the Bible literally. Furthermore, both Dispensationalists and Reformed theologians recognize typological and symbolical elements in Scripture. Therefore, as Mangum has lamented, “simply parroting the older dispensationalist canard that the dispensationalist-covenant theology debate is between those who take the Bible “literally” and those who “allegorize” or “spiritualize” Scripture should come to an abrupt halt.”
If the “consistently literal” hermeneutics of Dispensationalism does not effectively define its theological-hermeneutical grid, what, then, is the distinctive of Dispensationalism? We shall answer this question in the blog spot.
 For example, see the heuristic spectrum of eschatological positions espoused by Mangum. See Mangum, “A Future for
in Covenant Theology: The Untold Story,” 15. Israel
 John S. Feinberg, “Preface,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), xii.
 John S. Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 64.
 Ibid., 67-68.
 Ibid., 68.
 Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 9.
 Ibid., 9-10.
 Khoo, Dispensationalism Examined, 5.
 Mathison, Dispensationalism, 3-4, quoting Stanley Toussaint, “A Biblical Defense of Dispensationalism,” in Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), 82-83.
 Khoo, Dispensationalism Examined, 2.
 Ibid., 11.
 Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 69. I highly recommend the reading of Feinberg’s essay “Systems of Discontinuity” on pp. 63-86; it gives a good analysis of what Dispensationalism is as a system of thought.
 Tim Warner, Progressive Dispensationalism 101 [article on-line]; available from http://www.geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/prodisp.html; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005, emphasis mine.
 We shall discuss the sine qua non of Dispensationalism further in later posts. Dispensationalists are in agreement that the true sine qua non of Dispensationalism is the Israel/Church distinction.
 Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 70.
 Ibid., 69, emphasis mine.
 Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 11.
 Khoo, Dispensationalism Examined, 11.
 Ibid., 7. The section on “Dispensational Antinomianism” forms part of Khoo’s treatise on what Dispensationalism is and is not.
 Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 71.
 Khoo, Dispensationalism Examined, 9.
 Therefore, he seems to imply that Bible Presbyterians are not dispensational because of their Calvinism.
 Khoo, Dispensationalism Examined, 9. He seems to have left out John F. McArthur, Jr. of The Master’s Seminary, who is a self-professed “five-point Calvinist,” as well as a full-blooded Dispensationalist.
 Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 70-71, emphasis mine.
 It is also telling that Bible Presbyterian ecclesiology and eschatology are essentially similar to those of Revised Dispensationalism.
 Khoo, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, 1.
 See George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974). In contrast, the Bible Presbyterian’s concept of the Kingdom is similar to that of Dispensationalists. This is discussed later in chapter 22 of this book.
 Mathison, Dispensationalism, 4, quoting Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 44.
 According to Poythress, “representative D-theologians [or Dispentionalists] include Lewis Sperry Chafer, Charles L. Feinberg, Arno C. Gaebelein, J. Dwight Pentecost, Charles C. Ryrie, and John F. Walvoord.” See Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 9.
 Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy (Hong Kong: Nordica International, 1974), 246. Tan is a Revised Dispensationalist.
 Ibid., 251.
 See Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1965), 44-48. This book was subsequently revised and expanded; see idem, Dispensationalism, 38-41 for the sine qua non of Dispensationalism.
 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 39.
 Ibid., 40.
 See Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 40-41.
 Russell H. Bowers, Jr., “Dispensational Motifs in the Writings of Erich Sauer,” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (1991): 262.
 Stanley Toussaint, “Israel and the Church of a Traditional Dispensationalist,” in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1999), 227, quoting Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1965), 45, 47, 132.
 Khoo, Dispensationalism Examined, 11, emphasis mine. I would contend that Khoo is a dispensational premillennialist, and not a Reformed premillennialist like George Eldon Ladd. Covenant premillennialists do not accept the Israel/Church distinction.
 Khoo, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, 46. It, indeed, stretches the imagination to conceive of a theological system that concedes with the sine qua non of Dispensationalism, and yet claims to be Covenantal or Reformed.
 This rule is also known as one of
common notions. Euclid
 Thomas Ice, The Calvinistic Heritage of Dispensationalism [article on-line]; available from http://www.raptureready.com/featured/TheCalvinisticHeritageofDispensationalism.html; Internet; accessed 10 October 2005.
 See prior posts in this blog.
 The first two points are (1) the Israel/Church distinction, and (2) the “consistently literal” hermeneutics of Dispensationalism.
 It is interesting to note that “the measure to which literal interpretation is to be followed in Old Testament interpretation is directly related to the problem of the restoration of
[A. B.] Davidson lists four opinions in this regard: (i) those who assert that
God’s dealings in Christianity are completely personal so a restored national
Israel is unthinkable; (ii) those who believe in Israel’s conversion but not
restoration; (iii) those who believe in a conversion and restoration but with
no special prominence for Israel; and (iv) those who believe in a conversion of
Israel, a restoration of Israel, and the millennial preeminence of Israel.” See
Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation,
 Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 78.
 See ibid., 78-96.
 Craig Blaising, “Development of Dispensationalism by Contemporary Dispensationalists,” Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (1988): 272.
 See Craig Blaising, “Why I Am a Dispensationalist with a Small ‘d,’” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41, no. 3 (1998): 388-390.
 Mangum, “A Future for
in Covenant Theology: The
Untold Story,” 21. Israel