Theologians from
both ends of the dispensational-covenantal spectrum recognize that theological
positions can be placed anywhere within this continuum.[1]
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.”[2]
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.”[3]
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.”[4]
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.”[5]
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.”[6]
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.
Poythress
explains,
“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.”[7]
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).”[8]
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.”[9]
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.’”[10]
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 Israel
“Therefore, have we as Bible-Presbyterians become dispensational? No,
because we do not hold to a dispensational scheme but a covenantal one.”[11]
Is it, then, true that
a theologian is not dispensational simply because he does not “hold to a
dispensational scheme”?[12]
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.
Feinberg reasons:
“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.”[13]
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.”[14]
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.”[15]
This is because they affirm the dispensational sine qua non.[16]
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.”[17]
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, [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.’”[19] 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.”[20]
Antinomianism
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.”[21]
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 (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.
Calvinism
In his essay, Khoo
argues that Dispensationalists are “four-point Calvinists.”[23]
He seems to suggest that “Dispensational Calvinism” is characteristic of
Dispensationalism.[24]
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.”[25]
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.”[26]
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.[27]
Premillennialism
I agree most heartily
with Khoo when he says “that taking a premillennial position does not
necessarily make one dispensational.”[28]
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.[29]
Mathison concurs:
“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?”[30]
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.[31]
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 Israel Israel Israel
On the other hand,
Tan correctly identifies Covenant theologians as those who do not see a distinction between Israel
“Covenant theologians believe that Israel
and the church are one and the same people; dispensational theologians believe
that Israel
A
dispensationalist is, therefore, one who sees a distinction between Israel
“The basic test of a dispensational interpreter is his willingness to
distinguish, via normal reading of the Scriptures, the difference between Israel Israel
The Sine Qua
Non of Dispensationalism as Defined by Ryrie
What, then, is the
dispensational sine qua non?[35]
According to Charles C. Ryrie, the well-known dispensational theologian:
“A dispensationalist keeps Israel Israel
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 Israel
Also, Dispensationalists
assert that God’s purposes center in his glory, rather than the single purpose
of salvation.[38]
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 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 Israel 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 Israel
Elsewhere, Khoo
reiterates:
“The BPCS [Bible Presbyterian Churches in 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.”[43]
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.”[44]
In previous blog posts,[45]
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 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 unconditional 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.[46]
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.”[47]
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.”[48]
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?”[49]
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.”[50]
Elsewhere,
Blaising argues that a consistently literal hermeneutics is not a historically
clearly defined sine qua non for
dispensationalism.[51]
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.”[52]
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 next blog post.
References
[1] For example, see the heuristic spectrum of
eschatological positions espoused by Mangum. See Mangum, “A Future for Israel
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] Ibid., 67-68.
[5] Ibid., 68.
[6] Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 9.
[7] Ibid., 9-10.
[8] Khoo, Dispensationalism
Examined, 5.
[9] 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.
[10] Khoo, Dispensationalism
Examined, 2.
[11] Ibid., 11.
[12] Ibid.
[13] 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.
[14] Tim Warner, Progressive Dispensationalism 101 [article on-line]; available from
http://www.geocities.com/~lasttrumpet/prodisp.html;
Internet; accessed 10 October 2005, emphasis mine.
[15] Ibid.
[16] 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.
[17] Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 70.
[18] Ibid., 69, emphasis mine.
[19] Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 11.
[20] Khoo, Dispensationalism
Examined, 11.
[21] Ibid., 7. The section on “Dispensational
Antinomianism” forms part of Khoo’s treatise on what Dispensationalism is and
is not.
[22] Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” 71.
[23] Khoo, Dispensationalism
Examined, 9.
[24] Therefore, he seems to imply that Bible
Presbyterians are not dispensational because of their Calvinism.
[25] 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.
[26] Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,”
70-71, emphasis mine.
[27] It is also telling that Bible Presbyterian
ecclesiology and eschatology are essentially similar to those of Revised
Dispensationalism.
[28] Khoo, Dispensationalism and Covenant
Theology, 1.
[29] 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.
[30] Mathison, Dispensationalism, 4,
quoting Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today,
44.
[31] 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.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of Prophecy (Hong Kong: Nordica International,
1974), 246. Tan is a Revised Dispensationalist.
[34] Ibid., 251.
[35] 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.
[36] Ryrie, Dispensationalism,
39.
[37] Ibid., 40.
[38] See Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 40-41.
[39] Russell H. Bowers, Jr., “Dispensational Motifs in the Writings of
Erich Sauer,” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (1991): 262.
[40] 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.
[41] 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.
[42] 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.
[43] This rule is also known as one of Euclid
[44] Thomas Ice, The Calvinistic Heritage of
Dispensationalism [article
on-line]; available from http://www.raptureready.com/featured/TheCalvinisticHeritageofDispensationalism.html;
Internet; accessed 10 October 2005.
[45] See prior posts in this blog.
[46] The first two points are (1) the
Israel/Church distinction, and (2) the “consistently literal” hermeneutics of
Dispensationalism.
[47] 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 Israel
[48] Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 78.
[49] See ibid., 78-96.
[50] Craig Blaising, “Development of
Dispensationalism by Contemporary Dispensationalists,” Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (1988): 272.
[51] See Craig
Blaising, “Why I Am a Dispensationalist with a Small ‘d,’” Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 41, no. 3 (1998): 388-390.
[52] Mangum, “A Future for Israel
No comments:
Post a Comment