Introduction  

Dispensational theology is a nineteenth-century aberration away from historic, orthodox, Biblical Christianity. Undoubtedly, an introductory statement of this nature has already polarized some readers. Is this simply a pejorative statement made by an overzealous refugee of Dispensationalism? After all, on what basis can a 25-year-old make such a dogmatic claim about Dispensationalists, especially about those who have been Christians longer than he has been alive? On the other hand, perhaps this is a verifiable statement of fact based upon evaluating the objective evidence of Dispensationalism’s historical and theological development? What if I told you that the opening statement of this article was not originally made by me, but by R.C. Sproul in Truths We Confess: A Systematic Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith?[1]

Regardless of the source of this article’s commencing remarks, the claims contained therein must be dealt with by every Christian who reads them. If Sproul’s statement was false, then it was spiritually immature at best and sinful at worst to make such a claim about the convictions shared by tens of millions of Christians around the world (Prov. 12:22). Conversely, if Sproul’s commentary was true, then it is the duty of every non-Dispensational Christian to graciously demonstrate, from Scripture and from church history, why their Dispensational brethren should abandon their erroneous doctrinal convictions out of reverence for God and His Word (2 Pet. 3:18). In the final analysis, Sproul’s claim is either true or false. Dispensationalism is either in keeping with historic, orthodox, Biblical Christianity, or it is an aberrant departure thereof. There can be no tertium quid when evaluating Sproul’s assertion, and it is the duty of every Christian who interacts with it to ascertain whether or not it is in keeping with the testimony of the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15).

Like with any truth claim, it is the universal responsibility of Believers to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). Because all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ (Col. 2:3), Christians must be vigilant to conform their thinking about reality to reflect how their Lord would have them to think. Indeed, in our efforts to be transformed by the renewing of our mind, Christians must prayerfully seek to uncover the most accurate interpretation of God’s natural and special revelation (Rom. 12:2). Because all Believers have the responsibility to worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24), they must necessarily discern truth from falsehood when encountering opposing viewpoints about the overarching testimony of Scripture or how redemptive history ought to be understood. Out of a love for God and out of a desire to be obedient children, Believers are to be equally committed to pursuing sound doctrine as they are to pursuing Christlike conduct in their lives (1 Cor. 10:31). In supplementation to modeling Godly character before a watching world (1 Pet. 3:16), the people of God must also know what they believe and why they believe what they believe if they are to be adequately equipped to give a defense of the hope that is in them (1 Pet. 3:15).

This is not to say that all differences in theology are grounds for breaking fellowship with one another or are of equal essentiality to Christian orthodoxy. Nevertheless, because all truth has originated in God and has been graciously revealed to humanity by God (Titus 1:1-3), all truth is therefore of equal importance due to its common origin. As a sinful creature, man does not have the right to arbitrarily deem some truth from his Creator as more or less important than other truths (Rom. 9:20). On the contrary, all adopted children of God are to devote themselves to learning and embracing the totality of God’s revealed truth with a childlike faith (Mark 10:14-15). When confronted with any truth claim in reality, Christians must ensure that they critically evaluate it against the testimony of God’s Word while simultaneously ensuring that their interpretation of God’s Word is accurate (Ps. 139:23-24). All truth, in reality, is a unified whole and will necessarily harmonize with itself because the God of truth cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13).

It is my sincere prayer that truth will be at the forefront of this article and in the future installments of this series. In the remainder of this series, the burden is on me to illustrate the unbiblical and ahistorical nature of Dispensationalism. While I was grateful to share a personal anecdote about my transition out of Dispensationalism in this series’ preliminary installment[2], I realize that one’s subjective experience does nothing to demonstrate whether something is true or false. Therefore, in the remainder of this series, I will be critically examining some of the most foundational tenets of doctrine that undergird Dispensationalism. For the reader’s clarification, all of my forthcoming critiques in this series will be presented from a Particular Baptist theological framework (“1689 Federalism”).[3] In keeping with my prefatory overview of this series, I will begin my critique of Dispensationalism by exhibiting its historical novelty and suspect origins within subsets of the nineteenth century, Western Christendom. I pray that my thoughts contained throughout this installment set the table for meaningful and balanced critiques in the articles to come. Prior to delving into the weeds of Dispensationalism’s historical development, it’s important to first precisely define what Dispensationalism actually is. In other words, what are the central tenets of Dispensational theology?

Understanding Dispensationalism: More Than an Eschatology

As with many other systems of theology, Dispensationalism is not monolithic in its doctrinal distinctives. In fact, it’s very difficult to even find a monolithic definition of what Dispensationalism actually is. According to Dispensationalist theologian Stanley Toussaint (1928-2017), “Dispensationalism is a theological system that recognizes various administrations or economies (I.e., dispensations) in [the] outworking of God’s plan in history.”[4] As noted by Keith Mathison (1967-), this definition of Dispensationalism “omits anything that is unique to Dispensationalism [because] virtually every system of Christian theology recognizes various administrations or economies within God’s plan. [As such], it would be inaccurate to claim that all of those systems are Dispensational. [Thus], Dispensationalism must be defined in terms of its unique essence, namely, that [of] which distinguishes it from other systems of theology.”[5]

One of the most helpful and extensive definitions of Dispensationalism that has been offered in Christian academia is encapsulated within Clarence Bass’ treatise, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism: Its Historical Genesis and Ecclesiastical Implications. Bass notes that the distinguishing features of Dispensationalism (when considered broadly) are:[6]

• Its view of the nature and purpose of a “dispensation”: Defined as administrations or economies in [the] outworking of God’s plan in redemptive history.
• A rigidly applied literalism in the interpretation of Scripture: A strict adherence to literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutics.
• A dichotomy between Israel and the Church: At best, the same eternal destiny for Israel and the Church, but an eternal distinction between both entities. At worst, different/separate eternal destinies for Israel and the Church.
• A restricted view of the Church: The “Church age” is a parenthesis in God’s redemptive-historical plan for Israel that He will resume after the Pre-Tribulation rapture.
• A compartmentalization of Scripture: A heightened emphasis on the alleged discontinuity between each redemptive-historical dispensation.
• A pre-Tribulation rapture of the Church: This view of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 results in two “rapture” experiences in the future (one at the outset of the 7 year “Great Tribulation,” and one at the second coming of Jesus Christ after the 7 year “Great Tribulation”).
• A Jewish-centered, 7-year, future Great Tribulation period: A Great Tribulation is necessary to fulfill the 70th week of the Daniel 9:24-27 prophecy. This 70th week has remained separated from the previous 69 weeks of the prophecy (and unfulfilled) for some 2000 years.
• A future, Jewish-centered millennial reign of Jesus Christ: In the Millennium, all eschatological Old Testament prophecies to Israel will be literally  The throne of David will be reestablished in a rebuilt temple in national Israel, and a reinstating of animal sacrifices will take place in temple worship.
• A literalistic view of the Eternal State: Understanding the New Jerusalem to be a literal 1500 miles high and 1500 miles wide (in the shape of a cube or a pyramid).

Bass’ robust depiction of Dispensationalism is frequently cited and highly esteemed by theologians who have critically interacted with this system of doctrine.[7] Nevertheless, even Bass’ astute scholarship does not satisfy all who peruse Dispensational theology. To make matters even more challenging in defining Dispensationalism proper, there are many Christians who openly self-identify as a Dispensationalist but disagree on the intricate nuances of this theological framework. This is to say that within the broader realm of Dispensationalism, there are idiosyncratic variations of this theological framework that make it impossible to develop a “one size fits all” definition of the system. As such, many present-day Dispensationalists would likely take offense to Bass’ approach to systematize Dispensational theology under a singular umbrella; they would likely accuse Bass of overly simplifying a complex theological issue.

Given the purposes of this article, and in light of this being merely one installment within the scope of an online blog series, I concede that it is impossible to cover every unique element that distinguishes one version of Dispensationalism from the others. While my objective in this series is to be as fair and precise as I can be in my interactions with Dispensationalism, I also recognize that I will certainly not come close to saying everything that could be said about this theological framework. Even so, bearing this reality in mind, I pledge to the reader that I will do my very best to resist the temptation of overly simplifying the complex heritage of Dispensationalism (in regard to its history in the past and in light of its identity in the present).

It is important to note at the outset of examining Dispensationalism narrowly that there are three historically observable classifications of Dispensationalism that have developed over the past 200 years:[8]

1. Classical/Traditional Dispensationalism (1830-1950)
2. Revised Dispensationalism (1950-1985)
3. Progressive Dispensationalism (1985-Present)

Much has been written over the previous two centuries to define and refine the foundational convictions of each of these three categories of Dispensational thought. Therefore, in an effort to most accurately understand Dispensationalism and to fairly represent this theological system as a whole, it is important to evaluate it through the lens of some of its most notable proponents. For the benefit of the reader, I have included some of the key theological distinctives that undergird each of the three historically observable classifications of Dispensationalism in supplementation to some of the most noteworthy proponents thereof.

Classical/Traditional Dispensationalism (1830-1950)

Key Proponents-[9]

• John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)
• I. Scofield (1843-1921)
• Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952)

Core Beliefs-[10]

• There are two peoples of God: an earthly people (Israel) and a heavenly people (the Church).
• There are two redemptive-historical plans of God: The Church and Israel do not share the same eternal destiny. According to Classical/Traditional Dispensationalism, the Church is destined for Heaven, whereas Israel is destined to inherit the earth during the Jewish-centered, Millennial reign of Jesus Christ.
• There are two New Covenants: One New Covenant is exclusively reserved for Israel (Jer. 31:31-34), and the other New Covenant is exclusively reserved for the Church (Heb. 8:8-12).
• There is a distinction between the “Kingdom of God” and the “Kingdom of Heaven.” The “Kingdom of God” refers to the realm of all true Believers, whereas the “Kingdom of Heaven” refers to the realm of both Believers and unbelievers. As such, the “Kingdom of Heaven” is temporal and physical in nature, whereas the “Kingdom of God” is eternal and spiritual in nature.[11]
• Some parts of Scripture (such as the Sermon on the Mount) only have relevance to the coming millennial kingdom and do not have applicability to the “Church Age.” As such, it is often the job of the Biblical interpreter to discern which passages pertain to the present dispensation of redemptive history and which passages pertain to the future dispensations of redemptive history.

Revised Dispensationalism (1950-1985)

Key Proponents-[12]

• Charles Feinberg (1909-1995)
• John Walvoord (1910-2002)
• Dwight Pentecost (1915-2014)
• Charles Ryrie (1925-2016)

Core Beliefs-[13]

• The Bible refers to multiple senses of terms like “Jew” and “seed of Abraham.”
• The Old Testament is not to be interpreted in light of the New Testament; the Old Testament must be interpreted exclusively on its own terms.
• All Old Testament promises to Israel will be fulfilled with national Israel; none of the Old Testament promises to Israel have application to, or fulfillment in, the Church.
• There is a unique and distinct future for ethnic Israel.
• The Church is a distinct entity and has no ontological relationship with Israel.
• A Biblical philosophy of history does not just focus on soteriological or spiritual issues but also upon social, economic, and political issues.

Progressive Dispensationalism (1985-Present)

Key Proponents-[14]

• Robert Saucy (1930-2015)
• Craig Blaising (1949-)
• Darrell Bock (1953-)
• Michael Vlach (?-)

Core Beliefs-[15]

• The primary meaning of any Bible passage is found in that passage. The New Testament does not transcend Old Testament passages in a way that overrides or cancels the original authorial intent of the Old Testament writers.
• Types exist in the Bible, but national Israel is not an inferior type that is superseded by the Church.
• Israel and the Church are distinct entities; the Church is not to be regarded or identified as the new and/or true Israel.
• While there is spiritual unity in salvation between Jews and Gentiles, there is still a unique, future role for Israel as a nation in God’s eschatological purposes.
• The nation of Israel will be both saved and restored with a unique functional element in a future earthly millennial kingdom.
• Because there are multiple senses of “seed of Abraham,” the church’s identification as “seed of Abraham” does not cancel God’s promises to the believing Jewish “seed of Abraham.”

In the contemporary landscape of Western Christendom, according to Progressive Dispensationalist Michael Vlach, each of the aforementioned six beliefs are central to Dispensationalism. That is to say; they are “beliefs upon which [present day Dispensationalism] stands or falls. These are beliefs that if denied, [it] would probably make one a non-Dispensationalist.”[16] In observing how Dispensationalism has evolved over the past 200 years, I submit to the reader that it is important for non-Dispensational Christians to do their very best to not erect “straw men” out of what Dispensationalists believe today. As such, every self-identifying Dispensationalist must be engaged with on their own terms.

Out of a desire to manifest Christian integrity (Luke 6:31), non-Dispensational Christians should make every effort to not arbitrarily lump Dispensationalists into a historically observable classification until ample work has been done to uncover their unique theological convictions. Conversely, Dispensationalists need to make every effort to clearly define where they stand on the core distinctives undergirding their system of doctrine. As is the case with non-Dispensationalists, Dispensational Christians need to be acutely aware of what they believe and why they believe what they believe. In the body of Christ’s comprehensive efforts to most accurately understand and share the truth of Scripture, doctrinal ambiguity and obfuscation are of no benefit to anybody. Therefore, may the people of God on all sides of this conversation be more motivated than ever before to 1) intensely study the central issues surrounding how Scripture portrays God’s redemptive-historical purposes for His people, and upon doing so, 2) clearly articulate their respective conclusions about what they believe God has disclosed regarding those matters.

An Overview of Dispensationalism’s Historical Origins 

Now that the central theological components of Dispensationalism’s three historically observable classifications have been delineated, it is important to examine its earliest origins. Contrary to popular belief, Dispensationalism was not an available system of theology until approximately 1830.[17] To suggest otherwise is ignorance at best or dishonesty at worst. The staunchest non-Dispensationalists and Dispensationalists today will agree that this specific theological system was not concretized until sometime around the middle of the nineteenth century. Of course, John Nelson Darby is widely credited with advancing much of what would become the macrostructure of Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism. According to renowned Baptist historian Leon McBeth (1931-2013), “Anthony B. Groves and John Nelson Darby [spearheaded the] Plymouth Brethren movement that began in the 1830’s [and would give birth to Dispensational theology].”[18]

This movement began in Plymouth, England, as groups of Christians joined together “to provide a fellowship in which all true Believers could worship together, gather around the Lord’s Table, and study the Scriptures without being divided by differing denominational allegiances.”[19] The Plymouth Brethren were characterized by “fundamentalist doctrines, anti-church attitudes, and one branch of the movement adopted charismatic practices similar to later Pentecostalism.”[20] Echoing McBeth’s historical commentary, Iain Murray (1931-) has likewise drawn a connection between Darby and Edward Irving (1792-1834), the forerunner of what would eventually become the global Charismatic Movement in the late nineteenth, early twentieth century.[21] Ironically, this latter point is often overlooked by many contemporary Dispensationalists, especially those who place great emphasis on the cessation of the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit.[22]

To make Dispensationalism’s historical genesis even more troubling, there is a direct correlation between Darby’s theological system being embraced in the United States during the mid 1800’s and its strong impact in the development of Seventh Day Adventism’s eschatology.[23] In fact, by the 1870’s, the Plymouth Brethren movement had become so prominent in America that Bible prophecy conferences became a staple in the United States Christian subculture.[24] By the early 1900’s, C.I. Scofield would go on to publish the Scofield Reference Bible, which effectively amplified Classical/Traditional Dispensationalism’s reach throughout the rest of American Christendom.[25] In the early twentieth century, as American Christianity began to battle against drifts into theological liberalism, Dispensationalism would become a test of whether or not one was deemed “faithful” to upholding sound doctrine.[26]

To the present dismay of confessionally Reformed Christians, the so-called “Fundamentalist-Modernist” controversy (~1920-1940) would even result in Dispensationalism finding a home within some pockets of American Presbyterianism.[27] In a recent interview with Reformed Forum, Michael Glodo (?-) maintains that there still remains self-identifying Presbyterian denominations that adhere to some form of Dispensationalism in the present day.[28] Moreover, given that the vast majority of the nearly 110 million self-identifying Protestants in North America currently hold to some variation of Dispensational theology, it would be a massive understatement to say that Darby’s doctrinal formulations from 200 years ago have had an impact on the Western world.[29] Be that as it may, popularity is not the arbiter of truth. I am convinced that many Christians (not all) have embraced Dispensationalism simply because that’s the way they were always taught to read the Bible. Tragically, there are many Christians who not only assume that Dispensationalism is the only way to read Scripture but are utterly unaware of the ahistorical underpinnings of this theological framework. Consider a piercing example within just the past 70 years-

One of the primary reasons why there is such sizable ignorance about the historical origins of Dispensationalism is due to the tendency of Christians to conflate Chiliasm (“historic Premillennialism”) with Dispensational Premillennialism. There are several explicit examples of this error that can be recounted. For the benefit of the reader, let me simply provide one example of what I perceive to be a compelling instance of blurring the distinction between Chiliasm and Dispensational Premillennialism. This example pertains to Charles Ryrie’s now-infamous assertion made in his work, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith. Upon its publication in 1953, Ryrie claimed that,

“premillennialism is the historic faith of the church… [and that] opponents of the premillennial system have attempted to obscure the main issues involved by inventing distinctives between historic premillennialists, pre-tribulationists, Dispensationalists and ultra-Dispensationalists. Such distinctions are not warranted since the differences [between each system] are minor.”[30]

Ryrie, and many following his lead at Dallas Theological Seminary during the twentieth century, widely propagated these two erroneous beliefs about Dispensational Premillennialism throughout global Christendom. The first erroneous belief is that the predominant eschatology of the early Church was premillennialism (sadly, I was taught this false view at The Master’s University in my church history classes). In his brilliant piece, Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity[31], Charles Hill (?-) unquestionably demonstrates, from the original sources, that there was at least just as much traction for Amillennialism as there was for Chiliasm in the ancient church. Furthermore, regarding Ryrie’s second colossal error, he insisted that there were no major differences between Chiliasm and what would eventually come to be known as Dispensationalism. While it is certainly true that Chiliasts and Dispensational Premillennialists affirm a future, literal, 1000-year reign of Jesus Christ on the Earth, there are not many (if any) additional similarities between these two eschatological perspectives. To name just a few sizable distinctions between Chiliasm and Dispensational Premillennialism:[32]

• Chiliasts see no distinction between Jew and Gentile for eternity future.
• Chiliasts see one “rapture” event, which will occur at the second coming of Christ.
• Chiliasts don’t necessarily see a future Great Tribulation period (although some do).
• Chiliasts do not see a Jewish-centered millennial reign of Christ, featuring a rebuilt temple and a reinstating of animal sacrifices.

In light of just these four observable differences between Chiliasm and Dispensational Premillennialism, contrary to Ryrie’s claims, there is a vast difference between these two conceptions of eschatology. They are not “similar” viewpoints on the end times, but rather, are mutually exclusive of the other. With all of this being said, no serious or honest church historian will argue for the prevalence of Dispensationalism prior to 1830 at the soonest.[33] This revelation, in and of itself, should be grounds for the Dispensationalist to pause for further reflection. With as much love and grace as I can muster in my writing: “Dispensational brother/sister, are you prepared to maintain an overarching view of theology that was completely non-existent over the first 1830-1850 years of church history?” In his book, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?, Keith Mathison provides a very balanced approach to considering the historical origins of Dispensationalism.

“Historical arguments are not the final test for the truthfulness of any doctrine. Scripture is our sole authority for both doctrine and practice. Yet the history of a doctrine can be highly relevant. We have much more reason to be confident of a doctrine such as the Trinity, which has been taught since the first centuries of the church age, than of a doctrine taught [200] years ago. As a rule, Christians should be cautious about accepting any doctrine that has never been taught in the history of the church… [None] of the church fathers were Dispensationalists. They did not even hold to an ‘undeveloped’ form of Dispensationalism. The Fathers taught that the true church is the true Israel. Even so, we must not base our doctrine upon the church fathers. We must build our understanding upon the teaching of the inerrant Word of God.”[34]

Concluding Remarks to the Reader

In drawing this article to a conclusion, I pray that every reader was able to acquire a deeper awareness of how Dispensationalism has been historically characterized in its three observable classifications. Moreover, I pray that my research on Dispensationalism’s progressive development over the past 200 years was sufficient to provide the reader with a launching point into deeper studies on this subject. Now that the groundwork for this series has been completed, each of the remaining articles of this series will feature critical engagements with Dispensationalism from a Particular Baptist theological framework (“1689 Federalism”). I look forward to embarking upon deeper studies of these matters and pray that my insights are edifying to every reader who takes the time to review my work. May this series be a catalyst to promote deeper contemplation and greater understanding of divine truth as revealed in sacred Scripture.

 

Soli Deo Gloria!

[1]           Page 371.

[2]           https://covenantconfessions.com/dismantling-dispensationalism-my-journey-out-of-dispensationalism/.

[3]           https://www.1689federalism.com.

[4]           Stanley Toussaint, “A Biblical Defense of Dispensationalism,” Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), 82-83.

[5]           Keith A. Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Co.), Pages 3-4.

[6]           Clarence Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism: Its Historical Genesis and Ecclesiastical Implications (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), Pages 18-47.

[7]           https://www.monergism.com/dispensationalism.

[8]           https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/dispensational-theology/.

[9]           https://lifecoach4god.life/tag/chart-of-revised-dispensationalism/- Note: All other works cited agree on each of these key proponents.

[10]         Michael J. Vlach, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths (Los Angeles, CA: Theological Studies Press, 2017), Pages 18-19.

[11]         https://www.mbu.edu/seminary/kingdoms-in-conflict-examining-the-use-of-kingdom-of-heaven-in-matthew/.

[12]         https://lifecoach4god.life/tag/chart-of-revised-dispensationalism/- Note: All other works cited agree on each of these key proponents.

[13]         John S. Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1988), Pages 67-85.

[14]         https://lifecoach4god.life/tag/chart-of-revised-dispensationalism/- Note: All other works cited agree on each of these key proponents.

[15]              Michael J. Vlach, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths (Los Angeles, CA: Theological Studies Press, 2017), Pages 31-40.

[16]         Michael J. Vlach, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths (Los Angeles, CA: Theological Studies Press, 2017), Page 30.

[17]         Keith A. Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Co.), Page 4.

[18]         Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1987), Page 331.

[19]         http://www.brethrenhistory.org/History.htm.

[20]         Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1987), Page 331.

[21]         Iain H. Murray, The Puritan Hope: Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy (Edinburgh, Banner of Truth, 1971), Page 191.

[22]         https://www.gty.org/library/topical-series-library/325/truth-matters-2013-strange-fire.

[23]         Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1987), Page 331.

[24]              Keith A. Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Co.), Page 10.

[25]              Keith A. Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Co.), Page 10.

[26]         https://fbfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2010.08.FrontLine.pdf.

[27]         https://www.wrs.edu/assets/docs/Journals/2004b/Battle%20-%20Eschatology%20in%20the%20BPC.pdf.

[28]         https://reformedforum.org/ctc666.

[29]         https://www.monergism.com/dispensationalism.

[30]         Charles H. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953), Page 12 and 17.

[31]         https://www.amazon.com/Regnum-Caelorum-Patterns-Millennial-Christianity/dp/0802846343.

[32]         https://www.monergism.com/why-early-church-finally-rejected-premillennialism

[33]              Michael J. Vlach, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths (Los Angeles, CA: Theological Studies Press, 2017), Page 15.

[34]         Keith A. Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Philipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Co.), Pages 12-13.