Tag Archives: History of Dispensationalism

A Survey of the History of Covenant Theology Part III


In our last post in this series on the historical overview of covenant theology, we examined the early development of dispensationalism (also called dispensational premillennialism) through the efforts of Lewis Way, Edward Irving, and John Nelson Darby.  Largely, these early seeds of dispensational thought were isolated to Europe, and England in particular.  As we will see in this post, Darby’s transatlantic trips would have an enormous effect on the spread of this teaching to America; the effects of which would be unrecoverable.

Recall that Darby, along with his association with the Plymouth Brethren, was becoming an influential voice among the churches in Great Britain.  Remember also that it was through the influence of Irving, and his influence from Way, that Darby began to synthesize views on the advancement of the Jewish return to Palestine and prominence given to Israel in prophecy, a futurist view of prophetic interpretation, the incipient doctrine of a secret rapture, an imminent return of Christ, a 2-stage return of Christ, and the sine qua non of dispensationalism, a rigid dichotomy between Israel and the Church.

Between 1862 and 1877 Darby made seven transatlantic trips to North America spreading his influence to Chicago, New York, Boston, and most notably St. Louis.  While his ecclesiological doctrines, central to the Brethren’s tenets, would struggle to find an ear in America, Darby’s dispensational beliefs, as they primarily related to prophecy, gained acceptance at the Walnut Street Presbyterian Church in St. Louis, a church pastored by James H. Brookes.[1]

On the spread of dispensationalism in America, Weber writes,

“Among the first adopters of the new premillennialism was an impressive group of evangelical movers and shakers, mostly ‘second-tier’ pastors, Bible teachers, and revivalists with large constituencies.  This group contained evangelical entrepreneurs who knew how to promote dispensationalism, establish strong supporting institutions, and popularize it among evangelicals in the pew.  In this way, dispensationalism often flew under the radar of scholars and church leaders who were out of touch with rank-and-file believers.  By the time the elites noticed, dispensationlism was already well established among conservative evangelicals, with vibrant networks of its own.  What was the key to their success?  During a time of mounting crisis over the Bible’s reliability and acessibility to laypeople, dispensationalists were able to “out-Bible” everybody else in sight.” [2]

It should be noted that dispensationalism took root in the United States more on the basis of its eschatological teaching than on the basis of Darby’s concept of Israel and the church as two peoples of God, reasoning that it was an over-correction to the millennial hope put forth by postmillennialism.[3] In other words, premillennialism, and more specifically dispensational premillennialism, in America, was largely a reaction to certain “liberal brand[s] of postmillennialsm.”[4] Therefore the mid-19th century American mindset began to associate liberalism with postmillennialism and saw premillennialism, in its rising popular form, as a more conservative correction.

Allis notes that while Brookes’ dispensational views resembled Darby’s he neglected to associate or even give credit to Darby, a point at which he estimates that Brookes purposefully chose to distance himself from the more controversial, dissenting views of Darby and the Brethren.[5] In a nearly identical pattern the spread of dispensationalism in America, as in Great Britain, advanced through the organization of Bible conferences and the publication of prophetic literature.[6] The rise of these conferences began under the name “Believers’ Meetings for Bible Study,” attended by Brookes, soon evolving into the Niagara Bible Conference and the first of the national Prophetic Conferences, held in New York in 1878.[7] Several of the more prominent publications were periodicals such as The Prophetic Times, Waymarks in the Wilderness, Brookes’ Maranatha, Jesus is Coming, and the most prominent dispensational publication, The Scofield Reference Bible.[8]  With the rise and spread of these Bible conferences, entering on the scene will be the most significant figure for the spread of dispensationalism in American history, C.I. Scofield, author of the aforementioned reference Bible.

C.I. Scofield (1843-1921) born in Michigan, lived primarily in Tennessee and was discharged as a decorated soldier from Confederate Army having served during the Civil War.  Scofield studied law and was appointed U.S. Attorney to Kansas by President Grant.[9]  He was converted in 1879 and just three years later, with no formal theological education, was ordained as a Congregational minister.  At this time, he began his work on his study Bible in which his notes were placed directly in the text of Scripture, virtually indistinguishable from the King James text in which he wrote.[10]

If Darby synthesized the early concepts of dispensationalism, then certainly C.I. Scofield is the great systemizer of dispensationalism, having advanced the concepts now on the entirety of Scripture.  Despite the assertion of mostly orthodox, conservative theology, Cox notes the great fallacy of the study Bible was the presumption of Scofield to place his notes alongside Scripture.  He speaks to the difficulty of distinguishing the two by its readers in the following quote,

“The gist of the entire controversy at this point, it seems to me, lies in the fact that many of Scofield’s most devoted disciples equate his Notes with the inspired words of the writers of the New Testament.  The difficulty arises when they attempt to force this equation upon the minds and hearts of others.”[11]

Murray states that,

“Scofield’s notes made his master’s [Darby] teaching on prophecy an integral part of the Reference Bible first published in 1909 and thereafter wedded to Scofield’s name.  Within fifty years approximately three million copies of the Scofield Reference Bible were printed in America…making Darby’s prophetical beliefs the norm for evangelicals in the English-speaking world.”[12]

Armed with a textbook for dispensationalism, prophecy conferences that were still in full swing, and charismatic leadership, the ground was set for a dispensational explosion in 20th century America.  Significant for this advancement was the conference of 1914, held at the Moody Bible Institute and lead by James Gray, W.B. Riley, Scofield, and A.C. Gaebeline.  Sarver notes that in “no previous conference had the details of dispensationalism been laid out so explicitly and dogmatically.”[13]

Already a bastion for premillennial thought and defense against modernity, The Moody Bible Institute, founded in 1886 by D.L. Moody, became the first of many Bible Institutes that would serve well the cause of dispensationalism.  These Bible Institutes “were not seminaries; they were training schools for Christian lay workers.”[14]   At the heart of the early dispensational movement in America were not men steeped in the rigors of theological training, specifically biblical languages, but laymen whom Moody called “gapmen” trained more to be evangelists than exegetes.[15]

It should be noted that among Moody’s doctrinal novelties was Keswick teaching, which he imported from his many trips to Great Britain.  This doctrine of “higher life”, a second blessing or work of grace, would blend well with the distinctions of dispensationalism and ultimately lead to the carnal Christian doctrine that would become prominent among dispensational thought.

The influence of Moody on the spread of dispensationalism can be felt on a multitude of levels.  Though himself not an ardent propagator of the doctrine, he provided a platform for the spread of dispensationalism through conferences, influenced doctrinal development, as earlier noted, and lead the advance of premillennial and, more specifically, dispensational publications.  One parody of a gospel song highlights this well, “Our hope is built on nothing less/Than Scofield’s notes and Moody Press.”[16]  Yet perhaps Moody’s greatest influence would be felt indirectly through the founding of the first Bible institute.  This would lead to the founding of another major institution, Dallas Theological Seminary.

Following the non-denominational pattern outlined by Moody Bible Institute and other institutes, Dallas Theological Seminary was “founded in the mid 1920’s by premillennialist Presbyterians.”  This desire to abandon denominational distinctives significantly meant the abandonment of doctrinal creeds on which Protestantism had set her sails coming out of the Reformation.  Weber notes that the center of “institutional dispensationalism” was Dallas Theological Seminary and it quickly became the “academic and theological ‘Vatican’ of the movement.”[17]  It’s founder and first president was Lewis Sperry Chafer, whose voluminous systematic theology would outline and further define dispensational thought.  Though Chafer, himself a Presbyterian, had no formal theological training, his relationship with Scofield is well documented.  He was instrumental in helping Scofield found the Philadelphia School of the Bible and they participated together in the Northfield Bible Conferences.  Soon to become their president, Chafer began what would become a two-decade ministerial friendship with C.I. Scofield.  With seeds firmly planted and watered, the founding of Dallas Theological Seminary would produce the dispensational fruit necessary to propel the movement to the forefront of theological thought in 20th century America.  Leadership at Dallas has included such men as Dwight Pentecost, Norman Geisler, H.A. Ironside, and Dallas graudates, Charles C. Ryrie, John F. Walvoord, and Charles Swindoll.[18]

Most notable among the graduates of Dallas, whose impact is still felt today, is Hal Lindsey.  Weber notes that “no premillennialist was more successful at getting these ideas [pre-tribulational rapture] across” than Lindsey.[19]  The major publication of his dispensational thought with an eye towards prophecy was The Late Great Planet Earth, published in 1970.  In the 1970’s Lindsey’s book would go on to sell over 18 million copies, making him the bestselling author of the decade.  To date, it has sold more than 35 million copies[20] becoming the first major “religious” book to crossover to the secular market.

Another significant, more modern publication was the Left Behind series written by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.  The first in this series Left Behind: A novel of the Earth’s Last Days, was published in 1997 and really served to bring dispensational doctrine once again into the mainstream view, particularly the teachings of a secret rapture and Great Tribulation which as we have seen can be traced in their origin to the mid to late 1700’s.  The series would go on to sell more than 65 million copies[21] and a lead to a movie production.

In the 21st century, dispensationalism consists largely of an amalgamation of doctrinal positions with some proponents holding fast to the dispensationalism of Darby, i.e. that found in Ryrie, while others have migrated to a more progressive view of dispensationalism.  These differences may be found in such self-proclaimed “leaky dispensationlists” as John MacArthur and The Master’s Seminary, which hold more closely to  Ryrie dispensationalism while some Southern Baptist seminaries and the Southern Baptist Convention in general hold and propagate a wide range of dispensational beliefs, a development largely opposed by Reformed Baptist Earnest Reisinger in the 1990’s.[22]

Ryrie notes that this shift in dispensational thought occurred at the 1986 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society and formally took the name “progressive dispensationalism” at the 1991 meeting.[23]  Interestingly, this movement has been led by Dallas Theological Seminary graduates, Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising, along with Robert Saucy.[24]  As Ryrie notes, this new stream of dispensationalism does not hold to the sine qua non which he had gathered from Chafer and Darby before him, specifically the strict distinction between the Church and Israel.[25]

Through the republication of Ryrie’s 1965 work Dispensationalism Today into the book Dispensationalism, he sought to address many of these shifts from classic to a more progressive forms of dispensationalism,[26] which one might readily conclude is really no dispensationalism at all because it lacks a firm distinction between Israel and the Church, one of the early doctrinal positions of the movement.  Interestingly, Ryrie is clear to point this out, this new breed of dispensationalism begins to move closer to the historic covenant theology while the later has remained true to her historic roots,[27] perhaps providing insight into the future sustainability of dispensationalism.

The development of dispensationalism cannot in any defendable way be traced to a time period before the late 18th century.  While early pieces of the puzzle were scattered abroad, the movement lacked any clear direction until the ministry of Edward Irving and more notably the synthesis of John Nelson Darby.  It would appear that societal climate, primarily the presence of wars, heightened prophetic fervor in Great Britain and America, paved the way for a renewed interest in the apocalyptic books of the Bible.  Aiding this was the development of dispensational publications which made the views easily accessible and widely disseminated.  Without question, had dispensationalism emerged in any early period of Church history, sans the power of print, its influence would have been minimal.  As it stands, dispensationalism used the means available in the 19th and 20th centuries leading to the most important publication of the Scofield Reference Bible.  Had this publication not have had the notes directly in the text of Scripture, creating difficulty for the reader to discern the Divine from the Scofield, it’s likely this too would have remained on the shelf.  As shown, its profound influence led to the spread of dispensationalism in America and eventually the foundation of Dallas Theological Seminary, where men would be trained in the theology of Darby and Chafer with limitless resources in a time where theological liberalism was rampant and the corrective was not Biblicism, but fundamental dispensationalism.

Dispensational progression from the early views of Darby, Chafer, and more recently Ryrie to historic covenant theology self-testifies to the quicksand upon which the system was founded.  The influence of dispensationalism, particularly in America, cannot be understated.  While the historical, even modern proponents of the system represent mostly faithful, God-fearing men, in many respects these men are better than the system they represent.


*Much of this post is derived, at least in part, from a paper submitted May 2014 to Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary titled “A Survey of the Historical Origins and Doctrinal Formulation of Modern Dispensationlism”

[1] Sarver, “Dispensationalism”.

[2] Weber, On the Road, 26

[3] Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 19.

[4] Sarver, “Dispensationalism”

[5] Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and The Church (Philadelphia, PA: P&R, 1947), 13.

[6] Poythress, Understanding, 19.

[7] Allis, Prophecy, 13.

[8] Allis, 13-14.

[9] Cox, Examination, 13.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Cox, Examination, 16.

[12] Murray, Hope, 198.

[13] Sarver, “Dispensationalism”

[14] Timothy P. Weber, Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983), 33-34

[15] Weber, Second Coming, 34.

[16] Ibid, 174.

[17] Weber, Second Coming, 238.

[18] Weber, Second Coming, 238.

[19] Weber, Second Coming, 211.

[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books (Accessed May 3, 2014)

[21] Ibid.

[22] http://founders.org/fj09/the-history-of-dispensationalism-in-america/

[23] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 161.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid, 164.

[26] Ibid, 12.

[27] Ibid, 162.

A Survey of the History of Covenant Theology Part II


In a previous post we surveyed briefly the development of covenant theology in the 16th and 17th century (very generally).  In this post, we’ll pick up where we left off, with a transition out of 17th Century and into the 18th and 19th centuries.

This period in history has had a profound impact, not simply on covenant theology, or Christianity, but on the world as a whole.  It was during the 17th and 18th centuries that the Enlightenment period found her roots, thereby raising the need to question everything, including the revelation of Scripture, and replace it with rationalism.

Additionally other societal upheavals led to somewhat of a doctrinal wasteland; there was the schism in the Church of England by Baptists, Congregationalists, and Quakers, the colonization of America, the French Revolution, and generally speaking times of slumber for the church as a whole, out of which revival and the Awakenings were ushered in.

Getting back to the topic of covenant theology, little advancement took place during this period (for our purposes late 17th/early 18th centuries).  There were of course solid men whose sermons and writings reflect the continuation of covenant thought (Jonathan Edwards, John Gill, Benjamin Keach, and others to be sure), but because of the diversity of doctrinal confusion, rationalism, and doctrinal opposition, primarily to Calvinism and its Arminian response, its understandable that there were “bigger fish to fry” so to speak, than polemics between paedo and creedo baptists.

However, moving out of the 18th and into the 19th century is a different story.  The State Church of England now expanding, America now somewhat stabilized as a new country, the soil became ripe for novelty in the form of theological doctrines.  Central to these developments was the aforementioned French Revolution and the related fervor over the study of prophecy.  Enter on the scene in 19th Century England, Lewis Way, Edward Irving, and John Nelson Darby.

Way (1772-1840) is largely an unknown figure in church history, but his influence should not go unnoticed. Born in England in 1772 and the inheritor of a significant fortune along with vast theological resources, Way joined the fledgling London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews in 1809.[1]  After a visit to Devonshire in 1811, he was told of a “grove of trees concerning which the owner had left a will stipulating that ‘these oaks shall remain standing, and the hand of man shall not be raised against them till Israel returns and is restored to the Land of Promise.’”[2]

Sparking his interest in prophecy and an interest in the restoration of Israel, Way sought and found in the London Society an organization that suited his interests. In 1816, Way wrote and published his Letters which “stressed the connection between the return of the Jews to Palestine and their national conversion prior to the return of Christ.”[3]   It becomes clear then that Way’s theological view of the church and Israel would have a profound effect on how he viewed the covenants of Scripture, particularly the Abrahamic Covenant.

Way’s thoughts did not operate in a vacuum and he soon found platforms for the spread of this renewed interest in the Jewish return to Palestine in the form of Conferences, namely the Albury Conferences of the late 1820’s.  Capitalizing on the public fervor over biblical prophecy, Way along with his banker friend Henry Drummond, suggested that a private conference be held to discuss prophetic views.  Among the attenders of these conferences was a man who would wield much more influence than Way, though share in a similar ideology.  Edward Irving (1792-1834) was born in Scotland and raised Presbyterian.  A brilliant thinker and master orator, Irving drank the prophetic kool-aid and through his skill and personality spread it to anyone who would listen.

Irving’s reputation as a polished orator gained him large audiences and the attraction of men who needed a voice to promote their own agendas.  In Irving, a wildcard, men like S.T. Coleridge, who convinced Irving of his own pessimistic views of eschatology and Hatley Frere, who developed a “new scheme of interpretation” based on the present fulfillment of Daniel and Revelation and promoted an “imminent return of Christ”.

Historian Arnold Dallimore notes that Irving promoted allegorizations of the books of Daniel and Revelation with the surety and dogmatism that had established his popularity.  Of Irving he writes,

“One may read through Irving’s entire Works without finding anything that can truly be termed expository preaching. He takes a text, but uses it merely as a peg on which to hang his own numerous ideas, and the work of the true expositor – the study of the words in the original, and the discovery of the meaning of the text on the basis of those words – is virtually nowhere found.”[4]

Scripture aside, however, the most profound influence on Irving’s life would come in 1826 through  a publication that would radically impact his prophetic perspective and further cement the early background for what would become known as dispensational premillennialism.  This publication was written entirely in Spanish by a supposed Jewish convert named Ben Ezra, later identified as a Jesuit priest named Manuel De Lacunza (1731-1801), “a South American Jesuit whose eyes had been opened to the corruption of Rome.”

At the time of the Reformation, many of the Reformers had begun associating the rise of Antichrist with the papacy.  Not any one particular pope mind you, but the papacy in general, thereby applying their historicist view of prophecy, specifically as it related to Revelation.  In response, two Jesuits, Francesco Ribera (1537-1591) and Luis de Alcazar (1554-1613) published detailed studies of Revelation; the former with a futurist perspective and the latter with a more preteristic (fulfilled) perspective.  Both set out designs to “get the monkey of the back” of the pope.

For his part, Lacunza adopted the futurist position of Ribera, though with clearly a different outcome in mind.  His was to stir the priests to study their dusty Bibles and to champion a revival of Antichrist origin from the apostate Roman Church.  He published his scandalous views in The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty, that called for a shift in the way one interpreted prophecy from what had been the more normative historicist view to a more futuristic interpretation. These views so profoundly influenced Edward Irving that he learned Spanish in order to translate Lacunza’s book into English and then appended his own 200-page preface to the work.

Writing on the history of dispensationalism, Mark Sarver notes that the significance of this publication

“lay in its futurism with reference to the interpretation of the book of Revelation (not only regarding the millennium of chapter 20 but also the tribulation of chapters 6 to 19).[5] In his prefatory remarks, Irving had asserted many of his own beliefs including views on the Gentile church, the future Jewish and universal church, and the personal advent of the Lord to destroy the one and build up the other.”[6]

This futurist view of end-time prophecy was virtually unheard of prior to the development and spread of the teaching of Irving, influenced by Jesuit Lacunza himself influenced by the futurist perspective of another Jesuit who had originated his view to remedy the pope-Antichrist connection.  Nearly to a man, the covenant theologians that had formulated their doctrine based on Scripture and expressed it through such monumental confessions as the Westminster and Second London Baptist, held to a historicist view of prophecy out of which their postmillennial views were derived.  Without question this new hermeneutic would profoundly effect how one would view eschatology and its relationship to the biblical covenants for centuries to come.

Continuing to advance his views at conferences, Ian Murray notes that Irving’s influence promoted a theology that was

“practically unknown in earlier Church history…namely, that Christ’s appearing before the millennium is to be in two stages, the first, a secret ‘rapture’ removing the Church before a ‘Great Tribulation’ smites the earth, the second his coming with his saints to set up his kingdom.”[7]

In Irving, we find the advancement of the Jewish return to Palestine and prominence given to Israel in prophecy, a futurist view of prophetic interpretation, the incipient doctrine of a secret rapture, an imminent return of Christ, and a 2-stage return of Christ.  It should also be pointed out that Irving’s influence did not rest in his eschatology alone, but by many accounts he may be called the Father of the Charismatic Movement.

Another prominent figure in the history of dispensationalism, who sat under the teaching and influence of Irving was John Nelson Darby,  referred by many as the Father of Dispensationalism.  Keep in mind through our historical survey and outline of dispensational origins that this doctrine is nearly at the opposite end of the spectrum from the Covenant Theology that was so prominently, dare I say exclusively, held at the time.

Darby gained much of his theological influence through the Powerscourt Conferences, where “the teaching of a pretribulation rapture of the Church took shape.”[8]  The role of Darby amongst a dissenting church group known as the Plymouth Brethren must at least be mentioned because of their influence on views of church membership and ecclesiology in particular.  Their dissatisfaction with the church was at least in part drawn from a publication by Edward Irving entitled, Babylon and Infidelity Foredoomed.

One particular Powerscourt Conference in 1833 was of special significance due to Darby’s advancement of the teaching that “the church as a parenthesis in the prophetic fulfillment between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks of Daniel” (Sarver), an obvious outworking of his ecclesiological position and understanding of the church’s pretribulational rapture.  Speaking on the development of this secret rapture teaching, Brethren member S.P. Tregelles wrote,

“It was from that supposed revelation [with Irving] that the modern doctrine [pre-tribulational rapture] and the modern phraseology respecting it arose. It came not from the Holy Scripture, but from that which falsely pretended to be the Spirit of God.”[9]

Commenting on this, Ian Murray writes,

“He (Darby) held that ‘the Church’ is a mystery of which only Paul speaks. She is Christ’s mystic body and will be complete at the ‘rapture’. The Jews and other Gentiles converted thereafter will never be Christ’s bride: ‘I deny that saints before Christ’s first coming, or after his second, are part of the Church.’ With breath-taking dogmatism Darby swept away what had previously been axiomatic in Christian theology.”[10]

Similarly Bass notes:

“Darby taught that the entire Christian church would be raptured, and the witness during the tribulation would be borne by a semi-Christian group, who, though not a part of the church, would be under a form of grace. He distinguished between the church (Pentecost to rapture) and the saints of the Old Testament, asserting that the church had a special glory and that the Old Testament saints had an inferior relationship to God. To explain the witness of the last days, as set forth in the Gospels, he taught that this was given to the apostles, not as the founders of the church, but as the representatives of the faithful remnant in the midst of an apostate Judaism. This involved a different view of the Gospels than was commonly held, and led to the practice of distinguishing certain parts of them as being ‘Jewish’.”[11]

Darby’s views were not met with a warm reception among all the Brethren members, notably B.W. Newton, who opposed what Darby had presented at the 1833 conference.  Regarding Newton’s position, Bass writes,

“Newton, on the other hand, taught that the ‘faithful’ who were to be persecuted were simply members of the church who would be on the earth at the time of the tribulation, and that the Old Testament saints were an integral part of the church, there being no ‘special glory’ for the post-Pentecostal saints.”[12]

Summarizing these views highlights the “dichotomy between Israel and the church [that] was forming in the thought of Darby, growing out of a rigidly applied principle of interpretation,”[13] while Newton’s view represented the common view of the time, i.e. continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament saints (generally held by both streams of Covenant Theology).

The fractured relationship between Darby and Newton, primarily over doctrinal concerns, would never heal. Through the writings and speaking occasions of Darby, Brethrenism would continue to spread throughout Europe, but it wasn’t until he began his international ministry that the course for dispensationalism’s zenith would be charted.

With this overview on the development of an alternative view to covenant theology, previously unknown in church history, brings us to the late 19th/early 20th Century and the spread of Darby’s dispensationalism to the United States.  A transition which would profoundly alter and perhaps forever change how prophecy and the covenants from Scripture would be approached and interpreted.  On this point we will pick up in the next post.


*Much of this post is derived, at least in part, from a paper submitted May 2014 to Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary titled “A Survey of the Historical Origins and Doctrinal Formulation of Modern Dispensationlism”

[1] http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14801-way-lewis (Accessed March 25, 2014).

[2] Mark Sarver, “Dispensationalism”Mark Sarver, http://www.sermonlinks.com/Sermons/Dispensationalism/DP_1.htm (accessed April 5, 2014)

[3] Ibid.

[4] Arnold Dallimore, The Life of Edward Irving: The Fore-runner of the Charismatic Movement (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1983), 59-60.

[5] Sarver, “Dispensationalism”

[6] Murray, Puritan Hope, 190.

[7] Ibid., 200.

[8] George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), 41.

[9] Ibid, 40.

[10] Murray, Puritan, 200.

[11] Clarence Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism: Its Historical Genesis and Ecclesiastical Implications (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977), 76.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.