considering dispensationalism

8/9/2019 Considering Dispensationalism

1/9

After hearing my testimony of growing up in dispensational churches, of attending dispensationalbible schools, and of subsequently becoming a proponent of Promise Theology and finding myselfat home in the greater Reformed stream of Christianity, a friend asked if I would further clarifyboth what dispensationalism is and what seemed to me to be problems with the dispensationalsystem of interpretation. This seemed apropos for my blog readers as well given that in my lastpost I contrasted a dispensational approach to law versus gospel with the historic Christianunderstanding.

First I want to give an unbiased, straightforward reporting of the historical and theological factsbefore getting into anything that seems problematic to me. Furthermore, I do not want todisparage the manner in which God is using and has used Christians of a dispensational bent tofurther His kingdom. Therefore my approach below is heavy on the description of whatdispensationalism is/was (it has changed over the years), and light on the analysis of it problems. Imostly provide some classic Christian statements that it seems impossible to reconcile withdispensational interpretation. With no further ado, therefore:

Dispensationalism: Yesterday & Today

BACKGROUND

The term dispensat ionali smcomes from the word dispensationwhich refers to a distinctivemanner in which God relates to humans during a specific range of time. To quote H.A. Ironside,

A dispensation, an economy, then, is that particular order or condition of thingsprevailing in one special age which does not necessarily prevail in another.

1

Dispensationalism as a system of biblical interpretation was fathered by John Darby, who was alsosignificant in the formation of the Plymouth Brethren. Darby lived from 1800 to 1882 and came tobelieve the basic tenets of early dispensationalism while at college in Dublin (1819-ish). Histheology seems to have been fully formed by 1833. Those basic identifying tenets were:

1. A future salvation and restoration of national Israel2. A clear distinction between Israel and the church3. An imminent (any moment) rapture of the church4. followed by Daniel's 70th Week and the resurgence of Israel to center stage, and a

millennial kingdom where God would finally fulfill His promises to Israel (while the churchwas in heaven)

5. Darby saw distinct dispensations during which God placed mankind under differentconditions

6. and, notoriously, Darby concluded that each dispensation ended in the failure of God'splan

Darby had a great influence on individuals like D.L. Moody, and C.I. Scofield. The notes in theScofi eldReference Biblehad an enormous influence on American Christianity and may havecontributed to the spread of dispensationalism more than any other single factor.

The creation of Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) and the 8-volume Syst emat ic Theologyby LewisSperry Chafer codified and further developed the characteristics of the dispensational beliefsystem and their principles of interpretation. We'll call this Classic Dispensationalism. Its heydaywas from roughly 1850-1945.

1H. A. Ironside,In the Heavenlies (New York: Loizeaux Bros., n.d.), 67.


2/9

Sometime in the 1950's, several theologians at DTS began to exert an enormous influence ondispensationalism and its distinctives changed. The most influential of those scholars was probablyCharles Ryrie, although John Walvoord, Roy Zuck and Dwight Pentecost were equally respected.Let's call this Modern Dispensationali sm. Ryrie's 1965 publication ofDispensat ionalism Todaybecame the standard definition of Modern Dispensationalism. Incidentally, I was privileged tostudy under and spend a short period of time "hanging out" with Dr. Ryrie in the early 90's. While I

disagree with some of his conclusions, I have seldom met a man of such robust scholarship andextraordinary humility. Modern Dispensationalism reigned supreme from the late 1950s to mid90's.

Post-modern dispensationalism, commonly called Progressive Dispensat ionalism was largely theproduct of Robert L. Saucy. Dr. Saucy graduated from Dallas Theological Seminary, but teaches (ortaught) at Talbot School of Theology - Biola University. He first introduced this line of thinking inThe Church in God's Program(1972), but I don't think the rumblings of change really hit the streetuntil 1992 & 1993. Saucy published The Case for Progressive Dispensat ionalism, then Drs. CraigBlaising and Darrel Bock published Dispensationalsim, Israel and the Church(1992) andProgressive Dispensat ionalism(1993).

Today, we have Classic Dispensationalists, Ultra-Dispensationalists, Modern Dispensationalists, andProgressive Dispensationalists. I listed those in increasing order according to my impression oftheir number of present-day adherents (Progressive Dispensationalists being the greatest inpresent-day number).

COMMON FEATURES

According to Blaising and Bock, there are several beliefs that are common to all variants ofDispensationalism:

Authority of Scripture Dispensations

o The word dispensat ionrefers to a particular arrangement by which God regulatesthe way human beings relate to Him. Dispensationalism believes that God hasplanned a succession of different dispensations throughout history, both past,present, and future. Furthermore, dispensationalists believe that thesedispensations are revealed in Scripture, in both biblical history and prophecy.

2

o According to dispensationalists, understanding these different relationships Godhas had and will have with humanity, is crucial for comprehending the teachingand message of the Bible. The number of dispensations believed to be presented inScripture varies from four to nine, but seven seems to be the most commonly heldview.

Uniqueness of the Churcho Traditionally, dispensationalism has always viewed the church as a distinctively

newdispensation in biblical history. The church finds its historical origin in theChrist eventthat is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christandparticularly in the baptism of the Spirit which Christ has bestowed equally upon

believing Jews and Gentiles since that feast Day of Pentecost following Hisascension.

3

o Progressive Dispensationalism has waffled on this issue a bit, but to what degree isa matter of debate.

Practical Significance of the Universal Church

2Ibid, 14.

3Ibid, 16.


3/9

o Dispensationalists have always supported the belief that the reality of the churchis to be found in Christ, and that reality transcends the denominational divisionswhich separate Christians from one another.

4

Significance of Biblical Prophecy Futurist Premillennialism

o Dispensationalism is a form of premillennialism. That is, it holds to the belief thatChrist will return to this earth and rule over it for 1,000 years. Like mostpremillennialists, dispensationalists interpret biblical prophecy to teach that Christwill return during a time of trouble traditionally called the Tribulation. mostdispensationalists have advocated the doctrine of the pretribulational Rapturethedoctrine that Christ will come for t he churchprior to the Tribulation, resurrectingthe dead in Christ, translating living believers into immortal life, and then takingthe church with Him to heaven prior to His millennial return in which He will visiblyrule the nations on earth.

5

The Imminent Return of Christo Traditional Dispensationalism teaches that Christ will return for the Church before

the Tribulation and that this return could happen at any time. National Future for Israel

o This is one of most well known features of dispensationalism. It teaches that therewill be a future for a nation-state of Israel, at the very least during the MillennialKingdom, and perhaps into Eternity. This along with the preoccupation withprophecy has led Dispensationalists to be strong proponents of Zionism and theright of Israel to exist as a state in their historic land.

DISTINCTIVES

Classic Dispensationalism:

1. Dual Redemptive Purpose2. Dispensations as failed plans3. Spiritual Nature of the Church

Perhaps the most important, distinctive feature of Classic Dispensationalism was the idea ofdualredemptionor the idea that God was pursuing two different purposes, one on earth and one inheaven. This has been often evidenced by the Scof ield Reference Bibles distinction between theKingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven in the Gospels as two different things.

Modern Dispensationalism:

1. a dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct.2. a dispensationalist uses a literal (plain) hermeneutic.3. a dispensationalist believes the underlying purpose of God in the world is His own

glorification. (and salvation is simply one means to that end)6

The Modern Dispensationalists use of the term literal interpretation was very different fromwhat was meant by Classic Dispensationalists, who believed that a literal interpretation of the OldTestament revealed Gods plan for an earthly people (Israel) while a spiritual or typologicalinterpretation revealed Gods plan for a heavenly people (the Church), and the New Testamentcontained the literal revelation (mystery) of Gods spiritual purpose and spiritual people.

4Ibid, 17.

5Ibid, 19.

6Charles Caldwell Ryrie,Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), 44-47.


4/9

Modern Dispensationalists use literal interpretation to refer to a plain sense meaning andinterpretation of Scripture, also sometimes called a grammatical-historical hermeneutic. Theyattempt to avoid typological or symbolic/allegorical interpretation whenever possible. But it mustbe noted, that this characterization was more of a goal than a reality as the observation of Drs.Blaising & Bock records:

Now, even at the time this was published, evangelical biblical scholars were beginning tomove toward a more consistent grammatical-historical interpretation, but it was agrammatical-historical interpretation which was developing in sophistication beyond thatwhich was practiced by classical dispensationalists or even early revised dispensationalists.Over the past three decades, the practice of consistently grammatical-historicalinterpretation (where grammatical-historical has developed to a more advanced form ofliterary study) has not led evangelicals to become classical or revised [modern]dispensationalists. Furthermore, a number of dispensationalists who today practiceconsistent grammatical-historical interpretation (in its more developed sense) have revisedsome of the distinctive interpretations of earlier dispensationalism. Literary interpretationhas developed so that some things which earlier interpreters thought they clearly saw inScripture, are not clearly seen today at all.

7

While Modern (Revised) Dispensationalists rejected the idea that God has dual purposes, theyretained the idea of dual peoples (Israel and the Church).

Progressive Dispensationalism:

1. Holistic Redemption in Progressive Revelation2. Progressively Developing Dispensations (as opposed to failed plans)3. The Church is a new dispensation but not a new people; part of the blessings given to

Israel have been inaugurated and in the next dispensation all of the blessings of the NewCovenant will be realized.

4. Claims more consistently literal interpretation but re-introduces typology as having alegitimate historical-literary place, though not as a spiritualizing of the text as waspracticed by classic dispensationalists

5. Biblical Covenants are seen as unified, with the Abrahamic as the seed covenant, and allothers being progressive extensions of it.Classic Dispensationalism suggested that God had two peoples and two purposes in the world.Modern Dispensationalism significantly modified that theory, but clung to the idea of two peoples.Progressive Dispensationalism recognizes that God has a unified purpose and a unified people, butattempts to apply timeline (dispensational) restrictions to the realization of that truth.

In 2007 Dr. Ryrie released an updated version of his classic Dispensat ionali sm Today, now titledsimply Dispensat ionalism, where among other updates he added a chapter addressing ProgressiveDispensationalism. Dr. Ryries assessment of that systems distinctives were as follows:

1. The kingdom of God is the unifying theme of biblical history.2.

Within biblical history there are four dispensational eras.3. Christ has alreadyinaugurated the Davidic reign in heaven at the right hand of the Father,which equals the throne of David, though He does not yet reign as Davidic king on earthduring the Millennium.

4. Likewise, the new covenant has already been inaugurated, though its blessings are not yetfully realized until the Millennium.

7Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993),

36.


5/9

5. The concept of the church as completely distinct from Israel and as a mystery unrevealedin the Old Testament needs revising, making the idea of two purposes and two peoples ofGod invalid.

6. A complementary hermeneutic must be used alongside a literal hermeneutic. This meansthat the New Testament makes complementary changes to Old Testament promiseswithout jettisoning those original promises.

7. The one divine plan of holistic redemption encompasses all people and all areas of humanlifepersonal, societal, cultural, and political.8In my opinion, Progressive Dispensationalism is a train station along the route to acknowledgingthat while dispensationalism contains many truthful ideas (the rejection of supersessionism, forexample) it is unsustainable as an interpretive system. However, many good observations andmuch helpful development has been made by Progressive Dispensationalism; I hope its adherentswill continue to allow biblical theology and the grammatico-historical hermeneutic to carry themalong to increasing apprehension of the narrative cohesion and requisite unity of Scripture.

ANALYSIS

The basic problem I have with dispensationalism is that I am convinced Scripture is a unified wholewhile the guiding principle of dispensationalism is the dividing of Scripture and of Gods people.

How precisely Scripture ought to be divided is argued amongst themselves, so there are all kindsof "answers" to that question, but I take issue with the basic premise.

The dispensational understanding of Scripture, advocated by many sincere and well-studied believers, emphasizes discontinuity with Old Testament ethics (particularly theMosaic law) and emphasizes discontinuity between God's work in the present Church ageand His work in the millennium. The dispensationalist contends that Christians are notunder the law of Moses for their moral guidance, and that Christ must return prior to themillennium (premillennial) in order for this world to enjoy significant transformation.

9

An issue of almost equal importance is the dispensational contention that Christ nailed the law tothe cross. The reality, of course, is that Christ nailed the curse of the law to the tree, meaningthat the condemnation of the Laws witness against us was nailed to the tree along with Messiah.

Dr. Dwight Pryor is fond of telling the following story:

Once I was faulted by a pastor for speaking affectionately of the Torah and the biblicalFeasts. Dont you know that the Law ended with Christ? he protested. God nailed theLaw to the cross!

Excuse me, I replied, but if God nailed the Law to the cross then He doubled-crossedhimself. Hes the one who gave the Torah to his redeemed and beloved children as agracious gift. What was nailed to the cross was not the Torah but our record of debt(ESV), that accounting of our trespasses, rightly condemned by the Law (Col 2:13-14).

10

Colossians, of course, tells us that we were forgiven all our trespasses, by canceling the recordof debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

11

Certainly there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. but this is a

result of the cancelling of our record of debt, not as a result of the abolishing of the law.

8Charles Caldwell Ryrie,Dispensationalism, Rev. Ed. of: Dispensationalism Today. 1965.; Includes Indexes., Rev.

and expanded. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1995), 193.9

Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.,House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology (Tyler,

TX: The Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), 5.10

Dwight A. Pryor, Rejoicing in the Law? (Dayton, OH: The Center for Judaic-Christian Studies, 2009)

http://www.jcstudies.com/articleDetail.cfm?articleId=33 , accessed 9/9/2009, 9:21p.m.11

Colossians 2:13-14 (ESV)


6/9

Opposition of Law and Grace

The dispensational system forces one to think of Law and Grace as being opposed to one anotherrather than complementary. While there have been examples of this thinking throughout Christianhistoryone thinks of Martin Luthers statement, Whoever knows well how to distinguish theGospel from the Law should give thanks to God and know that he is a real theologian.

12such

thinking, it must be stressed, is the exception to the rule.

John Wesley wrote:

I am afraid this great and important truth is little understood, not only by the world, buteven by many whom God hath taken out of the world, who are real children of God byfaith. Many of these lay it down as an unquestioned truth, that when we come to Christ,we have done with the law; and that, in this sense, "Christ is the end of the law to everyone that believeth." "The end of the law:" so he is, "for righteousness," for justification, "toevery one that believeth." Herein the law is at an end. It justifies none, but only bringsthem to Christ; who is also, in another respect, the end or scope of the law, -- the point atwhich it continually aims. But when it has brought us to him it has yet a farther office,namely, to keep us with him. For it is continually exciting all believers, the more they seeof its height, and depth, and length, and breadth, to exhort one another so much the

more, --

Closer and closer l et us cleaveTo his beloved Embrace;

Expect his ful lness to r eceive,And grace to answer grace.13

But a dispensationalist does not accept such thinking, despite its biblical nature and historicprecedent. One thinks of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Fait h,14 or of Article VII in the 39Art icles of Religion, settled in 1563.

15

J.I. Packer elaborates on the necessity of recognizing the unity of the Scriptures.

I begin, now, by observing that in both east and west, in both reformed and unreformed

churches, the traditional emphasis has been on the harmonious unity of the canonicalScriptures. Historically this emphasis went with a stress on their divinity as being in truthGods message to the world, his instruction in faith and lifein other words, as beingthroughout Gods law (torah) in the Biblical sense of that term. Showing the internal unityof the Scriptures was then seen as part of the interpreters task.

The first idea was of normative content. Scripture was the heavenly Legislators didache,his teaching, his doctrina(to use the Latin equivalent beloved of Augustine and Calvin),from the explicit statements of which, both narrative and explanatory, we learn what istrue orthodoxy, true worship and true obedience.

12LW26:115,Lectures on Galatians, chaps. 1-4, on Gal. 2:14 (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1962),

1531.13John Wesley, Sermon #34 The Original Nature, Property, and Use of the Law (United Methodist Global

Ministries - http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/34/) accessed 08-19-2009.14

1689 London Particular Baptist Confession of Faith, 19:5, The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified

persons as others, to the obedience thereofneither doth Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but muchstrengthen this obligation.15

39 Articles of Religion, Article VII, The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New

Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that

the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free

from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.


7/9

The second idea was of internal coherence. As lawcodes are to be presumed consistent, soall the contents of Scripture, originating as they were held to do from Gods mind as theirsingle source, were to be treated as harmonious and were to be interpreted in terms ofthe principle that the Reformers called the analogy of Scripture or the analogy of the faith(analogia fidei). Accordingly Anglican Article 20 states that the Church may not soexpound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to anotherfor such exposition

would necessarily be wrong somewhere.

The third idea was of continuing and multiple application. What the books of Scripture saidto their original recipients they were thought of as continuing to say in application to eachsuccessive generation, just as unrepealed secular legislation continues to bind eachgeneration of citizens. As applications of secular law are made by bringing its principles tobear on particular cases under the guidance of its overall purpose and are valid whether ornot the terms of the law explicitly envisage the cases in point, so it was held to be withthe Bible.

The fourth idea was of the legislator maintaining his law. God was believed to watch overhis Word to perform it, keeping his promises, blessing those who trusted and obeyed him,and judging any who failed to tremble at his Word.

16

Dispensationalists do not interpret Scripture in such a way as to make sure that one section is not"repugnant to another", rather they feel free to interpret the New Testament in such a way that itwould contradict the Old Testament, but they feel free to do this because they are confident thatthe New Testament writings belong to a different "dispensation", and is not thereforecontradictory. The historic church, as Packer points out, both reformed and unreformed variants,have always emphasized the harmonious unity of Scripturethis is lacking from dispensationalinterpretation.

Eschatological Escapism

The dispensational manner of interpreting eschatological texts often gives adherents a sense of"holy escapism" rather than a conviction that God intends to change the world here and now byour lives in partnership with His Holy Spirit. This is the rabbinic concept oftikkun olam, which we

find elucidated clearly in Ephesians 2:10 and Peter's second epistle: the idea that we were createdspecifically for the purpose of partnering with God in the doing of "good deeds", which weunderstand was a 1st century synonym for keeping the commandments, and thereby partner withGod in His ongoing plan to heal the world. Dispensationalism breeds in believers a desire to endurethis evil world until such time as they're raptured out and can escape to "Glory." The truth is thatit is God's passion to come downinto the world, not to escape us upand out of it.

Listen to the focus of this conclusion to an essay on sanctification by John Walvoord.

In Scripture, from beginning to end, sanctification is the work of God for human beingsrather than their work for Him. It is grounded in the death of Christ, which makes itpossible. It is continued in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit in the life of theChristian and is ultimately perfected as the Christian stands in Gods presenceforever

free from sin, with its guilt and stain. The believer is destined to reflect forever theholiness of God, as an example of what the grace of God can do. The Christian doctrine ofsanctification is separated forever from human attainment and is thus totally removed

16J.I. Packer, Upholding The Unity Of Scripture Today in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume

25 (The Evangelical Theological Society, 1982; 2002), 25:409-410


8/9

from all legalistic systems of non-Christian religions. In the end, sanctification is all to theglory of God and an evidence of His infinite perfections.

17

Note the emphasis on the future. Technically speaking, very little can be said to be wrong aboutthe above statement. The Christian doctrine of sanctification is not separated forever fromhuman attainment, but otherwise these are true statements. However, this certainly does notpoint out Gods design for His children to reflect the holiness of God here and now, but rather onour eschatological hope of perfection.

Three Functions of the Law

This obsession with the future rather than today is a carry over result of the parenthetical view ofhistory proposed by the dispensational system. Just as, according to the dispensational reading ofScripture, the Age of Grace (or the Church Age) is a parenthesis in redemptive history, so our livesare parenthetical to our real destiny as future saints, ruling and reigning with Christ in ourperfected state.

As a result, dispensationalists have little use for the historic third use of Gods Law. Rather theirview can be typified by the quote, The age of the church has rendered the law inoperative.

18

Sinclair Ferguson reminds us of the traditional Christian view:

This is whythe law of God is seen to play such an important role in sanctification. Itsthree functions or uses are well known: to convict of sin, to restrain evildoers and toinstruct believers.

19

A dispensationalist calls the use of the law to instruct believers legalism, as evidenced inWalvoords reference to human attainment being a legalistic system. What is the role of humaneffort in sanctification? First of all, lets acknowledge that any human effort is useful only afterGods regenerating work of justification. As Dallas Willard so often writes, Grace is opposed toearning, but not to effort.

20

In an essay for the book Five Views on Law and Gospel, Wayne Strickland presents a dispensationalview, and lists only two purposes for the law from the New Testament perspective (whichobviously, from a dispensational perspective, is the only pertinent view): the law as exposing sin,

and the law as tutor. Both of which apply only to an unjustified person.

Thus the law is regard by Paul as clearly inferior, in the sense of being preparatory to thegospel of Jesus Christ. With the advent of faith in Jesus Christ, however, the law as apedagogue is no longer necessary. In other words, the law is temporary with regard to thisregulatory purpose. The context makes is clear that the apostle is speaking . . . of thehistoric succession of one period of revelation upon another and the displacement of thelaw by Christ.

21

John Calvin, on the other hand, wrote:

17

John Walvoord, The Augustinian-Dispensational Perspective in Five Views on Sanctification (Grand Rapids,MI: Zondervan, 1987), 226.18

Wayne G. Strickland, The Inauguration of the Law of Christ with the Gospel of Christ: A Dispensational Viewin Stanley Gundry, Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 259.19

Sinclair Ferguson, The Reformed View in Donald Alexander, Christian Spirituality: Five Views ofSanctification (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 68-69.20

This phrase is oft repeated in Willards writings, but we quote here from Dallas Willard, The Great Omission (San

Francisco: Harper, 2006), 76.21

Wayne G. Strickland, The Inauguration of the Law of Christ with the Gospel of Christ: A Dispensational View

in Stanley Gundry, Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 245.


9/9

The third and principal use, which pertains more closely to the proper purpose of the law,finds its place among believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already lives and reigns.For even though they have the law written and engraved upon their hearts by the finger ofGod [Jer. 31:33; Heb 10:16], that is, have been so moved and quickened through thedirecting of the Spirit that they long to obey God, they still profit by the law.

22

Some Closing Thoughts

In preparing this document I had occasion to read Ryries updated edition of DispensationalismTodaynow titled simply Dispensat ionali sm, and I was reminded again how thoroughly impressed Iam with this mans sense of balance (he did write Balancing the Chri st ian Lif e, after all), hisdedication to fair treatment, and his humility with regard to the beliefs of others. A case in pointis this very apropos reminder from the chapter titled A Plea.

It may help to be reminded of some of the important doctrines to which dispensationalistssubscribe wholeheartedly. After all, dispensationalists are conservatives and affirmcomplete allegiance to the doctrines of verbal, plenary inspiration, the virgin birth anddeity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, eternal salvation by grace through faith,the importance of godly living and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the future coming ofChrist, and the eternal damnation of the lost. As already noted, some doctrines are more

important than others, so it particularly behooves us not to cut off our fellowship fromthose who share similar views about these important doctrines. There are few enoughthese days who believe in the fundamentals of the faith, and to ignore those who havedeclared themselves on the side of the truth of God is unwise. Something is wrong with ourcircles of fellowship, sense of priority, or doctrine of unity when conservatives view fellowconservatives as the opposition party and then find their theological friends among thosewho are teaching and promoting error. There is something wrong, too, with our conceptionof wisdom and scholarship when we discount the teaching ministry of the Spirit.

23

22John Calvin, Institutes 2.7.12 as quoted in Donald Alexander, Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification

(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 69.23

Charles Caldwell Ryrie,Dispensationalism, Rev. and expanded. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1995), 246.

considering dispensationalism

Documents