by Nicholas Kroncke
“Hi, Brother Johnny. Can I ask you a question? I know that you’re in seminary so I hope you’ll be able to answer my question.”
“Sure thing, Brother Luke. What’s on your mind?”
“Well I was watching a YouTube video one of my Facebook friends posted on their page last night and it was about the end times. I think it said it was about escha … escta…”
“Oh, is the word that you’re looking for eschatology?”
“Yes, that’s the word. What does it mean?”
“Great question, Luke. Eschatology is the term for the study of the Bible’s teachings on the end times and when Christ returns—including events like the Resurrection, the Rapture, the Tribulation, the Millennium, the binding of Satan, the Three Witnesses, the Final Judgment, Armageddon, and the New Heavens and the New Earth. While eschatology is taught on in many books of the Bible, Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Joel, Zechariah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, 1st and 2nd Thessalonians, and Revelation contain the most prominent teachings.”
“Oh, wow, this is a really complex topic! I really want to understand eschatology properly, can you teach me?”
“It would be my pleasure, Brother. Before we go any further, I need to ask you to ask you four questions: Do you believe that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom? Do you believe that Holy Scripture is God’s special revelation to man and demands man’s full submission? Do you believe that a believer is dependent on God’s divine illumination and guidance to understand His Word? And, do you believe that a believer must read Scripture in a straight-forward manner and endeavor to pull out of the text what God teaches without adding to or taking away from His Word?”
“Yes, yes, yes, and yes. I believe that in God’s Word He says what He means and means what He says.”
“Awesome, Brother. I figured you would agree with my questions because they form the basis of dispensationalism, which is what Pastor teaches not only about eschatology but how to approach all theological issues related to studying God’s Word. Let’s grab a cup of coffee—and maybe a pad of paper—and I’ll teach you about dispensationalism and how it relates to the eleven areas of theology. While I know you’re interested in eschatology, it’s really important you learn about all eleven areas of theology to have a complete understanding on the end times.”
“Sounds great, Brother. Let’s go!”
While the preceding dialogue is completely hypothetical, it does represent an important issue in evangelicalism today: the proper understanding of eschatology. With all that is going on in the world today many believers are fixated on eschatology and opinions regarding the end times run rampant. So, the question must be asked: How does a born-again, Bible-believing Christian come to properly understand eschatology? The answer is simple, yet ironically elusive to so many: God’s word.
It must be noted that while evangelicals claim to hold the Bible as their supreme authority for all theological issues, the hermeneutic approach an interpreter takes to reading God’s Word truly reveals if he holds to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”) and endeavors to exegetically pull out of Scripture God’s teachings—versus imposing a theological presupposition on his interpretation.
Dispensationalism is not a theological presupposition a biblical interpreter reads into God’s Word (as opposed to all forms of covenant theology), but rather a systematic theology resulting the literal, grammatical-historical hermeneutic — succinctly defined by Cone in the following lines: “Like Adam, Noah, and Abraham, we need to take God’s words at face value. This is what the literal, grammatical-historical interpretive method is all about: literal, in that it takes the text naturally; grammatical, in that it recognizes the importance of following the grammatical rules of the original language; and historical, in that it recognizes the importance of the times and the historical contexts in which the words were originally written.”
To properly understand and — such as in the case of the introductory hypothetical dialogue —holistically teach dispensationalism (and avoid an overemphasis on eschatological elements), this essay demonstrates how the dispensational distinctives of each of the eleven areas of theology (Bibliology, Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology, Angelology, Anthropology, Hamartialogy, Soteriology, Israelology, Ecclesiology, and Eschatology) must be identified and explained in order to accomplish both tasks.
The Eleven Areas of Theology
1.) Bibliology: “[T]he study of the book, or more specifically, the study of the Bible. This topic deals with issues of definition, authority, and interpretive method.”
2.) Theology Proper: “[T]he study of the person of God … [considering] the person, and attributes and character of God[—including] discussion of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, though Son and Spirit are often considered as separate studies altogether. Issues like the holiness of God, and the doctrine of the trinity are [also] considered in theology proper.”
3.) Christology: “[T]he study of the person and work of Jesus Christ. The study focuses on his roles as God and man, and as prophet, priest, and king, and introduces His work on the cross.”
4.) Pneumatology: “[T]he study of the Holy Spirit [which] discusses the person and work of the Holy Spirit, especially in respect to His work in revealing Scripture … how He seals believers, guaranteeing their eternal life … how He brings people into the body of Christ … and how He helps believers to grow and bear fruit[.]”
5.) Angelology: “[T]he study of angels, and includes demonology … and satanology[.]”
6.) Anthropology: “[T]he study of humanity [considering] humanity’s creation and initial condition … fall and condemnation … and ultimate need for God’s grace[.]”
7.) Hamartialogy: “[T]he study of sin … [emphasizing] how sin began … and its universal effects on humanity[.]”
8.) Soteriology: “[T]he study of salvation … [which when properly taught reveals that salvation] is and always has been by grace through faith in [God] … and results in a new position for believers … provides the opportunity for a new walk … and a new ultimate destiny[.]”
9.) Israelology: “[The study of Israel that reveals] God created and chose Israel for a special purpose … made promises to the nation … has a future for Israel … and will be glorified through Israel[.]”
10.) Ecclesiology: “[T]he study of the … church [which] considers the beginning of the church … its makeup … its relationship to Christ … its blessings … and its future[.]”
11.) Eschatology: “[T]he study of last things … [focusing] on still yet unfulfilled prophecy to Israel … to the nations and to unbelievers … to the church … regarding Christ and His kingdom … Satan and judgment … and the renewing of all things[.]”
1.) Bibliology: As bibliology is the study of the Bible and takes into consideration the factors of definition, authority, and interpretive method, then it almost goes without saying that the principles of interpretation a man uses to study the Bible is the cornerstone of how the remainder of his systematic theology works itself out.
The cornerstone of dispensationalism is a synergy of the non-accommodation and the grammatical-historical hermeneutics. Cone succinctly expounds on the synergy of the two hermeneutics when he writes, “The non-accommodation hermeneutic makes no room for the enthroning of the interpreter. Rather it squarely and consistently requires in theory the submission of the interpreter to the authoritative revelation and requires in practice an inductive and exegetical application, pulling out of the text the fixed and singular meaning placed there by the Divine Author. Only the literal grammatical historical method consistently acknowledges fixity, singularity, and authority of revelation.”
Connecting the preceding quote with definition of the literal grammatical-historical hermeneutic offered in the beginning of this essay, it can be said without question that by employing an interpretive method that is literal (“in that it takes the text naturally”), grammatical (“in that it recognizes the importance of following the grammatical rules of the original language”), and historical (“in that it recognizes the importance of the times and the historical contexts in which the words were originally written”), a man is not a dispensationalist first but rather that he employs the literal grammatical-historical hermeneutic which naturally leads to the formulation of a dispensational systematic theology.
As the popular Christian saying goes (in relation to God and His Word), “He says what He means, and He means what He says, otherwise He would have said something else” — a sentiment echoed by Charles H. Ray: “The Lord did not reveal His Word to us in the form of a puzzle. He communicated using normal human language. That being the case, we should approach the Scriptures with that principle in mind.”
2.) Theology Proper: Due to the fact that the millennial perspectives and systematic theologies examined within this paper are all asserted by men who would readily claim to be evangelical Christians, there is great unity in terms of Theology Proper amongst the various perspectives and theologies because all hold to the most basic definition of “evangelicalism.” As Cone defines Theology Proper as “the study of the person of God … [which] considers the person, and attributes and character of God [including] discussion of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit … [and issues] like the holiness of God, and the doctrine of the trinity,” all of proponents of the perspectives examined herein would agree that they hold vigorously “to the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone.”
While the preceding section on Bibliology and succeeding section on Christology reveal distinct differences between all of the theological camps considered, it is important to remember that essentially the debate between dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists — as important as it is — is an in-house debate among Brothers-in-Christ.
3.) Christology: While dispensationalism holds little difference with other evangelical millennial perspectives in terms of Christology (seeing as all the perspectives hold to the hypostatic union of Christ’s deity and humanity while incarnate), differences do appear in regards to Christ’s role as the Davidic King. Due to the literal grammatical-historical interpretation of Luke 1:32 (“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;”) by dispensationalists the perspective teaches that Christ will one day sit on a literal throne in Jerusalem. In opposition to the dispensational interpretation, Louis Berkhof (a prominent amillennialist) writes, “But though He was permitted to rule as Mediator even before His incarnation, He did not publicly and formally assume His throne and inaugurate His spiritual kingdom until the time of His ascension and elevation at the right hand of God[.]” Berkhof’s quote makes it clear that he believes Christ is currently sitting on David’s throne—a belief that is shared by Charles Hodge (a prominent postmillennialist) who asserts, “Jews were not disappointed in the general impression made on their minds by the predictions relating to the Messiah. It was only in the explanation of details that they failed. The Messiah was a king; He did sit upon the throne of David, but not in the way in which they expected[.]”
4.) Pneumatology: Here there are major distinctions between the dispensational perspective on pneumatology and that of amillennialism and postmillennialism. The three millennial views do not similarly understand aspects of the work of the Holy Spirit in the church, mainly due to the fact that dispensationalists believe that the church was inaugurated when the Holy Spirit began His baptizing ministry in Acts 2. In the words of the famous theologian, Lewis Chafer, “There could be no Church on earth until the advent of the Holy Spirit; for the most basic and fundamental reality respecting the Church is that she is a temple for the habitation of God through the Spirit. She is regenerated, baptized, and sealed by the Spirit.”
While amillennialists and postmillennialists acknowledge the baptizing ministry of the Holy Spirit they do not view it as particularly significant because both camps appear to assert that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is the essentially the same in the Old and New Testaments. It should be noted that there are non-dispensationalists that associate the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the inauguration of the New Testament Church, but in doing so still label the Church the “spiritual Israel,” as the famous theologian F.F. Bruce does in his book, Jesus: Past, Present, and Future: “The baptism of the Spirit, or baptism with the Spirit, is thus the work of the risen Christ. By this act be brought his church into being. The church – the people of God in New Testament times – is continuous with the people of God in Old Testament times[.]”
5.) Angelology: The distinction between dispensationalism and the other millennial perspectives in terms of Angelology is not found in relation to angels, but rather demons and Satan. Holding to the grammatical-historical hermeneutic dispensationalism recognizes that Satan is not yet bound because the Millennium has not been inaugurated—taking the Apostle Peter at his words in 1 Peter 5:8 when we teaches, “Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”
In direct contrast to dispensationalism’s angelological perspective, amillennialists are not able to even agree within their own theological camp regarding the state of Satan and his demons—appearing to assert that evil angels are bound but can somehow still affect people, as would a dog chained to a tree. The source of the confusion of the amillennialist camp is their interpretation of Revelation 20:2 (“And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;”) because they believe that the Millennium is the Church Age, which logically leads to the conclusion that the Millennium has already been inaugurated and Satan is already chained. Holding the Apostle Peter’s teaching in 1 Peter 5:8 in clear light the contradictory nature of the amillennialist interpretation is unquestionably exposed.
It should be noted that the postmillennial perspective permits much more freedom for demons, and is summarized when Hodge writes, “Evil spirits … are represented as being exceedingly numerous, as everywhere efficient, as having access to our world, and as operating in nature and in the minds of men.”
6.) Anthropology: As with other areas of theology, there is unquestioned agreement between evangelical dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists in the most basic terms of Anthropology: 1.) God created man sinless to dwell with Him for eternity in the Garden of Eden; 2.) Adam and Eve transgressed God’s commandment in Genesis 2:16-17 (“The Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.’”) to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good—brining sin into the world and resulting in man being cast out of the Garden; and, 3.) The resulting effect on humanity is man’s inherited sin-nature, which, unless reconciled via God’s grace by personal faith-based salvation, condemns all of mankind to suffer eternal separation from God in hell.
Now, dispensationalism is distinct from other systematic theologies (premillennial, amillennial, and postmillennial covenant theologies) in how it organizes man’s relationship to God as a result of the Fall. Ryrie defines a dispensation and dispensationalism as follows: “A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose. … Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In His household God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to His own will and in various stages of revelation in the passage of time. These various stages mark off the distinguishably different economies in the outworking of His total purpose, and these different economies constitute the dispensations.”
7.) Hamartialogy: As with Anthropology, many dispensational and non-dispensational evangelicals agree on the basics of Hamartialogy (“how sin began … and its universal effects on humanity”) in relation to three basic distinctions: 1.) Imputed Sin (“At conception God credits to every member of the human race the responsibility and penalty for Adam’s sin[.]”); 2.) Inherent Sin (“Every person inherits a sinful capacity that causes and leads him to commit personal acts of sin[.]”); and, 3.) Personal Sin (“Any lack of conformity to the will of God in word, thought, or deed is an act of personal sin against the Lord[.]”) [emphasis added].
It should be noted that while evangelicals agree on the basics of Hamartialogy, the distinctive difference between dispensationalists and all non-dispensationalists is the outworking of the effects of sin on the life of the believer.
8.) Soteriology: The distinct difference between dispensationalism and the other perspectives is most clearly illustrated in the third aspect of Charles C. Ryrie’s sine qua non: that the underlying purpose of God in the world is His glory. Ryrie states, “To the normative dispensationalist, the soteriological, or saving program of God is not the only program of glorifying Himself. Scripture is not man-centered as though salvation was the main theme, but it is God-centered because His glory is the center. The Bible itself clearly teaches that salvation, important and wonderful as it is, is not an end in itself but is rather a means to the end of glorifying God (Eph. 1:6; 12, 14).”
While the covenant premillennialist, amillennialist, and postmillennialist all hold to two or three theological covenants (works, grace, and possibly redemption), their perspectives are not implicitly taught in God’s Word—with Hodge even admitting that the covenantal perspective “does not rest upon any express declaration of the Scriptures.”
9.) Israelology: Although one would think that due to Israel’s key role in the biblical narrative Israelology would be a key component of all systematic theologies — especially considering that the theological concept encompasses biblical key points of God’s creation and choosing of Israel for a special purpose, the promises He made to the nation, the future for Israel He promises and the glory He will experience through the nation—this is sadly not the case.
In the opening lines of his essay, “The Role of Israel in Dispensational Theology,” Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum reinforces the importance of Israelology when he writes, “The issue of Israel is one of the major points of division in evangelical theology today. … An evangelical theologians’ view of Israel will determine whether he is a Covenant Theologian or a Dispensationalist. It will also determine what kind of Covenant Theologian he is: postmillennial, amillennial, or premillennial. The question of Israel is central for a proper Systematic Theology.”
The primary basis for the distinction of dispensationalism from all other systematic theologies lies in the first aspect of Ryrie’s sine qua non: A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct. Elaborating on this aspect of his doctrine, Ryrie asserts, “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish between Israel and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does will.”
The distinctiveness of the Israelological perspective of dispensationalism is also attested to by non-dispensationalists, with the words of the amillennialist Oswald Allis providing clear evidence: “For in saying this he has placed his finger on the sore point in Dispensational teaching, the exaltation of the Jew per se. In their glorification of the Jew and the rosy future they assign to him, Dispensationalists vie with Zionists. The future belongs to the Jew!”
10.) Ecclesiology: As the preceding section has highlighted, including a distinct section on Israelology is helpful for any systematic theology to be complete. If a systematic theology adequately (and rightly) systematizes God’s teaching on Israel, the systematic theology’s Ecclesiology will flow from its Israelology. Sadly, the vast majority of systematic theologies ignore (to varying degrees) Israelology and this limits their ability to adequately build a holistic Ecclesiology because only with the proper understanding of the role of Israel in God’s Word can a system properly consider “the beginning of the church … its makeup … its relationship to Christ … its blessings … and its future[.]”
In the conclusion to his section on Ecclesiology in his essay, “Basic Distinctives of Dispensational Systematic Theology,” Charles Ray succinctly describes the distinct difference between dispensationalism and all other perspectives: “The consistent use of a literal hermeneutic leads to conclusion that the Church began in Acts 2, that the Members are those who have trusted Christ as their savior, that the Church and Israel are two distinct entities, and that the Church has not taken over the Kingdom promises to Israel.”
11.) Eschatology: Although the charge of over-emphasis could be waged against the strong focus on Eschatology, it is understandable that in this time of global political unrest and economic turmoil believers would have an ardent interest in Eschatology due to its “study of last things … [focusing] on still yet unfulfilled prophecy to Israel … to the nations and to unbelievers … to the church … regarding Christ and His kingdom … Satan and judgment … and the renewing of all things[.]” Many believers are wondering, “Are these the last days? How will biblical prophecy in relation to Israel ultimately be fulfilled? What role do Gentiles have in the fulfillment? Who really is the ‘church?’ When will Christ return? What role does Satan and judgment play in Christ’s return? Will there truly be a ‘new heavens and new earth?’”
A believer’s perspective on Eschatology is also directly affected by all of the other 10 areas of theology: With which hermeneutic does he interpret God’s Word — and is he consistent in its use? What role does he believe Christ is currently playing? What is his belief regarding the ministry of the Holy Spirit? What is his belief regarding Satan’s activity in the world? What does he believe regarding man’s relationship to God and the effects of sin in the world? Does he believe that God’s overarching purpose is man’s salvation or His own glory? Does he believe in a future for Israel or does he view the Church as the “spiritual Israel?” When does he believe the Church began?
As Ray states, “Certainly the greatest disparity among dispensationalism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism resides in the realm of eschatology. Dispensationalism stands alone on its emphasis of a consistently literal hermeneutic. Amillennialists and postmillennialists believe Jesus will literally return, yet because the way their theological system functions, they are forced to spiritualize His 1000-year Kingdom and Tribulation.” Another by-product of the allegorizing/spiritualizing hermeneutic of amillennialism and postmillennialism is the differing view regarding the future for Israel. Dispensationalism is distinct in that it is the only systematic theology that fully allows for direct/literal fulfillment of all the yet still unfulfilled prophecy to Israel (and nations/unbelievers, by extension during the Tribulation), that differentiates between Israel and the Church, and that allows for the literal fulfillment of Christ’s second advent and His 1,000 year reign on earth and the final judgment of Satan and all non-believers, and the inaugurating of the “new heavens and new earth” explicitly prophesied in Isaiah 65:17 (“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.” [emphasis added]) and 2 Peter 3:13 (“But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.”).
If we hold to Scripture as our only guide, understanding that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom, that the Bible is God’s special revelation and demands our full submission, that we are dependent on God’s divine illumination and guidance to understand His Word, and that we must read Scripture in a straight-forward manner and endeavor to exegetically pull out of the text God’s teaching, then we will draw dispensational perspectives not only in the areas eschatology and ecclesiology, but also in the other nine areas of theology.
Sources and Citations
Allis, Oswald T. Prophecy and the Church. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1974.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1998.
Bruce, Jesus: Past, Present, and Future. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1979.
Carm.org. “Eschatology.” http://carm.org/dictionary-eschatology.
Carm.org, “What is an Evangelical Christian?” http://www.gotquestions.org/evangelical-Christian.html.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1993.
Chafer Theological Seminary. “Harmartiology.” http://www.chafer.edu/hamartiology.
Cone, Christopher. “11 Simple Theological Terms We All Need To Know.” http://www.drcone.com/2012/08/21/11-simple-theological-terms-we-all-need-to-know/.
Cone, Christopher. “Four Pillars of Dispensationalism.” In Dispensationalism Tomorrow & Beyond: A Theological Collection in Honor of Charles C. Ryrie, edited by Christopher Cone. Ft. Worth, TX: Tyndale Seminary Press, 2008.
Cone, Christopher. “9 Steps for Bible Exegesis and Exposition, Part 1: First Things First.” http://www.drcone.com/2013/08/31/9-steps-for-bible-exegesis-and-exposition-part-1-first-things-first/#sthash.ZHIDuht0.dpuf.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Logos version.
Ray, Charles H. “Basic Distinctives of Dispensational Systematic Theology.” In Dispensationalism Tomorrow & Beyond: A Theological Collection in Honor of Charles C. Ryrie, edited by Christopher Cone, Ft. Worth, TX: Tyndale Seminary Press, 2008.
Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007.
 Carm.org, “Eschatology.” http://carm.org/dictionary-eschatology (accessed October 17, 2014).
 Christopher Cone, “Four Pillars of Dispensationalism,” in Dispensationalism Tomorrow & Beyond: A Theological Collection in Honor of Charles C. Ryrie, ed. by Christopher Cone (Ft. Worth, TX: Tyndale Seminary Press, 2008), 13.
 Ibid, 20.
 Ibid, 24.
 Ibid, 27.
 Christopher Cone, “9 Steps for Bible Exegesis and Exposition, Part 1: First Things First.” http://www.drcone.com/2013/08/31/9-steps-for-bible-exegesis-and-exposition-part-1-first-things-first/#sthash.ZHIDuht0.dpuf (accessed October 17, 2014).
 Christopher Cone, “11 Simple Theological Terms We All Need To Know.” http://www.drcone.com/2012/08/21/11-simple-theological-terms-we-all-need-to-know/ (accessed October 17, 2014).
 Charles H. Ray, “Basic Distinctives of Dispensational Systematic Theology,” in Dispensationalism Tomorrow & Beyond: A Theological Collection in Honor of Charles C. Ryrie, ed. by Christopher Cone (Ft. Worth, TX: Tyndale Seminary Press, 2008), 64.
 Cone, “Four Pillars of Dispensationalism,” 26.
 Christopher Cone, “9 Steps for Bible Exegesis and Exposition, Part 1: First Things First.”
 Ray, 64.
 Christopher Cone, “11 Simple Theological Terms We All Need To Know.”
 Carm.org, “What is an Evangelical Christian?” http://www.gotquestions.org/evangelical-Christian.html (accessed October 18, 2014).
 Ibid, 47.
 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1998).
 Ray, 47.
 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Logos version), 3:791.
 Ray, 48.
 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1993), 4:45.
 Ray, 48.
 F.F. Bruce, Jesus: Past, Present, and Future (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1979), 45.
 Ray, 48.
 Hodge, 1:644.
 Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 34-35.
 Christopher Cone, “11 Simple Theological Terms We All Need To Know.”
 Chafer Theological Seminary, “Harmartiology.” http://www.chafer.edu/hamartiology (accessed October 19, 2014).
 Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 48.
 Ray, 49.
 Hodge, 1:644.
 Cone, “11 Simple Theological Terms We All Need To Know.”
 Ryrie, 46.
 Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1974), 2.
 Cone, “11 Simple Theological Terms We All Need To Know.”
 Ray, 60.
Well written Nick. Great Job