No, you don’t have to do that.
But, you could buy LS Chafer’s “Systematic Theology”, read it cover to cover (at least 2000 pages in 8 volumes), and then write your own systematic theology, in point by point refutation.
That would be a good start.
Then you could move on to the work of Pentecost, Walvoord, Ryrie, MacArthur, Scofield and Wuest.
Of course, everything I happen to believe comes from a plain, literal, normative reading of Scripture, so a valid beginning and ending to basic dispensational theology doesn’t deviate from the pages of the Bible.
.
He's so dated, I doubt even Dallas grads have to read Chafer anymore.
The importance of consistent literalism to the dispensationalist cannot be overstated. Dispensationalists like to argue that consistent literalism is their first principle and that the dichotomy and parenthesis theories logically follow from the application of this first principle to the study of Scripture. I believe that the reality is the reverse: dispensational interpretation uses the degree of literalism necessary to interpret prophecy in terms of the dispensational dichotomy and parenthesis assumptions. Beyond this, differing degrees of figurativeness and literality can be found in dispensational interpretations.…
The passage most commonly mentioned in discussions of the difficulty presented by dispensational literalism is Ezekiel's temple vision (Ezekiel 40-48). The dispensationalists are looking for a reinstitution of bloody animal sacrifices in a millennial temple built in accordance with the description found in this passage. Dispensationalists are careful to specify that these sacrifices are merely memorials of Christ's death and will be the millennial equivalent of the Lord's Supper. The problem with this is that Ezekiel's vision refers to these sacrifices as literally making atonement (Ezekiel 45:15,17,20; Hebrew: kaphar, atone). Of course, a dispensationalist can go to the book of Hebrews to prove that animal sacrifices in the Old Testament never literally atoned for sin (Hebrews 10:4). When the Reformed theologian, however, goes to Hebrews to prove that animal sacrifices were done away forever by Christ's once for all offering (Hebrews 10:10-18), then that is "theological interpretation" and "reading the New Testament back into the Old Testament," two practices which dispensationalists routinely criticize.
(Grover Gunn, Dispensationalism: Consistent Literalism)
Then you could move on to the work of Pentecost, Walvoord, Ryrie, MacArthur, Scofield and Wuest.
Why? Their brand of heresy was developed in the mid 1800s and has gone over several iterations and redevelopments so that Scofield and Ryrie don't have much in common. Is it eight dispensations, seven, four or three? Your guys can't agree, so do we have to refute each one? In fact, your team has gotten beaten down so much that we now have a new form of Dysfunctionalism called "Progressive" which borrows more and more from orthodox eschatological doctrines because so much of Dysfunctionalism is at odds with Scripture.
In a desperate and uncivil act, MacArthur invited a number of amill/post-mil theologians over to his seminary and proceeded to insult them. There are quite a number of refutations of his "Why all self respecting Calvinists should be Dispensationalists" screed, so much so that I have had to revisit my opinion of the integrity of John MacArthur - is his pride bigger than his zeal for truth?
Of course, everything I happen to believe comes from a plain, literal, normative reading of Scripture...
Actually it doesn't. It comes from profound arrogance and raw ignorance that leads you to think that you are smarter and better educated in the Scriptures than thousands of years of theologians that precede you. You must believe that you are a better Biblical scholar than Edwards, Owens, Luther, Henry, Whitefield, Spurgeon, Augustine, Aquinas, Warfield and ST writers such as Calvin, Hodge, Reymond and Berkhof.
I submit that you haven't spent even 1/100th of 1% of the time studying Scriptures, learning the languages, or studying the notes, comments and lectures that any of the aforementioned men of God have spent in their devotion to knowing and communicating the Word of God.
I can name drop as easy as you.