You missed the point. The author attempts to connect futurist dispensationalism with the Protestant reformation. There is no such connection.
Considering most dispensational theologians from DTS for the first century were themselves Presbyterian ordained ministers, I think I see a trend here.
Only in your imagination. The denominations that those men came from all denounced their dispensational views. Besides, most of the Reformers were former Roman Catholics. So what is your point?
As theology is advanced, faith upon faith, we have growth in the Body of Christ, the Church. The same topic has been observed by James Orr in The Progress of Dogma, pp. 21-31.
Has it ever struck you...what a singular parallel there is between the historical course of dogma, in the one hand, and the scientific order of the text-books on a systematic theology on the other? The history of dogma, as you speedily discover is simply the system of theology spread out over the centuries...and this not only as regards its general subject-matter, but even as respects the definite succession of its parts. ...One thing, I think it shows unmistakenly, viz., that neither arrangement is arbitrary--that there is law and reason underlying it; and another thing which forces itself upon us is, that the law of these two developments--the logical and the historical is the same.
....the second century in the history of the Church--what was that? The age of Apologetics and of the vindication of the fundamental ideas of all religion--of the Christian especially--in conflict with Paganism and with the Gnostics.
We pass to the next stage in the development, and what do we find there? Just what comes next in the theological system--Theology Proper--the Christian doctrine of God, and specially the doctrine of the Trinity. This period is covered by the Monarchian, Arian, and Macedonian contraversies of the third and fourth centuries. ...What comes next? As in the logical system theology is succeeded by Anthropology, so in the history of dogma the controversies I have named are followed in the beginning of the fifth century by the Augustinian and Pelagian controversies, in which ...the centre of interest shifts from God to man. ...From the time of Augustine's death we see the Church entering on that long and distracting series of controversies known as Christological---Nestorian, Eutychian, Monophysite, Monothelite--which kept it in continual ferment, and rent it with the most unchristlike passions during the fifth and sixth, on even till near the end of the seventh, centuries. Theology, Anthropology, Christology have each had its day--in the order of the theological system, which the history still carefully follows, [but] it was not the turn of Soteriology...[until] the next step, that taken by the Reformers in te development of doctrine of the Application of Redemption. This ...is the next great division in the theological system. What now shall I say of the remaining branch of the theological system, the Eschatological? An Eschatology, indeed, there was in the early Church, but it was not theologically conceived; and a Mythical Eschatology there was in the Mediaevil Church--an Eschatology of Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory...but the Reformation swept this away, and, with its sharply contrasted states of bliss and woe, can hardly be said to have put anything in its place or even to have faced the very distinctly the difficulties with the problem. ...Probably I am not mistaken in thinking that, besides the necessary revision of the theological system as a whole, which could not properly be undertaken till the historical development I have sketched had run its course, the modern mind has given itself with special earnestness to eschatological questions, moved thereto, perhaps, by the solemn impression that on it the ends of the world have come, and tht some great crisis in the history of human affairs in approaching."