If you want to understand Dispensationalism

books:


	• Dispensationalism Charles Ryrie Moody Publishers, 2007 - 272 pages average customer review:based on 30 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

If you want to understand Dispensationalism

If you want to understand Dispensationalism, especially Classical Dispensationalism, this is the book to buy. Dr. Ryrie has taught at Dallas Theological Seminary for nearly 50 years and is the source cited by current books on Dispensationalism for what is now know as Classical Dispensationalism, in comparison to Progressive Dispensationalism. All the books on Progressive Dispensationalism cite Ryrie.

Ryrie shows the historical background in ancient, medieval, and modern theological church history for this method of interpreting the Bible. Critics of Dispensationalism often trace Dispensationalism only to the 19th century British Isles. It goes back much further than that.

The three assumptions are the same he makes in other books for Dispensationalism: a consistent, as literal as possible hermeneutic; the application of that hermeneutic to the covenants of the Bible; and the clear distinction between Israel and the Church.

Even those who do not agree with Ryrie's theological method quote him with great respect. Every student of Biblical Eschatology needs this important book.

Dr. James W. Bryant
Senior Professor of Pastoral Theology
The Criswell College
Dallas, Texas

for more information click here

Body Corporate Politics

'The theological liberal quite naturally opposes D'ism for he finds completely unpalatable its plain interpretation, which is based on a verbal, plenary view of the inspiration of Scripture.' pg 14

THE PERSON:
Carl F H Henry knew how to make absolutes that stick. Ryrie makes assertions that seem to evaporate into thin air, once stated. His teaching methodology is one of multi-repetitive statements: too many to mention negative with regard to those who differ; positive with reference to those who concur and support his credal statements. What is obvious is the absolute lack of Reformation principles and practice - no contribution, except one general statement by Calvin, is garnered in support of his view. (Lucky for Calvin or he too would have been hacked to pieces.)

THE THEOLOGY:
Classic D'ism does have one major flaw. It cannot presume to know all the aspects of eschatology, without question, and know each dispensation's goal and know how and when each will be consummated. Well, it can if, a.) it may claim thru Scripture to be omniscient, and b.) if it makes Scripture conform to its own delineations and time-lines. Not a huge step from La Haye's Sensationalism...

Unfortunately, I would have to agree with most of the other reviewer's that claim Ryrie is 'too defensive'. Blaising and Block, however, include the two major covenants, divided by the Cross, not rigidly viewing history as vanquished states of God's glory on display. They state to believe in '..the dispensations not simply as different arrangements between God and humankind, but as successive arrangements in the progressive revelation and accomplishment of redemption.' 'Progressive Dispensationalism', pg 14. Spot on! Robert L Saucy, in 'The Case For Progressive Dispensationalism' also attempts to move beyond Ryrie by stating that the church is not a parenthesis in God's program, but represents a continuity with the OT messianic program, because the fulfillment of OT prophecies begins in the present church age.

I believe that the future will find that the Progressive view, which has a high regard for Israel too, will outmanouevre the Classic one.

'Only D'sim can maintain unity and diversity at the same time and offer a consistent system of interpretation.' pg 39 This claim is truly questionable. It also makes one wonder if there ever was a need for Dispensationalism and eternally question its origin.

for more information click here

Biblical & Well Worth the Wait!

Thanks to C.C. Ryrie for setting the record straight on normative dispensationalism in his 2007 Revised and Expanded edition! His study is first, and above all, biblical, all the while remaining scholarly, lucid, and irenic. At the same time, he also sets forth the many problems that continue to plague all forms of covenant theology, and "progressive" & ultra dispensationalism. I admire the plea he gives at the end of the book, and his diplomacy in dealing with other believers--even when they use words like "unscriptural", "heresy", and "cult" when describing normative dispensationalism.

The strength of the normative dispensational position that Ryrie, and others like him, outline is that it relies on the Bible as its source, and in that, it "employs principles of literal, plain, normal, or historical-grammatical interpretation consistently." As such, we can heartily concur with the author when he shows us that, "Only dispensationalism can maintain unity and diversity at the same time and offer a consistent system of interpretation." And also, "Only dispensationalism with its cross-sectional and longitudinal/spiral perspectives can recognize the wealth, mobility, and complexity of the history of God's running the affairs of this world."

Requirements of Normative Dispensationalism
According to Ryrie, the "underlying purpose" of God in the world is the "glory of God" and he puts it this way, "To the normative dispensationalist, the soteriological, or saving, program of God is not the only program but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying Himself. Scripture is not man-centered as though salvation were the main theme [the covenant position], 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 and end in itself but is rather a means to the end of glorifying God (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14)." Renald Showers makes the same point in his excellent work entitled There Really Is a Difference!: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology.

John F. Walvoord is quoted also on this point, "All the events of the created world are designed to manifest the glory of God. The error of covenant theologians is that they combine all the many facets of divine purpose in the one objective of the fulfillment of the covenant of grace. From a logical standpoint, this is the reductive error--the use of one aspect of the whole as the determining element." It is noteworthy that this is also their error in the development the Calvinist TULIP as well.

Literal hermeneutics: 1) Philosophically, the purpose of language itself seems to require a literal interpretation. 2) All Old Testament prophesies concerning the first advent of Christ--His birth, His rearing, His ministry, His death, His resurrection--were all fulfilled literally. 3) [Logically], if one does not use the plain, normal, or literal method of interpretation, all objectivity is lost.

To summate Ryrie posits, "Literal interpretation results in accepting the text of Scripture at its face value. Based on the philosophy that God originated language for the purpose of communicating His message to man and that He intended man to understand that message, literal interpretation seeks to interpret that message plainly."

Dr. Ryrie sums up the crux of the matter well in the following statement, "The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the church. This grows out of the dispensationalist's consistent employment of normal or plain or historical-grammatical interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealing with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well."

In succeeding chapters, Dr. Ryrie also does a first-rate job in dealing with some perennial false accusations against dispensationalism in regards to; the Sermon on the Mount, two ways of salvation, the relationship of Mosaic Law to Grace (the charge of antinomianism), minimizing the Cross, and despiritualizing the kingdom. In fact, the author turns the tables on the anti-dispensational inquisitors and puts them on their own rack!

Progressive Covenantal Theology (PC)
In Dr. Ryrie's section on what has been commonly called "Progressive" dispensationalism, we see that this label is a misnomer and that their system is actually little more than Covenant Theology dressed up in sheep's clothing. This is what happens when theologians abandon a single and consistent normative hermeneutic for all of Scripture and start to grab a hold of allegory (in Clinton-speak they spin it as "complementary"). No doubt, this is exacerbated by the academic world's tendency to constantly push Profs to "publish", something or anything, in order to gain tenure or to make a name for themselves and distinguish themselves from the pack.

Even though Ryrie tends to call them "revisionists" in this work, I think we should use more accurate labels like "Neo-dispensational", or possibly "Progressive Premillennial", or still better "Progressive Covenantal". In any case, it is getting harder and harder to distinguish them from the Premill Covenant camp. Bock admits that their PC concept of the kingdom is essentially what George Ladd promotes in his Premill Covenant system.

Other problems: What of the Palestinian covenant? What is their view on the Rapture? Ryrie seems to think that with their complementary hermeneutic the rapture of the church is moving into the tribulation period. Another troubling sign in the PC view of holistic redemption is their heightened concentration on "social action". The social gospel issue is really gaining traction these days as seen in the revision process of the EFCA's statement of faith. The author also quotes one PC advocate, D.L. Turner, who has already advocated replacement theology.

Concerning what Ryrie calls their "major departure" is their view on the Davidic reign. Based on this "already/not yet" paradigm (oxymoron?) used by the PC people, Ryrie notes one ETS member who wrote a paper entitled, "Already Ladd--Not Yet Dispensationalism". In it he demonstrates the striking similarities of Ladd and Bock from quotes they have both made.

Ryrie goes on to list 4 non-dispensational critics as stating that PC has already changed, or at least is leading to Covenant Premillennialism. One of them, Vern Poythress, predicts that the PC position "is inherently unstable. I do not think that they will find it possible in the long run to create a safe haven theologically between classic dispensationalism and covenantal premillennialism. The forces that their own observations have set in motion will most likely lead to covenantal premillennialism after the pattern of George Ladd."

Dr. Ryrie rightly suggests that the PC people should take a hard look at themselves as even non-dispensationalists see them. Furthermore, I must agree with the conclusion that the "progressives/revisionists" have introduced "major changes" resulting in "a new and revised system", and are thus outside of normative dispensationalism. All that remains now is that they come out and publicly admit it. In any case, it will be interesting to see how schools like DTS handle this new movement.

"Historical" Premillennialism
What Dr. Ryrie more accurately calls Covenant Premillennial theology (Laddism), with its double hermeneutic, is shown to have a severely weakened view of the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture. See also David Hesselgrave's "Paradigms In Conflict". To be frank, the "historic" premillennialism label, like "progressive", is another attempt to delude people into thinking their system is something it is not. Since Ryrie, and even Covenant theologians, show their system has many holes that are yet to be filled, their adoption of the "historic" label belies their dependence on supposed historical evidence as the main pillar for support of their system.
J. Ramsey Michaels, a non-dispensationalist, critiques CP as not having an integrated concept of the millennium. Renald Showers has also shown how the CP system still cannot find a way to populate their millennial kingdom. Maybe they are still working on it...

Covenant Replacement Theology (CT)
It is shown from numerous sources (not all dispensational), that covenant theology is guilty of an artificial system of typology, allegorizing Scripture, and reading back or forcing the New Testament into the Old Testament. Their allegorizing hermeneutic is used for approximately one third of the Bible! Other unresolved problems: How many covenants are there supposed to be anyway? Where are they stated in the Bible? Is it 2 or 3 these days? Did the church start with Adam, or Abraham? If not Adam, what "body" were those before Abraham part of?

In defending dispensationalism against the charge of "recency", or "newness", Ryrie shows us that as far as systemization goes, Johannes Cocceius' version of CT came out in 1648. On the other hand, Poiret's systemization of dispensationalism came shortly after in 1687. It is true that the seeds of CT were sown as far back as St. Augustine when he adopted allegorical interpretation, but that was a far cry from the CT that started gaining acceptance for the first time in the Westminster Confession of 1647 and one year before Cocceius published. History shows that premillennialism was the accepted view on eschatology by the church at least until St. Augustine. Even in the Reformers' time, CT was not developed, but Calvin called premillennialism (chiliasm) "fiction", "insult", and "intolerable blasphemy". Things haven't changed much... Anyway, as Dr. Ryrie has stated elsewhere, "Always, of course, the conclusive evidence of the truth of a doctrine is not historical but exegetical."

Under Ryrie's "Biblical Basis for Covenant Theology", we really see how the CT system is based entirely on a deductive and not an inductive method of study. Ever since St. Augustine started allegorizing Scripture and mentioned that the Roman Church is the fulfillment of prophecy, they have been trying to squeeze the Bible back into the covenant of works and grace. For more insights on the benefits of the inductive method, see C. Gordon Olson's "Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism".

In closing, I have one criticism about getting our "labels" straight. On page 214 Ryrie states, "Noncharismatic dispensationalists accept some of the points of Reformed theology, whereas charismatic dispensationalists would not." If by "Reformed" he really means "TULIP" then I would emphatically disagree. Many, if not the majority, of "Noncharismatic dispensationalists" do not accept any of the 5-points of Calvinism as defined by Calvinists in the TULIP. This does not make them Arminians either. For example, we must remember that in the TULIP Total Depravity means Total Inability and not just that all have sinned. In addition, Perseverance of the Saints is not be equated with the biblical doctrine of Eternal Security. Dr. Ryrie is a 4-point Biblicist based on his acceptance of Calvinistic Unconditional Election. In any case, I am glad to see in this more recent work of his an apparent movement away from using any form of the "Calvinist" label for himself. I hope more will follow his lead.

Dr. Ryrie's work in defending normative dispensationalism is one that the critics won't be able to ignore. We look forward to their reply. For the rest of us, the importance of this book is becoming increasingly clear as we see Biblicism coming under siege in many of our seminaries and denominations. We all need to be prepared for the adverse impact of these movements on believers. At the same time we need to continue to follow Dr. Ryrie's example and represent believers under Grace and not Law by setting forth Biblicism and "speaking the truth in love".

For more information on this subject, I also highly recommend Renald Showers' There Really Is a Difference!: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology. In addition, Ryrie's section on "Things to Come" in his Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth, along with the wealth of material he acknowledges this book's "Select Bibliography".

for more information click here

A Classic Work

Ryrie's 'Dispensationalism' is the classic work in the field of present Dispensationalism. It is a must-read for all Christians because it truly is a help for all Christians. Ryrie lays his position out from the very beginning of the work: Dispensationalism is a help, not a heresy. He gives solid and clear expositions on the essentials of Dispensationalism (sine qua non). These are the foundations for a normative, traditional Dispensational view as the over-arching principle of scripture.

Problems with Dispensationalism normally arise out of misunderstandings of how its essential tenets fit together; misunderstandings are normally seen because one tenet is focused on without a thorough understanding of the rest. Dispensationalism is primarily a systematic understanding of scriptures as opposed to just premillennialism, 7 economies of history, law/grace, etc. It is much, much more than that.

Contrary to many reviews that see Ryrie as being 'defensive', I've read this work multiple times and never come away with that spirit. Ryrie always has an irenic tone, and writes with a passion for clarity and grace.

The work is very well organized and summarized and it is clear that this is the current standard for normative Dispensationalism, a Dispensationalism that still holds to separate purposes for the nation of Israel and the Church. You will not find a work for or against Dispensationalism that does not quote this work at length. It truly is the standard which all must wrestle with.
Ryrie states clearly how the Israel/Church distinction is the definitive feature of traditional Dispensationalism. Though this is a surface-level explanation, he goes into enough detail to explain how this is understood. In general, this book was not written to essentially persuade, but to explain and defend the scriptural understanding of the Dispensational `system'. Ryrie gives other views throughout, such the Covenant and Progressive Disp. views, yet clearly states how these positions (as the over-arching principle of scripture) do not fit with a normative Disp. theology. For that alone, he is to be highly recommended.

At the same time, there is so much that can be learned from this book. One does not have to be a Dispensationalist (in the traditional sense) to profit from this work. It is so important to know what you believe, but to also know what other orthodox evangelicals hold to as essentials in their faith. Our dialogue with each other only helps the body of Christ remain more unified and clear in our representations of one another. This book is a wonderful tool for just that and should be read by all Christians from every background.

for more information click here

reviews: page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Dispensationalism is a framework for

understanding the Bible, teaching that

God has dealt with man historically in different

administrations or ?dispensations.?

It maintains a radical distinction between

Israel and the Church?that there are two

peoples of God with two different destinies?

and it distinguishes between the

Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ

(that one precedes the other by seven

years of tribulation). Taught at Dallas

Theological Seminary and Moody Bible

Institute among others, dispensationalism

still provokes debate within the Christian

world. In this bestseller, Ryrie makes a

complex subject understandable.

for more information click here

hot

not?

What's your opinion?

Write a review and share your thoughts!

recommendations

Sorting Through Calvinism & Covenant Theology
Dillon Burroughs: edited and coedited works
For the Biblicist
Dispensationalism
Potential Reads

dispensationalism

New Covenant Ministry of the Holy Spirit, The
The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical ...
Progressive Dispensationalism
THINGS THAT DIFFER THE FUNDAMENTALS OF DISPENSATIONALISM
There Really Is a Difference!: A Comparison of Covenant and ...

search for books
dispensationalism

Impressum / about us