Is Ryrie Wrong?

[duolos]

Ryrie in his work "Dispensationalism" claims that the sine qua non of Dispensationalism is "A Dispensationalist keeps Isarel and the church distinct." yet quite often when I interact with Dispensationalists they try to claim names from the history of the Church by pointing to Chialism or Premillenial views held by those believers rather than this distinctive.

I think it is quite fair to narrow down Ryrie's three distinctives of Dispensationalism down to this one as Mathison does in "Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?" Especially as he points out that distinctives of the Glory of God (#3) is dismissed by any fair reading of the Westminster standards let alone the large corpus of Continental Reformed Confessions of Faith. And the dismissal of Dispensationalism being of a Grammatical-Historical hermeneutic based on the many places where Ryrie and Scofield avoid such a reading because their Hermeneutical biases (read Dispensationalism) prevent them from doing so.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ryrie in his work "Dispensationalism" claims that the sine qua non of Dispensationalism is "A Dispensationalist keeps Isarel and the church distinct." yet quite often when I interact with Dispensationalists they try to claim names from the history of the Church by pointing to Chialism or Premillenial views held by those believers rather than this distinctive.

I think it is quite fair to narrow down Ryrie's three distinctives of Dispensationalism down to this one as Mathison does in "Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?" Especially as he points out that distinctives of the Glory of God (#3) is dismissed by any fair reading of the Westminster standards let alone the large corpus of Continental Reformed Confessions of Faith. And the dismissal of Dispensationalism being of a Grammatical-Historical hermeneutic based on the many places where Ryrie and Scofield avoid such a reading because their Hermeneutical biases (read Dispensationalism) prevent them from doing so.

The distinction between Israel and the Church (also called the body of Christ) as a radical disjunction is very likely the essential element in dispensational interpretation of holy scripture. Clearly affirming God's glory in every element of thought and theology is a mark of almost every theological system within Nicene Christianity so this element cannot be a distinctive of the dispensational system, nor can the use of reading holy scripture in its plain and obvious sense (grammatico-historical) be unique to dispensational hermeneutics. My own church says this on the interpretation of holy scripture:

The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction.”
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading&#8221. We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.​

119 “It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.”

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.​

(from the Catechism of the Catholic Church)

 

[Job8]

Ryrie in his work "Dispensationalism" claims that the sine qua non of Dispensationalism is "A Dispensationalist keeps Isarel and the church distinct." yet quite often when I interact with Dispensationalists they try to claim names from the history of the Church by pointing to Chialism or Premillenial views held by those believers rather than this distinctive.

Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make. Dispensationalists do keep the Church and Israel distinct (as does Scripture), and believe in a literal Millennium and a pre-tribulation Rapture. Which means they are Futurists. Names from the history of the Church has little to do with this.

The confusion that exists in Christianity is because Reformed Theology assumed that the Church had replaced Israel and the Millennium had already come into existence.

 

[dysert]

Although I haven't studied the history of dispensationalism, I've always thought of it as God dealing differently with His people over time. Clearly, He's dealt differently with Israel than he has with the Church.

 

[Job8]

Although I haven't studied the history of dispensationalism, I've always thought of it as God dealing differently with His people over time. Clearly, He's dealt differently with Israel than he has with the Church.

God does have a distinct eternal plan for the Church (Jew and Gentile one Body) and another distinct plan for Israel on earth. Both go back to the Abrahamic Covenant, although the Church was a mystery until revealed to (and by) Paul. The simplest way to understand this is that the New Jerusalem in Heaven is for the Church, whereas redeemed and restored Jerusalem on earth is for Israel under Christ. There are multiple Bible prophecies to confirm and establish these truths.

It is immaterial whether Darby, Scofield, Ryrie, Chafer or Walvoord agree or disagree. Bible Truth is Bible Truth. The fact that they are all Dispensationalists means that they have independently studied the Scriptures and arrived at the same conclusion. You can do the same.

 

[dysert]

God does have a distinct eternal plan for the Church (Jew and Gentile one Body) and another distinct plan for Israel on earth. Both go back to the Abrahamic Covenant, although the Church was a mystery until revealed to (and by) Paul. The simplest way to understand this is that the New Jerusalem in Heaven is for the Church, whereas redeemed and restored Jerusalem on earth is for Israel under Christ. There are multiple Bible prophecies to confirm and establish these truths.

It is immaterial whether Darby, Scofield, Ryrie, Chafer or Walvoord agree or disagree. Bible Truth is Bible Truth. The fact that they are all Dispensationalists means that they have independently studied the Scriptures and arrived at the same conclusion. You can do the same.

It seems we are in agreement.

 

[duolos]

Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make. Dispensationalists do keep the Church and Israel distinct (as does Scripture), and believe in a literal Millennium and a pre-tribulation Rapture. Which means they are Futurists. Names from the history of the Church has little to do with this.

The point I'm making is that you ask someone for the apostolicity or antiquity of the Dispensational system and they wax on about chialism rather than this distinctive. I'm aware of chialism and its place in church history, I'm not aware of any but those on the heretical fringe, who have always been considered on the heretical fringe who make a claim that could even be considered like the dispensationalist distinctive.

The confusion that exists in Christianity is because Reformed Theology assumed that the Church had replaced Israel and the Millennium had already come into existence.

Nope, Reformed theology makes the assertion that the Church is the faithful believing community, that there is only one faithful believing community and that the Jews have cut themselves off from the faithful believing community. If you're going to malign a system of doctrine at least do it properly.

 

[drstevej]

Ryrie in his work "Dispensationalism" claims that the sine qua non of Dispensationalism is "A Dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct."

I would agree with this based upon my study (ThM Dallas Seminary; PhD Westminster Seminary). Having had Ryrie for several courses I found him to be a humble man and cogent thinker.

 

[Biblewriter]

The point I'm making is that you ask someone for the apostolicity or antiquity of the Dispensational system and they wax on about chialism rather than this distinctive. I'm aware of chialism and its place in church history, I'm not aware of any but those on the heretical fringe, who have always been considered on the heretical fringe who make a claim that could even be considered like the dispensationalist distinctive.

We need to keep in mind that the Medieval church systematically purged its libraries of "unapproved" works. So, for instance, although he was quoted by numerous ancient writers, we do not have even one copy of the five volume work on Bible prophecy written by Papias. So any claim that any particular doctrine was never taught in the ancient church lacks anything even approaching a solid basis.

But numerous of the ancient documents that escaped the censors include snippets of doctrine that is distinctly dispensational. Justyn Martyr, for instance, wrote that all the Jews would be brought back to their land and be converted when the Messiah comes.

“And what the people of the Jews shall say and do, when they see Him coming in glory, has been thus predicted by Zechariah the prophet: “I will command the four winds to gather the scattered children; I will command the north wind to bring them, and the south wind, that it keep not back. And then in Jerusalem there shall be great lamentation, not the lamentation of mouths or of lips, but the lamentation of the heart; and they shall rend not their garments, but their hearts. Tribe by tribe they shall mourn, and then they shall look on Him whom they have pierced; and they shall say, Why, O Lord, hast Thou made us to err from Thy way? The glory which our fathers blessed, has for us been turned into shame.” (“The First Apology of Jystyn,” by Justyn Martyr, chapter 52, “Certain fulfilment of prophecy.”)

Others also said similar things down through the ages.

To understand this aspect of dispensationalism, you need to understand that Israel's promised blessing is in this earth, while the church's promised blessing is in heaven. Now all individuals that die in faith end up in heaven, even these future Jews. (For the scriptures plainly declare that at that future day there will still be both reproduction and death.) So this is not so totally different from other systems of thought as some might imagine.

The main component of dispensationalism is to realize that the scriptures plainly declare that when Messiah returns, the physical nation of Israel will be brought back to its ancient homeland, and be blessed by God there. But this is not "all Jews," nor is anyone blessed "just because he or she is a Jew." For the scriptures just as plainly declare that at the time God brings them back, He will "purge out all the rebels" from their midst, and that all the rest of them will repent with bitter weeping.

The fact that this is on the earth, not in heaven, is plainly declared in too many scriptures to count. And the fact that the church is blessed in heaven, not on earth, is also plainly declared in too many scriptures to count.

 

[Job8]

I'm not aware of any but those on the heretical fringe, who have always been considered on the heretical fringe who make a claim that could even be considered like the dispensationalist distinctive.

It is interesting that you claim that Dispensationalism is "on the heretical fringe" thus maligning Dispensationalists. But since the Catholic and Orthodox believe that Non-Catholics and Non-Orthodox are indeed heretics, that comes as no surprise. As to maligning Reformed Theology, it is clearly in error on many points, whether you believe it or not.

The Bible clearly teaches that Dispensations exist. It also clearly teaches one eternal destiny for the Church and another for Israel on earth. It will be in your own interest to examine the Scriptures rather than worrying about Church History etc. etc. The Bible is the Word of God and that is all that matters.

 

[duolos]

We need to keep in mind that the Medieval church systematically purged its libraries of "unapproved" works. So, for instance, although he was quoted by numerous ancient writers, we do not have even one copy of the five volume work on Bible prophecy written by Papias. So any claim that any particular doctrine was never taught in the ancient church lacks anything even approaching a solid basis.

So speculation based on conspiracy theory. From my understanding of the documents we have that quote or interact with Papias, he was a Chialist, but Chialism is not dispensationalism, lets make that quite clear, the grandfathering of Chialists into Dispensationalism is a red herring, the prospect before you is to find someone enunciating that Israel and the Church are distinct, Chialism just won't cut it.

But numerous of the ancient documents that escaped the censors include snippets of doctrine that is distinctly dispensational. Justyn Martyr, for instance, wrote that all the Jews would be brought back to their land and be converted when the Messiah comes.

“And what the people of the Jews shall say and do, when they see Him coming in glory, has been thus predicted by Zechariah the prophet: “I will command the four winds to gather the scattered children; I will command the north wind to bring them, and the south wind, that it keep not back. And then in Jerusalem there shall be great lamentation, not the lamentation of mouths or of lips, but the lamentation of the heart; and they shall rend not their garments, but their hearts. Tribe by tribe they shall mourn, and then they shall look on Him whom they have pierced; and they shall say, Why, O Lord, hast Thou made us to err from Thy way? The glory which our fathers blessed, has for us been turned into shame.” (“The First Apology of Jystyn,” by Justyn Martyr, chapter 52, “Certain fulfilment of prophecy.”)

This could be understood either as non-dispensationalist chialism or dispensationalism, it all depends on you proferring proof of Justyn holding to a distinction between Israel and the Church, something that you fail to do.

Others also said similar things down through the ages.

So Chialistic statements that could be regarded as Dispensationalist if they also held to the Dispensational Distinctive, congratulations, by the same argument the Marian dogmas of the Catholic Church could be seen as always being held purely because of the Virgin Birth.

To understand this aspect of dispensationalism, you need to understand that Israel's promised blessing is in this earth, while the church's promised blessing is in heaven. Now all individuals that die in faith end up in heaven, even these future Jews. (For the scriptures plainly declare that at that future day there will still be both reproduction and death.) So this is not so totally different from other systems of thought as some might imagine.

Ah, so now we're dealing with Scripture, chapter and verse please, maybe some commentary on why the Apostles chose to use ekklesia in the New Testament writings when this had theological implications drawing from the many times in the LXX where ekklesia is used of Israel.

The main component of dispensationalism is to realize that the scriptures plainly declare that when Messiah returns, the physical nation of Israel will be brought back to its ancient homeland, and be blessed by God there. But this is not "all Jews," nor is anyone blessed "just because he or she is a Jew." For the scriptures just as plainly declare that at the time God brings them back, He will "purge out all the rebels" from their midst, and that all the rest of them will repent with bitter weeping.

The fact that this is on the earth, not in heaven, is plainly declared in too many scriptures to count. And the fact that the church is blessed in heaven, not on earth, is also plainly declared in too many scriptures to count.

Red herring, you need to prove the distinction between Israel and the Church first, or claim that Ryrie is wrong, anything else including your chialistic theories is a distraction from the knife that Dispensationalism holds against the throat of the Gospel.

 

[MoreCoffee]

We need to keep in mind that the Medieval church systematically purged its libraries of "unapproved" works. ...

I do not think any such thing happened. In the middle ages the libraries (mostly in monasteries) were not purged of books. If books were eventually lost it was because they were not copied and because copying was an expensive and labour intensive task only books that were deemed important and valuable were copied.

 

[duolos]

The Bible clearly teaches that Dispensations exist. It also clearly teaches one eternal destiny for the Church and another for Israel on earth. It will be in your own interest to examine the Scriptures rather than worrying about Church History etc. etc. The Bible is the Word of God and that is all that matters.

Chapter and verse, commentary on the Apostolic use of ekklesia as being drawn from the LXX use, come on these are simple things that Dispensationalism fails to take into account purely because they've already bought into the system before coming to the text.

 

[drstevej]

Chapter and verse, commentary on the Apostolic use of ekklesia as being drawn from the LXX use, come on these are simple things that Dispensationalism fails to take into account purely because they've already bought into the system before coming to the text.

Not true. We believe Jesus when He says, "I will (future tense) build my church."

 

[duolos]

Not true. We believe Jesus when He says, "I will (future tense) build my church."

And? He's brought around himself the 12 Apostles, He has a new Israel clearly in mind here when He is saying this, His ekklesia is built upon the foundation of the Apostle's witness that He is the fulfilment of the promises to Israel.

 

[drstevej]

Retrogesis. Your use of the future tense in novel.

 

[duolos]

Retrogesis. Your use of the future tense in novel.

Nope, you're just taking what Christ is saying out of context. This new and symbolic representation of Israel is the foundation upon which Christ has built his New Covenant ekklesia. How do you reconcile it? This passage clearly makes another claim of Dispensationalists washed up as here in what they would call the "Dispensation of Law" we have Christ talking of the community of faith of the "Dispensation of Grace." What is the basis of the ekklesia that Christ will build if not the faith of Israel?

 

[drstevej]

What is the basis of the ekklesia that Christ will build if not the faith of Israel?

"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And you still have not addressed the future tense.

He did not say: "I have been building my Church."

 

[duolos]

"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And you still have not addressed the future tense.

And that's not the faith of Israel?

He did not say: "I have been building my Church."

If I were to knock down and rebuild it could I not say the same thing?

 

[drstevej]

If I were to knock down and rebuild it could I not say the same thing?

He did not say, I will rebuild my church.

I'm gonna leave this with you.

L8tr