Is Ryrie Wrong?

[Biblewriter]

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.

There are literally hundreds of scriptures that declare a future restoration of Israel in words to plain to misunderstand. The only way to avoid them is to claim they do not mean what they explicitly say.

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.

Actually, it is not a red herring at all. For if a man clearly teaches that Israel will be restored to her land when the Lord comes, and also teaches that Christians will go to heaven when the Lord comes. he has made that distinction, whether he specifically says it or not. And I am not interested in what Ryrie said.

 

[duolos]

There are literally hundreds of scriptures that declare a future restoration of Israel in words to plain to misunderstand. The only way to avoid them is to claim they do not mean what they explicitly say.

That is unless you realise that a lot of them were spoken from out of the exile that in the minds of the Apostles concluded with the consummation of the Kingdom in the crowning of the Messiah at Calvary.

Actually, it is not a red herring at all. For if a man clearly teaches that Israel will be restored to her land when the Lord comes, and also teaches that Christians will go to heaven when the Lord comes, he has made that distinction, whether he specifically says it or not.

You have yet to show that anyone explicitly believes that, and that's the problem, you assume that any chialistic mention of the millennium in the Patristic sources makes the Church heavenly and Israel earthly, proof would be nice rather than giving proof by verbosity claims.

And I am not interested in what Ryrie said.

Then why are you posting in a thread that is about how Ryrie has defined Dispensationalism in a book entitled Dispensationalism, if you take issue with his definition then provide your own and show how Ryrie is wrong.

The distinctive that Ryrie posits for Dispensationalism is that there is a distinction between the Church and Israel.

The question then for you is where in Church History is the distinctive of Dispensationalism found in the history of the Church, keeping in mind that chialism does not automatically mean Dispensationalism, to argue such is called bait and switch and is a fallacious form of argumentation.

 

[BABerean2]

In Ryrie's book "Dispensationalism", he states that John Darby became interested in prophecy while attending one of the Albury Conferences.

A few here are upset with Ryrie for making this comment.

The comment can be seen at the 11:30 mark in the video below.





Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/pretrib_history.pdf

Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/Jeffrey.pdf

PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) read pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418

Genesis of Dispensational Theology (on YouTube)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee4RS5pDntQ

Darby, J. N., Reflections (1829), Prophetic No. 1
Reflections upon the Prophetic Inquiry and the views advanced in it

Lacunza’s book “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty“ is available at…
PDF Files


.

 

[duolos]

I've read the comment in Ryrie's book itself.

If memory serves me, in a note to that comment he relates it is from a book by someone else.

Am I upset by it? Not a bit.

Why should I be; its not my understanding of how Dispensationalism re-emerged, given how far back I have been able to trace the actual process and history of its re-emergence.

But you just go right ahead and continue your dishonesty in its incompetence at sound research, all you want.

Other than letting others know to consider your source - your consistently proven one-sided incompetence at objective research - you have ceased from mattering in this issue.

Take that how you will; for that is exactly how you will.

"re-"emergence is all well and good, can you show me its antiquity? Biblewriter went off in a huff when I pointed out that Chialism is not Dispensationalism

 

[dysert]

"re-"emergence is all well and good, can you show me its antiquity? Biblewriter went off in a huff when I pointed out that Chialism is not Dispensationalism

Why are you so concerned about the history of all this? If the Bible teaches dispensationalism (and it clearly does), what difference does it make when that teaching gained a foothold or who adopted it?

 

[duolos]

Why are you so concerned about the history of all this? If the Bible teaches dispensationalism (and it clearly does), what difference does it make when that teaching gained a foothold or who adopted it?

The thing is the Bible doesn't teach dispensationalism, I have yet to have anyone show me where the distinctive is taught in Scripture rather than pushed on to Scirpture. And the question of antiquity is a perfectly valid one as I see the New Testament as being polemical against the persecution of the Church to say that it is the true expression of Judaism which was a religion largely exempt because of its own antiquity, Dispensationalism makes mincemeat of this polemical thrust for no good reason.

 

[dysert]

The thing is the Bible doesn't teach dispensationalism, I have yet to have anyone show me where the distinctive is taught in Scripture rather than pushed on to Scirpture. And the question of antiquity is a perfectly valid one as I see the New Testament as being polemical against the persecution of the Church to say that it is the true expression of Judaism which was a religion largely exempt because of its own antiquity, Dispensationalism makes mincemeat of this polemical thrust for no good reason.

So are you saying you don't think God has dealt with humans in different ways during different ages? For example, how He dealt with:

• Adam and Eve
• people before Noah
• people after the Flood
• people after Abraham
• people during Jesus' incarnation
• people after Jesus ascension

 

[duolos]

So are you saying you don't think God has dealt with humans in different ways during different ages? For example, how He dealt with:

• Adam and Eve
• people before Noah
• people after the Flood
• people after Abraham
• people during Jesus' incarnation
• people after Jesus ascension

That's not the distinctive. However in all things God interacts with man in light of the Cross, different amounts of shadows, but in the end all in light of the Cross.

 

[BABerean2]

So are you saying you don't think God has dealt with humans in different ways during different ages? For example, how He dealt with:

• Adam and Eve
• people before Noah
• people after the Flood
• people after Abraham
• people during Jesus' incarnation
• people after Jesus ascension

God has always dealt with man throughout the ages by giving him instruction for man's own good.

Do not eat...

Over and over again, man fails to follow God's commands.

The solution is found in the book of Genesis as the Seed of the woman.

Salvation has always come through Faith.

King David was a murderer. His salvation came through throwing himself upon the mercy of God, through faith.

If David's salvation comes through the Law, he would be condemned.






Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.


A pharmacy dispenses medication. The Apostle Paul dispensed(administered) the Gospel.


.

 

[dysert]

That's not the distinctive. However in all things God interacts with man in light of the Cross, different amounts of shadows, but in the end all in light of the Cross.

Sorry. Is that a yes or a no?

 

[duolos]

Sorry. Is that a yes or a no?

Both, but more importantly there being different ways that God interacts with His people is not the distinctive of Dispensational theology, the distinctive is that the Church and Israel are distinct.

 

[Danoh]

Both, but more importantly there being different ways that God interacts with His people is not the distinctive of Dispensational theology, the distinctive is that the Church and Israel are distinct.

That the church that is Israel [over the nations of the Earth] and the church that is the Body [Jew and Gentile in one Body over the Heavenlies] are distinct is, first of all, the more apt distinction.

While, that said distinction is only one of other KEY distinctions would be a more apt distinction also; the one above, being just one of other KEY distinctions.

Ryrie was not the final say on Dispensationalism anymore than Newton was the final say on Phyics.

They merely saw what they saw for their time.

The process of further refinement in understanding is, as even Scripture relates, a never ending one:

"THEN REMEMBERED I the Word of the Lord, how that He said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost," Acts 11: 16

 

[duolos]

That the church that is Israel [over the nations of the Earth] and the church that is the Body [Jew and Gentile in one Body over the Heavenlies] are distinct is, first of all, the more apt distinction.

While, that said distinction is only one of other KEY distinctions would be a more apt distinction also; the one above, being just one of other KEY distinctions.

I went through Ryrie's other distinctives for dispensationalism and dismissed them, because for the most part I agree with Mathison's comments that in regards to the Glory of God the cohesion of Covenant theology in general and departing from Mathison; 1689 Federalism in particular presents a better case for such, and to claim a literal hermeneutic is naivete of the highest order, there are places where I have a more literal reading, and places where I acknowledge I'm seeing the fulfillment in light of the Cross which may not be literal in the sense you want it, but is literal in the best sense.

Ryrie was not the final say on Dispensationalism anymore than Newton was the final say on Phyics.

They merely saw what they saw for their time.

The process of further refinement in understanding is, as even Scripture relates, a never ending one:

"THEN REMEMBERED I the Word of the Lord, how that He said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost," Acts 11: 16

I think this is a dangerous place you are placing yourself, Scripture also talks of the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints, and this is the problem that you face, you need to show in the first few generations outside of the new testament that there was a falling away from this faith.

 

[Danoh]

As for a literal hermeneutic; we're often misunderstood as to what we mean by it.

The phrase "Behold the lamb of God" is, for example, a figure referring to a literal.

As is "This [bread] is My Body," for He was standing right there, literally, when He said that.

If I say to you "you can't fight city hall" you know that is a figure of speech that nevertheless represents a literal reality.

By the way, thanks for overlooking the tone I first responded to you in; there are so many deadset and misrepresenting of us on here that I just wrote you off as one more based on your first words.

 

[duolos]

No, I do not need to show that outside of the books commonly known as the New Testament Epistles, within their time.

Paul's words in his last Epistle - 2 Timothy 1:15

"This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes."

But keep in mind you and I do not look at these things from the same perspective - I look at them from the internal evidence of Scripture as to what The Faith was. You are relying on later, external writer's interpretations - and because their understanding is so far from Scripture and had become the norm for centuries, it has taken centuries to recover it.

I don't see it in the New Testament because it simply isn't there, I'm not relying on others to interpret it for me, the whole polemic thrust of the New Testament against both Judaism and the Roman Imperial Cult is that there is continuity both as a group of believers and as an expression of the faith in Yahweh, you're the one not letting it speak for itself.

Mathison is Reformed. It recovered two truths and just as quickly clouded them up by relying on a combination of reasoning and the many traditions it still held to and has continued to.

But I am Mid-Acts in my Dispensationalism; his book; which I nevertheless enjoyed reading twice, had nothing valid to say to me against Mid-Acts as it was written against and in light of various holes in Acts 2 Dispensationalsim; holes Reformed does not often solve either.

Read the pdf I mention below my signature.

But actually read it; don't just pick and choose like one individual on here did and has continued to prove doing given his obvious dishonesty.

Let's see what you have to say... but just as a warning I don't see any division in Acts where one could say "here! Here is where there is a departure from one age to another." I read through Acts on a monthly basis (following a modified version of Prof. Grant Horner's system)

EDIT: You may want to change your instructions in your signature or provide a link as you're the only hit on Google is this it? http://www.bijbel.nl/_files/StamI13.pdf

 

[duolos]

As for a literal hermeneutic; we're often misunderstood as to what we mean by it.

The phrase "Behold the lamb of God" is, for example, a figure referring to a literal.

As is "This [bread] is My Body," for He was standing right there, literally, when He said that.

If I say to you "you can't fight city hall" you know that is a figure of speech that nevertheless represents a literal reality.

What makes your literal hermeneutic different from mine? This is a serious question, if the primary thing that makes us different is adherence or non-adherence to keeping the Church and Israel as distinct entities then show where this is unequivocally derived in Scripture.

By the way, thanks for overlooking the tone I first responded to you in; there are so many deadset and misrepresenting of us on here that I just wrote you off as one more based on your first words.

Text doesn't have tone, it does no good to misrepresent even by reading in a tone into the text unless one is familiar with the one who is writing, for instance there is a depth to the love that Paul expresses towards the Philippian Church that I'm only just seeing as I read and reread Paul's letter and seek to understand what he's saying.

 

[Danoh]

God has always dealt with man throughout the ages by giving him instruction for man's own good.

Do not eat...

Over and over again, man fails to follow God's commands.

The solution is found in the book of Genesis as the Seed of the woman.

Salvation has always come through Faith.

King David was a murderer. His salvation came through throwing himself upon the mercy of God, through faith.

If David's salvation comes through the Law, he would be condemned.






Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.


A pharmacy dispenses medication. The Apostle Paul dispensed(administered) the Gospel.


.

Said pharmacy acts as a Dispensary; the medication it Dispenses is a Dispensation, as is the time it takes to Dispense it, and when it is doing so, it is said to be Dispensing said Dispensation.

And all that is the Distinction between right portion of meat to the right party and in its due season, etc.

 

[Danoh]

I don't see it in the New Testament because it simply isn't there, I'm not relying on others to interpret it for me, the whole polemic thrust of the New Testament against both Judaism and the Roman Imperial Cult is that there is continuity both as a group of believers and as an expression of the faith in Yahweh, you're the one not letting it speak for itself.

Let's see what you have to say... but just as a warning I don't see any division in Acts where one could say "here! Here is where there is a departure from one age to another." I read through Acts on a monthly basis (following a modified version of Prof. Grant Horner's system)

EDIT: You may want to change your instructions in your signature or provide a link as you're the only hit on Google is this it? http://www.bijbel.nl/_files/StamI13.pdf

I had it listed as a direct link but the moderators said a direct link in one's signature is not allowed.

 

[duolos]

I object, I'm only part way through the first chapter and his assertion that Peter does not see salvation as a part of what Christ did on the Cross in his Acts 2 sermon is simply wrong. He quotes Joel 2:28-32 as being fulfilled and Luke in recording this event agrees by bookending Peter's sermon and the intake and description of the early church with Joel 2:28 (Acts 2:17) and Joel 2:32a (Acts 2:47b)

Not to mention the whole idea that people are saved apart from Christ goes against the thrust of the Hall of the Faithful in Hebrews, let alone its capstone verse; God has provided something better for us, (that is those living in the New Covenant community wrought in Christ's work) that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

Yes, God's salvation plan is a magnificent opus that slowly built from Genesis 3:15 through to Christ, what I would identify with Stam as "progressive revelation" but it is always on Yahweh's covenant faithfulness that we see Him building, that we see people have faith in.

I think it is interesting that Stam in describing Paul's ministry as mystery in chapter 2 stops at Eph 3:1-4 and doesn't even seemingly comment on Eph 3:6 where Paul does describe the "Mystery"; the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the Gospel. Paul's thrust of the whole unity passage (Which I would say is grounded in and an expansion upon 1:23, what it means to be a part of and the body of Christ, properly though it is 2:1-3:13) is that God is radically pursuing us as both political (2:12, 19) organistic (2:14-15, 21, 3:6) God's workmanship, a place to dwell (2:10, 20-22) it's big, explosive and oh so wonderful, God has finally done what he has promised, the nations are coming to His mountain to worship and here's where I think the Mystery comes in, not just as strangers and aliens to the covenantal promises to Abraham, but united into them as we are united into Christ's body; the offspring of promise (Gal 3:16)

 

[BABerean2]

Link to the book
Things That Differ-Cornelius Stamm
.....................................................................................................

Excerpts from “Things That Differ” by C.R. Stam


The reader is invited to read the entire work to make sure none of the following quotes are taken out of context.
Page 33.

“It should be noted too that both the actual old and new testaments, though
they affect us, were made with the nation Israel, and that the new covenant
simply promises that Israel will one day render spontaneously the obedience
required of her under the old covenant. (Deut. 5:1-3, Jer. 31:31).”

………………………………............................

Page 35 , 36 from the section on Prophecy and the Messianic Kingdom

“4. It will extend to all the earth: "Yea, all kings shall fall down before Him: all
nations shall serve Him" (Psa. 72:11). "And there was given Him dominion, and
glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve Him"
(Dan. 7:14). "Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the Lord
of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Lord" (Zech. 8:22).

5. All Israel will then be saved: "They shall all know Me, from the least of
them unto the greatest of them" (Jer. 31:34). "I will save them ... and will
cleanse them: so shall they be My people, and I will be their God" (Ezek. 37:23).

This was confirmed by Paul in Romans 11:26, etc.

6. Israel's suffering and sorrow will then be over: "Speak ye comfortably
[comfortingly) to Jerusalem . - . that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity
is pardoned" (Isa. 40:2). "Give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for
mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness" (Isa. 61:3). "They
shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away" (Isa.
35:10).

7. Israel will then become a blessing to all nations:
“And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy
rising" (Isa. 60:3). "And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the
heathen, 0 house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall
be a blessing" (Zech. 8:13). "In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men
shall take hold, out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the
skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that Godis with you" (Zech. 8:23)
.
These promises date back to the covenant which God made with Abraham,:
"I will multiply thy seed ... and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed" (Gen. 22:17,18).”

………………………………............................................................

Page 128

“Chapter XI
GOOD NEWS
THE "FOUR GOSPELS"

It has often been stated that the so-called Four Gospels are actually four
accounts of our Lord's earthly ministry as recorded by four different writers.
These four accounts are given to us in the Scripture, not as different gospels but
as portrayals of our blessed Lord Himself in four different aspects. Matthew
portrays Him as King, Mark as Servant, Luke as Man and John as God; and
each writer, while acknowledging the other aspects of Christ's person and place,
keeps consistently to the particular aspect which he was inspired to portray.

Some have suggested that one biography; one composite picture, so to
speak, would have been better, but one might as well try to depict a house by
one composite picture. It would seem rather odd to have the mop, the refuse
can, the milk box and the connection for the hose all showing up on the front
porch! And where in the picture would there be room for all the doors and
windows on all four sides? Similarly four separate accounts of our Lord's
ministry were necessary to set forth the four aspects of His person, position and
work.

IS THERE ONLY ONE GOSPEL?
But while it is technically incorrect to call these four records four gospels, it is
equally incorrect to say, as many have said, that the Scriptures present only one
Gospel.”

………………………………..............................................................................

Questions to be considered in reference to Stam’s book.


1. Is the Gospel preached by Paul different from the Gospel preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost or are they the same Gospel directed to a different audience?

2. Is there really more than one Gospel?

3. Will all of the descendants of Jacob be saved during the end-time or only a small remnant?
Why do Dispensationalists change to word “so” which is an adverb of manner into “then” which is an adverb of time in Romans 11:26?

4. Will the salvation of most of the end-time Jews occur at His Second Coming?

5. Will Israel be a blessing to all of the nations in the future or has it already been done through the sacrifice of Christ?

6. Who is the "seed" through which all nations will be blessed? Gal. 3:16

7. Is the viewpoint of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism portrayed in Stam’s book based on scripture?