Is Ryrie Wrong?

[BABerean2]

Some do not want to see the truth, because their pride will not allow them to admit that they are following a manmade doctrine.

They would rather attack the bearer of truth.


Eze_33:6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.


Great Errors in Dispensational Eschatology
Pastor John Otis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVAgf6O0YCU


.

 

[Biblewriter]

"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

I did not "go off in a huff." I began to search the actual history of dispensationalism, and found so very much information that it began to consume all of my time, just to analyze it.

A full report of all I found will take months and months. But I have found it here and there throughout history. One of the most interesting cases is the extensive writing of William Lowth, who was born about 50 years after the King James Version of the Bible was first published. He began to publish articles in the 1600s, and published a series of commentaries on the Old Testament books of prophecy in the years 1714-1725.

In these books he very clearly and emphatically wrote of a future restoration of the Jews, both to faith in Christ and to a renewal of their earthly kingdom. J. N. Darby called him "the calm and judicious Lowth."

 

[Biblewriter]

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.

You are quite correct in asserting that chilism, in and by itself, does not automatically mean dispensationalism.

But any assertion that the ancient nation of Israel will be restored, by anyone that also taught that the church will be taken to heaven, is indeed teaching this distinction (whether they called it "Israel" or "the Jews.")

And anyone who distinctly spoke of different dispensations, in a context that clearly implied the meaning to be ages, was indeed teaching dispensationalism, whether or not he mentioned this distinction.

And I have indeed found this in many places throughout history. But as I said in my last comment, a full report will take time. And this has been temporariol hampered by a computer crash. I am using a different computer for now.

 

[Danoh]

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)

You are reading your "antiquity" and Grant, et al, to Acts, Ephesians, Galatians, etc.

By your logic, Columbus or whomever had no business sailing the ocean in 1492 as the consensus for centuries had been that he was plain wrong - the Earth is flat.

Fact is I do not read anyone into the Scriptural narrative, and know I do not; I don't simply assert it while proving otherwise.

As a result, I have removed the "Stam's book for your consideration" suggestion, as my own continuing studies into these issues have led me even further away from what some of my own were both before and after I first read Stam's - exactly as he noted in his preface in that book could end up being the result as one's process of further refinement in one's understanding continues, and as a result, can result in.

Thus, while some are still entrenched in asserting this, that, the other as to what Berkhoff, or Stout, or Grant, or Darby, or Stam, or whom ever, may have meant or was supposedly up to, I have moved on in my understanding as we are all expected to continue to do.

Without the endless "books about," with out the "pdfs" without the YouTube videos and their parrots, parroting errors in deduction for their ineptitude in plain old objectivity.

 

[duolos]

You are reading your "antiquity" and Grant, et al, to Acts, Ephesians, Galatians, etc.

By your logic, Columbus or whomever had no business sailing the ocean in 1492 as the consensus for centuries had been that he was plain wrong - the Earth is flat.

Myth, the real reason that some were trying to dissuade him was because they didn't know whether the ships could hold enough supplies to last them till they got to India.

Fact is I do not read anyone into the Scriptural narrative, and know I do not; I don't simply assert it while proving otherwise.

You are consistently reading Darby in, the fact that you continue to read his distinctive to further degrees and measures than he ever did. There is no other way I can read the critical texts on this issue in the New Testament without reading someone else in there, when Paul says that we were once excluded from πολιτειας του Ισραηλ but now have been brought near by Christ the only conclusion that I can come to is that Paul means to tell us that we are citizens of Israel, that there is no distinction between the Believing Remnant of Israel and the Church, which means that all the prophecies that talk of the removal of unbelieving Israel, the restoration of this Remnant, the joining them with a Gentile remnant that believes points to the Church. How is this reading anyone into Scripture? Look at the use of πολιτειας in the New Testament, I can't come to another conclusion without being inconsistent.

Thus, while some are still entrenched in asserting this, that, the other as to what Berkhoff, or Stout, or Grant, or Darby, or Stam, or whom ever, may have meant or was supposedly up to, I have moved on in my understanding as we are all expected to continue to do.

I honestly don't know who Grant or Stout are, and Berkhof's Systematic that I quoted I only got at the end of last year, I have held this belief much longer than that.

Without the endless "books about," with out the "pdfs" without the YouTube videos and their parrots, parroting errors in deduction for their ineptitude in plain old objectivity.

Where's my error? I can't see it, I can see where you might think it is, but I find it to be a conclusion that you read into the text, sure you may have constructed an exegesis to go along with it to point towards it, but Stam didn't convince me of it and now you've supposedly gone past Stam

 

[duolos]

You are quite correct in asserting that chilism, in and by itself, does not automatically mean dispensationalism.

Yes.

But any assertion that the ancient nation of Israel will be restored, by anyone that also taught that the church will be taken to heaven, is indeed teaching this distinction (whether they called it "Israel" or "the Jews.")

Except of course where such writers saw such a restoration as being part of God's magnification of His Glory in the Church.

And anyone who distinctly spoke of different dispensations, in a context that clearly implied the meaning to be ages, was indeed teaching dispensationalism, whether or not he mentioned this distinction.

Come on, by this logic you can co-opt all the 16-17th Century Puritans with their muddled Covenant Theology who saw it as 1 Covenant with two Dispensations, I'll say it again, the only distinctive that sets Dispensationalism apart as its own unique system of thought and which cannot be traced to any time before the mess of the 18th Century is the sharp distinction between Israel and the Church.

 

[Biblewriter]

Yes.


Except of course where such writers saw such a restoration as being part of God's magnification of His Glory in the Church.


Come on, by this logic you can co-opt all the 16-17th Century Puritans with their muddled Covenant Theology who saw it as 1 Covenant with two Dispensations, I'll say it again, the only distinctive that sets Dispensationalism apart as its own unique system of thought and which cannot be traced to any time before the mess of the 18th Century is the sharp distinction between Israel and the Church.

And as I said before, this was clearly taught by William Lowth, who was born in1660!

 

[BABerean2]

And as I said before, this was clearly taught by William Lowth, who was born in1660!

Did Lowth teach they would come to faith outside the New Blood Covenant Church of Jesus Christ?

.

Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.


Rom 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";

Rom 11:27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."



Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:



Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

 

[MWood]

Did Lowth teach they would come to faith outside the New Blood Covenant Church of Jesus Christ?

.

Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.


Rom 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";

Rom 11:27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."



Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:



Act 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

This New Covenant of Heb.8 is the Covenant of Jer.31 and is for Israel and Judah only. It is not for all the peoples of the world, Just Israel and Judah. The New Testament of Mat.26:28 is a Blood Covenant that Jesus has made for all the Peoples of the world, that are living, has lived, and will live after His death, and until He comes back to the Mount of Olives, at His second Advent. This is the AGE that we are living in now. We have no laws written on our hearts or in our minds, we are always having to remind our neighbors and our brothers to know the Lord. So we are not under this Covenant of Jer. 31 and Heb. 8.

This Blood Covenant that we are under today is for the Forgiving of Sins, Reconciliation, Redemption, Sanctification and Justification of all of Gods Creation that went under the curse at the fall of Adam. I say again, we will be under this Blood Covenant until Jesus comes back to the Mount of Olives. Then He will give the Covenant of Jer.31 to the House of Israel and the House of Judah and rule over them with a rod of iron as their King.

 

[BABerean2]

We have no laws written on our hearts or in our minds

2Co_3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

That is not what the Apostle Paul said.
.

 

[MWood]

2Co_3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

That is not what the Apostle Paul said.
.

What does this have to do with the New Covenant of Jer.31 written on our hearts? This verse says that "the EPISTLE of Christ ministered by us," is " written...in fleshly tablets OF the heart." This has nothing to do with a covenant. When you type something like this, you mislead people that need truth. And this is not truth of what we were discussing.

 

[BABerean2]

What does this have to do with the New Covenant of Jer.31 written on our hearts? This verse says that "the EPISTLE of Christ ministered by us," is " written...in fleshly tablets OF the heart." This has nothing to do with a covenant. When you type something like this, you mislead people that need truth. And this is not truth of what we were discussing.

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.


Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:


Heb_9:4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;



2Co_3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

.

 

[BABerean2]

You sure have a twisted way of understanding scripture.

I sure do.

Each verse of the Bible is like a twisted thread making up a beautiful tapestry.
Each thread is connected to many others.
You cannot remove (ignore) any thread without damaging the tapestry.
When you stand back and look at the pattern produced by all of these twisted threads woven together, you see a picture of the One who bought us with His Blood, at Calvary.

I have to accept what is plainly written in God's Word as the truth in an attempt to through off all man-made doctrine that does not agree with scripture...

I am not a Calvinist, because Calvin was a man.

I am not a Darbyist, for the same reason.

.

 

[BABerean2]

Well I can say this, that you have a zeal for the truth but you are not willing to see more truth when it is shown to you. You also have a zeal for sticking with what you have, and that leaves you without the whole of the truth.

Chapter and verse, show me the truth and we can discuss it...
.

 

[ac28]

Ryrie was (he recently died) an Acts 2 dispensationalist. Of course, Ryrie was wrong, in that he couldn't see the truths of Acts 28 dispensationalism. But he was far advanced in Biblical knowledge compared with ANY non-dispensationalist on this forum or anywhere else.

 

[BABerean2]

Good for you, MWood. I quit reading him a long time ago. Nothing he says is meaningful. No meat. No substance. No reality.

Lets hear from a former Dispensationalist, like Jerry Johnson.
He used to play on your team.

 

[BABerean2]

I am still waiting for a valid examination of Dispensationalism itself; using Scripture alone; by any of these book readers.

Jeremiah 31:31-34

Matthew 26:28

John 10:16

John 19:30

Acts 2:36

Romans 9:8, Romans 11:1, Romans 11:27

Galatians 3:16, Galatians 3:29

Hebrews 8:6-13, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 13:20

Revelation 12:11

The New Blood Covenant Church of Jesus Christ is the only future way of salvation.

After the sacrifice of God's Son, salvation is not related to bloodline...
.

 

[MWood]

Jeremiah 31:31-34

Matthew 26:28

John 10:16

John 19:30

Acts 2:36

Romans 9:8, Romans 11:1, Romans 11:27

Galatians 3:16, Galatians 3:29

Hebrews 8:6-13, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 13:20

Revelation 12:11

The New Blood Covenant Church of Jesus Christ is the only future way of salvation.

After the sacrifice of God's Son, salvation is not related to bloodline...
.

Our salvation comes by the Jews. We can't get salvation any other way, except by the Jews.

 

[BABerean2]

Our salvation comes by the Jews. We can't get salvation any other way, except by the Jews.

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
.

 

[ac28]

Our salvation comes by the Jews. We can't get salvation any other way, except by the Jews.

Until Acts 28:28, a little less than 2000 years ago, that was true. Now, every individual is on his or her own. Israel became Lo-ammi, not My people, in probably 69-70 AD.