More Dispensational Errors of Charles Ryrie

[JerryShugart]

The Doctrinal Statement of Dallas Theological Seminary says: "We believe that the dispensations are not ways of salvation nor different methods of administering the so-called Covenant of Grace " (Dallas Theological Seminary; Full Doctrinal Statement, Article V).

Of course that is correct but despite this Charles Ryrie says that "under grace the responsibility on man is to accept the gift of righteousness that God freely offers to all (Rom. 5:15-18) " (Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p.56).

In his book Dr. Ryrie provides a chart labeled THE DISPENSATIONS . There he lists the responsibilities of men in each dispensation, and under "Grace" he lists "Believe on Christ" and "Walk with Christ" (Ibid.,p.54).

So Dr. Ryrie is teaching that the "dispensation of grace" is indeed a way of salvation despite the fact that the "Doctrinal Statement" of Dallas Theological Seminary rejects that idea.

Phillip Heideman of Chafer Theological Seminary writes: "Moreover, according to Ryrie’s chart on page 54 of 'Dispensationalism,' one of the tests in the Age of Grace is faith in Christ. That would lead one to think that each Dispensation has its own test for entrance into God’s eternal kingdom. Moreover, in most, if not all cases, the test includes some system of good works/obedience. Certainly, Dr. Ryrie along with others who agree with his position, if asked, would acknowledge that salvation always has been and always will be by faith in God/Christ and that Dispensationalism is not teaching different ways of salvation. Yet, sometimes the way scholars present Dispensationalism, at least in the traditional way, leads to confusion on this point. " (Heideman, Dispensational Theology).

The problem is not a result of the way that Ryie presents dispensationalism, but instead the problem is Dr. Ryie's misunderstanding of the basic Biblical dispensational arrangement. He fails to understand that the responsiblty given during the present dispensation is to preach the "gospel of grace." He seems to think that the present dispensation is called the "dispensation of grace" because the Lord's "coming displayed the grace of God in such brightness that all previous displays could be considered as nothing" (Ibid., p.56).

In His grace,

Jerry

 

[mark273]

If we are trying to gather a team to disagree with Ryrie's theology, I could definitely be on that team. But it seems like to me you are making differences where there are none. In Ryrie's book "Dispensationalism" he says on p. 115:

"The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in various dispensations."

I think he is saying what most dispensationalists would say, and that it that before Christ came, people did not consciously think of the name "Jesus" or his death when they put their trust in God for salvation. They were still saved by grace through faith, and that salvation was grounded on the death of Christ. But they were not consciously aware of all those facts because Christ death had not occurred yet.

There are times when in different contexts he says things that might be verbally contradictory. But I really don't see anything in what you quoted that disagrees with the summary quote that I gave above. Ryrie simply does not believe that salvation was earned or rewarded for works in the Old Testament. Any perusal of his writings shows that he actively argued against that view, and tried strongly in both editions of his book on Dispensationalism to counteract the accusation that dispensationalism taught two ways of salvation. So to get that idea out of any passage of his is simply to misunderstand what he wrote.

As much as I disagree with Ryrie on many things, I don't see that he genuinely believes contradictory things, or that anything in these quotes cannot be reconciled with his general ideas.

 

[Danoh]

If we are trying to gather a team to disagree with Ryrie's theology, I could definitely be on that team. But it seems like to me you are making differences where there are none. In Ryrie's book "Dispensationalism" he says on p. 115:

I think he is saying what most dispensationalists would say, and that it that before Christ came, people did not consciously think of the name "Jesus" or his death when they put their trust in God for salvation. They were still saved by grace through faith, and that salvation was grounded on the death of Christ. But they were not consciously aware of all those facts because Christ death had not occurred yet.

There are times when in different contexts he says things that might be verbally contradictory. But I really don't see anything in what you quoted that disagrees with the summary quote that I gave above. Ryrie simply does not believe that salvation was earned or rewarded for works in the Old Testament. Any perusal of his writings shows that he actively argued against that view, and tried strongly in both editions of his book on Dispensationalism to counteract the accusation that dispensationalism taught two ways of salvation. So to get that idea out of any passage of his is simply to misunderstand what he wrote.

As much as I disagree with Ryrie on many things, I don't see that he genuinely believes contradictory things, or that anything in these quotes cannot be reconciled with his general ideas.

Amen to that Mark!!!

Danoh
Eph. 4:16

 

[Biblewriter]

All these recent attacks on imagined (or even real) errors made by individual dispensationalists are pointless and unproductive.

If you wish to discuss the pros and cons of specific doctrines, such discussion is valid. But claiming that so-and-so is wrong about such-and-such proves nothing other than the desperation of the poster.

I know of numerous errors made by various dispensational teachers, but that has not in any way diminished my belief in dispensationalism.

I also know of many more and much more serious errors made by those who attack dispensationalism.

 

[JerryShugart]

There are times when in different contexts he says things that might be verbally contradictory.

Mark, from the beginning dispensationalists have been falsely accused of teaching more than one way to be save. They have also falsely been accused of teaching that the different dispensations present differents ways that a person is saved.

And then Ryrie lists the responsibilities of men in each dispensation, and under "Grace" he lists "Believe on Christ."

That contradicts other dispensationalists teach when they say that the different dispensationalists do NOT represent different ways of salvation.

Phillip Heideman of Chafer Theological Seminary certainly understood that Ryrie was in error when he said that, writing the followin:

"Moreover, according to Ryrie’s chart on page 54 of 'Dispensationalism,' one of the tests in the Age of Grace is faith in Christ. That would lead one to think that each Dispensation has its own test for entrance into God’s eternal kingdom. Moreover, in most, if not all cases, the test includes some system of good works/obedience. Certainly, Dr. Ryrie along with others who agree with his position, if asked, would acknowledge that salvation always has been and always will be by faith in God/Christ and that Dispensationalism is not teaching different ways of salvation. Yet, sometimes the way scholars present Dispensationalism, at least in the traditional way, leads to confusion on this point. " (Heideman, Dispensational Theology).

​

Are you, or anyone else reading this thread, willing to defend Ryrie's teaching that one of the responsibilities during the present dispensation of grace is to believe on Christ?

Here is what the editors of The Scofield Bible Study said on this subject:

"These different dispensations are not separate ways of salvation" (The Scofield Study Bible [New York: Oxford University Press, 2003], 4).

Charles Ryie says that one of the responsibilities under the present dispensation of grace is to believe on Christ so therefore according to him the dispensation of grace does represent a way of salvation.

In His grace,

Jerry

 

[mark273]

Mark, from the beginning dispensationalists have been falsely accused of teaching more than one way to be save. They have also falsely been accused of teaching that the different dispensations present differents ways that a person is saved.

And then Ryrie lists the responsibilities of men in each dispensation, and under "Grace" he lists "Believe on Christ."

That contradicts other dispensationalists teach when they say that the different dispensationalists do NOT represent different ways of salvation.

[/INDENT]Are you, or anyone else reading this thread, willing to defend Ryrie's teaching that one of the responsibilities during the present dispensation of grace is to believe on Christ?

Here is what the editors of The Scofield Bible Study said on this subject:

"These different dispensations are not separate ways of salvation" (The Scofield Study Bible [New York: Oxford University Press, 2003], 4).

Charles Ryie says that one of the responsibilities under the present dispensation of grace is to believe on Christ so therefore according to him the dispensation of grace does represent a way of salvation.

I am willing. It may be that Ryrie is confusing on this point, but I will come to his defence here, not because I agree with all that Ryrie says, but because I don't really think this is an issue.

As the quote I gave above about what Ryrie sees is the basis and requirement in all dispensations, you will notice that faith in God is the common requirements. Faith given consciously to Jesus Christ is unique to this dispensation. Why? Is it because in other dispensations salvation was given by works? No, Ryrie is very clear on this. It is simply that specific knowledge of Jesus' life and work were not known definitely because Jesus had not yet lived and done those things. That is the only sense in which Ryrie believes that faith in Christ is unique to this dispensation. I don't feel like Ryrie is unclear or inconsistent at this point. I think that Ryrie's writings give a fairly clear picture when read as a whole. Any one can point to this or that passage which might seem to be contradictory, but a reading in context makes it clear.

 

[Danoh]

I am willing. It may be that Ryrie is confusing on this point, but I will come to his defence here, not because I agree with all that Ryrie says, but because I don't really think this is an issue.

As the quote I gave above about what Ryrie sees is the basis and requirement in all dispensations, you will notice that faith in God is the common requirements. Faith given consciously to Jesus Christ is unique to this dispensation. Why? Is it because in other dispensations salvation was given by works? No, Ryrie is very clear on this. It is simply that specific knowledge of Jesus' life and work were not known definitely because Jesus had not yet lived and done those things. That is the only sense in which Ryrie believes that faith in Christ is unique to this dispensation. I don't feel like Ryrie is unclear or inconsistent at this point. I think that Ryrie's writings give a fairly clear picture when read as a whole. Any one can point to this or that passage which might seem to be contradictory, but a reading in context makes it clear.

I see a middle ground between both of you on this - not so much another way of salvation, but more that that way was made more perfect as to the understanding that it was the Lord's doing at Calvary that made salvation by faith possible:

Or, as our Apostle put it those of his kinsmen after the flesh who had trusted his gospel - as he put it to them as to their kinsmen after the flesh before them - of a prior Dispensation: the Law - in Galatians 3:

23. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.​

25. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Danoh
Eph. 4:16

 

[JerryShugart]

As the quote I gave above about what Ryrie sees is the basis and requirement in all dispensations, you will notice that faith in God is the common requirements.

Mark, during the present dispensation those who have been given the stewardship have ALREADY believed so commn sense dictates that "believing" is not one of the requirements belonging to the present dispensation.

Perhaps you believe that Paul was given the dispensational responsibility to preach the gospel at a time before he believed?:

"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).
​

Of course he was already saved at the time when the stewardship to preach the gospel was committed to him. Or perhaps you are willing to argue that the stewardship was given to him while he remained an unbeliever and first he had to believe because that was one of the requirements?

Is that really what you believe, Mark?

In His grace,

Jerry

 

[mark273]

Mark, during the present dispensation those who have been given the stewardship have ALREADY believed so commn sense dictates that "believing" is not one of the requirements belonging to the present dispensation.

Perhaps you believe that Paul was given the dispensational responsibility to preach the gospel at a time before he believed?:

"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).
​

Of course he was already saved at the time when the stewardship to preach the gospel was committed to him. Or perhaps you are willing to argue that the stewardship was given to him while he remained an unbeliever and first he had to believe because that was one of the requirements?

Is that really what you believe, Mark?

I think you are once again creating a dilemma where none exists. Believing in Jesus specifically is a distinction of this dispensation. As Ryrie very clearly states above, the method and basis of salvation is the same in every dispensation, but the content of the gospel changes. I don't see any reason to say that the stewardship of preaching the gospel was given to an unbelieving Paul. I am simply saying that believing in Jesus specifically is the main requirement in this dispensation. I do not feel the logical necessity being stuck between the horns of the dilemma you have created. It is a false dilemma.

 

[JerryShugart]

I think you are once again creating a dilemma where none exists.

You do not seem to understand that the present stewardship is in regard to "service" and not to "salvation."

don't see any reason to say that the stewardship of preaching the gospel was given to an unbelieving Paul.

Of course it was not given to him while he remained in unbelief. It was given to him AFTER he had already believed the good news. So his stewardship responsiblity was NOT to believe the gospel because by the time he received the stewardship he had already believed the good news. The editors of the Scofield Study Bible make the same blunder made by Ryrie, saying the following about the "point of testing" in the present dispensation:

"The point of testing in this dispensation is the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, the message of good news about His death and resurrection" (The Scofield Study Bible, note at Acts:2:1).​

No, the point of testing is not believing the gospel because those who have been given the stewardship responsibilty have already believed the gospel PRIOR to the time when they received their stewardship.

The point of testing in the present dispensation of grace is not believing but instead preaching the gospel of grace.

In His grace,

Jerry

 

[mark273]

Show me a passage that says that the point of testing for this dispensation is preaching the gospel of grace. Verses that say that Paul was called to do that are not sufficient, because they apply to him.

 

[JerryShugart]

Show me a passage that says that the point of testing for this dispensation is preaching the gospel of grace. Verses that say that Paul was called to do that are not sufficient, because they apply to him.

1 Cor.4:1: "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God."​

Of course being stewards of the mysteries of God must include the following mystery which is referring to the gospel:

Rom. 16:25: "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, even the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery..."​

Even Charles Ryrie has this understanding, writing that "we have a lead role in witnessing to and displaying the grace of God during this dispensation."

In His grace,

Jerry

 

[mark273]

"The point of testing in the present dispensation of grace is not believing but instead preaching the gospel of grace.

There are many commands for believers in the body of Christ. Show me a verse that says that the distinctive test for this dispensation is in fact preaching the gospel of grace. Simply giving a verse where it is commanded is not enough because there are many commands, not least of which is love one another. But show me a verse where preaching the gospel of grace is singled out as "the test" for this dispensation.

 

[Danoh]

You do not seem to understand that the present stewardship is in regard to "service" and not to "salvation."

Of course it was not given to him while he remained in unbelief. It was given to him AFTER he had already believed the good news. So his stewardship responsiblity was NOT to believe the gospel because by the time he received the stewardship he had already believed the good news. The editors of the Scofield Study Bible make the same blunder made by Ryrie, saying the following about the "point of testing" in the present dispensation:

"The point of testing in this dispensation is the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, the message of good news about His death and resurrection" (The Scofield Study Bible, note at Acts:2:1).
​

No, the point of testing is not believing the gospel because those who have been given the stewardship responsibilty have already believed the gospel PRIOR to the time when they received their stewardship.

The point of testing in the present dispensation of grace is not believing but instead preaching the gospel of grace.

In His grace,

Jerry

Jerry, isn't said point of testing two-fold?

Romans 11 and 1 Corinthians 4 - on the part of the stewards?

Romans 11 and 2 Thessalonians 2 - on the part of the lost?

From a Mid-Acts Perspective's, "til the fulness of the Gentiles be come in," that is.

Danoh
Eph. 4:16

 

[JerryShugart]

There are many commands for believers in the body of Christ. Show me a verse that says that the distinctive test for this dispensation is in fact preaching the gospel of grace. Simply giving a verse where it is commanded is not enough because there are many commands, not least of which is love one another. But show me a verse where preaching the gospel of grace is singled out as "the test" for this dispensation.

I already gave you the verses which you requested earlier and you had nothing to say about them. Now I will give you three verses written by Paul where he speaks of a dispensation which was given to him:

"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me toward you" (Eph. 3:2).

"Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God" (Col.1:25).

"...a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me" (1 Cor.9:17).​

The "dispensation" which was committed to Paul is in regard to "God's grace", a "ministry", and a "gospel." Here Paul sums up his dispensational responsibility:

"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20: 24).​

In Bibliotheca Sacra, a journal published by Dallas Theological Seminary, Roy L. Aldrich quotes these three verses (Eph.3:2; Col.1:25; 1 Cor.9:17) and then says, "These passages use the word 'dispensation' (or 'stewardship') to describe the sacred commission or trust to preach the gospel" (Aldrich, "A New Look at Dispensationalism," Bibliotheca Sacra, January-March, 1963, Vol.120, Number 477, p.43).

There can be no doubt whatsoever that the event which marks the beginning of the "dispensation of grace" is the preaching of the "gospel of grace."

Now you quote a verse from the Bible which says that the stewardship responsibility for those who are already saved and living in the present dispensation is to believe the gospel.

Thanks!

In His grace,

Jerry

 

[JerryShugart]

Jerry, isn't said point of testing two-fold?

Romans 11 and 1 Corinthians 4 - on the part of the stewards?

Romans 11 and 2 Thessalonians 2 - on the part of the lost?

The stewardship responsibility in the present dispensation belongs ONLY to the saved. For instance, the "dispensation of the Law" or the "dispensation of the Mosaic Covent" was only for the children of Israel. Paul says that the Gentiles "have not the Law" (Ro.2:14).

In His grace,

Jerry

 

[mark273]

I already gave you the verses which you requested earlier and you had nothing to say about them. Now I will give you three verses written by Paul where he speaks of a dispensation which was given to him:

The thing is the verses you gave do not do what I asked. Do you understand that you are using the word "dispensation" in at least two different ways, both to refer to the period of time and also simply to a gift given? Why doesn't that bother you?

God gave Paul commands. He gives us commands. Where in the verses you gave me a statement about the distinctive test for this dispensation?

 

[JerryShugart]

The thing is the verses you gave do not do what I asked. Do you understand that you are using the word "dispensation" in at least two different ways, both to refer to the period of time and also simply to a gift given? Why doesn't that bother you?

Because the thing dispensed from God to Paul was specifically a "stewardship" and a stewardship is not a period of time. It covers a period of time but it itself is not a period of time.

God gave Paul commands. He gives us commands. Where in the verses you gave me a statement about the distinctive test for this dispensation?

I have provided serveral verses that specifically speak of the present dispensations and have also quoted verses which speak of the "stewards" of this particular stewardship. I also quoted from the publication of Dallas Theology Seminary where the author supported my view.

You have quoted nothing to back up your assertions.

When I asked you to please present your Scriptual evidence you provided nothing.

In His grace,

Jerry