Is this true?

[Hupomone10]

This was a post from another sub-forum.
Is it accurate regarding Ryrie? I don't remember Ryrie teaching that salvation was from anything other than faith, former dispensation or present.

The sine qua non, according to Charles Ryrie, is three fold:

1) A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct.
2) This distinction is thought to be founded on a "literal" understanding of scripture (but this point is often disputed).
3) The underlying purpose of God in the world is found in His diverse programs of salvation in which He is glorified.
All three points are debated by theologians and recognized as a more modern invention. Ryrie concedes this point to a certain extend in his work, "Dispensationalism."

Is this accurate?

 

[Biblewriter]

This was a post from another sub-forum.
Is it accurate regarding Ryrie? I don't remember Ryrie teaching that salvation was from anything other than faith, former dispensation or present.



Is this accurate?

I have never heard about Ryrie teaching any such aberrant doctrine.

 

[Hupomone10]

Thanks, brother. That's what I thought as well.
H.

 

[drstevej]

I studied under Dr. Ryrie. This distorts his views:

Here is a better summary:

[1] Israel and the Church are distinct.
[2] The Bible is to be interpreted normally (both the OT and NT). The physical promises to Israel in the OT (i.e. the land) are not to be spiritualized.
[3] The various dispensations are not different ways of salvation. In each the requirement is faith in the revealed promises of God. In successive dispensations the clarity of these promises intensifies.

These views respond to Covenant Theology:

{1} The Church is the New Israel.
{2} The literal promises to Abraham are received as better, but spiritual, promises by the Church (e.g. a spiritual kingdom rather than a literal kingdom). OT prophecy is to be interpreted with a different hermeneutic than the NT.
{3} In each generation (OT and NT) Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ.

And having studied under Ryrie at DTS and then studied at Westminster for a doctorate, I think these distinctions are valid, at least as generalizations.

 

[Hupomone10]

Thanks, brother. The brother who posted that hasn't been back to refute it. He's waiting for people to forget and the topic to come up again so he can trash dispensationalists again.