|
Review Summary: Dispy Dilemma |
Date: 2008-11-17 |
|
| |
Details: Any kind of Futuristic Dispensationalism fails to recognize the imminent promises to Israel and the time statements for the first century fulfillment.
I was an Dispensationalist until I realized that all the promises concerning the messiah were directed to Israel specific and His return was mandatory for their salvation. If Israel hasn't received her promises fulfilled, then noone has salvation at all. Salvation is to the Jew first. This is brought out in the Jewish/covenantal book of Revelation.
All promises to Israel were fulfilled by 70a.d.
The book of Revelation was a letter written to specific people at a specific time in History (first century churches - 7 Churches). It was not written TO US, but FOR US to understand God's historical -redemptive plan for Israel.
The Church is the New Jerusalem which came down out of heaven, with the destruction of Babylon (Old Jerusalem) in 70a.d. Israel(the mother of harlots) was the only nation that was in covenant with God (Revelation is a covenant book), she killed the prophets and those sent to her. This is why God destroyed her, but kept His promise to remain true to the Old Covenant faithful (Abe, Isaac, Jacob,....etc.)These faithful inherited the land (kingdom of heaven)along with those in the first century when Christ returned in 70a.d.
Read these Time Statements and then tell me that Jesus was gonna come back in 2000 years:
Rev. 1:1,2; (things which must shortly take place)
Rev.2:5 - "Keep holding fast til I come" (letter to specific people)
Rev. 3:10 - "Hour of testing which is about to come on the whole inhabited land"
Rev. 18:24 - "And in Her (Babylon/Jerusalem) was found the blood of the prophets and
saints." (compare w/ Matt.23:31-39 & Luke 11:47-51)
Rev.22:6,7,12,& 20
These time statements show imminence to the first-century church (specific churches in Asia) to whom the letter/book was written.
Also notice Rev.22:10. This was the same book/message that Daniel was told to seal up until the TIME OF THE END,(not end of time), when the power of the Holy people/ Israel would be completely shattered (Dan.12:7) in 70a.d. with the destruction of the Old Covenant system (the power of Israel to communicate and covenant with their God). Daniel was told that this would be far off / many days away. John was told "NOT" to seal it up, for the time of the end was "NEAR".
Dan.9:20-24 - 70 weeks determined for "YOUR" people & city (Israel & Jerusalem)
Dan.12:1- "Time of Trouble" - (Compare with Matt. 24:21(destruction of Jerusalem) & Mark 13:19
Dan.12:2 - Compare w/ John 5:25-29 - (vs.25 - "now is" = first-fruits harvest / then comes verse 29 - Harvest / General Resurrection promised to Israel specific.) The first-fruits signifies an immediate Harvest. 30a.d. - 70a.d. was the 40 year wilderness / transition period being brought out of Egypt (bondage to sin) into the Land of promise (Full relationship with God - Out of Sin-Death).
Dan.12:4,9,13 - "seal up to the end" when he would receive his inheritance, which was promised to his people Israel, the Kingdom of God.
In other words, New Covenant relationship, as Abraham had been looking for (heavenly country - saw it afar off but did not receive it (Heb.11:10, 13-16, 39-40) til 70a.d. when Old passed away and New was consummated (Old Heaven & Earth / New Heaven & Earth).
Specifically look at Heb.11:39-40. "They (Old Covenant Saints) should not be made perfect apart from "Us" ( firstfruit - first century / New Covenant saints). In other words, they would all be made perfect together. When would this happen??
Heb.10:36-37 - They were told to endure to the end, which was going to be in a "very, very little while" "for He who is in the process of coming, will not tarry". Isn't 2000 years tarrying?? Either the writer of Hebrews was lying, or he was giving encouragement to those who were going through persecution, waiting for the promise of Christ to return in "This Generation" (Matt.24:33-35) - 40 years / specific people.
I know that it seems that I went off on a tangent, but I'm trying to point out that the Old Covenant promises were to a specific people and that the New Covenant writers were seeing these promises being fulfilled in their generation.
The book of Revelation is a Covenantal book that is taken too literally by christians today.
It is a book that shows God's consummation of His full Historical-Redemptive plan for a specific people. This is why the book is loaded with Old Testament symbolism.
Also, if Rev. 21 & 22 point to the eternal state after the Old Heavens and Earth are destroyed, then why is there a need for the nations to have to have healing????( Rev.22:2).
This is a picture that the gospel still goes forth after the Old Covenant has been done away with. Those outside the eternal kingdom need healing to be brought into the presence of God ( where I presently reside as I write this e-mail). I don't ever have to worry about judgement or condemnation ever again. This is what Jesus meant when he said, "You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free".
Pertaining to the Resurrection, read this:
1 Cor.15:25 says in the greek, "For He must PRESENTLY reign til all enemies are put under His feet; the last enemy PRESENTLY BEING destroyed is THE DEATH (specific death=spiritual death in Adam).
Christ was PRESENTLY reigning in the first century til His enemies (Israel=those who rejected Christ - read Matt.23:29-36) were put under His feet in 70a.d.
If physical death was PRESENTLY BEING destroyed, don't you think we would see some kind of evolutionary process going on with our bodies, being half physical and half spiritual???
Also, read verses 29-49 and see how often the PRESENT Tense is used in the Greek.
Vs.29 "what will they do who are being baptized for the dead if the dead are not presently rising??" (first century resurrection!!)
Vs. 32,"If the dead are not presently rising, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
Vs. 35, "But someone will say, How are the dead Being presently raised up? And with what body are they presently coming into? (first century resurrection).
Vs. 36, "Foolish one, what you are presently sowing is not made alive unless it dies (first century sowing).
Vs.37, "And what you are presently sowing, you are not presently sowing that body that shall be.....(first century sowing of the body - were they burying their bodies before they died???-think about it!!!)
Vs. 38 "But God is presently giving it a body (first century transformation = out of the body of Adam(old covenant,sin-death, into the new covenant body of Christ = righteousness, eternal life)
Vs. 42-44, "So also is the present resurrection of the dead. The body is presently being sown in corruption, it is presently being raised in incorruption. It is presently being sown in dishonor, it is presently being raised in glory. It is presently being sown in weakness, it is presently being raised in power. It is presently being sown a natural body(man in Adam = out of covenant), it is presently being raised a spiritual body (first century transformation period = taken out of Adam (dead to God) and being transformed into the image of Christ (alive to God). There is presently a natural body and there is presently a spiritual body (one was being sown, the other rising unto newness of life.).
All the land promises were fulfilled to the Jews in the first century A.D. They were spiritual land promises - being brought into the Kingdom of God - Into His presence. Remember, Abraham was looking for a spiritual country to rest in, not a literal country .
|
| |
|
Review Summary: Dispensationalism |
Date: 2008-09-30 |
|
| |
|
Details: To read this book is a must for any christian interested in theology whether you finally agree with Ryrie or not. It is also an invaluable reference. John Conover |
| |
|
Review Summary: A Classic Work |
Date: 2008-06-30 |
|
|
| |
Details: Ryrie's 'Dispensationalism' is the classic work in the field of present Dispensationalism. It is a must-read for all Christians because it truly is a help for all Christians. Ryrie lays his position out from the very beginning of the work: Dispensationalism is a help, not a heresy. He gives solid and clear expositions on the essentials of Dispensationalism (sine qua non). These are the foundations for a normative, traditional Dispensational view as the over-arching principle of scripture.
Problems with Dispensationalism normally arise out of misunderstandings of how its essential tenets fit together; misunderstandings are normally seen because one tenet is focused on without a thorough understanding of the rest. Dispensationalism is primarily a systematic understanding of scriptures as opposed to just premillennialism, 7 economies of history, law/grace, etc. It is much, much more than that.
Contrary to many reviews that see Ryrie as being 'defensive', I've read this work multiple times and never come away with that spirit. Ryrie always has an irenic tone, and writes with a passion for clarity and grace.
The work is very well organized and summarized and it is clear that this is the current standard for normative Dispensationalism, a Dispensationalism that still holds to separate purposes for the nation of Israel and the Church. You will not find a work for or against Dispensationalism that does not quote this work at length. It truly is the standard which all must wrestle with.
Ryrie states clearly how the Israel/Church distinction is the definitive feature of traditional Dispensationalism. Though this is a surface-level explanation, he goes into enough detail to explain how this is understood. In general, this book was not written to essentially persuade, but to explain and defend the scriptural understanding of the Dispensational `system'. Ryrie gives other views throughout, such the Covenant and Progressive Disp. views, yet clearly states how these positions (as the over-arching principle of scripture) do not fit with a normative Disp. theology. For that alone, he is to be highly recommended.
At the same time, there is so much that can be learned from this book. One does not have to be a Dispensationalist (in the traditional sense) to profit from this work. It is so important to know what you believe, but to also know what other orthodox evangelicals hold to as essentials in their faith. Our dialogue with each other only helps the body of Christ remain more unified and clear in our representations of one another. This book is a wonderful tool for just that and should be read by all Christians from every background. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Biblical & Well Worth the Wait! |
Date: 2008-05-30 |
|
|
| |
Details: Thanks to C.C. Ryrie for setting the record straight on normative dispensationalism in his 2007 Revised and Expanded edition! His study is first, and above all, biblical, all the while remaining scholarly, lucid, and irenic. At the same time, he also sets forth the many problems that continue to plague all forms of covenant theology, and "progressive" & ultra dispensationalism. I admire the plea he gives at the end of the book, and his diplomacy in dealing with other believers--even when they use words like "unscriptural", "heresy", and "cult" when describing normative dispensationalism.
The strength of the normative dispensational position that Ryrie, and others like him, outline is that it relies on the Bible as its source, and in that, it "employs principles of literal, plain, normal, or historical-grammatical interpretation consistently." As such, we can heartily concur with the author when he shows us that, "Only dispensationalism can maintain unity and diversity at the same time and offer a consistent system of interpretation." And also, "Only dispensationalism with its cross-sectional and longitudinal/spiral perspectives can recognize the wealth, mobility, and complexity of the history of God's running the affairs of this world."
Requirements of Normative Dispensationalism
According to Ryrie, the "underlying purpose" of God in the world is the "glory of God" and he puts it this way, "To the normative dispensationalist, the soteriological, or saving, program of God is not the only program but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying Himself. Scripture is not man-centered as though salvation were the main theme [the covenant position], but it is God-centered because His glory is the center. The Bible itself clearly teaches that salvation, important and wonderful as it is, is not and end in itself but is rather a means to the end of glorifying God (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14)." Renald Showers makes the same point in his excellent work entitled There Really Is a Difference!: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology.
John F. Walvoord is quoted also on this point, "All the events of the created world are designed to manifest the glory of God. The error of covenant theologians is that they combine all the many facets of divine purpose in the one objective of the fulfillment of the covenant of grace. From a logical standpoint, this is the reductive error--the use of one aspect of the whole as the determining element." It is noteworthy that this is also their error in the development the Calvinist TULIP as well.
Literal hermeneutics: 1) Philosophically, the purpose of language itself seems to require a literal interpretation. 2) All Old Testament prophesies concerning the first advent of Christ--His birth, His rearing, His ministry, His death, His resurrection--were all fulfilled literally. 3) [Logically], if one does not use the plain, normal, or literal method of interpretation, all objectivity is lost.
To summate Ryrie posits, "Literal interpretation results in accepting the text of Scripture at its face value. Based on the philosophy that God originated language for the purpose of communicating His message to man and that He intended man to understand that message, literal interpretation seeks to interpret that message plainly."
Dr. Ryrie sums up the crux of the matter well in the following statement, "The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the church. This grows out of the dispensationalist's consistent employment of normal or plain or historical-grammatical interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealing with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well."
In succeeding chapters, Dr. Ryrie also does a first-rate job in dealing with some perennial false accusations against dispensationalism in regards to; the Sermon on the Mount, two ways of salvation, the relationship of Mosaic Law to Grace (the charge of antinomianism), minimizing the Cross, and despiritualizing the kingdom. In fact, the author turns the tables on the anti-dispensational inquisitors and puts them on their own rack!
Progressive Covenantal Theology (PC)
In Dr. Ryrie's section on what has been commonly called "Progressive" dispensationalism, we see that this label is a misnomer and that their system is actually little more than Covenant Theology dressed up in sheep's clothing. This is what happens when theologians abandon a single and consistent normative hermeneutic for all of Scripture and start to grab a hold of allegory (in Clinton-speak they spin it as "complementary"). No doubt, this is exacerbated by the academic world's tendency to constantly push Profs to "publish", something or anything, in order to gain tenure or to make a name for themselves and distinguish themselves from the pack.
Even though Ryrie tends to call them "revisionists" in this work, I think we should use more accurate labels like "Neo-dispensational", or possibly "Progressive Premillennial", or still better "Progressive Covenantal". In any case, it is getting harder and harder to distinguish them from the Premill Covenant camp. Bock admits that their PC concept of the kingdom is essentially what George Ladd promotes in his Premill Covenant system.
Other problems: What of the Palestinian covenant? What is their view on the Rapture? Ryrie seems to think that with their complementary hermeneutic the rapture of the church is moving into the tribulation period. Another troubling sign in the PC view of holistic redemption is their heightened concentration on "social action". The social gospel issue is really gaining traction these days as seen in the revision process of the EFCA's statement of faith. The author also quotes one PC advocate, D.L. Turner, who has already advocated replacement theology.
Concerning what Ryrie calls their "major departure" is their view on the Davidic reign. Based on this "already/not yet" paradigm (oxymoron?) used by the PC people, Ryrie notes one ETS member who wrote a paper entitled, "Already Ladd--Not Yet Dispensationalism". In it he demonstrates the striking similarities of Ladd and Bock from quotes they have both made.
Ryrie goes on to list 4 non-dispensational critics as stating that PC has already changed, or at least is leading to Covenant Premillennialism. One of them, Vern Poythress, predicts that the PC position "is inherently unstable. I do not think that they will find it possible in the long run to create a safe haven theologically between classic dispensationalism and covenantal premillennialism. The forces that their own observations have set in motion will most likely lead to covenantal premillennialism after the pattern of George Ladd."
Dr. Ryrie rightly suggests that the PC people should take a hard look at themselves as even non-dispensationalists see them. Furthermore, I must agree with the conclusion that the "progressives/revisionists" have introduced "major changes" resulting in "a new and revised system", and are thus outside of normative dispensationalism. All that remains now is that they come out and publicly admit it. In any case, it will be interesting to see how schools like DTS handle this new movement.
"Historical" Premillennialism
What Dr. Ryrie more accurately calls Covenant Premillennial theology (Laddism), with its double hermeneutic, is shown to have a severely weakened view of the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture. See also David Hesselgrave's Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in Christian Missions Today. To be frank, the "historic" premillennialism label, like "progressive", is another attempt to delude people into thinking their system is something it is not. Since Ryrie, and even Covenant theologians, show their system has many holes that are yet to be filled, their adoption of the "historic" label belies their dependence on supposed historical evidence as the main pillar for support of their system.
J. Ramsey Michaels, a non-dispensationalist, critiques CP as not having an integrated concept of the millennium. Renald Showers has also shown how the CP system still cannot find a way to populate their millennial kingdom. Maybe they are still working on it...
Covenant Replacement Theology (CT)
It is shown from numerous sources (not all dispensational), that covenant theology is guilty of an artificial system of typology, allegorizing Scripture, and reading back or forcing the New Testament into the Old Testament. Their allegorizing hermeneutic is used for approximately one third of the Bible! Other unresolved problems: How many covenants are there supposed to be anyway? Where are they stated in the Bible? Is it 2 or 3 these days? Did the church start with Adam, or Abraham? If not Adam, what "body" were those before Abraham part of?
In defending dispensationalism against the charge of "recency", or "newness", Ryrie shows us that as far as systemization goes, Johannes Cocceius' version of CT came out in 1648. On the other hand, Poiret's systemization of dispensationalism came shortly after in 1687. It is true that the seeds of CT were sown as far back as St. Augustine when he adopted allegorical interpretation, but that was a far cry from the CT that started gaining acceptance for the first time in the Westminster Confession of 1647 and one year before Cocceius published. History shows that premillennialism was the accepted view on eschatology by the church at least until St. Augustine. Even in the Reformers' time, CT was not developed, but Calvin called premillennialism (chiliasm) "fiction", "insult", and "intolerable blasphemy". Things haven't changed much... Anyway, as Dr. Ryrie has stated elsewhere, "Always, of course, the conclusive evidence of the truth of a doctrine is not historical but exegetical."
Under Ryrie's "Biblical Basis for Covenant Theology", we really see how the CT system is based entirely on a deductive and not an inductive method of study. Ever since St. Augustine started allegorizing Scripture and mentioned that the Roman Church is the fulfillment of prophecy, they have been trying to squeeze the Bible back into the covenant of works and grace. For more insights on the benefits of the inductive method, see C. Gordon Olson's Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: An Inductive, Mediate Theology of Salvation.
In closing, I have one criticism about getting our "labels" straight. On page 214 Ryrie states, "Noncharismatic dispensationalists accept some of the points of Reformed theology, whereas charismatic dispensationalists would not." If by "Reformed" he really means "TULIP" then I would emphatically disagree. Many, if not the majority, of "Noncharismatic dispensationalists" do not accept any of the 5-points of Calvinism as defined by Calvinists in the TULIP. This does not make them Arminians either. For example, we must remember that in the TULIP Total Depravity means Total Inability and not just that all have sinned. In addition, Perseverance of the Saints is not be equated with the biblical doctrine of Eternal Security. Dr. Ryrie is a 4-point Biblicist based on his acceptance of Calvinistic Unconditional Election. In any case, I am glad to see in this more recent work of his an apparent movement away from using any form of the "Calvinist" label for himself. I hope more will follow his lead.
Dr. Ryrie's work in defending normative dispensationalism is one that the critics won't be able to ignore. We look forward to their reply. For the rest of us, the importance of this book is becoming increasingly clear as we see Biblicism coming under siege in many of our seminaries and denominations. We all need to be prepared for the adverse impact of these movements on believers. At the same time we need to continue to follow Dr. Ryrie's example and represent believers under Grace and not Law by setting forth Biblicism and "speaking the truth in love".
For more information on this subject, I also highly recommend Renald Showers' There Really Is a Difference!: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology. In addition, Ryrie's section on "Things to Come" in his Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth, along with the wealth of material he acknowledges this book's "Select Bibliography".
|
| |
|
Review Summary: If you want to understand Dispensationalism |
Date: 2008-01-12 |
|
|
| |
Details: If you want to understand Dispensationalism, especially Classical Dispensationalism, this is the book to buy. Dr. Ryrie has taught at Dallas Theological Seminary for nearly 50 years and is the source cited by current books on Dispensationalism for what is now know as Classical Dispensationalism, in comparison to Progressive Dispensationalism. All the books on Progressive Dispensationalism cite Ryrie.
Ryrie shows the historical background in ancient, medieval, and modern theological church history for this method of interpreting the Bible. Critics of Dispensationalism often trace Dispensationalism only to the 19th century British Isles. It goes back much further than that.
The three assumptions are the same he makes in other books for Dispensationalism: a consistent, as literal as possible hermeneutic; the application of that hermeneutic to the covenants of the Bible; and the clear distinction between Israel and the Church.
Even those who do not agree with Ryrie's theological method quote him with great respect. Every student of Biblical Eschatology needs this important book.
Dr. James W. Bryant
Senior Professor of Pastoral Theology
The Criswell College
Dallas, Texas |
| |
|
out of 31 Reviews
