Dispensationalism

Dispensationalism, by Charles Ryrie, has long been considered the classic, definitive apologetic for the dispensational system. Dr. Ryrie begins his book with a general defense of dispensationalism as a help toward understanding the Scriptures and living the Christian life. In this first chapter, he outlines several attacks against the Dispensationalist position, most of which are dealt with in later chapters. He then outline several way sin which Dispensationalism helps answering the need of Biblical distinctions, the need for a philosophy of history, and provides consistent hermeneutics.In the next chapter, the author discusses what a dispensation is. Dr. Ryrie begins with the definition given in the original Scofield Reference Bible, which he considers inadequate, and works through definitions given by various dispensational writers. He discusses the Scriptural uses of the word dispensation, and then considers the relationship of progressive revelation to the concept of a dispensation.In The Number of Dispensations, the author considers whether or not it's important to hold to a specific number of dispensations to be considered a dispensationalists (his answer is no), and how different dispensational thinkers have divided the dispensations. He discusses each dispensation, and arrives at a "normative" set of seven dispensations. Dr. Ryrie then considers the origin of dispensational thought -a crucial point to consider given many of the attacks on dispensationalism revolve around the relatively recent systemization of dispensational thought. He lays this argument to rest by showing the dispensational thinking of many great Christian thinkers going back to the Patristic fathers, and even back to Paul himself.Hermeneutics is the next target on Dr. Ryrie's agenda. Chapter five discusses the hermeneutics of dispensational thought, and how it differs from the hermeneutic used by other theological systems. He focuses here on a consistently literal reading of the Scriptures, along with a consistent separation between Israel and the Church. The addendum on the Sermon on the Mount is quite helpful in sorting through the various ways of approaching this teaching, and the results of those approaches.Salvation in Dispensationalism, chapter six, discusses the means of salvation within dispensational thought. This is another important subject because one of the most common attacks against dispensationalism. Dr. Ryrie makes a case for the object of faith remaining the same, but the content of faith changing. In chapter seven, Dr. Ryries covers the church within dispensationalism. It's important to show the distinction between the Church and Israel. He makes several points, including the church's distinct character and the church's distinct time. He then considers the church's relationship to the Kingdom, saints of other ages, Israel, and apostasy.In Dispensational Eschatology, Dr. Ryrie discusses the relationship between dispensational thought and a pretribulational, premillennial view of the future. In this chapter, he deals with the charge that a premillennial view of history minimizes the importance of the Cross, and the spiritualization of the Kingdom. Chapter nine works through progressive dispensationalism, detailing the origins and beliefs of this theological system. In chapter ten, Dr. Ryrie moves to covenant theology, and in chapter eleven, ultradispensationalism. He ends Dispensationalism with a plea for open and civil conversation within the Church.Dispensationalism's strengths lie in Dr. Ryrie's careful analysis of the meaning of dispensations, his defense of dispensationalism's origins, his explanation of salvation in the dispensational system, and finally in his overview of progressive dispensationalism and covenant theology. His work in finding and explaining references to dispensations in the work of God, starting with Paul, and moving all the way through the Church Fathers to the times just before Darby's initial systemization of dispensationalism makes a strong case against the charge that dispensationalism is recent.By drawing a distinction between the content of faith and the object of faith, Dr. Ryrie provides a solid argument against the idea that the means of salvation must change if dispensations change. His ability to bring the charge back into the camp of the Covenantal believers is a masterful stroke. If believers must be saved by different means in different dispensations because the content of revelation has changed (progressive revelation), then what must the Christian make of God's giving of the Mosaic Law, and his insistence that the sacrifices of the Law actually provide a covering for sin? The only way to make sense of this situation is to accept progressive revelation within different economies of time.The weaknesses of Dr. Ryrie's work revolve around his treatment of hermeneutics and his treatment of the Mosaic Law. The chapter on hermeneutics primarily focuses on using a consistently literal reading of the text, but in more recent times Covenant theologians and Progressive Dispensationalists have laid a claim to literal hermeneutics as well. The Dispensational system can no longer be defended by simply insisting on differentiating between the Church and Israel -strong positive arguments must be provided to lead the reader to this separation from the text itself.Dr. Ryrie does start down this road with his work in examining how fulfilled prophecies have been fulfilled, and what this means for the fulfillment of future prophecies, but this work needs to be carried farther if it is to be effective. Dispensationalists need to develop a full blown hermeneutic, including a full justification from the Scriptures supporting that hermeneutic, working from all the words of God, and not just from prophecy specifically. When God said, "let there be light," frogs didn't appear -light did.A fully developed hermeneutic would also help to develop a fully Dispensational theological system. Today, dispensationalism is essentially a subcamp within Reformed theology -but the primary Reformed thinkers are consistently trying to push Dispensationalism out of the camp, and into the wilderness. It's not enough to simply find a way to cling to a Reformed heritage, Dispensationalists need to rise up and build complete systematic and Biblical theologies they can call their own if they hope to survive in the modern Church.For instance, Dr. Ryrie's treatment of the Mosaic Law falls short of working well within a fully dispensational theology. Instead, the argument given falls within a primarily Reformed framework while trying to deny the Covenental leanings of that framework. He argues from Galatians 3 that the Law was never given to cover sin, but God, himself, states the sacrifices cover sin throughout the entire Tanach. Dispensationalism needs to handle this better in order to provide a convincing defense; perhaps a deeper differentiation between positional sanctification and experiential sanctification would help to build a necessary understanding of the Mosaic and Millennial sacrificial systems.

I purchased this book and others like it to gain a deeper understanding of Dispensational doctrine. While I have to carefully choose my words regarding the beliefs of Christian brothers, this reading further confirmed my conviction that Dispensational doctrine is Biblical exegesis, interpretation, and profession gone completely off the rails. I perplexed at the multitudes of evangelicals that have bought into the Dispensational concoction wrought by the shallow and superficial exegesis and interpretation sprouting from the imaginations of Darby and the Plymouth Brethren in the 1830’s and later perpetuated by Schofield, Schafer and a long string of theologians from the Dallas Theological Seminary. The contemporary Dispensational theologians are still trying to change it in patchwork style to shore up the very real contradictions and gaping holes with the true message of God’s Word and it’s cohesive Old and New Testament message of redemption for one people of believers (His Church) in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I encourage you not to take my word for it but spend time sifting Dispensationalism, but I caution you not to take their apologetic talking points at face value such as “literal interpretation”. I’ve found literal interpretation equates to very selective and contradictory literal interpretation. I guess I have said enough other than if there was ever a doctrine that missed the forest from the trees and led so many believers astray then Dispensationalism is it. I don’t believe my Christian brothers intentionally misconstrue and mislead, but it seems more of snowball effect indoctrination and effectively pushing and expanding the bandwagon of this belief system. Their imagined sensational eschatology seems to attract like bees to honey. Please do your homework with an open mind and focus on what the New Testament reveals about the Old Testament. Ask yourself this question. Did the Holy Spirit really allow 1800 years to pass before revealing God’s two separate plans for the Church and Israel; the Rapture doctrine; a non-Biblical “pause or prophetic clock stop” between Daniel’s 69th and 70th week; a Gospel of Matthew including Sermon of the Mount and Lord’s Prayer intended for the Jews only; a seemingly change in God’s plans to build Christ’s church only after the Jews rejected Jesus Christ to name just a few. Again I’m perplexed by the multitudes of serious Christian’s that have bought into this. May God bless and guide your understanding!

Bought to get the facts from the horse's mouth as it were. So unconvincing. Quite disappointed really. Too defensive and not really an exegetical presentation. An idea that I think (hope) time has now left behind. Read some Eldon Ladd instead!

excellent book by Charles Ryrie - easy to read and understand

Great unstandable book about Dispensationalism. Thanks

I first came across the word "Dispensationalism" in my mid 20s when a fellow Evangelical Christian described it as an "error". Over the years I have heard it spoken about with such vehement opposition I began to think it to be a heresy. It was, therefore, with much interest, and no little curiosity, that I set my self the task of reading this volume in order to get a greater understanding of the subject. Dr Ryrie seeks to outline the basic beliefs of Dispensational Theology in a calm and gracious manner, not allowing himself to be provoked by the many shrill statements made against those who hold to these views. He succeeds in proving that Dispensationalists do not teach different ways of salvation but rather that they are as conservative in their Evangelicalism as those believers who hold to the contrary view. His last chapter "A Plea" is just that - he appeals to non-dispensationalists to be tolerant to those who hold to this system of theology stating that when it comes to the side issues that Evangelicals differ on no-one has a monopoly of the truth.An excellent work, I thoroughly recommend it to: a) Dispensationalists who would like to be confirmed in their beliefs b) those who simply wish to have a deeper knowledge of the matter and c) opponents who are yet to be convinced that this system of theology is not the heresy that some mistakenly claim it to be.

Ryrie's book is recommended as a standard work that friends and opponents of dispensationalism should have read. One of the leading theologians of dispensationalism explains its teachings and discusses the criticism of this system. This requirement is met in principle by the present - revised - volume.Ryrie explains clearly what is meant by the dispensations, explains the underlying hermeneutics and shows the consequences of this doctrine for the important topics of salvation, ecclesiology and eschatology. In addition, he describes the history of dispensationalism and comments on the criticism of this doctrine. Finally, he gives an overview of Progressive Dispensationalism, Ultradispensationalism and (in contrast) covenant theology.At the beginning as well as at the end of the book he pleads for a fair dealing between theological opponents. One feels some emotional hurt when he describes the sometimes very harsh criticism of dispensationalism. Therefore, he strives for a fair tone in dealing with theological opponents.It would be beyond the scope of this review to point out the biblical-theological and systematic weaknesses and mistakes of dispensationalism that in my opinion are revealed in Ryrie's book as well. There are plenty of books dealing critically with dispensationalistic doctrines.I like to limit myself to review some of Ryrie's reasoning. Nobody is obliged to give a lecture on the arguments of his opponents. But if you are trying to do this as detailed as Ryrie does, then you should do it properly. Ryrie has a point when he talks about the charge that dispensationalism was a new doctrine that had no hold in church history. But while he is right that the division of redemptive history into dispensations was nothing new, he keeps almost silent about the main thrust of the criticism. On the one hand, the use of the biblical concept of dispensation does not mean that it was understood in any way close to what dispensationalism teaches. On the other hand, the criticism of introducing a doctrine which the Church has not known for 1800 years is directed neither against the division of redemptive history into dispensations nor premillenialism itself. What is criticized is the doctrine of the two peoples of God (Israel and the church as a parenthesis) and the pretribulation rapture. In my opinion these teachings are not orthodox, but fundamental to dispensationalism. Those who want to defend dispensationalism should do more than state these doctrines.In the context of the doctrine of pretribulation rapture, it is also interesting that J.N. Darby is said to have adopted this doctrine from an Irvingian "prophetess". This accusation is serious. If this story is refuted (Walvoord), why is Ryrie silent about it?Ryrie complains that critics of dispensationalism like to lead "straw man discussions". This means to attack a theoretical construction instead of actually dealing with the teachings of the opponent. This method is not alien to him as well. It is probably not that easy to get along without a straw man. Ryrie’s straw man is the covenant theology (Reformed theology). He writes about it not only in the chapter themed Covenant Theology, but the whole book looks like a struggle of dispensationalism vs. covenant theology. One gets the impression that dispensationalism cannot be explained properly without covenant theology as an antitype in the background. (As a covenant theologian you may take this for a compliment!) Unfortunately, the covenant theology is represented rather coarsely. The reproach that in covenant theology the honor of God was not central is almost absurd. Also, Ryrie does not seem to realize that the assignment of the Sinai covenant to the Covenant of Grace is by no means the unanimous opinion of Reformed theology. Ryrie criticizes the covenantal hermeneutics as arbitrary typology and allegorization. Granted, there is a weakness and danger in which some Reformed interpreters go beyond the limits the New Testament sets forth. But I have not noticed that dispensationalist commentators would love allegory and typology less than their Reformed colleagues. I cannot understand that the covenantal hermeneutics – using the guidance of the New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament - should be less "biblical" than the dispensationalist one. It is different. One should argue about that, but the accusation that it is not "biblical" does not contribute much to clarify the matter.Ryrie also deals with differences within dispensationalism. While Ultradispensationalism is treated only marginally, the debate about Progressive Dispensationalism is omnipresent. From Ryrie’s classic dispensationalist point of view the greatest danger is an approximation to the premillenalistic-covenantal position. Ryrie does not mention the convergence with the Transformational theology that in my opinion is not only a problem for dispensationalism, but also turns the Protestant faith upside down within other evangelical persuasions. Maybe that was not so obvious in 1995.Furthermore, I miss an opinion on the Darbystic ecclesiology, which considers the New Testament church to be an already failed model due to the dispensationalistic theory of decay. The relationship of dispensationalism to the charismatic movement, the Israel-enthusiasm and the discussion about the "Lordship Salvation" remain unmentioned.A comment on the layout: the footnotes are at the end of each chapter. The constant browsing annoys a lot, especially since Ryrie has a habit of not always mentioning the names of the quoted persons in the text. What is useful for the fluent writing style becomes a nuisance to the reader by removing the footnotes to the end. Otherwise, the layout is good and clear.When one of the most important dispensationalist theologians in the second half of the twentieth century writes a description of dispensationalism, this book makes a good starting point to study this doctrine. Whether it convinces him the reader has to decide for himself. But in order to form a thorough opinion I do not consider this book sufficient. I do not blame the author for choosing the topics that are important to him. That is his right. But I have to admit that I had expected Ryrie to present a more conclusive argument for his case.