What do you think?
Rate this book
Dispensationalism
Dispensationalism continues to provoke heated debate within the Christian world. Highly acclaimed theologian, Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, addresses this crucial issue from the perspective of classic dispensationalism. He confronts the views of covenant theology, historical premillennialism, ultradispensationalism, and, in this revised edition, the increasingly popular progressive dispensationalism. In his best-selling book, Dispensationalism Today, written more than thirty years ago, Dr. Ryrie made this complex subject more understandable for thousands worldwide. This revised and expanded version of that book will prove to be an invaluable reference tool for your library.
228 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1995
155 people are currently reading
414 people want to read
About the author
Charles C. Ryrie
153 books61 followersCharles Caldwell Ryrie (born 1925) was a Christian writer and theologian. He graduated from Haverford College (B.A.), Dallas Theological Seminary (Th.M., Th.D.) and the University of Edinburgh, Scotland (Ph.D.). For many years he served as professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and as president and professor at Philadelphia College of Bible, now Philadelphia Biblical University. He was a premillennial dispensationalist, though irenic in his approach. He was also the editor of the popular Ryrie Study Bible.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 98 reviews
July 7, 2017
Clearly defines dispensationalism. Addresses and debunks the false accusations against dispensationalism. Shows that dispensationalists use the word dispensation the way the NT does.
Interestingly, he shows that (1) Dispensationalism has its origins centuries before Darby, and (2) Cocceius's seminal work on Covenant Theology (1648) was published only 39 years before the Poiret's systematic work on dispensationalism (1687).
Interestingly, he shows that (1) Dispensationalism has its origins centuries before Darby, and (2) Cocceius's seminal work on Covenant Theology (1648) was published only 39 years before the Poiret's systematic work on dispensationalism (1687).
June 2, 2016
The book is clear and informative (for the interested reader). The book was worth reading for this one sentence. Regardless of your theological camp it's hard to disagree with this:
"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 the various dispensations." [115]
Since the fall of Adam, this sentence is a great summary, whether you are a covenantalist, dispensationalist or like me, just a Bible-guy.
"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 the various dispensations." [115]
Since the fall of Adam, this sentence is a great summary, whether you are a covenantalist, dispensationalist or like me, just a Bible-guy.
January 15, 2013
Dispensationalism by Charles C. Ryrie is a very powerful and treasured study on the heated debate of dispensation. Mr. Ryrie, a highly acclaimed theologian, takes a bold and methodical approach in addressing this central debate. With his unique ability to unravel complicated biblical concepts, he presents all of the biblical teachings on dispensation in an uncomplicated manner. Written in a mostly non-technical, conversational style, his address toward the crucial issue of dispensation appeared thoroughly researched and easy to understand. This book is an excellent study for pastors and for those who want to know more on the subject of dispensation. It is also a tremendous help and source of material for the Sunday school teacher. It is also suitable for use as a textbook in Bible Colleges and Institutes. This book is a good read!
February 25, 2019
I agree with almost nothing ryrie said. But I liked how he said it. Clear writing. Good intentions. Principles behind the theology are honorable but I certainly disagree with it. It did show me though how similar dispensationalism was to NCT. Stay away from both. Wonderful book though.
April 18, 2023
Charles C. Ryrie is a formidable theologian. He taught at Dallas Theological Seminary for decades. For quite some time, DTS has been at the forefront of Normative Dispensationalism. Even today, the faculty has proponents of Dispensationalism of the normative and progressive varieties.
Dr. Ryrie first wrote “Dispensationalism Today” in 1966. In 1995, Ryrie released a revised and expanded version of this volume under the current title “Dispensationalism.” The updated version is helpful because Ryrie interacts with some common objections, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings of normative dispensationalism. He helpfully outlines the current items up for debate within the academy regarding both normative and progressive dispensationalism and he contrasts those positions with covenant premillennialism, amillenialism, and covenant theology.
Dr. Ryrie has an organized mind and a teacher’s gift of clear and helpful communication. He engages opposing viewpoints without becoming strident or arrogant. The result is a helpful overview of the history, development, and current debate within dispensational circles. Even if one does not subscribe to dispensationalism as a hermeneutical principle and/or a theological framework, Ryrie’s work is helpful to define interpretive issues that must be addressed and understood by the serious Bible student.
I would classify this book as a beginner to moderate level theology book. If you are interested in understanding the meta narrative of Scripture, the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament, Covenants, the relationship of Israel to the Church and the relationship of these groups to eschatology, then this book is a helpful reference. Happy reading.
Dr. Ryrie first wrote “Dispensationalism Today” in 1966. In 1995, Ryrie released a revised and expanded version of this volume under the current title “Dispensationalism.” The updated version is helpful because Ryrie interacts with some common objections, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings of normative dispensationalism. He helpfully outlines the current items up for debate within the academy regarding both normative and progressive dispensationalism and he contrasts those positions with covenant premillennialism, amillenialism, and covenant theology.
Dr. Ryrie has an organized mind and a teacher’s gift of clear and helpful communication. He engages opposing viewpoints without becoming strident or arrogant. The result is a helpful overview of the history, development, and current debate within dispensational circles. Even if one does not subscribe to dispensationalism as a hermeneutical principle and/or a theological framework, Ryrie’s work is helpful to define interpretive issues that must be addressed and understood by the serious Bible student.
I would classify this book as a beginner to moderate level theology book. If you are interested in understanding the meta narrative of Scripture, the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament, Covenants, the relationship of Israel to the Church and the relationship of these groups to eschatology, then this book is a helpful reference. Happy reading.
January 26, 2013
I am not giving this 2 stars because of the theology presented. While he was fleshing out dispensationalism, he often had a defensive tone which made me question more frequently rather than if it was a simple presentation. At times Ryrie stooped to say, " If the covenant theologian can say _________ about dispensationalism, then we can say _________ about covenant theology."
July 7, 2012
Charles C. Ryrie’s purpose for writing “Dispensationalism” is clearly articulated early in the book when he explains his attempt to “present classic dispensational teaching in a positive way in order to correct misunderstandings and allay suspicions about it” (Ryrie - Kindle). In addition, Ryrie writes that he “wanted to show that earlier dispensationalists were more balanced in their statements than usually represented by those who quote them selectively (Ryrie - Kindle). Ryrie reiterates this purpose in chapter twelve when he claims the reasons for writing the book are “to correct some misconceptions” and “to give a positive representation of normative dispensational teaching” (Ryrie - Kindle).
The author begins his text by summarizing the attacks on dispensationalism and demonstrating that its opposition comes from many sources, such as; theological liberals, conservative amillennials, premilleninialists who are not dispensational, and post millennial reconstructionists (Ryrie - Kindle). Ryrie writes that attacks on Dispensationalism “range from mild to severe” (Ryrie - Kindle) and quotes extensively from its opponents to illustrate how the attacks take on several forms. Ryrie clearly demonstrates that dispensationalism has been inappropriately labeled and suffered attacks on historical and intellectual grounds; however, his summation of the attacks on Dispensationalism leaves the reader wondering if he isn’t guilty of the same “selective quoting” that he finds disturbing in his opposition. It is in light of these attacks that Ryrie launches his defense of Dispensationalism and the strength of his book revealed.
Ryrie asserts that Dispensationalism is helpful in that it answers the needs of Biblical Distinctions, History, and provides consistent hermeneutics. It is in Ryrie’s first proposition that the reader detects a hint of common ground between Dispensational and Covenant thought. Ryrie points out that, just like dispensationalism, Covenant Theology recognizes the need for Biblical distinctions by “reducing the number [of distinctions] to two – the Old Testament dispensation and the New Testament dispensation” (Ryrie - Kindle) and adding various subdivisions. Ryrie asserts that “all [Bible] interpreters feel the need for distinctions” (Ryrie) and argues that dispensationalism meets that need. Revealing this common ground strongly contributes to Ryrie’s stated goal of presenting dispensational teaching in a positive way.
Ryrie further develops the notion of common ground when he writes that it is helpful “to be reminded of the important doctrines to which dispensationalists subscribe wholeheartedly,” such as; “verbal, plenary inspiration, the virgin birth and deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, eternal salvation by grace through faith, the importance of godly living and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the future coming of Christ, and the eternal damnation of the lost” (Ryrie - Kindle). Ryrie certainly isn’t arguing that there aren’t important distinctions inherent in dispensationalism; however, by pointing out the doctrines it shares with Covenant Theology, he does put to rest many of its opponents misconceptions and pulls it away from the fringe. When Ryrie points out the common ground between dispensationalism and its opponents he serves to lessen the rhetoric that seems prevalent on both sides of the debate and presents dispensationalism in its most positive light.
Ryrie does list three characteristics that are an indispensable part of dispensationalism and set it apart from other systems of theology. First, Ryrie argues that “a dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct” (Ryrie - Kindle). Ryrie refers to this as the “most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist” as “one who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions” (Ryrie - Kindle). Ryrie asserts that an Israel/Church distinction is born out of the second indispensable characteristic of a dispensationalist when he writes, “This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called a literal interpretation [of Scripture]” (Ryrie - Kindle). One could argue that if it is a literal interpretation of Scripture that gives birth to a Church/Israel distinction it only stands to reason that such an interpretation should be the litmus test for whether or not a person is a dispensationalist. In this matter, Ryrie seems to have erred just slightly. More importantly, Ryrie makes an effort to clarify that a literal Biblical interpretation “does not preclude or exclude correct understanding of types, illustrations, apocalypses, and other genres within [its] basic framework” (Ryrie - Kindle). Ryrie’s clarification is apt as it serves to clear up misconceptions as to what constitutes a literal interpretation. Finally, Ryrie lists the third indispensable characteristic of dispensationalism as the view that the “underlying purpose of God in the world … is the glory of God” (Ryrie - Kindle). Once again, Ryrie reveals some common ground between dispensationalism and Covenant Theology when he writes that “the soteriological … program of God is not the only program but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying Himself” (Ryrie - Kindle). In this statement, Ryrie is making it clear that the dispensationalist is free to recognize the soteriological program of God as does the Covenant Theologian. One can infer that the opposite is also true; the Covenant Theologian is free to recognize the glorification program of God. The difference merely rests on how much emphasis is placed on each.
In the course of this book, Ryrie explores various doctrines as they are related to dispensationalism. I have a slight quibble in that I would have desired the author to begin his book with definitive working definitions of both Covenant and Dispensational Theologies and then expound from there; however, I cannot argue with the end product. Especially pleasing was Ryrie’s final chapter, “A Plea.” It is here that Ryrie seems to be calling on students of the Bible to be less dogmatic and more forgiving, “Every Christian has a right to his convictions about Biblical truth, but as long as we are in earthly bodies none of us can be infallible” (Ryrie - Kindle). It is because of this tone that Ryrie’s work accomplishes his task of showing that “normative dispensationalism is a legitimate, worthy, and conservative viewpoint” (Ryrie - Kindle).
The author begins his text by summarizing the attacks on dispensationalism and demonstrating that its opposition comes from many sources, such as; theological liberals, conservative amillennials, premilleninialists who are not dispensational, and post millennial reconstructionists (Ryrie - Kindle). Ryrie writes that attacks on Dispensationalism “range from mild to severe” (Ryrie - Kindle) and quotes extensively from its opponents to illustrate how the attacks take on several forms. Ryrie clearly demonstrates that dispensationalism has been inappropriately labeled and suffered attacks on historical and intellectual grounds; however, his summation of the attacks on Dispensationalism leaves the reader wondering if he isn’t guilty of the same “selective quoting” that he finds disturbing in his opposition. It is in light of these attacks that Ryrie launches his defense of Dispensationalism and the strength of his book revealed.
Ryrie asserts that Dispensationalism is helpful in that it answers the needs of Biblical Distinctions, History, and provides consistent hermeneutics. It is in Ryrie’s first proposition that the reader detects a hint of common ground between Dispensational and Covenant thought. Ryrie points out that, just like dispensationalism, Covenant Theology recognizes the need for Biblical distinctions by “reducing the number [of distinctions] to two – the Old Testament dispensation and the New Testament dispensation” (Ryrie - Kindle) and adding various subdivisions. Ryrie asserts that “all [Bible] interpreters feel the need for distinctions” (Ryrie) and argues that dispensationalism meets that need. Revealing this common ground strongly contributes to Ryrie’s stated goal of presenting dispensational teaching in a positive way.
Ryrie further develops the notion of common ground when he writes that it is helpful “to be reminded of the important doctrines to which dispensationalists subscribe wholeheartedly,” such as; “verbal, plenary inspiration, the virgin birth and deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, eternal salvation by grace through faith, the importance of godly living and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the future coming of Christ, and the eternal damnation of the lost” (Ryrie - Kindle). Ryrie certainly isn’t arguing that there aren’t important distinctions inherent in dispensationalism; however, by pointing out the doctrines it shares with Covenant Theology, he does put to rest many of its opponents misconceptions and pulls it away from the fringe. When Ryrie points out the common ground between dispensationalism and its opponents he serves to lessen the rhetoric that seems prevalent on both sides of the debate and presents dispensationalism in its most positive light.
Ryrie does list three characteristics that are an indispensable part of dispensationalism and set it apart from other systems of theology. First, Ryrie argues that “a dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct” (Ryrie - Kindle). Ryrie refers to this as the “most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist” as “one who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions” (Ryrie - Kindle). Ryrie asserts that an Israel/Church distinction is born out of the second indispensable characteristic of a dispensationalist when he writes, “This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called a literal interpretation [of Scripture]” (Ryrie - Kindle). One could argue that if it is a literal interpretation of Scripture that gives birth to a Church/Israel distinction it only stands to reason that such an interpretation should be the litmus test for whether or not a person is a dispensationalist. In this matter, Ryrie seems to have erred just slightly. More importantly, Ryrie makes an effort to clarify that a literal Biblical interpretation “does not preclude or exclude correct understanding of types, illustrations, apocalypses, and other genres within [its] basic framework” (Ryrie - Kindle). Ryrie’s clarification is apt as it serves to clear up misconceptions as to what constitutes a literal interpretation. Finally, Ryrie lists the third indispensable characteristic of dispensationalism as the view that the “underlying purpose of God in the world … is the glory of God” (Ryrie - Kindle). Once again, Ryrie reveals some common ground between dispensationalism and Covenant Theology when he writes that “the soteriological … program of God is not the only program but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying Himself” (Ryrie - Kindle). In this statement, Ryrie is making it clear that the dispensationalist is free to recognize the soteriological program of God as does the Covenant Theologian. One can infer that the opposite is also true; the Covenant Theologian is free to recognize the glorification program of God. The difference merely rests on how much emphasis is placed on each.
In the course of this book, Ryrie explores various doctrines as they are related to dispensationalism. I have a slight quibble in that I would have desired the author to begin his book with definitive working definitions of both Covenant and Dispensational Theologies and then expound from there; however, I cannot argue with the end product. Especially pleasing was Ryrie’s final chapter, “A Plea.” It is here that Ryrie seems to be calling on students of the Bible to be less dogmatic and more forgiving, “Every Christian has a right to his convictions about Biblical truth, but as long as we are in earthly bodies none of us can be infallible” (Ryrie - Kindle). It is because of this tone that Ryrie’s work accomplishes his task of showing that “normative dispensationalism is a legitimate, worthy, and conservative viewpoint” (Ryrie - Kindle).
December 18, 2021
Full disclosure: I am a dispensationalist and agree with the author on many points. If you are not a dispensationalist, you probably won't like this book as much as I did, but I still think you will find it helpful and informative.
The late Charles Ryrie was a gifted author and, though I may not agree with everything he wrote, I sure do appreciate the way in which he presented both his position and the position of those he disagreed with. Too many times theological debates devolve into name calling and snide remarks about the other side. I've not read all of Ryrie's works, but I give him credit for staying above these childish tactics in the books that I have read.
If you are like me you will find some parts of this book lacking. Ryrie could have explained some points further, and he could have made himself more clear in certain areas. Overall, though, he treats the subject with respect and, in my opinion, makes a very good case for consistent literal Biblical interpretation that leads many, myself included, to be a dispensationalist. Even if you disagree with some, or all, of Ryrie's conclusions, you will be impressed by his dedication to a literal interpretation of the Scriptures.
The late Charles Ryrie was a gifted author and, though I may not agree with everything he wrote, I sure do appreciate the way in which he presented both his position and the position of those he disagreed with. Too many times theological debates devolve into name calling and snide remarks about the other side. I've not read all of Ryrie's works, but I give him credit for staying above these childish tactics in the books that I have read.
If you are like me you will find some parts of this book lacking. Ryrie could have explained some points further, and he could have made himself more clear in certain areas. Overall, though, he treats the subject with respect and, in my opinion, makes a very good case for consistent literal Biblical interpretation that leads many, myself included, to be a dispensationalist. Even if you disagree with some, or all, of Ryrie's conclusions, you will be impressed by his dedication to a literal interpretation of the Scriptures.
December 27, 2022
Ryrie’s classic work is supposedly one of the great sources for defending classic dispensationalism. It he seems to describe, defend, and convince readers of dispensationalism by answering common objections and illustrating how it works. It seems that he thoroughly fails to do so. First, he seems to be arguing that dispensationalism is an epistemological tool rather than a hermeneutics. This, of course, makes it difficult to engage with. Second, he rarely actually exposits Scriptures through dispensationalism lenses, and the book is filled more with quotes from dispensationalism throughout the history of the church who were arguing with Covenantalists. Third, his argument that the early church was the home to dispensational theology is blatantly incorrect, and misrepresents the fathers teaching on the matter. Fourth, Ryrie fails to engage accurately with Covenantal theology and grotesquely misrepresents it at times. If you would like to better understand the depth of dispensationalism, then this book is for you. However, I can’t help but think there must be a more accurate and transparent book out there.
February 20, 2019
This is a handy book for studying dispensations, but it's incredibly dry for any sort of recreational readying.
July 12, 2020
The churches I've attended, the Bible institute classes I took in high school, and the Christian college I attended were all dispensational. In the last few years, exposure to other denominations through books and podcasts have made me question if I'm still a dispensationalist.
I read this book, purportedly the definitive work on the framework, and will next be reading The Christ of the Covenants, which presents the case for covenant theology.
After reading, I still see points on both sides that make sense. I'm curious how Robertson will address the questions I have about covenant theology.
For dispensationalism:
1. It shares a belief with covenant theology in "the unity of the plan of salvation, the unity of God's redeemed people of all ages, the present aspect of the kingdom of God, the single basis of salvation, and the spiritual seed of Abraham". Covenant theology also agrees with the general idea of dispensations where God deals differently with mankind.
2. The distinction between Israel and the Church is reasonable; we know he has separate plans for the angels, cities, and nations.
3. The unifying principle of the Bible is God's glory rather than salvation or even the work of Christ. Again, if he has plans for multiple groups, it's reasonable to say that individual salvation is not his ultimate goal. (It does seem to be a disconnect that Ryrie believes this but pooh-poohs the idea that the Church should be involved in social work.)
4. Future prophecy should be interpreted literally where possible because the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled literally. I'm not 100% convinced by Ryrie's insistence on a "plain interpretation of prophecy", but this is a good argument.
5. Eschatology is one of the most recent theologies to be rigorously systematized, so it is not surprising that dispensationalism is a recent development.
6. Covenant theology proposes that Old Testament believers were saved by faithful "looking forward" to the promised Redeemer, but how well did Abraham, Moses, the prophets, and the "common man" understand that promise? They certainly didn't know God the Son would become human to die a substitutionary death for sin, right? Would all of that be necessary for saving belief?
Dispensationalism teaches that the basis of salvation is always Christ's death, the means is always faith, the object is always God. The content of faith changes with progressive revelation. While I'd argue that's vague and I wish Ryrie had expounded on the point, the clear meaning of Genesis 15 seems to be that Abraham was saved by believing that God would give him a huge number of descendants. Galatians 3 also seems to support the dispensational view better, but not definitively.
7. Taking the land promises literally is reasonable; if the nation Israel will possess Palestine and be blessed in the land, that would require a future earthly kingdom of Israel. (Although, could this be fulfilled in the new heaven/new earth? Does it require a Millennial reign?)
Against dispensationalism:
1. Ryrie says every Jew up to now will not receive the land promises; they will instead receive heavenly blessings with the Church. Doesn't this contradict Genesis 17:8 if Abraham and all his descendants up to this point in history will not receive the land promised? Is it consistent to say this must be a literal promise to literal Israel of literal land, but not take Genesis 17:8 literally?
2. The intercalation/parenthesis view of the Church seems odd: the Church is a 2000+ year break in-between Jewish dispensations?
3. The temple and sacrifices will start again during the Millennium? Isn't that a regression rather than a progression?
4. If covenant theology and dispensationalism were both formed post-Reformation, what did Christians believe for the first three-quarters of Christianity?
The writing of the book
The information is good but the presentation is not, hence the lower rating.
Ryrie is obviously an expert in theology, but an editor could have aided him greatly with the book's structure. (Oddly, he criticizes his opponents for a lack of clarity and definition.) You can certainly come away from the book with an overall grasp of dispensationalism, but you'll have to work for it, which is disappointing in purportedly the definitive work on dispensationalism. I do a lot of technical writing, so I'm picky on clarity and structure, and I have high expectations on a book about the "queen of sciences".
Many of Ryrie's arguments are odd, unconvincing, and fallacious. The chapter notes below have more specifics, but here's one example:
In Chapter 4, Ryrie discusses the origins of dispensationalism. He argues that the ideas of the framework existed in the early Church, and was only systematized recently. He does this by showing that many theologians have used the term "dispensation", which is even found in the Bible.
The problem is that he also says covenant theologians believe in dispensations. Indeed, how many Christians don't believe that God at least dealt differently with mankind before and after the Fall? Shouldn't Ryrie instead have shown that theologians throughout Church history espoused the distinctives of dispensationalism? The obvious assumption is that he can't because they didn't.
Chapter 1: Dispensationalism - Help or Heresy?
Uh-oh. Not a good start. The first four pages is Ryrie listing a bunch of criticisms of dispensationlism. It comes off as whiny.
The only one he tries to answer here is the charge that dispensationlism is false because it wasn't taught for the first 1800 years of Christianity. The answer:
1. A teaching from the 1st century isn't necessarily true.
2. A teaching started in the 20th century isn't necessarily false.
3. No theologian is perfect.
4. "People do not make a doctrine right or wrong."
5. A PhD makes you an expert but not infallible.
6. The Holy Spirit can communicate truth to educated and uneducated people.
1 is self-evidently true. 2 is really his answer: "That's not necessarily true." You're going to have to do better than that, Charles. He's totally convinced me on 3 though! 🙂. I have no idea what 4-6 have to do with this argument. Maybe that was supposed to go a page and a half earlier in the paragraph where he mentions ad hominem arguments?
Chapter 2: What is a Dispensation?
A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose. It is a period where God's relationship with man is changed, revelation is progressed, and man's responsibility is changed.
Covenant theologians also believe in dispensations, so what's the distinction? Dispensationalism says Israel and the Church are distinct. It interprets the Bible literally: Israel is promised land forever, and that land promise does not apply to the church in a literal or figurative sense. Therefore, human salvation is not God's only purpose: it is rather His glory, of which salvation is a part.
----------
Chapter 2 is much better, but still has some odd arguments and structural problems. This quote is illustrative: "Two facts should be pointed out in answer to this charge. The first has already been stated in the preceding paragraph:" Ryrie then restates his point from the previous paragraph before starting a new paragraph for Fact 2.
Another example: Ryrie uses the term *sine qua non* without explanation. Then he uses the term again with a parenthetical: "*sine qua non* (absolute essential)". The third time it is: "*sine qua non* (the absolutely indespensible part)". Occurrences 4-6 have no parenthetical. This is nitpicking to be sure, but it's indicative of a lack of editing for cohesion.
Chapter 3: What are the dispensations?
1. Innocency
2. Conscience
3. Civil Government
4. Promise (Patriarchal Rule)
5. Mosaic Law
6. Grace
7. Millennium
----------
The first paragraph of Chapter 3 repeats the same summary information given in the last paragraph of Chapter 2 ☹️ Otherwise, a fine overview.
Chapter 4: The Origins of Dispensationalism
The system is recent, but many theologians have used the term "dispensation" for periods of history. Watts, Darby, and Scofield systematized. Eschatology is one of the most recent theologies to be rigorously systematized, so it is not surprising that dispensationalism is a recent development.
Neodispensationlists believe:
1. The Kingdom of God is the unifying theme of history
2. Christ reigns on the throne of David in heaven, inaugurating the Davidic covenant
3. Israel and the Church are one entity
4. There is one plan of holistic redemption for all people and all areas: personal, societal, cultural, political
More details to follow in Chapter 9
----------
Ryrie charges his opponents with using straw men arguments, so that was funny. This chapter is fine, except in the large: if even covenant theology uses dispensations, shouldn't Ryrie instead be demonstrating that theologians throughout history believed Israel and the Church were separate and had a pre-Tribulational, pre-Millennial eschatology?
Chapter 5: The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism
Some non-dispensationalists interpret the different genres of the Bible differently, instead of always literally.
Dispensationalists interpretation is literal, grammatical-historical, normal, plain. This doesn't exclude the possibility of figures and symbols. God invented language, so why would he use language non-literally? If it's not literal, it could mean anything.
All prophecies should be interpreted literally because the messianic prophecies were fulfilled literally.
The Sermon on the Mount contains moral teachings that apply for all time, but it was mainly a call to repentance for Israel, not the church.
----------
A reasonable chapter. His messianic prophecies argument is good. I'm not convinced by his literal interpretation argument: literal interpretation does not guarantee identical interpretation. The fact that someone could take a figurative interpretation too far doesn't prove that any figurative interpretation is invalid (the slippery slope argument is a slippery slope).
Chapter 6: Salvation in Dispensationalism
Dispensationalism doesn't teach two ways of salvation. The basis of salvation is always Christ's death, the means is always faith, the object is always God. The content of faith changes with progressive revelation. Covenant theology teaches that salvation before Christ was always through a faithful "looking forward" to the promised Redeemer, but did Abraham, Moses, the prophets, and the common Hebrew understand that promise?
This means that there was grace under the law. The law didn't replace previous promises. Eternal salvation was through grace, temporal life was through the law.
Sacrifices were efficacious either:
1. For remission of sin when offered in faith
2. For forgiveness in the eyes of the theocratic government, regardless of faith
3. Both 1 and 2
Sin was forgiven by OT sacrifices, but Christ's death made the forgiveness absolute and final.
----------
Ryrie's strongest chapter so far. I'm curious to read the Covenant Theology case for salvation, because I think that Ryrie is right when he says they are reading back modern knowledge into ancient Israel by saying they were saved by faith in the coming of Christ.
Chapter 7: The Church in Dispensationalism
The main distinction of dispensationalism is the claim that the Church is separate from Israel. It is not the "new Israel" or "spiritual Israel" any more than the redeemed before Moses are "pre Israel". The current spiritual kingdom is not a fulfillment of the OT kingdom promises. God has a separate plan for angels, nations, and the unsaved, so why is it a problem if he has a separate plan for Israel and the Church?
The distinctions of the Church: it includes Jews and Gentiles, and the Holy Spirit indwells members. The body of Christ was formed at the Resurrection or Ascension; the Church was inaugurated at Pentecost. Paul continued to use "Israel" to refer to the nation, not the Church: "Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God" (1 Cor. 10:32). The church is an intercalation or parenthesis in God's timeline. The church will be part of the Millennial Kingdom. The Church and the Kingdom of God are distinct but related; this is not explained but only presented as a paradox like that between sovereignty and responsibility.
Chafer: "...God is pursuing two distinct purposes; one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity." The earthly purpose is the national promises to Israel, which will be fulfilled during the Millennium on earth in unresurrected bodies. Jews who die before the Millennium (Mosaic age through the Church age) will go to heaven; Jews alive when the Millennium starts and born during will receive the promises of the land. After the Millennium they will go to heaven but still be separate from the Church.
Israel is the natural seed of Abraham; the Church is the spiritual seed of Abraham. Abraham was not a Jew or a Gentile so either can be his seeds. People that call the Church "Israel" are inconsistent because they don't also call believers before Jacob "Israel". [...what?]
----------
I think Israel and the Church as separate entities is plausible. Taking the land promises literally is reasonable and would require some future earthly kingdom of Israel; I see that as a problem for Covenant Theology. However, an equal problem for dispensationalism is to say that every Jew up to now will not receive the land promises. The intercalation/parenthesis also seems odd, and I have some questions about the Millennium that I hope will be answered in the next chapter.
Continued in the comments.
I read this book, purportedly the definitive work on the framework, and will next be reading The Christ of the Covenants, which presents the case for covenant theology.
After reading, I still see points on both sides that make sense. I'm curious how Robertson will address the questions I have about covenant theology.
For dispensationalism:
1. It shares a belief with covenant theology in "the unity of the plan of salvation, the unity of God's redeemed people of all ages, the present aspect of the kingdom of God, the single basis of salvation, and the spiritual seed of Abraham". Covenant theology also agrees with the general idea of dispensations where God deals differently with mankind.
2. The distinction between Israel and the Church is reasonable; we know he has separate plans for the angels, cities, and nations.
3. The unifying principle of the Bible is God's glory rather than salvation or even the work of Christ. Again, if he has plans for multiple groups, it's reasonable to say that individual salvation is not his ultimate goal. (It does seem to be a disconnect that Ryrie believes this but pooh-poohs the idea that the Church should be involved in social work.)
4. Future prophecy should be interpreted literally where possible because the Messianic prophecies were fulfilled literally. I'm not 100% convinced by Ryrie's insistence on a "plain interpretation of prophecy", but this is a good argument.
5. Eschatology is one of the most recent theologies to be rigorously systematized, so it is not surprising that dispensationalism is a recent development.
6. Covenant theology proposes that Old Testament believers were saved by faithful "looking forward" to the promised Redeemer, but how well did Abraham, Moses, the prophets, and the "common man" understand that promise? They certainly didn't know God the Son would become human to die a substitutionary death for sin, right? Would all of that be necessary for saving belief?
Dispensationalism teaches that the basis of salvation is always Christ's death, the means is always faith, the object is always God. The content of faith changes with progressive revelation. While I'd argue that's vague and I wish Ryrie had expounded on the point, the clear meaning of Genesis 15 seems to be that Abraham was saved by believing that God would give him a huge number of descendants. Galatians 3 also seems to support the dispensational view better, but not definitively.
7. Taking the land promises literally is reasonable; if the nation Israel will possess Palestine and be blessed in the land, that would require a future earthly kingdom of Israel. (Although, could this be fulfilled in the new heaven/new earth? Does it require a Millennial reign?)
Against dispensationalism:
1. Ryrie says every Jew up to now will not receive the land promises; they will instead receive heavenly blessings with the Church. Doesn't this contradict Genesis 17:8 if Abraham and all his descendants up to this point in history will not receive the land promised? Is it consistent to say this must be a literal promise to literal Israel of literal land, but not take Genesis 17:8 literally?
2. The intercalation/parenthesis view of the Church seems odd: the Church is a 2000+ year break in-between Jewish dispensations?
3. The temple and sacrifices will start again during the Millennium? Isn't that a regression rather than a progression?
4. If covenant theology and dispensationalism were both formed post-Reformation, what did Christians believe for the first three-quarters of Christianity?
The writing of the book
The information is good but the presentation is not, hence the lower rating.
Ryrie is obviously an expert in theology, but an editor could have aided him greatly with the book's structure. (Oddly, he criticizes his opponents for a lack of clarity and definition.) You can certainly come away from the book with an overall grasp of dispensationalism, but you'll have to work for it, which is disappointing in purportedly the definitive work on dispensationalism. I do a lot of technical writing, so I'm picky on clarity and structure, and I have high expectations on a book about the "queen of sciences".
Many of Ryrie's arguments are odd, unconvincing, and fallacious. The chapter notes below have more specifics, but here's one example:
In Chapter 4, Ryrie discusses the origins of dispensationalism. He argues that the ideas of the framework existed in the early Church, and was only systematized recently. He does this by showing that many theologians have used the term "dispensation", which is even found in the Bible.
The problem is that he also says covenant theologians believe in dispensations. Indeed, how many Christians don't believe that God at least dealt differently with mankind before and after the Fall? Shouldn't Ryrie instead have shown that theologians throughout Church history espoused the distinctives of dispensationalism? The obvious assumption is that he can't because they didn't.
Chapter 1: Dispensationalism - Help or Heresy?
Uh-oh. Not a good start. The first four pages is Ryrie listing a bunch of criticisms of dispensationlism. It comes off as whiny.
The only one he tries to answer here is the charge that dispensationlism is false because it wasn't taught for the first 1800 years of Christianity. The answer:
1. A teaching from the 1st century isn't necessarily true.
2. A teaching started in the 20th century isn't necessarily false.
3. No theologian is perfect.
4. "People do not make a doctrine right or wrong."
5. A PhD makes you an expert but not infallible.
6. The Holy Spirit can communicate truth to educated and uneducated people.
1 is self-evidently true. 2 is really his answer: "That's not necessarily true." You're going to have to do better than that, Charles. He's totally convinced me on 3 though! 🙂. I have no idea what 4-6 have to do with this argument. Maybe that was supposed to go a page and a half earlier in the paragraph where he mentions ad hominem arguments?
Chapter 2: What is a Dispensation?
A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose. It is a period where God's relationship with man is changed, revelation is progressed, and man's responsibility is changed.
Covenant theologians also believe in dispensations, so what's the distinction? Dispensationalism says Israel and the Church are distinct. It interprets the Bible literally: Israel is promised land forever, and that land promise does not apply to the church in a literal or figurative sense. Therefore, human salvation is not God's only purpose: it is rather His glory, of which salvation is a part.
----------
Chapter 2 is much better, but still has some odd arguments and structural problems. This quote is illustrative: "Two facts should be pointed out in answer to this charge. The first has already been stated in the preceding paragraph:" Ryrie then restates his point from the previous paragraph before starting a new paragraph for Fact 2.
Another example: Ryrie uses the term *sine qua non* without explanation. Then he uses the term again with a parenthetical: "*sine qua non* (absolute essential)". The third time it is: "*sine qua non* (the absolutely indespensible part)". Occurrences 4-6 have no parenthetical. This is nitpicking to be sure, but it's indicative of a lack of editing for cohesion.
Chapter 3: What are the dispensations?
1. Innocency
2. Conscience
3. Civil Government
4. Promise (Patriarchal Rule)
5. Mosaic Law
6. Grace
7. Millennium
----------
The first paragraph of Chapter 3 repeats the same summary information given in the last paragraph of Chapter 2 ☹️ Otherwise, a fine overview.
Chapter 4: The Origins of Dispensationalism
The system is recent, but many theologians have used the term "dispensation" for periods of history. Watts, Darby, and Scofield systematized. Eschatology is one of the most recent theologies to be rigorously systematized, so it is not surprising that dispensationalism is a recent development.
Neodispensationlists believe:
1. The Kingdom of God is the unifying theme of history
2. Christ reigns on the throne of David in heaven, inaugurating the Davidic covenant
3. Israel and the Church are one entity
4. There is one plan of holistic redemption for all people and all areas: personal, societal, cultural, political
More details to follow in Chapter 9
----------
Ryrie charges his opponents with using straw men arguments, so that was funny. This chapter is fine, except in the large: if even covenant theology uses dispensations, shouldn't Ryrie instead be demonstrating that theologians throughout history believed Israel and the Church were separate and had a pre-Tribulational, pre-Millennial eschatology?
Chapter 5: The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism
Some non-dispensationalists interpret the different genres of the Bible differently, instead of always literally.
Dispensationalists interpretation is literal, grammatical-historical, normal, plain. This doesn't exclude the possibility of figures and symbols. God invented language, so why would he use language non-literally? If it's not literal, it could mean anything.
All prophecies should be interpreted literally because the messianic prophecies were fulfilled literally.
The Sermon on the Mount contains moral teachings that apply for all time, but it was mainly a call to repentance for Israel, not the church.
----------
A reasonable chapter. His messianic prophecies argument is good. I'm not convinced by his literal interpretation argument: literal interpretation does not guarantee identical interpretation. The fact that someone could take a figurative interpretation too far doesn't prove that any figurative interpretation is invalid (the slippery slope argument is a slippery slope).
Chapter 6: Salvation in Dispensationalism
Dispensationalism doesn't teach two ways of salvation. The basis of salvation is always Christ's death, the means is always faith, the object is always God. The content of faith changes with progressive revelation. Covenant theology teaches that salvation before Christ was always through a faithful "looking forward" to the promised Redeemer, but did Abraham, Moses, the prophets, and the common Hebrew understand that promise?
This means that there was grace under the law. The law didn't replace previous promises. Eternal salvation was through grace, temporal life was through the law.
Sacrifices were efficacious either:
1. For remission of sin when offered in faith
2. For forgiveness in the eyes of the theocratic government, regardless of faith
3. Both 1 and 2
Sin was forgiven by OT sacrifices, but Christ's death made the forgiveness absolute and final.
----------
Ryrie's strongest chapter so far. I'm curious to read the Covenant Theology case for salvation, because I think that Ryrie is right when he says they are reading back modern knowledge into ancient Israel by saying they were saved by faith in the coming of Christ.
Chapter 7: The Church in Dispensationalism
The main distinction of dispensationalism is the claim that the Church is separate from Israel. It is not the "new Israel" or "spiritual Israel" any more than the redeemed before Moses are "pre Israel". The current spiritual kingdom is not a fulfillment of the OT kingdom promises. God has a separate plan for angels, nations, and the unsaved, so why is it a problem if he has a separate plan for Israel and the Church?
The distinctions of the Church: it includes Jews and Gentiles, and the Holy Spirit indwells members. The body of Christ was formed at the Resurrection or Ascension; the Church was inaugurated at Pentecost. Paul continued to use "Israel" to refer to the nation, not the Church: "Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God" (1 Cor. 10:32). The church is an intercalation or parenthesis in God's timeline. The church will be part of the Millennial Kingdom. The Church and the Kingdom of God are distinct but related; this is not explained but only presented as a paradox like that between sovereignty and responsibility.
Chafer: "...God is pursuing two distinct purposes; one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity." The earthly purpose is the national promises to Israel, which will be fulfilled during the Millennium on earth in unresurrected bodies. Jews who die before the Millennium (Mosaic age through the Church age) will go to heaven; Jews alive when the Millennium starts and born during will receive the promises of the land. After the Millennium they will go to heaven but still be separate from the Church.
Israel is the natural seed of Abraham; the Church is the spiritual seed of Abraham. Abraham was not a Jew or a Gentile so either can be his seeds. People that call the Church "Israel" are inconsistent because they don't also call believers before Jacob "Israel". [...what?]
----------
I think Israel and the Church as separate entities is plausible. Taking the land promises literally is reasonable and would require some future earthly kingdom of Israel; I see that as a problem for Covenant Theology. However, an equal problem for dispensationalism is to say that every Jew up to now will not receive the land promises. The intercalation/parenthesis also seems odd, and I have some questions about the Millennium that I hope will be answered in the next chapter.
Continued in the comments.
March 25, 2025
Good ol college textbook!
July 25, 2022
Charles was so angry; you’d think he was writing about Calvinism.
October 23, 2020
In this book Dr. Ryrie clearly explains the different types of dispensationalists: Classic, Revised, and Progressive. He also explains the fundamentals of dispensational theology.
July 12, 2016
The late Charles C. Ryrie is probably best known for the Ryrie Study Bible, a fine work. This book is great, too, for what it is, which is a more narrowly focused book about, oddly enough, Dispensationalism.
The book is well made. The cover is sufficient if not inspired. The inside is laid out in an easy to read manner with heading and subheadings to help the reader remain on task. The book includes a scripture and subject index, which I think is a necessity for such tomes.
The book is an overall description and defense of the theological system (sometimes referred to as models) of dispensationalism. This model is adopted primarily by conservative evangelicals, and it serves as a philosophy of history that views God as operating differently in different biblical periods. It is not that the Lord changes, but He reveals (generally progressively) different things in various periods. A dispensation is an administration during which man is judged as to his obedience to the will of God by specific criteria. The system allows for the recognition of two or more dispensations, but seven is the most commonly held view.
After a foreward and acknowledgements, Ryrie deals with defining dispensationalism as a concept and identifies the most common seven dispensations that is the hallmark of the old school dispensationalists such as C.I. Scofield and J.N. Darby. He then moves to the history of the model and the hermeneutics involved, which is basically a literal rendering utilizing the historical-grammatical hermeneutic that I believe should be the standard usage. As special concerns, he then grapples with the issues of salvation, eschatology, and the church in the dispensational schemata. To round out the book, Ryrie than addresses some of the compromise forms of dispensationalism such as progressive dispensationalism and ultradispensationalism as well as covenant theology, which is often held in opposition as an alternate theological model. He ends with an epilogue and a bibliography followed by the indices.
Ryrie has done well with this book. He rightly views covenant theology as fundamentally too restricted a view for the Bible. The overall book is presented in a readily understandable manner. I think this book would appeal to those who are studying dispensationalism generally or as it relates to the more liberal forms of the system and/or covenant theology. I imagine seminary students and pastors are the target audience as dealing with theological systems and/or doctrine are, unfortunately, not major concerns of the average Christian. Highly recommended.
The book is well made. The cover is sufficient if not inspired. The inside is laid out in an easy to read manner with heading and subheadings to help the reader remain on task. The book includes a scripture and subject index, which I think is a necessity for such tomes.
The book is an overall description and defense of the theological system (sometimes referred to as models) of dispensationalism. This model is adopted primarily by conservative evangelicals, and it serves as a philosophy of history that views God as operating differently in different biblical periods. It is not that the Lord changes, but He reveals (generally progressively) different things in various periods. A dispensation is an administration during which man is judged as to his obedience to the will of God by specific criteria. The system allows for the recognition of two or more dispensations, but seven is the most commonly held view.
After a foreward and acknowledgements, Ryrie deals with defining dispensationalism as a concept and identifies the most common seven dispensations that is the hallmark of the old school dispensationalists such as C.I. Scofield and J.N. Darby. He then moves to the history of the model and the hermeneutics involved, which is basically a literal rendering utilizing the historical-grammatical hermeneutic that I believe should be the standard usage. As special concerns, he then grapples with the issues of salvation, eschatology, and the church in the dispensational schemata. To round out the book, Ryrie than addresses some of the compromise forms of dispensationalism such as progressive dispensationalism and ultradispensationalism as well as covenant theology, which is often held in opposition as an alternate theological model. He ends with an epilogue and a bibliography followed by the indices.
Ryrie has done well with this book. He rightly views covenant theology as fundamentally too restricted a view for the Bible. The overall book is presented in a readily understandable manner. I think this book would appeal to those who are studying dispensationalism generally or as it relates to the more liberal forms of the system and/or covenant theology. I imagine seminary students and pastors are the target audience as dealing with theological systems and/or doctrine are, unfortunately, not major concerns of the average Christian. Highly recommended.
April 3, 2014
"This book has been written for two reasons: to correct some misconceptions about dispensationalism that have given rise to false charges against it, and to give a positive presentation of normative dispensational teaching." Thus is Mr. Ryrie's purpose for writing the book and he achieves both objectives.
I cannot recommend this book high enough because of Mr. Ryrie's clear, straight forward presentation of classical dispensationalism. He is very gracious when dealing with covenant theology and responding to the most outlandish criticisms leveled at dispensationalism. He also shows the difference between normative (classical), progressive, and ultra dispensationalism.
Mr. Ryrie also does an amazing job of condensing the material into a mere 250 pages.
I cannot recommend this book high enough because of Mr. Ryrie's clear, straight forward presentation of classical dispensationalism. He is very gracious when dealing with covenant theology and responding to the most outlandish criticisms leveled at dispensationalism. He also shows the difference between normative (classical), progressive, and ultra dispensationalism.
Mr. Ryrie also does an amazing job of condensing the material into a mere 250 pages.
April 27, 2020
I enjoyed this book as someone who has studied dispensationalism in-depth. Many of the negative reviews were not related to the actual positive theological material presented in the book, but were related to the refutation of others’ views that the author includes herein. This was actually helpful for me as I am familiar with dispensationalism, but enjoy teasing out the nuances from other commonly held views (covenant theology, hyper/ultra dispensationalism, progressives...etc.). The author accomplished his purpose in my opinion in creating a meaningful contrast between traditional dispensationalism and other views.
December 30, 2019
I was looking for a primer on traditional dispensationalism. Although Ryrie does give a basic explanation, he also defends it repeatedly from critics. So it's more like a polemic for dispensationalism than a basic primer. He does provide a summary of covenant theology and progressive dispensationalism, so those comparisons are helpful in defining what traditional dispensationalism is. Still, I'd have appreciated more details on the theological system itself, and less attention to other, competing approaches.
December 30, 2023
In the final chapter, Ryrie writes that the "book has been written for two reasons: to try to corrrect some misconceptions about dispensationalism which have given rise to false charges against it, and to give a positive presentation of the system as it is being taught in the latter part of the twentieth century."
This was definitely an interesting read, albeit one to be taken with a grain of salt, as dispensationalism has progressed and nuanced since Ryrie wrote this in 1965. At the same time, Ryrie is one the big names of this system, and so I found it useful to hear the system explained straight from the horse's mouth. Whether you agree with dispensationalism or not, I think it's reasonable to say that it is a system that has fuelled many wild-eyed conspiracy minded Christians to make all manner of youtube videos defending the system and give hot takes on current events. So, hearing the claims from one of its foremost scholars was interesting.
A few things that stuck out to me:
1) The issue of dispensationalism's historicity. I've heard numerous dispensationalists argue that the oft repeated claim that dispensationalism is a very new system of interpretation (one I wholeheartedly affirm) is bogus because there's plenty of evidence of dispensational teaching prior to Darby, particular in the fathers. Ryrie approaches this differently, arguing firstly that the newness of dispensationalism shouldn't ultimately be the deciding factor in determining its truthfulness (fair enough, I suppose) and secondly, there is evidence from the likes of Justin Martyr, Irenaus, Augustine, and later from the likes of Pierre Pioret, Isaac Watts, and John Edwards that Christian thinkers did divide Biblical history up into various eras. But if that's all he's meaning by dispensationalism, then even I'm a dispensationalist. I found this to be fascinating, because in an earlier chapter Ryrie says that definitional to dispensationalism are (1) a distinction between Israel and the church, (2) a literal hermeneutic, and (3) the glory of God as the goal of history, and conversely that believing in various time periods is not definitional to the system. In other words, in Ryrie's own words, nothing definitional to dispensationalism was taught prior to Darby. He says, "[Informed dispensationalists] do not claim that the system was taught in post-apostolic times." So, Ryrie agees: there was no pre-trib rapture and no sharp distinction between Israel and the church taught before Darby.
2) Ryrie claims that definitional to dispensationalism is "the glory of God as the goal of history." I had never really noticed this a lot, thinking it was a bit random because surely other theological systems, including my own, would agree with this. Ryrie explains what he means by this in the book, which is that God in effect needs to be vindicated in his purposes in history. So a kingdom of God in the age to come would not fit the bill because it is not in history, so amillennialism is ruled out. But what I don't understand is why a postmillennial understanding of the millennium, or even an amillennial one wouldn't work in fulfilling this. After all, even the dispensational premillennialist agrees that the millennium will be tainted by sin.
3) The conversation on divisiveness was interesting. I think Ryrie's completely fair to point out that a topic or idea can't be blamed for divisiveness per se, any more than the competing view can. Controversy will mean that different views surface, and there is no reason that one side should have to take more responsibility for that than the other. It would be unfair to say the complementarianism is divisive but egalitarianism is great, for example. In the same way, I don't think dispensationalists deserve the bad press they get here. Further, Ryrie's tone in addressing other believers who aren't with him on this is irenic and reasonable. He's not out to kick people out of the kingdom. In saying that, given that dispensationalism has this idea of an apostate church in the last days, there can be a close-minded bigotry to Christians from other traditions. Sometimes other traditions should be rejected, after all, the apostasy passages are in Scripture. But one needs to be careful to not view anyone outside their tradition as a 3/4 Christian. Ryrie does not make this mistake.
4) I think dispensationalism is at its weakest when arguing for a consistently literal hermeneutic. On the one hand, Ryrie rejects any charges of a wooden literalism that doesn't allow for figures of speech or symbolism, but on the other argues that rejecting a literal method of interpretation would leave no check on "the variety of interpretations which man's imagination could produce were there no objective standard which the literal principle provides." But if you're conceding that at least some symbolism and figures of speech are used, what if people disagree as to whether that's what's happening in a particular instance? Is not the same subjectivity opened up? Further, the critiques from the likes William E. Cox (Amillennialism Today) and Anthony Hoekema (in his essay in The Meaning of the Millennium) that plenty of instances can be cited where it is the amillennialist who reads a text far more literally than the dispensationalist (Matthew 25's sheep and goat judgement, to cite one example) are bang on. Further, Ryrie's appeal to the prophecies fulfilled in our Lord's first advent as proof of Scripture's pattern for literal interpretation simply will not do. He writes: "the prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first coming of Christ—His birth, His rearing, His ministry, His death, His resurrection—were all fulfilled literally. There is no non-literal fulfilment of these prophecies in the New Testament." One balks at this. What about "out of Israel I called my Son?" What about "By his wounds we are healed?" What about "the virgin shall conceive and bear a son?" What about "I send you Elijah before that great and and dreadful day of the Lord comes?" As a result, eccentricities come out in this work. I was surprised to read Ryrie taking A. Berkeley Mickelson to task for not understanding the weapons described in Ezekiel 39 literally, for example.
5) The material on the distinction between Israel and the church was fascinating. I wasn't too uncomfortable with a good amount of his presentation here, when he was simply arguing for discontinuities between Israel and the church. I agree, they are there, and I'm not simply saying there is a one to one equivalence between the two with no progression or covenantal structural changes. But the wedge driven between Israel and the church in this section was far too strong, in my opinion. Ryrie claims that no promises to Israel are being fulfilled in the church age, which I find very difficult to accept (see Acts 15's use of Amos or Hebrew's 10's use of Habakkuk, for a couple of examples off the top of my head). Ryrie points out that Romans 9's discussion of Israel within Israel follows a similar trajectory of a true spiritual Israel that would have been accepted in the Old Testament, and has nothing to do with Gentiles, which I find hard to believe given v. 24-25's inclusion of the Gentiles with a supporting quotation from Hosea on the restoration of Israel of all things. Likewise the discussion on Galatians 6 was interesting: Ryrie's concedes that grammatically, Paul could well be identifying the church as the Israel of God, but has theological reasons for not reading it that way (Paul is apparently commending the ethnic Jews in Galatia for not being Judaizers), I find it far more likely that he is equating the church and Israel, given that the argument of Galatians is surely that Jewish identity markers are now no longer valid for being accepted into the people of God and that all who are in Christ (even Gentiles) are offspring of Abraham. On this point, Ryrie argues that while Gentiles are spiritually children of Abraham, they are not physically children of Abraham, and so they only receive the promises that come from being spiritual children. I don't see anywhere that Paul makes this distinction. Ryrie also makes the claim that the NT doesn't refer to Gentiles as true Jews, which I find to be a stretch given Paul's discussion of this in Romans 2.
6) Ryrie argues that his sharp distinction between Israel and the church doesn't undermine the unity of the story of the Bible, as critics often argue. He then compares the relationship between Israel and the church to redeemed humans and angels. Just because there are two different groups, argues Ryrie, doesn't mean the Bible's disjointed and split up. But is this kind of distinction between God's old covenant and new covenant peoples really warranted by Scripture? This kind of analogy demonstrates the validity of what the critics are concerned about, in my view.
7) I thought the discussion on the Sermon on the Mount was interesting. I'm glad Ryrie does believe that it has implications for the Christian life. Though, his explanation of where it fits does make sense of where the criticisms of his view arise from. He says it's ultimately kingdom law, the ethics of the millennium, that actually aren't even able to be applied in this age literally, given that they are ultimately for a future dispensation. He argues that believing in this sort of thing isn't too out the gate, given that even non-dispensationalists believe that there are aspects of Moses' law that don't apply now. But is that really comparable to the Sermon on the Mount? He also argues that's there's no gospel in it, and that even the teaching on prayer (The Lord's Prayer) is not fully Christian, given that the teachings of the upper room discourse don't feature here.
8) His take on the kingdom is fascinating. Ryrie argues that when Jesus opens Mark's gospel by saying,"Repent, for the kingdom of God as at hand" (Mark 1:15), we can either understand that as the Davidic kingdom (as dispensational premillennialists do) or the spiritual kingdom that is within you and not matter of eating and drinking (as the amillennialists do). To me, what seemed to be missing was that non-dispensationalists understand "the spiritual kingdom" to be the "Davidic kingdom," albeit in its inaugurated but yet to be consummated sense. In my opinion, Ryrie responds to argument that dispensationalism undermines the cross fairly. Dispensationalists are criticised here because if the Jews had accepted Jesus' offer of the kingdom, presumably there would have been no crucifixion. Ryrie says that the crucifixion would have to have happened regardless, and that ultimately this is a confusion of categories regarding God's sovereignty. I think that's fair. Ryrie points out that one of his critics believes in Limited Atonement (as do I), but that the gospel offer is genuine. We could point to God not wanting the people to install a king in 1 Samuel, but that ultimately his sovereign purpose was that they would commit this sin, and that Christ would ultimately be the final king. That's a fair response, though I would love to know how the crucifixion would have happened if the Jews accepted the Davidic Kingdom. A more important argument, in my mind at least, is why the Jews rejected Jesus if in fact he was offering the very thing their messianic expectations were looking for.
Overall, a fascinating read that further cemented for me why this isn't my tribe.
This was definitely an interesting read, albeit one to be taken with a grain of salt, as dispensationalism has progressed and nuanced since Ryrie wrote this in 1965. At the same time, Ryrie is one the big names of this system, and so I found it useful to hear the system explained straight from the horse's mouth. Whether you agree with dispensationalism or not, I think it's reasonable to say that it is a system that has fuelled many wild-eyed conspiracy minded Christians to make all manner of youtube videos defending the system and give hot takes on current events. So, hearing the claims from one of its foremost scholars was interesting.
A few things that stuck out to me:
1) The issue of dispensationalism's historicity. I've heard numerous dispensationalists argue that the oft repeated claim that dispensationalism is a very new system of interpretation (one I wholeheartedly affirm) is bogus because there's plenty of evidence of dispensational teaching prior to Darby, particular in the fathers. Ryrie approaches this differently, arguing firstly that the newness of dispensationalism shouldn't ultimately be the deciding factor in determining its truthfulness (fair enough, I suppose) and secondly, there is evidence from the likes of Justin Martyr, Irenaus, Augustine, and later from the likes of Pierre Pioret, Isaac Watts, and John Edwards that Christian thinkers did divide Biblical history up into various eras. But if that's all he's meaning by dispensationalism, then even I'm a dispensationalist. I found this to be fascinating, because in an earlier chapter Ryrie says that definitional to dispensationalism are (1) a distinction between Israel and the church, (2) a literal hermeneutic, and (3) the glory of God as the goal of history, and conversely that believing in various time periods is not definitional to the system. In other words, in Ryrie's own words, nothing definitional to dispensationalism was taught prior to Darby. He says, "[Informed dispensationalists] do not claim that the system was taught in post-apostolic times." So, Ryrie agees: there was no pre-trib rapture and no sharp distinction between Israel and the church taught before Darby.
2) Ryrie claims that definitional to dispensationalism is "the glory of God as the goal of history." I had never really noticed this a lot, thinking it was a bit random because surely other theological systems, including my own, would agree with this. Ryrie explains what he means by this in the book, which is that God in effect needs to be vindicated in his purposes in history. So a kingdom of God in the age to come would not fit the bill because it is not in history, so amillennialism is ruled out. But what I don't understand is why a postmillennial understanding of the millennium, or even an amillennial one wouldn't work in fulfilling this. After all, even the dispensational premillennialist agrees that the millennium will be tainted by sin.
3) The conversation on divisiveness was interesting. I think Ryrie's completely fair to point out that a topic or idea can't be blamed for divisiveness per se, any more than the competing view can. Controversy will mean that different views surface, and there is no reason that one side should have to take more responsibility for that than the other. It would be unfair to say the complementarianism is divisive but egalitarianism is great, for example. In the same way, I don't think dispensationalists deserve the bad press they get here. Further, Ryrie's tone in addressing other believers who aren't with him on this is irenic and reasonable. He's not out to kick people out of the kingdom. In saying that, given that dispensationalism has this idea of an apostate church in the last days, there can be a close-minded bigotry to Christians from other traditions. Sometimes other traditions should be rejected, after all, the apostasy passages are in Scripture. But one needs to be careful to not view anyone outside their tradition as a 3/4 Christian. Ryrie does not make this mistake.
4) I think dispensationalism is at its weakest when arguing for a consistently literal hermeneutic. On the one hand, Ryrie rejects any charges of a wooden literalism that doesn't allow for figures of speech or symbolism, but on the other argues that rejecting a literal method of interpretation would leave no check on "the variety of interpretations which man's imagination could produce were there no objective standard which the literal principle provides." But if you're conceding that at least some symbolism and figures of speech are used, what if people disagree as to whether that's what's happening in a particular instance? Is not the same subjectivity opened up? Further, the critiques from the likes William E. Cox (Amillennialism Today) and Anthony Hoekema (in his essay in The Meaning of the Millennium) that plenty of instances can be cited where it is the amillennialist who reads a text far more literally than the dispensationalist (Matthew 25's sheep and goat judgement, to cite one example) are bang on. Further, Ryrie's appeal to the prophecies fulfilled in our Lord's first advent as proof of Scripture's pattern for literal interpretation simply will not do. He writes: "the prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first coming of Christ—His birth, His rearing, His ministry, His death, His resurrection—were all fulfilled literally. There is no non-literal fulfilment of these prophecies in the New Testament." One balks at this. What about "out of Israel I called my Son?" What about "By his wounds we are healed?" What about "the virgin shall conceive and bear a son?" What about "I send you Elijah before that great and and dreadful day of the Lord comes?" As a result, eccentricities come out in this work. I was surprised to read Ryrie taking A. Berkeley Mickelson to task for not understanding the weapons described in Ezekiel 39 literally, for example.
5) The material on the distinction between Israel and the church was fascinating. I wasn't too uncomfortable with a good amount of his presentation here, when he was simply arguing for discontinuities between Israel and the church. I agree, they are there, and I'm not simply saying there is a one to one equivalence between the two with no progression or covenantal structural changes. But the wedge driven between Israel and the church in this section was far too strong, in my opinion. Ryrie claims that no promises to Israel are being fulfilled in the church age, which I find very difficult to accept (see Acts 15's use of Amos or Hebrew's 10's use of Habakkuk, for a couple of examples off the top of my head). Ryrie points out that Romans 9's discussion of Israel within Israel follows a similar trajectory of a true spiritual Israel that would have been accepted in the Old Testament, and has nothing to do with Gentiles, which I find hard to believe given v. 24-25's inclusion of the Gentiles with a supporting quotation from Hosea on the restoration of Israel of all things. Likewise the discussion on Galatians 6 was interesting: Ryrie's concedes that grammatically, Paul could well be identifying the church as the Israel of God, but has theological reasons for not reading it that way (Paul is apparently commending the ethnic Jews in Galatia for not being Judaizers), I find it far more likely that he is equating the church and Israel, given that the argument of Galatians is surely that Jewish identity markers are now no longer valid for being accepted into the people of God and that all who are in Christ (even Gentiles) are offspring of Abraham. On this point, Ryrie argues that while Gentiles are spiritually children of Abraham, they are not physically children of Abraham, and so they only receive the promises that come from being spiritual children. I don't see anywhere that Paul makes this distinction. Ryrie also makes the claim that the NT doesn't refer to Gentiles as true Jews, which I find to be a stretch given Paul's discussion of this in Romans 2.
6) Ryrie argues that his sharp distinction between Israel and the church doesn't undermine the unity of the story of the Bible, as critics often argue. He then compares the relationship between Israel and the church to redeemed humans and angels. Just because there are two different groups, argues Ryrie, doesn't mean the Bible's disjointed and split up. But is this kind of distinction between God's old covenant and new covenant peoples really warranted by Scripture? This kind of analogy demonstrates the validity of what the critics are concerned about, in my view.
7) I thought the discussion on the Sermon on the Mount was interesting. I'm glad Ryrie does believe that it has implications for the Christian life. Though, his explanation of where it fits does make sense of where the criticisms of his view arise from. He says it's ultimately kingdom law, the ethics of the millennium, that actually aren't even able to be applied in this age literally, given that they are ultimately for a future dispensation. He argues that believing in this sort of thing isn't too out the gate, given that even non-dispensationalists believe that there are aspects of Moses' law that don't apply now. But is that really comparable to the Sermon on the Mount? He also argues that's there's no gospel in it, and that even the teaching on prayer (The Lord's Prayer) is not fully Christian, given that the teachings of the upper room discourse don't feature here.
8) His take on the kingdom is fascinating. Ryrie argues that when Jesus opens Mark's gospel by saying,"Repent, for the kingdom of God as at hand" (Mark 1:15), we can either understand that as the Davidic kingdom (as dispensational premillennialists do) or the spiritual kingdom that is within you and not matter of eating and drinking (as the amillennialists do). To me, what seemed to be missing was that non-dispensationalists understand "the spiritual kingdom" to be the "Davidic kingdom," albeit in its inaugurated but yet to be consummated sense. In my opinion, Ryrie responds to argument that dispensationalism undermines the cross fairly. Dispensationalists are criticised here because if the Jews had accepted Jesus' offer of the kingdom, presumably there would have been no crucifixion. Ryrie says that the crucifixion would have to have happened regardless, and that ultimately this is a confusion of categories regarding God's sovereignty. I think that's fair. Ryrie points out that one of his critics believes in Limited Atonement (as do I), but that the gospel offer is genuine. We could point to God not wanting the people to install a king in 1 Samuel, but that ultimately his sovereign purpose was that they would commit this sin, and that Christ would ultimately be the final king. That's a fair response, though I would love to know how the crucifixion would have happened if the Jews accepted the Davidic Kingdom. A more important argument, in my mind at least, is why the Jews rejected Jesus if in fact he was offering the very thing their messianic expectations were looking for.
Overall, a fascinating read that further cemented for me why this isn't my tribe.
March 2, 2019
I’m far from a dispensationalist but the purpose of the low rating has nothing to do with Ryrie’s theology.
This book was not well written. He chased every rabbit trail of disagreement. There was little clarity behind the outline of his arguments. Scriptures were not expounded upon. He often neglected the key texts of covenant theologians which is important since that’s what he was defending against. There are much better presentations of dispensationalism than this text.
This book was not well written. He chased every rabbit trail of disagreement. There was little clarity behind the outline of his arguments. Scriptures were not expounded upon. He often neglected the key texts of covenant theologians which is important since that’s what he was defending against. There are much better presentations of dispensationalism than this text.
May 5, 2020
I hold to 1689 Federalism. Many of Ryrie's criticisms of Covenant Theology are true and I agree with. His general assertion that CT does not sufficiently give ground to Progressive Revelation is a problem I have with Presbyterian CT. Reading this has helped me to greater appreciate Dispensationalism than I usually have. His challenges should be read and considered by CT's and those who may dishonestly refute Dispensationalism (e.g. Disp. teaches multiple ways of salvation).
January 10, 2013
While other reviews say that the author spends too much time in apologetics, the accusation is partly true, but the book itself was written at the time when dispensationalism was very highly criticized. You will get a sure sense of what dispensationalism is not, for sure. Ryrie does a great job in making a wide comparison between the sub versions of dispensationalism and its related counterparts.
April 20, 2019
This book does what it tries to do: presents normative dispensationalism. Ryrie lays out the basics, the history of the system, and the major competitors. While he doesn’t go in-depth into its implications, but he does cite other texts that (presumably) do so.
August 9, 2023
Dispensationalism is a theological view that I’m only just beginning to study. Unfortunately, I was preconditioned to be wary of it prior to my own study because it’s opponents have historically spoken louder than its supporters. Although after reading this book I still wouldn’t call myself a dispensationalist, I certainly do not agree with the more severe opponents who say it is a heresy that teaches multiple ways of salvation. Dr. Ryrie emphatically refutes this claim in the book and presents a thorough explanation of what dispensationalism is and how it seeks to hold together the program of God despite the various economies (dispensations) found in the Bible.
Tim Keller once wrote, “Never describe the view of an opponent in a way he or she will not own. Rather describe their view so they say, "I couldn't have put it better myself." Only then should you proceed to refute the view. If instead you caricature your opponent-- you persuade no one.” Unfortunately, the opponents of dispensationalism have largely created a caricature of it that no longer resembles the faithful presentation I found within this book.
This book convinced me that dispensationalism is indeed a faithful way to hold together the apparent incompatibilities found in scripture as God’s plan of redemption progresses from Genesis to Revelation. Is it the “true” answer? Perhaps not fully. Does it answer all the questions? No. But neither does Covenant theology. My professor Dr. Bailey once described the theological goal of these two camps (dispensationalism and covenantalism) as “trying to create a cohesive picture from all the puzzle pieces of scripture. He says that at the end of the day neither is able to utilize all the puzzle pieces, but dispensationalism has fewer pieces left in the bag.”
As a previous reviewer stated, this book is worth the read for this sentence alone: "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 the various dispensations." [115]
I will continue to dig into dispensationalism as I formulate my own conviction, but I believe this is a great book that defends well the theological roots and worthiness of dispensationalism within the theological arena. All serious students of the Word, regardless of your particular conviction, would benefit from this book.
Tim Keller once wrote, “Never describe the view of an opponent in a way he or she will not own. Rather describe their view so they say, "I couldn't have put it better myself." Only then should you proceed to refute the view. If instead you caricature your opponent-- you persuade no one.” Unfortunately, the opponents of dispensationalism have largely created a caricature of it that no longer resembles the faithful presentation I found within this book.
This book convinced me that dispensationalism is indeed a faithful way to hold together the apparent incompatibilities found in scripture as God’s plan of redemption progresses from Genesis to Revelation. Is it the “true” answer? Perhaps not fully. Does it answer all the questions? No. But neither does Covenant theology. My professor Dr. Bailey once described the theological goal of these two camps (dispensationalism and covenantalism) as “trying to create a cohesive picture from all the puzzle pieces of scripture. He says that at the end of the day neither is able to utilize all the puzzle pieces, but dispensationalism has fewer pieces left in the bag.”
As a previous reviewer stated, this book is worth the read for this sentence alone: "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 the various dispensations." [115]
I will continue to dig into dispensationalism as I formulate my own conviction, but I believe this is a great book that defends well the theological roots and worthiness of dispensationalism within the theological arena. All serious students of the Word, regardless of your particular conviction, would benefit from this book.
February 7, 2024
My rating of 2 stars is almost entirely based on the prose, rhetoric, and logical structure of the book. Regardless of dispensational stance or theological background, I did not find the argumentation of Ryrie to be particularly convincing, exhaustive, or rigorous. It felt like the book was written more out of a desire to pick a bone with those people who attack dispensationalism than to provide a concerted, humble defense of the doctrine.
However, do not take my previous words to say that I think dispensationalism is incorrect (or for that matter think covenant theology IS correct). There are portions of the book, particularly chapter 6, that do a good job of laying down what the fundamental differences are between dispensationalism and covenant theology, and why dispensationalism approaches the questions of salvation the way it does. Unfortunately, such cogent moments are relatively few and far between (in my opinion, of course).
For someone who read Dispensationalism without a real horse in the dispensational vs. covenant theology race, I found the book to be only partially insightful and only mildly helpful as a tool for learning. Perhaps a re-reading of the text will convince me otherwise. Until then, only 2 stars from me.
However, do not take my previous words to say that I think dispensationalism is incorrect (or for that matter think covenant theology IS correct). There are portions of the book, particularly chapter 6, that do a good job of laying down what the fundamental differences are between dispensationalism and covenant theology, and why dispensationalism approaches the questions of salvation the way it does. Unfortunately, such cogent moments are relatively few and far between (in my opinion, of course).
For someone who read Dispensationalism without a real horse in the dispensational vs. covenant theology race, I found the book to be only partially insightful and only mildly helpful as a tool for learning. Perhaps a re-reading of the text will convince me otherwise. Until then, only 2 stars from me.
October 22, 2024
I found this book to be very helpful in understanding the distinctions between Israel and the Church. I greatly appreciate the level of detail that Ryrie goes through, even if it sometimes made me sleepy. His winsomeness, particularly at the beginning and end, are super helpful for me personally. Working in an interdenominational context has its challenges, and I’m grateful that this book has given me a lot of clarity as to the major distinctions in hermeneutics between covenant theology and dispensationalism. If you have ever wondered about how the Church should interact with the nation of Israel, diving into dispensationalism would be helpful for you. If you have ever tried to understand why God has all of these seemingly weird things that He has done in history that don’t relate to the cross as much, this is for you. Ultimately, the Bible is for understanding what God has done in the past and to understand that God is doing a variety of things for His glory. May we never put God into a box, and may we be fixed on the fundamental truths of the Bible. For man is only saved by grace through faith! Thank God for progressive revelation throughout history! Thank God for keeping His covenant promises!
December 27, 2021
As one largely unaware of what "Dispensationalism" represented doctrinally/theologically, I greatly appreciated Ryrie's work for the sense of clarity it provided regarding what dispensationalism is and is not. Turns out, contrary to viewpoints I'd heard expressed, its roots are neither new nor "made in the USA." This work also illuminated my understanding of some of the different branches of dispensationalism which helped me better place expressed thoughts and positions of dear brothers and sisters in Christ for which I previously lacked a proper framework for understanding.
From the side of accurately portraying my understanding and perspective of Scripture, God's redeeming work, and man's proper response throughout history, I cannot presently say dispensationalism accurately represents my viewpoint. For that, I cannot rate Ryrie's work any higher. Who knows, though, as the Lord continues to guide me in wrestling through various concepts and grows my understanding of the Biblical truths foundational to dispensationalism, I may yet have need of revisiting my review and adjusting the rating appropriately.
From the side of accurately portraying my understanding and perspective of Scripture, God's redeeming work, and man's proper response throughout history, I cannot presently say dispensationalism accurately represents my viewpoint. For that, I cannot rate Ryrie's work any higher. Who knows, though, as the Lord continues to guide me in wrestling through various concepts and grows my understanding of the Biblical truths foundational to dispensationalism, I may yet have need of revisiting my review and adjusting the rating appropriately.
September 24, 2022
This book isn’t bad (like my 3 star rating may tempt one to believe), but it’s not what I wanted, which is what was advertised on the back cover. The cover suggests that this would be a good introduction that makes a complex subject more understandable. That sounded great, but this book was still significantly more complex than I was anticipating. I’ve only been tangentially exposed to explicit teaching on Dispensationalism vs. Covenant theology and that exposure was 20 years ago. I was hoping that this would be a good overview, but I still found this far denser than I anticipated. If you’re looking for a concise overview of Dispensationalism, this may not be your first stop.
March 17, 2019
I did not think Ryrie's defensive of normative dispensationalism was completely convincing, but he did clarify what it was and that is what I was looking for in reading the book.
Question for Ryrie: If people were saved before this present dispensation without believing in the Messiah because that was not revealed to them as you propose, then are people saved in this dispensation if they believe in Yahweh but do not know about Jesus?
Question for Ryrie: If people were saved before this present dispensation without believing in the Messiah because that was not revealed to them as you propose, then are people saved in this dispensation if they believe in Yahweh but do not know about Jesus?
January 24, 2016
Why this book?
I don't consider myself a dispensationalist. I'm not sure what I consider myself, but not a dispensationalist. For one thing, I think dispensational premillennialism is a little silly. It complicates the Bible's teaching on the end times in an attempt to be clear. Certain interpretations of Old and New Testament texts seem farfetched. And I don't think a "literal first" approach to hermeneutics is always the best way to interpret the Bible.
So why did I read this book? One might assume that it was just to gain a better understanding of dispensationalism in order to further discredit it as a theological system. But in truth, this was not the main reason I chose to read Dispensationalism by Charles C. Ryrie. The largest factor contributing to my desire to read this book was the quote on the front cover. It says, "No one, whether friend or foe of dispensationalism, can avoid consideration of this important work." And with that little bit of marketing, I thought I'd check out the theological system known as dispensationalism from one of its prime proponents, Mr. Ryrie.
It's a Good Book.
I have to say that this is a pretty good book. Ryrie's explanation of dispensationalism clears up several misconceptions that I had been taught about the beliefs of dispensationalists over the years. Ryrie does a good job of creating a level playing field upon which everyone can interact with dispensational teachings, whether for or against. And that's good because this is a family fight so to speak. I don't doubt for a second that normative dispensationalists are evangelicals and Christians. And even if I disagree with them, they're brothers. So a level playing field is a good thing.
Central Teachings of Dispensationalism
To quote Ryrie, the three central teachings of dispensationalism are:
1. We believe in the clear and consistent distinction between Israel and the church.
2. We affirm that normal, or plain, interpretation of the Bible should be applied consistently to all its parts.
3. We avow that the unifying principle of the Bible is the glory of God and that this is worked out several ways - the program of redemption, the program for Israel, the punishment of the wicked, the plan for the angels, and the glory of God revealed through nature (247).
I disagree with Ryrie on all these points.
1. Truthfully I do see a distinction between Israel and the church, but not to the extent that dispensationalists do. I think both groups will share the same future, not separate futures. "The summing up of all things in Christ" seems in my mind to do more justice to the Old Testament's prophecies and promises than does a future, earthly, millennial kingdom.
2. I don't think that literal interpretation is always the method of interpretation that the text demands. Sometimes an overly literal approach creates more confusion than clarity. And it wasn't the hermeneutical method always employed by the apostles. I am by no means claiming to be an apostle, but I do think it's suspect to say that they can interpret the Old Testament one way, but we must interpret it another way.
3. I think that the unifying principle in the Bible is the glory of God through Christ, not the glory of God through multiple means in the various dispensations. I do see evidence for different dispensations, or periods of time, or economies within the Bible, but I think they all led up to, and were summed up in Christ.
I agree with Ryrie on Some Things
I agree with Ryrie that the extent to which the Old Testament saints understood that their salvation was through Christ was hazy at best. However, my understanding of salvation in the "other dispensations" is still different from Ryrie's. He says that "Jesus Christ was not the conscious object of their faith, though they were saved by faith in God as He had revealed Himself principally through the sacrifices that He instituted as a part of the Mosaic Law" (139). Conversely, I believe that OT saints understood that their salvation was a result of God's ability to pardon sin based upon an individual's faith. Salvation was a result of faith in God's ability to pardon, which was later shown to be through Christ (Rom 3:23-26). Progressively OT saints did understood that this would be through the Messiah, but obviously they didn't understand the part that the Messiah would fully play in this pardoning with equal clarity in all ages. So I agree with Ryrie that the OT understanding of salvation through Christ was hazy, but I still conceive of it differently than he does.
I also agree with Ryrle that the validity of dispensationalism and covenantalism should be judged true or false based only upon the Bible, and not upon other factors. Oftentimes both sides are disparaged due to false accusations and the use of straw-man apologetics.
Middle Ground
In the end, I think dispensationalism is short-sided. It has a lot to teach us, but it is short-sided. And by the way, so is really dogmatic covenantalism. Both sides have things to teach us, but ultimately they both need to give a little bit and come towards the middle. The "middle" is not sacred because it is the middle, but in this case the "middle" seems to be more Biblical, and thus better.
I don't consider myself a dispensationalist. I'm not sure what I consider myself, but not a dispensationalist. For one thing, I think dispensational premillennialism is a little silly. It complicates the Bible's teaching on the end times in an attempt to be clear. Certain interpretations of Old and New Testament texts seem farfetched. And I don't think a "literal first" approach to hermeneutics is always the best way to interpret the Bible.
So why did I read this book? One might assume that it was just to gain a better understanding of dispensationalism in order to further discredit it as a theological system. But in truth, this was not the main reason I chose to read Dispensationalism by Charles C. Ryrie. The largest factor contributing to my desire to read this book was the quote on the front cover. It says, "No one, whether friend or foe of dispensationalism, can avoid consideration of this important work." And with that little bit of marketing, I thought I'd check out the theological system known as dispensationalism from one of its prime proponents, Mr. Ryrie.
It's a Good Book.
I have to say that this is a pretty good book. Ryrie's explanation of dispensationalism clears up several misconceptions that I had been taught about the beliefs of dispensationalists over the years. Ryrie does a good job of creating a level playing field upon which everyone can interact with dispensational teachings, whether for or against. And that's good because this is a family fight so to speak. I don't doubt for a second that normative dispensationalists are evangelicals and Christians. And even if I disagree with them, they're brothers. So a level playing field is a good thing.
Central Teachings of Dispensationalism
To quote Ryrie, the three central teachings of dispensationalism are:
1. We believe in the clear and consistent distinction between Israel and the church.
2. We affirm that normal, or plain, interpretation of the Bible should be applied consistently to all its parts.
3. We avow that the unifying principle of the Bible is the glory of God and that this is worked out several ways - the program of redemption, the program for Israel, the punishment of the wicked, the plan for the angels, and the glory of God revealed through nature (247).
I disagree with Ryrie on all these points.
1. Truthfully I do see a distinction between Israel and the church, but not to the extent that dispensationalists do. I think both groups will share the same future, not separate futures. "The summing up of all things in Christ" seems in my mind to do more justice to the Old Testament's prophecies and promises than does a future, earthly, millennial kingdom.
2. I don't think that literal interpretation is always the method of interpretation that the text demands. Sometimes an overly literal approach creates more confusion than clarity. And it wasn't the hermeneutical method always employed by the apostles. I am by no means claiming to be an apostle, but I do think it's suspect to say that they can interpret the Old Testament one way, but we must interpret it another way.
3. I think that the unifying principle in the Bible is the glory of God through Christ, not the glory of God through multiple means in the various dispensations. I do see evidence for different dispensations, or periods of time, or economies within the Bible, but I think they all led up to, and were summed up in Christ.
I agree with Ryrie on Some Things
I agree with Ryrie that the extent to which the Old Testament saints understood that their salvation was through Christ was hazy at best. However, my understanding of salvation in the "other dispensations" is still different from Ryrie's. He says that "Jesus Christ was not the conscious object of their faith, though they were saved by faith in God as He had revealed Himself principally through the sacrifices that He instituted as a part of the Mosaic Law" (139). Conversely, I believe that OT saints understood that their salvation was a result of God's ability to pardon sin based upon an individual's faith. Salvation was a result of faith in God's ability to pardon, which was later shown to be through Christ (Rom 3:23-26). Progressively OT saints did understood that this would be through the Messiah, but obviously they didn't understand the part that the Messiah would fully play in this pardoning with equal clarity in all ages. So I agree with Ryrie that the OT understanding of salvation through Christ was hazy, but I still conceive of it differently than he does.
I also agree with Ryrle that the validity of dispensationalism and covenantalism should be judged true or false based only upon the Bible, and not upon other factors. Oftentimes both sides are disparaged due to false accusations and the use of straw-man apologetics.
Middle Ground
In the end, I think dispensationalism is short-sided. It has a lot to teach us, but it is short-sided. And by the way, so is really dogmatic covenantalism. Both sides have things to teach us, but ultimately they both need to give a little bit and come towards the middle. The "middle" is not sacred because it is the middle, but in this case the "middle" seems to be more Biblical, and thus better.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 98 reviews