Product Description

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #111511 in Books
• Published on: 2007-02-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 272 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780802421890
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

From the Back Cover

About the Author

Customer Reviews

An important work in the study of Biblical interpretation.
The book Dispensationalism by Charles R. Ryrie is essentially an apologetic for dispensationalism. It is both an exposition and a defense of the dispensational system of Biblical interpretation. The book was written to correct some misconceptions about dispensationalism and to give a positive presentation of normative dispensational teaching. Ryrie's arguments are cogent, consistent and pertinent. The book is very readable and does not require extensive theological training to understand. I especially appreciated the considerate and loving spirit Ryrie had throughout his work. He defended his case and exposed weaknesses he saw in other viewpoints without a spirit of arrogance or divisiveness. All of my questions about and struggles with dispensationalism were not answered, but the book gave me a clear understanding of the position. It would be an important read for anyone investigating this subject.

Classic Dispensationalism Revised and Updated
This is the revised and updated edition of Dr. Ryrie's influential "Dispensationalism Today" (1965). Ryrie's goal is to prove Dispensationalism is "the most helpful tool of consistent, noncontradictory interpretation of Scripture" (pp. 11-12). In Chapter 2, Ryrie gives us three distinctive characteristics he feels separate Dispensationalists from other Christians. They are: (1) a clear (or total) distinction between Israel and the Church, (2) a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, and (3) the belief that the basic purpose of God's dealings with mankind is glorifying Himself. While Ryrie is correct in saying a total distinction between Israel and the Church is unique to Dispensationalism, the other alleged distinctives are illusory. After all, many Christians who reject Dispensationalism believe the basic purpose of God's dealing with mankind is glorifying Himself, while no one (Dispensationalists included) interprets the Bible with consistent literalism.

In Chapter 3, Ryrie outlines the various dispensations. While insisting they are not to be equated with a period of time, and admitting they may overlap and Ryrie argues for seven that basically correspond to different historical periods: Innoncency (Creation to the Fall), Conscience (the Fall to the Flood), Civil Government (Noah to Abraham), Patriarchal Rule (Abraham to Moses), Law (Moses to Christ), Grace (Pentecost to the Rapture) and the Millennium (the Second Coming to the Last Judgment). While dividing biblical history into periods is nothing new, many of the details in this chapter would be controversial, and it is useful for those wanting to understand modern Dispensationalism.

The same cannot be said about Chapter 4. Simply put, the book would be much better if this chapter was omitted. In trying to show Dispensationalism's antiquity, Ryrie is driven to make at least two ridiculous assertions. First, he argues that people like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Augustine held to early dispensational-like concepts, and then he asserts that people like Isaac Watts and Jonathan Edwards belonged to a period of developing dispensationalism. However, Ryrie fails to mention that each rejected the central Dispensational idea that Israel and the Church are totally separate entities. That Ryrie really knows better can be seen by his later argument (at p. 128) that Justin Martyr was the first person to equate the church with "true Israel". If Ryrie was really interested in being accurate, he would have pointed out that Justin and Irenaeus were historic Premillennialists, that Jonathan Edwards was a Postmillennialist and that Augustine was either an Amillennialist or a Postmillennialist. One wonders why Ryrie bothered with this chapter at all, though, since the fact that no one in church history taught Dispensationalism prior to the 1830s would not stop him from arguing Dispensationalism is true.

The meat of the book is in chapters 5-8 where Dispensationalism's system of interpreting Scripture is outlined. In Chapter 5, Ryrie tries to argue that only Dispensationalists consistently follow the literal method of Scriptural interpretation. Ryrie, however, fails to mention that Dispensationalists are forced to choose between arguing that sacrifices for sin mentioned in Ezekiel 40-48 will be reinstituted in the millennium (thereby contradicting a literal reading of Hebrews 10) and arguing that a literal reading of Hebrews 10 means Ezekiel 40-48 cannot be interpreted literally. Similarly, he fails to note that even though Dispensationalists insist on national Israel's restoration, they rarely insist on the restoration of national Assyria (as would be required by a literal reading of the Old Testament). More seriously, however, Ryrie ought to know the Old Testament is not always interpreted literally by New Testament authors. As Arminius asked long ago, "Who would understand `the sign of Jonah,' to have been instituted to typify the three days in which Christ remained in the bowels of the earth, unless Christ had himself given that explanation?"

Ryrie deserves credit in repudiating some incredibly sloppy statements by older dispensationalists which gave the impression that salvation was by works in the Old Testament. In Chapter 6, he is clear to say any tests under a particular dispensation should not be confused with the way of salvation (p. 116). Instead, he says Dispensationalists simply differ from Covenant Theology in rejecting the latter's insistence that faith was "in Christ" during Old Testament times. This is not new as Arminius said something similar long ago, however: "The faith of Abraham and its object occupy nearly the whole of the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. Let what is there said be compared together; and let it be demonstrated from this comparison, that Abraham saw Christ in those promises which he apprehended by faith."

Chapter 7 deals with the real distinction between Dispensationalism and all other forms of Christian theology - the insistence on an absolute distinction between Israel and the Church. Here, Ryrie rejects the idea that the church has existed since Genesis 4, and says the reference to the "church in the wilderness" in Acts 7:38 is to a different sense of the word "church" than is usually mentioned in the New Testament. For Ryrie, it is clear that Romans 9, Galatians 3 and Ephesians 3 do not really refer to the Church fulfilling any of the promises to Israel. It is disappointing that he fails to even address the fact that Revelation 21 shows the church to be made up of Old and New Testament believers alike, and that the idea that even if the church began at Pentecost it incorporated Old Testament believers into it is also passed over in silence. Chapter 8 then deals with the doctrine of the Pre-tribulation rapture - which is ultimately based on an absolute distinction between Israel and the Church.

In the remainder of the book, Ryrie critiques of Progressive Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, and Ultra-Dispensationalism. This is more technical and deals with disputes over the interpretation of particular passages.

In summary, Ryrie's book is a good place to start for an understanding of common Dispensational arguments. While many of its arguments are biblically invalid, the book will give the reader a better understanding of the Dispensational mind.

Recommended Reading
I am a layperson who is very interested in theology, so that is the perspective from which I am writing this review.

I really have to recommend the book to everyone, dispensationalist or not, because it really is a very comprehensive look at the subject. Already being a dispensationalist, I have a much greater understanding of the belief, as well as an appreciation for the arguments for and against it. However, I felt that Ryrie left a few questions hanging and didn't really answer them well, for example, on page 85 he talks about how the dispensationalist believes that God has two distinct purposes, one for the Church, one for Israel. However, he never clearly said what those 2 purposes were.

As someone already stated, I, too, feel the book was quite defensive on the whole. It seems as though he was using some of the same fallacies towards the other beliefs (covenent theology, progressive disp.) as he was accusing their proponents of having towards dispensationalism. I realize this was one of the purposes of writing the book, but I just felt the tone didn't have to be quite SO defensive.

I think he did a wonderful job of dispelling some of the incorrect views antidispensationalists have on the belief.

My primary complaint, however, is the author seemed to be exceptionally negative towards progressive dispensationalism. Most of the accusations that he had toward that belief were on what the progressive COULD POTENTIALLY believe. His arguments against what they actually currently claim to be seemed to be quite weak considering even I could easily see the logical (and seemingly valid) response that the progressive would have.

It isn't an overly difficult read, but it's not your light reading, either. I found myself re-reading several passages to make sure that I clearly understood the authors point of view.

Like I said, I highly recommend it just because it seems to be the most comprehensive look on dispensationalism out there. Even for the non-dispensationalist, it really gives you a good overview of the arguments for and against dispensationalism.