Jump to content

Photo

Ryrie Study Bible


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
12 replies to this topic

#1 TYCATES

TYCATES

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 05 February 2004 - 04:41 AM

I have a ryrie study bible and that plus my Thompson Chain are my main study bibles I enjoy them very much

#2 johnabaptist

johnabaptist

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 1 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 04 February 2004 - 09:41 PM

I have a Ryrie Study Bible that I use from time to time. I would compare it to a Scofield Study Bible in that there is some useful information in them but they are WH text followers and their view of the church makes the refuting of the ecumenical movement an impossible case.

#3 pawn_raider

pawn_raider

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 5 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 02 February 2004 - 01:28 PM

Does anyone here own a Ryrie Study Bible? If so, do you like it? What do you think is its pros and cons? I'm thinking of buying one and I just thought I'd ask. Thanks.

Frank. :sing:

#4 Dan

Dan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 02 February 2004 - 03:57 PM

The Ryrie Study Bible under sin, states that sin among other things is an illusion.
II. The Definition of Sin
A. Sin Is An Illusion. This idea has taken a variety of forms of expression; e.g., our lack of knowledge is the reason we have the illusion of sin; or when evolution has had time to help us progress further, sin will disappear.
B. Sin Is that Eternal Principle of Dualism, outside of God and independent of Him.
C. Sin Is Selfishness. This is the most frequently heard definition of sin. It is scriptural but inadequate.
D. Sin Is a Violation of the Law. This too is scriptural but inadequate, unless the concept of law is expanded to include the character of God Himself.
E. Sin Is Anything Contrary to the Character of God.

Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, Chicago. 1986, p. 1770.

This is an unfortunate statement. In fact the next two statements about sin (B and C) under "The Definition of Sin" are also false statements. Only the last two statements (D and E) are true. The Ryrie Study Bible does not use this approach in the other sections. Under the other topics, they present only true statements. Here, they changed their presentation style - so at first it is not clear what they regard as truth.

The Ryrie Study Bible simply presented some popular ideas about sin before they presented the truth. The Biblical truth is given when the outline reaches the letters "D and E." How does the Bible define sin?

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. (NIV) 1 John 3:4

Genesis 2:16-17 is the first passage in scripture that reveals what sin really is. God warned Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree and when they did they became sinners. So sin is breaking God's laws.

This article was taken from a web site that is NOT KJB. In fact they are NKJV and NASB.

____________________________________________________

Charles Caldwell Ryrie (b. 1925) is a graduate of 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, where he challenged students to precision in theological speaking and writing. Dr. Ryrie is especially gifted in his ability to clarify profound theological truths in simple, precise language. He has enabled people to understand biblical truth that they would otherwise not readily comprehend and in this he has made an inestimable contribution to the Christian world.

Dr. Ryrie's writings have consistently been on the theological cutting edge, addressing the critical issues of the day and speaking on behalf of dispensational premillennialism. In his classic text, Dispensationalism Today (1965), and his recent update, Dispensationalism (1995), Ryrie clarifies many of the misunderstandings that opponents of premillennialism and dispensationalism have leveled. He notes that even Louis Berkhof, a covenant theologian, makes (dispensational) distinctions, differentiating the OT from the NT and seeing four subdivisions in the OT. Ryrie defines a dispensation as "a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose" (Dispensationalism, 28). In a dispensation God places people under a stewardship or responsibility, people invariably failing the test, with a corresponding judgment and change.

Ryrie clearly delineates the sine qua non of dispensationalism:

1. 1. Dispensationalism keeps Israel and the church distinct. This is the most basic test of dispensationalism.

2. 2. The distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation. Dispensationalism interprets words in their normal or plain meaning; it does not spiritualize or allegorize the text. The strength of dispensationalism is its consistently literal, or plain, interpretation of Scripture.

3. 3. The underlying purpose of God in the world is the glory of God (pp. 39-40). In contrast to covenant theology (which sees salvation as the underlying purpose) and progressive dispensationalism (which emphasizes a Christological center), dispensationalism sees a broader purpose ‚?? the glory of God. (This theme is developed in Transformed By His Glory) For this reason, the number of dispensations is not the critical issue in dispensationalism ‚?? as long as one is true to the three essentials of dispensationalism. Three dispensations ‚?? law, grace, and kingdom ‚?? receive most of the treatment in Scripture; however, it is possible to recognize other dispensations and while the historic sevenfold scheme of dispensations is not inspired, they seem to be distinguishable economies in God's program.

Dr. Ryrie also interacts with progressive (revisionist) dispensationalism as held by Darrell Bock, Craig Blaising and Robert Saucy. This revisionist dispensationalism represents a major departure from normative dispensationalism. A major tenet of progressive dispensationalism is its belief that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are already inaugurated and beginning to be fulfilled (already/not yet). They understand Christ as already seated and reigning on the throne of David in heaven. Ryrie questions, "Why is no mention made of an already inaugurated Palestinian covenant (Deuteronomy 29-30)?" (p. 163). The revisionist teaching of "already/not yet‚?Ě is not new. C. H. Dodd taught it early in the twentieth century; George Ladd, the covenant premillennialist, and amillennialists A. Hoekema and R. C. Sproul have taught variations of it. Even nondispensationalists recognize that progressive dispensationalism has changed to covenant dispensationalism and has moved closer to covenant theology. The revisionists' failure to make a clear and consistent distinction between Israel and the church and the teaching that Christ is currently reigning on the throne of David in heaven is assuredly closer to covenant theology than to normative dispensationalism.

Originally a doctoral dissertation, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith established the Old Testament foundation of premillennialism: "Holding to a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, [premillennialists) believe that the promises made to Abraham and David are unconditional and have had or will have a literal fulfillment. In no sense have these promises made to Israel been abrogated or fulfilled by the church, which is a distinct body in this age having promises and a destiny different from Israel's" (p. 12). With this foundation, Ryrie develops the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 12:1-3), showing that this covenant awaits a literal, future fulfillment with the establishment of Israel in the Promised Land. This can only be properly understood when recognizing the distinction between Israel and the church (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:32). The church does not receive the fulfillment of these promises; they were made to Israel and will be fulfilled to that nation.

Premillennialism is further established through the unconditional Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7:12-16), which promises: (1) a posterity; (2) David's throne will be established forever; (3) David's kingdom will be established forever (p. 77). Many OT passages confirm the future fulfillment of the Davidic covenant (Psalm 89; Isaiah 9:6-7; Jeremiah 23:5-6; 30:8-9; 33:14-21; Ezekiel 37:24-25; Daniel 7:13-14; Hosea 3:4-5; Amos 9:11). Christ did not inaugurate this kingdom at His First Advent; it awaits His future return for fulfillment (p. 93).

Premillennialism also has a basis in the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34), which provides unconditional grace, forgiveness, and restoration to the favor and blessing of God. While an aspect of it applies to the church, its complete fulfillment "requires the regathering of all Israel, their spiritual rebirth, and the return of Christ‚?Ě (p. 111). Ultimately, "the new covenant is for Israel" (p. 124) and awaits fulfillment at Jesus' return.

While recognizing Ryrie's important contributions to many critical theological issues, perhaps his most noteworthy contribution is the Ryrie Study Bible, now in an expanded edition (1995). g

Taken from Dictionary of Premillennial Theology by Mal Couch, General Editor. Copyright © 1996, Kregal Publications, Grand Rapids, MI (p. 67-70). Used by permission.

Here's a web site you can check out
http://www.rapidnet.... ... gospel.htm

I have never heard about this guy and some of the stuff these articles talk about are over my head. Hope this helps. :)

#5 Bob

Bob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 02 February 2004 - 04:55 PM

Dan,
Have a few books by Charles Ryrie and his study Bible is the one I have used for years. How ever most of my Bibles don't have notes but are filled with my notes.
On Sin from hearing him speak is Sin Is Anything Contrary to the Character of God and most sins are mental attitude. Everytrhing we do that isn't to the glory of God is sin is one way I think he puts it. He has said most sins start with pride. He isn't for or against women wearing pants and in a lot of IFB Churches that would be called sin, he does not call that sin, and the list goes on and on. He isn't KJ's only, but his writting are very good or I think they are.

I agree that anything that is contrary to the charater of God is sin and they would cover all sin, or that is the way I see it. God wouldn't sin so any sin is contrary ti His charater.

#6 Dan

Dan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 02 February 2004 - 08:51 PM

Dan,
However most of my Bibles don't have notes but are filled with my notes.



Amen to that. I think that notes from yourself are the best kind. :)

#7 pawn_raider

pawn_raider

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 5 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 03 February 2004 - 06:21 AM

Dan,
Does this mean that you would or would not recommend the Ryrie Study Bible :?:

#8 Dan

Dan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 03 February 2004 - 01:42 PM

Like I said, I never heard of this guy. The articles I posted above I found doing a Google search. If I had to base my decision only on these articles I would have to say I would probably not use it. But this is very, very limited research on him.

Quote "The Ryrie Study Bible under sin, states that sin among other things is an illusion"

I have no idea where the definitions for A, B, and C came from but I can say that they are not Biblical.

I only spent about an hour researching Ryrie. I would recommend that you spend several days or more, if necessary, to find out more on him. Use Google, Yahoo, or any of the other search engines to see what is said about him.

This has more than likely not been much help for you. Sorry. I didn't have the time to look up more on him. :)

Remember, when using a "study bible" you are getting the opinions and comments of an individual. Make sure the person is docternaly sound and does not contradict what the Bible says.

#9 deputydog530

deputydog530

    Senior Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 793 posts
2
Neutral

Posted 03 February 2004 - 06:18 PM

Hey

I had a ryrie study bible and liked it very much. You will find error in his teaching but you will find that in all commentaries. I found that most commentators will take the middle of the road on issues like predestination etc. I also like Dr. J Vernon MacGee.

If it was me, I would buy a separate commentary and a wide margin bible and then you can make your own notes in your bible and use the commentary as a study help. Keep asking around and research all of them.

Tim

#10 cesmith78

cesmith78

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 3 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 08 August 2005 - 03:57 AM

Ryrie is my favorite study bible though I like it more for the type face then for the notes. I also have a KJV Study Bible by Zondervan which has the notes from the NIV Study Bible with the KJV text and a Classic Note Bible that I use for my sermon outlines.

#11 On A Mission From God

On A Mission From God

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 22 August 2005 - 07:13 AM

My father said he has one at our house in SC, and that its notes are strongly dispensational......

#12 Pastorj

Pastorj

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,008 posts
140
Excellent

Posted 22 August 2005 - 08:04 AM

I have never owned one, but a good pastor friend loves his. As stated in another thread, you just have to take what is said in the man-written section of any study Bible and compare it to what Scripture is saying.

#13 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 August 2005 - 03:25 PM

I own a ryrie and I love it. As with any commentaries you have to be careful, because it is man't interpretation.




The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500