Customer Reviews

Basic Theology

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

The disctinct value of the book is that it delivers the simple language exposition of the one of the most fundamental Biblical doctrines, namely ASSURANCE OF SALVATION. The author devotes a separate chapter to this topic, however all the rest of the book, while presenting the Basics of Christian Biblical Theology, builds towards this great Truth, formulates solid logical and doctrinal fundaments of what the author calls the Doctrine of Certainty. The Good News of Salvation in Christ is made explicit and goes in line with Apostle John's concern "so you may know that you have eternal life" (1 Jn 5:13).

Written by a leading Bible scholar from the Dallas Theological Seminary, this is a clear and logical presentation of the beliefs of conservative Chirstians. I can find no better guide to Bible doctrines written at the introductory college level. It is an excellent resource for teaching, as each chapter contains enough information to prepare one adult Sunday School lesson.

A free Bible Doctrines course is available using this book (and others) from: http://www.sunlink.net/~brron

Dr. Ryrie does a good job in stripping down the heavy theological terms associated with all of the areas of theology constantly discussed. This book is definitely a good buy for any NEW Christian or any believer who wants a good reference tool. For those who want to get into the 'heavier' aspects of theological discussion, you might want to pick up Paul Enns 'Moody Handbook of Theology' also for sale on this site. (*note to Amazon.com folks- link this part to the Moody Handbook of Theology* and erase my note *smile*)

Charles Ryrie, a scholar from Dallas Theological Seminary presents a book that will help all Christians seek to understand Theology without all of the jargon associated with Theology. Here, he provides the basic tenets of the Christian faith: inspiration, illumination, revelation, and much, much more. He also includes topics such as Theology Proper to Soteriology. This book will definately help the Christian seeking to deepen their relationship with God.

1. Reflections: The Left Behind series, the recent religious phenomenon, is actually almost copied word for word from one of Ryrie's chapters on the Millenium days. How has his book changed the way society understands 'the last days?'

2. Thematics: Ryrie places great emphasis on the need to be born again. How does he show this in his theology?

3. Characterization: Ryrie re-affirms the importance of Jesus in a theological timeline. Do you think he pays due justice to the character of Jesus?

4. Symbolism: One of the most important symbols Ryrie uses is the Trinity concept to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. How does he say in his book that this is relevant to us?

5. Authorship: This book has become a mast-head of the Fundamentalist movement, even being adopted by Bob Jones University as a textbook. Do you think this book is really "Fundamentalist?"

As a former Dispensationalist Pastor (Campus Crusade, Ev. Free) for well over 20 years, I am aware of how short this systematic falls & the questions it doesn't ask. One question in particular is why do some believe & many others don't if the extent of the atonement is universal in scope? Ryrie doesn't attempt to answer that one b/c he can't, so it's left mute. Since he enters the debate w/ an a priori theological perspective, i.e., universal atonement, he arrives at the conclusion he expects. I think his exegesis is very equally flawed, much as Pighius's & Erasmus's were. I will set about showing why his interpretation has serious problems. This work is as maddening as Henry Thiessen's systematic.

His definition of sin is adequate but not openly honest. I don't think he grasps what sin truly is even though he defines it extensively. He spends 25 pages on sin, pgs 209-234. So he understands what's needed for the "quiz". "Depravity...means 'not standing the test'...means that man fails the test of pleasing God. He denotes his unmeritoriousness in God's sight." No kidding Sherlock. You mean being dead in my trespasses & sins means I can't please God? Well, shazam Gunny Carter! Who'd of thunk it? Ryrie fails to define the obvious. Sin means death! It goes beyond inability by infinity squared. Semi-Pelagians cannot see that simple truth. Dead means dead. What can a dead man or animal do?

However, when he gets to the topic of regeneration & faith he teaches that man is about 99% dead in sin. There's that 1% +/- that is able to believe. This is why semi-Pelagian theology is so dangerous (unfortunately I used to teach this & God has forgiven me). On page 326 under C. The Relation of Regeneration and faith he writes, "While this is admittedly stated only as a logical order, it is not wise to insist even on that; for it may as well be argued that if a sinner has the new life through regeneration, why does he need to believe? Of course, there can be no chronological order; both regeneration and faith have to occur at the same moment. To be sure, faith is also part of the total package of salvation which is the gift of God (Eph. 2:9; yet faith is commanded in order to be saved (Acts 16:31). Both are true."

Listen to how the Council of Orange denounced semi-Pelagianism. (Unfortunately, by 529 the Church had lost much of their theological bearings & espoused baptismal regeneration). The Council of Orange was an outgrowth of the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. This controversy had to do with degree to which a human being is responsible for his or her own salvation, and the role of the grace of God in bringing about salvation. The Pelagians held that human beings are born in a state of innocence, i.e., that there is no such thing as a sinful nature or original sin.

As a result of this view, they held that a state of sinless perfection was achievable in this life. The Council of Orange dealt with the Semi-Pelagian doctrine that the human race, though fallen and possessed of a sinful nature, is still "good" enough to able to lay hold of the grace of God through an act of unredeemed human will. The Council held to Augustine's view and repudiated Pelagius. The following canons greatly influenced the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity.

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

That is the semi-Pelagian lie that the majority of 21st century Christendom has swallowed, hook, line, & sinker, repeated by Charles Ryrie as Biblical theology. "Both regeneration and faith have to occur at the same moment." Did you hear that? If man is totally depraved, i.e., he is dead in trespasses & sins, how can he believe until he is regenerated? CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

Beyond that, in light of everything Ryrie told us about sin, "Indeed, it might be a good idea to define it thus: sin is missing the mark, badness, rebellion, iniquity, going astray, wickedness, wandering, ungodliness, crime, lawlessness, transgression, ignorance, and a falling away" pg. 212. He spends 25 pages saying that sin is very bad, but it's not deadening to the soul. There is still something w/i us that is not completely spiritually dead. Something in us is able to exercise this gift of faith. Faith doesn't exercise itself. We're not really totally dead, just mostly dead. Or, we're spiritually sick, dreadfully sick, almost w/o ability, but not quite.

Do you see the problem here? Go back & reread above. This is Pelagianism in a more respectable garb. But it is still Pelagian Phariseeism comparable to the Jews who came to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 & demanded, "Unless you are circumcised you cannot be saved." It is adding a small, itsy bitsy amount of human ability w/ God's regenerating power to bring about my salvation. It is Christ Plus something. That is not Biblical soteriology. What Ryrie espouses is the bane of 21st century theology. Man is not quite dead, he has some ability to exercise the faith God graciously gives him. That is Erasmus' line to his generation. It is Pighius' line to John Calvin. It didn't work then & it still doesn't today. God will share His glory w/ NO ONE. If my part is required for complete salvation, no matter how small, then God must share the podium w/ me. We both get credit. That is called synergism: two working. The Bible teaches monergism: one working & the One is God, not me. It's that simple & Ryrie & those like him are that wrong. And if you are wrong on this huge of a matter, you will probably be off on others.

With the above death in sin in mind we must continue to ask Ryrie why or how can/does a sinner believe? Ryrie says sin is imputed. Good. But what is the depth of the sin that is imputed & how firm is its hold on us sinners? It's lawlessness, against God's character & against God proper, it's terrible, pg. 212. But he doesn't say it binds man to those things so that he has no other course but to sin. He seems to say that but doesn't really go that far b/c then he says "man believes." Why Charles Ryrie? That is major. It's huge. If man actually believes, why does he believe? Is man free to believe? Is one man more righteous than another? Was there some good in one man as opposed to another man? You have to explain what it was about that man that caused God to choose this one & not that one. cf, Luther's The Bondage of the Will & Calvin's The Bondage & Liberation of the Will. Ryrie doesn't attempt to address the most essential questions. He poo poos the lapsarian views by saying, "and I must say that none of these schemes really confirms anything." pg. 319. My response it "oh yes they do if you really believe in election & predestination as you say you do." Pgs 310-317 That's just nonsense. In so doing he shows how little he understands about grace & its wonder.

Again, why do people believe? You say they do exercise faith, but why? As to the ordo salutis, Pg.324ff, "the ordo salutis in reality contributes little of substance." Paul thought otherwise, Rom. 8:29-30.

I believe his definition of sovereignty is inadequate if not wrong headed, pg. 312. "Design may be satisfactory. Drawing may be too neutral, as if God did the initial work and then gave up control. And yet design brings the word 'architect' into view, whihc does serve as a helpful concept in this doctrine." The problem is he's serious about what he thinks. How could I have taken this man seriously all those years? His Scripture Index is three pages long? Completely inadequate if I am to take him seriously. His Topic Index doesn't mention sovereignty or free-will to name just a few that aren't there. That means they aren't truly important to him & that's consistent w/ Dispensationalists.

Over all, there are some good things he says, i.e., imputation & propitiation among some, however, the ramifications of imputation are loaded w/ meaning for soteriology & why man actually believes, again the question he doesn't address. I think he's just wrong on the extent of the atonement, here again his apriori theology-universalism-comes to the fore, otherwise his view of total depravity would change from what it is to what Scripture says it is, man's total inability to desire God, desire salvation, etc. cf. Luther & Calvin's afore mentioned works. It's not a complete waste of time, but completely inadequate for grasping the depth of Biblical truth. Every former Dispensationalist such as myself says the same thing about that system. To use a car analogy, if Dispensationalism is a rusted Ford Pinto, then Reformed theology is a brand new Mercedes.

I was disappointed by this book in that it projected many unbiblical and unproven assertions. One, for example, is the author's statement, "Though an important ordinance, baptism is not part of the gospel" (page 336). How can it yet remain an "important ordinance" of the Word of God and yet "not part of the [G]ospel"? Another is his espousal of a literal 1,000 year reign on earth by Christ on a literal throne of David in the literal city of Jerusalem. His book takes up an inordinate amount of pages discussing this particular fantasy that Dallas Theological Seminary continuously cranks out.
All in all, it is a typical Baptist doctrine book instead of a Christian one. My advice, find a scholarly book on the topic of theology, and leave this one with the Baptists.