Customer Reviews

So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Unlike so many of his critics, Charles Ryrie with grace and class demonstrates in "So Great a Salvation" why salvation is a free gift received by simple faith alone in Christ alone. He demonstrates this biblically and theologically. In addition, he explains why the terminology used in explaining the Gospel is so important.

Charles Ryrie also looks at the implications of "lordship salvation." He demonstrates convincingly in this book, that "lordship salvation" does not make sense biblically or theologically. He examines many of the straw man arguments that lordship teachers like to use with regards to Free Grace teaching and many of the misnomers used to label Free Grace teaching (eg. "easy-believism", "cheap grace").

Ryrie also brings up key questions for the reader to ponder. For example, when he once was interacting with those of a lordship persepective he asked this question to them about a hypothetical person who wanted to be saved but smoked and knew it was bad for him, "Can he not be saved until either he gives up smoking or is willing to give up smoking? (page 113)" The reader then can see that if the answer is "yes", then one has introduced a condition other than faith in Christ to receive the gift of eternal life. Yet, unfortunatley, this is what those of a lordship salvation perspective teach.

I found this book to be a great up in clearing up much of the confusion surrounding the Gospel.

This book was an excellent read and really clarified the issue of what it means to beleive in Jesus Christ. By no means an antinomian, Ryrie sets forth a clear exegesis of the issue of exactly 'what it takes' to be saved. He responds with integrity, balance, and grace to the Lordship salvation view.

Any serious born again Christian should ponder over this book. Most notable is his exegesis of the passage on the rich young ruler which lordhsip advocates take as a prime text for their view.

Very grateful for this work.

Charles Ryrie's So Great Salvation was first published in the summer of 1989 as a response to John MacArthur's bestselling 1988 book The Gospel According to Jesus. As a response, it will be of most value to people who have read MacArthur's work.

The fundamental issue that divides Ryrie and MacArthur is a major one: What must a person do to receive salvation? Other associated issues arise: To be in God's family, must you submit to Christ as lord? What does it mean to repent and turn to Jesus Christ in faith? Do Christians always show visible signs of their regeneration by the Holy Spirit?

On these issues, there are similarities and differences between the authors. Both believe that Christians must bear fruit and be sanctified; the difference between them lies in Ryrie's willingness to allow that some Christians' fruit may never be visible to others. A far more critical distinction revolves around the issue of salvation. Ryrie contends that a person must believe in Jesus' death for your sins and his resurrection from the dead. To Ryrie, this is not a simple acknowlegment of some facts; rather, belief involves a trust in Christ. MacArthur, in contrast, argues that there must at least be a willingness to submit to Christ as lord when you turn in repentance and faith to Christ; Ryrie argues that such willingness often comes later and may never come.

These are important issues, and whether you agree or disagree with him, Ryrie tackles them succinctly and with clarity. He also displays a warm, pastoral concern for people that is mostly lacking from The Gospel According to Jesus. (MacArthur is much more concerned with being hard-hitting in his points. That's not to say that MacArthur is unloving, just that he expresses that love by sounding warning bells, while Ryrie is much softer in temperament and, often, more nuanced with his prose.)

Whether you agree or disagree with Ryrie may well depend on how much of a dispensationalist you are. Ryrie's dispensationalism leads him to draw sharp distinctions in several areas: between salvation and the Christian life, faith and works, Jesus' gospel (which Ryrie, as a premillenialist, sees as applying to a millenial kingdom) and Paul's gospel (which Ryrie sees as applying to our time today, the period that some dispensationalists call "the church age"), salvation and discipleship, receiving the gift of eternal life and repenting of sins, and positional sanctification and practical sanctification. MacArthur, on the other hand, sees all of these issues as being interrelated and an essential part of the life of a Christian.

Personally speaking, I'm neither a premillenialist nor a dispensationalist, so Ryrie's strong lines of demarcation don't sit well with me. This is particularly true of his contrast between "Jesus' gospel" and "Paul's gospel," a distinction that seems way out of left field and even dangerous to me. Ryrie also is too quick to label something that God leads you to do, such as baptism, a means of grace, as a human work. Additionally, I believe that MacArthur's correct in saying that the call to salvation is also a call to repentance, submitting yourself to the lordship of Christ, and discipleship; you cannot separate these elements of the Christian life.

Still, So Great Salvation is an important contribution to what was termed the "lordship salvation" debate that attracted much attention in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and which is still relevant today. On the positive side, So Great Salvation is just about as breezy of a read as theology books go; Ryrie covers his points simply but effectively, and with an economy of words. Even if you disagree with him, as I do, Ryrie makes his points charitably and effectively.

This book has literally saved my life. The freedom which Christ preached has been perverted for centuries by men who self righteously portray themselves as judges of mens souls instead of their actions alone. Certainly I can judge a mans deeds- but his soul is not my domain. Where he or she came from and the fruit they display in their lives is not mine to make SOUL judgements of- I may doubt their salvation- but to know is to truly play God. Lordship advocates talk of playing God by "easy believism and cheap grace" yet in reality their's is true playing of God. Churches where the hurt and empty can come and the "Easy (there's that word again) yoke" of Jesus can be taken have turned into looking good Christians with harsh attitudes and great fear that "you or I may not be doing it right". The fear that grace might lead to "go ahead and sin anyway" was answered by Paul in Romans 6- and he stated in Galatians that the gospel was an offense to the works righteous Jews of his day. While I won't judge the Lordships advocates souls I will say that it appears they would be appalled at the people Jesus hung out with.

My congratulations go out to Dr. Charles Ryrie. Finally someone has stepped out and written a book that showed salvation as the Bible showed it. Ryrie does not present cheap grace here, he presents free grace here. He does not present easy believism here, he presents simple believism. Dr. Ryrie should be commended for taking a stand for the "gift of God unto salvation to everyone who believes." Ryrie adresses the problem that has plagued the church since the first century when the Judaizers caused the Galatians to stumble. It seems that everyone wants to help God out by adding something either to the front or the back of the Gospel. Ryrie doesn't do that in this book. You owe it to yourself to read this book if you truly want to know what the Bible says about the gospel.

Dr. Ryrie clarifies his own thoughts on the gift of salvation in a very reader-friendly and eloquent style. Extremely well written, it is more like a friend reasoning with you rather than a professor who is presenting his thesis to you.

Very early on, he talks about semantics, which often times are simply neglected, but in reality can have a dramatic effect upon how one interprets the scriptures. He then walks you through various situations, using insightful questions and examples to help us arrive at the meaning of a text, using "the whole counsel of God." While it is not meant to be a systematic treatment of the subject, it is well organized and is suitable for both the layman and scholar.

Well, as a former (and very very sad) legalist, after I read the reviews from the obvious legalists giving their reviews about this book, it convinced me it must be an excellent book, describing the TRUE way of salvation. Unfortunately for the practicing legalists (their posts are obviously negative), their "gospel" is not Good News at all, it is the same message that Satan used to beguile Adam and Eve..., 'Oh, did God really say...?' And yes, God really did say that it is by GRACE we are saved, not of works (ANY works), lest any man should boast. Saying God isn't adequate enough to save me, that I MUST do SOMETHING, is boasting.

Many do not seem to understand that when writing a book, the author must write to his audience. Dr. Ryrie does this beautifully. This book can be read by the newest of Christians as well as seminary students.

Dr. Ryrie does not give compromise the Gospel with his teaching on salvation. Some have said that the Theology has been kept short in this book: that is the point. Dr. Ryrie does not endeavor to write another Systematic Theology, rather, he is teaching on a subject through the medium of the written word.

I am immensely grateful for this book. Thank you Dr. Ryrie.

Ryrie has written an important response to the so-called `Lordship Salvation' stance of John MacArthur and those who hold to similar views. These bouts are nothing new; they have been commonplace throughout church history, normally dubbed `antinomian controversies' by those who disagree with Ryrie and Hodges. These disputes have had a significant impact on church history, though you might have to search a little to find clear expressions of what exactly took place from good historical surveys of Christian theology. An example of one of the more famous controversies was that of the `Marrow Men' on the British Isles a few centuries ago. I find these types of disputes healthy for the church because there are indeed tensions in the scriptures on these points, and disagreements about them can only strengthen our expression and faithfulness to the Lord and His written revelation.

I think a handful of reviewers have been fair in their assessment of Ryrie's book, though others have unfortunately stooped to ad hominem attacks. Reactionary responses have always been a way for some people to side-step the more important issues the writer intends to express. I think someone well-versed in these disputes can handle each position's major differences on salvation without falling into the un-Christian trap of polemics and ad hominem attacks. Thankfully, many have avoided these errors.

Essentially, the book is very good. I think Ryrie always writes in a way that is clear on his views and looks to the scripture for answers. I think he is also justified in his representation of Lordship Salvation. His chapter on `Christian Carnality' is excellent because, though he states all Christians will have works, we are not the `fruit-pickers'. We need to leave that work to the Spirit of God while the Father is the only righteous Judge of the heart, for He alone knows it. Though some have said this allows a false sense of security, I would disagree. If one reads Ryrie carefully and in context of the whole work, one would never come away with this view. This type of response misrepresents him, just read his views on James 2; Ryrie disagrees with the majority of FG people on James 2. The position on works he essentially disagrees with is a `growth in consistent and evident works' as set forth by a true expression of the Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints. He essentially disagrees with this teaching, not works in the life. Thus, a `false assurance' is not taught by Ryrie at all.

I do believe the FG people have, overall, made weak contributions to how sanctification must relate to justification and this is highly problematic. However, it does not mean they are essentially wrong. What it means is that they need to stop reacting to excesses and start being seriously proactive about expressing a stronger relationship between justification and sanctification. To divide the two into such `stages' as they have practically divides the work of the Trinitarian God. This has been the biggest problem with the position IMHO. The FG position has essentially been reactionary for over twenty years now; it's time to move past reaction to excess and move toward stronger expressions of the interrelatedness between justification/sanctification. I feel FG people articulate the Justification side of the Gospel fairly well, but I feel they must do a better job correlating their views with the 'call to discipleship'. To separate the two practically sounds like a second work of grace in the believer's life from either a Higher Life/Keswick tradition, or a Wesleyan model; and in a second work of grace I mean a work of grace in the experience of the Christian, not the prevenient/special grace understanding. I believe accusations of these backgrounds to FG theology are justified and FG needs to be able to respond to this critique in thoroughness, which it has not.

Though I have been FG most of my life, the weakness of their expressions on sanctification (relegating everything to rewards) has never set well me. Maybe it's unintentional, but it really weakens much of the NT force of what 'Life in the Spirit' should look like in the way of testimony of a person's Justification. FG people would say I'm heretical by stating some of this, but I find their views supremely lacking in a balanced view of the Trinitarian work of God. Listening to a well-versed puritan preacher exposit the mortification of sin smashes the lacking holistic approach of FG theology in sanctification. Does this mean that I hold a puritan's view on assurance? Absolutely not, but their preaching of sanctification affects change, while FG theology preaches more of a reaction to excesses in Reformed/Puritan writings instead of preaching heavily on sanctification all because of a fear of sounding like a Lordship proponent. FG would do well to listen more favorably to this tradition, and other traditions for that matter, within evangelical orthodoxy.

With all this being said, Ryrie's book is a more balanced approach to works in the believer's life than Hodges and the FG position. Ryrie is within the FG mold without a doubt, but his disagreements and expressions on sanctification are welcomed as his views help bridge the gap between justification/sanctification much more honestly whereas the mainline FG teaching has become somewhat exclusive and reactionary. FG theology would do well to listen more to Ryrie and others like him, and I hope FG teaching would begin to grow from its reaction to excess in Reformed/Puritan teaching (though justified) to harmonizing a more honest approach to justification/sanctification, which I believe Dr. Ryrie has clearly set forth in this work. A must read for all Christians.

What is the requirement for salvation? What does it mean to be "saved by grace?" What of the so-called "Lordship" salvation? What place do works have in our life and how do they affect our salvation? Ryrie answers these and many other questions in a straightforward and comprehensive way. If you have any question about what kind of salvation Jesus purchased for us, and what qualifies us to partake in "So Great Salvation" then you should read this book. It rocks!