Charles Ryrie: How to Obscure Dispensationalism

What does it really take to make dispensationalism fade into the background? In this timely session, Dr. Charles Ryrie walks through six practical ways the doctrine gets blurred—often unintentionally—by shifting hermeneutics, merging Israel and the Church, setting up “scarecrows,” and embracing alternative theological systems. He also addresses the rise of “already/not-yet” Kingdom language, the minimizing of prophecy and the Blessed Hope, and the quiet weakening of doctrinal statements. A lively Q&A follows.

You’ll learn:

• Why plain/normal hermeneutics matter—and how “de-literalized” readings go off the rails (cf. Isaiah 11).
• The Israel–Church distinction and what Spirit baptism (Acts 1:5; Acts 11; 1 Corinthians 12:13) means for the Body of Christ.
• How redefining “mystery” alters New Testament teaching (Colossians 1; Ephesians 3).
• The pull of preterism, replacement theology, Reformed packages, and Kingdom theology—and what each implies.
• Why downplaying prophecy, Daniel 9:24–27, and the pre-trib rapture dilutes hope and clarity.
• The quiet danger of broadening or not enforcing doctrinal statements.

Chapters

00:00 Intro & why Ryrie’s study Bible matters
02:45 Talk begins: What does it mean to “obscure” dispensationalism?
06:04 #1 Create a new (de-literalized) hermeneutic
13:28 Examples: Spiritualizing Isaiah 11 and its fallout
18:40 #2 Blur Israel & the Church; redefine “mystery” (Col 1; Eph 3)
24:35 Spirit baptism & the Body of Christ (Acts 1:5; Acts 11; 1 Cor 12:13)
29:58 #3 Scarecrows: “multiple ways of salvation,” “ripping out the Bible,” etc.
36:30 #4 Swap in another system (preterism, replacement, Reformed, Kingdom)
47:10 Kingdom ethics vs. Body-of-Christ emphasis; Sermon on the Mount in context
54:22 #5 Emphasize the present; downplay the future (Blessed Hope → “neutered hope”)
1:00:05 #6 Weaken or stop enforcing doctrinal statements
1:05:40 Q&A: hyper-dispensationalism, limited atonement, progressive dispensationalism
1:17:55 Closing & presentation

Key Scriptures

Isaiah 11 • Daniel 9:24–27 • Acts 1:5; Acts 11 • 1 Corinthians 12:13 • Colossians 1 • Ephesians 3 • 1 Thessalonians 5 • Acts 2:42 • Revelation 5

#Dispensationalism #Hermeneutics #IsraelAndTheChurch #PreTribRapture #Eschatology #BibleProphecy #KingdomTheology #ReplacementTheology #Preterism #Ryrie

How to Obscure Dispensationalism — Dr. Charles Ryrie (Session & Q&A)

Moderator/Host:
Okay, we’re happy to have with us this year Dr. Charles Ryrie.
—
Audience member:
“Haven’t heard of Charles Ryrie?”
—
(Laughter)
—
Host:
Oh—she’s holding up a Ryrie Study Bible! She didn’t think I was still breathing! I’ll never forget, about 15 years ago we had Dr. Ryrie at our church down in Austin, Texas. A lady in our church was being introduced to Dr. Ryrie and suddenly realized this was the Dr. Ryrie of the Ryrie Study Bible she was carrying. She almost blurted out, “I didn’t know you were still alive!” You know—she thinks of Scofield and others who are long gone. But sure enough, he’s still alive and kicking, and I’m glad too.

Since the Pre-Trib Study Group believes in traditional dispensationalism—and since Dr. Ryrie is, in many ways, its champion—we consider it a real honor for him to speak to us. If Tim LaHaye were here, he’d talk about his “heroes in the faith,” and Dr. Ryrie is certainly one of mine. I remember back in 1970, I bought a hard copy of your book Dispensationalism Today and read it even before I had any idea what all that was about. It helped me learn. I even had a hard copy for $3.98—or maybe $2.98—back in the good old days. I also have an original Ryrie Study Bible. (No, I haven’t “both expanded”—I’m starting a cult of those who believe in the original Ryrie Study Bible without the red-letter edition!)

I remember hearing Dr. Ryrie say he didn’t like red-letter Bibles because the whole Bible is equally inspired. He once feared they’d put the Ryrie Study Bible in a red-letter edition—and of course that happened. Like Job, “that which he feared has come upon him.”

Dr. Ryrie taught many years at Dallas Seminary and has impacted many students—many people in this room. How many of you had him in seminary? (Hands.) A good number. He’s going to speak today on dispensationalism. The message is titled: “How to Obscure Dispensationalism.”

Main Session: Dr. Charles Ryrie

Dr. Ryrie:
I hope you’ll still be as happy and applauding when I’m finished as you are now. I appreciate being invited. Dr. Ice twisted my arm rather severely. I said, “I don’t know what to talk about—you’ve got such scholarly papers; I don’t think I belong in this group anymore.” I was here the first few years, so I got you off to a good start. Like my grandkids, you’re growing—and I can’t believe how many people are here this year. That’s good; I’m glad.

He twisted my arm and the topic is sort of his choice. If you don’t like it, don’t blame me; if you don’t like what I say about it, then I guess you should blame me. At any rate, “How to Obscure Dispensationalism.”

“Obscure” means to make something relatively unknown. So we’re going to talk about how you can make dispensationalism relatively unknown—and people are doing this. You’ll see, with the ways I’ll mention, that it’s happening. Sometimes “dispensationalist” is about the worst thing you can call a conservative—like a curse. But you can do it more subtly, and that’s being done in many ways today.

1) Create or Use a Different Hermeneutic

Use a hermeneutic different from what most people would call literal—what I prefer to call plain or normal. God gave us speech; man didn’t create it. I think He gave it for at least three reasons:

1. So He could speak to us.
2. So we could speak to Him.
3. So we could speak to each other.

How do we speak to each other? Plainly, normally—we don’t create fanciful interpretations. How do we speak to God? Some prayers are flowery, but they communicate clearly—either praise or petitions. How should we expect God to speak to us? The same way—clearly.

New, fanciful hermeneutics aim to change that. By changing it, they change the plain, clear, normal understanding of the text.

Example of a wildly non-literal (de-literalized) interpretation:
A conservative writer (I won’t name names) on Isaiah 11—“the wolf and the lamb.” He says sinners are likened to beasts; it’s “unmistakably clear” this is spiritual, not literal—“as the dispensationalists vainly dream.” Then he says the lion passing from carnivorous to grass-eating amounts to little if taken literally; understood spiritually, it means when we’re born again we no longer find satisfaction in creature things but long for heavenly food.

That’s simply ridiculous. Besides, if “meat” is earthly, carnal food and “grass” is heavenly, spiritual food, then why does the writer to the Hebrews tell us to go on to meat? His de-literalized hermeneutic led to an unbelievable interpretation.

Another scholar (an Old Testament scholar) lays out hermeneutical principles and says: whether you interpret figuratively or spiritually depends solely on which gives the “true meaning.” (You didn’t get that? Exactly.)

Progressive dispensationalists today have a new hermeneutic called complementary. The OT says something quite literal and specific; the NT can “complement” it by adding, without changing the OT promise. But in practice, the OT’s throne of David becomes, in the NT, the right hand of the Father—which is not the same thing. That doesn’t deny a future, earthly throne of David, but the claim that Christ is now reigning on David’s throne rests on that complementary hermeneutic.

If you want to defame or demean dispensationalism, go to something other than the plain, normal meaning. Devise a new hermeneutic to uphold the interpretation you want.

A practical ramification:
Ordinary people may be disinclined to study the Bible: “If scholars don’t take it literally, how can I follow them?” They’ll think, “I’d never see the ‘wolfish sinner’ in Isaiah 11. Why should I try with more important things?” It turns people off.

But if they insist on a consistent (important word) plain, normal hermeneutic, they’ll have to be dispensational. Why? Because reading plainly you notice changes: “Pray that your flight be not in winter or on the Sabbath day”—how many of you have prayed that? Or food laws—if you obeyed them literally you’d close some restaurants. So you begin to recognize God has run the world in different ways at different times. He’s revealed those different ways. That’s what dispensation is: God has dispensed His rule—laws, principles, guidance—differently at different times.

We all use figures of speech, of course. But the first way to obscure dispensationalism: create a new hermeneutic—a de-literalized one.

2) Blur the Distinction Between Israel and the Church

Blunt or blur the consistent and complete distinction between Israel and the Church.

One way this is being done: redefine “mystery.” Paul uses “mystery” for something not made known in other ages (Colossians 1), now revealed to apostles and prophets (Ephesians 3). Progressive dispensationalists are defining it as something unrealized but not unrevealed in the OT—therefore actually revealed. That is a new theological use of “mystery.”

Also, key passages get played down:

• Daniel 9:24–27 (the Seventy Weeks) clearly concerns your city and your people (Daniel)—not the Church—and marks a sharp distinction for the 70th week.
• 1 Corinthians 12:13: by one Spirit we were baptized into one body. Spirit baptism (Acts 1:5—future; Acts 11—reported as having begun at Pentecost) explains how we’re placed into the Body of Christ. The term “body (of Christ)” doesn’t appear (beyond physical) until Romans/Corinthians. So to put the Body in the OT makes it an unbaptized body, since the Spirit didn’t begin baptizing into the Body until Pentecost.

Some redefine Spirit baptism as just another ministry of the Spirit (like “gift of the Spirit”), thus claiming it existed in the OT. But no one was placed into the Body of Christ in OT times or during our Lord’s earthly life. That blurs the Israel–Church distinction.

3) Set Up Scarecrows in the Dispensational Field

Scare people away with accusations:

• “Dispensationalists rip out part of the Bible.”
  We don’t. All Scripture is profitable. But not all of it concerns the rule of life under which I live. No one wants the pre-Fall rule of life (we’d all need a forbidden tree in the backyard!). Recognizing different economies isn’t “ripping out” Scripture.
• “Dispensationalists teach multiple ways of salvation.”
  Define “way.”
  Basis: one—Christ’s death.
  Requirement: one—faith.
  Object: the living and true God (progressively revealed).
  Content: varies by era (hard to specify a single sentence for every saint in every era). The charge equivocates on “way.”
• “It’s too new to be true.”
  Age proves nothing. Some very old doctrines (e.g., baptismal regeneration) are not true. The test is biblical fidelity, not historical timestamp.
• “Dispensationalism divides Christians.”
  Plain Bible study and Bible conferences did that long before any label. Paul says don’t be divided (1 Corinthians) and also, “there must also be divisions among you, that those who are approved may be made manifest” (1 Corinthians 11). Sometimes division exposes truth.

4) Embrace a Different Theology

Adopt an alternative that makes dispensationalism unnecessary:

• Preterism: Revelation and the Olivet Discourse fulfilled by A.D. 70. Requires early dating of Revelation. (Cue the bumper sticker: “Become a preterist and save a red heifer.”)
• Replacement Theology: The Church replaces Israel—receives her promises (but not her curses). That has economic/political ramifications: e.g., denominational calls to boycott Israel.
• Reformed Theology (as a package): infant baptism; Church begins with Abraham; limited atonement; usually amillennial. It is not merely non-dispensational; it’s often anti-dispensational.
• Kingdom Theology: Make “Kingdom” the unifying theme of Scripture. Speak of the already/not yet; spiritualize “land”; move David’s throne to heavenly Mount Zion; downplay a future earthly millennium. An amillennial scholar can say Canaan is a type of the Christian life, not a future possession, and that neither Christ nor His disciples promised dispersed ethnic Israel’s return to the land. Kingdom theology also makes room for signs and wonders now (since the Kingdom is already here in some sense).

Even large conservative bodies have emphasized “Kingdom First/Forever.” The risk: substituting Kingdom ethics (e.g., pressing every line of the Sermon on the Mount) for Body of Christ ethics (Church epistles), misplacing emphasis. Dispensationalists gladly affirm the Sermon on the Mount is Scripture and profitable—especially where repeated in the epistles—but pressing every word as directly ruling the Church age leads to problems (and sometimes prison!).

We are members of a Body taking direction from the Head—far more prominent in the NT than “subjects of a King” language applied to the Church.

Some now suggest Dallas and Westminster are “coming together.” But notice what the Reformed side often asks: read eschatological prophecy as figurative descriptions of the new earth (forever), eliminating the need for a millennial kingdom. And some dispensationalists respond with: “modified dispensationalism” that embraces already/not yet and a unified spiritual people of God. I think the dispensational side is doing more compromising than the Reformed.

5) Emphasize the Present; Downplay the Future

Focus on present responsibilities and “Kingdom living now”; treat differences about the “not yet” (millennium, Israel’s future) as unimportant. I grow weary of the question, “What practical use is this?” If it’s in the Bible, it’s important. I want my physician to know every antibiotic—even if I only need ten in my lifetime. Likewise, we should know the whole counsel of God.

When you play down the future, you won’t think or talk much about modern Israel, or prophetic blocs of power that come to fruition in the Tribulation. Some progressives even say their view is “less land-centered.” You won’t make the pre-trib rapture prominent—or even necessary. One progressive says 1 Thessalonians 5 appears pre-tribulational, but “many would not desire to make this a determining feature of dispensationalism today.” If the Blessed Hope is not prominent, it becomes the neutered hope.

Also: forget Bible and prophecy conferences. Many churches used to have them annually; now it’s compressed or replaced by marriage, parenting, men’s/women’s, or financial seminars. Those have their place—but pushing aside Bible (especially prophecy) is not good.

6) Modify, Neuter, or Fail to Enforce Doctrinal Statements

This applies to churches, missions, and schools. If you change a statement, often the eschatology gets broadened (the rapture; even the millennium). If you don’t change it, you don’t enforce it. That lacks integrity.

I know two organizations currently debating broader, more inclusive eschatological language. Why? “To make it easier to understand.” The ones who need to understand are the board, faculty/missionaries, and administration. If the statement becomes broader and less clear, you’re targeting the wrong audience.

If you can’t change it, some broaden the meaning of agreement (“essential” agreement becomes “mostly” agreement). That becomes passive agreement: “I won’t teach against it—but I won’t promote it either.” That’s the beginning of the end.

Recently I met two graduates from a fine school. The school requires pre-trib; the students did not believe it. A committee examined them and encouraged them to sign to graduate. A year later they told me, “We still don’t believe it—but we’ve got the diploma.” Translation: the students showed more integrity than the institution.

If you want to change your position, change it and promote what you now believe—that’s integrity. But don’t claim one thing and practice another. Sometimes we’re enamored with numbers. If you want to reach the most people, you’ll water down many doctrines. That is not faithfulness.

One strength of American Christianity is the freedom to separate and start schools, missions, pre-trib groups, and promote what we believe is right. Try that in a state-church system that won’t recognize your school for 400 years.

That’s what I wanted to say—and I’ve said it.

Q&A

Moderator:
Thank you, Dr. Ryrie. Now for questions.

Dr. Ryrie:
I can answer every question. I can say, “I don’t know,” or, “I don’t choose to answer.”

Q (Randall Price):
A seventh way you might add is: adopt a community interpretation. How would you speak to that?

A (Ryrie):
“Community” is a big word now. I don’t want to get too specific. We recently had a seminar in Dallas into that “community” stuff; his basis was the Trinity—“the finest example of community and small-group interaction.” There’s a sense in which the Church is a community; even two of us form a kind of community. Beyond that, I’ll stop before I show my ignorance.

Q:
On the content of faith: people charge “hyper-dispensationalism.” How do you define ultra/hyper-dispensationalism?

A:
Several branches. They all see a Jewish dispensation in early Acts, and then the Church dispensation. The most moderate starts the Church at Acts 9 (Paul’s conversion). Others start it with Paul’s imprisonment; some say only the Prison Epistles (plus 2 Timothy and Titus) are for the Church.

They’re missing that Spirit baptism began at Pentecost. They reply: Acts uses “baptism with the Spirit,” whereas Corinthians has “baptism by the Spirit.” But it’s the same Greek preposition across the seven references. To make two different baptisms from one phrase is artificial.

Q:
Could you state clearly the distinction between promises for a Jewish-Christian (e.g., Dr. Fruchtenbaum) and promises for believing national Israel?

A:
He’s here—ask him! (Laughter.) I agree with him. After all, I wrote the foreword to his book and he dedicated it to me. I agree 100%.

Q:
How is limited atonement central to the covenant of grace?

A:
Some Reformed say the covenant of grace is between God and mankind; others, between God and the elect. If it’s with the elect, limited atonement follows logically: whom did God choose in eternity? The elect. For whom did Christ die? The elect. Who will believe and be given to Him? The elect. It’s very logical—but logic isn’t the test; Scripture is. My opinion: limited atonement is not biblical.

Q:
Does progressive dispensationalism fit within dispensationalism?

A:
There are forms—like asking if ultra-dispensationalists fit. They would say they do. But there are significant differences from traditional dispensationalism. The most progressive merges the Church age as a sneak preview of the Kingdom. That’s not consistent dispensationalism, because it blurs Israel/Church distinctions and hermeneutics.

Q (pastor):
With the emerging church and postmodernism, this feels like an onslaught—doctrines of demons. We don’t read everything; people ask about books. Paul named names—could we get a couple?

A:
(Grins.) He stuck me right in the eye with a number line! Your plea is well taken. If I can get rid of him afterward, I’ll talk to you.

Presentation:
On behalf of the Pre-Trib group: Dr. Ryrie, you’ve given us a legacy we’ll tell our grandchildren about. Will you accept our highest honor, the gold medallion?

Dr. Ryrie:
Thank you. Thank you.

Scripture references: Isaiah 11; Colossians 1; Ephesians 3; Daniel 9:24–27; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Acts 1:5; Acts 11; Hebrews (meat/maturity); 1 Thessalonians 5; Acts 2:42; Revelation 5; Acts 16:31; John 3:16.