Another question for my dispensational friends is regarding Ryrie's distinction between the object of faith and the content of faith. In my assessment, this distinction is novel yet demanded as a consequence of a focus on the discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants (between the dispensations as they would say), but I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Below are two quotes from Charles Ryrie concerning this issue,
‘Through Him everyone who believes is freed [justified] from all things, from which you could not be freed [justified] through the Law of Moses’ (Acts 13:39). Here is unquestionably a distinguishable and different way of running the affairs of the world regarding man's responsibility in relation to the most important area of justification. Whatever his responsibility was under the Mosaic Law may be left unspecified at present (see chapter 6), but with the coming of Christ the requirement for justification became faith in Him. This, too, is obviously a distinctive stage in the progress of revelation. Therefore, we conclude that a new dispensation was inaugurated, since the economy and responsibility changed and the new revelation was given.”- Dispensationalism Today
"The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations. It is this last point, of course, that distinguishes dispensationalism from covenant theology, but it is not a point to which the charge of teaching two ways of salvation can be attached. It simply recognizes the obvious fact of progressive revelation." - Dispensationalism Today
I now am wondering if this is consistent with the current form of argumentation regarding the "way" saints from previous ages were saved.
2 comments:
Not being as I said before a scholar.
I'm not sure what the question is.If you are asking in reference to progressive revelation of Gods requirments on individuals acts in demonstrating faith I would point to Hebrews 11 --Paul pointed out some of these differences Rahab demonstrated the proof of her faith by staying in a specific place gathering her family and hanging the red thread out the window Abraham drew the knife on Issac Each had their personal faith that God was the true God and they acted on what was required of them. In Abrahams case it was not about salvation but proof of belief.for Rahab it was immediate earthly salvation carried to her by the spys or messengers of God her conversation with the words of her mouth was her testamony that she recognised the God of Israel as the true God.Hebrews places her in a position that indicates that she had saving faith.I would speculate that she joined Israel as gentile believer after the battle and became a practicing gentile believer.
Does this question lead by the "Way" to the assumption that dispensationalist believe that salvation (eternal) is by any other way than by being among the redeemed of Adams race by the work on the cross at calvery. If it does it's this misunderstanding that doesn't need to exist.We believe that all men in eternity are bought by the blood of Christ or lost,but we don't believe that all creatures in eternity will occupy the same place.Just as there is now spiritual and heavenly and earthly and carnal there will be in the future a new heaven and a new earth but obviously no carnality in eternity.Along with this I also think that God has indicated in His word that He as sovereign of His creation can call out nations to serve Him above others and a people to be adopted into His personal household. I also don't think this slights Abraham in the slightist any more than Adam will be or Seth or Enoch.The role we play in Gods unfolding times is where we were cast by God himself.I as a dispensationalist could easly feel remorse that I won't enjoy being born carnal in a world that has the God of the universe ruling in body on a throne in His chosen Jerusalem.I could but I don't I rather rejoice that I was born in a time when I was called to rule and reign with Him in the next dispensation.
That was long and meant to provoke the real questions in our differences truly as friends because I think we will rule together some day.
John,
Well, regarding what Ryrie has said about faith in the different dispensations, he didn't say that the demonstration of faith changes, but that the "responsibility" for being justified is different. This, by the way, is one of the places where the synergistic model of justification is inherent to the dispensational system.
Hebrews 11 is not a biblical theology of faith per se, but is the author's attempt at showing the continuity of the faith of all saints through the ages; it is not a study in the discontinuity of the content of faith in the different dispensations.
"13These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city."
The point of my post was to ask present dispensationalists if they aggree with Ryrie's formula that the basis of salvation is always Christ's death, the object of faith is always God, but the content of faith changes from one dispensation to another...perhaps I should have asked that question more specifically.
I suggest that separating the content and object of faith is wrong. The classic protestant way to categorize the difference would be by saying that Ryrie believes that the instrument God uses to save (faith alone) is the same, but there is a difference in the means that God uses to save men from one dispensation to the next (the gospel proclaimed and the Holy Spirit applying it). In this way, Ryrie believes (and by implication, modern Dispensationalism believes) that the "content" of the gospel changes...in the dispensation of the Law, it is man's responsibility to believe what God the Father has promised, but in the New Testament it is man's responsibility to believe that Jesus died for their sins.
Ryrie implied in the last sentence that Covenant Theology doesn't recognize progressive revelation in regards to the content of the gospel. This isn't true. CT doesn't say that Abraham knew that God the Father was going to come to Earth as the Jesus of Nazareth, but CT does say that the content of the gospel always has been (even since the garden) that God would provide a redeemer, one who would be the Ultimate Lamb of sacrifice, covering their sins before a Holy God, CT also says that the responsibility of man in all ages is to believe that (in whatever expression revelation provides) fact and repent of their sins. Now, the issue between monergism and synergism, but that discussion, though important, gets true far away from the intent of these posts.
Post a Comment