Charles ryrie on calvinism

Discussion in 'Calvinism & The Doctrines of Grace' started by Nathan A. Hughes, Sep 11, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nathan A. Hughes

    Nathan A. Hughes Puritan Board Freshman

    Im not sure if this is the right place to post a question. However, I’ve been researching Charles Ryrie. I can’t find anything regarding his position on Reformed theology. If anyone can point me to some material I would be most grateful.
  2. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    Moved to dispensationalism forum.
  3. Nathan A. Hughes

    Nathan A. Hughes Puritan Board Freshman

    I’m not a dispensational. I knew Ryrie was one.
  4. Ryan&Amber2013

    Ryan&Amber2013 Puritan Board Junior

    Lol. For some reason this quick dialogue made me laugh.
  5. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    Well, it wasn't in the right forum (faq and updates) so I did the best I could.
  6. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    Since the Title of the thread seemed to be asking about Ryrie's Calvinism I moved it to the Calvinism area. I do not believe he was a Calvinist as Moody was. I could be mistaken since it has been a few decades since I have read or studied their theologies.

    Chris is correct though, Dispensational theology is not Covenant Theology.
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2019
  7. NaphtaliPress

    NaphtaliPress Administrator Staff Member

    Works for me. Not being a scold (maybe a little bit), but since there have been a number of posts made to the FAQ and UPDATES forum lately, which never was a problem before (it's just for things about the board), note by way of review the number 1 rule for board etiquette. Don't put it on the moderators to move as they have plenty to do; take some time to find the right thread.
    1. Post Your Subject in the Proper Forum​

    One of the main reasons that the Board was revised was to make it easier for everyone to see and find threads that they want to participate in. So think first before you start a new thread.... Make sure that you have the best forum you can think of for your thread. For example, if you are asking a question about the qualifications of elders, even though it technically could be posted in the Theology Forum, it belongs in the Ecclesiology Forum.​
  8. Chad Hutson

    Chad Hutson Puritan Board Freshman

    The Dispensationalism forum: the place where posts on the Puritan Board go to die!;)
  9. alexandermsmith

    alexandermsmith Puritan Board Sophomore

    Does anyone actually search specific fora instead of just using the recent posts page??
  10. Reformed Covenanter

    Reformed Covenanter Puritanboard Commissioner

    I do when I am deciding where I should post a new thread. ;):lol::stirpot:
  11. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    I can tell that we are well read up on Charles Ryrie. lol The last thing I read by him had to do with the Lordship Salvation Controversy. That was in the late 80's I believe. Of course he was on the non-Lordship side back then.
  12. py3ak

    py3ak They're stalling and plotting against me Staff Member

    Charles Ryrie's Basic Theology would probably be a good place to turn. You ask for his position on Calvinism in the title and on Reformed theology in the opening post.

    Obviously with regard to covenant theology, Ryrie would disagree. On the "five points" the story is a bit more nuanced.

    The scriptural evidence provides the basis for what has been commonly called total depravity. The English word “depravity” means perverted or crooked. It is not used in the translation of the King James Version, but some modern translations do use it to translate adokimos in Romans 1:28. This word means “not standing the test” and gives us a clue as to how to define the concept of depravity. Depravity means that man fails the test of pleasing God. He denotes his unmeritoriousness in God’s sight. This failure is total in that (a) it affects all aspects of man’s being and (b) it affects all people.
    Negatively, the concept of total depravity does not mean (a) that every person has exhibited his depravity as thoroughly as he or she could; (b) that sinners do not have a conscience or a “native induction” concerning God; (c) that sinners will indulge in every form of sin; or (d) that depraved people do not perform actions that are good in the sight of others and even in the sight of God.
    Positively, total depravity means (a) that corruption extends to every facet of man’s nature and faculties; and (b) that there is nothing in anyone that can commend him to a righteous God.
    Total depravity must always be measured against God’s holiness. Relative goodness exists in people. They can do good works, which are appreciated by others. But nothing that anyone can do will gain salvational merit or favor in the sight of a holy God.​

    Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 252–253.

    A. God’s Election is Grounded in His Own Being
    Therefore, the act of electing a people has to be compatible with all of His attributes. It is based on His omniscience, so that we may be assured that when He elected He did so knowing full well all of the alternative possibilities. It is related to the exercise of His sovereign will, so that He was in no way forced to do what He did. It was done by the God who is love, so that predestination was done in love (Eph. 1:4–5). It expressed His mercy; otherwise how could God have loved Jacob? (Rom. 9:15). It demonstrates His matchless grace (Eph. 2:7–8). And the ultimate purpose of election is to display His glory (1:6, 12, 14). Usually we put the emphasis on the fact that God elects. We need to remember that it is God who elects, and He can do nothing unloving or unjust.

    B. God’s Election Was of Individuals
    This has already been discussed. He chose individuals, who then together make up the people of God.

    C. God’s Election Was Not Based on Foreknowledge (Meaning Foresight)
    To foreknow is not a neutral concept but involves some sort of relationship.

    D. God’s Election Was Before the Foundation of the World
    He did not choose us only after we chose Him (Eph. 1:4).

    E. Election Alone Does Not Result in the Salvation of People
    To be sure, election assures that those chosen will be saved, but it alone does not save them. People are saved through faith in the substitutionary death of Christ. And, of course, they must learn about the death of Christ somehow in order to have content to their faith. Thus election, the death of Christ, testimony of His death, and personal faith are all necessary in the salvation of an individual. Election alone does not save.

    F. Election is Purposeful, Not Capricious
    Its purpose for us is service and good works (John 15:16; Gal. 1:15–16; Eph. 2:10; 1 Thess. 1:4–10).
    Its purpose for God is to manifest His glory (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14).
    Therefore, the doctrine of election is highly motivating and should never be deadening to one’s spiritual life (Col. 3:12).​

    Ibid., 362–363.

    The death of Christ pays for all the sins of all people. But not one individual has his own account settled until he believes. If he never believes, then even though the price has been fully paid, his sins will not be forgiven. The death of Christ is like some benefactor paying the tuitions of all students in all schools everywhere. If that could be true, what should we be telling students? The good news that their tuitions are paid.
    Christ died for all. What should we be telling the world?​

    Ibid., 373.

    I didn't find a clear statement about the irresistibility of grace, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did hold to it. He opts for the heading of eternal security and argues quite extensively on that front. Perhaps this sentence will give some indication on both points:

    God purposed to glorify the same group He predestined, called, and justified (Rom. 8:30). This daring statement could not be made if any one of that group could lose his salvation. If so, then the ones whom He justified would not be the same number as the ones He glorified. But the text says they will be the same.​

    Ibid., 382.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  13. Chad Hutson

    Chad Hutson Puritan Board Freshman

    So he's a four-pointer? Why would Christ die for the non-elect?
  14. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    Not sure if this is applicable to your question but this passage has always intrigued me. It doesn't say Christ died for the non elect but he spoke to them and since he did they have no excuse for their sin. He says he needed to do this.

    Joh 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.
    Joh 15:23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
    Joh 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
    Joh 15:25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
    Joh 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
    Joh 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
  15. py3ak

    py3ak They're stalling and plotting against me Staff Member

    Maybe 3.5?

    I am no Ryrie scholar: here is what he says prior to the part already quoted.

    Limited atonement or particular redemption can scarcely be termed a cornerstone doctrine. Nevertheless, it obviously is sometimes a hotly debated one. Berkhof is typical of those who hold the view and who express the issue this way: “Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ in coming into the world, to make atonement for sin, do this with the design or for the purpose of saving only the elect or all men? That is the question, and that only is the question.” If indeed the question is properly expressed this way, then the answer is clear: The Atonement was limited, for Christ did not come into the world to save all men. Our understanding of election makes that answer certain.
    But is Berkhof’s question the correct question? The answer is no. It is false to say that “that is the question, and that only is the question.” Rather, the actual question is: Did Christ purpose by coming into the world to make provision for the salvation of all people, realizing that the Father would mysteriously draw the elect to Himself and allow others to reject the provision made? Because some reject does not invalidate the provision or mean that the provision was not made for them. If we say that a father provides sufficient food for his family, we do not exclude the possibility that some members of that family may refuse to eat what has been provided. But their refusal does not mean that the provision was made only for those who actually do eat the food. Likewise, the death of Christ provided the payment for the sins of all people—those who accept that payment and those who do not. Refusal to accept does not limit the provision made. Providing and possessing are not the same.

    Arminians accept universal redemption or unlimited atonement (along with the idea that sufficient grace is supplied to all so that they may believe). Among Calvinists there are some who hold to universal redemption (so-called four-point Calvinists or Amyraldians, after Moses Amyraldus, 1596–1664), and some who teach particular redemption (so-called ultra or five-point Calvinists). The latter group holds that Christ died to secure salvation for the elect; thus His death was limited in its extent to the elect. Moderate Calvinists see the purpose of Christ’s death as providing a substitution for all; therefore, it was unlimited in its extent.
    These views relate to the question of the order of the decrees of God. This discussion concerns logic more than revelation, and it only serves to highlight the different perspectives by attempting to place an order on the parts of the single decree of God, especially focusing on the relation of election to the Fall (lapse—fall). Supralapsarianism places election first (supra—above) followed by the decrees to create, allow the Fall, and then provide for the salvation of the elect. Infralapsarianism (infra—later) lists Creation, Fall, election, and then provision for the salvation of the elect. Sublapsarianism (sub—beneath) sees this order: Creation, Fall, provision of salvation for all, election of some to be saved. Some theologians do not recognize the distinction between infra and sub, and I must say that none of these schemes really confirms anything. The issue under discussion concerns the extent of the Atonement, and it will not be settled or even enlightened much by deciding the supposed order of the decrees.

    When discussing this question, it is essential to keep certain truths clearly in mind.
    (1) Unlimited redemptionists are not universalists. They do not believe that all will ultimately be saved. Nor does their view require or logically lead to such a heretical conclusion. To assert this is to create a straw man.
    (2) All people are lost, including the elect. The fact that an individual is elect does not in some way make him less lost than a nonelect person.
    (3) Anyone who will be saved must believe. The Father will draw the person, yet he must come (John 6:37, 44).
    (4) Some Scriptures do relate the Atonement particularly to the elect. See John 10:15 and Ephesians 5:25 for clear examples. Unlimited people readily acknowledge this. But this is not the issue. The question is: Are there Scriptures that broaden the extent of the Atonement beyond the elect? Limited advocates say no and attempt to explain those passages that seem to broaden the Atonement in ways that do not broaden it. In other words, unlimited advocates acknowledge that the Atonement is both limited and unlimited; limited advocates insist that it is strictly limited and do not recognize any unlimited passages as teaching unlimited atonement.


    A. 2 Peter 2:1
    It is generally acknowledged that the verse most difficult to harmonize with the limited atonement view is 2 Peter 2:1. Apparently it says that the false teachers (who are not among the elect) had the price of redemption paid for them by the Lord, for in their teaching they deny the Lord who bought (agorazō) them. In other words, Peter seems to be saying that the Lord in His sacrifice paid the price of redemption for these nonelect people.
    Some particular redemptionists say that Peter was only recording what the false teachers claimed. They said that the Lord bought them, but in reality He did not because He died only for the elect. Thus Peter simply acknowledged what they were saying without affirming the truth of it, and indeed, it is not a true statement from the limited viewpoint. But, of course, even if this is an expression of what the false teachers were saying, it still can be a true statement, so it cannot be assumed to be false simply because it comes from their mouths. But more likely Peter was emphasizing the depth of their defection by pointing out that they denied the Lord who bought them. This is sometimes called the “Christian Charity” view.
    Others understand this to mean that the Lord (as Creator) “purchased” these nonelect people in the sense that He as Creator possessed them. Thus agorazō (buy, redeem) comes to mean ktizō (create). The Lord possessed them as He did Israel when He effected a temporal deliverance from Egypt (Deut. 32:6).
    In attempting to reinforce this interpretation, particular redemptionists cite three lines of alleged support. (1) The word for Lord (despotes) when used in the New Testament refers to God, not Christ, and it should refer to Christ if this verse teaches a soteriological ransom (see, for example, Acts 4:24; Rev. 6:10). While the word does usually refer to the Father when it refers to Deity, does not Jude 4 use it in reference to Christ? It seems so, and if so there, then there is no reason that it does not also refer to Christ in 2 Peter 2:1.
    (2) They also point out that in other occurrences of agorazō where it refers to soteriological redemption in the New Testament, the price paid is mentioned in the context. Therefore, since no price is mentioned in 2 Peter 2:1, this must not refer to an actual soteriological redemption, but rather a Creator-creature “possession.” However, in Revelation 14:4 no price is mentioned in the context of relating the soteriological redemption of the 144,000. Likewise, 2 Peter 2:1 could also refer to a soteriological redemption without mentioning the specific price.
    (3) Further it is alleged that agorazō is always used in contexts where there is a real, take-possession kind of buying. Because the false teachers in 2 Peter 2:1 were not actually saved, agorazō cannot refer to a salvation purchase since no real possession took place. But notice Luke 14:18–19 where a real, actual purchase was made of a piece of property and yet the purchaser had not even seen it. Likewise, the unlimited redemptionist argues, the false teachers were actually purchased (that is, Christ did die for them) even though they were never possessed (that is, they were not saved).

    B. 1 John 2:2
    This verse also seems to say rather clearly that the death of Christ was for the whole world, since He is the propitiation not only for our sins but also for the sins of the whole world. “Our” seems to refer to those who are (or will be) saved while “the whole world” includes those who are not saved. How do limited redemptionists explain this verse so as to be compatible with their viewpoint?
    Actually three suggestions are made. In all three, “ours” and “the whole world” add up to the sum total of all the elect; therefore, “ours” refers to some of the elect and “the whole world” to others of the elect. (1) Some understand “ours” to mean the elect living in Asia Minor where the apostle John was; “the whole world” then refers to the elect living outside Asia Minor. This is a geographical distinction. (2) Others see a racial distinction; that is, “ours” means the elect from among Jewish people, and “the whole world” designates the elect from among Gentiles. (3) Still others make a chronological distinction. “Ours” designates the elect living in the first century, while “the whole world” focuses on the elect in subsequent centuries. In other words, limited atonement sees the Atonement from this verse as geographically, ethnically, or chronologically universal, but only in relation to the elect, not all people.
    To be sure, the word “world” does not always mean all people (see John 12:19), but no dictionary gives it the meaning of only the elect.
    Furthermore, the only other occurrence of the phrase “the whole world” in John’s writings is in 1 John 5:19, and there it undebatably includes everybody. So the presumption is that it also means everyone in 2:2. And this means that Christ died for all people even though all are not ultimately saved.

    C. 1 Timothy 2:4–6; 4:10
    Generally, limited redemptionists understand the “all” in 1 Timothy 2 to refer to all kinds of people. That is, Christ died for all kinds of sinners (among the elect), and God wishes all kinds of people (among the elect) to be saved. In 4:10, however, some understand Savior to mean that Christ provides the general benefits of providence to all and especially to believers. “Savior” then has no soteriological connotation, according to this interpretation. The logic behind these interpretations is that if Christ is the Savior of all people absolutely, then all must be saved, and since all are not saved, then He cannot be the Savior of all in any soteriological sense. But is not God the Father of all people absolutely (Acts 17:29), and yet not all people are in the redeemed family? (Gal. 3:26). Similarly, Christ can be said to be the Savior of all without all being saved.

    D. Hebrews 2:9
    Again it seems clear that the Atonement was universal. How else could the writer say that He tasted death for every man? Notice that the preceding verses use the word “man” also and the meaning is clearly all people, not just the elect.

    E. John 3:16
    Limited redemptionists are forced to say that this verse means God loved only the world of the elect. One advocate of limited redemption understands the verse to emphasize the intensity of God’s love; that is, God loved the world of sinners. But it is still restricted to the elect sinners. Now if John 3:16 is so restricted, then no limited redemptionist could tell his young children, for example, that God loves them, since he could not know at that age whether or not they belonged to the elect. The Lord, however, expressed His love agapaō for an unsaved (and evidently a nonelect) man (Mark 10:21).

    F. Acts 17:30
    This verse states the matter as broadly as it could be said. God commands all men everywhere to repent. To read it to say all men without distinction of race or rank everywhere in the earth but only among the elect (which is the way it would have to be understood to support limited atonement) does not appear to be the most secure exegesis!
    Exegesis clearly supports the unlimited position.


    A. Universal Gospel Preaching
    Unlimited advocates claim that in order for one to preach the Gospel to all, Christ had to die for all. It does seem to make more sense to say that unlimited redemption is more compatible with universal Gospel preaching. However, it must be recognized that believing in limited atonement does not necessarily dampen one’s evangelistic efforts. Some great evangelists, like Spurgeon, held to limited atonement. And some who hold to unlimited atonement fail in their responsibility to witness.

    B. The Value of Christ’s Death
    Is some of the value of Christ’s death lost if all for whom He died are not actually saved? The limited person says yes; therefore, he concludes, Christ only died for the elect. But if God designed that there be value in a universal sacrifice in that it made the whole world savable, in addition to the saving value for those who do believe, then all the value is realized, though in different ways.

    C. Do the Nonelect Have Their Sins Paid for Twice?
    Some limited advocates argue that if Christ died for all, then the sins of the nonelect were paid for at the cross by the death of Christ and will be paid for again at the judgment by the condemnation of the nonelect to the lake of fire. So in effect their sins are paid for twice. Logically, then, either the death of Christ should not include the nonelect, or the nonelect should not be condemned to the lake of fire.
    An analogous question might be asked. Did the Israelite who refused to apply the Passover blood to the door of his house have his sins paid for twice? When the Passover Lamb was killed, his sins were covered. But if he did not put the blood on the door, he died. Was this a second payment for his sins? Of course not. The first and sufficient payment was simply not applied to that particular house. Death after failure to apply the blood was just retribution for not appropriating the sufficient sacrifice. The Atonement of Christ paid for the sins of the whole world, but the individual must appropriate that payment through faith. The world was reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:19), but those reconciled people need to be reconciled to God (v. 20).
    An illustration: In one school where I have taught, the student aid was handled in this way. People made gifts to the student aid fund. Needy students applied for help from that fund. A committee decided who would receive aid and how much. But when the actual money was distributed, it was done by issuing a check to the student, who then was expected to endorse it back to the school, which would then place the credit on his account. The money was not moved directly from the aid fund to the individual student’s account. The student had to receive it personally and place it on his account. Let us suppose you gave a gift to cover one student’s tuition for one year. You could properly say that his tuition was fully paid. But until the selection is made by the committee, and until the student receives the gift and places it on his account, his tuition is not paid. If he fails to endorse the check, it will never be paid even though it has been paid!​

    Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 367–373.
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page