Ryrie Bible Study

[Zee Palmer]

Iwanted to ask your opinion on something. Like you, my primary Bible has been the Ryrie Study Bible. I use the Ryrie NASB is my own personal reading. I think the NASB is a great bible for personal reading and study. Like you and many others I am really big on grace and the clear gospel. I was raised Catholic and saved nearly ten years ago, so I have experienced firsthand the deadly mixture of faith and works. Let me say first off, I really really value Dr Ryrie. His book So Great A Salvationa is a great thesis on salvation. I agree with him that believers will bear fruit at sometime, somewhere. Even deathbed conversions have the fruit of peace etc. However his note in the Ryrie Study Bibleb in James 2:24 is troubling.

This verse is the reply to the question of v.14. Unproductive faith cannot save, because it is not genuine faith. Faith and works are like a two-coupon ticket to heaven. The coupon of works is not good for passage, and the coupon of faith is not valid if detached from works.

What do you make of this comment? It seems to fly against what I know Dr Ryrie believes. I know he is big on grace and is not lordship. Yet his note here seems to indicate he would believe in Perseverance of the Saints as opposed to Eternal Security.

Will believers have good works? Probably . . . but we cannot qualify it and [this] rules out deathbed conversions. Deathbed conversions have the fruit of peace, but hardly works. Same same thing with the thief on the cross.

Curious on what insight you may offer. I love my Ryrie NASB and KJV study bibles and don't want to have to find something else! I do not think there is one with better cross references. (I just wish they made it in NKJV as I like that text better).

The footnote in the Ryrie Study Biblea to which you refer has been pointed out by many in the grace community as problematic and inconsistent with what Ryrie has said elsewhere in his brilliant critiques against Lordship Salvation in books such as So Great A Salvationb.

The basic problem with the footnote is that it asks a question from James 2 that the epistle is not designed to answer. The saving faith of James audience is presumed throughout the letter. The faith of his audience already exists and is being matured and tested (Jas 1:2-4). Thus, James refers to his audience as "brethren" throughout the letter. Rather than asking the question about whether faith exists based upon the presence of fruit as the Ryrie Study Bible footnote assumes, the real question James asks is whether one's faith, that already exists, is useful or productive in the Christian life. The issue in James 2 is not existent vs. non-existent faith but rather is productive vs. non-productive faith.

Except for a few problems like these, the Ryrie Study Bible is a very fine study Bible. I do not think that you can find a study Bible that is 100 percent perfect. Even if there is one that is soteriologically perfect, they usually have defects in their Eschatological understanding. This goes to show that no human Bible interpreter, even an outstanding one like Charles Ryrie, is perfect. As you well know, our eyes need to be consistently on the Lord and not man.

Ryrie was born to John Alexander and Elizabeth Caldwell Ryrie[3] in St. Louis, Missouri, and grew up in Alton, Illinois. His paternal grandfather, John Alexander Ryrie Sr. (1827-1904), served as a correspondent in the late 1870's of the earliest known Plymouth Brethren meeting in the United States, which was started in Alton by Scottish settlers in 1849.[4] After graduating from high school in 1942, Charles attended The Stony Brook School on Long Island for one semester, where he became acquainted with headmaster Frank E. Gaebelein.[5]

Ryrie attended Haverford College, intending on following his father into a banking career. However, during his junior year, while meeting with Dallas Theological Seminary founder Lewis Sperry Chafer, Ryrie dedicated his life to Christian ministry, and left Haverford to study theology at Dallas Theological Seminary. Haverford conferred his BA (1946) on the basis of his studies at Dallas. A year later, he earned his Th.M. (1947), and two years following that his Th.D. (1949). He went on to complete his Doctor of Philosophy (1954) at the University of Edinburgh.[6] He also earned a Litt.D. from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, now Liberty University School of Divinity.[5]

In 1987, Ryrie's wife divorced him. Believing that the Bible did not allow divorced persons to remarry, he determined to live the rest of his life as a single man, despite his wife's subsequent remarriage.[7]

Ryrie began his academic career by teaching one summer for Midwest Bible and Missionary Institute (which would eventually become a part of Calvary Bible College).[8] Ryrie joined the faculty of Westmont College in 1948 and eventually became dean of men and chairman of the Department of Biblical Studies and Philosophy. He returned to Dallas Theological Seminary in 1953 to teach systematic theology, but left for several years to serve as president of Philadelphia College of the Bible (now Cairn University), from 1958 to 1962.[5] He was also an adjunct faculty member from Fall 1991 through Fall 2001.[citation needed] Upon returning to Dallas once again, he became dean of doctoral studies until his retirement in 1983.[5] Ryrie has written 32 books which have sold more than 1.5 million copies.[9] Additionally, his study bible has sold more than 2.6 million copies.[10]

Ryrie was an avid collector of quality rare Bibles and Bible manuscripts. On December 5, 2016, his collection was sold by Sothebys for 7.3 Million USD.[11] A 15th century copy of a Wycliffe's Bible New Testament sold for $1,620,500 at auction.[12]

Charles Ryrie taught Free Grace theology, the belief that only fiduciary faith in Jesus Christ is needed for salvation. Ryrie wrote a book "So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ", in which he criticized the Lordship salvation view of salvation. Ryrie defended the view that the word "metanoia" (repentance) refers to a change of mind, being a synonym for faith instead of a turning from sin.[13][14][15] Charles Ryrie agreed with some of the points in Calvinism, holding to total depravity and unconditional election, though he taught that the atonement was universal.[16] Ryrie was a dispensationalist,[17] holding to a pretribulation rapture.[18][page needed]

Charles Caldwell Ryrie taught that when attending church, men should remove their caps and that women should wear a headcovering (veil), as he said that Saint Paul's command in 1 Corinthians 11 was "based on theology (headship v.3), the order of creation (v.7-9), and the presence of angels in the meeting (v.10)."[21]

This is quite interesting to me. Looking at Dr. Ryrie's comments on the Lordship debate/salvation in general have me a bit puzzled. I myself do not own a Ryrie study Bible, but have found resources that seem to quote it. Notable verses that are regularly used against Free Grace Theology, 1 John 2:4, 3:6, 3:9, as well as Galatians 5:21, he has made seemingly very Lordship views on them, and it makes me wonder what his position on the whole debate is? I always thought he was in the moderate Free Grace position, but looking into (limited) resources I have found make me think he is almost on the Lordship perspective. For instance, on 1 John 3:6, he remarked: " The lifestyle of the one who keeps on sinning demonstrates that he does not know God". That seems to kind of go against what Free Grace was all about? The possibility that a true be3liever can and will end up in situations continuously sinning? What is your opinion on this?

This is what Ryrie says in his commentary on 1 John 3:6:

"6. Abideth...sinneth not. Both words are in the present tense and indicate the habitual character of the person. The person who is abiding in Christ is not able to sin habitually. Sin may enter his experience, but it is the exception and not the rule. If sin is the ruling principle of a life, that person is not redeemed (Rom. 6); thus a saved person cannot sin as a habit of life. When a Christian does sin, he confesses it (1 Jn 1:9) and perseveres in his purification (3:3). The continuous sinner has not known God and is therefore an unregenerate person."

Let me just offer a few comments in answer to your questions. First of all, the Bible never says "habitual character". It says "sinneth not." Period. It's not talking about habitually, it's talking about ever, i.e. the new nature of the believer never ever sins (see 1 John 3:9). That's what it's talking about, in my understanding. The nature that is from above, the nature that is born from above, does not sin. Ever. It is the flesh, the old nature, that sins. The apostle Paul makes this clear in Romans chapter 7 when he says that "in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing" (Rom. 7:18). He goes on to say that "if I do what I don't want to do, then it's not me that's doing it, but the sin nature that indwells me" (Rom. 7:20). I agree with Ryrie's statement that "the person who is abiding in Christ does not sin habitually". I agree with it not because Christian's don't sin habitually (they can and do), but because Ryrie qualifies it by saying that "the person who is abiding in Christ" doesn't sin habitually. If and when a Christian is abiding in Christ, they are by definition not sinning habitually. Abiding in Christ means to remain in Him, to rest in Him. If I'm doing that, then of course I'm not sinning habitually. It's one or the other. It's when I stop abiding in Christ that I start sinning, habitually or not. (John chapter 15 talks more about abiding in Christ.) Ryrie goes on to say, "If sin is the ruling principle of life, that person is not redeemed (Rom. 6)". But Romans 6 doesn't actually say that. What it says, what Paul says in Romans chapter 6 is, "Don't let sin reign in your mortal bodies that you should obey it's lusts" (Rom. 6:12). This of course implies that it's entirely possible for sin to reign in the lives of Christians! (Contrary to what Ryrie says.) I remember when I was in Bible school (I went to a Free Grace Bible school), the teacher made a big point about this, how sin can reign as king in our lives if we let it. And how because of our new nature, we no longer have to let sin reign as king in our lives because we are no longer under it's control. If we let sin have control, of course it will reign as king in our lives, but the point is is that we no longer have to let it have control of us. Because of our new nature and the power of the Holy Spirit, we can choose to obey Christ and follow the leading of the Holy Spirit. So just to answer your question when you asked, "can and will" a true believer "end up in situations continuously sinning?" I would say a true believer "can" end up in that situation, but not necessarily "will". It all depends on if the true believer is walking by means of the Spirit (Gal. 5:16) or not. Hope this helps! God bless!

3a8082e126