Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
During the 70's and 80's a financial service company advertised on television with the phrase, "When E.F.Hutton talks, people listen." When Hutton's name is mentioned by a young professional during a dinner party, his overheard words cause the loud party to cease all conversation to listen to him. Today the same can be said among the Acts 2 dispensationalists, "When Charles Ryrie talks, people listen." Ryrie's teaching on the topic of dispensationalism is the gold standard among Acts 2 believers.
And here he did get something right about the Body of Christ:
If Ryrie is correct then we should not see the Lord dealing with Israel during the time period when he says that the Body of Christ began, Acts 2.
First of all, we know that sometime after the resurrection of the Lord Jesus He would indeed be dealing with the nation of Israel, as the following verse demonstates:
At Acts 3 we can see that Israel is indeed being dealt with in regard to repentance and the forgiveness of her sins:
Here is what Ryrie says about this passage:
So from all of this we know that the Lord was dealing with national Israel as late as Acts 3 so we can know that the Body of Christ did not begin at Acts 2. Again, Ryrie says:
Since Ryrie teaches that the Body of Christ is "distinct" in time from God's dealings with Israel how can he say that the Body of Christ started at Acts 2 despite the fact that the Lord was dealing with Israel after Acts 2?
And here he did get something right about the Body of Christ:
"…we insist that this Body of Christ is distinct from any previous body of redeemed people in its nature, characteristics , time and promise” (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press, 1995], 131).
If Ryrie is correct then we should not see the Lord dealing with Israel during the time period when he says that the Body of Christ began, Acts 2.
First of all, we know that sometime after the resurrection of the Lord Jesus He would indeed be dealing with the nation of Israel, as the following verse demonstates:
“Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31).
At Acts 3 we can see that Israel is indeed being dealt with in regard to repentance and the forgiveness of her sins:
“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you” (Acts 3:19-21).
Here is what Ryrie says about this passage:
“The ‘that’ (hopos) in verse 20 introduces a purpose clause; i.e., repent for the purpose of or with a view to. The purpose involves two things happening—the coming of the ‘times of refreshing’ and the coming of Christ…the construction links two events: the times of refreshing. (the millennial, Davidic kingdom) will come when Christ returns and not before…Therefore, both expressions refer to the promises restoration of the nation of Israel in the Millennium” (Ibid.,170).
So from all of this we know that the Lord was dealing with national Israel as late as Acts 3 so we can know that the Body of Christ did not begin at Acts 2. Again, Ryrie says:
"…we insist that this Body of Christ is distinct from any previous body of redeemed people in its nature, characteristics , time and promise” (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press, 1995], 131).
Since Ryrie teaches that the Body of Christ is "distinct" in time from God's dealings with Israel how can he say that the Body of Christ started at Acts 2 despite the fact that the Lord was dealing with Israel after Acts 2?
Last edited: