My Dispensational Beliefs

[CR Stam]

I have chosen the UN of the late Cornelius R. Stam (1908 to 2003). I consider him to be the best dispensational teacher I have come across and I consider his book, "Things That Differ", to be the best book on the subject.
To best relate my Christian beliefs, I offer this very short book, "Things That Differ", for you to read. I pretty much believe as he believed, so I think this would be a good way for you to know where I stand.
You can read this book right over the internet. Just use "Things That Differ" on you web search. It will give you a table of contents of this book. You can either read the whole book (which doesn't take long) or you can select the chapters you wish to read. You may also be able to find this book online by using "Cornelius R. Stam."

[wildboar]

Wow! Talk about chopping up Scripture and taking verses out of context! For those interested the full section can be found here: http://www.bijbel.nl/things_that_differ-chp1.htm

Here's what a portion of it says:

Thus, while the principles of God never change, His dispensations, His dealings with men, do change from time to time. This includes even the terms of acceptance with God. At first blood sacrifices were required (Gen. 4:3-5, Heb. 11:4); then, later, circumcision was added (Gen. 17:14); then obedience to the whole Mosaic law was demanded (Ex. 19:5, 6, Rom. 10:5); then "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4, Acts 2:38) and today it is "TO HIM THAT WORKETH NOT, BUT BELIEVETH ON HIM THAT JUSTIFIETH THE UNGODLY; HIS FAITH IS COUNTED FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS" (Rom. 4:5).

The Bible is not a random collection of verses. Just read the passage in its context and see what it says:

Romans 4:4-16 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin." 9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised. 13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression. 16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

Paul says it is "just as" or "exactly as" it was with David. The passage also speaks about how Abraham is the father of all those who are saved by faith and applies all the promises given to Abraham to ALL those who are saved by faith-destroying another fundamental teaching of dispensationalism.

[harald]

Stam was indeed off on soteriology, as have been many other dispensationalists, irrespective of their brand. (But this does not mean they have been wrong on all things they have affirmed). As for me I have found very very few dispensationalists who scripturally affirm the justification of God's elect before God exclusively in and by Christ at His death on the cross, apart from personal faith in Christ.

Solafideites often criticize dispensationalists like Stam for claiming different ways of salvation in different ages, while they themselves keep on affirming Luther's solafideite heresy. Both are in deadly error, but bringing forth fruit unto death.

Harald

[CR Stam]

Well, this is pretty much what I expected, with words like "heresy" being thrown around like cream pies in Three Stooges movie.

I just wonder, did you both read the entire THINGS THAT DIFFER, or just selected parts? Or, did you just go to a site that has a criticizm of Stam's THINGS THAT DIFFER?

[ray kikkert]

Well, this is pretty much what I expected, with words like "heresy" being thrown around like cream pies in Three Stooges movie.

I just wonder, did you both read the entire THINGS THAT DIFFER, or just selected parts? Or, did you just go to a site that has a criticizm of Stam's THINGS THAT DIFFER?

CR Stam, would this be a correct defintion of what you believe, if not , what would be different?

Premillennialism and Dispensationalism

Strictly speaking, premillennialism and dispensationalism belong to the same school in that they both teach that the personal and visible coming of Christ will be prior to (pre-) a yet future thousand year reign of Christ. There are also other similarities:
(1) Both teach a literal thousand year (millennial) kingdom.
(2) Both teach that this millennium and kingdom are future.
(3) Both teach that the millennium kingdom of Christ is earthly, centered in the city of Jerusalem, and that it involves the personal visible reign of Christ on earth.
(4) Both teach that the promises of God to Abraham and to the Jewish nation regarding the land have a future, literal, earthly fulfillment to that nation.
(5) Both believe also that "Israel" in Scripture always and only refers to the physical descendants of Abraham.
(6) Both teach more than one resurrection and more than one judgment.
There are, nevertheless, important differences between the two views. Dispensationalism teaches two comings of Christ prior to the millennium (usually separated by a period of seven years), i.e., the rapture and the revelation - Christ's coming for His saints and with them. They also teach that the rapture will be secret and at any moment and that it will occur prior to the great tribulation so that the church will not pass through the tribulation, but will be away with Christ.
Dispensationalism also teaches that the NT Church is but a parenthesis in history, that the Jewish nation alone constitutes the people and kingdom of God, and that the millennial kingdom of Christ will be an exclusively Jewish kingdom, i.e., the Jews and they alone are the kingdom people. Along with all of this, dispensationalism also teaches that the Holy Spirit will be absent from the earth during the time between the rapture and the revelation, the two stages of Christ's premillennial coming.
In addition, the older dispensationalism of the Scofield Bible notes, teaches different ways of salvation, denying that salvation is only in the blood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ and through faith in Him. All this historic premillennialism rightly rejects, teaching that the so-called rapture and revelation are one event, not two. Premillennialism also denies a secret rapture and teaches that the church shall pass through the treat tribulation. Finally, it teaches that the church has a part and place in Christ's kingdom, and is not just a "parenthesis in history" between God's past and future dealings with the Jews.
Historic premillennialism has also always rejected the heretical teaching of the Scofield Bible notes, that there are different ways of salvation in different dispensations and the strange teaching that the Holy Spirit is withdrawn from the earth during the time between the rapture and the revelation.
Nevertheless, we believe that while premillennialism rejects many of the false teachings of dispensationalism, it does not go far enough. So, as we hope to show in our next article, premillennialism also is unbiblical. Rev. R. Hanko

Dispensationalism (I)

Dispensationalism, also known as Darbyism (after John Darby, the founder both of Dispensationalism and of the Brethren movement), Brethrenism, and Scofieldism, is the most serious of all errors regarding the millennium. In fact, it is not just a certain teaching about the millennium and the future, but a whole erroneous theological system.
The name comes from the fact that Dispensationalism divides history into different "dispensations" in each of which God has a different covenant relation with men, each of which ends with man's failure to meet God's requirements. We are now, according to classic Dispensationalism, in the "church age" or dispensation of grace, with only one more dispensation to come, that of the kingdom.
Rather than give a lengthy and detailed description of Dispensationalism, however, we suggest that those of our readers who are unacquainted with its teachings or want a lengthier critique than is offered in these articles, write us for the booklet, Dispensationalism. We have limited quantities of this booklet.
Some of Dispensationalism's errors we have already dealt with, i.e.:
(1) its teaching regarding a secret, pre-millennial, pre-tribulation rapture (see earlier issue).
(2) its teaching regarding multiple comings of Christ (earlier issue). Some of its teachings we will, God willing, deal with in future articles, i.e.:
1. its belief in multiple resurrections and judgements.
2. its literalist interpretation of Scripture, especially Revelation 20.
The other principal errors of Dispensationalism are:
(1) its method of interpreting Scripture, the end result of which is that the whole OT and some of the NT are applied to the Jews, and have no application to NT Christians except perhaps as an object of curiosity. The Scofield Bible teaches, for example, that the Sermon on the Mount is not Christian but Jewish. This is contrary to the teaching of Scripture that all Scripture is profitable (and applicable) to NT Christians (Jn. 10:35; II Tim. 3:16, 17). It is in this connection especially that Dispensationalism has been accused of "wrongly dividing the Word of truth" (cf. II Tim. 2:15), though it claims the opposite.
(2) its strict literalism, which, as one writer points out, is really the literalism of the Pharisees, who could not and would not see that Christ is a spiritual King and so crucified Him. This strict (though inconsistently applied) literalism, and opposition to "spiritualizing" is also contrary to the teaching of Scripture (I Cor. 2:13-15; also the many passages in which Scripture itself "spiritualizes" the things of the OT, notably I Pet. 2:5-9 and the whole book of Hebrews). We hope, God willing, to deal in more detail with this matter of "literalism" in a future article, but would point out, that which Scripture must be interpreted carefully and soberly, there are things which cannot be taken literally, e.g., the white stone of Revelation 2:17.
We will continue to point out these errors in the next issue.
Rev. Ronald Hanko

Dispensationalism (II)

In the previous issue we began to point out briefly what we believe to be the principle errors of Dispensationalism. Those errors include:
(3) its separation of Israel and the church. One of the fundamentals of Dispensationalism is Israel is Israel and the church is the church and never may the two be confused. This is contrary to Scripture's teaching that the OT "Israel," both nationally and spiritually, is the church (Rom. 2:28, 29; Acts 7:38, where "Israel" is called "the church in the wilderness"; Gal. 3:29; Phil. 3:3; Heb. 12:22-24, where Jerusalem and Zion are identified with the church; Rev. 21:9,10, where "the bride, the Lamb's wife" is identified with "the holy Jerusalem").
(4) its separation between Christ's work on behalf of the Jews and of the church, i.e., Christ is King of Israel and Head of the Church. The Scofield Bible even teaches that OT people were saved in other ways than by the faith in Christ's atoning work and that God has more than one plan of salvation. This is contrary to Scripture's clear teaching that Christ is the same Savior of the same people both in the Old and New Testaments (Gal. 3:28, 29; I Tim. 2:5,6; Heb. 11:6).
(5) its exclusion of OT saints from the "body" and "bride" of Christ. This follows, of course, from the separation that Dispensationalism makes between Israel and the church, and between Christ's relation to Israel as King and to the church as Head. It is also contrary to Scripture, which includes OT saints in the "household of faith" and numbers them in the body and bride of Christ (Eph. 2:11-18, especially verse 16, which speaks of the fact that Jew and Gentile are reconciled "in one body;" Rev. 21:9-10, where the "bride, the Lamb's wife" is identified with the new Jerusalem).
(6) its teaching that the Holy Spirit is gone from the earth during the seven-year period between the rapture and the revelation. During this period the Jews are supposed to be saved and brought to faith in Christ without the sovereign and gracious operations of the Holy Spirit. This, too, is contrary to the teaching of Scripture, that faith is the gift of God, through the Holy Spirit, and that regeneration or the new birth, which is essential for salvation, is the unique work of the Spirit (Jn. 3:3-8; Eph. 2:8-10).
(7) its teaching regarding the so-called "mystery" church. Classic Dispensationalism teaches that the history of the church in the NT is a "parenthesis" and that the church itself is a "mystery" never spoken of in the OT. This contradicts the teaching of Scripture which not only prophesies of the church, but actually views true Israel as the church and the church as Israel (Acts 15:13-18, where James applies an OT prophecy concerning Israel to the establishment of NT Gentile churches; Acts 7:38). Likewise, the church is not viewed in Scripture as a "parenthesis" but as the goal and purpose of all God's work in history. It is "the fullness of him who filleth all in all" (Eph. 1:22, 23), the "glorious church" which He presents to Himself by all His saving work (Eph. 5:25-27).
For all these reasons Dispensationalism must be rejected.

[wildboar]

Stam:

I just read through the chapter I made reference to. The problem with dispensationalism is its hacking up the Bible into various pieces. The apostles insisted on progressive revelation and did not teach the radical discontinuity that this book proposes.

[Mickey]

Well, this is pretty much what I expected, with words like "heresy" being thrown around like cream pies in Three Stooges movie.

I just wonder, did you both read the entire THINGS THAT DIFFER, or just selected parts? Or, did you just go to a site that has a criticizm of Stam's THINGS THAT DIFFER?

Well if it’s pretty much what you expected then quit playing the victim. What you believe is not something new to most of us here, as a matter of fact there are at least four or five of the regular posters who once believed as you do. You can also expect some to carry out the logical conclusions of your beliefs to show you the destructive implications of this system.

I don't know what your intentions are to register with a theology forum then post an article of your beliefs and when you are critiqued to turn around and wine about it. This is a discussion forum so if you think you have been misrepresented in any way then please clarify and discuss these issues. If you can't handle people telling you what you believe is heresy then you will most likely not like it here.

[CR Stam]

Well, this is pretty much what I expected, with words like "heresy" being thrown around like cream pies in Three Stooges movie.

I just wonder, did you both read the entire THINGS THAT DIFFER, or just selected parts? Or, did you just go to a site that has a criticizm of Stam's THINGS THAT DIFFER?

Well if it’s pretty much what you expected then quit playing the victim. What you believe is not something new to most of us here, as a matter of fact there are at least four or five of the regular posters who once believed as you do. You can also expect some to carry out the logical conclusions of your beliefs to show you the destructive implications of this system.

I don't know what your intentions are to register with a theology forum then post an article of your beliefs and when you are critiqued to turn around and wine about it. This is a discussion forum so if you think you have been misrepresented in any way then please clarify and discuss these issues. If you can't handle people telling you what you believe is heresy then you will most likely not like it here.

I'm not upset, or offended, or feel like a victim, nor am I "whining" about anything. I know what I believe and I am comfortable with my beliefs. I was just making light of how often and easily this word "heresy" seems to come up here on these forums. I guess I might wonder, though, if someone starts saying, let's burn the heretics at the stake.

[wildboar]

Nobody better burn my steak

[CR Stam]

CR Stam, would this be a correct defintion of what you believe, if not , what would be different?

Premillennialism and Dispensationalism

Strictly speaking, premillennialism and dispensationalism belong to the same school in that they both teach that the personal and visible coming of Christ will be prior to (pre-) a yet future thousand year reign of Christ. There are also other similarities:
(1) Both teach a literal thousand year (millennial) kingdom.
(2) Both teach that this millennium and kingdom are future.
(3) Both teach that the millennium kingdom of Christ is earthly, centered in the city of Jerusalem, and that it involves the personal visible reign of Christ on earth.
(4) Both teach that the promises of God to Abraham and to the Jewish nation regarding the land have a future, literal, earthly fulfillment to that nation.
(5) Both believe also that "Israel" in Scripture always and only refers to the physical descendants of Abraham.
(6) Both teach more than one resurrection and more than one judgment.
There are, nevertheless, important differences between the two views. Dispensationalism teaches two comings of Christ prior to the millennium (usually separated by a period of seven years), i.e., the rapture and the revelation - Christ's coming for His saints and with them. They also teach that the rapture will be secret and at any moment and that it will occur prior to the great tribulation so that the church will not pass through the tribulation, but will be away with Christ.
Dispensationalism also teaches that the NT Church is but a parenthesis in history, that the Jewish nation alone constitutes the people and kingdom of God, and that the millennial kingdom of Christ will be an exclusively Jewish kingdom, i.e., the Jews and they alone are the kingdom people. Along with all of this, dispensationalism also teaches that the Holy Spirit will be absent from the earth during the time between the rapture and the revelation, the two stages of Christ's premillennial coming.
In addition, the older dispensationalism of the Scofield Bible notes, teaches different ways of salvation, denying that salvation is only in the blood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ and through faith in Him. All this historic premillennialism rightly rejects, teaching that the so-called rapture and revelation are one event, not two. Premillennialism also denies a secret rapture and teaches that the church shall pass through the treat tribulation. Finally, it teaches that the church has a part and place in Christ's kingdom, and is not just a "parenthesis in history" between God's past and future dealings with the Jews.
Historic premillennialism has also always rejected the heretical teaching of the Scofield Bible notes, that there are different ways of salvation in different dispensations and the strange teaching that the Holy Spirit is withdrawn from the earth during the time between the rapture and the revelation.
Nevertheless, we believe that while premillennialism rejects many of the false teachings of dispensationalism, it does not go far enough. So, as we hope to show in our next article, premillennialism also is unbiblical. Rev. R. Hanko

Dispensationalism (I)

Dispensationalism, also known as Darbyism (after John Darby, the founder both of Dispensationalism and of the Brethren movement), Brethrenism, and Scofieldism, is the most serious of all errors regarding the millennium. In fact, it is not just a certain teaching about the millennium and the future, but a whole erroneous theological system.
The name comes from the fact that Dispensationalism divides history into different "dispensations" in each of which God has a different covenant relation with men, each of which ends with man's failure to meet God's requirements. We are now, according to classic Dispensationalism, in the "church age" or dispensation of grace, with only one more dispensation to come, that of the kingdom.
Rather than give a lengthy and detailed description of Dispensationalism, however, we suggest that those of our readers who are unacquainted with its teachings or want a lengthier critique than is offered in these articles, write us for the booklet, Dispensationalism. We have limited quantities of this booklet.
Some of Dispensationalism's errors we have already dealt with, i.e.:
(1) its teaching regarding a secret, pre-millennial, pre-tribulation rapture (see earlier issue).
(2) its teaching regarding multiple comings of Christ (earlier issue). Some of its teachings we will, God willing, deal with in future articles, i.e.:
1. its belief in multiple resurrections and judgements.
2. its literalist interpretation of Scripture, especially Revelation 20.
The other principal errors of Dispensationalism are:
(1) its method of interpreting Scripture, the end result of which is that the whole OT and some of the NT are applied to the Jews, and have no application to NT Christians except perhaps as an object of curiosity. The Scofield Bible teaches, for example, that the Sermon on the Mount is not Christian but Jewish. This is contrary to the teaching of Scripture that all Scripture is profitable (and applicable) to NT Christians (Jn. 10:35; II Tim. 3:16, 17). It is in this connection especially that Dispensationalism has been accused of "wrongly dividing the Word of truth" (cf. II Tim. 2:15), though it claims the opposite.
(2) its strict literalism, which, as one writer points out, is really the literalism of the Pharisees, who could not and would not see that Christ is a spiritual King and so crucified Him. This strict (though inconsistently applied) literalism, and opposition to "spiritualizing" is also contrary to the teaching of Scripture (I Cor. 2:13-15; also the many passages in which Scripture itself "spiritualizes" the things of the OT, notably I Pet. 2:5-9 and the whole book of Hebrews). We hope, God willing, to deal in more detail with this matter of "literalism" in a future article, but would point out, that which Scripture must be interpreted carefully and soberly, there are things which cannot be taken literally, e.g., the white stone of Revelation 2:17.
We will continue to point out these errors in the next issue.
Rev. Ronald Hanko

Dispensationalism (II)

In the previous issue we began to point out briefly what we believe to be the principle errors of Dispensationalism. Those errors include:
(3) its separation of Israel and the church. One of the fundamentals of Dispensationalism is Israel is Israel and the church is the church and never may the two be confused. This is contrary to Scripture's teaching that the OT "Israel," both nationally and spiritually, is the church (Rom. 2:28, 29; Acts 7:38, where "Israel" is called "the church in the wilderness"; Gal. 3:29; Phil. 3:3; Heb. 12:22-24, where Jerusalem and Zion are identified with the church; Rev. 21:9,10, where "the bride, the Lamb's wife" is identified with "the holy Jerusalem").
(4) its separation between Christ's work on behalf of the Jews and of the church, i.e., Christ is King of Israel and Head of the Church. The Scofield Bible even teaches that OT people were saved in other ways than by the faith in Christ's atoning work and that God has more than one plan of salvation. This is contrary to Scripture's clear teaching that Christ is the same Savior of the same people both in the Old and New Testaments (Gal. 3:28, 29; I Tim. 2:5,6; Heb. 11:6).
(5) its exclusion of OT saints from the "body" and "bride" of Christ. This follows, of course, from the separation that Dispensationalism makes between Israel and the church, and between Christ's relation to Israel as King and to the church as Head. It is also contrary to Scripture, which includes OT saints in the "household of faith" and numbers them in the body and bride of Christ (Eph. 2:11-18, especially verse 16, which speaks of the fact that Jew and Gentile are reconciled "in one body;" Rev. 21:9-10, where the "bride, the Lamb's wife" is identified with the new Jerusalem).
(6) its teaching that the Holy Spirit is gone from the earth during the seven-year period between the rapture and the revelation. During this period the Jews are supposed to be saved and brought to faith in Christ without the sovereign and gracious operations of the Holy Spirit. This, too, is contrary to the teaching of Scripture, that faith is the gift of God, through the Holy Spirit, and that regeneration or the new birth, which is essential for salvation, is the unique work of the Spirit (Jn. 3:3-8; Eph. 2:8-10).
(7) its teaching regarding the so-called "mystery" church. Classic Dispensationalism teaches that the history of the church in the NT is a "parenthesis" and that the church itself is a "mystery" never spoken of in the OT. This contradicts the teaching of Scripture which not only prophesies of the church, but actually views true Israel as the church and the church as Israel (Acts 15:13-18, where James applies an OT prophecy concerning Israel to the establishment of NT Gentile churches; Acts 7:38). Likewise, the church is not viewed in Scripture as a "parenthesis" but as the goal and purpose of all God's work in history. It is "the fullness of him who filleth all in all" (Eph. 1:22, 23), the "glorious church" which He presents to Himself by all His saving work (Eph. 5:25-27).
For all these reasons Dispensationalism must be rejected.

No, this article, which is intended to be a denunciation of despensational beliefs, is not a correct representation of what I believe. Although there are some things in it of which I agree, it contains various distortions and misrepresentations of my dispensational beliefs.
I have offered the work, THINGS THAT DIFFER, as a close equivolent and clear explanation of my dispensational beliefs, but no one seems to have bothered to read all of it.

[wildboar]

crstam:

I provided a direct quote from the book you mentioned along with noting some problem areas with it. Do you have any explanation or rebuttal? How do you explain what Stamm says given the context that the verses are found in?

[InChristAlways]

I'm not upset, or offended, or feel like a victim, nor am I "whining" about anything. I know what I believe and I am comfortable with my beliefs. I was just making light of how often and easily this word "heresy" seems to come up here on these forums. I guess I might wonder, though, if someone starts saying, let's burn the heretics at the stake.

Hi Stam. Thank God there is no more burning at the stakes today or a lot of christians would be on their way [mormons/JW's come to mind].

For example, I personally do not know what the "nature" of my resurrection will be like, though Paul goes into great detail explaining it and or even what I will be doing for ETERNITY with God after my death. I do know I will be with Him and that is the greatest comfort for me. So does that make me "ignorant" of God's words?

There are many doctrines and beliefs that christians can come up with and simply put, there were 2, the instituting of the Law of Moses on the Chosen Firstborn Nation["church"] of God, Israel and Jesus Christ. That was more of a Punishment [especially circumcision] for Israel.
I believe one can put in as many dispensations and doctrines they want throughout the whole Bible, as long as the focus isn't taken of the Cross of Christ.

From the first time God created the heaven and earth, this was the BIG PLAN of our Creator. That is what the Bible is about and what our faith is based upon, Jesus Christ and Him Crucified and Eteranal Life through His NAME. Blessings

2 chron 33: 7 He even set a carved image, the idol which he had made, in the house of God, of which God had said to David and to Solomon his son, "In this house and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put My name forever; 8 "and I will not again remove the foot of Israel from the land which I have appointed for your fathers -- only if they are careful to do all that I have Commandedthem, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses."

Galatians 3:19 What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; [and it was] ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.

[ray kikkert]

No, this article, which is intended to be a denunciation of despensational beliefs, is not a correct representation of what I believe. Although there are some things in it of which I agree, it contains various distortions and misrepresentations of my dispensational beliefs.
I have offered the work, THINGS THAT DIFFER, as a close equivolent and clear explanation of my dispensational beliefs, but no one seems to have bothered to read all of it.

I read it and it seemed true to form as Rev. Hanko laid out.
One thing that did stick out is Stam's exegetical explanation of Noah and the deluge.
The Word of God destroys and obliterates Stams exegetical babble in Genesis 6:8. God's sovereign grace knows of no dispensations to fence it in. It is from everlasting to everlasting and irresistably given to those whom He has predestined to be saved from before the foundations of the earth by the perfect satisfaction for sin by the promised Christ. By the grace of God He made a promise to Adam and Eve and He keeps His promise, it is steadfast.

By the grace of God is man saved , not of works , whether they be done by Abraham or me, lest any man should boast. As Ephesians chapter 2 clearly lays out in verses 8-10. Notice that the Lord states that the elect , God's chosen people are "created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." It is the gift of God to the elect period.

Stam will not have us worship this God and acknowledge His gift to His chosen, rather he would have man, pathetic man, attain salvation by the filthy works he spews forth. This is the semi pelagian error, the arminian doctrine of hell, the total depravity of man is skirted.

[CR Stam]

Hi Stam. Thank God there is no more burning at the stakes today or a lot of christians would be on their way [mormons/JW's come to mind].

For example, I personally do not know what the "nature" of my resurrection will be like, though Paul goes into great detail explaining it and or even what I will be doing for ETERNITY with God after my death. I do know I will be with Him and that is the greatest comfort for me. So does that make me "ignorant" of God's words?

There are many doctrines and beliefs that christians can come up with and simply put, there were 2, the instituting of the Law of Moses on the Chosen Firstborn Nation["church"] of God, Israel and Jesus Christ. That was more of a Punishment [especially circumcision] for Israel.
I believe one can put in as many dispensations and doctrines they want throughout the whole Bible, as long as the focus isn't taken of the Cross of Christ.

From the first time God created the heaven and earth, this was the BIG PLAN of our Creator. That is what the Bible is about and what our faith is based upon, Jesus Christ and Him Crucified and Eteranal Life through His NAME. Blessings

I think what you say makes more sense than a lot of nit-picking over theological concepts and who is right or wrong.

[harald]

Phil,

As for me I have not yet read "Things that differ" by CR Stam. I did download it a week ago, well before you came on here. But I have about half a dozen books by him, and have so far read sufficiently so as to know he was heterodox on soteriology (how the Triune God saves sinful men). I do agree with him, though, on many not specifically soteriological matters.


As for who is right and who is wrong this is not at all unimportant, as you seem to imply in the above post to ICA. When it comes to theological concepts nit-picking in the form of Pauline dogmaticalness is a virtue. Paul allowed for no other doctrine to be propounded. In fact he charged Titus to reprove certain ones severingly that they may be sound in the faith. And as for some it was needful in the nature of the case that their mouths be stopped.

Harald

[CR Stam]

Wow! Talk about chopping up Scripture and taking verses out of context! For those interested the full section can be found here: http://www.bijbel.nl/things_that_differ-chp1.htm

Here's what a portion of it says:


The Bible is not a random collection of verses. Just read the passage in its context and see what it says:

Romans 4:4-16 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin." 9 Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say that faith was accounted to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How then was it accounted? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of the faith which our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised. 13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression. 16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

Paul says it is "just as" or "exactly as" it was with David. The passage also speaks about how Abraham is the father of all those who are saved by faith and applies all the promises given to Abraham to ALL those who are saved by faith-destroying another fundamental teaching of dispensationalism.

I'm not sure what the problem you think is, so I'm not sure what you are looking for in an answer or rebuttal.
I think if you read further in Stam's work it will clear up what you think is a
problem or inconsistancy with what he is trying to get across.
Nevertheless, I will try to give this as an explanation.
Faith has always been the means through which God has justified, credited or imputed His righteousness to man. But his WAY of doing this has not always remained the same. With those, such as Abraham who were before the Law of Moses, men were justified when they believed what God had revealed to them. (Gen 15:6) People of faith such as Abraham and others are mentioned in Hebrews 11. People in this Pre-law time didn't know about Calvary and that was not the basis of their faith, nevertheless, God justified them in anticipation of the yet future Cross.
When the Law of Moses came, justification was still through faith, but that faith had to be in conjunction with obedience to God. When Moses and the Israelites trusted what God had revealed to them and followed through in there actions--their works, God counted this as righteousness and they were justified. It was the same conditions for David, who was under the law, when he believed God and followed through in his actions. But David also, in the Psalms, looks forward to a time of grace freely offered. (Ps 103:1-12) The same can be seem from Isaiah's vantage in looking forward to a time of grace freely offered to all. (Is 55:1-7) Again, the OT saints did not know about redemption through the cross, nevertheless, God justified them in anticipation of the yet future cross.
What Paul is saying, in Romans 4:1-4, is that grace has come through Christ. And that works of the law in obedience to God don't count as being required along with believing God. That when a person simply believes Him who justifies the ungodly his faith is counted as righteousness: that is, he is justified/saved when he believes that Christ has saved him. God's means through which he grants salvation has always remained the same: faith. But the knowledge of what is to be believed has changed: the good news of grace through the finished work of Christ.

[CR Stam]

Phil,

As for me I have not yet read "Things that differ" by CR Stam. I did download it a week ago, well before you came on here. But I have about half a dozen books by him, and have so far read sufficiently so as to know he was heterodox on soteriology (how the Triune God saves sinful men). I do agree with him, though, on many not specifically soteriological matters.


As for who is right and who is wrong this is not at all unimportant, as you seem to imply in the above post to ICA. When it comes to theological concepts nit-picking in the form of Pauline dogmaticalness is a virtue. Paul allowed for no other doctrine to be propounded. In fact he charged Titus to reprove certain ones severingly that they may be sound in the faith. And as for some it was needful in the nature of the case that their mouths be stopped.

Harald

I was trying to commend the spirit of a ICA's post, that focuses on what is really important: the redeeming cross of Christ. I wasn't trying to say there is no room for healthy discussion or debate.
Sometimes it seems that people are thrown a rope to rescue them from the sea, but when the are offered the rope all they want is to examine it. Christ has offered us a rope of rescue from doom. Must we first examine this rope?

[ray kikkert]

I was trying to commend the spirit of a ICA's post, that focuses on what is really important: the redeeming cross of Christ. I wasn't trying to say there is no room for healthy discussion or debate.
Sometimes it seems that people are thrown a rope to rescue them from the sea, but when the are offered the rope all they want is to examine it. Christ has offered us a rope of rescue from doom. Must we first examine this rope?

Christ offers us the rope does he?

If that is your anology ( it is not Scriptures) then I would contend that the sinner is a dead bloated corpse floating around this rope and has no ability of himself to grab hold off it.

Christ does not "offer" salvation, so that man has the ability to accept or reject this offer. Man will of himself reject this dunghill offer each and every time, he is dead in trespasses and sins. Christ is such a perfect Saviour that he dives in , swims to us and brings us back to shore and makes us alive.

While we were yet sinners , Christ dies for us. He dies for the elect, His chosen one's from before the foundations of the world. His grace is irresistable, His atonement specific for the elect.

[wildboar]

I think there is still a great deal of room for development in the area of eschatology in the church and eschatology is important but errors in soteriology are more dangerous than errors in eschatology. False ideas about soteriology often spring from false ideas about eschatology. True ideas about soteriology often result in a more balanced and Biblical view of eschatology. The present day millennial madness shows that to be true. The Bible was not intended to be read in that way. Dispensationalism is a very, very new idea and dispensationalists at the very least have to wonder why nobody taught dispensationalism for the first 1700 years of Christianity and how this could have been so hidden from people if it is truly Biblical. I've come across some Baptist successionist dispensationalist and they are left with an even more puzzling problem.

[wildboar]

I'm not sure what the problem you think is, so I'm not sure what you are looking for in an answer or rebuttal.
I think if you read further in Stam's work it will clear up what you think is a
problem or inconsistancy with what he is trying to get across.
Nevertheless, I will try to give this as an explanation.
Faith has always been the means through which God has justified, credited or imputed His righteousness to man. But his WAY of doing this has not always remained the same. With those, such as Abraham who were before the Law of Moses, men were justified when they believed what God had revealed to them. (Gen 15:6) People of faith such as Abraham and others are mentioned in Hebrews 11. People in this Pre-law time didn't know about Calvary and that was not the basis of their faith, nevertheless, God justified them in anticipation of the yet future Cross.
When the Law of Moses came, justification was still through faith, but that faith had to be in conjunction with obedience to God. When Moses and the Israelites trusted what God had revealed to them and followed through in there actions--their works, God counted this as righteousness and they were justified. It was the same conditions for David, who was under the law, when he believed God and followed through in his actions. But David also, in the Psalms, looks forward to a time of grace freely offered. (Ps 103:1-12) The same can be seem from Isaiah's vantage in looking forward to a time of grace freely offered to all. (Is 55:1-7) Again, the OT saints did not know about redemption through the cross, nevertheless, God justified them in anticipation of the yet future cross.
What Paul is saying, in Romans 4:1-4, is that grace has come through Christ. And that works of the law in obedience to God don't count as being required along with believing God. That when a person simply believes Him who justifies the ungodly his faith is counted as righteousness: that is, he is justified/saved when he believes that Christ has saved him. God's means through which he grants salvation has always remained the same: faith. But the knowledge of what is to be believed has changed: the good news of grace through the finished work of Christ.

But that's not what Paul says. Paul says "just as/exactly as." He doesn't say it used to be that people were saved in this manner but now they are saved in a slightly different manner.