ECT If you want out of the deceptions of MAD read the rebuttal of Bullinger by Ironside.

Status
Not open for further replies.

dodge

New member
A. Ironside, in refuting the teachings of Bullinger, cited this passage:


If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. (1Timothy 6:3-5)

Here is Ironside's application of the passage to hyperdispensationalism:


One would almost think that this was a direct command to Timothy to beware of Bullingerism! Notice, Timothy is to withdraw himself from, that is, to have no fellowship with, those who refuse the present authority of the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. Where do you get those actual words? Certainly in the four Gospels. There are very few actual words of the Lord Jesus Christ scattered throughout the rest of the New Testament. Of course there is a sense in which all the New Testament is from Him, but the apostle is clearly referring here to the actual spoken words of our Saviour, which have been recorded for the benefit of the saints, and which set forth the teaching that is in accordance with godliness or practical piety. If a man refuses these words, whether on the plea that they do not apply to our dispensation, or for any other reason, the Spirit of God declares it is an evidence of intellectual or spiritual pride.12

Ironside is saying that when Paul warned Timothy against those who do not teach doctrine in agreement with "the words of the Lord Jesus," since those words are found in the gospels, Paul is warning against teachers like Bullinger and his hyperdispensational descendants.

Furthermore, the book of Hebrews claims that God has spoken "to us in His Son" (1:2) and claims Jesus' words were confirmed to us by the apostles: "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will" (Hebrews 2:3, 4). That should settle the matter—Jesus' words and the words of His apostles are both considered from Jesus and binding on the church. But this does not work with hyperdispensationalists because to them the book of Hebrews is not for the church either. For example, Les Feldick will only apply Hebrews to those Jews under a different gospel than Paul preached:

http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue108.htm
 

musterion

Well-known member
Who is he talking to? Who does he think wants out of MAD?

Doesn't he know Ironside is required reading for MADs?

Doesn't he know Ironside was dishonest?

Doesn't he know Stam handled Ironside just fine 80 years ago?
 

dodge

New member
Who is he talking to? Who does he think wants out of MAD?

Doesn't he know Ironside is required reading for MADs?

Doesn't he know Ironside was dishonest?

Doesn't he know Stam handled Ironside just fine 80 years ago?

From everything I have read it looks like Stam may have been the confused one.
 

dodge

New member
C.R. Stam spoke with more clarity than anyone on this forum.

C.R. Stam helped to promote a lie. If one claims to be a Christian and in the same breath says they don't follow Jesus, because he came to and for Israel, is nothing more than deceived and more than likely lost as that individual has no clue who the real Jesus is. Lip service is NOT salvation.


Ironside exposed C.R. Stram as a deceiver and promoter of deception and confusion.
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
C.R. Stam helped to promote a lie. If one claims to be a Christian and in the same breath says they don't follow Jesus because he has been removed from the Gospel that he died to bring is nothing more than deceived and more than likely lost as that individual has no clue. Lip service is NOT salvation.

Your loss.
You're the one who has no clue.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
C.R. Stam spoke with more clarity than anyone on this forum.
I agree with this.
He was gifted with being a very smooth flow of how he wrote. Didn't try to rush a point. Didn't jump all over the map.

Almost any author of MAD will use the same info and same verses.
But reading Stam, it had an easier flow to me.
 

dodge

New member
Your loss.
You're the one who has no clue.

Paul said :


If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. (1Timothy 6:3-5)

Obviously by their own admission those in MAD is conceited and understands nothing;

Not hardly a loss: I know WHO, WHERE,WHY, and HOW salvation was paid, and it was through Jesus Christ NOT Paul.
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
I agree with this.
He was gifted with being a very smooth flow of how he wrote. Didn't try to rush a point. Didn't jump all over the map.

Almost any author of MAD will use the same info and same verses.
But reading Stam, it had an easier flow to me.

Yep! In the '80s I encountered Stam and because of my inexperience, I mostly rejected him. I had the attitude that so many do, that we should emphasize the 'red letters'.
In the '90s I ran across a box of books in my shed and began to scan one of his books. Some of it made more sense, by then. In the 2000's I recalled some of what I had read as it correlated with some studies I was doing. During that time, I began to understand Paul's declaration of being Christ's Apostle to the Gentiles. This shaped my studies from that point onward and I began to defend the point that Paul was GOD's unique Apostle to the Gentiles. I observed so many false doctrines and movements which were built on an ignorance of that one truth.
When I came to TOL, some posters, who I am deeply in gratitude to(early on: Chickenman, STP, Lighthouse, Heir, Tambora, GloryDaz, A4T, Nick, John W., Grosnick[*edit: add Clete and Jerry Shugart] and lately: Right Divider, Musterion, Danoh and others) used many of his same ideas.
When Heir created the thread, "Things that are different are not the same", I began reading again Stam's book "Things That Differ" and it all fell into place.

Most of all, I want to thank Tetelestai for his absurd arguments which drove me absolutely MAD. His intentions were otherwise, but truth won out and though I wasn't MAD when I came here, I am now and I owe so much of it to him. Too bad for him for all his wasted effort.
Since then, I want to thank GT, LA, IPP, Dodge, Suki Sue, and so many others whose arguments have provided such strong, dark backdrop which has caused the dispensational understanding to shine in contrast and reinforced my dispensational understanding.
The more they talk, the more the dispensational understanding rings true. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I pray that they will some day come to the knowledge of the truth.
 
Last edited:

dodge

New member
I pray that they will some day come to the knowledge of the truth.

I came to the knowledge of truth in 1978 when I placed my faith in Jesus and have not looked back since that evening.

I pray that MADist give up their idolatry of Paul and follow and believe the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Paul said :


If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. (1Timothy 6:3-5)

Obviously by their own admission those in MAD is conceited and understands nothing;

Not hardly a loss: I know WHO, WHERE,WHY, and HOW salvation was paid, and it was through Jesus Christ NOT Paul.

Thank you for providing more backdrop based on your lack of understanding which all the more causes the dispensational understanding to shine!
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
I came to the knowledge of truth in 1978 when I placed my faith in Jesus and have not looked back since that evening.

I pray that MADist give up their idolatry of Paul and follow and believe the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm glad that you trusted in Christ in '78.
I did so in '79 and was delivered from a very dark, lost eastern mystical pantheism.

You are absolutely mistaken to say that MADists idolize Paul. We honor Christ and His choice from heaven to reveal to Paul the mystery hid from the beginning of the world for our sake.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'm glad that you trusted in Christ in '78.
I did so in '79 and was delivered from a very dark, lost eastern mystical pantheism.
YAY!

You are absolutely mistaken to say that MADists idolize Paul. We honor Christ and His choice from heaven to reveal to Paul the mystery hid from the beginning of the world for our sake.
Well said.
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
A. Ironside, in refuting the teachings of Bullinger, cited this passage:


If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. (1Timothy 6:3-5)

Here is Ironside's application of the passage to hyperdispensationalism:


One would almost think that this was a direct command to Timothy to beware of Bullingerism! Notice, Timothy is to withdraw himself from, that is, to have no fellowship with, those who refuse the present authority of the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. Where do you get those actual words? Certainly in the four Gospels. There are very few actual words of the Lord Jesus Christ scattered throughout the rest of the New Testament. Of course there is a sense in which all the New Testament is from Him, but the apostle is clearly referring here to the actual spoken words of our Saviour, which have been recorded for the benefit of the saints, and which set forth the teaching that is in accordance with godliness or practical piety. If a man refuses these words, whether on the plea that they do not apply to our dispensation, or for any other reason, the Spirit of God declares it is an evidence of intellectual or spiritual pride.12

Ironside is saying that when Paul warned Timothy against those who do not teach doctrine in agreement with "the words of the Lord Jesus," since those words are found in the gospels, Paul is warning against teachers like Bullinger and his hyperdispensational descendants.

Furthermore, the book of Hebrews claims that God has spoken "to us in His Son" (1:2) and claims Jesus' words were confirmed to us by the apostles: "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will" (Hebrews 2:3, 4). That should settle the matter—Jesus' words and the words of His apostles are both considered from Jesus and binding on the church. But this does not work with hyperdispensationalists because to them the book of Hebrews is not for the church either. For example, Les Feldick will only apply Hebrews to those Jews under a different gospel than Paul preached:

http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue108.htm

I've read Harry Ironside from way back and he taught me a lot, but he was also wrong on a lot.
I read Bullinger's "Witness in the Star's" way back and it was great, but he was also wrong about a lot.

There are many, what I call 'hyper-posters' here, who are quick to speak and slow to hear.
It's an unwise practice.
 

Nihilo

BANNED
Banned
Spoiler
Yep! In the '80s I encountered Stam and because of my inexperience, I mostly rejected him. I had the attitude that so many do, that we should emphasize the 'red letters'.
In the '90s I ran across a box of books in my shed and began to scan one of his books. Some of it made more sense, by then. In the 2000's I recalled some of what I had read as it correlated with some studies I was doing. During that time, I began to understand Paul's declaration of being Christ's Apostle to the Gentiles. This shaped my studies from that point onward and I began to defend the point that Paul was GOD's unique Apostle to the Gentiles. I observed so many false doctrines and movements which were built on an ignorance of that one truth.
When I came to TOL, some posters, who I am deeply in gratitude to(early on: Chickenman, STP, Lighthouse, Heir, Tambora, GloryDaz, A4T, Nick, John W., Grosnick and lately: Right Divider, Musterion, Danoh and others) used many of his same ideas.
When Heir created the thread, "Things that are different are not the same", I began reading again Stam's book "Things That Differ" and it all fell into place.

Most of all, I want to thank Tetelestai for his absurd arguments which drove me absolutely MAD. His intentions were otherwise, but truth won out and though I wasn't MAD when I came here, I am now and I owe so much of it to him. Too bad for him for all his wasted effort.
Since then, I want to thank GT, LA, IPP, Dodge, Suki Sue, and so many others whose arguments have provided such strong, dark backdrop which has caused the dispensational understanding to shine in contrast and reinforced my dispensational understanding.
The more they talk, the more the dispensational understanding rings true. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I pray that they will some day come to the knowledge of the truth.
I'm sorry I'm not on your list Steko, I'll just have to try harder to be darker for you. :) ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top