Do you reject the Sermon on the Mount as being applicable today?

[Bible Highlighter]

Do you reject the Sermon on the Mount as being applicable today?

If so, then what verses lead you to that conclusion?

~ (Also, please vote in the poll) ~

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Men like Bryan Denlinger rejects the Sermon on the Mount as being applicable today. He says that the Sermon on the Mount applies to the Millennial Kingdom because you cannot possibly obey all of the things on the Sermon on the Mount. But where in the sermon does Jesus say that this is not for the people he was talking to but this was for a future people? Why would Jesus give a crowd of people a teaching that does not apply to them? What benefit is there in doing so? Biblical answers would be appreciated.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Men like Bryan Denlinger rejects the Sermon on the Mount as being applicable today. He says that the Sermon on the Mount applies to the Millennial Kingdom because you cannot possibly obey all of the things on the Sermon on the Mount. But where in the sermon does Jesus say that this is not for the people he was talking to but this was for a future people? Why would Jesus give a crowd of people a teaching that does not apply to them? What benefit is there in doing so? Biblical answers would be appreciated.

That is so sad. Christ, have mercy.

The belief that the NT commands exist just to show we can not keep them and therefore don't need to has never made sense to me. At all. The Law of Moses didn't work that way. Why would Christ?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Men like Bryan Denlinger rejects the Sermon on the Mount as being applicable today. He says that the Sermon on the Mount applies to the Millennial Kingdom because you cannot possibly obey all of the things on the Sermon on the Mount. But where in the sermon does Jesus say that this is not for the people he was talking to but this was for a future people? Why would Jesus give a crowd of people a teaching that does not apply to them? What benefit is there in doing so? Biblical answers would be appreciated.

I've never heard of him. He sounds kind of fishy to me.

 

[Hammster]

Men like Bryan Denlinger rejects the Sermon on the Mount as being applicable today

Well, it is the Millennial Kingdom, so it is applicable.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Do you reject the Sermon on the Mount as being applicable today?

If so, then what verses lead you to that conclusion?

~ (Also, please vote in the poll) ~

The New Covenant is like a will and testament. The will first has to be written and then after the death of the testator the will becomes active at the reading of the will. The Day of Pentecost was like the reading of the will.

The Sermon on the Mount is the writing of the will. The recipients of the will will be those who believe in Jesus. Jesus shows how the laws of God will truly be, and we know now that they will be able to be kept, not by our carnal nature and weak will power as the Old Covenant laws had to be kept, but by our new born again nature that is filled with the Spirit of Christ. God will keep His own laws through us by empowering us.

Romans 3:
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. (NKJV)

I like how the Living Bible puts it for clarity:

31 Well then, if we are saved by faith, does this mean that we no longer need obey God’s laws? Just the opposite! In fact, only when we trust Jesus can we truly obey him.

 

[Dave-W]

I have heard some rather reputable well-known evangelical pastors say it is not applicable as it was a summation of the Mosaic Laws. (Which they contend was eliminated)

 

[Dave-W]

He says that the Sermon on the Mount applies to the Millennial Kingdom because you cannot possibly obey all of the things on the Sermon on the Mount.

What ever happened to “I can do all things thru Christ who strengthens me?”

 

[Dave-W]

Well, it is the Millennial Kingdom, so it is applicable.

During the Millenium/Messianic kingdom, Messiah physically reigns for a thousand years from His throne in Jerusalem. And the devil and his minions are locked up and not able to tempt or incite men to do evil.

I don’t think we are there yet.

 

[Dave-W]

The problem comes when people read instructions on how we are to live and how to relate to each other and turn it into some kind of salvation formula.

In the current Chosen People newsletter, (vol XXV ed8) Dr Dru Johnson writes on page 6:

For example, I have four teenagers, and if you had written down everything i said to them in a day when they were younger, it would give you a very distorted perspective on my view of fatherhood. You would think I see it as a bunch of “dos” and “do nots.” That is the statutory view. But the truth is I was trying to keep them from killing themselves, or each other, or burning down the house. It was out of a deep and profound live that I was willing to patiently guide them over the years.

That is the rule of Law in the Hebrew bible. God was trying to keep Israel from burning the house down.​

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have heard some Christians on the forums say that Matthew 5:28-30 is not applicable in the sense that Jesus was not really warning us about how the sin of lust can cause their soul to be cast into hell fire. Jesus also said in Matthew 5:16 that we can glorify God by our good works (i.e. the good works that the Lord desires to do through us). Yet other Christians on the forums imply that we can only glorify God by believing in the finished work of the cross. This to me seems like a partial rejection of the Sermon on the Mount by some (at least if I am understanding them correctly).

 

[Hammster]

During the Millenium/Messianic kingdom, Messiah physically reigns for a thousand years from His throne in Jerusalem. And the devil and his minions are locked up and not able to tempt or incite men to do evil.

I don’t think we are there yet.

The Kingdom of God is here.

 

[mkgal1]

Apparently there's a controversy over this? In looking up Brayan Denlinger, I found the term "lordship salvation" that, as I'm understanding, is a John MacArthur teaching that Denlinger is denying he, himself, is teaching. But I don't understand the controversy in this ( I'm going to have to do more digging into this). This is what I find about "Lordship salvation":

According to one website advocating Lordship Salvation, "the doctrine of Lordship salvation teaches that submitting to Christ as Lord goes hand-in-hand with trusting in Christ as Savior​

 

[mkgal1]

During the Millenium/Messianic kingdom, Messiah physically reigns for a thousand years from His throne in Jerusalem. And the devil and his minions are locked up and not able to tempt or incite men to do evil.

I don’t think we are there yet.

That's one view. I believe in Amillennialism as the biblical view. This is the best explanation I've found on Amillennialism:


As regards inaugurated eschatology, then, amillennialism affirms the following:

1. Christ has won the decisive victory over sin, death and Satan. By living a sinless life and by dying on the cross as the sacrifice of atonement for our sin, Christ defeated sin. By undergoing death and then victoriously rising from the grave, Christ defeated death. By resisting the devil’s temptations, by perfectly obeying God, and by his death and resurrection, Christ delivered a deathblow to Satan and his evil hosts. This victory of Christ’s was decisive and final. The most important day in history, therefore, is not the Second Coming of Christ which is still future but the first coming which lies in the past. Because of the victory of Christ, the ultimate issues of history have already been decided. It is now only a question of time until that victory is brought to its final consummation.

2. The kingdom of God is both present and future. Amillennialists do not believe that the kingdom of God is primarily a Jewish kingdom which involves the literal restoration of the throne of David. Nor do they believe that because of the unbelief of the Jews of his day Christ postponed the establishment of the kingdom to the time of his future earthly millennial reign. Amillennialists believe that the kingdom of God was founded by Christ at the time of his sojourn on earth, is operative in history now and is destined to be revealed in its fullness in the life to come. They understand the kingdom of God to be the reign of God dynamically active in human history through Jesus Christ. Its purpose is to redeem God’s people from sin and from demonic powers, and finally to establish the new heavens and the new earth. The kingdom of God means nothing less than the reign of God in Christ over his entire created universe.

The kingdom of God is therefore both a present reality and a future hope. Jesus clearly taught that the kingdom was already present during his earthly ministry: “But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Mt. 12:28, NIV). When the Pharisees asked Jesus when the kingdom of God was coming, he replied, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, `Lo, here it is!’ or `There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you” (Lk. 17:20-21).
More here:
"Amillennialism: A Brief Sketch of Amillennial Eschatology" by Anthony Hoekema

 

[JackRT]

The Sermon on the Mount is most interesting. As mentioned earlier, Pentecost honored Moses and the Law received on Mount Sinai. Matthew portrayed Jesus as the new Moses delivering a new law on a new mountain. I refer of course to the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:17-29). The sermon is organized to fit the vigil format that we've already examined. The Sermon begins with an octave of eight blessings or beatitudes, and in typical Jewish literary style, the eight blessings are bracketed by making the first and the last reward identical. Thus both "the poor in spirit" and those "persecuted for righteousness sake" are promised the Kingdom of God. The remainder of the Sermon is divided into eight sections, each of which is an exposition of one of the beatitudes. Again in typical Jewish literary style, the last beatitude is explained first and so on working backward through the list. It also goes, almost without saying, that these eight expositions on the new Law of Jesus fit perfectly into the eight portions of the vigil of Pentecost.

What does this tell us about the Sermon on the Mount? Was it an actual historical event in the life of Jesus? There is of course a remote possibility that it actually was. However, in light of the very artificial arrangement of the Sermon to fit neatly into the Feast of Pentecost, I would suggest that there was no one event in the ministry of Jesus that could be classified as the Sermon on the Mount. Should we therefore throw it out as unhistorical? NEVER! What is important here is not whether the Sermon on the Mount was an historical event but that the content of the Sermon reflects the authentic teaching of Jesus. The fact that this teaching was probably done over a period of time in many different teaching situations is not nearly as important as the basic truth of these teachings. To put it a different way, the authority of scripture does not rely upon the details of its historicity but rather upon its ability to instruct us spiritually and point us in the direction of God.

 

[anna ~ grace]

I have heard some Christians on the forums say that Matthew 5:28-30 is not applicable in the sense that Jesus was not really warning us about how the sin of lust can cause their soul to be cast into hell fire. Jesus also said in Matthew 5:16 that we can glorify God by our good works (i.e. the good works that the Lord desires to do through us). Yet other Christians on the forums imply that we can only glorify God by believing in the finished work of the cross. This to me seems like a partial rejection of the Sermon on the Mount by some (at least if I am understanding them correctly).

Yes. There is a division between those who affirm faith alone and take this as being very literal, and those who, mercifully, understand that works, choices, our lives, and the condition of our hearts also plays a role.

We differ greatly as to how we understand this and how we would explain things, but at least for many, there is an acknowledgement that works do matter.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Apparently there's a controversy over this? In looking up Brayan Denlinger, I found the term "lordship salvation" that, as I'm understanding, is a John MacArthur teaching that Denlinger is denying he, himself, is teaching. But I don't understand the controversy in this ( I'm going to have to do more digging into this). This is what I find about "Lordship salvation":

According to one website advocating Lordship Salvation, "the doctrine of Lordship salvation teaches that submitting to Christ as Lord goes hand-in-hand with trusting in Christ as Savior​

I believe John MacArthur had popularized Lordship Salvation (and defined it more) by his book "The Gospel According to Jesus" (1988). Yet, he also believes in perseverance of the saints (or Eternal Security). This means that a person is regenerated in such a way that will live a life of commitment to the Lord. But what if one goes prodigal like in the Parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15? Are they saved while they were prodigal or in sin? Other statements made by Mr. MacArthur seems to imply that a believer can sin and still be saved on some level (unless he changed his beliefs later on). Why did MacArthur publish his book on Lordship Salvation? Was it because his church was sued for endorsing the belief that a Christian can commit suicide and still be saved? For MacArthur's church was sued by the family of Ken Nally; For Ken Nally had committed suicide as per the influence of their teachings that a believer can commit suicide and still be saved. Now, could I be wrong on the information presented to us on this by the internet? Well, only God knows such answers in regards to Mr. MacArthur and the family of Ken Nally. But it does raise some alarms on whether Lordship Salvation is truly in line with what Jesus and His followers taught in regards to holy living or Sanctification after we are saved. So far I see "Lordship Salvation" as a false sheep skin for holy living, when in reality underneath is something more sinister and dark because it also allows for one to also sin and still be saved on some level. But that is my opinion and belief (according to what I have learned with the Bible and in what they teach in unison with Lordship Salvationism).

Anyways, check out this source here:
Lordship salvation controversy - Wikipedia

 

[AlexDTX]

Men like Bryan Denlinger rejects the Sermon on the Mount as being applicable today. He says that the Sermon on the Mount applies to the Millennial Kingdom because you cannot possibly obey all of the things on the Sermon on the Mount. But where in the sermon does Jesus say that this is not for the people he was talking to but this was for a future people? Why would Jesus give a crowd of people a teaching that does not apply to them? What benefit is there in doing so? Biblical answers would be appreciated.

I have not read the Sermon on the Mount as a list of do's and don'ts. I see it in light of the impossibility to keep the commandments, since the commandments barely even touch the surface of divine righteousness. Jesus was talking to those under the Mosaic Covenant to teach them their need to for salvation that he offered.

As Christians, the Sermon on the Mount is a series of road signs for us to keep track of our walk with Christ. Christ fulfilled it, but those are his footsteps we walk in to keep up with him.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes. There is a division between those who affirm faith alone and take this as being very literal, and those who, mercifully, understand that works, choices, our lives, and the condition of our hearts also plays a role.

We differ greatly as to how we understand this and how we would explain things, but at least for many, there is an acknowledgement that works do matter.

I agree.

 

[bèlla]

Greetings,

No, I don’t. I can’t fathom how you disallow one thing while keeping the rest. My foundation is built on Christ. Not ill-formed legos that suit my whims and preferences.

~Bella