Sermon on the Mount - REJECTED

[d0c markus]

I was discussing pascifism on this thread a while ago and someone had mentioned 'turn the other cheek' was not meant for us.

Then i briefly read something about dispensationalists rejecting the sermon on the mount saying that it was directed only to first generation Christians...

Is this true, can someone give me some background?

 

[Crazy Liz]

The Anabaptists and Quakers tend to use the Sermon on the Mount as the lens through which they interpret the whole Bible, much as the Calvinists and Dispensationalists tend to use Romans as their lens.

I'll let a dispensationalist explain to you why they reject the Sermon on the Mount. I'll just point out that whatever they say is NOT the position of Anabaptists and Quakers.

 

[d0c markus]

The Anabaptists and Quakers tend to use the Sermon on the Mount as the lens through which they interpret the whole Bible, much as the Calvinists and Dispensationalists tend to use Romans as their lens.

I'll let a dispensationalist explain to you why they reject the Sermon on the Mount. I'll just point out that whatever they say is NOT the position of Anabaptists and Quakers.

thank you.

 

[d0c markus]

Bump. Arent the majority of baptists dispensational? (maybe im under the wrong impression) ANyone who can explain this view?

 

[TwinCrier]

I am Baptist, a dispensationalist and I think the sermon on the mount is for "us" as individuals. I don't follow the belief that the government should abide by the set standard and not imprison or execute felons or declare war. Turn the other cheek.... then duck.

 

[Polycarp1]

Doc or somebody -- would you be interested in starting a sister thread to this in the Theology area for discussion by others than belong to this forum?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Obviously my view of dispensationalism is a negative one, but I want to clarify what dispensationalists stated in this thread: Dispensationlism dismissing Christ's Words

The dispys there stated that they view the Sermon on the Mount as commands/rules "to" the coming kingdom of God and not "to" our current dispensation of the church.

Dispensationalists have a tendency to look for literal commands in the bible to follow and their doctrine consists of whole series of these commands. Their way of distinguishing which commands are "to" the current church and which commands are "to" the Israelites or the early church or the future kingdom of God is through the lens of a concept called dispensations. In this way, this model is far superior to literalist fundamentalists who do not make such a distinction.

I still don't have a satisfactory understanding of how they determine what verses belong to what dispensation. But it seems like most of Paul's words are commands to the church, most of Jesus words are commands to his disciples or the future kingdom. And most of the OT are commands to Isreal. I'm sure a dispensationalist will be able to explain that better.

While certain verses are not commands "to" the church, they are still valuable "for" the church in some way that is often de-emphasized since I can't get a straight answer from dispensationalists on how that really works in every day lives since they are so caught up in saying that such and such a verse is not "to" the church. However, most of us are more interested in what it means for a verse to be "for" our dispensation and not necessarily looking for commands that don't exist. It is only fundys who don't use dispensationalism that have that problem.

 

[SumTinWong]

I'll just point out that whatever they say is NOT the position of Anabaptists and Quakers.

Or of this Baptist either.

 

[SumTinWong]

Doc or somebody -- would you be interested in starting a sister thread to this in the Theology area for discussion by others than belong to this forum?

yeah let's do it.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Bump. Arent the majority of baptists dispensational? (maybe im under the wrong impression) ANyone who can explain this view?

It tends to be a popular interpretive model for fundamentalists of which many baptists tend to be. I would also say of the many flawed fundamentalist views of looking at the bible, dispensationalism tends to be one of the better ones.

 

[daveleau]

I was discussing pacifism on this thread a while ago and someone had mentioned 'turn the other cheek' was not meant for us.

Then i briefly read something about dispensationalists rejecting the sermon on the mount saying that it was directed only to first generation Christians...

Is this true, can someone give me some background?

Yes, many ultra-dispensationalists believe that very little of the NT (or the Bible as a whole even) is meant for us. They think that our useful Bible (in terms of prescriptive verses we should follow) begins with Acts. I just found out that James is not included in this. *shrugs* I thought this sort of dispensationalism had died out.

The sermon on the mount is most certainly for us, just as Joseph's trials in Genesis are for us to learn from. As far as the sermon on the mount, it is a sermon to individuals and we are to be pacifistic in personal relationships. The issue of turning the other cheek is not discussed in other parts where state issues are discussed.

 

[d0c markus]

this thread is now in gen theology for all to discuss/debate

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=9180462#post9180462

 

[Crazy Liz]

The sermon on the mount is most certainly for us, just as Joseph's trials in Genesis are for us to learn from. As far as the sermon on the mount, it is a sermon to individuals and we are to be pacifistic in personal relationships. The issue of turning the other cheek is not discussed in other parts where state issues are discussed.

While the Sermon on the Mount is primarily directed to personal righteousness, social justice is also present, especially in the Beatitudes and the Lord's Prayer. It is presented primarily as an eschatological hope. One difference between dispensationalists and other interpretations involves what Christians are to do in view of their eschatological hope for social justice. Dispys tend to give up on this age, not putting any effort into working for social justice. In a perverse way, the worse things get, the happier they are, because the closer we are getting to the Tribulation and the end of the age.

At least that's been my experience with dispensationalists.
They are opposed to any social aspect of the gospel. They do good to the poor only for the purpose of gaining an opportunity to evangelize them. They tend to be politically conservative as well, disfavoring social programs of all kinds.

 

[BT]

I was discussing pascifism on this thread a while ago and someone had mentioned 'turn the other cheek' was not meant for us.

Then i briefly read something about dispensationalists rejecting the sermon on the mount saying that it was directed only to first generation Christians...

Is this true, can someone give me some background?

This is true of SOME dispensationalists but not all. The ultra-dispensationalists would reject the Sermon and they have (IMO) a bunch of wacky ideas. I am a normal dispensationalist (as opposed to ultra) and I do not reject the sermon nor do any of the dispensationalists that I know ('cept one in here possibly).

I think that the statement is too broad and too many people misunderstand dispensationalism...

 

[Gold Dragon]

This is true of SOME dispensationalists but not all. The ultra-dispensationalists would reject the Sermon and they have (IMO) a bunch of wacky ideas. I am a normal dispensationalist (as opposed to ultra) and I do not reject the sermon nor do any of the dispensationalists that I know ('cept one in here possibly).

I think that the statement is too broad and too many people misunderstand dispensationalism...

Can you clarify with examples of how a "normal" dispensationalist would apply a specific beatitude or passage in the sermon on the mount?

 

[BT]

Can you clarify with examples of how a "normal" dispensationalist would apply a specific beatitude or passage in the sermon on the mount?

Pick one. I use them all.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Pick one. I use them all.

Sure. I thought I'd let you choose but I'll just take the first verse.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Maybe this isn't "to" our dispensation but what does it mean if this verse is "for" our dispensation.

 

[BT]

Sure. I thought I'd let you choose but I'll just take the first verse.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Maybe this isn't "to" our dispensation but what does it mean if this verse is "for" our dispensation.

GD I think you're going a little over-board with this whole "to" and "for" thing. The Sermon on the Mount/Beatitudes is/are applicable today, the message carries to us in this generation and onward until the end.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

I'm not sure exactly what you're wanting me to say here, but I would use this verse in a sermon regarding humility.

 

[costlygrace]

Wait a minute. Are we trying to pick and choose which ones of Christ's teachings apply to us and which ones do not? If the Sermon on the Mount doesn't apply to us then maybe the teachings on salvation don't either! Either we believe and live by the Words of Christ whom we claim to follow or we reject HIs Words. Also, nations are made up of people--to separate the two sounds to me rather like an legal loophole or something.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Question:

Mat 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

What if they don't believe in Jesus Christ? is theirs the kingdom of heaven?

And what if one is 'rich' in the Spirit - isn't theirs the kingdom of heaven, too?



As a dispie, I don't reject the Sermon on the Mount at all. None of the dispies in my church do either. In fact, the pastor had quite a sermon series based on the Beautitudes and their application for Christian life.
The problem comes, though, when some (nondispies) take statements from the Sermon on the Mount and add legalism to this age. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Not through rules.


and there is this:
Mat 5:23 "Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,Mat 5:24 leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.
I can see application to Christian life....but I don't do animal sacrifices (though my cat is REAL demanding lately.... )

I believe it (the Sermon on the Mount) needs to be understood in the context it is given. The applications to Christian life are plentiful.