Sermon on the Mount - REJECTED

[costlygrace]

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.

Definitely! Social justice is actually closer to prominent than merely present, especially if you read the Sermon on the Mount in Luke.

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.

That is just so perverse I cannot even comprehend it. I didn't know dispensationalists were really like that. You really can hardly get any more callous, even as a savage barbarian.

At least that's been my experience with dispensationalists. They are opposed to any social aspect of the gospel.

I would like to hope that dispensationalists are not all like that!

They do good to the poor only for the purpose of gaining an opportunity to evangelize them.

The poor know it quite well, and they feel used.

They tend to be politically conservative as well, disfavoring social programs of all kinds.

It is really adding insult to injury to not let the government take care of people when they themselves are unwilling. I agree that it should be the job of the church and it is to our shame when we do not, but if we are too wicked ourselves, someone has to do it! Did you know if even just a fair portion of tithe money in America went social programs, we could easily replace government welfare with our own charity. I should get the exact statistics together. And we would only have to treat people decently to get them to come to us--I know from friends' experiences that the government tends to make you feel like a criminal if you have need. But most churches are worse, based again on experiences that have been told to me.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

I am reading though this thread and i am just aggervated.
I guess because #1, I don't know what I am.....dispensationlist or not, or an ultra, #2 I have no idea how this applies to a persons testimony, #3, What ever happened to I believe what the bible says? What is with all these labels these days.
There are
Anti- people (catholic, semetic, protestant etc)
fundies
dispensationalist,
creationist.........My word, how in the world can anyone keep up what they are with all the labels?
GEL

 

[d0c markus]

I am reading though this thread and i am just aggervated.
I guess because #1, I don't know what I am.....dispensationlist or not, or an ultra, #2 I have no idea how this applies to a persons testimony, #3, What ever happened to I believe what the bible says? What is with all these labels these days.
There are
Anti- people (catholic, semetic, protestant etc)
fundies
dispensationalist,
creationist.........My word, how in the world can anyone keep up what they are with all the labels?
GEL

im a protestant baptist mixed with some pentecostal blood who appreciates and accepts liberal fundamentalism who buys into pretrib theology but debunks dispensationalism..OH i'm a proud horn tootin creationist! woo hoo!

i'm a contradiction of terms... but i am just joking. or am I?

 

[Gold Dragon]

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.

Thanks for your reply BT. Sorry about the whole "to" "for" thing. I was hoping that language would be useful for dispensationalists to understand what a non-dispy, non-fundy like myself means when I try to apply a passage that dispys consider to be "to" a different dispensation.

 

[BT]

I am reading though this thread and i am just aggervated.
I guess because #1, I don't know what I am.....dispensationlist or not, or an ultra, #2 I have no idea how this applies to a persons testimony, #3, What ever happened to I believe what the bible says? What is with all these labels these days.
There are
Anti- people (catholic, semetic, protestant etc)
fundies
dispensationalist,
creationist.........My word, how in the world can anyone keep up what they are with all the labels?
GEL

I wouldn't worry to much about it GEL. Dispensationalism is largely misunderstood as is it's purpose. Dispensationalism is not what is being represented here on this thread. It is a system of interpretation, nothing more nothing less. It is a way in which to interpret the Bible. Like many systems people can take it too far by trying to alter it to fit their personal dogma. People tend (IMO) to get a little bit of information about a particular system and through this limited knowledge make giant judgements about the system as a whole. When I first started to learn about dispensationalism I was given a lot of instruction by different people and spent literally about 3 months reading books on the subject, both pro and con. What I realized at the end of the study was that I had been interpreting the Bible in a dispensational fashion all along. So dispensationalism just gave me the reference word to the system that I already used. I wouldn't worry about the labels too much they are largely unnecessary and you're right they mainly serve to cause confusion. Most of them are just intellectual exercises anyway.

Are you a dispensationalist?

Do you believe that:
1) God dealt with mankind in different ways at different times through history

2) God revealed Himself to man gradually

3) The ultimate purpose in God's plan is His own glory and not man's salvation

4) Some of the things that God instructed man to do were limited in their timeframe (lasting until another addition to His revelation, or until a specific event had come to pass)

5) God's judgement was poured out on man due to man's failure to keep what God had commanded

6) Christ was the ultimate fulfillment of God's revelation of Himself

7) The Bible is the complete revelation of God to man and that there is an end of all things coming (pretty much everyone would agree with this)

8) God has not outright rejected Israel (nor has he replaced Israel with the church), the Hebrew people and nation still have a part to play and a purpose in God's plan


So if you agree with these statements you are probably in or close to the dispensational camp of interpretation (because you see these things clearly in the Bible). If you disagree with all or most of them then you are probably not. Now that's pretty general, but it isn't a whole lot deeper than that. It certainly doesn't affect your ideas about social programs. It shouldn't alter your zeal to witness. Since when is witnessing a bad thing, or since when has looking for opportunities to witness become evil? I mean, what in the world do you think we're here for?

I've talked to a few ultra-dispensationalists and it isn't their eschatology (end times theology) that is really altered, it is their ecclesiology (church theology) that is somewhat shifted from the "normys". Some people will take the divisions too far and get hung up on what is and is not valid today. Which is not what dispensationalism is about. It is recognizing that God unfolded His revelation to us and that during this unfolding (as our understanding increased directly with the level of revelation that we were subject to increased) certain of God's requirements towards man changed.

Anyway don't get too hung up on it. If you have questions or what more info PM me and I'll fill in the blanks for you....

 

[Gold Dragon]

I am reading though this thread and i am just aggervated.
I guess because #1, I don't know what I am.....dispensationlist or not, or an ultra, #2 I have no idea how this applies to a persons testimony, #3, What ever happened to I believe what the bible says? What is with all these labels these days.
There are
Anti- people (catholic, semetic, protestant etc)
fundies
dispensationalist,
creationist.........My word, how in the world can anyone keep up what they are with all the labels?
GEL

Labels are useful to help encapsulate a whole set of ideas into a single word so that we don't have to explain all our assumptions every single time we discuss these things.

Humans have always been able to focus on differences and find some reason to fight about them. And labels can be used to accentuate those differences and overgeneralize.

However, I believe it is possible to accurately use labels to understand our differences, be open to exceptions to those labels, recognize uniqueness and build bridges despite the differences we have.

 

[BT]

Thanks for your reply BT. Sorry about the whole "to" "for" thing. I was hoping that language would be useful for dispensationalists to understand what a non-dispy, non-fundy like myself means when I try to apply a passage that dispys consider to be "to" a different dispensation.

No problems GD. I just didn't want you or I or anyone else to get confused with the terminology. The idea of "to" and "for" is useful but we still need to be careful with it.

We as dispensationalists only believe that the revelation of God changed as time went on, because God chose to give us more as history unfolded. During this time God's requirements towards us changed. Therefore not everything that is a direct command in the Bible is necessary for us to fufill (i.e. the Law). The Law is still relevant though and is still preached on. When we preach on it we wouldn't say things like "You have to stop eating certain foods" ... because we understand that the commandment is no longer to be fulfilled. In our church (which is dispensational and fundamental) we preach from every book of the Bible, we just realize that not every command given is to be upheld by us. When we get into the NT though we find that there is much (if not all) that is to be upheld by us and that was directly to us (i.e. there are many passages that are "to the church" which is the Body of Christ). God's inspiration was not private. Meaning that it was not intended for the immediate audience alone or necessarily. God exists outside of time, it is therefore not difficult to understand that some of the things that He wrote even a couple of thousand years ago are directly to you and I...

 

[BT]

Labels are useful to help encapsulate a whole set of ideas into a single word so that we don't have to explain all our assumptions every single time we discuss these things.

Humans have always been able to focus on differences and find some reason to fight about them. And labels can be used to accentuate those differences and overgeneralize.

However, I believe it is possible to accurately use labels to understand our differences, be open to exceptions to those labels, recognize uniqueness and build bridges despite the differences we have.

right on

 

[GreenEyedLady]

We need a dictonary to all of these labels!!!! Then maybe I could cross referance all of them in here!
GEL

 

[Crazy Liz]

im a protestant baptist mixed with some pentecostal blood who appreciates and accepts liberal fundamentalism who buys into pretrib theology but debunks dispensationalism..OH i'm a proud horn tootin creationist! woo hoo!

i'm a contradiction of terms... but i am just joking. or am I?

He's a poet... He's a picker
He's a prophet... He's a pusher
He's a pilgrim and a preacher and a problem when he's stoned
He's a walking contradiction
Partly truth and partly fiction
Taking every wrong direction on his lonely way back home

 

[FreeinChrist]

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.

Oh my! What a horrible way to describe dispensationists! I know LOTS of dispensationists who are involved in mission projects and who are concerned with social justice. The ones I know, however, are like me - ecognizing that true 'social justice' will not occur until the Second advent.

And rejoicing in that things are getting worse - hardly. Perhaps you are truly misunderstanding. I see things getting worse , farthur away from God in ways that make me think the Second Coming is near.....and am sad that this is the case...but also am excited at the idea of seeing my Lord. It is a conflict, to be sure.

.
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.

That is a blatant misrepresentation of the beliefs of others. You know the hearts of dispensationists? Do you know my heart, what I do and why I do it? I will say that Dispensationists that I know see the work of God as the first priority, and what our focus should be.


I don't think you know what you are talking about, dear, and find your post untrue, biased, and quite offensive.

 

[Gold Dragon]

It is a system of interpretation, nothing more nothing less. It is a way in which to interpret the Bible. Like many systems people can take it too far by trying to alter it to fit their personal dogma....When I first started to learn about dispensationalism I was given a lot of instruction by different people and spent literally about 3 months reading books on the subject, both pro and con. What I realized at the end of the study was that I had been interpreting the Bible in a dispensational fashion all along. So dispensationalism just gave me the reference word to the system that I already used

Thanks for your reasoned perspective BT. I really wish more dispensationalists held this opinion of their biblical interpretive model. I hope to hear more of a perspective from so-called "normal" dispensationalists like yourself who will temper the zeal of our "hyper" or "ultra" dispensationalist brethren.

People tend (IMO) to get a little bit of information about a particular system and through this limited knowledge make giant judgements about the system as a whole.

I think most of the mistaken judgements of dispensationalism are a result of overzealous dispensationalists who raise their interpretive model to the level of being the "one-true" way of interpreting the bible at the exclusion of all others. While I feel it is a useful and valid way to interpret the bible, there are many other useful and valid ways to interpret scripture.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Are you a dispensationalist?
Do you believe that:
1) God dealt with mankind in different ways at different times through history
2) God revealed Himself to man gradually
3) The ultimate purpose in God's plan is His own glory and not man's salvation
4) Some of the things that God instructed man to do were limited in their timeframe (lasting until another addition to His revelation, or until a specific event had come to pass)
5) God's judgement was poured out on man due to man's failure to keep what God had commanded
6) Christ was the ultimate fulfillment of God's revelation of Himself
7) The Bible is the complete revelation of God to man and that there is an end of all things coming (pretty much everyone would agree with this)
8) God has not outright rejected Israel (nor has he replaced Israel with the church), the Hebrew people and nation still have a part to play and a purpose in God's plan

So if you agree with these statements you are probably in or close to the dispensational camp of interpretation (because you see these things clearly in the Bible). If you disagree with all or most of them then you are probably not.

BT, I'm sorry but I will have to disagree with you here. Myself and many non-dispys would probably agree with the general way you have phrased these statements but I definitely would not call myself a dispensationalist or even remotely close to being a dispensationalist. And from conversations with some dispensationalists on this board, I interpret scripture very differently from them.

I think three of the key uniqueness of dispensationalism are:
1) Premillenialism - a specific view of the end times
2) Fundamentalism - emphasis on inerrant literal biblical authority as a strict moral code
3) Dispensations - not necessarily their existence but how all Scripture should be viewed and applied through the lens of dispensations.

While I would generally agree with some aspects of each of the above three keys, I disagree with the definitions most dispensationlists use and the extent that they are applied by dispensationalists as the only way to understand Scripture and God's revelation.

Here is an article from Realms of Faith that I feel has a very reasoned approach to dispensationalism while disagreeing with its premises.

...I cannot call dispensationalism heresy. Dispensationalists are in full harmony with the essentials of the faith: the truthfulness of the Bible, the attributes of God, the Trinity, human moral responsibility, salvation by grace rather than by works, Jesus' deity, incarnation, substitutionary atonement, and resurrection, and the promise of His return. Nor can I label dispensationalism as a naive or amateuristic approach to the Bible. Some of the most respected biblical scholars in the world, such as Eugene Merrill and Gleason Archer, are dispensational. And so I would place them in a category with charismatics, evangelical Catholics, hyper-Calvinists, and anabaptists: people who are passionate about God's word, but who miss the message in some important areas.

What I can do is say that dispensationalists are wrong to present themselves as the only ones who consistently believe the Bible is "literally" true. It is not inconsistent to see poetry as more symbolic than historical narrative, and I have yet to meet a dispensationalist who believes the antichrist will be a beast with seven heads and ten horns. Many dispensationalists have a sense of superiority and suspicion about them, as if anyone who opposes them must be liberal, or worse, Catholic. Some dispensationalists, however, are making headway: Chuck Swindoll, former president of Dallas Theological Seminary, has worked to make it a place more accepting of non-dispensationalists, and scholars such as Craig Blaising are developing what is known as progressive dispensationalism, which brings it closer to mainstream evangelical theology.

 

[BT]

BT, I'm sorry but I will have to disagree with you here. Myself and many non-dispys would probably agree with the general way you have phrased these statements but I definitely would not call myself a dispensationalist or even remotely close to being a dispensationalist. And from conversations with some dispensationalists on this board, I interpret scripture very differently from them.

If you would agree with the general statements then you would agree with the under-lying principles.. like this..

1) God dealt with mankind in different ways at different times through history
Dispensations

2) God revealed Himself to man gradually
Progressive revelation

3) The ultimate purpose in God's plan is His own glory and not man's salvation
Doxology as primary (which opposes the common covenantalist view of salvation as primary)

4) Some of the things that God instructed man to do were limited in their timeframe (lasting until another addition to His revelation, or until a specific event had come to pass)
Dispensations (key to the end of one dispensation or the beginning of the next)


5) God's judgement was poured out on man due to man's failure to keep what God had commanded
Man's failure in a dispensation results in God's wrath and new commandments, new revelation


6) Christ was the ultimate fulfillment of God's revelation of Himself
The theanthropic principle of God becoming flesh and "filling full" His requirements. (Not necessarily a dispensational tenet)

7) The Bible is the complete revelation of God to man and that there is an end of all things coming (pretty much everyone would agree with this)
Again not necessarily only dispensational but used to show the end of the cycle of progressive revelation as offerred to man.

8) God has not outright rejected Israel (nor has he replaced Israel with the church), the Hebrew people and nation still have a part to play and a purpose in God's plan
Covenant theology puts forth that God is finished with Israel and that they have been completely cast aside. Dispensationalism finds that there is still a part to play (according to Scripture) for Israel. The Jew is still "God's people" and Israel is still "God's nation" they are in a state of massive disobedience right now, but there will be a redemption for them. Whereas the covenantalist would say that Israel was skipped over for the church, or that the church is Israel now.

To the three statements I would suggest that.

1) Not all dispensationalists are premill, nor does the system insist on premill. Though you may find many who are premill in the dispensational camp, it is not a tenet.

2) Dispensationalism does call for a view of Scriptures as inerrant and uses a fundamental understanding of the Bible. However this is not a dispensational "only" ideal. Many people who follow other systems find this point to be true. It is mostly in dealing with the OT that they swerve away from the dispensationalist.

3) The key in dispensations is not what or where they are but to see that they are. This is definately a dispensational tenet.. actually it is all of dispensationalism. The dispensationalist would view Scripture through the lens of the NT because that is the complete revelation. The system strives to be realistic in ascribing a proper level of knowledge to people in certain situations. It does not add to the scriptures it takes them at face value. This does not mean that we do not recognize symbolism or allegory (naturally). As for myself (and the dispensationalists that I know) I wouldn't find anyone who is a non-dispey as lost in interpretation or anything like that. Dispensationalism is a system of interpretation it is not theology, nor divine, nor important with regards to personal salvation...

 

[Gold Dragon]

As for myself (and the dispensationalists that I know) I wouldn't find anyone who is a non-dispey as lost in interpretation or anything like that. Dispensationalism is a system of interpretation it is not theology, nor divine, nor important with regards to personal salvation...

Your perspective is a refreshing change from what I normally get from dispensationalists on this board.

 

[Gold Dragon]

1) Not all dispensationalists are premill, nor does the system insist on premill. Though you may find many who are premill in the dispensational camp, it is not a tenet.

I'd be interested in learning what other eschatological views are accepted in dispensationalism. The premill-dispy association is so strong that I have always understood premil to be a requirement of dispensationalism. Of course I understand that dispensationalism is not a requirement of premill.

2) Dispensationalism does call for a view of Scriptures as inerrant and uses a fundamental understanding of the Bible. However this is not a dispensational "only" ideal. Many people who follow other systems find this point to be true. It is mostly in dealing with the OT that they swerve away from the dispensationalist.

I know that there are many fundamentalist who are not dispensationalists. And I would often use them as examples of biblical interpretive models that are inferior to dispensationalism primarly because of their treatment of the OT laws. However, the dispensationalists I've talked to often seem to think that all non-dispeys are those fundamentalists who treat the OT law as part of a Christian legal system. Obviously that is not true.

3) The key in dispensations is not what or where they are but to see that they are. This is definately a dispensational tenet.. actually it is all of dispensationalism. The dispensationalist would view Scripture through the lens of the NT because that is the complete revelation. The system strives to be realistic in ascribing a proper level of knowledge to people in certain situations. It does not add to the scriptures it takes them at face value. This does not mean that we do not recognize symbolism or allegory (naturally).

I think the bolded section is what makes dispensationalism valuable, although I would posit that there are many other systems that do a better job of the same thing.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Oh my! What a horrible way to describe dispensationists! I know LOTS of dispensationists who are involved in mission projects and who are concerned with social justice. The ones I know, however, are like me - ecognizing that true 'social justice' will not occur until the Second advent.

And rejoicing in that things are getting worse - hardly. Perhaps you are truly misunderstanding. I see things getting worse , farthur away from God in ways that make me think the Second Coming is near.....and am sad that this is the case...but also am excited at the idea of seeing my Lord. It is a conflict, to be sure.

That is a blatant misrepresentation of the beliefs of others. You know the hearts of dispensationists? Do you know my heart, what I do and why I do it? I will say that Dispensationists that I know see the work of God as the first priority, and what our focus should be.


I don't think you know what you are talking about, dear, and find your post untrue, biased, and quite offensive.

Sorry, FIC. That has just been my experience. I'm sure not all are like that, but I found, for example, when setting their mission budgets, these seemed to be their priorities. I have heard dispensationalists respond with glee to rumors of war in the Middle East because that meant Armageddon was coming. I advocated in such churches to engage in helping the poor, and I was called a liberal. "We don't believe in the social gospel."

I'm glad to hear not all dispensationalists are like that.

 

[Crazy Liz]

8) God has not outright rejected Israel (nor has he replaced Israel with the church), the Hebrew people and nation still have a part to play and a purpose in God's plan [/i]
Covenant theology puts forth that God is finished with Israel and that they have been completely cast aside. Dispensationalism finds that there is still a part to play (according to Scripture) for Israel. The Jew is still "God's people" and Israel is still "God's nation" they are in a state of massive disobedience right now, but there will be a redemption for them. Whereas the covenantalist would say that Israel was skipped over for the church, or that the church is Israel now.

This is where I think dispensationalists go astray. Dispensationalism is a reaction to Reformed or Covenant theology. Dispensationalists tend to say Covenant theology is wrong, therefore Dispensational theology must be right. It is a reactionary theology that fails to recognize the many other ways of interpreting scripture.

 

[Gold Dragon]

If you would agree with the general statements then you would agree with the under-lying principles.. like this..

And that is where we disagree. I disagree with the under-lying principles that dispensationalists use to arrive at those positions and the relative importance of those principles in the work of interpretation.

 

[BT]

This is where I think dispensationalists go astray. Dispensationalism is a reaction to Reformed or Covenant theology. Dispensationalists tend to say Covenant theology is wrong, therefore Dispensational theology must be right. It is a reactionary theology that fails to recognize the many other ways of interpreting scripture.

While I don't think that this idea has any basis in fact, you are free to have your own opinion.