WHY ARE MANY OF US STILL HERE?

[Dave L]

The surmon on the mount is a sadly ignored part of Jesus's esential teaching.
Everything you've commented on was covered by Jesus.

May I suggest that you ask your preacher to preach on this forgotten passage. Suggest that he deals wit it as a series over 6 months of sundays or longer.

Indeed! At the close of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew says they were astonished at Jesus' doctrine. John says if any come to your house not having "the doctrine of Christ", don't let them in or wish them a good day. Dispensationalists say the Sermon on the Mount is not for today. So this is an alarm bell ringing loud and clear about their teachings.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

The surmon on the mount is a sadly ignored part of Jesus's esential teaching.
Everything you've commented on was covered by Jesus.

May I suggest that you ask your preacher to preach on this forgotten passage. Suggest that he deals wit it as a series over 6 months of sundays or longer.

It would probably be met with anger because it would be perceived as trying to "legalize" the church. This generation of pastors mostly preach a "diluted gospel"--one that places no requirements on the hearers. But, as Pastor David Wilkerson often said, "A diluted gospel is no gospel at all." He is featured in the YouTube video, "Wake Up Church" preaching just that, from the pulpit of Times Square Church. It is a powerful video--I recommend it to every Christian. It is only ten minutes and is well-worth the time. The video also features, Wilkerson's successor at Times Square, Carter Conlon. Wilkerson had a gift for actual PREACHING but I think Conlon might even surpass Wilkerson's gifts. Most pastors today are mere teachers. The video also displays the gifts of Keith Daniel, the great preacher, Leonard Ravenhill and a young Jim Cymballa. I would put a link here but I have a new laptop and it refuses to let me minimize this screen so that I can go fetch the link. (I hate no person, but sometimes I have sincere antipathy toward technology!)

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Indeed! At the close of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew says they were astonished at Jesus' doctrine. John says if any come to your house not having "the doctrine of Christ", don't let them in or wish them a good day. Dispensationalists say the Sermon on the Mount is not for today. So this is an alarm bell ringing loud and clear about their teachings.

I know lots of Dispensationalists who would never say that the Sermon on the Mount "is not for today". The New Calivinists are taking over what was once the fortress of Dispensationalism, the mighty Southern Baptist Convention. It is likely the "radical grace" influence of the New Cals who are twisting doctrine that way. New Calvinist pasors, like their founder, Calvin, don't seem to "get" holiness for themselves. Calvin, as the virtual dictator of Geneva, was responsible for the execution death of 54 people including a 9-year-old girl.

 

[Trekson]

Indeed! At the close of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew says they were astonished at Jesus' doctrine. John says if any come to your house not having "the doctrine of Christ", don't let them in or wish them a good day. Dispensationalists say the Sermon on the Mount is not for today. So this is an alarm bell ringing loud and clear about their teachings.

I'm not your typical dispensationalist but I've never heard of one (and I was raised Pentecostal) that believes the Sermon on the Mount isn't for today. I think that is a gross case of stereotyping of off mainline denominations, but if you think it affirms what many of us consider legalism, then you don't understand the intent of His sermon.

 

[Phoneman777]

'We are confident, I say,
and willing rather
to be absent from the body,
and to be present with the Lord.
Wherefore we labour,
that, whether present or absent,
we may be accepted of Him.
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ;
that every one may receive the things done in his body,
according to that he hath done,
whether it be good or bad.'
(2 Corinthians 5:8-10)

Hello there, @Phoneman777,

If you look at Paul's argument in the verses preceding the above, in 2 Corinthians 5, that you refer to in your entry #25. You will see that Paul's desire was not to be 'unclothed' as in death: but to be 'clothed upon' with life, resurrection life; but that requires resurrection, and the appearing of our God and Saviour. Paul could only be 'present with the Lord', if 'clothed upon' by life, by resurrection life: for this mortal must put on immortality (1 Cor. 15:53). This requires resurrection from the dead, at the appearing of our Great God and Saviour: which is now on a future day, of God's choosing; but had the potential to have taken place during Paul's lifetime, if Israel had repented, which they did not. This was what Paul hoped for: for then he would not have known the 'unclothed' state of 'death', but would indeed have been 'present with the Lord'.

* Man does not have an immortal soul: for only God has immortality (1 Tim.6:16). Our mortal body, must be replaced by a resurrection body (1 Cor.15:53), like unto Christ's own resurrection body, which was made up of flesh and bones, and not a 'spirit' (Luke 24:39).

* No! There is no 'life' apart from resurrection.

'For we know that if our earthly house
.. of this tabernacle
.... were dissolved,
...... we have a building of God,
........ an house not made with hands,
.......... eternal in the heavens.
For in this we groan,
.. earnestly desiring to be clothed upon
.... with our house which is from heaven:
If so be that being clothed
.. we shall not be found naked.
For we that are in this tabernacle do groan,
.. being burdened:
.... not for that we would be unclothed,
...... but clothed upon,
........ that mortality might be swallowed up of life.'
(2 Corinthians 5:1-4)

Praise His Holy Name!

With respect to you.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Thank you! I've been telling this to people for years.

Some argue "unclothed" and "naked" refers to "without the robe of Christ's righteousness", but this is both illogical and out of context. Would Paul really have to convince anyone his groaning is not a desire to be without the covering of the grace of Christ? No, it's referring to the context of the entire chapter - the state of being clothed upon with a body, either temporal or eternal, as you pointed out. Paul's simply wanting to skip the whole "waiting for the Second Coming in the grave without a body" and get right to the joys of eternal bliss, but he knew that would not be the case, as did Job in chapter 14 and 17.

 

[Dave L]

I'm not your typical dispensationalist but I've never heard of one (and I was raised Pentecostal) that believes the Sermon on the Mount isn't for today. I think that is a gross case of stereotyping of off mainline denominations, but if you think it affirms what many of us consider legalism, then you don't understand the intent of His sermon.

This is in the Scofield bible notes whence Dispensationalism came.

 

[Dave L]

I know lots of Dispensationalists who would never say that the Sermon on the Mount "is not for today". The New Calivinists are taking over what was once the fortress of Dispensationalism, the mighty Southern Baptist Convention. It is likely the "radical grace" influence of the New Cals who are twisting doctrine that way. New Calvinist pasors, like their founder, Calvin, don't seem to "get" holiness for themselves. Calvin, as the virtual dictator of Geneva, was responsible for the execution death of 54 people including a 9-year-old girl.

It still is false prophecy flying under the radar these days.

 

[Phoneman777]

Jesus lived and taught under the law to become the only man to have lived a perfect life making him the only one worthy to be sacrificed on the rest of humanity's behalf. Paul was tasked with teaching us how to live a godly life now that the law had been fulfilled and completed. That doesn't mean it disappears just that the sacrifice for our sins is eternal. The laws are written in our hearts as the new covenant describes so nothing becomes "fogged" up, quite the contrary, for those who are set free from the law see things in a much clearer light. Take off the shades bro and come join us in the light.

It is not "light" to teach folks that the Ten Commandments are only New Covenant "Ten Suggestions". They are and will always be "Commandments". They are the standard in the Judgement - that bulldookey about when we get to heaven the only question we'll be asked is "did you accept My Son's sacrifice" is just made up baloney. The question will be AS JAMES PLAINLY teaches "did you relinquish the throne of your heart and allow My Son to sit down on it and keep My law for you?" because we are to "speak and so do as they that will be judged by the Law of Liberty" (James 2:10-12) which the context plainly reveals is the Ten Commandments.

Do you know who's going to hear those tragic words from Jesus, "I never knew you"? Those who work iniquity.

"But, hold on", says the OSAS believer, "how can Jesus say, I never knew you, to a person who once enjoyed the joys of salvation with Him?"

Because Ezekiel says of those who turn back to serving the devil that all their former righteousness "shall not be remembered". Ezekiel 18:24; Ezekiel 33:13; Ezekiel 33:18

 

[marks]

Why do you Antinomianists get all fouled up in legalities - which makes you guys the true legalists - when it comes to a very simple issue?

Does a husband "maintain" or "add to" the marriage by not cheating on his wife?

Or is that which actually accomplishes the maintenance and growth of the marriage - love - made evident by his choice to not cheat on his wife?

The reason why people want to make cheating on God legal is because they don't love Him. Those of us who do love Him will fight on our hands and knees in the hour of temptation against the devil. By that, we evidence that we love Him (1 John 2:3-4).

Hi Phoneman777,

No need to add in perjoratives, at least, that's how it seems to me that meant in labeling me an Antinomianist. Then calling me a legalist. Um, can you be a legalist while being against "law"? Don't you need to choose?

But that aside . . .

Think of the husband who goes through his day, repeating over and over, I must not cheat! He sees another woman . . . Don't Cheat! He thinks of an old girlfriend . . . Don't Cheat! And so his day goes. This is the one who doesn't love his wife.

Think of another husband, who spends his day dreaming of his most wonderful wife, and how he might please her.

Which is legalistic?

The second husband doesn't spend the day saying, You must love! He just does.

But in not saying, "Don't Cheat", he does not diminish his love. There is no need for that.

And whether or not I claim to be bound by the law of adultery is non sequitor towards whether or not I love my wife.

Much love!
Mark

 

[marks]

All I know is that Paul longed with painful longing to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord, but Paul knew that the Ten Commandments were God's will for him, as well as us. That's why he remained. As for you, I'm not so sure why you choose to remain if you truly believe we are free to live contrary to the Ten Commandments.

Paul longed with a painful longing . . . hm. Sounds like your words but not Paul's. I recall him saying he didn't know which he'd choose.

Leaving is better for me, in a way. Staying is better for my wife, so I can care for here. Staying is better for my church, so I may yet be able to add to their faith. Staying may be better for others, who may yet come to know Christ through me. God willing!

And if these things be so, then staying will have been actually better for me. I have all eternity to enjoy Jesus, but I have just this life to build up treasure, and increase glory. Those things come from serving, which is done here.

I don't know what is to come, but God does, so I can trust that He knows best.

Phillipians 1:21-26 "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. And having this confidence, I know that I shall abide and continue with you all for your furtherance and joy of faith; That your rejoicing may be more abundant in Jesus Christ for me by my coming to you again.

According to this passage the reason for Paul remaining was not the keeping of a law to which he wrote he was dead, instead, his reason was "for your furtherance and joy of faith". That is, that their trust would increase, bringing joy.

Much love!

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

This is in the Scofield bible notes whence Dispensationalism came.

The Scofield Reference Bible has now become the Scofield Study Bible and is somewhat less hard-edged than the original. Today's Dispensationalists are not inclined to gloss over difficulties in Bible interpretation the way that Scofield did. But, IMHO, Dispensationalism still has much to offer the Bible interpreter.

 

[Dave L]

The Scofield Reference Bible has now become the Scofield Study Bible and is somewhat less hard-edged than the original. Today's Dispensationalists are not inclined to gloss over difficulties in Bible interpretation the way that Scofield did. But, IMHO, Dispensationalism still has much to offer the Bible interpreter.

Dispensationalism is about 150 years old. Which means the Church whom God said the gates of hell would not prevail against, was prevailed against for thousands of years until these prophetic crackpots came along.

 

[bbyrd009]

This requires resurrection from the dead, at the appearing of our Great God and Saviour: which is now on a future day, of God's choosing...

one can get baptized today I guess

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

It still is false prophecy flying under the radar these days.

I don't think Scofield intended it to be prophecy--rather, just an explanation of the KJV text, since Christians, in his day neither understood nor spoke the King James English.

 

[bbyrd009]

On this point, I'd add there are many who claim that while we don't receive our salvation by works, we maintain it by works, or somehow add to it by works.

But if we're actually dead to the law as the Bible says we are, then the attempt to keep the law becomes dead works, from ourselves and not from the Holy Spirit.

God wants to direct us personally, having made us new.

There's no need to return to a law that was given to increase sin, and to make sin utterly sinful.

Much love!
mark

plenty of Scripture refutes this, but you have already ignored them twice I guess?
Ah ic Pm beat me to it this time, maybe you have addressed the post and confessed, and I owe you an apology maybe? We'll see I guess
Best of luck to you though ok

 

[Waiting on him]

Hi Phoneman777,

No need to add in perjoratives, at least, that's how it seems to me that meant in labeling me an Antinomianist. Then calling me a legalist. Um, can you be a legalist while being against "law"? Don't you need to choose?

But that aside . . .

Think of the husband who goes through his day, repeating over and over, I must not cheat! He sees another woman . . . Don't Cheat! He thinks of an old girlfriend . . . Don't Cheat! And so his day goes. This is the one who doesn't love his wife.

Think of another husband, who spends his day dreaming of his most wonderful wife, and how he might please her.

Which is legalistic?

The second husband doesn't spend the day saying, You must love! He just does.

But in not saying, "Don't Cheat", he does not diminish his love. There is no need for that.

And whether or not I claim to be bound by the law of adultery is non sequitor towards whether or not I love my wife.

Much love!
Mark

The law I’m against is the one in mans heart that proclaims I performed it

 

[Dave L]

I don't think Scofield intended it to be prophecy--rather, just an explanation of the KJV text, since Christians, in his day neither understood nor spoke the King James English.

They placed a gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks moving the 70th week thousands of years into the future, yet to be fulfilled. In doing this they turned Jesus who fulfilled the 70th week, into Antichrist. Ignored his crucifixion that put an end to the animal sacrifice. And then they recreated the Roman Empire of Jesus' day placing it into the future. Along with many other false prophecies. The 7 year tribulation = false. The pre-trib rapture = false. The physical Millennial Kingdom = false. And more. All based on a gap scripture never mentions.

 

[bbyrd009]

I know that there is no condemnation against me

could you pls just state that you no longer sin so I can move on? Ty
I don't condemn you either ok, but you are nonetheless condemned wadr

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Dispensationalism is about 150 years old. Which means the Church whom God said the gates of hell would not prevail against, was prevailed against for thousands of years until these prophetic crackpots came along.

I think that is a rather harsh statement. There is a long tradition of attempts to help Christians understand what the Bible is saying. Scofield was just another in that tradition. One might as well criticize Augustine, Wycliffe, Calvin, Luther or Tyndale. Are their attempts infallible--hardly.

 

[bbyrd009]

All I know is that Paul longed with painful longing to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord

Imo you already know better than this Pm