John MacArthur claims "no allegories in Scripture" - dispensationalist delusions

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
Assuming you've read his book, does he distinguish between the "seed [singular]" and the "seed [plural]" in the Genesis passages?
Does Paul claim that the seed is plural or singular in Galatians?

I am not sure what you are even talking about.

I haven't read the book yet. I have listened to the messages though.


Galatians 3:16 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. (ESV)

By the way, his messages are more of an irenic approach and don't attack dispensationalists in a brutal manner.

I challenge you to listen to them.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,923
2,118
113
Does Paul claim that the seed is plural or singular in Galatians?

I am not sure what you are even talking about.
So, what I am talking about is, that where Paul makes reference to "seed [singular]" in Galatians, that he is referring to those passages in Genesis that speak of "seed [singular]" and not to the passages that speak of "seed [plural]" which is distinct.


[this touches on "dispensational" issues]
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
By the way, one of the claims that is made is that the land promise was never fulfilled at any point of time in Israel's history.

However, Scripture says otherwise:


Joshua 21:43-45
43 Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. 44 And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. 45 Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.
(ESV)

I am wondering how dispensationalists answer this.

I would have several other questions when promises are made by God:

1. Were the promises conditional or unconditional?
2. Were they fulfilled in Christ?
3. Are they fulfilled in some grander way than expected? (example: Abraham and his spiritual descendants are given the whole
globe in Rom 4)
4. Have they already been fulfilled in some way?

I was surprised to learn that most dispensationalists don't even believe Christians are under the New Covenant yet, because they think it was only made with Israel. Some "progressives" believe it is partially in effect, but not fully. They believe it isn't in effect until the Millennium.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
By the way, one of the claims that is made is that the land promise was never fulfilled at any point of time in Israel's history.

However, Scripture says otherwise:


Joshua 21:43-45
43 Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. 44 And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. 45 Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.
(ESV)

I am wondering how dispensationalists answer this.

I would have several other questions when promises are made by God:

1. Were the promises conditional or unconditional?
2. Were they fulfilled in Christ?
3. Are they fulfilled in some grander way than expected? (example: Abraham and his spiritual descendants are given the whole
globe in Rom 4)
4. Have they already been fulfilled in some way?

I was surprised to learn that most dispensationalists don't even believe Christians are under the New Covenant yet, because they think it was only made with Israel. Some "progressives" believe it is partially in effect, but not fully. They believe it isn't in effect until the Millennium.
Their claim is probably that the description of the New Covenant only specifies Israel:

Hebrews 8:8-12
8 For he finds fault with them when he says:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah
,
9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.
For they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.”
(ESV Strong's)


However, they fail to acknowledge that all believers are part of Israel due to the atonement and their union with Christ:


Ephesians 2:11-22
11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.
(ESV Strong's)

I frankly don't understand how anyone who reads this can continue to make distinctions between Israelites (Jews) and Gentiles.
 

TheDivineWatermark

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2018
10,923
2,118
113
"IN Christ Jesus"


____________

As to the issue of the new covenant (you mentioned):


Dr Paul Martin Henebury (he also offers his own take on it [or, at least, will cover more in-depth in subsequent articles])-

[quoting]

In a helpful way, Mike Vlach has set forth six different ways the NC has been understood by Dispensationalists broadly:
  • The New Covenant will be fulfilled in the future with national Israel; the church has no relationship to the New Covenant (some classical dispensationalists)

  • There are two New Covenants—one with Israel and another for the church (some traditional dispensationalists including John Walvoord)

  • The New Covenant is completely fulfilled with the church; there is no future fulfillment with national Israel (Covenant Theology and some non-dispensational systems)

  • The New Covenant will be fulfilled with Israel but the spiritual blessings of the covenant are applied to the church today (some traditional and revised dispensationalists)

  • The New Covenant will be fulfilled with Israel but the church is an added referent to the New Covenant promises so there is a sense in which the New Covenant is being fulfilled with the church. The New Covenant has two referents—Israel and the church (some revised dispensationalists; Paul Feinberg)

  • Since the New Covenant was given to Israel for the purpose of also blessing Gentiles there is literal fulfillment of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant to all believing Jews and Gentiles in this present age, while the physical/national promises await fulfillment with Jesus’ second coming when national Israel is incorporated into the New Covenant (some revised and most progressive dispensationalists)
https://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2019/12/30/my-take-on-the-new-covenant-pt-1/

[more at link; end quoting]

____________


Hebrews 7:22 -

"By so much also, Jesus has become the guarantee [/a surety] of a better covenant."
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
"IN Christ Jesus"


____________

As to the issue of the new covenant (you mentioned):


Dr Paul Martin Henebury (he also offers his own take on it [or, at least, will cover more in-depth in subsequent articles])-

[quoting]

In a helpful way, Mike Vlach has set forth six different ways the NC has been understood by Dispensationalists broadly:
  • The New Covenant will be fulfilled in the future with national Israel; the church has no relationship to the New Covenant (some classical dispensationalists)

  • There are two New Covenants—one with Israel and another for the church (some traditional dispensationalists including John Walvoord)

  • The New Covenant is completely fulfilled with the church; there is no future fulfillment with national Israel (Covenant Theology and some non-dispensational systems)

  • The New Covenant will be fulfilled with Israel but the spiritual blessings of the covenant are applied to the church today (some traditional and revised dispensationalists)

  • The New Covenant will be fulfilled with Israel but the church is an added referent to the New Covenant promises so there is a sense in which the New Covenant is being fulfilled with the church. The New Covenant has two referents—Israel and the church (some revised dispensationalists; Paul Feinberg)

  • Since the New Covenant was given to Israel for the purpose of also blessing Gentiles there is literal fulfillment of the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant to all believing Jews and Gentiles in this present age, while the physical/national promises await fulfillment with Jesus’ second coming when national Israel is incorporated into the New Covenant (some revised and most progressive dispensationalists)
https://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2019/12/30/my-take-on-the-new-covenant-pt-1/

[more at link; end quoting]

____________


Hebrews 7:22 -

"By so much also, Jesus has become the guarantee [/a surety] of a better covenant."

So, for others besides dispensationalists, I would just like for you to note that dispensationalists in general do not believe the New Covenant applies to the Church.

There are some progressive dispensationalists who are almost like covenant theologians which would acknowledge the problem here..they are mostly related to Dallas Theological Seminary.

Vlach is close to a progressive dispensationalist, and much more mild than the majority. If I'm not mistaken he is associated with Master's Seminary. Those guys are Reformed in their salvation theology, so they are more irenic with covenant theology.

This is yet another reason why I could never be dispensationalist.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
By the way, the fact that Vlach presents a number of different options regarding the New Covenant and dispensationalism demonstrates severe problems with their theology.

To claim that believers are not under the New Covenant is simply unacceptable.

Yet, dispensationalists do this because their hermeneutic teaches it. They can't get away from the fact that the OT applies the New Covenant to Israel and Judah. Therefore, in their literalistic (notice that I said literalistic and not literal) hermeneutic, they cannot accept without doubts the fact that the New Covenant applies to believers, both Jew and Gentile.

That is why Vlach has presented about five or six different options in this regard. This is a basic fact that other Christians simply affirm.

I wasn't even aware of all the problems with dispensationalism until I listened to this series. It's amazing.

By the way, just so most folks know, there's been various evolutions of dispensationalist teachings.

The earliest version was Scofield/Darby. Those guys taught that Israel's salvation was by the works of the Mosaic Covenant, and did not acknowledge that justification has always been by faith. This is surprising because it was taught in Romans 4.

The second version was the Lewis Sperry Chafer version. He systematized dispensationalism, and popularized it.

The third version was the Charles Ryrie/Dwight Pentecost version, who were taught by Lewis Sperry Chafer. Ryrie's study bible cleaned up a lot of issues within dispensationalism.

The fourth version was the Dallas Theological Seminary version, which is more like "progressive dispensationalism". My understanding is that it is approaching covenant theology, but not quite. They tend to believe in eternal security, but not perseverance of the saints, which is a Reformed teaching.

And, finally, John MacArthur's version is representative of Mitch Vlach. Those two would believe in Reformed salvation doctrine, including perseverance of the saints. MacArthur's version would not be a replacement for the DTS version, though. It is a stand-alone, odd duck version.

As time went on, various versions developed explanations for the inconsistencies in previous versions. However, it's hard to talk to dispensationalists because you need to know the various versions in order to discuss their theology.

Someone who is taught a later version won't recognize the earlier versions because they weren't taught that version.

And, the differences are extreme.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
Here's an article by Wheatland Bible Chapel on this topic about whether the Church is under the New Covenant.

Notice that the answer is NO.

And, the guy who wrote the article tells the reader, whom he anticipates to be a pastor or teacher, to avoid telling the ordinary layman about this.

http://www.wheatlandbiblechapel.org...eftis-the-church-under-the-new-covenant-59834

I wonder how many dispensational teachers are avoiding telling folks that this is the logical conclusion of dispensationalism.

Again, I'm shocked that educated dispensationalists teach this.
 
F

FollowingtheLamb

Guest
I was listening to a conversation concerning biblical interpretation.

One younger believer made the bold statement, "there are no allegories in Scripture". I was pretty sure his comment came from one of his usual sources of information, which include a potpourri of dispensationalists.

I am not a dispensationalist, nor am I a fan of dispensationalism. Dispensationalists often accuse others of "spiritualizing Scripture" or "allegorization" if their analysis differs from dispensationalism.

I am very much into understanding the shadows and types of Scripture, and viewing Scripture as an organic revelation. Dispensationalism presents more of a disjointed view of Scripture.

Anyways, I tracked the remark down to John MacArthur:

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-463/how-should-we-interpret-the-bible

Now, here's one thing you have to understand: John MacArthur is a dispensationalist. He is one of the individuals who claims that others spiritualize Scripture. If anyone views Scripture in a manner inconsistent with dispensationalism, he will cry foul and accuse them of spiritualizing and not taking Scripture literally. This includes brothers in Christ who consider the word of God to be infallible and inspired just like he does. However, if they don't apply the Scripture in the way that he views it, he has issues with them.

I am wondering how John makes sense of Galatians 4, where the allegory of Hagar and Sarai is discussed. Yep, that's right..even the underlying Greek word refers to an allegory.

By the way, don't be unaware of how widespread this issue is. Most American evangelicals are dispensationalists, even though they never heard the word. If your church believes in a pretribulation rapture, you are definitely dispensationalist. One of the characteristics of dispensationalism is the fact that they view the Church and Israel as two separate peoples of God.

Anyways, if you have an open mind, I recommend the book A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger. It is the best book I've seen on the topic.

Also, if you want to understand the historical roots and teachings of dispensationalism, Brian Borgman (a former dispensationalist) has three lessons on it:

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=126101510492
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=126101523139
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=126101519187

Brian explains how dispensationalism became associated with orthodoxy through the fundamentalist movement, as many of the proponents of fundamentalism were dispensationalist in their theology. And, while dispensationalism has a high regard for Scripture and its inerrancy and infallibility, they tend to view interpretations involving figurative references to be suspect. In fact, they will attempt to claim that non-dispys are using the Roman Catholic hermeneutical methods if their interpretation does not align with dispensationalism.

I am well aware that some dispensationalists are so close-minded on this topic that they consider non-dispys to be heretics. And, they really don't want people to examine all the different views in this respect. They view dispensationalism as being the unquestioned truth, and anyone who doesn't believe it is living an immoral life, because they are not expecting the Rapture at any moment like they are, and are indulging in the flesh as a result.

Well, that's actually a bunch of propaganda. All of us should realize that our life could end at the next moment, if we had an auto accident or died of some hidden health condition. I had a near-fatal accident three years ago, so I am aware of my impending appointment with death.

Anyways, I encourage you to look at the various different views regarding end-time events.

Here they are:

Amillennialism
Historical Premillennialism
Postmillennialism
Premillennial Dispensationalism

I will attach a PDF file that you might enjoy in this regard.

Disclaimer: I like John MacArthur and am reading a book authored by him about forgiveness currently. So, I am not disrespecting his labor of love. On this issue, though, I would like to propose that he has a blind spot. I won't engage in MacArthur-bashing as I agree with him in many ways. I am just encouraging all serious bible students to realize that dispensationalism is a questionable view that most conservative Christians consider to be unquestionable fact.
People who try to put the Holy Word of God "in a box" crack me up. It is a book like no other, written by an Author who is like no other. It is alive, and powerful and ministers to the heart according to God's will and the ministrations of His Holy Spirit. Whether it be seen as allegorical or literal, it will do what it does.
 
F

FollowingtheLamb

Guest
People who try to put the Holy Word of God "in a box" crack me up. It is a book like no other, written by an Author who is like no other. It is alive, and powerful and ministers to the heart according to God's will and the ministrations of His Holy Spirit. Whether it be seen as allegorical or literal, it will do what it does.
Also, I am eternally grateful God saw fit not to burden me with the gift of extreme intelligence.🤔
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
Charles Spurgeon on Dispensationalism:

“Distinctions have been drawn by certain exceedingly wise men (measured by their own estimate of themselves), between the people of God who lived before the coming of Christ, and those who lived afterwards. We have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God!

We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed at one time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement. Why, every child of God in every place stands on the same footing; the Lord has not some children best beloved, some second-rate offspring, and others whom he hardly cares about.

These who saw Christ’s day before it came, had a great difference as to what they knew, and perhaps in the same measure a difference as to what they enjoyed while on earth meditating upon Christ; but they were all washed in the same blood, all redeemed with the same ransom price, and made members of the same body.

Israel in the covenant of grace is not natural Israel, but all believers in all ages. Before the first advent, all the types and shadows all pointed one way —they pointed to Christ, and to him all the saints looked with hope. Those who lived before Christ were not saved with a different salvation to that which shall come to us. They exercised faith as we must; that faith struggled as ours struggles, and that faith obtained its reward as ours shall”

Charles Spurgeon
Devotional Classics of C H Spurgeon, p122
 
Jan 17, 2020
4,792
736
113
One of the most serious charges against Dispensationalism is the possibility they cut themselves off from Christ. Here's how:

This is an important question because Matthew calls the Sermon on the Mount the doctrine of Christ (Matthew 7:28). And John says any who do not have the doctrine of Christ do not have God (2 John 9–11).

Many Dispensationalists do not think the Sermon is for today. Scofield taught it was for the Jews in the Millennium. Also “Mid-Acts” Dispensationalists say they disregard all scripture except Paul’s. Removing Jesus’ teaching completely from their doctrine.
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
By the way, one of the claims that is made is that the land promise was never fulfilled at any point of time in Israel's history.

However, Scripture says otherwise:


Joshua 21:43-45
43 Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. 44 And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. 45 Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.
(ESV)

I am wondering how dispensationalists answer this.

I would have several other questions when promises are made by God:

1. Were the promises conditional or unconditional?
2. Were they fulfilled in Christ?
3. Are they fulfilled in some grander way than expected? (example: Abraham and his spiritual descendants are given the whole
globe in Rom 4)
4. Have they already been fulfilled in some way?

I was surprised to learn that most dispensationalists don't even believe Christians are under the New Covenant yet, because they think it was only made with Israel. Some "progressives" believe it is partially in effect, but not fully. They believe it isn't in effect until the Millennium.
I would seem that those who must make the "signified" understanding to no effect like they have no choice in the matter. Like with Israel .Not all Israel is born again Israel .Or Jew, inward born of the spirit or the opposite, outward corrupted flesh.

When looking at the spiritual meaning of the word it must be dismissed with dispensationalists so that men can walk by sight looking to the flesh and blood .Rather than spirits in which we do have our struggle with. Like the metaphor "thousand years." . .Simply literalize the signified tongue of prophecy .

Makes me wonder how the rest of the metaphors in that parable are OK .But do not signify the "thousand years".

Looking at the 9 times it is used always represents a unknown. No need to be known, the last day will come as a thief in the night. Or at least to those who walk by faith, after the signified understanding.

Verse one set the hermeneutics for the entire book.

Revelation 1:1 King James Version (KJV)The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and "signified" it by his angel unto his servant John:
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,177
3,700
113
One of the most serious charges against Dispensationalism is the possibility they cut themselves off from Christ. Here's how:

This is an important question because Matthew calls the Sermon on the Mount the doctrine of Christ (Matthew 7:28). And John says any who do not have the doctrine of Christ do not have God (2 John 9–11).

Many Dispensationalists do not think the Sermon is for today. Scofield taught it was for the Jews in the Millennium. Also “Mid-Acts” Dispensationalists say they disregard all scripture except Paul’s. Removing Jesus’ teaching completely from their doctrine.
what Happens if I don’t put the sermon on the mount in action in my life?
 
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
what Happens if I don’t put the sermon on the mount in action in my life?
I would suggest then you would be resisting the power of the gospel

When Jesus saw the crowds of people there, he went up on a hill and sat down. His followers came and sat next to him. Then Jesus began teaching the people. He said, “Great blessings belong to those who know they are spiritually in need. God's kingdom belongs to them. Great blessings belong to those who are sad now. God will comfort them. Great blessings belong to those who are humble. They will be given the land God promised. Great blessings belong to those who want to do right more than anything else. God will fully satisfy them. Great blessings belong to those who show mercy to others. Mercy will be given to them. Great blessings belong to those whose thoughts are pure. They will be with God. Great blessings belong to those who work to bring peace. God will call them his sons and daughters. Great blessings belong to those who suffer persecution for doing what is right. God’s kingdom belongs to them. Mathew 5: 1-10
 
Jan 12, 2019
7,497
1,399
113
I would suggest then you would be resisting the power of the gospel

When Jesus saw the crowds of people there, he went up on a hill and sat down. His followers came and sat next to him. Then Jesus began teaching the people. He said, “Great blessings belong to those who know they are spiritually in need. God's kingdom belongs to them. Great blessings belong to those who are sad now. God will comfort them. Great blessings belong to those who are humble. They will be given the land God promised. Great blessings belong to those who want to do right more than anything else. God will fully satisfy them. Great blessings belong to those who show mercy to others. Mercy will be given to them. Great blessings belong to those whose thoughts are pure. They will be with God. Great blessings belong to those who work to bring peace. God will call them his sons and daughters. Great blessings belong to those who suffer persecution for doing what is right. God’s kingdom belongs to them. Mathew 5: 1-10
Are all of us here the lost sheep of the house of Israel?
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,177
3,700
113
I would suggest then you would be resisting the power of the gospel

When Jesus saw the crowds of people there, he went up on a hill and sat down. His followers came and sat next to him. Then Jesus began teaching the people. He said, “Great blessings belong to those who know they are spiritually in need. God's kingdom belongs to them. Great blessings belong to those who are sad now. God will comfort them. Great blessings belong to those who are humble. They will be given the land God promised. Great blessings belong to those who want to do right more than anything else. God will fully satisfy them. Great blessings belong to those who show mercy to others. Mercy will be given to them. Great blessings belong to those whose thoughts are pure. They will be with God. Great blessings belong to those who work to bring peace. God will call them his sons and daughters. Great blessings belong to those who suffer persecution for doing what is right. God’s kingdom belongs to them. Mathew 5: 1-10
The gospel is in the sermon on the mount? Can you post please? Remember, the gospel is how Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
Acts 3:19-21 19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.


I'm about to cause the premillennarians' heads to spin. They will run to their dens, grab their calculators, charts and graphs and diligently persevere until they form their rescue device to save their precious theology :)

This verse proves Peter was not a premillennial guy. He says that Jesus stays in heaven until the "restoration of all things".

The Millennium, as premillennialists consider it, is NOT the restoration of all things. Sin and rebellion still continues to rear its' ugly head toward the end of the Millennium.

But, Peter, instead, says that when Jesus returns, the complete restoration will occur.

Now, if this was one verse out of many that prove premillennialism, I would have a problem but it is not. If you read the NT carefully, you do not find a premillennial view. Their whole position relies on Revelation 20, which is obscure and can be explained in an amillennial context.

This is what I began to see about 5-7 years ago, when a friend of mine became amillennial through his association with a Reformed Baptist church. I thought he was whacky when he brought it up to me, but the Scriptures become so much more clear after you escape their faulty views.

And the fact that most of them deny the New Covenant is for believers today is totally absurd. I didn't even understand they taught that as a premillennialist. But, it is the natural conclusion of their theology.
 

UnitedWithChrist

Well-known member
Aug 12, 2019
3,739
1,928
113
what Happens if I don’t put the sermon on the mount in action in my life?
Then you aren't a believer, and are in need of salvation.

If you go on hating your brother, for example, that would prove you aren't a believer and are in need of salvation. That is what the Sermon on the Mount's conclusion naturally leads to. It was meant to show Jews that they really didn't keep the spirit of the Law. Along with regeneration, that should have led them to faith and repentance, and holy living through being united with Jesus. This leads to the Holy Spirit transforming the person to the image of Christ.

This is all really very simple, when uncluttered by dispensationalist nonsense that denies the New Covenant for the believer.

By the way, there is an association with dispensationalism and antinomianism because of dispensationalism. It is the natural conclusion of some to think the way you do.

A believer is being conformed to the image of Christ, therefore he would want to think like Jesus. And Jesus was really describing his image in the Sermon on the Mount. It was contrasting mere superficial law-keeping with the change of heart that needs to occur in the believers' life.

If you don't take the Sermon on the Mount seriously, then in essence you aren't taking Christianity seriously either. In fact, the Spirit of Christ doesn't dwell within you.

Kingdom living isn't just for the future Millennium; it is for today. And that is why premillennialists often misunderstand Scripture in their misguided misunderstanding of "rightly dividing the Word". God calls to increasing holiness, not immorality.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,177
3,700
113
Then you aren't a believer, and are in need of salvation.

If you go on hating your brother, for example, that would prove you aren't a believer and are in need of salvation. That is what the Sermon on the Mount's conclusion naturally leads to. It was meant to show Jews that they really didn't keep the spirit of the Law. Along with regeneration, that should have led them to faith and repentance, and holy living through being united with Jesus. This leads to the Holy Spirit transforming the person to the image of Christ.

This is all really very simple, when uncluttered by dispensationalist nonsense that denies the New Covenant for the believer.

By the way, there is an association with dispensationalism and antinomianism because of dispensationalism. It is the natural conclusion of some to think the way you do.

A believer is being conformed to the image of Christ, therefore he would want to think like Jesus. And Jesus was really describing his image in the Sermon on the Mount. It was contrasting mere superficial law-keeping with the change of heart that needs to occur in the believers' life.

If you don't take the Sermon on the Mount seriously, then in essence you aren't taking Christianity seriously either. In fact, the Spirit of Christ doesn't dwell within you.

Kingdom living isn't just for the future Millennium; it is for today. And that is why premillennialists often misunderstand Scripture in their misguided misunderstanding of "rightly dividing the Word". God calls to increasing holiness, not immorality.
Where's the passage on salvation in the sermon on the mount? Is salvation based upon hearing and doing the works described in the sermon on the mount? Is this another gospel you are claiming?

The only gospel unto eternal salvation is the gospel of Jesus Christ, forgiveness of our sins through the d,b,r of Jesus. Adding anything to this is a false gospel.