Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Christ at the Campfire Facing the hard scriptures.

Wesley preached perfection. He took a red royal beating for it. He really was a tough guy and could take a beating. But on this issue he admitted... it had been extremely hard to sustain the doctrine due to the opposition. But when asked why he kept it up he replied that he was called of God to please God and discharge his calling to God not man. And as such he was not allowed to add to or take away from the holy writ but must preach all of it in season and out of season and the holy writ plainly states... let us go on to perfection...

Many moons ago I went to a mega church into the popular this and that. It was full gospel. Well this one dude showed up as a guest speaker and I gues he had decided to think for himself and not say that the king had new clothes on. He began to decry the so-called "Word-preachers" He mocked them and said they ought to call themselves instead, "Favorite-Word-Preachers" because they only taught their favorite texts not ALL the word. That stuck in my dumb head.

The Mennonites have always decried the rest of the Church for not taking the sermon on the mount seriously. These are hard scriptures for sure! Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, and turn the other cheek when insulted. OH MY!

I don't have it all figured out. But if we take a text, come up with a convoluted and sometimes scholarly way of getting around it... well then... you have only done half your work. If the open plain meaning is not it... then you still have to make an application of it! Right?

I have tried to come to grips with the sermon on the mount. I feel the sharp barb of conscience and rebuke from my Mennonite friends.

I am beating a dead horse here so don't y'all get mad at me! LOL I am trying to form my conscience. And quite frankly I am beginning to wonder if I am a tad different from most evangelicals. I am strongly leaning toward the Mennonite position of non-resistance. I do admit that there is a Romans 13 lawful office of the sword bearer. Mr. Blaine confesses a calling to it. I think I am called to hand out gospel tracts and leave all these other issues to others. I simply can't sort it all out. I fear and tremble before the word of God as spoken through Christ. Each man must bear his own burden and be persuaded in his own mind.

I met a dear old Mennonite woman. Truly born-again. I asked her point blank if she would kill an intruder that was about to harm or kill her. She told me she was instruced not to fear him who can kill the body for what is that? When I took gospels of John into the mountain villages of Nepal I was mentally reconciled to facing prison or even death. I had joy unspeakable and full of glory. Or what was it one of the early apologists of the Church said..."you can kill us but you cannot hurt us"

Oh well...

Just rambling

Your conscience is just that, Dixie - - - YOUR conscience. Can't be mine or it wouldn't be yours. I don't try to "get around" the difficult scriptures, but I also don't apply those scriptures to myself that clearly don't apply doctrinally. It boils down to right division.

Keep pressing on!

I've always been curious when I hear teachers, preachers or just students say that a passage of scripture stands by itself. I'm not referring to you, Dixie, just a general statement about hearing others say that. What do they mean by that? In this case, the Mennonite reference to the sermon on the mount. Stand by itself? How is it really possible to understand any verse of scripture if we do not place it in the light of the entire counsel of God? If we do not, then don't we run the risk of "cherry picking" verses, or even misinterpreting what is meant to fit our thoughts? Just a question from a curious brother.

When we look at a verse in a stand alone manner we can sometimes come up with what SEEM to be contraditions in the Bible; "here it says this but over here it says this". The ungodly use this tactic to their advantage. If we take what is written in the sermon on the mount this way we could hear the arguement that the Bible says to not fight there, but that the Bible says to stand and fight for what is right in others, especially the Old Testament. Is there anyone who can say that we can defend against such attacks on the word of God if we take verses as standing by themselelves? If we do veiw the sermon on the mount in the light of the whole counsel of God, what is God then telling us?

Good post Dixie. I am becoming more of like mind with you, though I agree with Keith and Len that the Word has to be taken as a whole and not parsed to support doctrine. The way the Spirit leads me does not give much mitigation to the Lord's Sermon on the Mount. I see it as a new direction with a New Covenant. But I will also follow Keith's well founded suggestion to keep pressing on knowing the Spirit will lead and guide me into all Truth that I need to accomplish what He wills.

The right timing of a thing is of the utmost importance. Ecclesiastes 3 says there is a time to every purpose under the heaven. There is a time for peace and a time for war. A time for building up and a time for tearing down. The trick is to find the proper timing of the thing.

I love the sermon on the mount, and there is some very good sermonizing material there -- tough as nails. But in truth, most of it has to be spiritualized to apply to our present age of Grace. Doctrinally, it fits the millennial reign of Christ to a tee. (If anyone believes there will be a millennium -- many don't. )

How do you mean that. It sounds like a contrdiction to me: spiritualized and Grace.

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. KJV

Of course Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. You ought to know I believe that. I believe the Bible. He never changes -- just like His Father -- Mal 3:6 -- "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." It goes without saying. He is ALWAYS holy. He is ALWAYS just. He is ALWAYS true. He is ALWAYS merciful, and yet there are times when his justice must be exercised over his mercy, even in the age of grace. So the Lord never changes -- of course. But he certainly deals differently with men in different times.

Prior to the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ on the cross, and his resurrection, the Jews were required to offer animal sacrifices -- we don't. Something changed. It wasn't God that changed, but he changed how he deals with men.

The sermon on the mount changes some things. It changes the Old Testament law, and makes it stricter. Starting in Matt 5:21, Jesus Christ says a number of things that USED TO BE. I'll copy a couple of them below.

Matt 5:21 "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you . . . . . and then he makes the Old Testament law more stringent . . . "whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Now maybe YOU have never called someone a fool in anger, but I have. Does that mean I'm going to Hell after I have trusted in the one time blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary's cross? Think about that, all ye who believe in the eternal security of the believer.

My point is that it is not good practice to go around being angry at the brethren and calling them fools . . . even though, sometimes they really are . . , but does that fit a truly born-again child of God for Hell? In the age of grace? "I trow not." (Luke 17:9)

During the millennial reign of Christ on Earth for the 1,000 years, after the great Tribulation, Jesus will be ruling and reigning from the throne of David in Jerusalem, (Luke 1:32) and he will be reigning with a "rod of iron" (Psalm 2:9, Rev 2:27, Rev 12:5, Rev 19:15) -- dashing some to pieces. In the millennium, if some person calls a man a fool, he is in danger of hell fire . . . . but NOT today, I think.

Matt 5:27 "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: (EXCELLENT for living from day to day) . . . . 28 BUT I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." He changes the rule from the ACT -- commit adultery -- to a look and a thought -- a tougher rule to follow. (Hey! Summer is upon us.) The next verse says if your eye offends you -- maybe by looking at some half dressed babe -- PLUCK IT OUT! Should be a bunch of one-eyed and no-eyed people on the face of the earth. Could ask for a show of hands to see how many have lived up to that little treat. And if you DIDN'T pluck that eye out and CAST IT FROM THEE, get ready for Hell!

Matt 5:43 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies . . ." David didn't love his enemies. Saul didn't love his enemies. Abraham didn't love his enemies when he pursued the kings that kidnapped Lot -- he KILLED them! Imagine David offering the right hand of fellowship to Goliath. (Not without a sling shot or a sword in it.)

I dare say, very few people today live their lives by the sermon on the mount. It makes good preaching, but the doctrine doesn't apply to the age of Grace.

NOW! I don't believe in the age of grace that a man ought to commit adultery, OR look and lust after another woman than his wife. I don't believe in the age of grace that a man ought to run around an call folks fools indiscriminately. But if they do . . . . . are they in danger of Hell AFTER they have trusted in the all sufficient blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ? Again, "I trow not."

Has Jesus Christ changed? No Sir! Have the "marching orders" changed? Yes Sir! No more animal sacrifices -- no more store house tithing -- no more cities of refuge -- no more capital punishment for working on the sabbath. The Lord is still the same Lord -- still Holy, still Just, still Forgiving, STILL A CONSUMING FIRE (Deut 4:24, Heb 12:29) when he has to be. He has not changed -- but he HAS changed the way he deals with the human race.

Adam had one commandment, and he blew it -- don't eat the fruit of this one tree. After he got kicked out of the garden, he was to live according to the dictates of his conscience -- knowing good and evil. They blew it, and the thoughts and intents of their imagination was only evil continually (Gen 6). Noah was given the power to execute wrongdoers -- no-one before him had that power. Changes. But NOT to the person of God Almighty.

I have only given a few examples . . . . there are more. When the King of Righteousness sits on his throne judging the world in righteousness (Acts 17:31), there will be Hell to pay for disobedience.

But in the age of grace . . . . .

Jesus paid it ALL.
ALL to Him I owe.
Sin had left a crimson stain.
HE washed it white as snow. (Isaiah 1:18)

That ought to start a thread going if nothing else will.

Now, don't go getting your knickers in a wad. I never said you didn't believe the verse I posted, it just seemed to fit with my thoughts.

I fully believe Jesus wants each and every one of us to act like He describes in the Sermon on the Mount. I find those passages as setting the bar for us to attain to and I believe it is much easier to do so through Grace by Faith than it is by law and human will. But while we are clothed in flesh, none will accomplish all, however, that does not mean we should not try and have those ideals as goals.

Like I said, I believe it is only by Grace through Faith that we could begin to accomplish the ideals Jesus set forth on the sermon on the mount. That is, as we apprehend what He did, it becomes easier to know how we should live and treat each other and understand those things He said, while with us. The Sermon on the Mount was not about law and rules but about a new mindset and philosophy. That is what I see Him was wanting us to incorporate into our lives. I sure can't see it being for a unique time thousands of years after it was spoken.

He truly paid the price, and that should spark some thinking on what our response should be. I believe the Sermon on the Mount summarizes that response.

You said a lot, Bro. Keith, and I gotta agree with every word of it.

In the days of old, God gave ready to eat food in the form of manna and later on He gave the gift of speaking in different dialects. No more, as those gifts and several more simply are not needed now days. God didn't change but the way He deals with us has. And will change a lot more in the near future. Very near, I pray.

When I think of the Sermon on the Mount, I see God in the flesh, sitting before thousands of Jews and gentiles upon a mountain pouring revelation upon revelation on them. The Author of the greatest volume ever written, giving insights of His first release and sharing highlights of the sequel.

In many ways He turned their world upside-down with the things He said and further awed them in that way that He said them. I believe all were convicted though not all converted due to the flesh. He spoke of blessings and encouragement. He confirmed the severity of the law and alluded to Grace by faith and lays a challenge to a change of heart by embracing Brotherhood.

His sacrifice on the cross was the lock for the Sermon on the Mount. That freed man from the requirements of the law, as a price paid in full, and showed man he could only truly live by faith and even if his faith faltered, the price was still paid in full. All there was to worry about was not to worry.

Obviously, no one will fully be able to live their lives in perfect compliance with the Sermon on the Mount but it is a genuinely good benchmark to reach for.

DixieFreedom,

It certainly appears you and I are on the same page here. Many years ago, when I was young and very strong, we lived on a little place in the country. I had a fellow plow up some ground. My daughers were still cute little girls at that time. I told the tractor driver the kids were never to get on the tractor, even when he was driving.

One day I heard Donna scream in pain. I came running. The tractor driver had invited her to get up on the tractor with him. She reached up and grabbed the muffler. Of course it was hot; he had been plowing for several minutes. I began to shout in his face to remind him what I told him. I didn't realize he felt as badly as I did. Soon he had enough. He took out his keys, put them between his fingers and began to hit me in the chest. I allowed him to continue this because "Turn the other cheek" means what It says.

It didn't take long before my chest was bleeding, and really hurting. I grabbed his hand, took the keys away, and told him he could continue hitting me because I was a Christian.

His life changed! He never saw anyone actually live what they preached before.

The idea that God's Word is to be used by different folks in differnt ways is blasphemy. I have been asked to leave churches because I believe we are to obey His Word.

See if you can get Ken Howell's essay on "Who will enter the Kingdom of God." It should be required reading for every Christian. Maybe he will post it here.

This pretty much covers it for me.obedience to the principles of the Sermon on the mount is simply reflecting the life of the Jesus described by Paul in Phillipians 2:5-8.Paul was talking to post ressurection Christians when he commanded many of the same thoughts and actions.Simply a matter of being conduits of God's grace.

These things need to be a matter of personal conviction and spiritual principle,not a legal requirement.I say this because you mention the Mennonites.I've dealt with a lot of them and Amish and while they will stick to certain aspects like non- resistance I find that in their relationships with one another they're not much if any better than the rest of us at obeying the spirit of the sermon.

Bricker,



If we follow Jesus, we are legalistic Christians. He says He came to fulfill the Law. Jesus says, "'If you love Me, you will keep My commmandments."

Apostle Paul writes about the Things in the New Testament.

"The Things I write are the Lord's commandments."

Apostle John writes,

"The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the Truth is not in him."

Okay, how about this one -- "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also." (John 14) Spoken in 33 AD -- coming up on 2,000 years later and it hasn't come to pass yet.

Go ya one better than that, Gen 3:15 -- the seed of the woman is going to bruise the head of the serpent, and the heel of the woman's seed will be bruised. Spoken in about 4,000 BC, and now, about 6,000 years later, it still hasn't happened -- but it will!

Paul spoke 1 Thes 4:13-18 in 58-62 AD, and 1955 years later, we have not seen the rapture.

My question is still unanswered -- ya ever pluck yer eye out fer lookin' at a cute young fillie? Ya ever cut yer hand off fer doin' something wrong with it? Betcha haven't! Betcha never will!

And I did say that I thought it made good preaching, just the doctrinal application runs amuck of the Pauline Epistles . . . . sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise . . . more than conquerors. Sermon on the mount says danger of hell fire. That's different than what the Church Age Epistles say. How come?

And my knickers never get in a wad.

Mr Sanlen: "If we do veiw the sermon on the mount in the light of the whole counsel of God, what is God then telling us?"

I see a New Testament affirmation of the bloody violent sword in Romans 13. The question that is undecided by my soul is this: can a Christian participate in the office of sword-bearer as affirmed in Romans 13.

The Mennonite says no. There position is consistent with: "Peter put up they sword... and... the weapons of our warfare are not carnal.... and... my kingdom is not of this world....and .... we are sheep to the slaughter.... and .... resist not the violent man.... and .... do violence to no man....

Please! I do not present myself as one with the answers! I am wondering, thinking out loud and trying to understand. God forbid I should mislead anyone!

I think my personal conviction is this: some may be called to the office of Romans 13, such as Mr Blaine and Shootist. I would not stumble or trouble their conscience... but for me... I think I am just supposed to hand out little gospel tracts about repent and believe. If someone punches me in the mouth...(and they have!) then I am supposed to just endure it, even as Christ did on his way to Calvary.

Ringman's testimony is a powerful one. The fellow that led me to Christ back in High School was roughed up quite a bit by one fellow. Holy Joe had such joy! And everyone hated him for his outspoken faith. But that one guy that roughed him up got saved afterwards.

Yet again... maybe in some respects Shootist is right. Timing. Perhaps timing and calling. My sunday school teacher was a very godly gracious man... real short and slight. Little did we know that he had marched across Europe with an M1 and liberated a concentration camp before his 21st birthday. That seems righteous in hindsight.

But on the otherhand when you study the history of the Anabaptists and understand the context in which their convictions were formed.... they got tired of a bunch of dumb stupid no count wars for some duke's pride and greed. And they always took the plain, frank, obvious meaning of the text deadly serious.

I need to look this up and review the history of it... but Luther "damned" Zwingli because Zwingli had a calling to minister the word but eventually resorted to the sword and was killed trying to fend off an invasion by the RC's

Yet in other writings Luther affirmed the authority of the state to wage war and for citizens to fufill their duty to kill,maim,dismember,slice,slay,stab,burn,beat the enemy. You almost recoil from Luther's graphic descripttion. Luther ain't Christ though... certainly not! His anti-semite work; "The Jews and Their Lies" proves that!

Point being; Luther recognized a calling of the ministry that was set apart from the sword. In like Manner the Mennonite believes not just ministers but ALL believers are set apart from the sword and unto spiritual things.

And those verses were contained in the Sermon on the Mount? I must have missed them.

You don't think Satan's head was bruised after Jesus took captivity captive and made a way for us to be saved? I'm thinking he did. And the Lord was certainly bruised for our iniquities all through His life on this rock.

Because I don't have to. A couple years after He preached that sermon, He took care of all the grisly penalties for me.

In accounting we would say timing differences. Another Old Covenant/New Covenant dynamic.

Not by my read, in fact, I find the doctrinal applications of Faith, Grace and Brotherhood to be a perfect fit.

We just see this differently. Surprisingly differently, but differently.

Can't... can't we all just get along?


Guess not. Sorry people. I'm having a hard time understanding the point of some of the questions and answers here. I can see the reasoning that many are using, but the flaws in them are glaring so loud it is hard to take many of them seriously.

There seems to be a remarkable amount of "cherry picking" going on, but I realize that Dixie has a serious question. I just keep coming back to Shootist's original response o applying what God brings to YOUR attention as important to your circumstances.

I personally cannot see God telling all o His people to not stand up and oppose evil. It has been said that all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men (or women) to stand by and do nothing. Certainly I see nothing in scripture even hinting we are to do that. But all must do what God has led them for.

All you fellers that do not believe in self - defence should take a little, or better yet, a lot of time and read the book of the Revelation, especially starting from about chapter 14:6. What do you think the wrath of God is??