Is the Sermon on the Mount the "Gospel"?

[Lou Martuneac]

Lou, I have a question for you: You say that you have friends who have embraced Reformed/Calvinistic theology, Do you use the following in your conversations with them?

"You skirted it with double-speak and misdirects to Calvinistic extra-biblical presuppositions."

Thank you,
TC

TC:

No I don’t use that terminology with my Reformed friends because they do not dodge, evade and misdirect to avoid a question that he does not want to give a transparent answer to. They would either say, “yes” or “no” on whether the lost can know from the SOTM what they must believe to be born again. Our friend dodged that issue by skirting the issue.

He skirted the specific issue by answering his own reinterpretation of my questions. He couched answers within his Calvinistic views. He did in fact misdirect to avoid the force and crux of whether or not the Gospel, the saving message for salvation can be found in the SOTM.

Just look at his dodge of the issue I raised by saying he does not find the “specific words.” This is an obvious attempt to evade and redefine the discussion. He is answering questions after he redefines them in his own terms.

I have no further questions since he has no intention of dealing squarely with clear, unvarnished questions.

When you and I discuss issues I can count on straight answers from you or your asking for further clarification so that you can give an honest, unvarnished answer. No so, with our friend.

Frankly, my Reformed friends are unafraid to deal squarely with what was asked and would also tell him to cut sidestepping the specific issue that was asked about.


LM

 

[TCGreek]

TC:

No I don’t use that terminology with my Reformed friends because they do not dodge, evade and misdirect to avoid a question that he does not want to give a transparent answer to. They would either say, “yes” or “no” on whether the lost can know from the SOTM what they must believe to be born again. Our friend dodged that issue by skirting the issue.

He skirted the specific issue by answering his own reinterpretation of my questions. He couched answers within his Calvinistic views. He did in fact misdirect to avoid the force and crux of whether or not the Gospel, the saving message for salvation can be found in the SOTM.

Just look at his dodge of the issue I raised by saying he does not find the “specific words.” This is an obvious attempt to evade and redefine the discussion. He is answering questions after he redefines them in his own terms.

I have no further questions since he has no intention of dealing squarely with clear, unvarnished questions.

When you and I discuss issues I can count on straight answers from you or your asking for further clarification so that you can give an honest, unvarnished answer. No so, with our friend.

Frankly, my Reformed friends are unafraid to deal squarely with what was asked and would also tell him to cut sidestepping the specific issue that was asked about.


LM

Thanks for the response, Lou.

But it is what it is. It really comes down to a clash of theological grids.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

TC:

No I don’t use that terminology with my Reformed friends because they do not dodge, evade and misdirect to avoid a question that he does not want to give a transparent answer to. They would either say, “yes” or “no” on whether the lost can know from the SOTM what they must believe to be born again. Our friend dodged that issue by skirting the issue.

He skirted the specific issue by answering his own reinterpretation of my questions. He couched answers within his Calvinistic views. He did in fact misdirect to avoid the force and crux of whether or not the Gospel, the saving message for salvation can be found in the SOTM.

Just look at his dodge of the issue I raised by saying he does not find the “specific words.” This is an obvious attempt to evade and redefine the discussion. He is answering questions after he redefines them in his own terms.

I have no further questions since he has no intention of dealing squarely with clear, unvarnished questions.

When you and I discuss issues I can count on straight answers from you or your asking for further clarification so that you can give an honest, unvarnished answer. No so, with our friend.

Frankly, my Reformed friends are unafraid to deal squarely with what was asked and would also tell him to cut sidestepping the specific issue that was asked about.


LM

Lou,

Just a thought here. It may well be the case that he is "skirting" and "evading" the question. Or, it may be that he is not answering your questions directly for other reasons. In either case, framing his responses as you have most likely will elicit no better response. My impression of your rhetoric here and in other places will have the effect of demeaning the man. It essentially impugns his courage, character, and in my opinion, his manliness. And I don't see how this can be helpful.

I have engaged in this kind of rhetoric myself on these boards. So I eat my own words here friend. But you do with them as you will.

RB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I like A.W. Pink's comments concerning the Sermon on the Mount.

We do not think that W. Perkins went too far when he said of the Sermon on the Mount, "It may justly be called the key of the whole Bible, for here Christ openeth the sum of the Old and New Testaments." It is the longest discourse of our Lord’s recorded in the Scriptures. He began His public ministry by insisting upon repentance (Matthew 4:17), and here He enlarges upon this vitally important subject in a variety of ways, showing us what repentance really is and what are its fruits. It is an intensely practical sermon throughout: as Matthew Henry expressed it, "There is not much of the credenta of Christianity in it—the things to be believed; but it is wholly taken up with the agenda—the things to be done, for ‘If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine’ (John 7:17)."

Though we are told at the beginning of chapter v that it was His "disciples" whom Christ here taught, yet it is equally clear from the closing verses of chapter vii that this Sermon was spoken in the hearing of the multitudes. This must be steadily borne in mind throughout, for while it contains much instruction for believers in connection with their living a good, honest, and blessed life, yet not a little in it is evidently designed for unbelievers, particularly those sections which contain a most searching setting forth of the spiritual nature of His kingdom and the character of those who enter and enjoy its privileges. Romish teachers have greatly erred, for they insist that Christ here propounded a new Law—far more perfect than the Law of Moses—and that He delivered now entirely new counsel to His disciples, which was never given in the Law or the Prophets; whereas His intention was to clear the true meaning of the Law and the Prophets, which had been greatly corrupted by the Jewish doctors. [emphasis mine]

I think Pink's, and consequently Mathew Henry, comments are right on. I agree that its design and teaching is not only for believers, but also for unbelievers, and that Matthew Henry's comment answers the questions posed in this thread.

RB

 

[EdSutton]

I like A.W. Pink's comments concerning the Sermon on the Mount.

We do not think that W. Perkins went too far when he said of the Sermon on the Mount, "It may justly be called the key of the whole Bible, for here Christ openeth the sum of the Old and New Testaments." It is the longest discourse of our Lord’s recorded in the Scriptures. He began His public ministry by insisting upon repentance (Matthew 4:17), and here He enlarges upon this vitally important subject in a variety of ways, showing us what repentance really is and what are its fruits. It is an intensely practical sermon throughout: as Matthew Henry expressed it, "There is not much of the credenta of Christianity in it—the things to be believed; but it is wholly taken up with the agenda—the things to be done, for ‘If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine’ (John 7:17)."

Though we are told at the beginning of chapter v that it was His "disciples" whom Christ here taught, yet it is equally clear from the closing verses of chapter vii that this Sermon was spoken in the hearing of the multitudes. This must be steadily borne in mind throughout, for while it contains much instruction for believers in connection with their living a good, honest, and blessed life, yet not a little in it is evidently designed for unbelievers, particularly those sections which contain a most searching setting forth of the spiritual nature of His kingdom and the character of those who enter and enjoy its privileges. Romish teachers have greatly erred, for they insist that Christ here propounded a new Law—far more perfect than the Law of Moses—and that He delivered now entirely new counsel to His disciples, which was never given in the Law or the Prophets; whereas His intention was to clear the true meaning of the Law and the Prophets, which had been greatly corrupted by the Jewish doctors. [emphasis mine]

I think Pink's, and consequently Mathew Henry, comments are right on. I agree that its design and teaching is not only for believers, but also for unbelievers, and that Matthew Henry's comment answers the questions posed in this thread.

RB

Just wondering if anyine thinks this mught be or is an appropriate place to point out, wiith all respect to A. W. Pink as well as to Matthey Henry, that try as one may, one cannot find any mention of repentance, or any word(s) translated or rendered in any form of 'repent' anywhere in the Sermon on the Mount?

'Or will it also be considered a "personal attack" by some particapating on this thread, albeit not you, ReformedBaptist, who have not one time used the word "attack" to my knowledge, at least inh this thread, to point out that I do not agree with reading one's theology into tthe text, which is exactly what Messers Pink and Henry do here, by using a word not found therein?

Ed

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Just wondering if anyine thinks this mught be or is an appropriate place to point out, wiith all respect to A. W. Pink as well as to Matthey Henry, that try as one may, one cannot find any mention of repentance, or any word(s) translated or rendered in any form of 'repent' anywhere in the Sermon on the Mount?

'Or will it also be considered a "personal attack" by some particupating on this thread, albeit not you, ReformedBaptist, who have not one time on the BB used the word "attack" to my knowledge, to point out that I do not agree with reading one's theology into tthe text, which is exactly what Messers Pink and Henry do here, by using a word not found therein?

Ed

Why do you think what Jesus preached in Matt 5 and following would be different from what is generally declared in Matt 4:17?

 

[skypair]

I'm going to comment on skypair's post here in a virtual line by line manner. My comments will be in bolded blue.

Thank you, Ed. Perhaps I may find the error of my ways. :tonofbricks:

Not yet, canady. The OT saints aren't included yet.

They are (1) completely included among the saved or saints - the redeemed, and they are every bit as saved and safe as you or I could ever be; they are not now, nor (2) are they ever to be included as a part of "the body of Christ, the church." from which they are differentiated. (I Cor. 10:32; Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18; 24)

That was instructive. Hmm -- or was it? The best we can say is 1) they are justified and safe on the path to complete salvation and 2) they will be given the same bodies as us in the New Earth but not the same inheritance. So yes, the OT, trib, and MK saints will always be distinct.

They haven't named the name of Christ for salvation yet.

Yet? For salvation?? While I'm pretty sure I do understand what you are trying to get across, I believe you are reading a bit more into (or out of) the phrase "name the name of Christ", than the text where that phrase occurs can actually stand. (II Tim. 2:19 This phrase is found in KJV Only

(Sorry, couldn't pass up that chance!)

In the MK, every OT saint will be judged into it a) according to what Christ did on the cross whereupon they will accept the substitutionarly atonement. Then, according to their "Talents," (Mt 25:14-30) and service (Mt 24:45-51), etal. they will receive reward/ministry in the MK.

And it is like scripture says, "For there is no other name given under heaven ... whereby ye must be saved." Jesus said, "I am the way ... No man cometh to the Father but by Me."

I wish you had quoted the entire verses, here, simoply because I hate to see verses have parts left out of them, when quoting them. No man comes to God without Christ. That's pretty straightforward, isn't it? And everyone will get that chance even if they lived before Him -- even if they died in infancy -- even it they lived in North America in 700 AD.

So the dispie view of creation is that the OT saints will be resurrected to earth and receive Christ in His MK just as we have in His spiritual kingdom today.

Say what?????

A, what does "creation" have to do with anything, here, dispensationalist or otherwise?
B, while I agree that there is a definite sense of the "spiritual kingdom, today", as the 'church' is one definite facet of the overall "kingdom of God", just as is the "kingdom of the heavens" and as well as there will be an actual and literal "millenial kingdom", I do not see that any Scripture says anything anywhere that the OT saints will "receive Christ", at that time.
C, I definitely suggest that this is not any specific "dispie" view, at all, although some individuals may hold such a view.

As you say, it is a view from the dispie perspective. As to the OT saints receiving Christ at that time, the OT scriptures WERE unclear as to the mechanism by which God would "make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness," Dan 9:24 (Or as we call it "justify" and "sanctify" them).

But here are the passages that clearly speak of that day: Job 19:25-28, Psa 50:3-5, Dan 12:1c-3, Isa 26:19-21, 60:1, Ezek 37:12-14, Mt 13:44, 25:14-30, Rom 11:26.

To say that OT Israel is part of the "new man" [IOW, "church"] is to say that they could be completely saved without Christ.

This statement is confusing, if not meaningless. Basically, the argument is that the "one new man" is the church. The OT saints are not made part of it, as you agree.

The truth is that they are only partly saved

"No such animal" exists, then or now!

Complete salvation living in our glorified bodies in heaven. So the "animal" is either justified before the resurrection, justified and sanctified after the resurrection "in Christ," or justified, sanctified, and glorified after the "change"/rapture (as in "we ALL must be changed," 1Cor 15:51).

--- they ARE justified before God but they are NOT sanctified by being "born again" by the Spirit.

Not exactly accurate. One justified before God is also sanctified and is "born again" by the Spirit..

For the purposes of my point, the OT saints will only be "born again" in the resurrection to earth because "born again" means "of the Spirit" -- regeneration.

The "new man" is indwelt by the Spirit, canady.

Agreed, both in the symbolic usage of the church as the "new man" collectively, and as individuals, in this dispensation of the grace of God. However, the OT saints were not "indwelt by the Spirit", even though they could be "come upon", hence, be 'filled' with the Spirit.

So you do hereby agree a) that they must be "born again" as Christ said, b) that they will be into the MK to which they will be resurrected, and c) that Jesus rebuked Nicodemus for not realizing that the "resurrection of the just" to Messiah = the "new birth?"

skypair

 

[skypair]

How can dispensationalists believe a literal interpretation of scripture and yet, still hold to a separate "program" for the Jews?

Dispensationalism is about TIMING. During this TIME we live in, Jews and Gentiles are all one. Were we "one" in 600 BC? No.

See, that is the whole point of NEW covenant, isn't it? It's not the old covenant and it's not the "one size fits all" unscriptural covenant of grace that existed from creation to New Earth. There were at least 2 programs that existed. One still does -- when it is over, the other will resume to its conclusion -- THEN all will be one in the New Earth.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Why do you think what Jesus preached in Matt 5 and following would be different from what is generally declared in Matt 4:17?

That's a good point, RB. I mean, that verse is pretty far removed in time and place from the SOTM, but the teachings or "good news" of the SOTM do call us to an entirely different "wisdom" or standard of truth -- different conscience or awareness of God, I guess I would say.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Dispensationalism is about TIMING. During this TIME we live in, Jews and Gentiles are all one. Were we "one" in 600 BC? No.

See, that is the whole point of NEW covenant, isn't it? It's not the old covenant and it's not the "one size fits all" unscriptural covenant of grace that existed from creation to New Earth. There were at least 2 programs that existed. One still does -- when it is over, the other will resume to its conclusion -- THEN all will be one in the New Earth.

skypair

Are you saying Dispensationalists actually teach that God will resume the Old Covenant?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

That's a good point, RB. I mean, that verse is pretty far removed in time and place from the SOTM, but the teachings or "good news" of the SOTM do call us to an entirely different "wisdom" or standard of truth -- different conscience or awareness of God, I guess I would say.

skypair

I am not sure what point you derived from my question. These two verses from Matthew 4:

17From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

and



23And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

These verses generally state that Jesus preached the Gospel. This cannot, in my view, be fundamentally different from what He preached when on the mountain, which we read in Matt 5 and following.

 

[EdSutton]

Why do you think what Jesus preached in Matt 5 and following would be different from what is generally declared in Matt 4:17?

I did not say this at all. I merely pointed out that one cannot find anything about the word, hence the subject of 'repentance', here.

There are many different subjects spoken on by Jesus, in various places. For example, He spoke of "the kingdom of the heavens" eight times in the Sermon, so teachings on "the kingdom of the heavens" is obviously a major portion. However, I simply believe it is faulty exegesis, hence making is eisegesis, to read words (and subjects) into a particular text, that are not actually found therein.

Our Lord would later also speak of "the church", and give some specifics concerning the church, just not here. Is this and all Scripture "for" the church, and consequently "for" us? For her (and our) benefit, absolutely. (Rom. 15:4; I Cor. 10:11: II Tim. 3:16) It is merely not all addressed "to" the church (and "to" us), and it is a decided error to attempt to make it thus, IMO. This 'attempt' has the effect of "reading theology into the text," as well, a practice of which I have previously spoken, disapprovingly .

That is the point I was attempting to make.

IMO, when anyone attempts to make (any) Scripture say something the text simply does not say, I consider that as "wresting Scripture," a la Peter (II Pet. 3:16 ) [as opposed to "cutting straight the word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15) and "examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so" (Ac. 17:11, c.f. Jn. 5:39)], and this "wresting" is a practice with which I have little patience, regardless of who is doing it (or has done it), from the earliest days of the church fathers until now.

Ed

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I did not say this at all. I merely pointed out that one cannot find anything about the word, hence the subject of 'repentance', here.

There are many different subjects spoken on by Jesus, in various places. For example, He spoke of "the kingdom of the heavens" eight times in the Sermon, so teachings on "the kingdom of the heavens" is obviously a major portion. However, I simply believe it is faulty exegesis, hence making is eisegesis, to read words (and subjects) into a particular text, that are not actually found therein.

Our Lord would later also speak of "the church", and give some specifics concerning the church, just not here. Is this and all Scripture "for" the church, and consequently "for" us? For her (and our) benefit, absolutely. (Rom. 15:4; I Cor. 10:11: II Tim. 3:16) It is merely not all addressed "to" the church (and "to" us), and it is a decided error to attempt to make it thus, IMO. This 'attempt' has the effect of "reading theology into the text," as well, a practice of which I have previously spoken, disapprovingly .

That is the point I was attempting to make.

IMO, when anyone attempts to make (any) Scripture say something the text simply does not say, I consider that as "wresting Scripture," a la Peter (II Pet. 3:16 ) [as opposed to "cutting straight the word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15) and "examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so" (Ac. 17:11, c.f. Jn. 5:39)], and this "wresting" is a practice with which I have little patience, regardless of who is doing it (or has done it), from the earliest days of the church fathers until now.

Ed

Well, perhaps your a better exegete than Dr. Pink and Dr. Henry. But I have my doubts... :laugh:

I fail to see how the text of Scripture was wrested from its context, since the wider context of Matthew 5 and following is Matthew 4.

Some may read the Sermon on the Mount and think its not written to them, but for their benefit. But as for me, it is written for me and to me and I seek to obey it in every area.

 

[skypair]

These verses generally state that Jesus preached the Gospel. This cannot, in my view, be fundamentally different from what He preached when on the mountain, which we read in Matt 5 and following.

True, but --- what gospel do you see Him preaching on the Mount?

A) "Gospel of the kingdom"
B) "Gospel of grace"
C) "Everlasting gospel"

What are the differences in these gospels?

skypair

 

[canadyjd]

No I don’t use that terminology with my Reformed friends because they do not dodge, evade and misdirect to avoid a question that he does not want to give a transparent answer to.

Here were your questions and my responses.

(LM) Do we find any mention of the Lord's death,burial and resurrection...

I see no specific mention of the Lord's death, burial or resurrection. I see reference to persecution that will accompany those who follow Christ. I see a reference to the O.T. prophets, some who were killed.

I answered your question directly. I then told you what I do see in the SOTM.

(LM) Do we find the cross,

There is no specific reference to the cross. As the cross is symbolic of persecution, then, as stated above, there is reference to persecution.

I answered your question directly. I then told you what I do see in the SOTM.

(LM)justification by faith,

I see no specific reference to justification by faith. There is reference to seeking the Father in prayer. That certainly suggests faith. There is reference to trusting God the Father to provide for your needs. That suggests faith. There is reference to "doing the will of My Father" as a requirement for entering the kingdom. There is reference to doing works of light, so as to bring glory to the Father. All suggests a disciple will be judge and justified by faith in the Father. There is, however, no specific mention of the words "justified by faith".

I answered your question directly. I then told you what I do see in the SOTM.

(LM)or new birth?

I see no specific mention of a "new birth". I see the requirements of discipleship to be impossible for a non-regenerate person to acheive. Being "pure in heart" is impossible, being "perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect" is impossible. The language of a higher righteousness suggests a transformation of the individual. But, there is no mention of the words "new birth".

I answered your question directly. I then told you what I do see in the SOTM.

(LM)Where, however, in the Sermon on the Mount do we find, as Lordship advocates claim a “pure gospel” message that shows the lost man how he can be born again? Show readers where in the SOTM the lost are shown what they must know and believe to be born again?

Since I believe being "born again" is a work of God, Holy Spirit that cannot be predicted or manipulated by men, I wouldn't expect to see any language that said "If you do/believe/such and such, you will be "born again".

(LM)They would either say, “yes” or “no” on whether the lost can know from the SOTM what they must believe to be born again. Our friend dodged that issue by skirting the issue.

I did not dodge the question at all. I explained to you why I couldn't answer. I cannot answer "yes" or "no" because of the way you framed the question. I do not believe a person must "know" or "believe" anything for Holy Spirit to regenerate them. God initiates the encounter. After they are regenerated, they will appropriate salvation by faith in Jesus Christ.

I understand you do not agree. But your words concerning me are unwarranted.

(LM) Just look at his dodge of the issue I raised by saying he does not find the “specific words.” This is an obvious attempt to evade and redefine the discussion. He is answering questions after he redefines them in his own terms.

You do not get to define the terms, Lou Martuneac. God has defined the terms in scripture, and scripture refers to the SOTM as "gospel of the kingdom". As someone else pointed out, you shouldn't narrow your view of the gospel so much.

I have no further questions since he has no intention of dealing squarely with clear, unvarnished questions.....When you and I discuss issues I can count on straight answers from you or your asking for further clarification so that you can give an honest, unvarnished answer. No so, with our friend.

I'll let anyone who cares to read my answers above decide whether I was straightforward and honest in my answers.

Now, will you answer my question about dispensationalism in a straightforward and honest way?

peace to youraying:

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Lou,

Just a thought here. It may well be the case that he is "skirting" and "evading" the question. Or, it may be that he is not answering your questions directly for other reasons. In either case, framing his responses as you have most likely will elicit no better response. My impression of your rhetoric here and in other places will have the effect of demeaning the man. It essentially impugns his courage, character, and in my opinion, his manliness. And I don't see how this can be helpful.

I have engaged in this kind of rhetoric myself on these boards. So I eat my own words here friend. But you do with them as you will.

RB

RB:

I appreciate your comments here and I do take them seriously.

There is no question he reinterpreted my question(s) outside the limited scope that I was trying to address, which was the matter of if the SOTM gives the lost man what he needs to know and believe to be born again. Going beyond that scope he answered in a way to evade what I was trying to address. That kind of political gamesmanship is what it is: gamesmanship.

Now, on a personal note, where are your public concerns to those who have publicly and frequently impugned my character, courage, reputation integrity, etc. and questioned my motives? If you have encouraged them to rethink their rhetoric I appreciate your linking me to those.

I pay little attention to those critics because my reputation belongs to God, and God knows the truth.


LM

 

[skypair]

Lou,

Let me say, I am glad you have stuck around. :thumbs: Often when posters know they are right, they give up on those who resist very salient issues of salvatin and sanctification. I appreciate your tenacity, especially since you are right.

I hope that you and I may reveal the "insufficiency" of Calvinism. There are so many questions that that theology cannot answer and, not answering, shows that it is built on "sand."

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB:

I appreciate your comments here and I do take them seriously.

There is no question he reinterpreted my question(s) outside the limited scope that I was trying to address, which was the matter of if the SOTM gives the lost man what he needs to know and believe to be born again. Going beyond that scope he answered in a way to evade what I was trying to address. That kind of political gamesmanship is what it is: gamesmanship.

Now, on a personal note, where are your public concerns to those who have publicly and frequently impugned my character, courage, reputation integrity, etc. and questioned my motives? If you have encouraged them to rethink their rhetoric I appreciate your linking me to those.

I pay little attention to those critics because my reputation belongs to God, and God knows the truth.


LM

If you have entrusted your reputation to God, why would you ask for links from me defending it? Nonetheless, I have not seen someone make attacks on your character. I probably missed it.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

True, but --- what gospel do you see Him preaching on the Mount?

A) "Gospel of the kingdom"
B) "Gospel of grace"
C) "Everlasting gospel"

What are the differences in these gospels?

skypair

It is all one Gospel.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Lou,

Let me say, I am glad you have stuck around. :thumbs: Often when posters know they are right, they give up on those who resist very salient issues of salvation and sanctification. I appreciate your tenacity, especially since you are right.

Sky:

For the last few weeks I have had the time and desire to present Lordship Salvation (LS) as it is defined by its best know, but not only apologist, John MacArthur (JM). I tolerate the personal rancor that comes from the followers of and apologists for LS and JM because I am NOT writing for them. They view any criticism of LS and especially MacArthur’s interpretation, as a threat that must be squashed and anyone who raises concerns over the teaching of MacArthur must be discredited and destroyed. Their behavior speaks for itself and any objective reader can draw their own conclusions about the kind of vitriol that comes from these LS apologists.

As I said I am NOT writing for the LS apologists. I am primarily writing for the lurkers who read these threads, but won’t post any comments because they do not want to be the next target for the LS apologists. I receive a fair number of PM's and e-mails from people who read, go to the Bible and test what JM is writing and find it wanting and largely antithetical to the Scriptures.

My chief motive is to let the teachers of LS demonstrate from their own writing the egregious errors of LS. This way unsuspecting believers will be able to recognize the LS error, who the teachers of LS error are, and thereby be better prepared to put up a biblical defense against LS.

Thanks again for the note of encouragement.


Lou