ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Aaron said:
You can ignore my questions. Thanks for the answer. :thumbs:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is the Sermon on the Mount the "Gospel"?
- Thread starter canadyjd
- Start date
You can ignore my questions. Thanks for the answer. :thumbs:
Lou Martuneac
New Member
ID Your View
Aaron & RB:
You have both expressed a disdain for *Dispensationalism. Two Questions:
1) Do you hold to **Covenant Theology?
2) Do you consider yourselves ***Preterists?
LM
*Dispensationalism, on the other hand, is a system of theology with two primary distinctives: (1) a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy, and (2) a distinction between Israel and the Church in God's program.
**Covenant theology is based on the theory that God has only one covenant with men (the covenant of grace) and only one people, represented by the Old and New Testament saints—one people, one church and one plan for all. These beliefs require the adherents of Covenant Theology to interpret prophecy in a nonliteral way.
***Preterism is the belief that all Bible prophecies, including those concerned with the Second Coming of Jesus, the Resurrection of the Dead, the Rapture, the Judgment and the arrival of the Kingdom of God, came to fulfillment in a.d. 70 at the destruction of Herod’s temple in Jerusalem as predicted by Jesus in Luke 21:6, 22, 28, 31.
Aaron & RB:
You have both expressed a disdain for *Dispensationalism. Two Questions:
1) Do you hold to **Covenant Theology?
2) Do you consider yourselves ***Preterists?
LM
*Dispensationalism, on the other hand, is a system of theology with two primary distinctives: (1) a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy, and (2) a distinction between Israel and the Church in God's program.
**Covenant theology is based on the theory that God has only one covenant with men (the covenant of grace) and only one people, represented by the Old and New Testament saints—one people, one church and one plan for all. These beliefs require the adherents of Covenant Theology to interpret prophecy in a nonliteral way.
***Preterism is the belief that all Bible prophecies, including those concerned with the Second Coming of Jesus, the Resurrection of the Dead, the Rapture, the Judgment and the arrival of the Kingdom of God, came to fulfillment in a.d. 70 at the destruction of Herod’s temple in Jerusalem as predicted by Jesus in Luke 21:6, 22, 28, 31.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Are you now saying that the SOTM is "gospel", but that it isn't a saving gospel? Since scripture refers to it as "gospel", it could hardly be rejected as gospel. What exactly are you saying?Lou Martuneac said:
BTW: The message that shows the lost man how he is "born again" is found in John 3; it is an act of the Will of Holy Spirit (not the will of men) that cannot be predicted or manipulated by men.
peace to you
raying:Lou Martuneac
New Member
Back to the Beginning
Canadyjd:
You are well aware that I reject the extra-biblical presuppositions you hold to such as regeneration, i.e. salvation occurs prior to and apart from personal faith in Christ.
Back to the beginning and please answer my question. My concern has to do with the how the lost man is born again. Lordship Salvation advocates say the SOTM contains "pure gospel." In the Sermon on the Mount:
Canadyjd:
You are well aware that I reject the extra-biblical presuppositions you hold to such as regeneration, i.e. salvation occurs prior to and apart from personal faith in Christ.
Back to the beginning and please answer my question. My concern has to do with the how the lost man is born again. Lordship Salvation advocates say the SOTM contains "pure gospel." In the Sermon on the Mount:
LM
Last edited by a moderator:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Help me to understand something. If the dispensationalists hold to a consistently literal interpretation of scripture..AND...a distinction between Israel and the Church in "God's program"...Lou Martuneac said:
How do you reconcile Eph. 2:11+ (and others) which speaks of both groups (Jew and Gentile) being made into one new body by the cross of Christ. The barrier has been abolished (the Law of commandments), so that the two groups become one, unified by the Spirit of Almighty God?
Wouldn't Christ have to "undo" His work of reconciliation on the cross, in order to re-establish the barrier (which Christ, Himself abolished on the cross) and then break the one new man back into two separate groups?
Do you believe that will happen? Exactly how are the two groups that have been made one new man going to be separated again?
peace to you
raying:Lou Martuneac
New Member
Canadyjd:
It appears you may not accept *Dispensationalism. Two Questions:
1) Do you hold to **Covenant Theology?
2) Do you consider yourselves ***Preterists?
LM
*Dispensationalism, on the other hand, is a system of theology with two primary distinctives: (1) a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy, and (2) a distinction between Israel and the Church in God's program.
**Covenant theology is based on the theory that God has only one covenant with men (the covenant of grace) and only one people, represented by the Old and New Testament saints—one people, one church and one plan for all. These beliefs require the adherents of Covenant Theology to interpret prophecy in a nonliteral way.
***Preterism is the belief that all Bible prophecies, including those concerned with the Second Coming of Jesus, the Resurrection of the Dead, the Rapture, the Judgment and the arrival of the Kingdom of God, came to fulfillment in a.d. 70 at the destruction of Herod’s temple in Jerusalem as predicted by Jesus in Luke 21:6, 22, 28, 31.
It appears you may not accept *Dispensationalism. Two Questions:
1) Do you hold to **Covenant Theology?
2) Do you consider yourselves ***Preterists?
LM
*Dispensationalism, on the other hand, is a system of theology with two primary distinctives: (1) a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy, and (2) a distinction between Israel and the Church in God's program.
**Covenant theology is based on the theory that God has only one covenant with men (the covenant of grace) and only one people, represented by the Old and New Testament saints—one people, one church and one plan for all. These beliefs require the adherents of Covenant Theology to interpret prophecy in a nonliteral way.
***Preterism is the belief that all Bible prophecies, including those concerned with the Second Coming of Jesus, the Resurrection of the Dead, the Rapture, the Judgment and the arrival of the Kingdom of God, came to fulfillment in a.d. 70 at the destruction of Herod’s temple in Jerusalem as predicted by Jesus in Luke 21:6, 22, 28, 31.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Yes, I understand you reject what I see is the clear teaching of John 3. You have yet to address that passage of scripture to show me why I am wrong. You simply make accusations of being "extra-biblical". Well, I'm using scripture to support my position. Again, you have yet to address that passage of scripture.Lou Martuneac said:
Show me, by addressing the passage, why I am wrong... if you can.
Does scripture refer to the SOTM as "gospel" or not? It does, therefore, all you have to decide is if the words of Christ, Himself, are "pure" enough for you.
peace to you
raying:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
It appears you cannot answer my question. I'll try again.Lou Martuneac said:
How do you reconcile Eph. 2:11+ (and others) which speaks of both groups (Jew and Gentile) being made into one new body by the cross of Christ. The barrier has been abolished (the Law of commandments), so that the two groups become one, unified by the Spirit of Almighty God?
Wouldn't Christ have to "undo" His work of reconciliation on the cross, in order to re-establish the barrier (which Christ, Himself abolished on the cross) and then break the one new man back into two separate groups?
Do you believe that will happen? Exactly how are the two groups that have been made one new man going to be separated again?
peace to you
raying:Lou Martuneac
New Member
Why do you dodge the question? I have posted this question to you in two threads right from the start and you have yet to deal squarely with it. Why is that?canadyjd said:
My primary concern is with how the lost are born again. I'm sure you are equally concerned.
Do we find any mention of the Lord's death, burial and resurrection in the Sermon on the Mount? Do we find the cross, justification by faith, or new birth? Do we find any clear John 3:16 messages in the Sermon on the Mount?
The Sermon on the Mount can reveal to a lost man his sin condition. The Sermon on the Mount will show all men that they are not righteous and fall short of the glory of God. The Sermon on the Mount may bring conviction. 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?
I'm happy to discuss Dispensationalism just as soon as you give a clear, unvarnished answer to my clear question.
LM
Jerry: Good question.JerryL said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Not yet, canady. The OT saints aren't included yet. They haven't named the name of Christ for salvation yet. 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."canadyjd said:
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. A not insignificant issue is that God hasn't fulfilled all the promises of the OT to Israel yet either -- the land as an "inheritance forever," being one.
As you can see, there are still separate groups: OT Israel and the church. To say that OT Israel is part of the "new man" is to say that they could be completely saved without Christ.
The truth is that they are only partly saved --- they ARE justified before God but they are NOT sanctified by being "born again" by the Spirit. The "new man" is indwelt by the Spirit, canady.
And I hope you realize that no one can be raptured (1Thes 4:16-17, 1Cor 15:51) unless they are "sanctified" by the indwelling Spirit --- Mt 25:1-13, 1Cor 15:23 ("those that are His at His coming" - cf. "If any man hath not the Spirit, he is none of His." Rom 8:9). (This might be problematic for you, though. You don't believe in a separate resurrection and rapture, do you?)
skypair
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
OK, let's see what happens.Lou Martuneac said:
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.
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 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 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".
Yes, there are many.
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".
Now please address my questions concerning the passage from Eph.
peace to you
raying:
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Lou Martuneac said:
I do hold to Covenant theology. No, I am not a preterist.
Why do you call dispensationalism a system of theology, but Covenant Theology based on a theory? Why is Covenant Theology framed by you in eschatological terms? Why is Covenant Theology defined by its belief in One people of God?
"What is covenant theology? The straightforward, if provocative answer to that question is that it is what is nowadays called a hermeneutic -- that is, a way of reading the whole Bible that is itself part of the overall interpretation of the Bible that it undergirds." -J.I. Packer
Packer goes on to say..
"A successful hermeneutic is a consistent interpretative procedure yielding a consistent understanding of Scripture in turn confirms the propriety of the procedure itself. Covenant theology is a case in point. It is a hermeneutic that forces itself upon every thoughtful Bible-reader who gets to the place, first, of reading, hearing, and digesting Holy Scripture as didactic instruction given through human agents by God himself, in person; second, of recognizing that what the God who speaks the Scriptures tells us about in their pages is his own sustained sovereign action in creation, providence, and grace; third, of discerning that in our salvation by grace God stands revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, executing in tripersonal unity a single cooperative enterprise of raising sinners from the gutter of spiritual destitution to share Christ's glory for ever; and, fourth, of seeing that God-centered thought and life, springing responsively from a God-wrought change of heart that expresses itself spontaneously in grateful praise, is the essence of true knowledge of God. Once Christians have got this far, the covenant theology of the Scriptures is something that they can hardly miss."
http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/Bible/cov_theo.html
I am no expert on Covenant Theology, but I claim it as my belief because as I have explained my understanding of the Scriptures to others, as a whole, they have remarked that I think Covenantally. I have yet to read anything in Covenant Theology that seems disagreeable to the Word of God.
I think the reason for the tension between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, progressive or no, is that both are hermenutics. Both are ways in which the entirety of Scripture is interpretated.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey Lou,
Since God is capable of revealing Himself to man through creation, don't you reckon He can reveal the Good News through the words of Jesus?
I agree that the "plan of salvation" is not explicitly set forth in Matthew 5-7, but it's still the Word of God, and I think God can accomplish pretty much anything He wants.
Since God is capable of revealing Himself to man through creation, don't you reckon He can reveal the Good News through the words of Jesus?
I agree that the "plan of salvation" is not explicitly set forth in Matthew 5-7, but it's still the Word of God, and I think God can accomplish pretty much anything He wants.
But, no one understood what he was speaking of until after the fact.
I agree. Still, Jesus preached the gospel and told people how to enter into eternal life. I don't see how you can deny this. I showed in the SOTM in my earlier comments how the beatitudes are specifically about how to enter in to eternal life. Interestingly, you avoided commenting on this passage of scripture directly.
I have shown you otherwise. Please explain how I am wrong in what I said about the beatitudes giving a series of steps so that one is "a child of God" "a member of the kingdom" an inheritor of the earth", etc. Lou, these promises in the beatitudes are the hope of everyone who is saved. Since the beatitudes are promising these things, how can they not contain the way of salvation?
This is a classic statement of dispensationalism with which I agree 100%.
Again, Lou, I am a dispensationalist. I am not presenting a false argument in this regard. What I am saying is that the beatitudes promise the things that accompany eternal life. How can they not be the gospel? The beatitudes and the sermon on the mount are the core didactic teachings of Jesus. Most of his other teaching is in parable form. If Jesus is not presenting the way of salvation, please show me where he actually DOES present it.
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
skypair said:
Skypair,
I do not speak this to you specifically. But, to the board I say, if this is representative of Dispensational theology it has been one of the biggest piles of nonsensical rubbish I have read in quite some time. :type:
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Lou,
There are those of us out there who may disagree with Dispensationalism, but are fair-minded enough that we would understand it as taught by Dispensationalists themselves and not be fighting a strawman, if we felt so inclinded to fight against it.
Your statements here give rise to questions. Not concerning dispensationalism, but concerning what seems to be quite an emotional response. Perhaps those who have rejected dispensationalism have rejected merely a false presenation of it. WHy call them liars? Do be a liar implies evil intent. Perhaps they are just mistaken. And if mistaken, why not just point out the error giving us good sources for true dispensational belief.
I have heard this calumny regarding dispensationalism as well. I have not received it as true, but only remarked that if that be the case, they are very mistaken. Perhaps there is a form of dispensationalism that teaches this?
Lou, I don't need you to delinate the subject for me. I am well able to do my own research. What I mean by this, is there is no reason for you to work hard in this area on my behalf. I will learn dispensationalism by its leading proponents, not by armchair internet theologians. :laugh: (and I are one :laugh: )
RB
Nothin' like asking a leading question, and declaring in advance the only answer to it one will accept -canadyjd said:On another thread, Lou Martuneac made the following post:I want to answer Lou Martuneac here, so as not to derail the other thread.
Scripture specifically says in Matt. 4:23 "Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom..."
Jesus begins the Sermon on the Mount with the beatitudes.."Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven..."
It is clear that the "gospel of the kingdom" referred to in 4:23 is expounded plainly a few verses later with the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus goes into great detail concerning kingdom disciples.
So, the answer must be, Yes! The Sermon on the Mount is pure gospel, since scripture refers to it as such.
peace to you
Neveretheless, I will answer it anyway.
The problem with the (canadyjd) post is that there are two flawed premises contained in it, which cause the offered exegesis here, to be skewed, IMO.
The first is a view that is 'too narrow" here, of "the gospel" or "the good news" or "good tidings" which incidentally, is not a NT 'revelation'. (Is. 40:9; 41:27; 61:1-2 cp. Lk. 4:19; Nah. 1:15; cp. Ro. 10:15; Lk. 2:10; 8:1; Gal. 3:8 cp. Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 28:14) The second is that which Jesus was teaching the disciples, here in the sermon is "the gospel", by definition.
Yes Jesus was preaching the gospel of the kingdom, to those in Galilee, as you have rightly cited. However, there are multiple facets of the larger view of "the gospel") (I Cor. 15:1-8; Ro. 15:16)" in the almost 100 uses of "gospel" in English Bibles, of which the "gospel of the Kingdom" (4 times - Mt. 4:23) is but one 'facet.' Some other 'facets' and/or descriptions, among yet others, (realize, I could have miscounted the number of some of these instances) include speaking of "gospel" as the -
1.) "g. of Jesus Christ" (or "of Christ") (14 times - Mk. 1:1; Ro. 1:16; )
2.) "g. of God" (7 times - Ro. 1:1)
3.) "g. of the grace of God" (Ac. 20:24) which is, I believe, akin to #4 - the gospel -
4.) "g. for the uncircumcised" &
5.) "g. for the circumcised" (Gal. 2:7)
6.) "g. of your salvation" (Eph. 1:13)
7.) "g. of peace" (2 times - Eph. 6:15)
8.) "my gospel" (3 times - Ro. 2:16)
9.) "everlasting gospel" (Rev. 14:6) Incidentally, this facet of the gospel, unlike others was not entrusted to any man, (I Thes. 2:4) but only to an angel.
10.) simply "the gospel" with no additional descriptors and/or qualifiers in about half the uses (haven't actually counted the exact number - Mt. 11:5; I Pet. 4:6)
11.) "another gospel" or one that has been perverted (4 times - Gal. 1:6,7,8,9)
12.) and one more, I want to mention specifically - the gospel as the 'begetting agent' of the new birth - (I Cor. 4:15).
Let's be sure we do not 'pigeonhole' this very wide subject into too narrow a slot.
By the same token, let's not expand "gospel" too wide, either. The words "gospel of the kingdom" or even "gospel" does not occur at all in the Sermon on the Mount, in either Matthew or Luke. Let's not "read it where it ain't!"
Certainly the Sermon is kingdom teaching and kingdom truth. However, not all truth is "the gospel", and certainly not "the gospel of salvation", which is what I sucpect you are attempting to portray this as, IMO. The ones to whom Jesus directed his sermon were specifically already "his disciples" (Mt. 5:1,2; Lk. 6:17,20) Yes undoubtedly, others came by, 'stopped' and overheard, as we find in Mt. 7:28 and Lk. 6:17 & 7:1. That does not change the fact that He was here speaking primarily to the disciples (Mt. 5:1-2; Lk. 6:20), although he does say some things that are certainly applicable to 'the hearers.' (Lk. 6:24, 27), just as they are applicable, although not specifically directed to us, as we are a part of "the body of Christ,", and for me, at least, never was I any part of "the commonwealth of Israel." And one who is (already) a disciple (or a believer) does not ever have to "get saved" again, in the eternal sense, by any stretch.
Lou Martuneac is here therefore correct [assuming he is being portrayed accurately in this presentation,
since I have not read that particular post that I remember, and charges of 'inaccuracy' seem to fly around lately, like the mosquitoes around our farm shop (I'm still trying to find the shallow container of 'stagnant water' that is the breeding ground, but so far, without much success)] (and regardless of whether or not he sells any books or articles for either himself and/or Dr. John MacArthur)
in that 'salvation is not primarily what is in view. He is also basically correct that one does not find any atonement, or justification by faith, here.
Why? Because they were already disciples, hence did not need "rejustifying", and 'atonement' is not mentioned for the very same reason.
I would offer that both Lou Martuneac and canadyjd have not mentioned, here, that there is instruction "for disciples" that is applicable to us, even though not directly addressed to us in the church. As is all Scripture, this is for us, even though it is not to us.
Get it, folks: Salvation is by grace through faith and not by any works either before, after, or surreptitiously "contained in" the definition of faith (or believing); (John. 3:10-18, 36; 5:24; 6:47; Rom. Eph. 2:8-10) and good works should be walked in afterwards. Slavation is what is claimed by grace through faithfulness. (Language Cop here notes that "slavation" is not a misspelling!) And one cannot find anywhere that "faithful" eternally saves anyone, in a verse in Scripture, at least in the KJV, RV, ASV or NKJV, to my knowledge. But one can and does find that one is saved by believe/faith (or is justified by faith) in more than 10 different places, as webdog recently posted here.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1270088&postcount=13
Faith is an integral part of faithfulness. But one simply cannot fit the 12 letter word "faithfulness" into the five letter words of either "grace" or "faith," in any language.
Let's not try and put the wagon in front of the wagon. (Hey, I'm a farmer; what did you expect me to say??)
Ed
Last edited by a moderator: