-
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
Lou Martuneac
New Member
Canadyjd:
Your reply to my question: Where 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?
You acknowledged there is no mention of the Gospel: His death, burial and resurrection. There is NO reference to justification by faith. No mention of the new birth.
But on the core question was,
You skirted it with double-speak and misdirects to Calvinistic extra-biblical presuppositions. Never the less you admit there is no language in the SOTM that tells the lost man how he can be born again.
Bottom-line, there is NO message in the SOTM that shows can be considered the message that must be believed to be born again. Any claim that the SOTM is the way of salvation, defines the way a man is born again is to force into the SOTM something it does not say.
Dr. MacArthur, however, specifically cites Matthew 7:13-14 as, “…the Savior’s own presentation of the way of salvation…In fact, these closing verses are pure gospel.” (TGATJ: Rev. & Exp., p. 203.) He speaks of this passage through subheadings titled, “Two Gates, Two Ways, Two Destinations, Two Crowds.”
In each section MacArthur is speaking of the way or entrance to heaven; “a narrow path that leads to life,” (p. 208). He is speaking in terms of salvation. Choosing the right road leads to Heaven, the wrong road leads to Hell. I would, of course, agree that the Zane Hodges/Bob Wilkin “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel is a shallow, reductionist message that is void of vital truths.
LM
Your reply to my question: Where 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?
You acknowledged there is no mention of the Gospel: His death, burial and resurrection. There is NO reference to justification by faith. No mention of the new birth.
But on the core question was,
You skirted it with double-speak and misdirects to Calvinistic extra-biblical presuppositions. Never the less you admit there is no language in the SOTM that tells the lost man how he can be born again.
Bottom-line, there is NO message in the SOTM that shows can be considered the message that must be believed to be born again. Any claim that the SOTM is the way of salvation, defines the way a man is born again is to force into the SOTM something it does not say.
Dr. MacArthur, however, specifically cites Matthew 7:13-14 as, “…the Savior’s own presentation of the way of salvation…In fact, these closing verses are pure gospel.” (TGATJ: Rev. & Exp., p. 203.) He speaks of this passage through subheadings titled, “Two Gates, Two Ways, Two Destinations, Two Crowds.”
In each section MacArthur is speaking of the way or entrance to heaven; “a narrow path that leads to life,” (p. 208). He is speaking in terms of salvation. Choosing the right road leads to Heaven, the wrong road leads to Hell. I would, of course, agree that the Zane Hodges/Bob Wilkin “Crossless” interpretation of the Gospel is a shallow, reductionist message that is void of vital truths.
LM
Lou Martuneac
New Member
canadyjd:
You asked,
In light of what the Bible says, whether Jew or Gentile all are saved by faith.
LM
You asked,
Honestly, I am not sure what you are driving at. The passage needs no reconciling. Are you driving a wedge between Jew and Gentile? They all have been brought into fellowship by the blood of Christ?
In light of what the Bible says, whether Jew or Gentile all are saved by faith.
LM
Lou Martuneac
New Member
Ed:
You answered JerryL’s question, Can an unbeliever read the SOTM and find out what he needs to be saved and how to be saved?
Your answer:
TCGreek: You wrote,
Lou
You answered JerryL’s question, Can an unbeliever read the SOTM and find out what he needs to be saved and how to be saved?
Your answer:
Great! There is no message in the SOTM that clearly shows the lost what he needs to know and believe to be born again; None! However, there is plenty there that can be used to guide the believer/disciple in how he ought to live like one.
TCGreek: You wrote,
Excellent and exactly the point I was making about the SOTM. I wrote,
You also wrote,
By faith! Good!
Lou
Lou Martuneac
New Member
"cannon" Funny! That one got by my spell-checker.EdSutton said:NO doubt about that!
I can hear the shots being fired all the way out here, even when I'm not in front of the computer!
Ed
Lou
I haven't read all the post in this thread. However, I do not believe one finds the gospel message in the Sermon on the Mount as much as one finds the need for the gospel. Personally, as I read and study the sermon on the mount I find how far short I am of meeting the standard. I see that almost every day I don't add up to the requirements. I find the demands impossible to keep on a consistant basis. As hard as I may try I don't always turn the other cheek. In spite of the call not to worry, I still worry inspite of myself. I have, as much as I hate it, even as a Christian, returned evil for evil. What can I say? As Jesus states, "blessed are the poor in spirit." One thing for sure, above all else, the Sermon on the Mount, declares my spiritual bankruptcy. I'm a broken man in need of help. And, in Christ, and only in Christ, and His saving work have I found hope. The Sermon on the Mount points me to the gospel.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lou Martuneac
New Member
sag38 said:
I appreciate your comments.
Yes, the SOTM may show a man that he falls short and needs a Savior. There is, however, no clear presentation of what the lost man needs to know and believe so that he can be born again.
LM
Lou Martuneac said:
Lou wrote: "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.”
Well, I can't say some that the text doesn't say.
Yes, I see Abraham as the model (Rom 4:9-11). I think that is explicitly clear the text I cited.
Both Jews and Gentiles are saved by faith, the same kind that Abraham had.
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
"You skirted it with double-speak and misdirects to Calvinistic extra-biblical presuppositions."
Thank you,
TC
Can you find a clear presentation of the Resurrection in Ex. 3:6? The Sadducees didn't, yet Christ held them responsible to discern it therein, Matt. 22:31-33. Simply because the format you're looking for isn't in the SOTM, doesn't mean it isn't there and that you're not responsible to discern it.Lou Martuneac said:
But the format is there, and you still don't see it. "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father, which art in Heaven. . . deliver us from evil . . ."
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
So, we agree the SOTM is gospel?EdSutton said:
So, we should have a large view of the "gospel" that includes the SOTM, unless we narrow the view for some reason?
Isn't that what Lou Martuneac did in his effort to criticize John MacArthur?
You are not particularly generous in your apprasial of the words of our Lord and Savior. Certainly the words of Christ are always truth and they are always gospel (good news to those who hear and obey). Maybe you are "narrowing" your definition of "gospel" a little too vigorously here.
That was somewhat confusing. I just don't understand what you are trying to say.
Jesus specifically addresses how those who will enter into the kingdom of heaven do so, by being pure of heart, by being meek, by enduring persecution for His sake, by doing the will of His Father, and so on. How can that not be speaking about salvation?
You should apply your criticism of me ("too narrow a view of the gospel") to your friend. Maybe he will listen to you.
Thanks for the response. I have duly noted your valid criticism (specifically the way I phrased the initial post), and your valued contribution to the variated terminology associated with the word "gospel".
peace to you
raying:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Now, Lou Martuneac, you know that is not true. I have not acknowledged there is no mention of "the gospel". I have agreed there is no mention of the specific words which you believe must be mentioned before the words of our Lord and Savior can be considered "gospel". Those are quite different things.Lou Martuneac said:
I answered you directly and quoted scripture which supports my beliefs. That is not "skiriting", "double-speak" or "misdirects". I see you cannot help insulting people who disagree with you.
Are you saying the words of our Lord and Savior, which John MacArthur is quoting, are not speaking of heaven and hell?
peace to you
raying:
Last edited by a moderator:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
You stated that dispensational theolgy holds to a separate "program" for Jews and Gentiles. The passage I quoted above demonstrates that God's program for both groups is the church. Christ abolished the dividing wall. The two groups have been made into one new man (the body of Christ, i.e the church)Lou Martuneac said:
How can dispensationalists believe a literal interpretation of scripture and yet, still hold to a separate "program" for the Jews?
peace to you
raying:
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm going to comment on skypair's post here in a virtual line by line manner. My comments will be in bolded blue.
Not yet, canady. The OT saints aren't included yet.
They are 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 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)
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!)
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.
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.
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.
Agreed, here.
As you can see, there are still separate groups: OT Israel and the church.
Agreed.
To say that OT Israel is part of the "new man" is to say that they could be completely saved without Christ.
This statement is confusing, if not meaningless. As (a.) OT Israel is not said to ever be a part of the "new man," and (b.) no one is or was (ever) saved apart from faith in God, and this faith is based the shed blood of the resurrected Christ (the previous animal sacrifices were all but a picture of the real thing, and could never take away sin) and (c.) 'OT saints' were just as "completely saved" as any 'NT saints', again, I consider this hypothetical statement confusing, to say the least, and basically do not agree with any of it.
The truth is that they are only partly saved
"No such animal" exists, then or now!
--- 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. There is more than 'one kind' of 'justification' spoken of (incuding before God by faith and before man by works), as well as more than one kind of 'sanctification' (holy) spoken of in Scripture, including days, 'of objects', the LORD, the tabernacle and the Temple, and individually and collectively as past, present, and future. (Gen. 2:3; Ex. 29:37, 44; Lev. 20:7, 8; Num. 7:1; 20:13; II Chron. 7:16; Job 13:8; Ps. 86:2; Ezek. 37:28; Lk. 18:14; John 3:3-8; Ro. 3:28; 4:2; Eph. 5:26, 27; II Tim. 2:21; Tit. 3:7; Jas. 2:21, 24, 25; Heb. 13:12; Rev. 20:6, etc., et al.)
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.
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).
I agree, if you are defining "sanctified" here, as to one's 'position' of "in Christ," as opposed to someone's "abiding in Christ", experientially, if I may use that phrase. I do not believe in any "partial rapture" of only "the 'best' of the saints," where the "unspiritual ones" (whatever that is supposed to mean, 'miss out on these goodies.' One's rewards and losses are determined at the Bema, not at the 'rapture.'
(This might be problematic for you, though. You don't believe in a separate resurrection and rapture, do you?)
A consistent 'covenanter' would not make such a distinction, I do not believe.
(I ain't yet 'got it all figgered out' 'zackly how they "explain away" those who were raised when Christ was raised in Matt. 27:52-53, and have only one time of resurrection and that yet future 'at the end of time,' or how preterists are gonna' get the saints of 1930plus years and counting all back to be raised in 70 A.D. yet either, but I'm still working on those two things.)
Ed
Not yet, canady. The OT saints aren't included yet.
They are 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 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)
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!)
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.
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.
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.
Agreed, here.
As you can see, there are still separate groups: OT Israel and the church.
Agreed.
To say that OT Israel is part of the "new man" is to say that they could be completely saved without Christ.
This statement is confusing, if not meaningless. As (a.) OT Israel is not said to ever be a part of the "new man," and (b.) no one is or was (ever) saved apart from faith in God, and this faith is based the shed blood of the resurrected Christ (the previous animal sacrifices were all but a picture of the real thing, and could never take away sin) and (c.) 'OT saints' were just as "completely saved" as any 'NT saints', again, I consider this hypothetical statement confusing, to say the least, and basically do not agree with any of it.
The truth is that they are only partly saved
"No such animal" exists, then or now!
--- 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. There is more than 'one kind' of 'justification' spoken of (incuding before God by faith and before man by works), as well as more than one kind of 'sanctification' (holy) spoken of in Scripture, including days, 'of objects', the LORD, the tabernacle and the Temple, and individually and collectively as past, present, and future. (Gen. 2:3; Ex. 29:37, 44; Lev. 20:7, 8; Num. 7:1; 20:13; II Chron. 7:16; Job 13:8; Ps. 86:2; Ezek. 37:28; Lk. 18:14; John 3:3-8; Ro. 3:28; 4:2; Eph. 5:26, 27; II Tim. 2:21; Tit. 3:7; Jas. 2:21, 24, 25; Heb. 13:12; Rev. 20:6, etc., et al.)
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.
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).
I agree, if you are defining "sanctified" here, as to one's 'position' of "in Christ," as opposed to someone's "abiding in Christ", experientially, if I may use that phrase. I do not believe in any "partial rapture" of only "the 'best' of the saints," where the "unspiritual ones" (whatever that is supposed to mean, 'miss out on these goodies.' One's rewards and losses are determined at the Bema, not at the 'rapture.'
(This might be problematic for you, though. You don't believe in a separate resurrection and rapture, do you?)
A consistent 'covenanter' would not make such a distinction, I do not believe.
(I ain't yet 'got it all figgered out' 'zackly how they "explain away" those who were raised when Christ was raised in Matt. 27:52-53, and have only one time of resurrection and that yet future 'at the end of time,' or how preterists are gonna' get the saints of 1930plus years and counting all back to be raised in 70 A.D. yet either, but I'm still working on those two things.)
Ed