Is the Sermon on the Mount the "Gospel"?

[ReformedBaptist]

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.

I don't know whether to laugh or lament. I have read those who put up a defense of MacArthur. I am not an apologist myself for any man. But this statement Lou, honestly brother, is borderline delusional. No one is trying to destroy you. :laugh: No one is trying to squash you. What I have seen is folks who believe you are misrepresenting JM. Whether you are or not, I don't know. I don't know MacArthur's doctrine well enough in this area to make an assessment.

But this statement just seems crazy to me Lou. Perhaps you've come down with a bit of martyrs complex. A good dose of humility shall be the quick cure brother.

 

[skypair]

It is all one Gospel.

Did I offer a D) answer like "All of the above"??? :type:

No! :BangHead:

The "everlasting gospel" can be said to coincide with both but is still incomplete regarding what is "good" about the "news." The everlasting gospel merely says "acknowledge God, glorify Him, and be thankful." These are accomplished in A) and B) but those answers offer WHY we should acknowledge God, glorify, and thank Him. A) says it is on account of His coming earthly kingdom. B) says it is on account of His spiritual kingdom come in Christ.

Do you see the differences? The OT "gospel of the kingdom" is anticipatory of Christ's advent. The NT "gospel of grace" acknowledges that He has come though His kingdom was not consituted literally but only spiritually. The OT gospel is not in force at this time though it is still true.

skypair

 

[canadyjd]

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.

Lou Martuneac, you are reaping what you have sown.

You came to a debate site, not to debate but to lecture everyone else. You came to make proclamation about what you believe is the truth, and to insult anyone who dared disagree.

If anyone attempted to engage you on the issue, you insulted them, impugning their motives and intellect. If anyone attempted to engage you with scripture, you ignored the scripture and you accused them of having "extra-biblical presuppositions".

If anyone attempted to engage you about the context of John MacArthur's words, which you have quoted, you accused them of viewing MacArthur as a "hero" which blinded them to the truth. You accused MacArthur of being a heretic by comparing him to well-known heretics and claiming he preached a "non-saving, works-based message". That is far worse than anything said of you.

Your arrogance is breathtaking. Your condescension like the flood of Noah, covering everything you post.

Lou Martuneac, you are reaping what you have sown. You act surprised at your harvest. Perhaps next time you'll sow a more gentle crop, and fertilize it with a healthy dose of humility.

peace to youraying:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I did find a brief article by JM defining LS in his own words. I started a thread to give my impression.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Did I offer a D) answer like "All of the above"??? :type:

No! :BangHead:

The "everlasting gospel" can be said to coincide with both but is still incomplete regarding what is "good" about the "news." The everlasting gospel merely says "acknowledge God, glorify Him, and be thankful." These are accomplished in A) and B) but those answers offer WHY we should acknowledge God, glorify, and thank Him. A) says it is on account of His coming earthly kingdom. B) says it is on account of His spiritual kingdom come in Christ.

Do you see the differences? The OT "gospel of the kingdom" is anticipatory of Christ's advent. The NT "gospel of grace" acknowledges that He has come though His kingdom was not consituted literally but only spiritually. The OT gospel is not in force at this time though it is still true.

skypair

No. What about "It is all one Gospel" that doesn't make sense to you of my meaning? I am not trying to give my meaning yours. You asked, I answered. I do not separate different gospels. That is weird. It is one eternal and everlasting Gospel from the beginning of the world to its ending.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

My ministry is primarily a teaching ministry. The question over Lordship Salvation needs no debate. There can be debate, but the debate has been settled because the Scriptures clearly identify Lordship Salvation as a radical departure from and antithetical to God’s redemptive plan for the lost.

Is salvation only for those who are willing to “forsake everything?” Is James 4:7-10 a message “to the unsaved” and the “invitation to salvation?” LS advocates such as MacArthur believe these things are necessary FOR salvation.

Those views identify Lordship Salvation as a works based, non-saving message that frustrates grace and corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (Gal. 2:21; 2 Cor. 11:3-4).


LM

 

[ReformedBaptist]

My ministry is primarily a teaching ministry. The question over Lordship Salvation needs no debate. There can be debate, but the debate has been settled because the Scriptures clearly identify Lordship Salvation as a radical departure from and antithetical to God’s redemptive plan for the lost.

Is salvation only for those who are willing to “forsake everything?” Is James 4:7-10 a message “to the unsaved” and the “invitation to salvation?” LS advocates such as MacArthur believe these things are necessary FOR salvation.

Those views identify Lordship Salvation as a works based, non-saving message that frustrates grace and corrupts the simplicity that is in Christ (Gal. 2:21; 2 Cor. 11:3-4).


LM

:laugh: I have already refuted your conclusion, namely "Lordship Salvation as a works based"

 

[skypair]

No. What about "It is all one Gospel" that doesn't make sense to you of my meaning? I am not trying to give my meaning yours. You asked, I answered. I do not separate different gospels. That is weird. It is one eternal and everlasting Gospel from the beginning of the world to its ending.

OK, RB --- how do you give the "good news" of a Savior Who hasn't come yet? Do you suppose that the gospel would be different AFTER He has presented Himself and died for sin? There's at least TWO gospels, RB.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

OK, RB --- how do you give the "good news" of a Savior Who hasn't come yet? Do you suppose that the gospel would be different AFTER He has presented Himself and died for sin? There's at least TWO gospels, RB.

skypair

There is one Gospel. The same Gospel that saves me is the same one that ever saves anyone who has ever lived.

 

[Amy.G]

I only know of one gospel.


Jhn 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw [it] and was glad."

Hbr 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.


God promised a Messiah from the time Adam fell. All Jews knew the promise and waited for Him to come. The problem was that when Jesus did come, most of the Jews were so caught up in their own self-righteousness that they didn't recognize him. Others just simply rejected him. But there has always been just one gospel of the Messiah, Christ Jesus who would save the world from their sins.


That's how I see it anyway.

 

[skypair]

Jhn 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw [it] and was glad."

That is not even the NT gospel.

Hbr 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Does Rom 10:9-10 tell us to "confess that we are strangers and pilfrims on the earth?" NO! So why do you say that Abraham's is the same as our gospel? Rom 10:9-10 says "confess the Lord Jesus and believe that God hath raised Him from the dead." That does NOT in any shape of form resemble confessing that we are strangers, Amy. And remember, the promise to Abraham was the LAND which he did not receive but which he "embraced" the faith of!!! Again -- NOT Jesus and NOT God raised Him from the dead.

God promised a Messiah from the time Adam fell.

Yeah -- "easy for YOU to say!!" :laugh: Did Adam know what "The seed of Satan shall bruise His heel and He shall bruise Satan's head" meant??

But there has always been just one gospel of the Messiah, Christ Jesus who would save the world from their sins.

You have finally alighted on a TRUTH! AMEN! But one Messiah viewed TWO different ways! One Who comes in VICTORY -- One Who comes in "DEFEAT/bruised!*" One Who comes to RULE -- One Who comes to DIE!! How does anyone in their right mind say that we see the same thing????

*kingdom taken away from Him.

skypair

 

[canadyjd]

The question over Lordship Salvation needs no debate. There can be debate, but the debate has been settled because the Scriptures clearly identify Lordship Salvation as a radical departure from and antithetical to God’s redemptive plan for the lost.

Again, your arrogance is breathtaking and your condescension like the flood of Noah, covering everything you post.

peace to youraying:

 

[JustChristian]

I find several gospels mentioned in my Bible, and they seem to differ in nature. So, I would say that the yes the sermon on the mount is a gospel. The everlasting gospel preached by the angel in Revelation is a different gospel than what Paul preached and different from the Lord's sermon on the mount. Somebody once told me, "things that are different are not the same".

I believe most here are referring to the gospel leading unto salvation and eternal life. Do you believe the Bible says that there are many such gospels? In my understanding nothing else is referred to by Christians as "The Gospel."