Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
[qb]Still avoiding the many/few Scripture. No matter how you try to distract from the issue, it's clear you cannot handle it.
Matthew 7:13-14: from my readings in postmillennialism(not original with me
) -</font>[/QUOTE]Now we're getting somewhere. Where has this been? Instead of going around and around trying to distract from the text, we're getting somewhere.
1. The narrowness of the gate refers to the exclusivity of Christ Jesus.
Agreed.
2. Jesus is speaking ethically in that passage, not prophetically. We are to be motivated to place our faith in Him as the Messiah.
Within the context of the Sermon on the Mount, especially the text immediately before and after, how do you justify that conclusion?
3. Jesus is dealing with the state of affairs existing then - very few Jews believed in Him at that time. That passage does not deal with the rest of human history.
Again, where in the context of the passage do you get that? The next couple verses say, "21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" This seems to me to be linked to the passage on many/few, and it is told in an eschatological sense.
4. There is nothing in that passage that says that the state of affairs at that time were permanent. The passage is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Evidence? Especially considering the context?
5. The context deals with the rejection at that time of Christ by all but a small number of Jews.
Really? Where? I don't see this anywhere in the Sermon on the Mount.
Now, Scott, I am 99.999999999% sure you won't agree with what I repeated above from my studies, but you can't say I haven't dealt with the passage you keep bringing up.
Well, Ken, you tried, but the evidence does not yet support your theory.