Is the Sermon on the Mount the "Gospel"?

A big obstacle of Lou Martuneac's is that he's a Dispy. That teaching will shade his understanding of the Gospel until by some miracle his eyes are opened to see more clearly. He won't be convinced by argument, or any amount of Scripture you can produce.

Thank God that He brought me up out of the miry pit of Dispensationalism.

 

Why is there so much condescension on this Board for dispensationalism? Can't the non-dispensationalists avoid making comments like the one above? It does not sound like love.

Aaron, I usually agree with your posts so I am sorry to see this one. :tear:

 

I'm afraid I have little patience for a doctrine that robs the SOTM of the Gospel.

 

Deleted because not enough characters were entered. What is SOTM?

 

SOTM??

Even if you have little patience for it, it seems you should still respect your brothers and sisters in Christ who hold such views.

 

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".

 

Now you have a real problem, because John MacArthur is also a dispy...you know, the one Lou "the dispy" is refuting?

 

Sermon on the Mount.

 

I'm a dispy who rejects the teaching that the Sermon on the Mount is only for the Kingdom. Nonesense, I say.

 

Amen, I say!!

 

Ditto. There is a difference between moderate and reasonable dispensationalism and hyperdispensationalism.

I am dispensationalist in that, I see a difference between national geographical Israel and the disparate church. There are OT laws that are very specific to geographic boundaries, national government, and blood relations that cannot be (and are not) applied to NT church believers. However, I am not going to go to the extreme and split God's dealings throughout time into a seven-piece pie where each slice has a completely different filling.

 

Marcia:

The answer to your question is: Intellectual elitism.


LM

 

Yeah, it's sad.

 

First, let me say that I am a dispensationalist.

Second, I am also an intellectual snob.




Just kidding on the second one.

I find it hard to deny that the gospel is given in the SOTM. One may argue, "but it does not contain the death, burial, and resurrection which is the definition of the gospel". That is true, but when Jesus preached it, he had not yet died, been buried, or been resurrected. Are we to conclude that Jesus never preached the gospel because those events had not yet occured? How can it be that Jesus never preached the gospel? And since Jesus had not done the acts that make up the gospel, how, prior to the fulfillment of those acts was a person saved?

Consider the section in Mat 5:2-12 known as the beatitudes. Consider the results of those who obey Jesus' teaching in these verses:

"theirs is the kingdom of heaven"
"They shall inherit the earth"
"...those who hunger and thirst for righteousness shall be filled"
"they shall receive mercy"
"they shall see God"
"They shall be called sons of God"
"Theirs is the kingdom of heaven"
"Your reward is great in heaven"

If a person possesses the kingdom of heaven and is set to inherit the earth, if they are filled with righteousness and receive mercy, if they shall see God and are called the son of God, and if their reward is great in heaven, how can they not be a saved individual? And is not the instructions given to obtain those things the way of salvation?

 

Double Ditto or I Ditto the Ditto....

 

A fw thoughts:

1) Jesus often spoke of His coming death and resurrection (in the Gospels) prior to the actual event.

2) What we also need to keep in mind is that we are in a new dispensation. We have the completed cannon, and the Gospel as defined in the New Testament. The Gospel is no longer a mystery.

In any event, the saving message, the message that shows the lost man how he can be born again, become a Christian is not fond in the SOTM.

In every dispensation salvation has always been by faith.

Faith is revealed in each of these Dispensations. Much of the complaint against dispensationalists is that there is a teaching among them that God saved men in different ways. THAT IS A LIE! NO SUCH TEACHING EXISTS AMONG DISPENSATIONALISTS! SALVATION HAS ALWAYS AND ONLY BEEN BY FAITH!

LM

 

Did you find me defending JM?

 

Dispensationalism, as I understand it, teaches that there are two distinct peoples of God, and, as has been expressed, more than one gospel, more than one kingdom, and is typically premillennial in its eschatology.

Not to debate it in this thread, I have little patience for it in any form. Just like it hinders LM from seeing the one and only Gospel in the SOTM, it robs Christ of His glory, marginalizes the Gospel and the Atonement of Christ.

 

How does dispensationalism color the interpretations of Lou in regards to the non-lordship position? I am curious, not challenging. How does dispensationalism affect their understanding of the Gospel.

btw, I agree brother. Dispensationalsim is false.