Is the Sermon on the Mount the "Gospel"?

TC:

No I don’t use that terminology with my Reformed friends because they do not dodge, evade and misdirect to avoid a question that he does not want to give a transparent answer to. They would either say, “yes” or “no” on whether the lost can know from the SOTM what they must believe to be born again. Our friend dodged that issue by skirting the issue.

He skirted the specific issue by answering his own reinterpretation of my questions. He couched answers within his Calvinistic views. He did in fact misdirect to avoid the force and crux of whether or not the Gospel, the saving message for salvation can be found in the SOTM.

Just look at his dodge of the issue I raised by saying he does not find the “specific words.” This is an obvious attempt to evade and redefine the discussion. He is answering questions after he redefines them in his own terms.

I have no further questions since he has no intention of dealing squarely with clear, unvarnished questions.

When you and I discuss issues I can count on straight answers from you or your asking for further clarification so that you can give an honest, unvarnished answer. No so, with our friend.

Frankly, my Reformed friends are unafraid to deal squarely with what was asked and would also tell him to cut sidestepping the specific issue that was asked about.


LM

 

Thanks for the response, Lou.

But it is what it is. It really comes down to a clash of theological grids.

 

Lou,

Just a thought here. It may well be the case that he is "skirting" and "evading" the question. Or, it may be that he is not answering your questions directly for other reasons. In either case, framing his responses as you have most likely will elicit no better response. My impression of your rhetoric here and in other places will have the effect of demeaning the man. It essentially impugns his courage, character, and in my opinion, his manliness. And I don't see how this can be helpful.

I have engaged in this kind of rhetoric myself on these boards. So I eat my own words here friend. But you do with them as you will.

RB

 

I like A.W. Pink's comments concerning the Sermon on the Mount.

I think Pink's, and consequently Mathew Henry, comments are right on. I agree that its design and teaching is not only for believers, but also for unbelievers, and that Matthew Henry's comment answers the questions posed in this thread.

RB

 

Just wondering if anyine thinks this mught be or is an appropriate place to point out, wiith all respect to A. W. Pink as well as to Matthey Henry, that try as one may, one cannot find any mention of repentance, or any word(s) translated or rendered in any form of 'repent' anywhere in the Sermon on the Mount?

'Or will it also be considered a "personal attack" by some particapating on this thread, albeit not you, ReformedBaptist, who have not one time used the word "attack" to my knowledge, at least inh this thread, to point out that I do not agree with reading one's theology into tthe text, which is exactly what Messers Pink and Henry do here, by using a word not found therein?

Ed

 

Why do you think what Jesus preached in Matt 5 and following would be different from what is generally declared in Matt 4:17?

 

Thank you, Ed. Perhaps I may find the error of my ways. :tonofbricks:

Not yet, canady. The OT saints aren't included yet.

That was instructive. Hmm -- or was it? The best we can say is 1) they are justified and safe on the path to complete salvation and 2) they will be given the same bodies as us in the New Earth but not the same inheritance. So yes, the OT, trib, and MK saints will always be distinct.

In the MK, every OT saint will be judged into it a) according to what Christ did on the cross whereupon they will accept the substitutionarly atonement. Then, according to their "Talents," (Mt 25:14-30) and service (Mt 24:45-51), etal. they will receive reward/ministry in the MK.

 

Dispensationalism is about TIMING. During this TIME we live in, Jews and Gentiles are all one. Were we "one" in 600 BC? No.

See, that is the whole point of NEW covenant, isn't it? It's not the old covenant and it's not the "one size fits all" unscriptural covenant of grace that existed from creation to New Earth. There were at least 2 programs that existed. One still does -- when it is over, the other will resume to its conclusion -- THEN all will be one in the New Earth.

skypair

 

That's a good point, RB. I mean, that verse is pretty far removed in time and place from the SOTM, but the teachings or "good news" of the SOTM do call us to an entirely different "wisdom" or standard of truth -- different conscience or awareness of God, I guess I would say.

skypair

 

Are you saying Dispensationalists actually teach that God will resume the Old Covenant?

 

I am not sure what point you derived from my question. These two verses from Matthew 4:

17From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

and



23And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.

These verses generally state that Jesus preached the Gospel. This cannot, in my view, be fundamentally different from what He preached when on the mountain, which we read in Matt 5 and following.

 

I did not say this at all. I merely pointed out that one cannot find anything about the word, hence the subject of 'repentance', here.

There are many different subjects spoken on by Jesus, in various places. For example, He spoke of "the kingdom of the heavens" eight times in the Sermon, so teachings on "the kingdom of the heavens" is obviously a major portion. However, I simply believe it is faulty exegesis, hence making is eisegesis, to read words (and subjects) into a particular text, that are not actually found therein.

Our Lord would later also speak of "the church", and give some specifics concerning the church, just not here. Is this and all Scripture "for" the church, and consequently "for" us? For her (and our) benefit, absolutely. (Rom. 15:4; I Cor. 10:11: II Tim. 3:16) It is merely not all addressed "to" the church (and "to" us), and it is a decided error to attempt to make it thus, IMO. This 'attempt' has the effect of "reading theology into the text," as well, a practice of which I have previously spoken, disapprovingly .

That is the point I was attempting to make.

IMO, when anyone attempts to make (any) Scripture say something the text simply does not say, I consider that as "wresting Scripture," a la Peter (II Pet. 3:16 ) [as opposed to "cutting straight the word of truth" (II Tim. 2:15) and "examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so" (Ac. 17:11, c.f. Jn. 5:39)], and this "wresting" is a practice with which I have little patience, regardless of who is doing it (or has done it), from the earliest days of the church fathers until now.

Ed

 

Well, perhaps your a better exegete than Dr. Pink and Dr. Henry. But I have my doubts... :laugh:

I fail to see how the text of Scripture was wrested from its context, since the wider context of Matthew 5 and following is Matthew 4.

Some may read the Sermon on the Mount and think its not written to them, but for their benefit. But as for me, it is written for me and to me and I seek to obey it in every area.

 

True, but --- what gospel do you see Him preaching on the Mount?

A) "Gospel of the kingdom"
B) "Gospel of grace"
C) "Everlasting gospel"

What are the differences in these gospels?

skypair

 

RB:

I appreciate your comments here and I do take them seriously.

There is no question he reinterpreted my question(s) outside the limited scope that I was trying to address, which was the matter of if the SOTM gives the lost man what he needs to know and believe to be born again. Going beyond that scope he answered in a way to evade what I was trying to address. That kind of political gamesmanship is what it is: gamesmanship.

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.

I pay little attention to those critics because my reputation belongs to God, and God knows the truth.


LM

 

Lou,

Let me say, I am glad you have stuck around. :thumbs: Often when posters know they are right, they give up on those who resist very salient issues of salvatin and sanctification. I appreciate your tenacity, especially since you are right.

I hope that you and I may reveal the "insufficiency" of Calvinism. There are so many questions that that theology cannot answer and, not answering, shows that it is built on "sand."

skypair

 

If you have entrusted your reputation to God, why would you ask for links from me defending it? Nonetheless, I have not seen someone make attacks on your character. I probably missed it.

 

It is all one Gospel.

 

Sky:

For the last few weeks I have had the time and desire to present Lordship Salvation (LS) as it is defined by its best know, but not only apologist, John MacArthur (JM). I tolerate the personal rancor that comes from the followers of and apologists for LS and JM because I am NOT writing for them. 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. Their behavior speaks for itself and any objective reader can draw their own conclusions about the kind of vitriol that comes from these LS apologists.

As I said I am NOT writing for the LS apologists. I am primarily writing for the lurkers who read these threads, but won’t post any comments because they do not want to be the next target for the LS apologists. I receive a fair number of PM's and e-mails from people who read, go to the Bible and test what JM is writing and find it wanting and largely antithetical to the Scriptures.

My chief motive is to let the teachers of LS demonstrate from their own writing the egregious errors of LS. This way unsuspecting believers will be able to recognize the LS error, who the teachers of LS error are, and thereby be better prepared to put up a biblical defense against LS.

Thanks again for the note of encouragement.


Lou