# Matthew's Gospel is the Same as Paul's Gospel



## biblelighthouse (Apr 6, 2005)

Matthew's Gospel is the same as Paul's Gospel presented in Romans. Of course, I doubt that any of you would dispute this. But off the top of your head, how would you preach the grace-alone, faith-alone Gospel from Matthew, without relying on the books of Romans, Acts, Ephesians, etc.?

Here are some thoughts:
http://www.biblelighthouse.com/salvation/salvation-matthew.htm

A guy looking into Federal Vision stuff was emailing me the other day, and asked me if I could preach the Gospel (as understood by Reformed people) out of Matthew *alone*. I figured it was a challenge worth meeting. Of course we would all *hope* that all the books in the Bible agree with each other! &amp;lt;grin&amp;gt;

Let me know your thoughts . . .

In Christ,
Joseph M. Gleason


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 6, 2005)

Joseph:

Very good obervations. I will address one point of contention. I believe God plants both the wheat and the tares through the agency of Satan, or by Himself, or by passing over a person and leaving them in their sinfulness.



In His Grace


Joseph


----------



## Average Joey (Apr 7, 2005)

I have been reading Matthew recently and have come to the conclusion that Jesus`s words here are the most convicting to all man than of the other gospels.He really nails it about man`s hopelessness outside of trusting in Him.

Mat 19:24	And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mat 19:25	When his disciples heard [it], they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
Mat 19:26	But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> Joseph:
> 
> Very good obervations. I will address one point of contention. I believe God plants both the wheat and the tares through the agency of Satan, or by Himself, or by passing over a person and leaving them in their sinfulness.
> ...



Good point. I may not have been exceedingly clear in that area. Of course, the point of my article was the faith-alone Gospel message, but since I did mention election, I may have been able to word it better.

Thank you for your input.

In Christ,
Joseph


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...






Please do not take my word for it. Measure it against the writ. And pray the Spirit guides you

[Edited on 4-7-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## Poimen (Apr 8, 2005)

Well done Joseph (Gleason). The only problem we might have with Matthew is when we fail to hold the law-gospel distinction. If not, it is easy to slip into legalism/moralism.

As far as Matthew 6:14-15 Jesus also says that we must be perfect just as our Father in heaven (Matthew 5:48). Does anyone actually believe this is possible or is Jesus pointing us to Himself, who alone perfectly does all of these things? (Matthew 3:15) And then the one who is justified, having experienced the depth and breadth of God's great mercy will forgive as he has been forgiven.


----------



## Robin (Apr 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Matthew's Gospel is the same as Paul's Gospel presented in Romans. Of course, I doubt that any of you would dispute this. But off the top of your head, how would you preach the grace-alone, faith-alone Gospel from Matthew, without relying on the books of Romans, Acts, Ephesians, etc.?
> 
> Here are some thoughts:
> ...



Hey Joseph,

Good stuff at your site...I will take time to scour your article this weekend...but before that...I recently became aware that THE main problem with FV is its ignorance of the nature of what a covenant is (a bond of blood-sovereignly established)---they've softened it to a "new agey" emotional/relationship idea; plus, the word "grace" is made into a wax nose. These words are revised and basically wind-up changing the nature of the Trinity! (Really, this is no different than word-games with JW's, Mormons, et al.)

So-related to your question of preaching from Matthew...sure you could....but that would depend what meanings you're using for those same words used in Romans, et al. (When Paul reasoned with First Century Jews, they knew the cultural quality of "covenant" -- since it was part of ancient near-eastern governments for centuries. (Hittites and Semites.) Today, we've lost that understanding. I think emphasizing the "suzerainty-treaty" language throughout Scripture is perhaps the antidote for FV. ??? 

Dr. Scott Clark's site has the scoop on more about this:

http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/CovResources.html



Robin

[Edited on 4-8-2005 by Robin]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Hey Joseph,
> 
> Good stuff at your site...I will take time to scour your article this weekend...but before that...I recently became aware that THE main problem with FV is its ignorance of the nature of what a covenant is (a bond of blood-sovereignly established)---they've softened it to a "new agey" emotional/relationship idea; plus, the word "grace" is made into a wax nose. These words are revised and basically wind-up changing the nature of the Trinity! (Really, this is no different than word-games with JW's, Mormons, et al.)
> ...



I agree that a proper covenantal understanding is *critical* in FV discussions. I have no quarrel with you there.

I just wrote my article on Matthew as an answer to a challenge, more than anything. Even though I knew the Gospel taught in Matthew would have to be the same as that which is so clearly expounded in Romans, it dawned on me that I didn't know how to defend that assertion off the top of my head. So I went back through the book of Matthew, and tried to pretend that I didn't know anything about the rest of the New Testament. I pieced together what Matthew had to say about Christ, faith, justification, salvation, etc., and surprise, surprise . . . Matthew taught the same Gospel as Paul. )


----------



## biblelighthouse (Apr 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> Well done Joseph (Gleason). The only problem we might have with Matthew is when we fail to hold the law-gospel distinction. If not, it is easy to slip into legalism/moralism.
> 
> As far as Matthew 6:14-15 Jesus also says that we must be perfect just as our Father in heaven (Matthew 5:48). Does anyone actually believe this is possible or is Jesus pointing us to Himself, who alone perfectly does all of these things? (Matthew 3:15) And then the one who is justified, having experienced the depth and breadth of God's great mercy will forgive as he has been forgiven.



Yup! We absolutely must keep the law-gospel distinction clear. I can hear Luther smiling even as we type.

As for Matthew 5:48, I agree. Jesus is certainly telling us that we need to despair of our own ability, and rest in His perfection. Only He is perfect like the Father. Of course, once we are glorified, *then* we will be perfect. But absolute perfection this side of glorification? No way.


----------



## Robin (Apr 8, 2005)

Another insight here....

Paul had to use the OT to expound the Gospel in the synagogue. So...imagine....without the book of Romans - and the Epistles...(not yet written)...what do you suppose Paul said as he "reasoned" with the Jews?

What did Jesus say to the Emmaus disciples as he explained the OT to them? (Luke 24.)

That would be the way to go apologetically, I think.

r.

[Edited on 4-10-2005 by Robin]


----------

