You wrote:
Both Matthew 5:1 and Luke 6:17, 19 mention that there were multitudes who came to hear Jesus preach. Matthew 5:1-2 also mentions that, before speaking, “His disciples came to Him [and] He opened His mouth and taught them…”You seem to have overlooked Luke 6:12-17, where we are informed that the audience for the SOM was the twelve (them), the other disciples, and a great throng of people. I can find no commentator who does not hold the view of these three categories in the audience.
Obviously, the “them” has, as its most immediate antecedent, “His disciples.”
It is grammatically just possible, but less likely, that “them” could refer to a more distant antecedent, “the multitudes,” but this suggestion is rendered unlikely by Mark’s summary comment that Jesus never addressed the multitudes "without parables" (the Sermon on the Mount does not feature parabolic teaching), but that He explained things privately to the disciples (Mark 4:34). The content of the Sermon on the Mount fits the latter description better.
When what may have been the same sermon is recorded in Luke, we are also told there were crowds who had gathered to hear Him. We know, from other passages, that large groups followed Jesus around, even camping out for days, to hear Him and to see miracles. This does not mean that Jesus addressed the crowd 24/7 during these times. We know of cases where the crowds were camped around Him, but where He still had conversations on the side with His disciples (please see, for example, John 6:5-10).
To be told that Jesus was surrounded by curious crowds does not, in itself, tell us to whom, specifically, any of Jesus’ comments were made. The mention of the crowds sometimes simply sets the stage for reporting comments made directly to the disciples, as in the John 6 example above.
In fact, the example of John 6 quite parallels the set-up for the sermon in Luke 6—though it is a different occasion. In John 6:2-3, we are told that great crowds came to hear and be healed by Christ. Then we are told that Jesus went up on a mountain and sat with His disciples. The conversation recorded thereafter is simply between Himself and the disciples.
How does that differ from Luke 6? In verse 17, we are told that multitudes came to hear and be healed by Him (similar to John 6, and, probably, to many similar occasions). Jesus was on the slopes of a mountain (Matt.5:1; Luke 6:12, 17), as in John 6. Then Luke says that Jesus “lifted up His eyes toward His disciples, and said…” (Luke 6:20). Usually a public speaker looks at His audience. We are not informed that Jesus looked at anyone other than His disciples when He spoke this sermon (this should count for a great deal with you, since you make so much, especially in talking about hell, of the silence of scripture).
It is probably significant, also that, in this sermon, Jesus told His audience (the disciples): “Yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20). I suspect that this would not apply to the multitudes, many of whom failed to receive the kingdom.
While I will admit your point that the wording could (just barely) identify the multitudes as the audience for the sermon, all probabilities are against it, even grammatically.
I certainly agree with you on this. I would even go further. Judging from the New Testament sermons, it seems that a faithful gospel preacher might not even mention hell at all. There is no indication in the Bible that the topic of hell is any part of the preaching of the Gospel.I have no problem with the preaching of the gospel by all who do so. But repentance and salvation in hell is not part of the gospel. All agree that the lost wind up in hell, the faithful preacher will leave it at that.
I am not sure where you are drawing this implication from in my position. I have never advocated the featuring of any view of hell—whether eternal torment, annihilation or restorationism—in the preaching of the Gospel. The Gospel is the "good news" about the kingdom of God. There is no view of hell that necessarily forms a part of this message of the kingdom, as presented to unbelievers. The good news may be much better than we know, but that is outside the scope of any biblically-documented presentation of the Gospel (unless there is, possibly, a reference to it in Acts 3:21, which is disputable).You appear to imply that you can preach what is not in the scriptures while taking exception to the early fathers "use of non-biblical expressions" in their attempt to exegete the scriptures.
In preaching the Gospel to unbelievers, we should stick to plainly affirmed biblical features of the good news. The speculations about hell belong to the theological training of believers. We should not confuse unbelievers by the inclusion of such speculations in our preaching.
I am not sure that any universalists at this forum have ever suggested preaching the distinctives of universalism as part of the Gospel presented to unbelievers. However, there are many who believe, as in the early church, that this doctrine belongs in the theological training of educated believers.
I am quite with you on this point. We should not confidently affirm theological points that are not clearly affirmed in scripture. Nonetheless, where the Bible is unclear and a matter is thus controversial, we can reasonably compare different possible views with each other, examining their relative merits.I think it would be wonderful if all who preach and teach would use strictly scriptural expressions but I would be surprised if any can be found who consistently do so, and many who do so hardly at all.
You seem to object to the presentation of restorationism even here in a theological forum. Yet, I do not find you objecting to the presentation of traditionalism or conditionalism here. Why not? Many biblically literate people see the biblical support for restoration as comparable, if not superior to, the support for the other views. How can one object to including it in the discussion?
If you say you do not mind it being included in the discussion, I have to wonder what it is you are objecting to. It is its inclusion here that seems to draw your fire and even your ire. I, personally, have never heard anyone preaching (or advocating the preaching of) universalism on the street corners or in evangelistic meetings.
Do you equally object to the preaching of eternal conscious torment in evangelistic settings? If not, why not? It is a much more damaging view of the biblical God than is universalism. Neither view can be proven conclusively, but, if wrong, the traditional doctrine slanders a good God by making Him a monster. It tends to leave the unbeliever with the impression of an unreasonable and vengeful deity, toward whom they feel revulsion and anger. By contrast, if restorationism preached, but is wrong, it at least presents a God who resembles the God presented in the teachings and example of Jesus. The same people who were drawn to Jesus would be drawn to this kind of God, since they are alike—like Father, like Son.
If it turned out that the two opposite views were both wrong, the traditional view has made God look worse than He really is, and the restorationist view makes Him look "better than He really is" (what a strange phrase, when applied to God—but accurate). Of the two possible errors, which one can be more damaging to the cause of Christ?
I can agree with you that universalism is not a core part of the evangelistic message. However, I hope you will agree that the inclusion of the traditional view is equally inappropriate in such presentations, and that you will bring equal vehemence in your opposition to its being preached to unbelievers.
Again, we are in agreement. It is this very concern that led me to make the observations, above, concerning the statements of the cited church fathers.When a scripture is spoken to people, their ideas of what is said vary. If the speaker tries to inform the people of what the scripture says, in his own words, they again form their own ideas of what is said and we are now two steps removed from the scriptures, and on it goes. Many bad doctrines have come from this.