Another Gospel

[catholic-rcia]

**“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” **

This Scripture is in the Catholic Cathedral in Salt Lake City next to the Crucifix. The Cathedral is directly above the LDS Temple about 1 short mile.
Another Gospel

"Paul the Apostle states in Galatians 1:6, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel." What Paul referred to here as “another gospel” was the danger of adding human works (specifically keeping of the Jewish Law) to the finished work of Christ.

If we find ourselves dealing with Christians who lack maturity, our attitude should be the same as Paul in Philippians 3:15,16, where he councils the readers to simply act in accordance with what they do know, and God will give them greater light. If we find ourselves dealing with personality conflicts, we should follow the advice given in Philippians 4:2 where fellow believers are exhorted to be like minded (the fact that these 2 sisters are told to be like minded without corrective teaching being given leads us to conclude this was a conflict of personality and not a conflict of doctrine). But what if someone is preaching another gospel; one that combines human works with Christ’s works? What should our attitude be in this case? Should we wait until these people are given greater light? Should we “bury the hatchet” and join with them in happy fellowship? Scripture gives us the answer in Galatians 1:8,9, which says, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

These seem like very harsh words don’t they? As Christians, are we not to be gentle, forgiving, forbearing and accepting of one another? Absolutely! But in the message of the Gospel, there can be no compromise. There are at least 3 reasons why there can be no compromise on the message of the Gospel. First, the Gospel is the core of Christianity, and when it is changed, the change will affect everything else. Secondly, if another Gospel is preached, men and women cannot be saved. Finally, and most significantly, to preach another gospel is an affront to the perfect work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

First, the Gospel is at the core of Christianity. Change the essence of the Gospel and you change the essence of Christianity. Add the requirement of human works to the Gospel and it no longer becomes the Gospel of grace. It no longer becomes a free gift. The redeemed man is no longer eternally secure. Eternal life is no longer eternal if Law keeping keeps us. It is a fearful thing to preach another gospel because it is a fearful thing to attack the very core of the Christian faith.

Secondly, if another gospel is preached, men and women cannot be saved. At it’s heart, the Christian faith is about abandoning your own attempts to save yourself and accepting the finished work of Christ. If we preach another gospel, a gospel by which men and women, boys and girls cannot be saved, we do an unspeakably vile thing. We condemn people to a lost eternity because we preach a false faith that cannot save. It is a fearful thing to preach another gospel because it is a fearful thing to encourage others to trust a message that cannot save.

Continued-

 

[catholic-rcia]

Yes, these are fearful consequences of preaching a different gospel. And yet there is another consequence that eclipses the others in its importance. The third reason why it is a fearful thing to preach another gospel is that it is an affront to the perfect work of the Lord Jesus Christ. With dignified simplicity and brutal clarity, the agony of the Saviour on the cross is portrayed in Psalm 22:14-17***, “I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.”*** To preach another gospel, to add our works as an additional requirement for salvation is to state that this suffering by the Saviour was not good enough. To even imply such a thing is wicked. Psalm 29:2 says, "Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name; worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness." To preach another gospel is to imply that the Lord Jesus’s holiness and merit was insufficient to accomplish our salvation

Surely we can see that it is a most serious matter to preach another gospel, especially a gospel that adds works as a condition for salvation. No wonder Paul said, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." If someone comes to us and is preaching another gospel, there is no room for a gentle, forgiving, forbearing and accepting attitude. Paul did not have such an attitude toward these people and neither should we. I must acknowledge that the tone of this little paper is much stronger than anything else I have ever written, but it is my conviction obtained from Scripture, that there can be no compromise in the Gospel message we believe and preach."

By Shawn Abigail

Your thoughts
lhvm.org/ctbf/dialup.htm

 

[Zakuska]

Yes I love this verse in Galations… however one must ask ones self.

Rev 14
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

If the earth ahs the Gosepl why does an angel have to come back with it from heaven?

 

[Catholic_Guy]

Zakuska:

Yes I love this verse in Galations… however one must ask ones self.

Rev 14
6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

If the earth ahs the Gosepl why does an angel have to come back with it from heaven?

Zak,

Context, Context, Context

Lets finish the passage:
6 Then I saw another angel flying high overhead, with everlasting good news to announce to those who dwell on earth, to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people.
7 He said in a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, for his time has come to sit in judgment. Worship him who made heaven and earth and sea and springs of water.”
8 A second angel followed, saying: “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, that made all the nations drink the wine of her licentious passion.”
9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice, “Anyone who worships the beast or its image, or accepts its mark on forehead or hand,
10 will also drink the wine of God’s fury, poured full strength into the cup of his wrath, and will be tormented in burning sulfur before the holy angels and before the Lamb.
11The smoke of the fire that torments them will rise forever and ever, and there will be no relief day or night for those who worship the beast or its image or accept the mark of its name.”
12 Here is what sustains the holy ones who keep God’s commandments and their faith in Jesus.
13 I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Yes,” said the Spirit, “let them find rest from their labors, for their works accompany them.”

Changes your single passage meaning considerably don’t you think.

In Christ,
Catholic Guy

 

[Zakuska]

Catholic Guy:

Zak,

Context, Context, Context

Lets finish the passage:
6 Then I saw another angel flying high overhead, with everlasting good news to announce to those who dwell on earth, to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people.
7 He said in a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, for his time has come to sit in judgment. Worship him who made heaven and earth and sea and springs of water.”
8 A second angel followed, saying: “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, that made all the nations drink the wine of her licentious passion.”
9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice, “Anyone who worships the beast or its image, or accepts its mark on forehead or hand,
10 will also drink the wine of God’s fury, poured full strength into the cup of his wrath, and will be tormented in burning sulfur before the holy angels and before the Lamb.
11The smoke of the fire that torments them will rise forever and ever, and there will be no relief day or night for those who worship the beast or its image or accept the mark of its name.”
12 Here is what sustains the holy ones who keep God’s commandments and their faith in Jesus.
13 I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.” “Yes,” said the Spirit, “let them find rest from their labors, for their works accompany them.”

Changes your single passage meaning considerably don’t you think.

In Christ,
Catholic Guy

Not in the least. He’s here to pronounce Judgement on the earth and to herald in the times of the Gentiles being complete

 

[amgid]

You make a valid point, catholic-rcia. Where you are going wrong is who is preaching the “other gospel”.

The truth that you are ignoring is that modern Christendom is an apostate institution that has distorted the true gospel of Jesus Christ to “another gospel”. The purpose of the Restoration has been to restore the original gospel as originally preached by Paul and he fellow Apostles.

amgid

 

[catholic-rcia]

“The truth that you are ignoring is that modern Christendom is an apostate institution that has distorted the true gospel of Jesus Christ to “another gospel”. The purpose of the Restoration has been to restore the original gospel as originally preached by Paul and the fellow Apostles.”

I am defiantly an apostate no doubt about it. I know my sinful self very well, the Cross has shown me these things that I never would have ever faced. I chose to ignore the bad in my self for way to many years. I would give to another and be cheered on as being so special. In reality God was using my pursuit of this kind of Glory in order for me to give it. Oh, my how I have changed since those dark days. When I found myself facing my sin I found Christ in my life like never before. I found not a Church with those trying to be worthy but rather a Church that is more in the form of a hospital, where sick people go to get better. The purpose of Christ is to restore each of us to the stature we had before the fall in the garden. And then realize it for the first time. To be with God and want to stay with Him forever, never going out again to attempt to be a god. It cannot be done. You cannot go under water with a breath of air and live there forever. Just as you cannot take one single breath without God. God breathes us we do not breath God.

The restoration is Christ to us, he will be with us always, never will he leave us orphaned. We are sinners in transition. We go to the Cross to die with Christ to be risen in Him. His Church is the most precise thing I have ever found in my life. The Sacraments that heal me of myself, my own pursuit to glory. Yes we do have evil within our walls, I have come to accept this as I have faced this evil within myself, it is nothing new. Just very refreshing truth about things that are very important.

 

[edmondhall]

The truth that you are ignoring is that modern Christendom is an apostate institution that has distorted the true gospel of Jesus Christ to “another gospel”. The purpose of the Restoration has been to restore the original gospel as originally preached by Paul and he fellow Apostles.

Where, precisely, where do you find an explict contradiction between Catholocism and Paul’s gospel. I’m not talking here about things like baptism for the dead or the Trinity–let’s just assume here that a fair reading of the NT can support both LDS and Catholic positions. This is very generous of me to make this assumption since I do not believe the NT supports the LDS position, but for the sake of clarity let’s avoid positions where both LDS and Catholocism can marshal support.

If the Catholic church has so severely distorted the gospel Paul preached that it is an apostate institution, it should be easy to say: ‘look, here’s what Paul says and here’s where the Catholic church clearly contradicts this tenet of the faith’. Or are the only contradictions between Catholocism and Paul a matter of interpretation?

 

[Zakuska]

1 Tim 3
1 THIS is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

How many unwed bishops do you know? How man have kids?

 

[Catholic_Guy]

1 Tim 3
1 THIS is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

How many unwed bishops do you know? How man have kids?

1Tim 3 refers to a single not plural marriage. The passage about children is if a married bishop had any, then it would apply.

In Christ,
Catholic Guy

 

[Zakuska]

I don’t read it that way.

1. How many polygymous Bishops do you know? (Remember Mormons don’t practice Polygamy and have not for over 100 years)
2. How many Catholic bishops have been married? (is not married clergy frowned upon)
3. Its a list of Must bee’s “A bishop then must be”

How can he rule the house of God if he has kids and cant rule over them. Remember in Jewish custom at a very early age possibly 14 a man was married. So unless she was barren like Hagar…

 

[Who]

Have you prayerfully studied the Book of Mormon?

I would venture to say no. If you will read the Book of Mormon and compare it with the Bible (not man’s interpretation of the bible) you will come to recognize the same gospel taught in both volumes. Furthermore if you will judge the book based upon what man knows to be good and right, not by your prejudice, you will see that it is indeed the word of God.

 

[Catholic_Guy]

Zakuska:

I don’t read it that way.

1. How many polygymous Bishops do you know? (Remember Mormons don’t practice Polygamy and have not for over 100 years)
2. How many Catholic bishops have been married? (is not married clergy frowned upon)
3. Its a list of Must bee’s “A bishop then must be”

How can he rule the house of God if he has kids and cant rule over them. Remember in Jewish custom at a very early age possibly 14 a man was married. So unless she was barren like Hagar…

I am not referring to LDS bishops from 100 years ago, I am discussing what Timothy said was a pre-requisite to becoming a bishop not the must bee’s. Remember he was addressing the Gentiles not the Jews with regard to plural marriage. The practice of unmarried clergy in the RCC started as a practice not a law in the 7th century. The Byzantine Right allows for married clergy. A married man is concerned with worldly issues, an unmarried man is not. Paul stressed this over and over in his epistles. I don’t believe Timothy was contradicting Paul. The logic of the statement about children follows the teachings of a pre-requisite.

In Christ,
Catholic Guy

 

[Zakuska]

Yes I realize the Byzantine Right allows for it. But its not a requisite which it should be.

Paul does stress remaining unwed in his “opinion” earlier…

1 Cor. 7: 25
25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

1 Cor. 7: 28
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

However he seems to change his tune…

1 Tim 4
1 NOW the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

When he gets direct revelation from God against it.

Also the ECFs use this Timothy verse as a proscript against a Bishop having been divorced. A Bishop can’t have been divorced… and had to have been married at least once. Thus a widower would make a good Bishop. Because he would have met both of Pauls pre-reqs.

 

[Catholic_Guy]

Zakuska:

Yes I realize the Baz.right allows for it. But its not a requisite which it should be.

Paul does stress remaining unwed in his “opinion” earlier…

1 Cor. 7: 25
25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

1 Cor. 7: 28
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

However he seems to change his tune…

1 Tim 4
1 NOW the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

When he gets direct revelation from God against it.

Also the ECFs use this Timothy verse as a proscript against a Bishop having been divorced. A Bishop can’t have been divorced… and had to have been married at least once. Thus a widower would make a good Bishop. Becuase he would have meet both of Pauls pre-reqs.

Men are not forbidden to be married, It is choice to enter into Holy orders and vow celibacy, there are a lot of priests that are widowers, I personally know two in the Tucson Diocese. This was also an explanation to the Gentiles that those old covenants, with regards to eating certain meats no longer bar a man from these duties.

In Christ,
Catholic Guy

 

[Zakuska]

By making a choice they are forbbiding themselves to marry. The only reason for a man to leave his parents is for marriage. And the only reason to leave marriage is due to a death. (No Divorce was allowed)

Gen. 2: 24
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Matt. 19: 5
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Mark 10: 7
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Eph. 5: 31
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello amgid;
You said:

amgid:

The truth that you are ignoring is that modern Christendom is an apostate institution that has distorted the true gospel of Jesus Christ to “another gospel”. …amgid

Once again, I must point out that your bare assertion of a total apostasy is not persuasive at all. Indeed all the evidence is to the contrary. Sacred Scripture promises that the gates of Hell shall never prevail against the Church (Mt 16:13-18) and yet the underlying LDS belief in their position as the “restored” christian religion is premised upon the opposite - that for about 1800 years the gates of Hell had prevailed over the whole Church.

A rview of the Early Church Fathers from the time of the Apostles up to the year 200 (when most LDS believe the progressive corruption of the Church occurred) shows that they consistently teach the same doctrine - and the doctrine is consistently Catholic. Indeed, the Early Church Fathers do not even mention a “great apostacy” much less do they feel the need to defend against it from those attacking Christianity. Along that same line of thought, there is no evidence in the early church of the distinctly Mormon beliefs that include plural marriage, baptism for the dead, divine progression or celestial marriage. In short no evidence from the ECFs supports Mormon doctrine that was somehow removed by Apostacy over the first two centuries of the Church’s history.

The Canon of the Bible also weighs heavily against the idea of an Apostacy. The LDS Church accepts the canon of the NT exactly as the Catholic Church defined it around 400 A.D. This position of the LDS church is inconsistent with their claim that the Catholic Church became incapable of declaring doctrine with authority shortly after the death of the last Apostle.

Finally, history is absolutely silent as to the supposed “Great Apostasy.” All of the other major schisms are mentioned in the history books - Arianism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism - yet none mention the supposed schism between “true” Mormon-based christianity into an “apostate” Christianity. The reason is obvious. It never happened. The silence is deafening.

The burden falls on the LDS church to prove the alleged “Great Apostasy” that necessitated the restoration. Without meeting this initial burden with some convincing evidence, the entire religion fails at the outset - because without the Great Apostasy there was no need for Joseph Smith’s restoration.

IMHO the alleged “Great Apostasy” is the biggest hurdle that the LDS Church has to overcome, yet most of the LDS apologists that discuss and defend their religion start with the presumption that the Great Apostasy happened as a matter of fact (or worse, as a matter of “faith”). Not so. You need to prove the first step - i.e. the total apostasy of christianity - to establish the legitimacy of the LDS church - as “restored” true christianity. Simply declaring that the Apostasy happened gets you nowhere. So the rest of your argument is a non-starter.

 

[Zakuska]

Robert,

The problem with that interpretation… for the gates not to prevail you would have to be behind them and then break out. So in other words the verse is saying the Church had to die so that it could burst through the gates of the dead and be ressurected.

The Chruch was ressurected on the 3rd prophetic day. After the Gentiles trod the holy City for 1260 years. which brings us to 1830.

At least according to Calvin Wesley and Luther.

You also have to explain why the Bible says exactly that… that hell did prevail over the saints. And actually overcame them and killed them.

Dan. 7: 7
7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.

Dan. 7: 19
19 Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet;

Dan. 7: 21
21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;

Rev 13
7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the abook of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.
10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Proponents of the Rapture even admit this… the Church is taken from the earth for a 7 year period. Mormons say this already happend. Thank God that it did and he has restored her!

 

[Catholic_Guy]

Zakuska:

By making a choice they are forbbiding themselves to marry. The only reason for a man to leave his parents is for marriage. And the only reason to leave marriage is due to a death. (No Divorce was allowed)

Gen. 2: 24
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Matt. 19: 5
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Mark 10: 7
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Eph. 5: 31
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Zak,
The references you give are about divorce not the requirement for men to be married, but their obligations during marriage. Paul and several of the Apostles and Bishops were unmarried, are you stating that they were breaking Gods rules?

In Christ,
Catholic Guy

 

[Zakuska]

Its specualted that Paul was a widower.

Marriage was good enough for Peter why not the current pope?