2 edits
-Removed-
It was asked on page one immediately you posted and you've not replied directly to the four or five times since.
Not entirely true. And I don't have a lot of confidence that you read me carefully. I have answered that question in the affirmative.
Of course this other gospel I refer to as "an eternal gospel" we are told is preached not now but at the time of the great tribulation.
The reference is Revelation 14:6,7.
I do not appreciate you referring to my expositions as mumbo jumbo. And very likely you are pleased to hear this and will utilize the charge again in the future. But I think it is more your loss than mine.
Now have you lost interest or not ?
And WHY are you re-asking something again and again as if it deals some devastating blow to my interpretation?
Don't try to force me into making too much of TWO gospels. I already said that they are related because the Gospel of the grace of Christ assumes God as the Creator.
Why am I writing about this at all ?
RIghtly or wrongly I think it will help people who think of Matthew 25:31-46 as indicative of a salvation and condemnation via something ELSE besides the typical gospel of the New Testament.
Humanists, Theologically liberal, Unitarian, and others often point to this matter of doing to the least of the Lord's brothers as a basis for salvation.
One main purpose of this thread is to point out that such teachers have some legitimate ground to make that claim.
The fuller context is examined in this thread. That is the preaching of "an eternal gospel" and the nations' response to that preaching during the great tribulation.
5 edits
The FIFTH post of this discussion was my post and read this below in the quoting box. The words in bold show that there was a difference between two gospels:
"The eternal gospel, which will be preached during the time of the great tribulation (Matt. 24:21) differs from the gospel of grace (Acts 20:24) preached in the church age.
Any Bible student of average intelligence should be able to see that by recommending this explanation I was teaching of more than one gospel .
Why divegeester keeps re-asking is strange.
Then the note continued to describe the difference in the two gospels.
The basic contents of the gospel of grace are repentance unto God and faith in the Lord Jesus (Acts 20:21) that men may be forgiven of their sins and be born again as the children of God (Luke 24:47; John 1:12); whereas the basic content of the eternal gospel is that men should fear God and worship God that they may not be deceived and follow Antichrist but may be brought back to the genuine worship of God, who made heaven and earth (v.7).
Anyone not too dense or too unethical to admit the explanation describes more than one gospel message should grasp the distinction.
Anyone not too integrity challenged should also be able to see from this FIFTH post in this discussion that "an eternal gospel" is explained to be specifically preached DURING the short time between the present age and the beginning of the millennial kingdom.
If he then objects - IE. "Well, that means if you believe in a millennial kingdom" as an excuse should be discussed on its own perhaps as another matter.
My recommended note then goes on to further distinguish between that Gospel preached by the church and the said "eternal gospel" preached by the angel during the great tribulation. Words of particular significance I have bolded.
Only man is privileged to preach the gospel of grace on the earth today (Acts 10:3-6). But the eternal gospel will be preached by the angel in the air at the close of this age."
Again, this was posted the FIFTH entry in this discussion.
For some reason Divegeesters seems to want to harp on my not providing answers to his questions about there being more than one gospel in the Bible.
I think he is trying to exploit in some sensational way, that I explain that Revelation 14:6,7 apparently speaks of another gospel message.
1 edit
-Removed-What "fog of obfuscation" ?
Perhaps you have "fog" because you simply are not sufficiently well read in the Bible to have collected all the facts, to ascertain this material.
Do you see how a prophecy of Christ's return in Matthew 25:31-46 could be related to the happenings described in the book of Revelation ?
Can you see how events FORETOLD in Matthew 25 could be related to events FORETOLD in the eschatology of Revelation ?
Can you or can you not appreciate that there would be a connection between these two parts of the Bible ?
5 edits
So let's deal with some objections.
Doesn't Paul warn that even if an angel should preach another gospel from what he preached he should be accursed ?
"But if even we or an angel out of heaven should announce to you a gospel beyond that which we have announced to you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8)
Here's a chance now for anyone reading to tell me they agree that Galatians 1:8 absolutely proves that there could be no other gospel message preached by some angel as Revlation 14:6,7 says.
Go ahead and give it to me on the chin.
You do have a good point. I admit that.
But after you assert that Gal. 1:8 proves no other gospel could be preached I have a couple of questions I would ask you.
===============================================
1.) Do you think that the angel that preaches "an eternal gospel" during the great tribulation in Revelation 14:6,7 will be ACCURSED ?
2.) How would you go about persuading me that what the angel announces in Revelation 14:6,7 is the same message exactly as all that which Paul explains in the book of Galatians as the Gospel ?
===============================================
I am opened minded here to counter arguments.
1 edit
-Removed-===============================================
1.) Do you think that the angel that preaches "an eternal gospel" during the great tribulation in Revelation 14:6,7 will be ACCURSED ?
2.) How would you go about persuading me that what the angel announces in Revelation 14:6,7 is the same message exactly as all that which Paul explains in the book of Galatians as the Gospel ?
===============================================