Who REALLY Preaches "A Different Gospel"?

It is my own opinion that the majority of non-Catholic salvation messages actually present a different and deficient gospel than that of the New Testament, the early church and the Catholic Church for the last 2,000 years.

I believe that the essential "way of salvation" verses that are used in a great many non-Catholic evangelistic messages have
been ripped from the pages of the Word of God and bandied about in the last 500 years to further a different and oversimplified deficient Gospel that anyone who sits down and reads the New Testament for themselves without some non-Catholic preacher breathing down their neck every Sunday and Wednesday will soon discover is not the same Gospel of salvation.

I have read the Word of God many times and that is why I am a Catholic. The salvation message of the Catholic Church is in line with the teachings of the New Testament, and I believe that the salvation message of the majority of
non-Catholics is some different gospel, condemned by St. Paul and leads to something that I have dubbed "Christianity Lite".

This is the result of much internet discussion with a variety of non-Catholics which spawned the following post here on Apocalypsis.
How Is A Catholic Saved?
Read your New Testament from cover to cover and see what the teachings are concerning salvation and then compare the various non-Catholic "ways" and "plans" of salvation with what you have read and see if the Holy Spirit does not show you the deficiencies and differences between the two.

They stop far short of what the New Testament Gospel is while the teachings of the Catholic Church are in fact right in line with it.
I would suggest that the context of the New Testament does not teach the Reformed doctrine and that (as I have stated before) their's is a different and deficient gospel.

If no works are involved in our salvation, then how do you explain the Gospel message preached on the day of Pentecost (under the influence of the fullness of the Holy Spirit no less!) in Acts 2:37-38.
[37] Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"
[38] And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

How do you explain the message delivered to St. Paul himself (especially since you assert that it is his teachings that convince you of the reformed position) in Acts 22:16
[16] And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

Obviously, from the message there, baptism is key to salvation and does indeed wash away and forgive sins. The reformed teachings contradict this in spite of the plain sense of the scriptures.

If our works have no merit with regard to our salvation, why then does Our Lord plainly tell us that we will be judged and either welcomed into the Kingdom of God or cast into hell based upon them in Matthew 25: 31-46
[31] "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
[32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
[33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
[34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
[35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
[36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
[37] Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
[38] And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
[39] And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
[40] And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
[41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
[42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
[43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
[44] Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'
[45] Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'
[46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
The Gospel today is (and should be!) the same as that preached by the apostles in the New Testament. (See Acts 2:37-38 and 22:16 as well as John 3:5) If what is preached is not the same then that (IMO) would qualify as "a different gospel".

I, like many many Catholics, have heard and seen allegations that ours is a different gospel, but having read the Word of God carefully and prayerfully many times over many years, and comparing the messages of those who make those allegations to the salvation message of the Catholic Church alongside the New Testament, I have found that just the opposite is true.

If, as I suspect, you have read the New Testament all the way through, (more than likely many times over) you can understand what I mean when I say that the Gospel of salvation is actually the topic throughout and I submit that it is the
Gospel that is preached by the Catholic Church that accurately aligns with that and not the one of the reformers or their modern step children.
Galatians 1:[8] But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
[9] As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.



Cometear said...

Also James 2:24 is clear on teaching this, as I just read James' teachings on "Faith without works is dead."

Gerald Nichols said...

The scriptures of what are commonly called the Old Testament and the New Testament must not only be "read completely" they must be understood in the light of the Holy Spirit Who authored them. Blackie has unfortunately made the same faulty interpretation of scripture that so many others have--- not rightly dividing the Word of Truth. (II Tim. 2:15)
To be brief, I will cite one example of failure to "rightly divide the Word."
At Pentecost and after in the early chapters of Acts Peter et al were not leaving Judaism and forming a "Christian Church" ; they were still worshipping at the Temple and obeying the Law to the extent they could. To Join that assembly [church] Jews would have to not simply believe Christ was Messiah, but also they were commanded to be baptized with water, per the Jewish custom of washings. When Christ saved Paul apart from Israel and the Law, neither he nor any of the present Jewish saints knew that the Lord was starting to reveal to Paul a gospel of grace, apart from the Law, and a gospel that wasn't attached to any works, including water baptism, but was entirely about trust in Christ's death , burial and resurrection.
Israel had rejected Christ and now Christ, through another apostle was giving Gentiles a way of salvation apart from Israel.

Blackie said...

Gerald of course appears to be one of those errant believers who believe and preach a supposed "Pauline gospel" rather than that which the full New Testament and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself gives us.

In order to correctly interpret any and all scripture, one must take it within its context of all other scripture and historical context.

Moreover, one will quickly notice that Gerald has erred in asserting that St. Paul was the only one to express the Christian faith to the Gentiles. St. Peter certainly did after his vision and experience in Acts chapter 10.

Further, one will notice that Mr Nichols also espouses a very modern interpretation of the New Testament as opposed to the one that has existed for some 2,000 years as even a fairly cursory examination of the writings of the early church will show.

Thus Mr Nichols has sadly failed to "Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth."

...but thanks for stopping by....

Gerald Nichols said...

What I find sad is not my own understanding of the verses in question, but that Blackie at first could have been unaware of the truth about the verses, but now has rejected the truth and that is even more sad. The Lord sent Peter to those Gentiles for a specific purpose which is explained in Chapter 15 of Acts- at the council in Jerusalem. It couldn't be any more clear that Paul is the apostle of the Gentiles.

Blackie said...

Your sadness is actually irrelevant to this discussion Mr. Nichols, but the problem here(for you anyway) is that this is your personal interpretation and since you seem to wish to condemn anyone who disagrees with you, but how do we know that your interpretation is any more correct than my interpretation? We don't, do we... and since you are no more an authority than I am so then who is to say which is correct?

This is just one more example of the conundrums that devolve from the new wind of Modern doctrinal error of men of Sola Scriptura.