The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Another gospel

Gal 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
question: what constitutes another gospel? is it that they preach something other than Christ crucified risen and coming again or does it involve more?

Thanks, I'm new to the board so I havn't had that good a look around. I'm just sounding off people (so to speak) how we would veiw another gospel in veiw of biblical seperation, for instance should we fellowship with the non reformed, or for that matter hyper tpes who deny a general gospel call to anyone but the elect? Or is it confined to Christ death and resurrection?

I guess the question I should be asking is what is the gospel? like what are the essentials to the gospel and what are the boundaries where we say so far and no further. i think though the answer is as you say in the historic reformed creeds and confessions.
thanks again I shall read the articles.

"Hyper types" are much closer to the true Gospel than any other type since the "Hypers" hold tenaciously to Sola Gratia; Salvation by Grace Alone vs. all other types who insert some type of 'work', whether it is one's "decision", "free-will" or even "faith".

I do not think I differ from any of my Hyper-Calvinistic brethren in what I do believe, but I differ from them in what they do not believe. I do not hold any less than they do, but I hold a little more, and, I think, a little more of the truth revealed in the Scriptures. Not only are there a few cardinal doctrines, by which we can steer our ship North, South, East, or West, but as we study the Word, we shall begin to learn something about the North-west and North-east, and all else that lies between the four cardinal points. The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, “The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.