There is only One Gospel

[Saint Steven]

I liked #250 (Jesus is YHWH) answer to your question. It bears reading again.

I said that no one is saved by doctrine. He responded with verses about the gospel message. Nothing about doctrine.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I said that no one is saved by doctrine. He responded with verses about the gospel message. Nothing about doctrine.

Try reading this with an open mind. Thanks !

Gospel and Doctrine

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

@Saint Steven

Just in case you do not like links here it is:

Sometimes you will hear (or read) that the gospel is strictly the story about Jesus which is contained in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Doctrines, on the other hand, are thought of as “other” important ideas in the Bible. One idea that seems to be particularly popular today is that doctrines are man-made ideas or religious traditions (and thus fallible), whereas only “gospel” comes from God. That is, the idea is that the gospel comes from the Bible, but doctrines have come from the church. Even in our own fellowship we sometimes hear similar things, suggesting that we should just preach the gospel and forget about doctrines.

So just what is the difference between gospel and doctrine? I would suggest that the difference is minimal, almost non-existent. First, the gospel is, at its core, the story about Jesus. In particular, it is the story of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. This is what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15.1-4: “Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.” That’s the “core,” but we realize that there is a story that leads up to, and explains, the death of Jesus – and all of that is part of the gospel too. The gospel, then, is the story of Jesus.

So what is “doctrine”? A good example of a doctrine appears right there in the text we just quoted, in the words “for our sins.” If we think of the gospel as the story, then doctrine is the explanation, the interpretation, or the significance of the story. Or think about the Biblical doctrine concerning idolatry. The apostles taught that Christians should stay away from every form of idolatry (whether it involves a statue or not; Col 3.5). Where did this doctrine come from? Why did the apostles teach it? The answer is that fleeing from idolatry is part of what it means to die with Christ, to crucify the old man of sin, to crucify the flesh and die to the world. The dying of Christ, when it is applied to us as an example to follow, means that we must not (among other things) be involved in idolatry. You see, the doctrine is an explanation, application, or interpretation, of something that is already in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Where did the doctrine of baptism come from? Right – from the story of Jesus. Baptism is an imitation of and joining with Jesus in His death (Rom 6.3). Where did the doctrine of brotherly love come from? Right again – it came from the story of Jesus, because His death was the expression of His love for others, and are commanded to follow that example in our treatment of others. What about the Biblical doctrine of sin? It is clearly implied in the death of Jesus, since His death was “for our sins.”

In a sense, it goes back to what Jesus said in Matthew 16.24: “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.” Jesus said that the story of His own life – culminating and climaxing in His own death, burial, and resurrection – must become the pattern of living for every one of His disciples. Jesus said that the gospel must be applied to our lives, that we must live like what we see in the gospel (the story of Jesus). The Biblical doctrines that instruct us how to think and live are nothing other than the gospel put into practice.

I would suggest that whatever you find in the New Testament that could be called doctrine, it always, ultimately goes back to the story of Jesus, the gospel. That is, the doctrine is an explanation, interpretation, or application of what we find in the gospel, the story of Jesus. The doctrines are directly linked to the gospel or come straight from the gospel. Or, if you will, the doctrines are another way of saying what the gospel says. That is, doctrines are not the invention of churches. Doctrines come from the gospel.

Once we see this, the supposed distinction between gospel and doctrine basically vanishes. Or, to say it another way, gospel and doctrine are so inseparably linked, glued, and tied together that where you have one, you always have the other. This is why the apostles keep mentioning “the gospel” in their letters to Christians (74 times!), because the gospel and Christian doctrine are really, after all, the same thing.

The larger fact is that everything in the Bible is ultimately about Jesus. That’s right, everything. The Old Testament with is various stories, people, laws, institutions, etc. – all of those things pointed to Jesus in one way or another. The interpretive key to it all is Jesus (2 Cor 4.16). Think of how often the New Testament authors quoted the Old Testament as containing a pattern for something in Christianity. This only “works” if everything in the Old Testament leads us to the Messiah, Jesus. The result is that every Biblical doctrine, therefore, has something to do with the gospel.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Sound doctrine is important because our faith is based on a specific message. The overall teaching of the church contains many elements, but the primary message is explicitly defined: “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures [and] . . . he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). This is the unambiguous good news, and it is “of first importance.” Change that message, and the basis of faith shifts from Christ to something else. Our eternal destiny depends upon hearing “the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation” (Ephesians 1:13; see also 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14).

Sound doctrine is important because the gospel is a sacred trust, and we dare not tamper with God’s communication to the world. Our duty is to deliver the message, not to change it. Jude conveys an urgency in guarding the trust: “I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 1:3; see also Philippians 1:27). To “contend” carries the idea of strenuously fighting for something, to give it everything you’ve got. The Bible includes a warning neither to add to nor subtract from God’s Word (Revelation 22:18-19). Rather than alter the apostles’ doctrine, we receive what has been passed down to us and keep it “as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 1:13).

Sound doctrine is important because what we believe affects what we do. Behavior is an extension of theology, and there is a direct correlation between what we think and how we act. For example, two people stand on top of a bridge; one believes he can fly, and the other believes he cannot fly. Their next actions will be quite dissimilar. In the same way, a man who believes that there is no such thing as right and wrong will naturally behave differently from a man who believes in well-defined moral standards. In one of the Bible’s lists of sins, things like rebellion, murder, lying, and slave trading are mentioned. The list concludes with “whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:9-10). In other words, true teaching promotes righteousness; sin flourishes where “the sound doctrine” is opposed.gotquestions

hope this helps !!!

 

[Saint Steven]

Try reading this with an open mind. Thanks !

Gospel and Doctrine

Thanks. I appreciate the link. And I did read it with an open mind. (but I was careful not to let my brain fall out - lol)
Mostly semantics. He agrees with me while he disagrees with me.
And I quote:
"If we think of the gospel as the story, then doctrine is the explanation, the interpretation, or the significance of the story." (thus outside the text)
"the doctrine is an explanation..." (thus man-made)
"Where did the doctrine of baptism come from? Right – from the story of Jesus." (thus derived from the text = man-made)
"What about the Biblical doctrine of sin? It is clearly implied in the death of Jesus..." (right, implied - not in the text)
"The doctrines are directly linked to the gospel or come straight from the gospel." (right, linked, they come out of, thus taken from)

And this conclusion is double-talk.
"Or, if you will, the doctrines are another way of saying what the gospel says. That is, doctrines are not the invention of churches. Doctrines come from the gospel."
"Once we see this, the supposed distinction between gospel and doctrine basically vanishes." (how can doctrines be "another way of saying" if they are not "the invention of churches"?)

And the concluding sentence.
"The result is that every Biblical doctrine, therefore, has something to do with the gospel." (therefore derivative, not self-contained)

Here's a question for you.
What is the difference between a biblical and an unbiblical doctrine?
For instance, is the doctrine of infant baptism biblical or unbiblical?
Or the doctrine of transubstantiation. Those who believe in it argue that it is indeed biblical. And they make a strong case. (not that I agree)

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Thanks. I appreciate the link. And I did read it with an open mind. (but I was careful not to let my brain fall out - lol)
Mostly semantics. He agrees with me while he disagrees with me.
And I quote:
"If we think of the gospel as the story, then doctrine is the explanation, the interpretation, or the significance of the story." (thus outside the text)
"the doctrine is an explanation..." (thus man-made)
"Where did the doctrine of baptism come from? Right – from the story of Jesus." (thus derived from the text = man-made)
"What about the Biblical doctrine of sin? It is clearly implied in the death of Jesus..." (right, implied - not in the text)
"The doctrines are directly linked to the gospel or come straight from the gospel." (right, linked, they come out of, thus taken from)

And this conclusion is double-talk.
"Or, if you will, the doctrines are another way of saying what the gospel says. That is, doctrines are not the invention of churches. Doctrines come from the gospel."
"Once we see this, the supposed distinction between gospel and doctrine basically vanishes." (how can doctrines be "another way of saying" if they are not "the invention of churches"?)

And the concluding sentence.
"The result is that every Biblical doctrine, therefore, has something to do with the gospel." (therefore derivative, not self-contained)

Here's a question for you.
What is the difference between a biblical and an unbiblical doctrine?
For instance, is the doctrine of infant baptism biblical or unbiblical?
Or the doctrine of transubstantiation. Those who believe in it argue that it is indeed biblical. And they make a strong case. (not that I agree)

infant baptism is unbiblical whereas baptism is a result of someone who has come to faith in Christ, their first act of obedience after salvation.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

And this conclusion is double-talk.
"Or, if you will, the doctrines are another way of saying what the gospel says. That is, doctrines are not the invention of churches. Doctrines come from the gospel."
"Once we see this, the supposed distinction between gospel and doctrine basically vanishes." (how can doctrines be "another way of saying" if they are not "the invention of churches"?)

And the concluding sentence.
"The result is that every Biblical doctrine, therefore, has something to do with the gospel." (therefore derivative, not self-contained)

Sure it does as the gospel message cannot be separated from the Person of Christ. So the Person( Jesus who is Divine & human) and the message(the gospel) is where doctrine comes from which is why so many times the NT emphasis is upon " Sound Doctrine".

hope this helps !!!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Alright then, if you insist that the KJV translators meant it according to what you want them to mean, instead of the actual meaning of the English word that they picked, there is really nothing anyone can say that will change your mind.

I already said I did not just use Acts 3:19 KJV to form that view. The view was also repeated by Peter in 1 Peter 4:17-18. Why don't you address those and try again to make the KJV words say something other than the literal English meaning of the words they picked?

Should the righteous expect a coming judgment from God?
Should the righteous think they "scarcely be saved"?

Does Peter's words in 1 Peter 4:17-18 agree with what you are claiming Peter was actually saying in Acts 3:19, that "the meaning here is that on condition of repentance their sins will be wiped away"?

Nothing in what Peter writes in 1 Peter 4:17-18 is in anyway remotely relevant to this discussion.

St. Peter here says that judgment comes first to God's household--the Church--and if judgment comes to us Christians, then how much more those who have not received the Gospel.

How does any of that fit into what you are trying to say here?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Galatians 2:7 KJV

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

Yep this KJV translation of verse 7 is probably the biggest reason why there are people who reject the KJV.

The English words they used here literally forced people to conclude that there are 2 different gospels.

"ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς"

Galatians 2:7 only mentions one Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

"ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς"

Galatians 2:7 only mentions one Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

Amen !

 

[Guojing]

"ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς"

Galatians 2:7 only mentions one Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

I don’t speak Greek

should I trust your understanding of Greek more than the kjv?

 

[Guojing]

Nothing in what Peter writes in 1 Peter 4:17-18 is in anyway remotely relevant to this discussion.

St. Peter here says that judgment comes first to God's household--the Church--and if judgment comes to us Christians, then how much more those who have not received the Gospel.

How does any of that fit into what you are trying to say here?

-CryptoLutheran

why would judgement come to Christians if Christ on the cross was already judged by God for our sins?

according to you, Peter is also saying to Israel that All their sins are wiped away the moment they repented?

That is the relevant part

 

[Saint Steven]

infant baptism is unbiblical whereas baptism is a result of someone who has come to faith in Christ, their first act of obedience after salvation.

Thank you.
Therefore there are doctrines (man-made) that are not biblical.

Furthermore, water baptism is NOT "a result" of someone who has come to faith in Christ. Results are automatic. The church, through the man-made doctrine of baptism (derived from the Bible) instructs and encourages (requires, in some cases) new believers to be baptized. As they should.

In the Didache (the teachings of the twelve Apostles) early church writing, instruction is given about baptism. All the "how-to"s. They even get hung up on the term "living water". A very disappointing book from my perspective. Thankfully, it was not part of the canon selection for the NT. But it does define the term "the Lord's Day", if I remember correctly. Therefore valuable from that perspective.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Thank you.
Therefore there are doctrines (man-made) that are not biblical.

Furthermore, water baptism is NOT "a result" of someone who has come to faith in Christ. Results are automatic. The church, through the man-made doctrine of baptism (derived from the Bible) instructs and encourages (requires, in some cases) new believers to be baptized. As they should.

In the Didache (the teachings of the twelve Apostles) early church writing, instruction is given about baptism. All the "how-to"s. They even get hung up on the term "living water". A very disappointing book from my perspective. Thankfully, it was not part of the canon selection for the NT. But it does define the term "the Lord's Day", if I remember correctly. Therefore valuable from that perspective.

Unless you are talking about spiritual baptism at conversion its not simultaneous. Water baptism follows the new birth.

 

[Saint Steven]

Unless you are talking about spiritual baptism at conversion its not simultaneous. Water baptism follows the new birth.

I agree that water baptism follows conversion. (the new birth) But it is not "a result". Some believers have never been baptized.


Saint Steven said: ↑
Thank you.
Therefore there are doctrines (man-made) that are not biblical.

Furthermore, water baptism is NOT "a result" of someone who has come to faith in Christ. Results are automatic. The church, through the man-made doctrine of baptism (derived from the Bible) instructs and encourages (requires, in some cases) new believers to be baptized. As they should.

In the Didache (the teachings of the twelve Apostles) early church writing, instruction is given about baptism. All the "how-to"s. They even get hung up on the term "living water". A very disappointing book from my perspective. Thankfully, it was not part of the canon selection for the NT. But it does define the term "the Lord's Day", if I remember correctly. Therefore valuable from that perspective.

 

[Saint Steven]

"ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς"

Galatians 2:7 only mentions one Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

Good news in either case, BUT two completely different AUDIENCES. Therefore two different gospels. That's the difference. Jesus was not the Messiah to the gentiles. Jewish Christians retain a measure of Jewishness. Gentiles never had ANY measure of Jewishness to retain.

 

[RickReads]

I agree that water baptism follows conversion. (the new birth) But it is not "a result". Some believers have never been baptized.


Saint Steven said: ↑
Thank you.
Therefore there are doctrines (man-made) that are not biblical.

Furthermore, water baptism is NOT "a result" of someone who has come to faith in Christ. Results are automatic. The church, through the man-made doctrine of baptism (derived from the Bible) instructs and encourages (requires, in some cases) new believers to be baptized. As they should.

In the Didache (the teachings of the twelve Apostles) early church writing, instruction is given about baptism. All the "how-to"s. They even get hung up on the term "living water". A very disappointing book from my perspective. Thankfully, it was not part of the canon selection for the NT. But it does define the term "the Lord's Day", if I remember correctly. Therefore valuable from that perspective.

Something not widely known among Christians,

Water emersion/Baptism is a deed of the Law. Sojourners were emersed when they joined with Israel and Levites were emersed when they became Priest. The Israelites had Baptismal pools just as we do today.

That`s why water baptism is appropiate, important, but not part of our salvation. In water baptism we publicly acknowledge our conversion and enter our office as ministers of the New Covenant. I trust you are learned enough to connect this with the corresponding scripture.

 

[Saint Steven]

Something not widely known among Christians,

Water emersion/Baptism is a deed of the Law. Sojourners were emersed when they joined with Israel and Levites were emersed when they became Priest. The Israelites had Baptismal pools just as we do today.

That`s why water baptism is appropiate, important, but not part of our salvation. In water baptism we publicly acknowledge our conversion and enter our office as ministers of the New Covenant. I trust you are learned enough to connect this with the corresponding scripture.

You are correct. A little known fact.

Mikveh or mikvah is a bath used for the purpose of ritual immersion in Judaism to achieve ritual purity. Wiki source

 

[RickReads]

Good news in either case, BUT two completely different AUDIENCES. Therefore two different gospels. That's the difference. Jesus was not the Messiah to the gentiles. Jewish Christians retain a measure of Jewishness. Gentiles never had ANY measure of Jewishness to retain.

I opened a thread about the two gospel issue on another forum awhile ago. I got attacked and piled on by several members of that site. hurt my feelings for sure and all the criticism obscured the truth I was attempting to present. But I did realize something. You can`t effectively dispute the reality that there is just one everlasting gospel (Revelation 14:6). No denial and I wouldn`t want to, Paul and the 12 apostles all preach Jesus and Him crucified. The Jewish, Torah observant church was extinguished and Paul`s gospel prevailed.
Much can be learned by studying what the Bible means when it says Circumcision and Uncircumsion. But it`s not worth causing people to falsely believe one is heritic for saying two gospels. It isn`t necessary to believe that there were two gospels.
I`ll never die on that hill again

 

[RickReads]

You are correct. A little known fact.

Mikveh or mikvah is a bath used for the purpose of ritual immersion in Judaism to achieve ritual purity. Wiki source

It predates Judaism. It goes back to the time when the Israelies practiced a real religeon.