"The Gospel"

[The Biblicist]

Since I began studying church history and theology many years ago, I have been aware that there are a great many versions of just what "the Gospel" is. And participating on these various forums reinforces that.

So, just what comprises "the Gospel" depends on the individual and group presenting it. What constitutes "faith in Jesus" means one thing to one person or tradition and something almost entirely different to another.

Considering this, I have really become weary of denominationalism. I cherish the Baptist principles, and I have loved to study history and doctrine, and I still think doctrine is very important....... but I am coming to the place where I wonder if it would be best to try to have a basic statement of belief that most or all could agree on, like the Apostles Creed, and then just let everyone believe as he/she is lead. Certainly that would cut way down on the hostility exhibited between and among the various viewpoints. And then Christians could spend our time loving one another and showing the fruits of the spirit rather than acrimoniously trying to convince each other that our particular version of "the Gospel" is right and everyone else's is wrong.

So, let me ask this: Is there anyone here who could not affirm the Apostles Creed?


Traditional English Version

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.


Modern English Version

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. AMEN.

According to the OP you are attempting to define "the gospel" in a manner where there can be ground of general agreement. You have suggested the Apostle's Creed may provide that general ground for agreement.

However, the Apostles creed does not contain the gospel at all. There is no "good news" that Jesus died, was buried and rose again "for" anyone, but only lists a series of facts without any kind of definitive application. It does not say why he died or for whom he died or how it saves or for whom it saves. It presents no conditions, no instructions, no application whatsoever but leaves it a totaly blank check for anyone to fill with their own application from a Roman Catholic to a Baptist. Hence, it is an empty, void and vain gospel, rather than the gospel of Christ. Hence it is "another gospel" that is void of any applicable truth.

Also, if it were written by the Apostles or during their time by their followers there is a strange absence of the very issues attacking the gospel during the apostolic period (1 Cor. 15; Galations 1-5; etc.).

 

[Walter]

Another view is that these are merely anthropomorphic expressions contained within covenant redemptive purposes, rather than eternal descriptions of their Persons. Hence, they are personages that do not originate in time or eternity or in regard to each other but are truly "co-eternal" in the absolute sense of the term.

Ok, but the filioque seems scripturally supported even if it was not in the original version of the Nicene Creed. Scripturally, can we speak of the Church receiving the Spirit without the Son’s involvement? We cannot. “And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you.” (Luke 24:49). Clearly, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father, comes through the ministry of Jesus (incarnation, resurrection, ascension).

 

[Thomas Helwys]

In order for people of different beliefs to worship together the preaching would have to be complete milk, no meat at all.

What degree or percent of sameness of beliefs would meet your criteria then?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I think you were attempting to find some kind of unity ON EARTH were you not? No one in heaven will be ungloried or with sin, therefore there will be perfect unity in heaven.

However, on earth is a completely different matter. On earth we are commanded to "contend for the faith" and that prevents unity with just anyone. However, the same expression "contend for the faith" also implies there is some essentials that can be known and agreed upon or else no one could contend for them.

And maybe at this point I need to clarify what kind of unity I am talking about. I am talking about a spiritual unity, certainly not an outward enforced uniformity or any kind of "superchurch" or ecumenical hodge-podge of nothingness.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

According to the OP you are attempting to define "the gospel" in a manner where there can be ground of general agreement. You have suggested the Apostle's Creed may provide that general ground for agreement.

However, the Apostles creed does not contain the gospel at all. There is no "good news" that Jesus died, was buried and rose again "for" anyone, but only lists a series of facts without any kind of definitive application. It does not say why he died or for whom he died or how it saves or for whom it saves. It presents no conditions, no instructions, no application whatsoever but leaves it a totaly blank check for anyone to fill with their own application from a Roman Catholic to a Baptist. Hence, it is an empty, void and vain gospel, rather than the gospel of Christ. Hence it is "another gospel" that is void of any applicable truth.

Also, if it were written by the Apostles or during their time by their followers there is a strange absence of the very issues attacking the gospel during the apostolic period (1 Cor. 15; Galations 1-5; etc.).

I disagree with you. I think it is an adequate general statement of the Christian faith. It affirms the basics of the Incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and our bodily resurrection. It leaves it to individuals and groups to go further in-depth, and into divisiveness.

The faith and belief of the first Christians was much more simple than what came later. The first "creed" was simply, "Jesus is Lord".

Why not let the Roman Catholics, Baptists, and everyone else, within orthodoxy, "fill in the blanks" as long as they believe the basics?

 

[The Biblicist]

Ok, but the filioque seems scripturally supported even if it was not in the original version of the Nicene Creed. Scripturally, can we speak of the Church receiving the Spirit without the Son’s involvement? We cannot. “And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you.” (Luke 24:49). Clearly, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father, comes through the ministry of Jesus (incarnation, resurrection, ascension).

The Holy Spirit was already present and actively working since Genesis 1:2. Again you are speaking of a special ministry within the covenant of redemption.

 

[BobRyan]

Modern English Version

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. AMEN.

I agree with a lot of this - but

I do not believe that the denomination we call the Roman Catholic Church is the one that we are all supposed to belong to. I think even some of the Catholics here may agree with me on that one.

I don't believe in what the Catholic Church calls "communion of the saints" - praying to the dead.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ok, but the filioque seems scripturally supported even if it was not in the original version of the Nicene Creed. Scripturally, can we speak of the Church receiving the Spirit without the Son’s involvement? We cannot. “And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you.” (Luke 24:49). Clearly, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, sent by the Father, comes through the ministry of Jesus (incarnation, resurrection, ascension).

He ascended on high and gave gifts to men. The 1Cor 12 list of gifts includes those that are not given in so general a way in the OT as they are in the NT.

However the Holy Spirit worked in the OT as well as new. Notice that Jesus tells Nicodemus (before the cross) that man must be born again by the power of the Holy Spirit. When Nicodemus claims to be totally ignorant of the fact - Jesus reminds him that he is a teacher of scripture in Israel and that as such - he should know better.

2Peter 1:20-21 we are reminded that "holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from God".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I agree with a lot of this - but

I do not believe that the denomination we call the Roman Catholic Church is the one that we are all supposed to belong to. I think even some of the Catholics here may agree with me on that one.

I don't believe in what the Catholic Church calls "communion of the saints" - praying to the dead.

in Christ,

Bob

I agree with everything you said in this post.

When I think of communion of the saints, I think more along the line of what the Bible says about a great cloud of witnesses.

 

[The Biblicist]

I disagree with you. I think it is an adequate general statement of the Christian faith. It affirms the basics of the Incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and our bodily resurrection. It leaves it to individuals and groups to go further in-depth, and into divisiveness.

The faith and belief of the first Christians was much more simple than what came later. The first "creed" was simply, "Jesus is Lord".

Why not let the Roman Catholics, Baptists, and everyone else, within orthodoxy, "fill in the blanks" as long as they believe the basics?

Isn't your OP about common unity in regards to the "gospel"???? There is no gospel in the Apostle's Creed! Can you find anything about how anyone is saved, or what is salvation in this creed? Isn't the gospel the "power of God unto salvation" in your thinking?

Are you suggesting that anyone who simply believes in this list of doctrines is all that is necessary to be born again, a child of God, a Christian?

 

[DHK]

I understand your concerns, and I know you don't think you're kind of nit-picking some things, but terms like "catholic church" and "communion of saints" must be rescued from their misappropriation by the RCC. Many denominations use these terms in their original meanings.

Let me ask you this then: If you wrote your own "essentials" in a form like this, what would you say?

Let me put it this way:
I was a Catholic for twenty years before I got saved. The gospel is not preached in the RCC. I had the Apostles Creed memorized, but it was simple head knowledge. When I got saved I had to reject much of what the Apostles Creed had to say, for reasons already given.

 

[awaken]

I agree with a lot of this - but

I do not believe that the denomination we call the Roman Catholic Church is the one that we are all supposed to belong to. I think even some of the Catholics here may agree with me on that one.

I don't believe in what the Catholic Church calls "communion of the saints" - praying to the dead.in Christ,

Bob

I do not believe in that either!

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Let me put it this way:
I was a Catholic for twenty years before I got saved. The gospel is not preached in the RCC. I had the Apostles Creed memorized, but it was simple head knowledge. When I got saved I had to reject much of what the Apostles Creed had to say, for reasons already given.

I meant to come back before now to say I apologize if I offended you or mischaracterized you as "nit-picking". I realize that did not come across as I intended.

I understand what you are saying. I just believe the Apostles Creed is a good general statement of the Christian faith, if the few misunderstood phrases are taken with their original meaning.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Isn't your OP about common unity in regards to the "gospel"???? There is no gospel in the Apostle's Creed! Can you find anything about how anyone is saved, or what is salvation in this creed? Isn't the gospel the "power of God unto salvation" in your thinking?

Are you suggesting that anyone who simply believes in this list of doctrines is all that is necessary to be born again, a child of God, a Christian?

No....................

 

[The Biblicist]

No....................

Well that is a relief! So how in the world do you expect to find common ground on the Apostle's Creed in regard to "the gospel"???????

 

[DHK]

I meant to come back before now to say I apologize if I offended you or mischaracterized you as "nit-picking". I realize that did not come across as I intended.

I understand what you are saying. I just believe the Apostles Creed is a good general statement of the Christian faith, if the few misunderstood phrases are taken with their original meaning.

Just one example.
That the word "catholic" has the meaning of "universal" is only known to those of us who debate such things. It is not widely known. Ask the person on the street the meaning of "Catholic" and they will immediately answer, "The Catholic Church" (i.e., the RCC). Put in context of a prayer and that definition is only strengthened. Right or wrong that is the meaning in the mind of the common person.

 

[The Biblicist]

I just believe the Apostles Creed is a good general statement of the Christian faith, if the few misunderstood phrases are taken with their original meaning.

I can generally agree with your summation. I think that some terms are not used or understood today as prior to the existence of the Roman Catholic church.

However, my difficulty is the way you presented it in your OP as possible common ground in regard to the gospel. There is no gospel presented in the Apostles Creed. There is a list of statements to summarize essentials but no gospel.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Just one example.
That the word "catholic" has the meaning of "universal" is only known to those of us who debate such things. It is not widely known. Ask the person on the street the meaning of "Catholic" and they will immediately answer, "The Catholic Church" (i.e., the RCC). Put in context of a prayer and that definition is only strengthened. Right or wrong that is the meaning in the mind of the common person.

Yes, I know you are right. For instance, even in the United Methodist worship book, they have to star the word catholic and explain in a footnote that they mean universal.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I can generally agree with your summation. I think that some terms are not used or understood today as prior to the existence of the Roman Catholic church.

However, my difficulty is the way you presented it in your OP as possible common ground in regard to the gospel. There is no gospel presented in the Apostles Creed. There is a list of statements to summarize essentials but no gospel.

Okay, I see what you're saying. Then maybe my title should have been something else.