PhilVaz:
I would define “false gospel” as Paul did in Galatians 1. The false gospel or “another gospel” which the apostle talks about is that which is “contrary to the gospel of the apostles.”
THEN the question becomes, how do we know what the apostles’ true gospel is, right? So we can compare it with the many “false gospels” ?
The “gospel” is defined very basically of course in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ whereby we are “saved”, but in this basic meaning Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, all agree. Do you have something more in mind? Like pressing “justification by faith alone” as the true gospel?
I agree that the best method is to define the true Gospel – and then point out that false gospels are the ones which either subtract from the True Gospel or (and this is critical) add to the True Gospel in incompatible ways – as the problem Paul addresses in Galatians clearly points out.
I have to disagree with you, then, on the rest. The Catholics and Orthodox may agree on the meaning of the death, burial and resurrection, but the Protestant understanding of those events – that is, that they are conclusive and complete rather than potential and re-presentable – is not the same. The question is: which more accurately reflects the beliefs of the apostles? Which more accurately reflects the correct meaning of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
The knee-jerk reaction of the Catholic advocate is, of course, to say, “well, we infallibly do. Case closed: welcome to Rome.”
But I suggest that if we review the contents of Galatians, Paul is not warning about merely-different “gospels” but that there are some in the Galatian church who are actively adding to the Gospel which Paul preached to them. My take on the Galatian false bretheren is that they accepted the idea of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ but then added to it the doctrine of circumcision.
That’s a little different than then scenario you are glossing here – and it is the basis for Protestant objection to Roman theology.
PhilVaz:
A false gospel could also be defined as something not in accord with “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), i.e. the entire Catholic faith handed down and defined by the historic Church.
Whoa! Slow down, Phil!
It will take a whole thread unto itself to unravel those 35-ish words. You’re saying that every single thing that the RC church today expouses as doctrine was (a-hem) really present in the first-generation church of the Apostles?
I will, in fact, start a new thread on that account. Don’t answer that question here.
So Arianism, Sabellianism, and Gnosticism would all be “false gospels” since the historic Church defined what the true Gospel is in opposition to these. And basically all Christians appeal to this historic Church (the Ecumenical Creeds) as a standard against these false gospels.
I agree that the creeds are a fallible standard by which to identify the heresies they were composed to refute.
Problematically, all “Christians” (and I’ll use the term as you do, which is the sociological definition of Christian) do not appeal to the creeds to identify all heresies or to refute them. For examples, the Southern Baptist Convention does not appeal to the creeds to define or identify heresy – right or wrong, they do not appeal to creeds to make their essential confessions of faith.
PhilVaz:
Mark Shea has defined Sacred Tradition very simply as “the common doctrine, common worship, and common life of the Church” which I think is a nice short definition. Of course some details can be filled in there.
Phil P
Mark Shea has the problem of not being infallible, and I know personally (we shared a set of 4 e-mails about 5 years ago) that he doesn’t like being reminded of that. If you might cite a source closer to your Home in Rome – that is, a source which you would confess to be infallible and/or inerrant – it might be more useful in furthering your position.
However, the “common doctrine” definition has the following problem: Trent anathematizes Protestant beliefs. There are clear distinctives between Catholicism and Protestantism, and there is a basis for saying that they are not reconcilable – that is, a basis for saying they are inherently in conflict with each other and do not share a “common life”.
I welcome you to fill in the blanks.
