Reformed Theology What actually constitutes a "false gospel?"  Calvinism

What actually constitutes a “false gospel?”

Reformed Theology What actually constitutes a "false gospel?"  Calvinism
What actually constitutes a “false gospel?”

The Gospel is made up of certain basic truths which cannot be denied in order for someone to call themselves truly "Christian." (As it says in the sidebar, for example.) Accusations of people or churches that teach a "false gospel" get thrown around quite often these days, which unfortunately often amounts to theological mud-slinging.

So, what actually constitutes a false gospel? Recently, I was told that because I'm Roman Catholic, I hold to a "false gospel" that denies the basic truths of the Christian faith. Now, I'm no stranger to Reformed theology, or the history of Protestantism, not by a long shot. I'm a convert from (a decidedly anti-Catholic form of) Protestantism myself, so I understand the mentality behind such sentiment. However, I also realize that many Reformed stances have at least softened toward the Catholic Church during the last century, opening the possibilities of dialogue in mutual charity.

The basics of the Christian faith are set out in the Apostle's and Nicene Creed (to name 2 examples), both of which the Church uphold and affirm.

So, my question is this: What actually constitutes a "false gospel?"

My own response would be, obviously, that a "false gospel" is one that denies the Trinity (Unitarianism or Arianism); the efficacy of Christ's atoning sacrifice to pay the debt for sin; denial of the physical resurrection of Christ; or that Christ did not have a physical body (Gnosticism).

The Gospel is made up of certain basic truths which cannot be denied in order for someone to call themselves truly “Christian.” (As it says in the sidebar, for example.) Accusations of people or churches that teach a “false gospel” get thrown around quite often these days, which unfortunately often amounts to theological mud-slinging.So, what actually constitutes a false gospel? Recently, I was told that because I’m Roman Catholic, I hold to a “false gospel” that denies the basic truths of the Christian faith. Now, I’m no stranger to Reformed theology, or the history of Protestantism, not by a long shot. I’m a convert from (a decidedly anti-Catholic form of) Protestantism myself, so I understand the mentality behind such sentiment. However, I also realize that many Reformed stances have at least softened toward the Catholic Church during the last century, opening the possibilities of dialogue in mutual charity.The basics of the Christian faith are set out in the Apostle’s and Nicene Creed (to name 2 examples), both of which the Church uphold and affirm.So, my question is this: What actually constitutes a “false gospel?”My own response would be, obviously, that a “false gospel” is one that denies the Trinity (Unitarianism or Arianism); the efficacy of Christ’s atoning sacrifice to pay the debt for sin; denial of the physical resurrection of Christ; or that Christ did not have a physical body (Gnosticism).
Link: What actually constitutes a “false gospel?”
Submitted by 35chaton