Truth Magazine

By Bobby L. Graham

This study considers another aspect of F. LaGard Smith’s book, Who Is My Brother? in this special issue. The need to consider this matter is the result of little and ineffective teaching concerning the uniqueness of the Lord’s church in the world and its distinctiveness from all human religious systems in most quarters over the last several decades. Preaching that points out the pattern of Christ for the guidance of his people in a collective sense is overdue, as well as teaching which causes people to understand the difference between the church belonging to the Lord and those human efforts called denominations. Proof for this statement could easily he produced in the multiplied statements that have referred in recent years to the church as “just another denomination.”

In an April 1940 article “Why Oppose Denominationalism,” Granville W. Tyler stated: “Denominationalism is a term used to describe modern Christianity divided as it is into parties (more than two hundred in America) with their distinctive names, creeds, and practices. Sectarianism means divisions, factions, and parties. The term describes, for example, the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church. All started hundreds of years after the days of the apostles, and all have conflicting doctrines and practices. Their teaching is in addition to and different from the Bible.” How long has it been since you heard or read frank teaching kindly expressed like that?

As Tyler proceeded to show, denominationalism exists without Scriptural authority, violates Bible teaching on unity, belittles the Lord’s church, and teaches pardon short of scriptural conditions. One can be a Christian (part of Christ’s church) without being part of any denomination (Acts 2:47). Though one who obeyed the gospel might have later joined some denominational body, he is not a Christian by virtue of such membership and ought to depart their ranks to be faithful to Christ. The existence of such a religious conglomeration in our world is neither God pleasing nor Christ-honoring, though many thank God for the choices allowed by this situation. All must remember that it is not men’s choices, but God’s, that establish the standard of right. Understanding the place of denominations in relation to the Lord and his church should move us to oppose them and to try to rescue those honest souls who have been caught in the web of sectarian teaching and practice. We do not fight them but the error in which they are participating.

Perhaps a brief statement concerning the church would also help to keep matters in sharp focus. When we speak of “the church” in this article, reference is being made to the people of Christ, characterized as they are in the New Testament as submitting to the Lord in all respects, both individually and collectively — doctrine, local organization, congregational work, public worship, and individual life. The only functioning unit of the church in the general sense is the individual child of God, while the local church alone has the right to operate collectively in carrying out the will of Christ for the church. It is because Christians have answered the summons of the gospel to follow Christ that they have become the ecclesia of Christ. The express meaning of this term describing them impresses on our minds their separation from the world and their loyalty to Christ. Does not their status as people belonging to the Lord and existing for his service demand that they “make common cause” with him and his people, rather than with those who have erred into the realm of denominationalism, in violation of his will?

“Faith Fellowship” Explained

Smith referred to the kind of sharing that he proposed with those in denominations as “faith fellowship,” based upon their belief “that Jesus Christ is Lord.” He places this kind of fellowship (one of the five kinds that he postulates and explains) one step closer to Christian fellowship than “universal fellowship,” but outside the boundaries of the kingdom of the Lord. Smith says that they share faith in Christ but not rebirth. He judges them possibly closer to kingdom citizens than nominal Christians; in this respect they are “like family,” because they think and act as those in the family in most ways, as in bearing the fruit of the Spirit. He applies Mark 12:28-34 to them in their being “not far from the kingdom.” He also wrote that they are similar to the demon chaser of Mark 9:38-41 in that they are not the Lord’s enemy, but not of him either, possibly being in jeopardy of eternal condemnation.

Smith believes that we should honor those who give honor to Christ in what they do. Such honor to them, which, he believes, is the reward assured them in Mark 9:41, shows appreciation for their faith. We already demonstrate it by seeking to learn from their faith, receiving rebuke from their faith, being prompted by their faith, reading the words of their faith, and singing the feelings of their faith in songs written by them. Because we willingly do this honor to them, we should also acknowledge their Christ-centered faith, refuse to view them as spiritual lepers (by attending their revival meetings), think about the blind spots in our own faith (try to learn something that we don’t know), seek out the spiritually-minded among them for daily association (he prefers a believing friend with faith on fire over a brother who is not electrified), and try to teach them.

Commendable Points in Smith’s Book

Not all that Smith wrote in Who Is My Brother? is incorrect; much is laudable because it conforms to the teaching of Christ in the New Testament, as we gladly point out. The presence of much truth in Smith’s writings is the factor that makes them most dangerous. Error is never so well camouflaged or concealed as it is by truth. As with a drop of poison in the medicine bottle, so the error combined with truth has the potential of spiritual harm.

The book’s epilogue, “Open Letter, Open Heart,” is Smith’s response to Max Lucado’s In the Grip of Grace. He wrote it to encourage “tough and tender dialogue” on issues that divide, and he particularly targeted Lucado’s call for unity with “believers who have never been immersed or whose only baptism was as an infant.” At this point Smith clearly stated that the unbaptized are not part of Christ and have no fellowship in him. In his effort to deal with Lucado’s attempt to minimize baptism, he correctly said that baptism is not just a symbol but does accomplish something in the work of salvation.

It should be remembered, then, that LaGard Smith masterfully presented some matters:

• He strongly challenged the position of Lucado in his “Open Letter” epilogue.
• He clearly delineated “faith fellowship” to be different from the fellowship of those in Christ.
• He well presented biblical teaching concerning the need for baptism.

To Lucado he wrote these pointed words: “As hard as it is for us to grasp the thought that there are friends and colleagues who live and think perhaps more Christianity than we do, yet still are not biblical Christians — still not saved, still not forgiven, still not brothers and sisters in Christ — even so our quandary is no cause for open mutiny. It’s not our ship. We don’t make the rules.” This reminder will also serve its author well.

Weaknesses in Smith’s Book

The author repeatedly alleged that denominational people share our faith in Jesus Christ or believe that Jesus Christ is Lord; in doing so, he did not represent them completely. While it is correct that they do have some faith in Christ, their faith is weak and incomplete. If Smith meant to say only that their faith was weak and needed strengthening, he should have said it. Intellectual faith, which merely says Jesus is Lord, is not the faith that saves the soul (Heb. 10:39). Faith apart from works is dead, being alone (Jas. 2:14-25). The faith of the unbaptized and the faith of the saved person are alike in this respect; faith must show the same willing response to God’s stated will, whether before or after baptism.

Smith’s basing of “faith fellowship” on a misuse of Mark 9:38-41 is another weakness, though he does say that he rejects the wide-open Christian fellowship espoused by many who cite this passage. He described the man rejected by Jesus’ apostles as “not one of us,” and yet not his enemy. Notice, however, that the Lord acknowledged the man was a true disciple, casting out demons in the name of Christ, but not one in the immediate company or acquaintance of the apostles. How could he do the miracles unless authorized and empowered by the Lord to act thus? Jesus thus conceded him to be one of his disciples, not a pretender. He further lent him his approval in his concession that the man was for him. This passage provides no basis for any kind of sharing with denominational members. In fact, those who teach and practice in denial of the lordship of Christ are acting in opposition to him, though they might have some faith in him.

The author’s use of 2 Chronicles 6:32-33 comes closest of all passages introduced; he presents it as suggesting  something very much like “faith fellowship.” The passage, in fact, presents Solomon’s prayer of intercession on behalf of the foreigner, who came to the Temple because of the Lord’s great name and outstretched arm. The king prayed that God might hear such a one so that even he might know the Lord’s name, fear him, and know the Temple was called by his name. This passage clearly envisions a role of influence by example for Israel in leading the nations to know Jehovah, though God did not set before his people an evangelistic mission. Observe that the influence was that of Israel, not the foreign power; and the learning was that of the foreigner, not Israel. In describing his “faith fellowship,” LaGard reversed the influence/learning by suggesting our learning from denominational people: the meaning of worship from his English associates, a more emotional expression of faith from the Pentecostals, the value of meditative silence in listening to God from the Quakers, a greater zeal for social justice from the Anglicans, thinking more Christianly in everything from the Dutch Calvinists, and a greater need for confessing sins from the Catholics. It must be emphasized, however, that our Lord did not refer first-century believers to other “believers” like the Pharisees, Sadducees, or Samaritans. Instead he consistently reminded them of the law of God by quoting or alluding to what was written in the Scriptures. There might be some examples of certain desirable traits in unexpected places, and honesty demands that we acknowledge such, even as Jesus acknowledged faith in Gentile individuals whom he encountered during his earthly work. On the other hand, the Scriptures are adequate for every purpose in our learning desired by the Lord (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Danger of This Concept

In addition to indicting the weaknesses of the plan proposed in this book, we must also cite dangers of the concept as a whole. By using the word “fellowship” in such a broad sense as to refer to different kinds of fellowship, it sets forth a sliding scale of fellowship, thus leaving room for the conclusion that when the Bible refers to fellowship, it must speak of these various kinds. The truth of this matter is that the New Testament is entirely silent concerning the reality of any kind of fellowship except that enjoyed in Christ by the fellows of Christ. It provides no basis for spiritual fellowship with denominational people. We can conclude this by realizing that Christians are in fellowship with other Christians, who are in fellowship with God, and that denominational members are not in fellowship with God. Because fellowship with God is the sole basis of approved fellowship with one another, there exists no basis for the fellowship here described as “faith fellowship.” Spiritual fellowship requires spiritual fellows.

There are also additional dangers of this concept and the approach induced by it. The idea of honoring people claiming faith in Jesus Christ, at least as illustrated in this book, comes close to encouraging acceptance/approval of denominational people as they are by growing comfortable with the differences, exerting little effort to teach them further, and eventually compromising convictions (as in singing with them with the instrument playing and rationalizing it as Smith did). Smith’s own compromise is a strong argument against this approach, in view of Scriptural teaching to the contrary. 

Appreciating and honoring the measure of faith observed in others seems to be the commendable desire of the author. We can show them true honor and appreciation for their faith by helping them to understand the biblical basis for whatever faith they have achieved and helping them to submit to the lordship of Christ in all matters. The essence of being a believer or a Christian is found in Matthew 28:18, where Jesus said, “. . . teaching them to observe all things, whatever I have commanded you.” Loyalty to Christ will lead any person to this desired standard. For individuals to join with other concerned citizens in a common cause, even in dealing with social/moral issues about which the Lord has spoken (like abortion or acceptance of homosexual lifestyle), is acceptable. We need to know, however, that calling such an endeavor “fellowship” and trying to justify it with the Bible is to distort a biblical idea by misapplying a biblical word.

24978 Bubba Trail, Athens, Alabama 35613 bobbylgraham@)juno.com

By Walton Weaver

Jesus, as the master teacher, always fitted his teachings to the minds and hearts of his hearers. He drew his illustrations from their own
life’s experiences, and as a rule, his illustrations were simple ones because the people he addressed were mostly hard-working ordinary people. He often addressed them from concern for the basic necessities of life. He once filled the stomachs of those in his audience and he soon learned that they were a materialistic crowd (John 6:1-14). Jesus rebuked them for their materialism (v. 26), but he also used the opportunity to teach an important spiritual lesson.
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? What dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst (John 6:29-35).
To eat the “bread of life” is to believe in Jesus and receive his teachings. The one who eats this bread will soon discover that he has lost his appetite for the unholy and sensuous. He will find great delight and happiness in his new-found relationship with Jesus and his teaching.

But these people were still sense bound. When they brought Moses into the conversation by way of comparison, it became evident that they were missing the great opportunity of their life. Helen Hosier has well said, “It is not want of evidence that keeps a man away from belief in Christ, it is want of heart. Plainly these people had not lacked for signs and proofs of Christ’s Messiahship. How true it is that ‘none are so blind as those that will not see’” (Jesus: Love in Action, the Caring Jesus in the Gospel of John 59).

Faith and Reasoning

The Jews began to find fault with Jesus’ claim. How could he be that “bread of life” that had come down out of heaven? They knew his parents were Galileans, so how could he be from heaven? See John 6:41-42. Their reasoning began to get in the way of belief in him as the Messiah. This is not to say that faith is blind. It is not. It is more reasonable to believe in Jesus Christ than to disbelieve. But too often man in his unbelief reasons away all possibility of belief. Reasoning oftentimes proves to be a stumblingblock to faith.

Paul made it his practice to enter into the synagogues and “reason” with the Jews from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2; 18:4; 19:8). He persuaded some, but most of them had a veil over their faces so that they could not see Christ in those Scriptures: “But their mind was hardened,” Paul says, “for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ” ( 2 Cor. 3:14, NASB). The only way they could possibly understand the Scriptures Paul was using as he preached Christ to them was for them to come to see Christ in them.

Looked at from the human point of view alone, it was not reasonable to these Jews that one whose parents they knew to be Galileans had come down from heaven as the “bread of life.” But the “unreasonable” had in fact happened! He is the “bread of life” who has come down out of heaven — reasonable or unreasonable, believe it or not. Had he come as a conquering king, with wealth and honor, they would have willingly enough received him. But one who seemed to be nothing more than a poor, lowly, ordinary man? Never!

Does “Draw” Mean “Drag” In John 6:44?

Maybe the reason these Jews would not believe on Jesus was because they could not believe on him. When this statement is put in the form of a question, the answer to it is both a yes and a no. He can’t, but he can. In commenting on that part of verse 44 which says that “no man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him,” Alva Hovey gets it right when he says, “The inability to come to Christ, which is here affirmed of every man, left to himself, is intrinsically moral, and may be identified with unwillingness or disinclination. The sinner cannot, because he will not” (Commentary on the Gospel of John 156).

Jesus often attributed the cause of unbelief on the part of those who heard him to unwillingness on their part: “And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life” (John 5:40); “If any man will to do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17); “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not” — not “could” not! (Matt. 23:37).

The extreme Calvinist of course will tell us that the word “draw” in John 6:44 means “drag” in the sense of force. R.C. Sproul, for example, rejects the meaning of “woo and entice men to Christ” for this word and insists that the word means to “drag.” He says, “The Greek word used here is elk¿. Kittle’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines it to mean to compel by irresistible       superiority. Linguistically and lexicographically, the word means ‘to compel’” (Chosen By God 71). After defining the word in this way, he then cites two examples where the word has this meaning. In James 2:6 James tells his readers that “the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts,” and in Acts 16:19, we find that Paul and Silas were “dragged” into the marketplace to the authorities. In both of these places the word used is helk¿ , the same word used by Jesus in John 6:44.

This sounds pretty impressive, but to my knowledge no one denies that the word as used in the two examples cited has a literal meaning. But what Sproul fails to point out is that almost all the lexicons also give a metaphorical or figurative meaning to this same word in both John 6:44 and 12:32. For example, Arndt and Gingrich say, “drag, draw . . . 1. trans. a. lit. . . . Acts 21:30 . . . 16:19 . . . Js 2:6 . . . b. fig. of the pull on man’s inner life . . . draw, attract J 6:44 . . . 12:32” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament 251).

This same source points out that this word is also used in a figurative sense in the Septuagint version (Greek) of the Old Testament in Jeremiah 38:3 and Song of Solomon 1:4. So the lexicons recognize a difference of meaning in the word when used literally as over against a figurative use of the word. When used in a literal sense (as in Acts 16:19 and James 2:6) it means “drag, draw,” but when employed figuratively (as in John 6:44 and 12:32) it means “draw, attract.” Sproul’s statement that “linguistically and lexicographically, the word means ‘to compel’” is simply not true. By the term “compel” he means “drag” or “force,” and he is saying that this is the only meaning given to the word in the lexicons.

Why Not “Draw”?

As the reader surely knows, the only reason Sproul will not allow a figurative use of this word is that he believes in, and is defending, an “irresistible call” for all the elect, and only for the elect. He, as do all hard-core Calvinists, believes that only the elect will be saved, and all who are among the elect have from eternity already been chosen by God to be saved eternally. He ridicules the idea that God would only “woo” or “entice” men to be saved. He rejects this meaning of the word because, as he puts it, “man has the ability to resist this wooing and to refuse the enticement. The wooing, though it is necessary, is not compelling. In philosophical language that would mean that the drawing of God is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition to bring men to Christ. In simpler language it means that we cannot come to Christ without the wooing, but the wooing does not guarantee that we will, in fact, come to Christ.

We are not surprised that in his discussion of the “drawing” of God Sproul never once makes reference to John 12:32, another passage where this same word is used by Jesus. Why would he completely ignore Jesus’ use of this same word in that passage? Because he believes that God will “drag, force, compel” only the elect to come to Jesus, but in John 12:32 Jesus says, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.” Now notice it: if “draw” (helk¿ ) always means “drag, force, compel,” then here Jesus states that he will “drag or force” all men to come to him! If the definition Sproul gives to this term is correct, then John 12:32 teaches the doctrine of universalism — all men will be saved. As a matter of fact, however, all who are drawn do not come to Jesus. The fear that Sproul has in giving the meaning of “woo” to the term “draw”is a justified fear, at least in view of his erroneous doctrine of election. If he were to force the literal meaning of “draw” upon John 12:32 it would destroy his theory of election. But that is exactly what he has done when he insists that only the literal meaning can be given to the term in the New Testament.

But if not by force, how does the Father “draw” men to the Son? He does it by moral persuasion, as we have already indicated. Paul was doing this very thing with Felix and Agrippa, and so was Peter with the Jews on the day of Pentecost — but with differing results. When Paul  preached of “righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come” before Felix, we are told that he “trembled” as he heard Paul’s message (Acts 24:25). Although Felix put off and waited for a more convenient time, it is obvious that God was doing some “drawing and attracting” through Paul’s preaching. The same was true with Agrippa who was “almost persuaded” (Acts 26:28). In Acts 2, however, some 3,000 of Peter’s listeners were “drawn” to the point of believing in Christ, and they also acted on their faith in repenting and being baptized as Peter had commanded (Acts 2:38, 41).

Hearing, Learning, Coming

But why would not Jesus’ statement which is recorded in the very next verse (John 6:45) show that this is what Jesus means when he says that the Father “draws” men to the Son? Read it and see: “It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall be all taught of God.’ Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.” I know the Calvinists apply this verse only to those who have already been drawn to Christ, but how can that be when the very last statement of this verse says, “cometh unto me.” How would one who has already been drawn to the Son still be “coming” to him? Surely the “coming” in verse 46 is the coming due to the “drawing” described in verse 44. That being the case, note how the drawing is done and the order in which it is described: The ones who “come” to the Son are those who have “learned” of the Father. But none can learn of the Father except they first be “taught,” and the one who is taught must “hear” in order that he might learn. Just as the drawing is done by the Father, so the teaching in this verse is also attributed to the Father, even though verse 46 suggests that it is the Son who is teaching for him. It seems clear that this is how the Father draws men to the Son. He draws all who will hear what the Father is making known to them through his Son. Those who hear, learn, and those who learn, come to the Son.

1820 Hairston Ave., Conway, Arkansas 72032

By Dick Blackford

“I don’t get mad, I get even.” Who hasn’t seen that bumper sticker? It reflects the thinking of many people. There is a tendency to wish bad fortune on those who mistreat us. I am reminded of an old Irish prayer that says: 

        “May those who love us, love us. 
        And those who don’t love us, may 
        the Lord turn their hearts. And if 
        he doesn’t turn their hearts may 
        he turn their ankles, that we may 
        know them by their limping.”

Funny, but not God’s way. “Vengeance belongs to me, I will repay, saith the Lord” (Rom.12:19). God settles some accounts at the judgment — others in life. He ordained government to settle those in life. 

Concerning rulers he says, “Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evil doers and for praise to them that do well” (1 Pet. 2:13).

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

In the late forties and early fifties, Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett and company opposed an evangelist locating with a church and preaching the gospel to it. They made a distinction between teaching and preaching. One could preach (herald the good news) to the world, but not to the church who already had the news. Thus, the gospel was to be preached to the world and doctrine was to be taught to the church. About a year or so before I began preaching, brother Garrett spoke at the congregation where I attended. I don’t remember whether he claimed to be preaching or teaching as he spoke, but this was my first experience with anyone who made the gospel/doctrine distinction.

In the Wallace-Ketcherside debate near Paragould, Arkansas, June 30-July 4, 1952, brother Ketcherside argued for this distinction repeatedly in his defense of the first proposition of the debate dealing with the located preacher issue.  Brother Wallace challenged brother Ketcherside several times  to teach five minutes and preach five minutes and show the audience the difference. According to their position, if he taught it would be doctrine and if he preached it would be gospel. Ketcherside and Garrett effectively narrowed their circle of fellowship by making this distinction in those days. Years later, after these fellows decided that nearly everyone was saved,  they appealed to the gospel/doctrine distinction to broaden their fellowship.

Distinction Becoming More Popular

Over the years, this distinction has become more and more popular with some brethren as a basis of broadening fellowship. The basic idea being that the gospel is the real basis of fellowship and not doctrine. One might be cursed for preaching a different gospel (Gal. 1:8, 9) but not for teaching another doctrine. So more and more brethren are calling for us to overlook our “doctrinal” differences, not only with those professing to be in churches of Christ but with all who profess to believe in Christ, and unite on the “gospel.” Though there may be some disagreement as to what constitutes the “core”  gospel, it is usually narrowed to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Some are willing to fellowship any who believe in the Christ based on these basic facts of the gospel. Others extend it a bit further and are not willing to fellowship those who merely believe these facts of the gospel, but insist that they must have “obeyed the gospel.” The idea is, while we should not tolerate a different gospel, we should and even must tolerate a different doctrine for the sake of unity.

Even if we could establish that a doctrine/gospel distinction is clearly taught in the New Testament, it would be rather arbitrary for us to decide which one should be the sole basis for fellowship. Where would we find the passage that clearly links fellowship to one and not the other? But, is there such a clear line of distinction found in the New Testament writings?

Gospel — Doctrine — Faith — Truth

We propose to show in the balance of this article that, not only is there no distinction between gospel and doctrine, there are four terms frequently used to refer to the same system. They are “the gospel,” “the doctrine,” “the truth.” and “the faith.”  Each term refers to the whole Christian system. They are all used interchangeably by the New Testament writers.

The Colossians, in the same verse, were admonished to continue in “the faith” and not be moved away from the hope of “the gospel” (Col. 1:23). Paul tells Timothy about things contrary to “sound doctrine according the glorious gospel of the blessed God” (1 Tim. 1:10, 11). Paul wrote of “the truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2:5, 14).

Each term just emphasizes a different feature of the same New Testament system of Christ. Gospel emphasizes it as a system of good news. Gospel and evangelist are translated from the same root word meaning good news or glad tidings. The gospel is the good news and an evangelist is the bearer of that good news. Our English word, gospel, is a contraction of two Middle English words: god (with a long “o,” pronounced “good”) and spell (a story). The “d” was dropped from god and the last “l” from spell and the two combined became gospel — good story. The faith emphasizes it as a system of belief (in the Christ). The doctrine (meaning that which is taught) emphasizes it as a system of teaching. Anyone who causes divisions and offenses contrary the doctrine are to be marked and avoided — disfellowshipped (Rom. 16:17, 18). The truth emphasizes it as the system of spiritual truth as opposed to the false systems in the world. Any other system is a lie (2 Thess. 2:10-12).

Obedience is demanded no matter which term is used. The gospel must be obeyed (2 Thess. 1:8). The form of doctrine must be obeyed (Rom. 6:17). One must be obedient to the faith (Acts 6:7; Rom. 1:5; 16:26). One must obey the truth (1 Pet. 1:22).
Each term refers to the whole of Christianity and not a separate department of the system. Each term embraces instructions for becoming Christians and living as Christians.

“The gospel” includes the news of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and the salvation that this brings to mankind (1 Cor. 15:1-4). It also includes walking uprightly as a Christian (Gal. 2:14). Paul proposed “to preach the gospel to you that are in Rome” (Rom. 1:15), with the “you” being those “beloved of God, called to be saints” (v. 7).

“The doctrine” includes the form of doctrine one initially obeys to become free of sin (Rom. 6:17, 18). It also includes various duties in the lives of Christians (Tit. 2:1-10).  Notice that in verse one Titus was told to speak “things which become sound doctrine,” then a list of things follow that have to do with duties as Christians.

“The truth” includes what is obeyed to become a Christian (1 Pet. 1:22). It also includes what is obeyed as Christians (Gal. 1:3; 5:7).

“The faith” includes what we sometime call the fundamentals (Acts 6:7), but it also includes even a Christian’s duties such as domestic responsibilities (1 Tim. 5:8). Each term includes all the points included in any of the other terms.

The consequences of departing from or disobeying the system is the same whether it is spoken of as “the gospel,” “the doctrine,” “the faith,” or “the truth.” The Lord will take vengeance upon those who “obey not the gospel” (2 Thess. 1:8). Those who abide not in “the doctrine of Christ” and follow “another doctrine” do not have God (2 John 9-11; cf. 1 Tim. 1:3). Indignation and wrath await those who “do not obey the truth” (Rom. 2:8). Paul said one must be obedient to the faith (Rom. 1:5) and tied his assurance of eternal salvation to his having kept “the faith” (2 Tim. 4:7-8).

Conclusion

So, one needs to be very careful about trying to isolate any one of these descriptions of the system into a separate entity and making it the sole basis for fellowship. Whether the system is spoken of as “gospel,” “doctrine,” “truth,” or “faith,” it must be taught or preached, obeyed, and continued in to please God. Anyone who teaches or acts contrary to it, regardless of which term is used to describe it, should not be received into fellowship. Anyone already in our fellowship, but departs from the faith/doctrine/truth/gospel, either in teaching or practice, should not be retained in    fellowship after all proper steps have been taken to restore him have failed (see Tit. 3:10-11; Rom. 16:17, 18).

So, the gospel/doctrine distinction has no basis in Scripture. It is an artificial distinction invented by men to serve whatever agenda they might have at the time.