Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: A pastoral letter to the members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Message-ID: Date: 25 Jun 91 07:35:52 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Houston Lines: 151 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) writes: Our moderator writes: > >[Do you have any references other than Rom 16:17-18? There are a >number of reference about using excommunication in the case of moral >offenses, but I can't immediately think of one suggesting it for >doctrinal disagreement. > On the positive side, we have 1 Corinthians 1:10: "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought." This describes what our fellowship should be like. On the negative side, there is Amos 3:3 "Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?" If I walk in fellowship with one who teaches false doctrine, and do not admonish him, the Lord may impute his sin to me! also 2 Cor 6:14-18: "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you." "I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty" This, curiously enough, was cited by the Lutherans in the Formula of Concord in answer to the question, 'In times of persecution, when a confession is called for, and when the enemies of the Gospel have not come to an agreement with us in doctrine, may we with an inviolate conscience yield to their pressure and demands, reintroduce some ceremonies that have fallen into disuse and that in themselves are indifferent things and are neither commanded nor forbidden by God, and thus come to an understanding with them in such ceremonies and indifferent things?' [Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article X] Of course the 'enemies of the Gospel' that were in view were the Catholic Church, and, to a lesser extent, the Zwinglians. Do I have the stomach to say that somebody who, for example, denies the real presence of the Lord's body and blood in the Lord's supper, is an unbeliever? Not really. (I confess, I sometimes chuckle to myself about 'those unbelieving Baptists', but I really don't mean it. Or do I? :-) ) At the same time, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the difference in doctrine over the real presence *has* caused divisions in the church, starting at Marburg, we might say. >In most cases Paul seems to counsel >toleration, as in the case of eating meat. Note also Titus 3:9, which >prohibits controversies over the law, for they are unprofitable and >worthless. (As moderator, I agree completely.) Paul counsels toleration concerning indifferent things, adiaphora. These are things neither commanded nor forbidden in Scripture. I don't find him counselling toleration regarding doctrine--what is clearly taught in Scripture. There is a clue in Titus 3:9 where he mentions 'genealogies'. Doubtless there were a number of Jewish Christians who still clung to arguing about fine points of the law, such as whether a woman cound wear a gold tooth on the Sabbath--things that are not determined by Scripture, or simply not applicable to the Christian (ceremonial law). Do I argue the Law too much? Perhaps. But for me, the Law concerning homosexuality and fornication is comletely non-controversial. Paul also discusses a similar problem in 1 Timothy 1:3-7. But then he goes on to say "We know that the law is good if a man uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for good men but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irrelegious; for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--**and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.**" Is there a distinction between the sin of teaching false doctrine and 'immorality'? First of all, I think teaching false doctrine is a sin against the commandment 'You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.' In the old testament, where we see that somebody 'called on the name of the Lord', they were probably preaching and teaching. If anything, teaching false doctrine, particularly doctrine that leads people away from their savior, is the worst sin imaginable. We might respond to this the same way the disciples responded to Jesus' teaching on marriage: "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry (or preach)". Yet there are still some, who, even though they recognize themselves as men of unclean lips, still respond to the Lord's call with "Here am I, Send me!" And thank God, people still get married, too. Amen. David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran "The Church's one foundation Is Jesus Christ, her Lord; She is His new creation By water and the Word. From heav'n He came and sought her To be His holy bride; With His own blood He bought her, And for her life He died. "Though with a scornful wonder Men see her sore oppressed, By schisms rent asunder, By heresies distressed, Yet saints their watch are keeping; Their cry goes up, 'How long?' And soon the night of weeping Shall be the morn of song." --The Church's One Foundation, v. 1,4 --from "The Lutheran Hymnal" #473. My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston. [I don't see in any of this any Biblical passages that counsel breaking fellowship over doctrinal disagreements. Amos 3:3 is really tenuous, if you look at the context. As you point out yourself, 2 Cor 6:14 is talking about non-Christians, and you don't *really* mean to say that Christians you disagree with are non-Christians. You talk about teaching false doctrine as a sin. Although you don't cite any Scripture here (aside from the 1st Commandment, and I doubt you *really* believe your Baptist colleages are worshipping idols), I agree that Paul and other NT authors condemn teaching false doctrine in a number of places. Their comments in doing so tend to associate false teaching with causing divisions. It seems to me that it's one thing to eject a teacher of false doctrine in order to prevent him from causing divisions, and another to deal with the differences once they have occurred. I claim that in refusing communion to those who disagree with you, you are compounding the damage. --clh]