Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jackk@leland.stanford.edu (Jack Kouloheris) 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 07:39:34 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AIR, Stanford University Lines: 37 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) writes: >>>Is the 'priesthood of believers' still alive in 'liberal' churches? Does >>>anybody still believe that an ordinary person should be able to read the >>>Scriptures and understand them? >Here you are running up against another doctrine which is clearly taught >in the Scriptures. Namely that Christians should not practice fellowship >with those who teach false doctrine. See in particular Romans 16:17-18, >although ultimately this doctrine can be traced back to the command, >'You shall have no other gods.' > >What should we judge to be 'false doctrine?' We can't just base this >on a difference of opinion. However if something is clearly taught in >Scripture, and someone teaches contrary doctrine, and we admonish them, >yet they persist and do not repent, then we cannot practice fellowship >with them. The problem is just *who* is the 'we' that decides what is false doctrine? The traditional Baptist belief has been that it is the conscience of each believer with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not any centralized authority. If one cannot in good conscience remain in fellowship with a body of believers, then one moves on to find a body with 'like mind and belief.' I find myself in general agreement with the moderator's comments on your posting. I will avoid commenting on your comments on Eucharistic theology. I think that there has been more than enough debate on this subject and on infant baptism in this newsgroup recently and would hesitate to open either can of worms again. > >Then again, what you seem to be showing us is that labels such as >'Lutheran' or 'Baptist' aren't very reliable, either. Thanks be to God! Shouldn't the label "Christian" be more important? Jack