# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S364
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

364 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—-COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

But | Corinthians 11 does not directly speak to the issue of
“outsiders” or visitors, of Christians who have stated their alle-
giance to a different and erring confession of the Gospel and its
truth. To that issue we may now speak, the issue of doctrinal divi-
sion among Christians.

C. “Doctrinal Divisions” in the New Testament

The New Testament writers’ primary distinction among teach-
crs and teachings separates apostolic from non-apostolic, light from
darkness, faith from unbelief.

Children il is the lasi hour, and jusi as you heard that the antichrisl was

coming, also now many anlichrisis have come; therefore we know that

itis the last hour. They have come from us, but they were not from us.

For if they were from us, they would have remained with us... .Who is

the liar except the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the

antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Everyone who denies the

Son does nol have the Father... . (1 John 2:18-20, 22--23a)

So also Paul himself calls down the anathema, the very curse
of hell itself, upon the Judaizing teachers in Galatia:

J am amazed that so quickly you are deserting the One who called you

by the grace of Christ for another gospel, which is not another, except

there are some who are troubling you and wishing to pervert the Gospel
of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven preach to you con-
trary lo what we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said
beforehand and now again | am saying, if someone is preaching to you

contrary to what you received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8-9)

The presence of this “true gospel vs. other gospel” distinction is
exactly what one would expect to find in the writings of the first
gencration of the apostolic church.

What about erroneous teaching that cxists among those who still
may be Christians? All error flows from Satan and from unbelief,
and thus all error in itself is completely “non-Christian” or hereti-
cal. But false teaching can be confessed not only by unbelievers
but also by believers, who by a felicitous inconsistency still cling in
faith to Christ Jesus as Savior. This we call “heterodoxy” and the
New Testament reveals the presence of heterodox teaching on the
part of those who nevertheless may be in the church.**

In one sense the modern situation 1s without parallel in the New
Testament writings. That is to say, there were no longstanding, hard
lines of confessional and doctrinal disagreement at the time when
the New Testament documents were being written. But in another
sense internal disagreements already did exist within the pale of
New Testament Christendom. In describing the Council of
Jerusalem the narrative in Acts recounts that “some of those from
the party of the Pharisees who had believed stood up and said. . . .”
(Acts 15:5). These members of the “party of the Pharisees” had be-
lieved; they are “in” the church. But there results a crucial discus-
sion in the Jerusalem council over a major doctrinal disagreement,
namely, the relation of Gentile Christians to the law of Moses. The
happy ending of the story, of course, is that the error held by some
in the party of the Pharisees is rejected and the Gospel is resound-
ingly affirmed: “We [Jewish Christians] believe that we shall be
saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they [Gentile
Christians] will” (Acts 15:11).

A passage that addresses a situation of heterodox teaching in
the New Testament period is Rom. 16:17—i8:

And I beseech you, brothers, 10 watch out for those who make dissen-

sions and stumbling blocks contrary to the teaching which you learned,

and stay away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord,

Christ, but their own belly, and through fair speech and blessings they

deceive the hearts of the guileless.

This passage, classically cited to show the importance of ortho-
dox doctrine, is not without its subtleties of interpretation.” But re-
gardless of the full exegesis, Paul’s words of warning here would
certainly and especially include heterodox teachers who persuade

fellow Christians to think and believe in ways that contradict apos- -

tolic confession and teaching. When one considers also the various
warnings that the risen Christ issues to the churches in Asia Minor

2001 Convention Workbook

(cf. Revelation 2-3), it is clear that the New Testament itself bears
testimony to the presence of heterodoxy within the visible church
itself, and to the need to preserve pure doctrine.

What about the relationship between heterodoxy and fellowship
at the Lord’s Supper? Should Christians who have differing con-
fessions commune at the same table? While the New Testament
documents do not specifically discuss this issue, we do have the
strong positive statement regarding the early church in Acts 2:42:
“And they [those who had received the apostle’s word, 2:41] were
continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to
fellowship, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.” The
reference to a common life devoted to a common teaching is ex-
plicit, and it was in such a context that the celebration of the Lord’s
Supper took place.”” In addition, the context of Rom. 16:1 7-18 in-
cludes references to mutual greetings within the Roman churches
and from churches elsewhere in the empire, as well as to the “holy
kiss.” It is at least probable that the exhortation to avoid those who
cause dissensions and stumbling blocks contrary to the received
teaching has special application to the corporate worship setting.”!
Moreover, we do have the example of the apostle Paul in his deal-
ings with his own members and with heterodox teaching that exists
among them. We may describe in brief his approach and draw con-
clusions from it.

As noted above, Paul’s instructions and warnings about “divi-
sions” at the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 1 1:17-34) probably do not have
in mind divisions of a doctrinal nature. The Corinthians were “de-
spising God’s church and shaming those who do not have,” refus-
ing to “wait for” or “welcome” one another at their communal
meals (1 Cor. 11:21, 22, 33). The divisions specifically in view are
more personal and Paul speaks directly to them. The Corinthians
must discern the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper and
repent of the ways that their sinful personal stratifications deny the
Gospel and the Gospel character of the Eucharist.

What about doctrinal divisions and heterodox teachings? Paul
does not deal with them in | Corinthians 11. But he does deal with
them throughout the remainder of the letter. One scarches in vain
for the attitude by which Pau! would say, “You may think what you
like about matters of morality (against | Corinthians 5), or pagan
worship (against | Corinthians 8), or worship practices (against
1 Corinthians 1 1—14).” These are his members, and he exercises
his oversight as steward of the mysteries. It is inconceivable that
Paul might say, “Think what you like about these issues. Disagree
with me and still come to the Lord’s Supper.” Hardly.” The apos-
tle himself shows that his spiritual children are to follow in and
confess his teaching:

Or did the word of God go out from you, or did it reach to you only? If

anyone thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual person, let him recog-

nize that the things which | am writing to you are the command of the

Lord. If anyone does not know, he is not known. (1 Cor. 14:36-38)

But Paul does deal patiently with them because they are already
members of his churches. Outsiders are not in view. As one wag
has put it, the issue is not “the visiting Mcthodists from Ephesus.”
We might offer the following as a construct on the apostle’s pa-
tient yet firm dealing with his wayward communicants. Because
the Corinthians are members of the church under the apostle’s au-
thority and teaching, Paul deals with them both as “‘confessors” and
as “individual believers.” As “confessors,” on the one hand, the
Corinthians have publicly declared their allegiance to and trust in
the proclamation they received from Paul the apostle. He is their
spiritual father and they have not broken fellowship with him. They
have “confessed” what Paul has taught. Accordingly, he deals with
them as “insiders.”

On the other hand, the Corinthians are also “individual believ-
ers.” And so Paul discerns the need for rebuke and correction and
instruction, and offers it accordingly. Paul deals with them ad hoc,
as the situation demands. In this way he patiently yet directly deals