Questions about Doctrine

Doctrine simply means teaching, but the biblical usage refers to sound teaching based on the Word of God.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

In order to recognize doctrine:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15)

When one preaches or teaches from the first five books of the Bible, that is doctrine. When one teaches out of the minor prophets, major prophets, etc., that is doctrine.

Even the shortest verse in the OT "Eber, Peleg, Reu" (1 Chron. 1:25), or the shortest verse in the NT "Jesus wept" (John 11:35), is doctrine.

The word "doctrine" is found 53 times in the Bible--Old and New Testament; 12 times in the Gospels. Jesus taught doctrine.

 

To add a little bit to Linda; Everyone lives according to "doctrine", whether they recognize it or not.

"Non-denominational" churches, and "independent" churches who claim to have "no doctrine but the bible", are teaching some sort of doctrine. Even the most liberal churches, which are tolerant of a wide range of "beliefs" are living by "doctrine" (un-sound doctrine, but doctrine nevertheless).

We are commanded to live our lives according to the sound doctrine found in scripture. That means we must study it, see what others have said about it, mediate on it, pray fervently over it, pursue the application of it in our own lives, and vigorously defend it against all the enemies of God who would distort it, marginalize it, dismiss it, and ultimately destroy it; if that were possible.

peace to youraying:

 

Gayla, 'doctrine' is a systematic teaching based on some foundation. It is not a "Christian" word. It comes from the root for 'learn'. It implies a cohesive system which is taught and therefore learned.

 

The word "doctrine" is found in the Holy Bible 55 times. What is the criteria you follow to determine whether or not a word is Christian?

"And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:" - Matthew 7:28​

 

Rufus, I was referring to the word itself, grammatically. You can have Hindu doctrine, humanist doctrine, etc. It is not necessarily a Christian word. That is all I was saying. When we use a word like "Trinity" that is generally acknowledged to be a Christian word unless it is specified otherwise. I was not trying to say the Bible presented non-Christian doctrine! I was simply discussing the word itself in accord with the first question of the opening post.

Gayla, the four gospels are jammed full with Jesus' teachings and doctrine. Look at the Sermon on the Mount for a great start...
Then go to the parables.
Then to Jesus last discourse, starting in John 14.

All of these and more are great sources of Christian doctrine as stated in the Gospels.

 

There is a Hindu trinity in Brahma, Siva and Vishnu. It has been stated by scoffers that the Christian trinity is not real, for the word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. I don't mean to make a big deal out of this, I just didn't understand. It sounds like you are applying subjective definitions to these terms. Likewise, in my opinion, "doctrine" is a Christian word at least as much or more so than "trinity" is, for "doctrine" wins the word count over "trinity" 55-0.

 

Rufus, this is getting silly. I was simply talking about the word itself. Yes, there is a trinity in Hindu, but when most of us in the West see the word "Trinity" we assume Christianity. Now, let's not derail this thread any longer, OK?

the word 'doctrine' itself simply means that which is learned and is usually a cohesive body of material. The Christian doctrines can be found in the Gospels, yes.

 

When people in the west hear "doctrine" do they think Hindu?

How is it a derail? Wasn't one of the questions of the original post "What is doctrine?"Aren't you stating that "doctrine" isn't a Christian term in the same way that trinity is? Since this is a debate forum isn't it acceptable that I counter your statement with an alternate view?

 

Can someone invent a "derail" smiley?

Ed

 

With one exception, I think each contributor said something worthwhile in answering the OP.

I think the pastor/SS teacher needs to rethink his doctrine.

:laugh:

 

Gayla, everyone has pretty much answered the first question. Let me comment on 2 and 3.


2. All scripture is doctrine, as everyone has concluded. However, there are churches that have doctrine that is NOT found in scripture -- say infant baptism or Christ's presence in or under the elements of communion or that Jesus spent 3 days in hell before He arose, etc.

Also, doctrines are developed, as you have suggested by your question, regarding various topics. But here's something that requires careful consideration: Doctrines in one portion of scripture do not necessarily relate to doctrines in another. A good example is baptism. John the Baptist's baptism was OT in tradition -- Paul's was NT. That is, they had different meanings. Similarly, Passover is NOT Easter though they would be the same day. Or baptism might appear to be the NT equivalent of OT circumcision but is not.

3) Doctrine in the gospels may seem like church gospel but it is actually a mix. Jesus lived under the OT (pre-Sacrifice) so He lived that doctrine out in His life.

In the Beatitudes, He taught the doctrine of His coming MK on earth. This has somewhat to do with us believers today but does not perfectly match church doctrine.

Then He also taught church doctrine as say in Mt 16:18 -- or the rapture is the church in Mt 25:1-13. In this regard, your pastor/teacher may be just overprotective since delineating church specific church doctrine in the gospels can be controversial.

skypair

 

Since I assume I am the one referred to as the 'non-contributor exception' :laugh: , may I add that I do not necessarily disagree with the basic responses of 'teaching' as "doctrine". However, that said, all that Scripture records is not necessarily "doctrine", per se, although it is a true record of what occurs.

For a couple of examples, the lies of the Serpent, to Eve, in Genesis 3 is not doctrine to be taught as a principle to be followed. Nor is the responses of Eve, to these lies. However this is a "true record" of what did occur.

Psalm 53:1 declares this, echoing Ps. 14:1, both of which are generally attributed to David.

Does Scripture 'teach' "There is no God"? Of course not, but Scripture does record this true account of what, at least some that are declared as 'fools' have 'said', to use KJV and NKJV type English.

As to exactly what this pastor is saying, he is no doubt a dispensationalist, as am I. But I do think he here may well be overlooking, as have some others, even in this thread, some basic principles of Scripture. There is a difference between the accurate history, prophecy, and other 'styles' of the texts of Scripture. Not all of it is "didectic" teaching (even while all of it is still a true record), in that it is the "principles' we are necessarily to follow, as Christians.

For other examples, we are not "under the law", any longer. (That is the 'Mosiac Law', which BTW, WAS still 'binding' on Jesus, and the Jewish people, during His life on this earth, and is recorded in the four Gospels. And the attempted dissolution of supposedly 'which parts of the law' are "binding" on us today, is a bit disingenuous, at best.) But "the Law" was and is given "for our instruction", and is good when used in the right way. (I Tim. 1:8)

However, that said [and the Gospel recordings are (as the pastor implied) technically in the OT 'economy', and 'under' what we call "the Dispensation of 'Law'".], there is still much 'doctrine', and that for us today, taught in the gospels. Here is a statement from Jesus, himself about this, I believe.

I fully agree that the "church, the body of Christ", did not 'start', until Pentecost. However there is at least, quite a bit of 'teaching(s)' that do fully apply to the church found in the Gospels, such as John 13 - 17, including the promise of the 'sending of the Holy Spirit', and "the 'High Priestly' prayer" of Jesus found in John 17, as well as the promise of "building the church" in Matt. 16, and the instructions for 'church discipline' found in Matt. 18, for four examples.

I would say that your pastor may have overstated what he really intended, a bit, with the wording he used. If I am not correct in my conclusion, about the pastor's teachings, one might consider a bit more study could be useful, IMO.

Also, FTR, concerning skypair's comments, although I definitely do agree with most of them, such as his comments about the Beatitudes and the "mix" during Jesus' own life, I do not believe that Mt. 25. 1-13 refer to "the rapture of the church" but rather to the return of the Lord, at the end of "the Tribulation" period.

Hope that now helps a bit with something that is a bit "worthwhile" in this presentation.

Ed

 

Nah, wasn't you, Ed. I liked your 'smiley' comment and I appreciate your detailed 'follow-up'. :thumbs: I'm pleased to acknowledge my classic dispensational viewpoint.

Skypair, you did pretty good in your 7:09 a.m. post. Sometimes you write really well. :thumbs: You touched on dispensationalism, as well.

Rufus .. hmmmm .. :saint:

 

REoctrines

Candyjd,

I have had this same thought for a long time. These churches who say they are non-denominational or independent, do have a belief that is VERY similiar to other churches. There is a non-denom church less than a half-mile from my house, that if you were to put a Freewill Baptist sign, you couldn't tell the difference.

BTW, for what it's worth, the non-denoms and independent churches are free from association/conference meetings every year. That is the only thing that is different to me. I am sure there are some indies that have a pentecostal belief as well. It's just that they are different in the handling of their church business.

 

Are you in a Baptist church, Gayla ?

 

Rufus,

Helen is right on this. "Doctrine" is not a distinctively Christian word. Even Monroe had a doctrine, and it had nothing to do with christianity. Look it up ... Doctrine is simply teaching, or learning, or principles believed.

Doctrine is found all through Scripture. It is the teaching of God.

 

He is correct on the last two. His initial statement is an overstatement, but probably references the idea that the gospels were about Jesus talking to the Jewish people, not the church.