One Post in Three Parts -- Part 2: "Sound Doctrine"

( Continued from PREVIOUS post)

In my last post, I argued for the validity and (especially) the importance of History, especially as Christians. This in turn was to prepare to address the claim that all sin except unbelief, for the redeemed and the damned alike, is Atoned for by the Cross. God willing, I will take the leap into the question itself shortly, but this post will be to discuss sound doctrine.

Whenever I am discussing Christianity with Christians, and I raise the importance of doctrine, or the study of the Word of God, or of orthodoxy, (to say nothing of Systematic Theology), there are usually two main objections. The first is that a revelation of / personal relationship with Jesus is the only thing that really matters. The next most common is a snide remark made towards either theology, or theologians. Almost on cue, both objections came up in the conversation that started this discussion off.

Both of these answers make the basic assumption that theology is like interpretive dance: all concept, no substance. -- That assumption is not shared by the authors of Scripture.

Three categories of use from the word we use as "doctrine" can help clarify how that word is to be understood.

Doctrine is used by Jesus to describe the (empty) rites and rituals that were of merely human origin that devout people were expected to observe. (Matt 15:9) It is also used to describe influence of demonic origin (James 3:15, I Tim 4:1) which is intended to deceive and corrupt us. Finally, and most importantly, it is used for the Pure doctrine of the Gospel of God. (As found in most of the examples in this search list.) What I am hoping you will notice is that in each of these, whether the authority is human, demonic, or divine, there is a connection between the belief one begins with and the resulting behaviour.

As I said, there is a prevailing belief that theology is merely theory that old men who smell like old books argue about in dusty rooms. Most people who think so got there one of two ways. They either have anti-intellectual biases: all study is inconsequential -- or secular biases: all religious study is inconsequential. Both attitudes run contrary to the Biblical pattern.

This is further exacerbated by:
(1) the Body of Christ (in the West, anyway) has drunk deeply of the worldly views and opinions of the culture we inhabit. The mistrust of authority that exploded in the Sixties is alive and well today.
(2) Subjectivism and Moral Relativism have radically altered the way that professing Christians understand their faith. Sometimes it even approaches uncomfortably close to the appeal made by the Mormons when they point to the biblical phrase: "Did not our hearts burn within us?" (They suggest that a similar subjective experience will "prove" the truth of their claims.) Too often Christians are heard echoing the secular phrase "it's true for me".

Our culture tells us to BE your personal Authority. To bring an all-you-can-eat-buffet attitude toward what is true, and to elect ourselves God and call 'true' the beliefs we like best. By contrast, the Apostles appealed to one authority only -- the Authority of God. The Authority of God specifically as revealed by the Authority of His Word.

Here's how this worked.

Look at the outline of many of the Epistles.

They address some profound points of theology. (Doctrine).
Next, they draw out the implications of that theology.
[Watch for words like "If / then", "Therefore", "But", and so on.]
Those implications are then carried forward into concrete examples of "life-lived-out".

Paul's letter to the Ephesians gives a good example.

Chapter one opens with the broad scope of Salvation, as a gracious unilateral gift from God. Chapter two moves into how that plan takes effect in the life of an individual believer... regeneration. Chapter 3 describes both Paul's and the Church's role in furthering this plan for others. Chapter 4 is how the Church is taught to conform to Christ, and immediately followed by specific concrete examples of what that looks like. Chapters 5&6 unpack the effect of the first 4 chapters on behaviour and relationships. As the Epistle closes, we are brought back to our dependency on God, so we are not left thinking we are to do these things in our own moral strength.

The Apostle Peter follows the same pattern. His Big Idea is in 1 Peter 1:3-5, God's mercy. Salvation. New Birth. Living Hope. Christ's Resurrection. Secure inheritance. Everything else in the letter draws from this starting point. The encouragements to be strong in the face of suffering and persecution, the call to humility, proper attitudes toward those in authority, relationships, and so forth.

If you are not yet convinced of the importance of Doctrine, look at Paul's instructions to Timothy.

Paul is leaving Timothy behind in Ephesus. Timothy is told: "remain in Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine." You see, for Paul, doctrine wasn't AN issue, it was THE issue.

Paul's ultimate aim was for that flock to have "love that issues from a pure heart, a good conscience and a sincere faith." Other people proclaimed themselves teachers and were leading those same people astray. Paul moves directly from there into a discussion about the Law, and how it is to be properly used. (This we may address separately, elsewhere. I know some who follow my blog have strong convictions on this point, but let's not get distracted.)

There is a laundry list of types of sin, with a really interesting phase upon which the idea transitions to the next part. After listing sins ranging from sexual sin, murder, and lying, to selling people into slavery, it broadens the net to include every sort of sin not mentioned in this list. So to condense the idea, the Law is for those who sin by doing these things "and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine in accordance with the gospel...".

The way he intended to Achieve the aim of sincere love, was by removing influences of false doctrine.

Paul drew a link between sin, and wrong teaching / belief.

Said differently -- wrong ideas lead to wrong behaviour.

I don't mean this in the way a humanist would, e.g. "if only they are properly educated, then they won't do all those horrible things."

What I mean is that any area where thinking is not yet conformed to Christ and His Word is an area where one will be prone to sin.

So Therefore:

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2 Cor. 10:5)