I. Why Study “Christian Doctrine”?

Why Should We Study Doctrine?

       The Way You Read Makes a Difference

       Truth and Sincerity

       Sound Doctrine is “Covenant Specific”

       Balancing Truth and Attitude

The Many Sources and Flavors of Doctrine

Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Truth?

       The Old Testament View of Doctrinal Truth

       The New Testament Concern for Truth

       The Danger of False Prophets

Why Should We Study Doctrine?

       The importance of doctrine is rooted in the fact that our "worldview" shapes our personal self-image and actions - what we think, believe, and hope directs our behavior.  Everyone has a "set of beliefs" (doctrine?), but these may vary greatly as to source, contents, philosophical and logical consistency, and agreement with Scripture.  If God is the ultimate author of the Bible, then it is of the utmost importance that we accurately understand what has been communicated to us there.  If you were to look up “doctrine” in a dictionary, you would not find a description of anything inherently sinister.  Rather, doctrine simply refers to “teaching, instruction.”  Everyone believes something, so there is nothing wrong with giving thought to "what" we believe and why - in fact, we can be greatly benefited by getting things worked out in our thinking before we learn the harder way - by making mistakes rooted in ignorance!  Christians should be concerned with the content, truthfulness, validity, and value of Bible doctrine.

       Christians have been called into a kingdom and they have willingly become servants of the living God.  Because the God we worship endorses holiness and truth, we have been called to understand, maintain, and pass that revealed truth on to others (Matthew 28:18-20; Ephesians 4:25; 2Timothy 2:2; Jude 3).  Whereas, western culture grew strong emphasizing Christian theism, the welfare of the "group" above the individual, and objective truth, we are living at a time when the premier values are such things as "openness," pluralism, individualism, and short-term pleasure.  The "now generation" has been led away from traditional moral standards and an adequate understanding of history, which should concern us because Christianity is closely linked with both of these areas.

 The Way you Read Makes a Difference

        The methods we employ in our reading/learning process are crucial as well.  Exegesis is the method by which one attempts to read out of the text, seeking to discover what a sentence, paragraph, etc. actually says and this is the preferred approach.  On the other hand, many practice eisegesis, which is what one practices when they read into a piece of literature notions that they themselves already believe, but which cannot be discerned from the text itself.  "Inductive" logic seeks to collect evidence by which one can reach a conclusion or an understanding of something, while "deductive" logic begins with an understanding or viewpoint and then tests the evidence so as to confirm or disprove it.  Biblical religion should be concerned with objective truth - true history, true science, how humans can truly live the best kind of life, and what kind of people we really are.

 Truth and Sincerity

        Christian doctrine should not be arbitrary fantasy put into legal format for "church people."  It should deal with revealed information that God wants us to know about His nature and workings, the natural universe, and God's will for his creatures as well as closely correspond to how things work in the real world.  However, we need to recognize that there is objective truth and reality in the universe apart from our own, individual perceptions.  "Sincerity" does not change reality and people are quite capable of believing things with a clear conscience that simply are not true.  For example, many people write bad checks with a clear conscience and fully believing that there is money in the account to cover it.  I took tests in High School sincerely believing that I could have gotten an "A," but was sadly disappointed to find a much lower grade when they were returned.  People have been suddenly "fired" from jobs that they thought was going great.  Such illustrations should demonstrate that our "perceptions" are often not in accord with reality, although we must admit that the depth of our "awareness" of many situations and "hunger for truth" is often sadly lacking!  Scripture, like most literature, is meant to convey an original and intended meaning by its author and is not open to whatever "self-centered" interpretation an individual may try to put on it (2Peter 1:19 - 2:3).  We can be involved in "doctrinal error" in at least two ways - basing beliefs on factual mis-information (wrong ideas) or by imbalance and misplaced emphasis on part of the truth.

Sound Doctrine is "Covenant-Specific"

        By "covenant-specific," I mean that the Bible presents doctrine as being tied to a particular covenant and it remains valid throughout the duration of that covenant.  Over 800 years after its establishment, the prophets Isaiah (Isaiah 8:20), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 6:16) and Malachi (Malachi 4:4) were still pointing Israel back to the Law of Moses.  The consistent teaching of Scripture is that God's covenant revelations are not to be deviated from throughout the duration of that covenant.^[1]  Even though the New, or Messianic, covenant was in effect, Paul still pointed Timothy back to the valid preparatory revelation in the OT Scriptures as still being wisdom-giving, inspired, and profitable (2Timothy 3:15-17).  Paul warned preachers that they should be wary of "knowledge" which contradicts Scripture (1Timothy 6:20), retain a Biblical vocabulary (2Timothy 1:13), pass on sound doctrine to others who will do the same (2Timothy 2:2), and handle Scripture accurately (2Timothy 2:15). 

Balancing Truth and Attitude

        The Pharisees tended to be very concerned with doctrine, but often were guilty of having terrible attitudes (Luke 18:9-14).  As we seek to discern doctrinal truth, it is imperative that we keep objective truth and our personal attitude in perspective.  Jesus taught that valuable service does not demand that everyone be brought into "our group" (Luke 9:49,50), as long as their doctrine and service contributes to God's glory.  If their doctrine is incorrect and they are not open to our instruction, they will have to give answer to God, not us.  God will forgive/judge us in relation to the attitudes we have shown towards others (Matthew 6:12-15; 7:1,2; 18:21-35; James 2:13).  I have come to understand that God holds each of us accountable for what we believe and practice, but my personal accountability stops with what I teach and do - what others do with the Gospel is where they become accountable! 

The Many Sources & Flavors of Doctrine

        Jeremiah prophesied in the last days of the Judean monarchy as the Babylonian captivity approached.  He tried to communicate the word of YHWH to a generation which had many different prophets claiming to speak for YHWH (cf. Jeremiah 23).  The people were confused as to "who" to listen to and that is still a problem.

       If we lived in the first century A.D. and the only source of "Christian Doctrine" was the "apostles' doctrine" (Acts 2:42), we would be better off.  That would be like taking a drink of the Mississippi River at its Minnesota headwaters and we would probably like it.  However, the 20th century places us "downstream" several thousand miles (years) and, considering everything that gets dumped into the river before it gets to New Orleans, it is no wonder that many in our day are hesitant or refuse to drink of "Christian doctrine."  If we would be true to the original doctrine of Christ, we must go back to our spiritual "headwaters" issuing forth from the Bible writers.

       I believe we need to distinguish between what is actually said in the Bible or reasonably inferred from what is there and the random notions and philosophical systems which have "snuck in secretly" and reorganized and redefined Christian doctrine.  Many groups have their own little agenda that puts a distinctive twist on how they understand the Bible, usually by over-emphasizing some point to the exclusion of some other.  The "hermeneutic"^[2] changes from group to group as the basic presuppositions change.  If you are a Roman Catholic, your understanding of Christian doctrine is governed largely by "Church tradition" and the belief that there are three equally valid sources of doctrinal authority - Church tradition as guided by the Holy Spirit, ex cathedra pronouncements of the Popes, and the Bible (usually in that order).  If you are a Protestant, the generally-accepted principle is "the Bible only," although in practice you find that each major Protestant group has its own "church tradition" originating in the theology of its founding reformers - Calvinism, Lutheranism, Anabaptist, etc.  This brings us to the point of concern - even amongst those who claim the Bible as their only source of doctrinal authority, there are major philosophical differences on "what the Bible teaches" because of the varying philosophical presuppositions of the different systems.  For numerous reasons, many people in current Western civilization seem to be afraid of the very concept of “truth” and especially so when discussed in the context of religion. 

Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Truth?

       This seems an appropriate title, since we live in an age when many seem to be afraid of the concept of “truth.”  Numerous overpaid professors, in western state universities, love to stand up in front of eager young faces and proclaim (very absolutely, by the way) that “there are no absolutes,” at least no such thing as “absolute truth” - unchanging fixed principles or known and certain facts from which to reason.  They don’t really believe this, but this is how they attempt to dismiss the Judeo-Christian worldview which guided western civilization for over a thousand years.

      It is ironic that Christianity, while officially banned from all public education institutions in the United States in the early 1960’s so that it’s positive evidences cannot be presented, can be criticized without restriction by unbelieving academics and all the time they claim to support “free speech and open inquiry” and oppose arrogance, dogmatism, opinionated elitism and absolutism.

      Having demolished the old truths, with a Supreme Court decision and simple wiggle of their tongues, they pick up the method of 7-Up advertisers and begin to assert their own “un-truths” - the “fact/truth” of evolution, the “truth” of the discoveries of the scientific method, the “truth” of social, variable law, the “assured results” of Biblical criticism, etc.  In reality, these apostles of “non-truth” and most of the gullible public which, ironically, accepts their denial of absolute truth as “absolute truth,” are the children of the Enlightenment.  The Enlightenment, beginning in the mid-1600’s, asserted values which have slowly become “gospel” in western society - nature is all that exists and progresses, or self-improves, by natural processes, religions were all invented by corrupt priesthoods so as to control the ignorant masses, and human reason is the only means of knowledge.

      Biblical “truth” is not a popular concept with many today.  As the cultural children of the Enlightenment, most westerners are not disposed to think that “fixed, divine truth” even exists, since they have been taught that there is no God to establish or communicate it (cf. Psalms 14:1; Romans 1:18-32).  For those who begin their reasoning with Enlightenment assumptions, the notion of absolute and unchanging truth will not have much meaning or value.  Western society is showing the effects of such a mindset, as social problems once held in check by moral values spread and grow amongst those with nowhere to sink their ethical “anchor” so as to find a little stability in the storms of life.  Moral relativism is much like a ship’s captain trying to avoid shipwreck when all of the lighthouses have gone “mobile.”  Our current situation resembles the confusion of surveyors with no fixed benchmarks to start from.  However, if God does exist and has established truth by which He will ultimately judge all people, the cultured despisers of the faith will, ultimately, be in for quite a surprise, not to mention the fact that their “remedies” for the problems allegedly caused by the Judeo-Christian worldview will never really materialize. 

      For those who claim to be God’s people, on the other hand, the notion of fixed and unchanging truth, revealed in written form, is something that we must become and remain comfortable with.  If God does not exist, has not spoken to mankind through the prophets, or has not spoken clearly enough through the written word to be able to communicate the same ideas to all who will read sensibly, then we can dismiss the notion of “doctrinal truth” right now.  On the other hand, if God has spoken through the prophets and His son, Jesus (Deuteronomy 18:18,19; Hebrews 1:1,2), then we must not fail to hear and submit.  Let’s take a look at the Biblical claims concerning truth. 

The Old Testament View of Doctrinal Truth

       The revealed commandment in Eden was quite clear - don’t eat a certain fruit or you will surely die (Genesis 2:16,17), but the woman was deceived into rebellion by displaying and trusting in her own departure from the plainly stated instructions (Genesis 3:1-6).  Moses sternly admonished Israel to hold closely to what he was commanding them, not adding to or taking away from it (Deuteronomy 4:2).  Israel was to carefully perform the statutes and judgments given through Moses, rather than whatever seemed right in their own eyes (Deuteronomy 12:1,8).  Joshua was commanded to carefully observe the Law of Moses (Joshua 1:7) and, after a faithful life, admonished Israel to serve God in “sincerity and truth” (Joshua 24:14).

      As the period of the Judges began, we are told that the reason for Israel’s troubles began with their ignorance of what God had done in the past (recorded in Scripture) and their tendency to adopt the beliefs of their pagan neighbors (Judges 2:10ff) and to follow their own individual ideas (Judges 17:6).  Later, Samuel commanded Israel to serve God in “truth” (1Samuel 12:24).  David believed that God’s word was “eternal truth” (2Samuel 7:28; Psalms 25:5; 117:2; 119:142,151,160) and later admonished his son, Solomon, to be sure to follow the revealed law of God and walk before God “in truth” (1Kings 2:3,4).

       Through Isaiah (1:18-20), God called Israel to "reason together" with him about their spiritual condition and how to repair it.  As Judah declined toward their national exile, the prophets Isaiah (Isaiah 30:10,11; 59:14,15), Jeremiah (Jeremiah 5:1,30,31; 6:10,19; 7:28; 9:3), and Amos (Amos 2:12) spoke of how disinterested the people were in God or His “truth.”  Daniel spoke of the problem with his people - they had not sought God by turning from their sin and paying attention to His truth (Daniel 9:13).  Through the prophet Zechariah, God told Israel to “speak truth to one another” and “judge with truth” (Zechariah 8:16).  The final words of Malachi, who prophesied about 1,000 years after the Law of Moses was given and 400 years before it would be superseded by the New Covenant, asserted that the Law was still in effect for those who would hear it (Malachi 4:4).  It seems obvious that Israel was supposed to view the Law of Moses and the words of the prophets as fixed truth and applicable to God’s people as long as the covenant was in force.

The New Testament Concern for Truth

       Jesus echoed Joshua 24:14 in asserting that God is to be sought in “sincerity and truth” (John 4:23,24).  His reference to “true worshippers” (John 4:23) strongly implies that there are also “false worshippers,” either because of insincerity or lack of truth.  He marked out some of these “vain worshippers” as He criticized the emphasis given by some to humanly-devised “traditions” that were followed instead of divine instructions (Mark 7:6-9).  James, in the same way, speaks of “true religion” (James 1:27) as opposed to the “worthless religion” of the person with an unbridled tongue (James 1:26).  Paul spoke of “the commandments and teachings of men” and “self-made religion” (Colossians 2:23).

      Jesus also asserted that people could “know truth” and that “truth” would make people free from sin (John 8:32).  Judgment will be based on Jesus’ words (John 12:48), for Jesus himself is “truth” (John 14:6).  Jesus, echoing 2 Samuel 7:28, asserted that God’s Word was truth (John 17:17).

      Paul spoke as though Christians could “believe and know the truth” (1Timothy 4:3), although there are some who are “deprived of the truth” (1Timothy 6:5).  The Scriptures and the New Covenant Gospel message are referred to as the “word of truth” (2Timothy 2:15).  The goal for the Lord’s bond-servant should be “correcting” those who oppose in the hope that they might repent and come to a “knowledge of the truth” (2Timothy 2:25).  A Roman governor, Felix, did not turn Paul over to the Jews who were accusing him, because Felix had a “more exact knowledge” (Acts 24:22) about Christianity - there are erroneous views, partially true view, and more accurate views.

“Sound Doctrine”

       Paul spoke of the Mosaic Law as good for identifying unrighteousness and whatever else is contrary to “sound teaching” (1Timothy 1:8-10).  A major theme in the pastoral letters is “sound doctrine” (1Timothy 4:6,16; 2Timothy 2:2; Titus 1:9; 2:1,7) and “sound words” (1Timothy 6:3; 2Timothy 1:13), as opposed to those who reject “sound doctrine” (2Timothy 4:3), “exchange truth for a lie” (Romans 1:25), who have no “love for truth” (2Th. 2:10), and who “turn away from truth” (Titus 1:14).  Paul told the elders of the Ephesian church that some “savage wolves” would arise in the eldership and speak “perverse things” in order to create their own following (Acts 20:29,30).  The church in Rome was warned of those who deceive unsuspecting people by means of smooth and flattering speech, creating dissension and hindrances “contrary to the teaching” (Romans 16:17,18).  Paul also warned the Galatians about “different/distorted” Gospels which might be offered by angels, people, or even apostles (Galatians 1:6-9).  The Colossians were warned about being “taken captive through philosophy and empty deception” (Colossians 2:8).  Jude warned of those who “creep in unnoticed” to turn grace into license (4) and speak arrogance and flattery for their own advantage (16).  Peter wrote of those who are “unprincipled” and “distort” the teachings of Scripture (2Peter 3:16,17).

“The Faith”

      Another evidence of the apostolic belief in absolute truth, as opposed to error, is seen in the continual reference to the body of New Covenant truth as “the faith.”^[3]  The warning is that “the faith” can be abandoned by “paying attention” to false doctrine (1Timothy 4:1ff; 6:20,21).  For those who hold that “sincerity” is all that matters, we should remember the consistent admonition that the faithful must seek God through both “sincerity and truth” (Joshua 24:14; 1Samuel 12:24; John 4:23,24) as well as the fact that God “searches minds” (Revelation 2:23) as well as hearts!

      Just as the Mosaic Law remained in effect throughout the Mosaic era (Malachi 4:4), so the New Testament message remains in effect throughout this age.  Jesus’ words are the standards of final judgment (John 12:48).  The apostles and NT writers emphasized the fact that “the faith” was fully delivered in their lifetime (Jude 3) and was not to be changed or amended by later “authorities” (Galatians 1:6-9).  The faithful were admonished to “stand firm” and “hold to the traditions” passed on by the apostles (2Thessalonians 2:15).  Thus, it behooves anyone desiring to be faithful to the Lord to become very familiar with the New Testament writings and the original, first-century understanding of Christian doctrine.  Perversions and false doctrines would come forth during the age^[4] and those who follow false teachers will share their fate (Matthew 15:13,14).

The Danger of “False Prophets”

        Because belief in objective truth was an important part of one’s covenant relationship to God, the danger of adherence to false ideas was of great concern to God.  Accordingly, God warned Israel to be on guard against false doctrine and those who spread it, even providing tests by which true/false prophets could be distinguished.  Israel was warned that they should not be taken in by “miraculous signs” alone, but should check the content of the teaching presented (Deuteronomy 13:1-4).  They were also told that "prophets" who falsely claimed to represent God could be recognized by predictive prophecy that was less than 100% accurate (Deuteronomy 18:21,22).  If prophets did not agree with earlier revelation, then they were not to be trusted (Isaiah  8:19,20).  Jeremiah (23:13-40) and Ezekiel (13) both spoke for God against the numerous false prophets who were leading Israelites astray.  These “false prophets” claimed to speak for God, but had not been commissioned or sent by Him (Jeremiah 23:21,32; Ezekiel 13:6) and had dreamed up their messages out of their own minds (Jeremiah 23:16,26,30; Ezekiel 13:2,3,6,7).

       Just as “false prophets” were a problem during the Mosaic era, so they would be a problem during the New Covenant era (2Peter 2:1), secretly introducing “destructive heresies.”  Jesus said they could be identified by the “fruit” (Matthew 7:15-23) or behavior/ speech/character evidences that come forth in ongoing daily life.  Some false prophets would even present miraculous signs to deceive people (Matthew 24:24).

       Although we live in an age that “denies truth” and calls for “toleration” of everything, God has called us to seek out and hold firmly to His truth.  Our doctrinal beliefs are not optional, for salvation is clearly linked to understanding and believing “truth” (Ephesians 1:13; 2Thessalonians 2:13; 1Timothy 2:3,4).  Paul reminded those who communicate Christian doctrine that their example and the accuracy of their teaching plays an essential role in the salvation of others, as well as themselves (1Timothy 4:6-16).  One of the reasons some will be lost is that they did not “love truth” and chose to “believe what is false” (2Thessalonians 2:10-12).  Paul warned one church that corruption would eventually come through its own leadership, as men exalted themselves and sought to create their own followings (Acts 20:28-30).  Peter warned that false teachers would "distort/twist" Scripture, due to their own ignorance, instability, or lack of principle (2Peter 3:16,17).

       What kind of people are especially prone to believe false doctrine?  Along with those already mentioned that failed to develop a "love for truth" (2Thessalonians 2:8-12), some are deceived because they are "unsuspecting" and can be swayed by smooth speech (Romans 16:17,18).  Others, already have a preference for unsound ideas and willingly support those who will tell them what they want to hear (2Timothy 4:3,4).

A Ministry of Severn Christian Church (Severn, Maryland)

Unless otherwise noted, all material produced by Charles E. McCoy

All Scripture citations/quotations from New American Standard Bible

To send a question to Chuck: chuck@severnchristian.org