Doctrine vs. Theology: What is the Difference?

[Arial]

I'm not sure I regard theology the way you do.

For me theology comes out of doctrine.
For example, the following doctrines are plainly stated in Scripture, the source of my theology:

Salvation by faith alone,
Justification by faith alone,
Atoning death of Jesus Christ,
Obedience in sanctification,
Resurrection,
Rapture of the church,
Christ's return,
Final judgment,

I see theology as systemitizing these doctrines into a coherent system, presenting a pattern of their relationships, causes, effects, etc.

Do you see it the same way?

Haven't we been over this? Twice?

 

[Eleanor]

Haven't we been over this? Twice?

Would appreciate your referring me to the post where we did.

 

[Josheb]

The first 22 years of my 40 year walk as a stranger and wayfarer I thought it was me who chose Jesus. After all I remember saying the prayer in my home with a "Just in case this is true," tacked on. It is kind of a long story and doesn't need to be told. But that is all that was all I was ever taught. But I too would come across those scriptures that say God gives the new heart, God does this, God does that. And I would put it down to surely I was not being taught wrong.

But grace upon grace, I can now give God all the glory.

I suspect the overwhelming majority, if not all, Cals in this thread would offer similar testimony.


It can be very self-confrontational to learn scripture asserts something different than our beliefs. I think that is why the Soteriology, Eschatology, Prophecy, and Trinity boards in every Christian forum tend to be the most rancorous and discourteous. I commend EVERYONE here at CCF for discussing their eschatology with respect despite our many differences. Let's hope that attitude and practice persist.

 

[Josheb]

I'm not sure I regard theology the way you do.

For me theology comes out of doctrine.

Most think the order is reversed.

For example, the following doctrines are plainly stated in Scripture, the source of my theology:

Salvation by faith alone,
Justification by faith alone,
Atoning death of Jesus Christ,
Obedience in sanctification,
Resurrection,
Rapture of the church,
Christ's return,
Final judgment,

I see theology as systemitizing these doctrines into a coherent system, presenting a pattern of their relationships, causes, effects, etc.

Do we see it the same way?

It looks like you're arguing the exact opposite of your position.

Scripture----->theology----->doctrine

If that is correct then doctrine comes out of theology, not the other way around. As the opening post testifies, Theology is simply the study of God. The study of God is not accomplished by studying extra-biblical, post-canonical doctrinal sources. The study of God is accomplished through the examination of His word and from that examination various positions are formed, developed, assembled, and eventually formalized. The formalization of a theological position is called a "doctrine."

 

[Arial]

Would appreciate your referring me to the post where we did.

Post #14

 

[Josheb]

@Arial,

If the terms are defined as you've defined them, then there is a rationale to your op. However, I would not define doctrine as you have in the thread and I would apply theology differently. I Googled the difference between doctrine and theology and found an abundant diversity with various soruces defining and using the terms as you do and as I do. I also found a plethora of non-Catholic sites still influenced by the RCC conceptualizations in which dogma is associated with doctrine.

For those with an interest, C. S. Lewis has several articles in his "God in the Dock" book and an essay on theology as an important (seafaring) adventure where the "ocean" of God's word is explored in his book, "The Joyful Christian" (beginning bottom of pg.32).

 

[Arial]

@Arial,

If the terms are defined as you've defined them, then there is a rationale to your op. However, I would not define doctrine as you have in the thread and I would apply theology differently. I Googled the difference between doctrine and theology and found an abundant diversity with various soruces defining and using the terms as you do and as I do. I also found a plethora of non-Catholic sites still influenced by the RCC conceptualizations in which dogma is associated with doctrine.

For those with an interest, C. S. Lewis has several articles in his "God in the Dock" book and an essay on theology as an important (seafaring) adventure where the "ocean" of God's word is explored in his book, "The Joyful Christian" (beginning bottom of pg.32).

That is one good thing about starting an OP. The author gets to define terms (words) as they are using according the definition they are using. So that the thrust of the post is clear. Then the different usages can be examined within the discussion.

With all the looseness of definition and nuances of meaning so varied, it almost becomes necessary for a poster to clarify their definition to avoid misunderstandings. Go on a theology site that defines theology as anything someone believes about God, and not just Christian, and you will find yourself in a "debate" in which both parties are using the same words, i.e. spirit, substitution, works, etc. but speaking two different languages and never the two shall meet. It never becomes clear what the person who has changed the definitions is saying. Then they get mad at you for saying they said what they didn't and repeat it, all in the same sentence.

 

[Eleanor]

Most think the order is reversed.

It looks like you're arguing the exact opposite of your position.

Scripture----->theology----->doctrine

If that is correct then doctrine comes out of theology, not the other way around. As the opening post testifies, Theology is simply the study of God. The study of God is not accomplished by studying extra-biblical, post-canonical doctrinal sources. The study of God is accomplished through the examination of His word and from that examination various positions are formed, developed, assembled, and eventually formalized. The formalization of a theological position is called a "doctrine."

The following doctrines are stated in Scripture:
Salvation by faith alone,
Justification by faith alone,
Atoning death of Jesus Christ,
Obedience in sanctification,
Resurrection,
Rapture of the church,
Christ's return,
Final judgment,

i.e., Scripture--->doctrine

which is the source of my theology; i.e.,

Scripture--->doctrine--->theology.

Oh, wait! I'm not allowing for everything in my experience here.

 

[Eleanor]

#1) Theology isn't doctrine it is where sound doctrine comes from----

and how these doctrines as doctrines were arrive from (with the exception imo of the rapture of the church.) The rapture is a subject for a different thread but I do not believe it is a church doctrine, certainly not historically speaking. It is a theory, an interpretation that cannot be proven from scripture or theology.

As I said in the OP we can be joined to Christ through faith by #2 knowing the doctrines you list without knowing any theology. Theology is learned over time after conversion. They are given in the NT by the apostles as doctrines but they themselves based them all on the theology (the self revelation of God) of the OT.

I can know doctrine without theology (#2), but theology is where doctrine comes from (#1).

If doctrine comes from theology (#1), how can I know doctrine without knowing theology (#2)?

What am I missing here?

 

[ReverendRV]

I can know doctrine without theology (#2), but theology is where doctrine comes from (#1).

If doctrine comes from theology (#1), how can I know doctrine without knowing theology (#2)?

What am I missing here?

The Last word...

 

[makesends]

Right...

I'm just suggesting to change the name of one Sunday School Class, to "Sunday Seminary". Talk about itching ears; there would be an appeal to Egos, just because of the renaming. After it scratches ears, then noses can catch the Scent...

Bad Theology, or no Theology, is a Problem. What would you suggest be first taught in Sunday Seminary at Church?

At my brother's church there is a more regimented class than SS Class is, generally, Thursday nights for 2 hrs, for possible future pastors and church leaders. It is very good, by the way, though it has its faults, of 'course'. It's more or less a doctrinal survey, and teaching as to how to avoid opinion, and to pursue everything through scripture, and to test everything by scripture.

 

[makesends]

Most think the order is reversed.

It looks like you're arguing the exact opposite of your position.

Scripture----->theology----->doctrine

If that is correct then doctrine comes out of theology, not the other way around. As the opening post testifies, Theology is simply the study of God. The study of God is not accomplished by studying extra-biblical, post-canonical doctrinal sources. The study of God is accomplished through the examination of His word and from that examination various positions are formed, developed, assembled, and eventually formalized. The formalization of a theological position is called a "doctrine."

A formal doctrine, and that, of men, yes. But doctrine, more loosely, is simply, 'teaching', and the Bible does a lot of that. The Bible also gives us quite a few more complete and concise statements that are used as "formal" doctrines —i.e. quoted more or less word-for-word.

 

[Arial]

I can know doctrine without theology (#2), but theology is where doctrine comes from (#1).

If doctrine comes from theology (#1), how can I know doctrine without knowing theology (#2)?

What am I missing here?

Because in the NT the doctrines of Chrisology are given AS doctrines. The apostles already did the theology for us and arrived at those doctrines. The first two times I explained this left you still asking the same question.

Did you get it this time? I cut back on some of the words.

There are many doctrines that came into the traditional church other than Christology---and every one of them had to be ascertained from theology---the systematic study of God and His word. Sola scriptura.

 

[Eleanor]

Because in the NT the doctrines of Chrisology are given AS doctrines. The apostles already did the theology for us and arrived at those doctrines. The first two times I explained this left you still asking the same question.

Oh-h-h.

You are talknig about what man has scraped to together and declared a doctrine.

I use doctrine in the sense of actual (Biblical) teaching, which is the meaning of the word in the NT, rather than what man has put together apart from Scripture.

Did you get it this time? I cut back on some of the words.

There are many doctrines that came into the traditional church other than Christology---and every one of them had to be ascertained from theology---the systematic study of God and His word. Sola scriptura.

Thanks for your effort, but it was not about your words, it was about the actual meaning of doctrine.

When discussing Scripture, I think in Biblical meaning of Biblical terms such as doctrine.
If it's not a Biblical doctrine, then the Bible calls it the doctrine of man.

 

[Josheb]

A formal doctrine, and that, of men, yes. But doctrine, more loosely, is simply, 'teaching', and the Bible does a lot of that. The Bible also gives us quite a few more complete and concise statements that are used as "formal" doctrines —i.e. quoted more or less word-for-word.

Yes, but that only confuses the matter because the teachings of scripture are scripture. We can't be saying scripture leads to teachings and conflate scripture and teaching/doctrine to say they/it lead to teaching/doctrine. That is circular.

Teaching leads to teaching.

 

[makesends]

Yes, but that only confuses the matter because the teachings of scripture are scripture. We can't be saying scripture leads to teachings and conflate scripture and teaching/doctrine to say they/it lead to teaching/doctrine. That is circular.

Teaching leads to teaching.

Under analysis it might be circular to use that terminology that way, but we do.

 

[Josheb]

Under analysis it might be circular to use that terminology that way, but we do.

I don't.

Here's another circular argument: the suffix "ology" literally means "the word on" or the "study of." So I study God's word to get the word on God. Or.... I beg the question because I study God's word to get a study of God.


How about I read the Bible to form a religious philosophy by which I set guidelines for practice?

Bible = scripture
religious philosophy = theology
guidelines for practice = doctrine

 

[makesends]

I don't.

Here's another circular argument: the suffix "ology" literally means "the word on" or the "study of." So I study God's word to get the word on God. Or.... I beg the question because I study God's word to get a study of God.


How about I read the Bible to form a religious philosophy by which I set guidelines for practice?

Bible = scripture
religious philosophy = theology
guidelines for practice = doctrine

Good enough. Very logical.

 

[Josheb]

Good enough. Very logical.

thx

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Doctrine is often confused for theology and vice versa. What is the difference and why is it important?

"Doctrine" IS "Theology" (a rose by any other name etc.). some of it is accurate, and some is pure garbage.

The dichotomy has no importance.