CONSENSUS THEOLOGY TAINTS

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
STEPHEN R. LEWIS
President
Rocky Mountain Bible College and Seminary
Denver, CO
I. INTRODUCTION
It is rare to fnd a student of the Bible who is willing
to stick to the text and allow the Scriptures to speak for
themselves without allowing the murky waters of tradi-
tion or consensus to cloud the true meaning of the pas-
sage in question.
II. THE CONSENSUS MODEL SHAPES
THEOLOGY AND EXEGESIS
Many today would listen to the text of Scripture
through the history of exegesis and track its interpreta-
tion frst back through the consensus of the magisterial
Reformation tradition, then compare that to the Fathers
and then fnally back to text in the NT itself, letting its
relevance for today speak for itself. Virgil Vaduva (adapt-
ing a statement from Michael Crichtons 2003 lecture at
California Institute of Technology) sounds a strong warn-
ing concerning the consensus approach:
I want to pause here and talk about this
notion of consensus, and the rise of what
has been called consensus theology. I regard
consensus theology as an extremely pernicious
development that ought to be stopped cold in its
tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has
been the frst refuge of scoundrels; it is a way
Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 26 Autumn 10 Consensus Theology Taints Biblical Theology 27
the Fathers interpretation of the passages in question,
their work would have been much more valuable to us
who prefer Biblical exegesis based on a literal, historical,
grammatical, rhetorical interpretation.
The more I study the history of the church and its doc-
trines, the more I suspect the process by which the church
arrived at the conclusions that were then handed down
as orthodoxy. Why is it enough to say Luther or Calvin is
correct about any doctrine or that the church has always
believed thus and so, and not require sound Biblical re-
search to defend the same? It is because of this type of at-
titudes that what was vague in the early church fathers
writings on any particular subject became creed without
any Biblical verifcation. But one must only take a look
at a passage like Isaiah 55 to recoil from thinking that
weor any past generationhave arrived.
As I began reading Thomas Odens recent book, The
Rebirth of Orthodoxy, I found myself in strong agreement
with his assessment of the results of secularism: Under
the tutelage of these once-confdent ideologies still touted
by secularizing elites, sex has been reduced to orgasm,
persons to bodies, psychology to stimuli, economics to
planning mechanisms, and politics to machinery.
2
As I
continued reading, however, I realized that Odens re-
sponse to secularism is to forge headlong into the consen-
sus model of doctrine.
3

Is this approach valid? Consider the following scenarios
covering the options with regards to the consensus of the
Church Fathers.
2
Thomas C. Oden, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy: Signs of New Life in Christianity
(New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers, 2003), 8.
3
Ibid., 162. Oden favorably cites what is called the Vincentian rule: In
the world-wide community of believers every care should be taken to hold
fast to what has been believed everywhere, always and by all.
to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is
already settled. Whenever you hear that the
consensus of theologians agrees on something or
other, reach for your wallet, because youre being
had.
Lets be clear: the work of theology has nothing
whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the
business of politics. Theology, on the contrary,
requires only one investigator who happens to
be right, which means that he or she has results
that are verifable (by reference to the real
world.) In theology consensus is irrelevant. What
is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest
theologians in history are great precisely because
they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus theology.
If its consensus, it isnt theology. If its theology,
it isnt consensus. Period.
1

Consensus theologyought to be stopped cold in its
tracks. The work of theology has nothing to do with
consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Those
words run counter to Evangelical thought today. Vaduvas
suggestion that Theologyrequires only one investigator
who happens to be right, which means that he or she has
results that are verifable is so far outside mainstream
thought as to be immediately rejected by most theo-
logians. Most believe that if a view is correct, then it is
attested to by the majority of Evangelical scholars today,
as well as the majority of Reformed scholars over the past
fve centuries.
Many theologians successfully track an interpreta-
tion back to the Reformation and then to the Fathers.
However, when they proceed to the NT itself, their
validation of their interpretation of a text remains the
Fathersthey quote from them as if they were not sure
of how Biblical exegesis relates to the subject at hand. If
they had gone back to the text of Scripture itself to judge
1
http://blog.planetpreterist.com/index.php?query=Consensus&amount=0
&blogid=3.
Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 28 Autumn 10 Consensus Theology Taints Biblical Theology 29
the vagueness of the early Christian (post NT) works gave
way to error.
As the use of the Bible faded out, theologydeveloped
by consensus at Church Councils
5
became increasingly
dogmatic and philosophical. By the time of the invention
of the printing press, theologydeeply rooted in philoso-
phywas already complete. Orthodoxy had been defned
and little room was left for studies of the original text.
Theologians focused their studies on the works of someone
else who studied the works of someone else who studied
the works of someone else (and so on). Their aim was to
debate the opinions expressed by their predecessors.
6
It appears Western theologians-philosophers have
always had a dire need for conjecture.
7
The Western phi-
losopher is never sated in his quest for knowledge; he is
possessed of an exploratory bent that spurs him to use
the known as a springboard with which he can catapult
himself beyond the limits of knowledge. This is our Greek
and Roman intellectual heritage.
8
This is the mentality
that makes the West the most innovative society on the
5
Oden notes that Vincent of Lerins (5
th
Century AD), for instance,
[had] long been engaged in what we today call an empirical inquiry, a
careful sampling process, something like a poll-taking exercise. He was
deliberately inquiring of many believers, especially those well-grounded
in sanctity, asking this simple question: How does the whole church come
to distinguish the truth of Christian faith from falsehood amid conficted
opinions? (The Rebirth of Orthodoxy, p. 161). Oden went on, Again the
answer rings clear from all he asksan answer that has become known as
the Vincentian rule: In the world-wide community of believers every care
should be taken to hold fast to what has been believed everywhere, always
and by all (p. 162). My take is that the Church Councils represent only a
partial consensus. Group A forms a consensus that Group B is wrong. If we
are Eastern Orthodox (Greek), we would claim a different consensus than if
we are notfor example.
6
There were occasional innovators who worked with portions of the text
(e.g., Luther worked in Romans), but their students had a strong tendency
to study their teachers work rather than follow his example in studying the
Word.
7
Timothy Nichols, an Assistant Professor at Rocky Mountain Seminary,
contributed this concept.
8
We have yet to examine fully our relationship to both Greek and
Roman thinking in regard to both content and method, since Plato (through
Augustine) still rules theology proper with an iron fst.
III. THE EARLY CHURCH IMPOSED
GREEK PHILOSOPHY ON THE BIBLE
In the Introductory to the frst of his Hibbert Lectures,
1888, Edwin Hatch presented the following comparison of
the Sermon on the Mount with the Nicene Creed:
The one belongs to a world of Syrian peasants, the other
to a world of Greek philosophers.
The contrast is patent. If any one thinks
that it is suffciently explained by saying that
one is a sermon [sermon on the mount] and the
other a creed, it must be pointed out in reply
that the question why an ethical sermon stood
in the forefront of the teaching of Jesus Christ,
and a metaphysical creed in the forefront of the
Christianity of the fourth century, is a problem
which claims investigationThe presumption is
that it was the result of Greek infuence.
4
Sadly, this evaluation captures well the differences
between the Scripture and the creeds of the early church.
It appears that throughout church history the philoso-
phers had a much stronger infuence on the development
of systematics than did the exegetes. The converse should
have been true. Systematic theology should have emerged
from the process in which the frst step is exegesis and
the second, Biblical theology. Only after the completion
of these two steps should the Biblical data have been or-
ganized into a comprehensive, coherent system.
Within the frst three centuries following the Apostles,
theological errors arose not from evil intentions of the
church leaders but from their desire to fnd answers to ev-
eryday pastoral questions and to help people understand
the text. Instead of going back to the text (existent, al-
though hard to fnd) to form their theological views, they
turned to the writings of previous generations. Gradually,
4
Edwin Hatch, The Infuence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian
Church, Edited by Andrew Martin Fairbairn (Peabody, MA: Hendrikson
Publishers, 1995), 1-2.
Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 30 Autumn 10 Consensus Theology Taints Biblical Theology 31
imagination.
12
Second, he possesses only partial informa-
tion. We know a priori only what God has chosen to tell
us. There are many questions He did not answer, many
bits of information He did not give.
13
Some of these would
have been accessible to the original readers (via apostolic
preaching that has not been recorded in Scripture); some
would not.
Making a theological conjecture is analogous to putting
together a one-thousand-piece puzzle, but having fewer
than a hundred pieces. In some spots, one can probably
guess with a fair degree of accuracy what the picture
would look like, but as one begins extrapolate based on
good guesses, the emerging image will resemble less
and less the picture the puzzle was intended to create.
Suppose the puzzle were a picture of an animal no human
has ever seen.
14
How accurate could the guesses be? One
must conclude that, although a credible theological argu-
ment for some doctrines can be constructed, using it as
a building block for further theological development is
unsound.
15
By way of example, the early church fathers recognized
Gods sovereignty but strongly affrmed human free will
(which they believed to be part of the image of God). They
held to the human responsibility for sin and countered
deterministic systems. That changed with Augustine,
who in his earlier years affrmed the existence of free will,
but later modifed his view in reaction to Pelagianism.
Pelagius taught that humanity was not corrupted by the
fall. Believing that to be clearly false, Augustine argued
for the opposite: that humanity is a mass of perdition,
which led him to conclude that the will is not free to choose
what is good. As his own experience reinforced that view,
12
See, for example, Isa 55:8-9; Rom 11:33-35; 1 Cor 2:9.
13
John 21:25 and Acts 1:7, for example, clearly show this to be true.
14
For example, no one alive today has ever seen what Job calls the
behemoth or the leviathan.
15
This does not imply that God has given insuffcient information for life
and godliness, but only that He has not given enough information to satisfy
all theological curiosities.
face of the globe. (No other culture in the history of the
world has produced a truly global empire; the West has
managed to produce at least three.
9
)
Applied to theology, this mentality generates a desire
to take the known (revelation) or what is thought to be
known and use it as grist for extrapolations in an effort
to reach out as far as possible into the unknown. The
extrapolations then become the received wisdom upon
which another generation of extrapolations is based, and
so on, out into the void.
10
This exploratory bent is not without dangers. Without
proper caution, one may naturally pile up extrapolation
upon extrapolation, constructing a theological edifce of
mere guesses.
When a theologian starts with Scripture and then
begins to extrapolate, his frst extrapolation is only loose-
ly tied to Scripture. But if he then extrapolates further
(as theologians often do), his second extrapolation is built
not on Scripture, but on a prior extrapolation. If he then
makes further extrapolations, his thinking becomes far
removed from Scripture.
11

A theologian, who is prepared to extrapolate from rev-
elation (or worse, prior theological extrapolation) faces
some unique diffculties. First of all, he undertakes a
task that is well beyond his ability. The Scripture is clear
that God and His ways are far above our reason and
9
Global empires were maintained by Spain, Great Britain, and Portugal.
However, we might also include, the Netherlands during the brief period
when it had an American colony, France when it held Canada and
Louisiana, the USSR in its heyday, and the USA from the mid-1940s to the
mid-1970s.
10
This might be similar to the game called Telephone where a few
sentences are whispered into the ear of one person and they are to repeat
that message to the person on their right and then in turn that person
repeats the message to the person on their right and so on. By the time
the message has reached the end of the process, the meaning has been lost
nearly completely.
11
Think of these like building blocks which are not stacked precisely
on top of each other. Each block is shifted left on the one beneath it,
overlapping the previous one, until the entire stack topples over because of
the lack of support at the base.
Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 32 Autumn 10 Consensus Theology Taints Biblical Theology 33
millennium, prompting a frustrated legate Aleander to
rail against him: Has the Catholic church been dead for
a thousand years to be revived only by Martin? Has the
whole world gone wrong and Martin only has the eyes to
see?
17
Which consensus? If Luther had harvested the
consensus, there would have been no Reformation.
Standing before the Emperor and many other powerful
rulers of the Holy Roman Empire at the Diet of Worms,
Roman Catholic Johann Eck challenged Luther:
Your plea to be heard from Scripture is the one
always made by heretics.
18
You do nothing but
renew the errors of Wyclif and Hus. How will the
Jews, how will the Turks, exult to hear Christians
discussing whether they have been wrong all
these years! Martin, how can you assume that
you are the only one to understand the sense
of Scripture? Would you put your judgment
above that of so many famous men and claim
that you know more than they all? You have no
right to call into question the most holy orthodox
faith, instituted by Christ the perfect lawgiver,
proclaimed throughout the world by the apostles,
sealed by the red blood of the martyrs, confrmed
by the sacred councils, defned by the Church in
which all our fathers believed until death and
gave to us as an inheritance, and which now we
are forbidden by the pope and the emperor to
discuss lest there be no end of debate.
19
Luther replied that he would throw his books onto a fre
if it were shown, on the basis of Gods Word, that he was
wrong. After a night of prayer, Luther, fearing for his life,
made his great statement:
17
Cited by Roland H. Bainton in Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Peabody,
MA: Hendrikson Publishers, 1950, 1977), 166.
18
Eck is saying that anyone who disagrees with the consensus of the
Roman Church is a heretic. To go against the consensus is to be wrong,
pure and simple. The appeal to Scripture is automatically misguided if one
disagrees with the consensus.
19
Cited by Bainton in Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, 180.
Augustine began to teach a doctrine of predestination
(i.e., that God chooses some individuals to save and leaves
the rest in their deserved damnation).
16
Therefore, it mat-
ters which consensus one looks at with Augustine: Early
(Pre-millennial) or Later (Amillennial).
The Church settled in the middle, accepting the defni-
tion (of Vincent of Lerins) of orthodoxy as that which has
been believed everywhere, always, by all. This defni-
tion was confrmed at the Synod of Orange (529), where
the delegates condemned Pelagianism, averring that
humanity is corrupted by the fall and that salvation is,
therefore, by Gods initiative. However, the Synod did not
affrm Augustines predestination doctrine. The position
of many since that time has been semi-Pelagianism or
semi-Augustinianism.
By the 16
th
century, the leaders of the Reformation
rediscovered Augustine. Both Luther (an Augustinian
monk) and Calvin accepted the Augustinian view of elec-
tion. Later, Calvin proceeded to adopt double predestina-
tion, while Lutherans moved away from the Augustinian
view. Others took more extreme stances on the issue: On
the one hand, Menno Simons (16
th
century Anabaptist
who died in 1561) called this doctrine an abomination
of abominations, and on the other, Calvins successor,
Theodore Beza, went so far as to believe that God causes
sin.
Today, Oden, like many others, make the theologians
labor into a descriptive one, in which he harvests the con-
sensus of the centuries in order to gain the truth. Odens
extensive knowledge of history is evident in what he has
writtenfrom the study of pastoral care to systematic
theology to his current project dealing with the church
fathers work in Scriptural exegesis and preaching.
I am therefore amazed to see Oden and others quote
Luther as the voice of consensus. Luther himself violated
the consensus, not only of his day, but of the preceding
16
Augustine also believed and taught that the elect in some sense will
replace the angels who fell.
Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 34 Autumn 10 Consensus Theology Taints Biblical Theology 35
a dead end. We are left, in the end, with the same basis
that Luther had: the text of Scripture.
Sola Scriptura was a Reformation distinctive for a
reason: the Reformers knew all too well the results of
seeking authority in tradition. It is amazing, and in no
small measure frightening, that we could so easily have
forgotten that.
IV. ALLOWING CONSENSUS THEOLOGY
TO SUPERSEDE SCRIPTURE IS
IDOLATRY
Matthew Henry suggests that the most common viola-
tion of the frst commandment is giving the glory and
honour to any creature which are due to God only[W]
hatever is esteemed or loved, feared or served, delighted
in or depended on, more than God, that (whatever it is)
we do in effect make a god of.
20
It was precisely for this
reason that Sola Scriptura became a Reformation dis-
tinctive. The Reformers knew all too well the results of
esteeming tradition and the consensus of men above the
Word of God.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what Odens methodol-
ogy does. By seeking authority in a consensus of many
opinions, he effectively elevates the words of men above
the words of God. And this he does in the name of humil-
ity. There is no question that Odens historical quotes as
sources are noble, but by depending on consensus for au-
thority, he inescapably leaves himself blind to the errors
of the consensus and without the ability to correct them.
In response to Odens historical interpretive approach
of Exod 20:3, I would rather utilize exegesis of the
Hebrew text based on context (the historical, grammati-
cal, rhetorical interpretation). Exodus 20:3 was a call to
monotheism and faithfulness to the Lord. Israel was to
20
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. 1: Genesis to
Deuteronomy (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co.), 358-59.
Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain
reasonI do not accept the authority of popes
and councils, for they have contradicted each
othermy conscience is captive to the Word of
God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for
to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.
Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help
me. Amen.
The following fve centuries have done nothing to blunt
the force of Luthers statement.
Ironically, Master Eck would have approved of the
methodology of Thomas Oden (and Oden is quoting
Luther).
If we make the theological enterprise a descriptive one,
as Master Eck and Thomas Oden would have us do, we
face a diffculty in deciding which people we are going
to describe. What constitutes a Christian, or perhaps
better put in Odens terms, a consensual exegete? Here
is a case in point: Oden states, All consensual exegetes
view this [1 Cor 8:6b] as a crucial text for unifying triune
reasoning concerning the one God in three Persons. We
may infer from this statement that Oden does not consid-
er Unitarians consensual exegetes. Yet where are his
grounds for excluding them, if the theological enterprise
is descriptive? They also name the name of Christ.
We face one of two problems. We may admit any who
claim the name of Christ, only to fnd that with every
community thus admitted to the ranks of consensual
exegetes, the deposit of faith once for all delivered to all
the saints shrinks more and more. The option does not
appeal. We have no choice then but to exclude some who
name the name of Christ. But how are we to decide whom
to exclude? Ultimately, we have no choice but to use a
doctrinal defnition of who is, and who is not, a Christian.
However, admission of a doctrinal defnition turns the-
ology from a descriptive to a prescriptive discipline. And
in order to stand, that prescription has to derive authority
from somewhere. The Church, as we have already seen, is
Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 36 Autumn 10 Consensus Theology Taints Biblical Theology 37
The following is the summary of the book of Exodus:
Gods preparation of Israel for nationhood
22
is accom-
plished through His deliverance of the nation to Himself,
entrance into a national covenant, and their preparation
of a tabernacle.
23
V. APPLICATION
This isnt only a potential problem for Catholics,
Orthodox, and Reformed people. This can be a problem
for Free Grace folks as well.
Free Grace people sometimes have our own traditions
and these traditions sometimes blind us to the clear
meaning of Scripture. Take the response of some in the
Free Grace camp to the writings of Zane Hodges as an ex-
ample. Some rejected out of hand his view on assurance as
being of the essence of saving faith. Others straightaway
spurned his deserted island illustration and his sugges-
tion that all who simply believe in Jesus have everlasting
life that can never be lost. Still others in the Free Grace
movement rapidly rejected his explanation of the Gospel
of John because it contradicted their tradition. These
people did not carefully read and consider his Biblical
22
The subject of Exodus is Gods preparation of Israel for nationhood.
This is seen in the development of the argument more than in any specifc
statement within the book. In Exodus, Gods dealings with the people of
Israel move them from being a group of tribes in Egypt (1-11) to an organized
people with a ratifed constitution (19-24) and with a king in their midst
(40). They lack only a land to be a nation, and that will come later. Thus, the
subject is not the formation of a nation, but their preparation for nationhood.
23
The complement is threefold and represents the development of the
subject, describing how God prepares them for nationhood. First, He delivers
the people from Egyptian bondage and brings them to Himself (1-18). This
serves to remove them from the kingdom of Egypt and enables them to become
an independent national entity. Further, they are moved from Pharaohs
domain to Gods. Then, God provides the people with a constitution, which
provides for their national relationship to Him as their Sovereign (19-24).
This is fnally followed by His instructions and their compliance in preparing
a residence for their King, the tabernacle (25-40). Thus, all elements
necessary for nationhood are in place, except for their occupation of a land.
This, promised to the patriarchs, is still to be provided as they await entrance
into Canaan.
have no other gods besides Yahweh. He was not just to be
the frst among several but the only One (cf. 1 Cor 10:31; 1
Tim 2:5; Acts 14:15; Jas 2:19; 1 John 5:20-21). This is not
a purely theoretical truth, but the foundation for the Law.
The context of this passage in Exod 20:2 is Gods victory
over the gods of Egypt. Comparing Exod 19:1 with 40:17
shows a nine-month time period between them, with Exod
13:4 being the starting point of the chronology. In other
words, three months before Exod 20:2, the Israelites had
clearly seen Gods victory over the gods of Egypt.
21

Moses is the author of Exodus. He is identifed as re-
cording the events and instructions of God contained in
the account in such places as Exod 17:14; 24:4, 7, 12; and
34:27. Further evidence is contained in Num 33:1-2 and
Deut 31:9-11 that he continued throughout his time to
record Gods instructions and the nations history. The
NT writers also accepted without question the Mosaic
authorship of the Pentateuch as attested in John 5:46-47
and 7:19 (by Jesus), Acts 3:22 (by Peter), and Rom 10:5
(by Paul).
Moses wrote to the Israelite nation, which had been re-
deemed from Egypt and were awaiting Gods permission
to enter the Promised Land.
Exodus has been accepted as canonical without ques-
tion, along with the rest of the Pentateuch. Exodus con-
tains primarily historical narrative, though some sections
are also considered legal literature within the framework
of the historical account of Gods dealing with the nation.
The book is arranged chronologically as well as logically.
The historical accounts are kept in chronological order.
The instructions, listing of the laws, description of con-
struction, and erection of the tabernacle are detailed logi-
cally as well as historically, refecting the order of Gods
instruction and the order of construction.
21
How many of the Church Fathers picked this up?
Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 38 Autumn 10 Consensus Theology Taints Biblical Theology 39
the historical creeds, nor whether it is unoffcially ortho-
dox according to the fashions of contemporary Christian
thought. This approach might be characterized thus:
Jesus loves me; this I know, for the early church fathers/
church councils/creeds tell me so. The only real issue is
whether a doctrine or belief is Biblical. There is no more
sound approach to the formation of our beliefs. It is time
we rescued Christian theology from the theologians and
put it back in the hands of Biblical exegetes and Biblical
theologians.
In this sense doctrine denotes teaching as distinguished from dogma, which
denotes only such teaching, as is part of the confession of the church.
arguments. If they had, their traditions might have given
way to Scripture.
We must beware of our own consensus theology. We
need to be careful that just because everyone in our net-
work of churches or seminaries agrees, then they must
be right, regardless of what the Scriptures say. We must
beware of allowing the theology of anyone, Zane Hodges,
Lewis Sperry Chafer, R. B. Thieme, S. Lewis Johnson,
John Calvin, or whomever, to take precedence over the
teachings of Scripture.
VI. CONCLUSION
Relating consensus to the NT, were not the Jewish
leaders locked into opposition to Jesus Christ because
they could not think outside their box? Their efforts at
preventing the acceptance of a false Messiah prevented
them from seeing the true One. Jesus kept showing evi-
dence, but they were too frmly entrenched in their tradi-
tions. How do we know whether the consensus to which
we appeal is right?
No one should discount the role of history in helping us
understand how the earliest interpreters understood the
Scriptures. Yet believers today must renew their commit-
ment to the Scripture itself. The real issue must not be
whether a doctrine
24
is affrmed by every Christian every-
where, nor whether it is offcially orthodox according to
24
In the strictest sense dogma and doctrine are not synonymous
terms, therefore a word is in order at the beginning of our course to clearly
capture these fundamental concepts. The term dogma, strictly speaking, is
derived from the Greek dokein (to seem, to be recognized as). In the NT it
became attached to the fndings of an ecclesiastical body such as in Heb 6:4
(dogmata). Therefore, dogma technically refers to the study of confessional
statements (Eastern Orthodox Church dogmatics end with the second
Council of Nicea in AD 787 [admitting no further refnement or clarifcation];
Roman Church dogmatics end with Vatican II [1963-65]; Lutheran Church
dogmatics end with Formula of Concord [1580]; Reformed Church dogmatics
end with the Synod of Dordt [1619] and the Westminster Confessions [1649]).
The term, doctrine (didaskalia, 1 Tim 4:16), is almost universally translated
teaching in the NT. Doctrine in the broader sense of the term is that which is
taught, held, put forth as true, or supported by a teacher, a school or group.