Pigeonholing is 
	the process of compartmentalizing. By labeling a particular item a certain 
	way, we can categorize it with other items labeled the same, and thus deal 
	with it from a priority base of which items we think are most important. We 
	all try to logically pigeonhole matters by priority. Sometimes, though, that 
	process can become fairly arbitrary, and I believe the phrase “doctrinal 
	issues” tends to fall into this category.
	
	We often look 
	at various questions in terms of being “doctrinal issues” or non-doctrinal 
	issues (and no, I’m not going to “make a list” here). What is usually meant 
	by this is that some matters are significant, if not vital, points of 
	teaching, while others aren’t so much. This concept of “doctrinal” fits more 
	along the lines of dogma (a set of doctrines authoritatively affirmed). If 
	the issues do not carry the significance, in our judgment, then we deem them 
	non-doctrinal, and “it is ok to disagree on those issues.” But what exactly 
	is a “doctrinal issue”?
	
	While the Bible 
	uses the term “doctrine” 
	
	(e.g., 1 Tim. 4:16), 
	the word “doctrine” has come to have a life of its own. “Doctrine” is often 
	used to refer more to a set of particular dogmas or tenets affirmed by 
	certain groups. While doctrine and teaching mean the same thing in 
	Scripture, a modern definition would include, “something taught as the 
	principles or creed of a religion … tenets.” In other words, doctrine (as 
	used today) is not just teaching; it is teaching that embodies a set of 
	beliefs peculiar to a particular religious body, the violation of which 
	brings about some kind of negative consequence. The problem is that this is 
	not how we find the term used in Scripture.
	
	Here’s a 
	challenge. Show just one passage where the word “doctrine” means anything 
	other than “teaching.” Think about it. Do we give the impression that some 
	matters of “teaching” are “doctrine,” while some other matters of “teaching” 
	are “non-doctrinal” (i.e., not a part of “our” core tenets)? Here’s the 
	point: anything that is taught is doctrine, including our applications. 
	Teaching – right or wrong, important or not, sound or unsound, in 
	application or not, is doctrine by definition. Vital or not, if it is 
	taught, it is a doctrine.
	
	Here’s where it 
	gets more difficult. Some doctrines do not carry the same weight as others
	
	
	(cf. Matt. 23:23-24). 
	I teach that a congregation may have a building in which to meet; that is a 
	doctrine I accept. But whether a group owns a building or not is ultimately 
	not eternally important; it won’t condemn or save anyone. This is not on par 
	with a doctrine for which its violation would cause eternal destruction
	
	
	(2 Pet. 2:1; 3:16-17). 
	Whether a person eats meats or not is ultimately not going to condemn or 
	save. It is not a doctrine that would lead to condemnation (unless a brother 
	was divisive about it, which seems to be a major point of Romans 14). On the 
	other hand, Jesus said, “unless you believe that I am He, you will die in 
	your sins” 
	
	(John 8:24). 
	What we believe and teach about Jesus does have eternal consequence.
	
	The 
	distinctions that need to be made are over the significance of the doctrine 
	itself, not over whether a teaching is actually “doctrinal.” If it is taught 
	in any way, then it is doctrine. How significant will that doctrine be? This 
	is why we need to be diligent and careful students.
	
	Let’s be 
	careful not to misuse terms. It’s too easy to espouse a pet phrase (even if 
	the Bible does not use it like we do), then use it as a measuring stick for 
	everyone else’s soundness. If we are concerned about using Bible terms in 
	Bible ways, then we need to think about how we sometimes use the word 
	“doctrine.” Most importantly, let’s make sure that our doctrine is sound and 
	that our application is proper (two sides of the same coin). Scripture needs 
	to be taught and applied correctly.
	 
	
	Other Articles by Doy Moyer
				
		
		
		Is It Wise and Good to Begin Drinking Alcohol? 
		
		
		
		
		
		Jesus Emptied Himself: A Basic Approach
		
		
		"As Long as It Does not Harm Anyone"
		
		
		
		Pathetic Dust or a Living Hope
		
		
	You May be Surprised to Learn
		
	Moralizing Over the Gospel
		
		
		
		
		Alcohol and Wisdom
		
		
		
		
		Brotherly Love
		
		The Logic of Authority
		
		
		
		Was Jesus Literally 
		Forsaken?
		
		
		
		
		Baptism and the Blood
		
		
		The Problem With Creeds
		
				
		 
		
			
				| 
				 
				
				For Past Auburn Beacons go to: 
				 
				www.aubeacon.com/Bulletins.htm 
   | 
				
				 
				
				
				Anyone can join the mailing list for the Auburn Beacon! Send 
				your request to: 
				larryrouse@aubeacon.com  |