Doctrine and Doctrines

W. Carl Ketcherside

[Page 77]

     It is possible that many of our readers may become bored with our repeated insistence on the necessity of recapturing the vocabulary of the Holy Spirit. Our emphasis stems from recognition of the fact that a direct relationship exists between an idea and the language used to express it. Words are but symbols of ideas. They are the bodies in which ideas become clothed and through which they exhibit themselves. It is difficult for one mind to project an image within it to another mind so that it will be reflected there in an undistorted impression. The purpose of language is to act as a means of communication to transmit through recognized symbols the ideas which exist in one mind, to other minds.

     In his revelation of the divine mind to human consciousness, God made use of that means of communication adapted to and employed by rational beings. The divine agent of revelation, the Holy Spirit, conveyed the message of heaven in words. It is not necessary that we take time here to discuss all of the theories which men have devised to explain or account for the means of transmission. In their final analysis these are merely the words of men about the word of God. If we accept the fact of the revelation of the thoughts of God we must admit the employment of words, for this is the means by which thoughts are transmitted. In the same context in which God affirms, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts," he also says, "So shall my word be that goes forth out of my mouth."

     If the thoughts of God are of sufficient value to man that God saw fit to reveal them, they must be of such worth to man that it is in his eternal interest to grasp them, or exert every rational effort to do so. In order to the accomplishment of this, man must discover and

[Page 78]

employ the vocabulary of the Spirit. He must know the terms the Spirit used and the significance attached to those terms when used. It is useless to argue that the important thing is to derive the idea and it is not important to consider the language. No idea can exist apart from the body of a word to clothe it. One cannot think except in words nor convey what he thinks apart from words. Our words are vehicles of thought.

     Those who rebel at word studies not only reveal their current ignorance of thought processes but also doom themselves to ignorance in the future. Indeed, those who file objections to word analysis must use words by which to do so, and those who understand their objections can only do so because they have learned the significance of words. There are those who believe that we should purify our concepts and then our language will automatically become pure. This is "putting the cart before the horse." If we begin to use the language of the Spirit our meditation will enable us to grasp the meaning of the Spirit.

     Our carelessness in the use of words may be one contributory factor to the religious divisions of our day. I shall cite one example. It is common parlance to speak about "the doctrines of the new testament." A short time ago I received notice of a lectureship, the theme of which was, "Great Doctrines of the Church." I shall not deal with the palpable error involved in the expression "doctrines of the church," but will limit myself to the word "doctrines."

     Even a cursory examination of the sacred text will show that the plural form of the word was never used with reference to the divine revelation. The word "doctrines" only occurs five times in the sacred scriptures, old or new. It is applied to the "doctrines of men," the "doctrines of demons," and to "strange (foreign) doctrines." The revelation of heaven is not composed of so many varied and divergent philosophies, theories or speculations. One will search in vain to read about "the doctrines of Christ," or "the doctrines of the apostles." There were a number of apostles but there was only one doctrine!

     Herein lies the great danger in creedal forms and confessions. Men distil the word of God through finite minds and seek to bind their varied understandings and interpretations upon others as a rule of faith and practice. To deviate from the party creed is then equated with departing from the living God. Conformity rather than community becomes the goal. Fellowship must succumb to dogmatism. When the cycle has run its jaded course and Christian charity again begins to assert itself, all too often there arises the feeling that all of these forms and expressions constitute the "doctrines of the historic church." A new creed is written which, in effect, embraces all of the old ones in a spirit of ecumenicity.

     It is not the charity which produces this spirit that is wrong. It should have been exercised all of the time and would have prevented the original stifling of liberty in Christ Jesus by creedal shackles. Nor is it the goal of that spirit--the gathering of the scattered forces--that is sinful, because our blessed Lord prayed for that very thing. The error lies in enshrining all of the varied creedal forms as "doctrines of the church" and thus binding upon future generations a conglomerate creed which will grow into orthodoxy. Ecumenical orthodoxy is as serious a danger as any other!

     It is indeed a strange anomaly when we divide the body by "the doctrines of men," and then seek to heal our breaches by transmuting all of these into the doctrine of God. We are not alchemists who can change base metals into gold. Let men who respect the authority of God, limit themselves in their conferences to the language of the Spirit. If the Spirit has used no language suitable to convey the idea, it must become evident that the idea itself was not revealed by God.

     This is not equivalent to saying that the word of God is a meticulous and scrupulous revelation of every detail. It is simply a plea that if we are to be the people of God we demonstrate our fidelity by respect for the doctrine of God.