Doctrine

College places a large doctrine exam at the 3rd year in an attempt to integrate knowledge from across the years. Consequently a lot of discussion has begun to revolve around doctrine, not least the actual practice of it.

Firstly, no one disagrees that scripture and only scripture is the source of Christian doctrine.
Second, no one disagrees that doctrinal statements (eg. Nicene Creed) are not revelation. Only the bible with its context is.

But then we all get fuzzy. As far as I can determine, two main positions stand, both self-evident to their proponents.

First. Doctrine is the collated restatement of scripture along lines and themes (both historical and contemporary) that stand outside the specific location of the verse(s) in context (without misquoting! ). However, if doctrine ever states 'new' thought then it has crossed a line.

Second. Doctrine is the collated restatement of scripture along lines and themes (both historical and contemporary) that stand outside the specific location of the verse(s) in context (without misquoting! ). Therefore doctrine by nature is 'new' statements. It is still 'true' but derivatively so, not as 'revelation'.

I currently stand with the second position, although humbly as a Spirit-filled, forgiven sinner.

Please help me know the way forward (but please no name calling!!!) I'll articulate why I believe the distinction matters in a future post.

Thanks.