Well, I would agree with your sentiment that most of us here really are not that far apart. We all want to understand what Scripture means, and it's no big deal if someone calls most of it "theology" and someone else here prefers to use a different word. I suppose the major objection has to do with the way the concepts are arranged. See below. The other concern is with the word "doctrine", which in Greek just means "teaching" and usually refers to behavior (e.g. 1 Tim 1:10). The early apostles, and well as the Lord himself, did not make any clear distinction between "doctrine" and "practical teaching".mattrose wrote:I think it must be my definition of 'theology' that is of issue, . . .Tychicus wrote:Now, that's quite a bold claim, and pretty much begs the original question. Can you please give some examples of such epistles, and explain what you mean by "theology".mattrose wrote:Paul letters and epistles are usually pretty neatly divided between theology (first half) and practical application (second half).
I have read lots of commentaries and just don't see them saying this (e.g. the Word commentary on Romans by Dunn). I have heard of this idea of the doctrine/practical application split in Paul (I've seen Ephesians described this way) but have never seen a serious piece of work defending that view.since nearly every commentator notes a bifold structure in nearly all of Paul's works. He tends to start with theology/doctrine/teaching and end with practical applications (Romans is the first of multiple examples, 1-11 making a theological point and 12 onward applying those truths to the church).
I'll grant that Romans is supposed to be the most "theological" of Paul's letters, with Ephesians perhaps second. That's just 2 out of 13 letters. But even in those 2 letters there is no such "neat division" that I can see. For example, Rom 1:9-15 is about Paul's travel desires, as is much of chap 15. Most of chapters 6 and 8 would have to be classified as "application" more than "doctrine" (if you are going to make those distinctions), and 15:8-12 would lean towards "doctrine". But the biggest problem is that to classify Rom 1-11 as "doctrine" (as if some precursor to the Westminster Catechism) is to totally miss the point of what the letter is about. It is not some sort of abstract "doctrine", but a letter to a church dealing with specific issues. The interpretation can be debated, but it is certainly clear that Paul is facing an opposing teacher (see, e.g. Rom 2:17ff), and this shows throughout much of the letter. You need to understand Paul in light of the questions being asked and debated in the Romans church. If you follow Luther by interpreting Romans as a doctrinal treatise against the Roman Catholic Church "doctrine" of his day (or as a doctrinal treatise about anything) you will not understand it.
Sorry for being so long-winded, but perhaps it will help you to understand why some of us are not so comfortable using the word "theology" in the way you have.