My comment on another blog:
It’s good that the term ‘doctrine’ is being inspected under the surface: yes, it’s NT application was surely wider than it’s use today;
Now there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit, and he cried out, saying, “Let us alone! What have we to do with You, Jesus of Nazareth? Did You come to destroy us? I know who You are–the Holy One of God!” But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be muzzled, and come out of him!” And when the unclean spirit threw him into a convulsion, and crying out with a loud voice, came out from him. Then they were all amazed, so that they were disputing among themselves, saying, “What is this?
What new doctrine (didache) is this
, that He commands even the unclean spirits with authority, and they obey Him?”
Clearly, there was no separation between what a person taught and their actions; both, together, comprise our doctrine.
A man’s actions ’speak’ – represent what he believes.
In this sense, we can’t be other than ‘doctrinal’.