Is Christianity a Life or is it a Doctrine?

An excerpt from Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen pages 21-27

But, it will be said, Christianity is a life, not a doctrine. The assertion is often made, and it has an appearance of godliness. But it is radically false, and to detect its falsity one does not even need to be a Christian. For to say that "Christianity is a life" is to make an assertion in the sphere of history. The assertion does not lie in the sphere of ideals; it is far different from saying that Christianity ought to be a life, or that the ideal religion is a life. The assertion that Christianity is a life is subject to historical investigation exactly as is the assertion that the Roman Empire under Nero was a free democracy. Possibly the Roman Empire under Nero would have been better if it had been a free democracy, but the historical question is simply whether as a matter of fact it was a free democracy or no. Christianity is an historical phenomenon, like the Roman Empire, or the Kingdom of Prussia, or the United States of America. And as an historical phenomenon it must be investigated on the basis of historical evidence.

Is it true, then, that Christianity is not a doctrine but a life? The question can be settled only by an examination of the beginnings of Christianity. Recognition of that fact does not involve any acceptance of Christian belief; it is merely a matter of common sense and common honesty. At the foundation of the life of every corporation is the incorporation paper, in which the objects of the corporation are set forth. Other objects may be vastly more desirable than those objects, but if the directors use the name and the resources of the corporation to pursue the other objects they are acting ultra vires of the corporation. So it is with Christianity. It is perfectly conceivable that the originators of the Christian movement had no right to legislate for subsequent generations but at any rate they did have an inalienable right to legislate for all generations that should choose to bear the name of "Christian." It is conceivable that Christianity may now have to be abandoned, and another religion substituted for it; but at any rate the question what Christianity is can be determined only by an examination of the beginnings of Christianity.

The beginnings of Christianity constitute a fairly definite historical phenomenon. The Christian movement originated a few days after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. It is doubtful whether anything that preceded the death of Jesus can be called Christianity. At any rate, if Christianity existed before that event, it was Christianity only in a preliminary stage. The name originated after the death of Jesus, and the thing itself was also something new. Evidently there was an important new beginning among the disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem after the crucifixion. At that time is to be placed the beginning of the remarkable movement which spread out from Jerusalem into the Gentile world--the movement which is called Christianity.

About the early stages of this movement definite historical information has been preserved in the Epistles of Paul, which are regarded by all serious historians as genuine products of the first Christian generation. The writer of the Epistles had been in direct communication with those intimate friends of Jesus who had begun the Christian movement in Jerusalem, and in the Epistles he makes it abundantly plain what the fundamental character of the movement was. But if any one fact is clear, on the basis of this evidence, it is that the Christian movement at its inception was not just a way of life in the modern sense, but a way of life founded upon a message. It was based, not upon mere feeling, not upon a mere program of work, but upon an account of facts. In other words it was based upon doctrine.

Certainly with regard to Paul himself there should be no debate; Paul certainly was not indifferent to doctrine; on the contrary, doctrine was the very basis of his life. His devotion to doctrine did not, it is true, make him incapable of a magnificent tolerance. One notable example of such tolerance is to be found during his imprisonment at Rome, as attested by the Epistle to the Philippians. Apparently certain Christian teachers at Rome had been jealous of Paul's greatness. As long as he had been at liberty they had been obliged to take a secondary place; but now that he was in prison, they seized the supremacy. They sought to raise up affliction for Paul in his bonds; they preached Christ even of envy and strife. In short, the rival preachers made of the preaching of the gospel a means to the gratification of low personal ambition; it seems to have been about as mean a piece of business as could well be conceived. But Paul was not disturbed. "Whether in presence, or in truth," he said, "Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice" (Phil. i. 18). The way in which the preaching was being carried on was wrong, but the message itself was true; and Paul was far more interested in the content of the message than in the manner of its presentation. It is impossible to conceive a finer piece of broad-minded tolerance.

But the tolerance of Paul was not indiscriminate. He displayed no tolerance, for example, in Galatia. There, too, there were rival preachers. But Paul had no tolerance for them. "But though we," he said, "or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. i. 8). What is the reason for the difference in the apostle's attitude in the two cases? What is the reason for the broad tolerance in Rome, and the fierce anathemas in Galatia? The answer is perfectly plain. In Rome, Paul was tolerant, because there the content of the message that was being proclaimed by the rival teachers was true; in Galatia he was intolerant, because there the content of the rival message was false. In neither case did personalities have anything to do with Paul's attitude. No doubt the motives of the Judaizers in Galatia were far from pure, and in an incidental way Paul does point out their impurity. But that was not the ground of his opposition. The Judaizers no doubt were morally far from perfect, but Paul's opposition to them would have been exactly the same if they had all been angels from heaven. His opposition was based altogether upon the falsity of their teaching; they were substituting for the one true gospel a false gospel which was no gospel at all. It never occurred to Paul that a gospel might be true for one man and not for another; the blight of pragmatism had never fallen upon his soul. Paul was convinced of the objective truth of the gospel message, and devotion to that truth was the great passion of his life. Christianity for Paul was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first.

But what was the difference between the teaching of Paul and the teaching of the Judaizers? What was it that gave rise to the stupendous polemic of the Epistle to the Galatians? To the modern Church the difference would have seemed to be a mere theological subtlety. About many things the Judaizers were in perfect agreement with Paul. The Judaizers believed that Jesus was the Messiah; there is not a shadow of evidence that they objected to Paul's lofty view of the person of Christ. Without the slightest doubt, they believed that Jesus had really risen from the dead. They believed, moreover, that faith in Christ was necessary to salvation. But the trouble was, they believed that something else was also necessary; they believed that what Christ had done needed to be pieced out by the believer's own effort to keep the Law. From the modern point of view the difference would have seemed to be very slight. Paul as well as the Judaizers believed that the keeping of the law of God, in its deepest import, is inseparably connected with faith. The difference concerned only the logical--not even, perhaps, the temporal--order of three steps. Paul said that a man (1) first believes on Christ, (2) then is justified before God, (3) then immediately proceeds to keep God's law. The Judaizers said that a man (1) believes on Christ and (2) keeps the law of God the best he can, and then (3) is justified. The difference would seem to modern "practical" Christians to be a highly subtle and intangible matter, hardly worthy of consideration at all in view of the large measure of agreement in the practical realm. What a splendid cleaning up of the Gentile cities it would have been if the Judaizers had succeeded in extending to those cities the observance of the Mosaic law, even including the unfortunate ceremonial observances! Surely Paul ought to have made common cause with teachers who were so nearly in agreement with him; surely he ought to have applied to them the great principle of Christian unity.

As a matter of fact, however, Paul did nothing of the kind; and only because he (and others) did nothing of the kind does the Christian Church exist today. Paul saw very clearly that the differences between the Judaizers and himself was the differences between two entirely distinct types of religion; it was the differences between a religion of merit and a religion of grace. If Christ provides only a part of our salvation, leaving us to provide the rest, then we are still hopeless under the load of sin. For no matter how small the gap which must be bridged before salvation can be attained, the awakened conscience sees clearly that our wretched attempt at goodness is insufficient even to bridge that gap. The guilty soul enters again into the hopeless reckoning with God, to determine whether we have really done our part. And thus we groan again under the old bondage of the law. Such an attempt to piece out the work of Christ by our own merit, Paul saw clearly, is the very essence of unbelief; Christ will do everything or nothing, and the only hope is to throw ourselves unreservedly on His mercy and trust Him for all.

Paul certainly was right. The differences which divided him from the Judaizers was no mere theological subtlety, but concerned the very heart and core of the religion of Christ. "Just as I am without one plea, But that Thy blood was shed for me"-- that was what Paul was contending for in Galatia; that hymn would never have been written if the Judaizers had won. And without the thing which that hymn expresses there is no Christianity at all.

Comments

[Steve Newell]

The Early Church also placed doctrine as being most important. This can be seen in both the Nicene Creed and Aspotles' Creed both begin "I believe". The third creed, The Athanasian Creed, begins with "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith." All three creed are statement of what we believe, i.e. doctrine. Nowhere in the creeds cover the life of the Christian.

[John C]

If "Christianity" is merely a belief system, a right "doctrinal" movement of sorts then it is in no way superior to the various and sundry religions (external belief systems) of the world. Here's a question, if we had no access to a bible, to scripture or even to church, to fellowship would Christianity cease to exist? Now we all know about the "underground" church in persecuted history and current nations, ie China, etc. I mean for you, personally if you had no access to scripture, had no church (building) to go to and no people to fellowship/worship with...would that be the end of your so-called "Christian" life?

We get so comfortable with all the externals when Christ is within, (2 Cor 13:5, Col 1:27). It's time we look, and find Him again right where He said He would reside, in our spirit man (1 Cor 6:17). Christ being in you means that the very substance of life resides within, and that is what makes you...alive, eternally for He can never die, His zoe kind of life not being subject to death and decay. Doctrine is secondary to the life of Christ within. We feed off that internal life and He becomes our life. In the spirit there is no duality, no wrong doctrine, only truth and truth is always liberating. He will lead us and guide us into ALL truth. Our beliefs will never really satisfy us, only our Christ who would rule and reigh from the throne of our surrendered hearts (spirit man) can satisfy our souls.

Love like Him

[Paul L.]

Thank you so much for this post, Chris. Although your purpose in quoting from Machen was to highlight the important of doctrine, I appreciated it in another way. I was recently having a discussion with a sister in Christ about how a Christian's obedience is different from that of a legalist. I tried my best to give an explanation to her, but I'm not sure I did a good job. I think the last three paragraphs of the Machen excerpt was just what I was looking for--especially the numbered steps detailing how Paul and the Judaizers differed in how they viewed keeping of the law. I emailed her those paragraphs; I pray they will be a blessing to her.

[Ray]

John C:

"Doctrine is secondary to the life of Christ within."

John, your argument is ridiculous and self-condeming. Doctrine = beliefs. Do you believe something about Christ? Then you have a christological doctrine. The fact that you even quote scripture means you think you have some biblical support for these doctrines of yours. Everyone has doctrine. If you have beliefs about Christ, that is doctrine. If you don't believe in Christ, that is also doctrine.

Doctrine is always the beginning, even for you. This stuff you keep writing about "the life of Christ within" and "Christ being in you means that the very substance of life resides within" and "We feed off that internal life and He becomes our life" and "In the spirit there is no duality, no wrong doctrine, only truth and truth is always liberating" - that is your doctrine.

Can you not see that in your condemnation of our doctrine and, more imporantly, the idea of doctrine itself with doctrine of your own you are thereby also condemning yourself since you are using doctrine? Why should we listen to you?

If I were to take your last post and take out everything that was related to biblical doctrine, I would be left with this:

"...Here's a question...Now we all know about the "underground" church in persecuted history and current nations, ie China, etc..."

And even those little bit could be debated in the greater context of the post.

John, if you stopped speaking/writing based on and/or refering to any of your doctrines, you would have nothing to say but "How about this weather?".

-Ray

[John C]

Ray,

Thanks. So, are you saved by doctrine, or by Christ? You can't right "doctrine" your way into heaven Ray, only Christ can offer His saving Self to us and that life, His within is the only thing that causes the proverbial death angel to "pass over" us in judgment, God seeing His son's life in us,(Gal 2:20). Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his (Romans 8:9). Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son INTO YOUR HEARTS (spirits), crying abba Father Gal 4:6.

Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is IN you...2 Cor 13:5

If I don't "believe" exactly right that's not the end of me, but if I dont have Christ indwelling me than I am most certainly lost.

There are many doctrines but only one Saviour, Christ Himself saves.

[Douglas K. Adu-Boahen]

We are saved by faith - not doctrine. Amen to that. What do you do with Paul's admonitions regarding sound doctrine? Use white-out on 'em? Doctrine is just as important as experience - in fact, your doctrine will inform your experience.

[Steve Newell]

John,

I have a very simple question: Is the Christian life defined by Christian doctrine or is Christian doctrine defined by the Christian life? The first is a objective view of both doctrine and the Christian life while the second is a subjective view of both.

If you look at the great commission, we see that Christ instructs the apostles to first make disciples through Holy Baptism in the name of the Triune God then they are to teach (Christian doctrine) new believers to obey all things(Christian life) that Christ has commanded.

The doctrine of the Christian life is what shapes our lives. When we try to shape doctrine to our lives, we run the risk of creating a personal doctrine that runs counter to the Christian Doctrine. Believing the wrong doctrine could lead to unbelief and a rejection of the True Faith.

[John C]

Steve...

Here's the answer to your question and the secret...only when we are full of the spirit and yield to His leading within will we "walk in the spirit" and the spirit "knows all things". The spirit that we received (Christ IN us, Col 1:27) is fully sufficient to produce holiness, wisdom, Christlikeness, He is all we need in every moment and every situation. Paradoxically, He is also childlike and beautiful, trusting the Father and not requiring constant reasoning (doctrine) to live by, for He already knows the truth for He IS the Truth, He is ONE with the Father (John 17), do you see that?

Not once did you mention the spirit of God, this tells me you are still attempting to "reason" your way through the kingdom, which is also a here and now proposition-Jesus Himself declaring the kingdom of God "has come" past tense. Here's another secret Steve that when you realize this will set you free and bring about a fruitfulness in your "ministry" and that is that Christ IN you is your ONLY ministry. YOU (and I) are not capable of "doing" anything. Jesus Himself said these words "of myself I can do nothing, I only say and do what I see my Father in Heaven saying and doing". Are we any better or different than Christ?

The reason Paul had to keep harping on "doctrine" which by the way means "God's mind" is because they were mere babes trying to live by mere reasoning, not yet walking in the fulness of the spirit and so had to be led by the hand every step of the way until...Christ be formed in them, Gal 4:19. Their minds had not yet been renewed, washed, they had not yet been "renewed in the SPIRIT of their minds". Eph 4:23.

Have we?

[Ray]

John C,

You just rebuked Steve's doctrine with your own doctrine to tell him that doctrine is bad, useless, and is "attempting to 'reason' your way through the kingdom" (one of your doctrines).

Why should we listen to anything you have to say?

-Ray

[Rick Frueh]

Obedience to truth (doctrine) is essential to substantiate that truth. It is only secondary to making sure the truth you are obeying is...well...true.

[Steve Newell]

John C,

First, you did not directly answer my question. Either you didn't understand it nor you chose not to answer it.

Second, You are very presumptuous of my spiritual condition by the various statements you made. In addition, you appear to be implying that you are more spiritually mature than those that Paul wrote to since you appear to say that you have moved beyond the need to focus on the doctrine of the Christian faith.

In all of Paul's letters, even to the letters to Timothy are full of doctrine. In many of his letters, doctrine precedes the Christian life. Why? Because correct doctrine most always preceeds teachings on how we are to live because correct doctrine leads to correct living, but correct living will not lead to correct doctrine.

The moment we believe that we have moved beyond the need to learn and relearn the truths of our faith (doctrine) is when we need to repent and go back. We must continually hear the teaching (doctrines) of our faith to keep us grounded in the truth. When we believe that we have moved beyond this, we can open ourselves to other teachings outside of the Christian faith, including ones we create ourselves.

[John C]

Steve...

"He who will do the will of God shall know the doctrine, whether it be of God or himself (man"), John 7:17. Do you understand what this means? The "doctrine" here is the mind of God. This is how we know the will of God, by doing it. Sounds backwards huh? If it wasn't for the spirit within it would be impossibe. We were intended to be spirit led (Romans 8:14) for we are in fact spiritual beings.

Nowhere on this blog do I see anyone speaking of the the spirit, and that is very concerning for its all about the spirit led life (Romans 8:14), that's the only way we can really know God, by His spirit communicating with ours, even joined to ours (1 Cor 6:17). When we read scripture, we can learn things "about" God, but that is not the highest, deepest experience a believer can have for it remains within the realm of logic.

Father would have us to come up higher, always higher in the spirit that we might be led of the spirit, fruitful, relevant and our souls well nourished by His presence and Life within.

[Douglas K. Adu-Boahen]

When we read scripture, we can learn things "about" God, but that is not the highest, deepest experience a believer can have for it remains within the realm of logic.

Utter and complete bull. Paul seemed to think Scripture alone was sufficient:

2Ti 3:16-17 WEB Every Scripture is God-breathed and[1] profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Every believer has the Spirit of Almighty God dwelling in them and yet Paul says that the Scripture were able to make someone thoroughly equipped for every thing that God desires.

Better yet, look at Peter's own witness:

2Pe 1:16-18 WEB For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (17) For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”[2] (18) We heard this voice come out of heaven when we were with him on the holy mountain.

Now you'd think that Peter would have it made. He had an experience so read that none of us could begin to imagine it...and then look at what he has the gall to say:

2Pe 1:19-21 We have the more sure word of prophecy; and you do well that you heed it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns, and the morning star arises in your hearts: (20) knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation. (21) For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but holy men of God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit.

In other words, "I saw it but the Word is more sure than what I experienced". Seems to me were Paul and Peter alive, they'd be having words with you after church, because your view of God's Word is dishonouring it.

[Aaron]

Hey, John C., glad to find you over here. You left a comment for me over on "God is bigger than..." and I was late responding. Feel free to see my post over there. After reading this, I understand better where you are coming from. The John passage is about discerning what is of God and what is not. It is about discerning whether a teacher or prophet is Christ-centered or man-centered. When the focus is on our deeds and what we do, our experiences, our holiness, coming up higher, etc., the focus is turned to us, and away from Jesus. You see, the Holy Spirit always points us to Christ. When teachings point to Jesus and His work, we know the Holy Spirit is involved. Since Holy Scripture is Christ-centered, we know the Holy Spirit works therein. Since in our baptism "we were buried therefore with Him...into death, in order that...we too might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:4), we know the Holy Spirit is working there. Since in Holy Communion Christ says that we receive His body and blood "of the covenant, which is poured out for many," we also know the Holy Spirit works there. When words of absolution are spoken to us after confession, such as, "In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ, I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," we then know and are reassured of the Spirit's presence in our lives, since we know that Christ's sacrifice was for us and covered all our transgressions, and the Spirit prompts our response, which is our desire to do God's will. I mention all of this, because I can never, ever come up high enough for God. Every time I try, I fail miserably. In fact, no matter how much I desire to do God's will (knowing he loves me and Christ's sacrifice is for me), I always fall short. So I continually return to the altar of the Lord and rest on His Word and absolution, His gifts of body and blood, and the washing of regeneration. This is where we find the Holy Spirit!