What Is the Role of Doctrine in Christianity, and How Does It Contrast with Liberalism?

Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

The article under review makes a compelling argument: the debate between Christianity and modern liberalism is not one of semantics, nor of style, but of substance—specifically, the substance of doctrine. While liberalism often disguises its innovations behind familiar religious language, it ultimately represents an entirely different belief system that severs the gospel from its doctrinal roots. At stake is not merely academic theology but the very identity of Christianity itself.

Christianity Cannot Exist Without Doctrine

Contrary to popular slogans such as “Christianity is a life, not a doctrine,” the New Testament presents Christianity as a divinely revealed message grounded in historical events, interpreted through doctrine. The faith proclaimed by the apostles did not originate in human imagination or spiritual insight alone. It began with verifiable claims:

That Jesus of Nazareth died under Roman authority,
That he rose bodily from the dead, witnessed by many (1 Corinthians 15:3–7),
That these events fulfilled Scripture’s promises (Luke 24:44–46).

Such truths are not subjective. They are not personal preferences or mystical impressions. They are objective realities, and the interpretation of these events—that Christ died “for our sins” (doctrine)—is central to their meaning. The early Christian proclamation, as shown throughout the book of Acts, is never simply “live like Jesus.” It is always “Jesus is Lord,” and “God raised him from the dead” (Acts 2:32, 36).

Doctrine was not peripheral but foundational. The apostles taught specific truths: the deity of Christ, the necessity of the atonement, the reality of judgment and resurrection, and the exclusivity of salvation through Christ (Acts 4:12; Romans 10:9–10). The life that Christianity produces flows from these truths—not the other way around.

Liberalism’s Opposition to Doctrine Is Itself a Doctrine

Liberalism claims to reject doctrinal rigidity in favor of a more fluid, experience-centered faith. Yet, this is misleading. Liberal theology still holds doctrines—it simply replaces biblical ones with modern philosophical or humanitarian ideals, such as:

The universal fatherhood of God (which denies the biblical distinction between God’s general sovereignty and redemptive relationship—John 1:12),
The universal brotherhood of man (contradicting John 8:44, where Jesus distinguishes those who reject him),
The belief that religion evolves with culture and must be redefined to remain relevant.

These are doctrines too—unbiblical ones—and they require just as much intellectual and moral commitment as traditional Christian teaching. As the article notes, liberalism does not eliminate theological conviction; it simply smuggles in a new religion under Christian symbols.

Historical Christianity Was Always Doctrinal

Modern attempts to reclaim a “pure” Christianity supposedly found in Jesus’ ethical teaching alone are deeply flawed. Even the earliest Christian community, grounded in Jesus’ resurrection, proclaimed not merely Jesus’ example but his redemptive work. Jesus did not present himself as a moral sage; he taught authoritatively, performed miracles, claimed divine prerogatives, and foretold his death as a ransom (Mark 10:45). His words at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:28) explicitly interpret his death as sacrificial and covenantal, echoing Isaiah 53.

Moreover, Paul did not invent Christianity’s doctrinal center, as some liberal critics claim. His teachings are continuous with the Jerusalem church, as seen in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5 and Galatians 2:1–9. The message Paul “received” was already circulating among the earliest followers of Jesus. To dismiss Paul is to dismantle much of the New Testament and ignore the historical unity of early Christian belief.

Christianity vs. Liberalism: Competing Messages

The article emphasizes that the difference between Christianity and liberalism is not one of degree but of kind. Christianity is rooted in God’s action—his initiative in saving sinners through Jesus Christ. Liberalism is rooted in human potential and the adaptation of religion to human culture. The former is about grace, the latter about effort and sentiment.

This is most clearly seen in the debate over justification. Paul insists that faith alone justifies (Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16). The Judaizers—whom he condemns—agreed with Paul about Christ’s identity and resurrection but added Mosaic law as necessary for salvation. Paul said such a gospel was not another gospel at all (Galatians 1:6–9). This was not a minor dispute—it was about the gospel’s very essence. In our time, liberalism’s rejection of sin, substitutionary atonement, and judgment undermines the gospel in the same way.

This distinction is vital. Liberalism may seem gentle, even noble, but it is a rival religion, not a reinterpretation of Christianity. To say Jesus is a moral teacher but not the risen Son of God who bore wrath in our place is to preach another gospel, which Paul condemns in the strongest terms.

The Role of Doctrine in the Christian Life

The article is careful to clarify that Christianity is more than doctrine—it is also a life of transformation and holiness (Titus 2:11–14). But the life stems from the doctrine. Ethical exhortation without redemptive truth is powerless. This is why the early Christians succeeded where ancient philosophers and modern motivational speakers fail: they proclaimed a message of divine intervention in Christ, not mere moral improvement.

Christianity’s moral demands are not general principles for society. They apply to those who have been regenerated (John 3:3), indwelt by God’s Spirit, and forgiven through the blood of Christ. The Sermon on the Mount, so often praised by liberals, makes no sense apart from the cross. Its demands (Matthew 5:48) are unattainable without grace.

Doctrinal Unity and Christian Fellowship

The article also provides a careful balance. While some doctrines are non-negotiable (e.g., Christ’s deity, resurrection, substitutionary death), others—like eschatological details or sacramental views—allow for fellowship among sincere believers. However, Christian fellowship ends where the gospel is denied. Liberalism, by rejecting the gospel’s core doctrines, places itself outside the bounds of Christian unity. This is not harshness but fidelity to the truth (2 John 9–11).

Conclusion: Christianity’s Message Is Doctrinal and Historical

Acts 1:8 captures the church’s calling: to be witnesses—not to feelings or philosophies, but to events: Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. These facts, interpreted by inspired doctrine, form the heart of Christianity.

Liberalism rejects this. Its sentimental gospel cannot save. It softens sin, blurs redemption, and promotes a god made in human image. True Christianity, however, is about what God has done, not what we feel or do. It begins not with our experience, but with God’s grace.

The church’s mission, then and now, is to proclaim this truth—clearly, boldly, and without apology. As in Machen’s time, doctrinal clarity is not a hindrance to spiritual life—it is its lifeblood.

Donations

You May Also Enjoy

The Q Document: A Biblical Apologetics Refutation of the Hypothetical Source Behind the Synoptic Gospels

About the Author

J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937) was a prominent American theologian and New Testament scholar, known for his staunch defense of orthodox Christianity against the rising tide of theological liberalism in the early 20th century. His works continue to be influential among conservative Christian scholars and lay readers alike.