Why Doctrine is our Life

February 1st, 2013 Post by

In previous articles I have stressed the centrality of justification in Christian doctrine and thus the eminent relevance of doctrine to the people of God.  When we understand such centrality it helps us avoid both legalism and antinomianism or gospel-reductionism.  It keeps us from separating faith from Christ and Christ from His teaching.  After all, Christ Jesus is the chief corner stone of all apostolic and prophetic doctrine (Eph 2:20).  Doctrine teaches the faith (fides quae creditur), being the sustenance of our faith (fides qua creditur), or particular faith (fides particularis; or fides specialis cf. Ap IV, 45), which clings specifically to Christ and His atoning work for the sins of the world.  But we can only have a particular faith from Christian doctrine if the center of all doctrine is the justification of the sinner for Christ’s sake through faith.

The central message of justification is the difference between pure doctrine and empty speculations.  This is evident in Luther’s distinction between the so called acquired or infused faith of the sophists and true (particular) faith.  He writes (Theses Concerning Faith and Law, AE 34:110; cf. Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol 1, 19-33):

17. Acquired faith, or the infused faith of the sophists, says of Christ, “I believe that the Son of God suffered and arose again,” and here it stops.

18. But true faith says, “I certainly believe that the Son of God suffered and arose, but he did this all for me, for my sins, of that I am certain.”

19. “For he died for the sins of the whole world.  But it is most certain that I am some part of the world, therefore, it is most certain that he died also for my sins.”

20. Acquired faith has as the end or use of Christ’s passion mere speculation.  True faith has as the end and use of Christ’s passion life and salvation.

Faith in Christ does not reduce the rest of doctrine.  The Word of God is not powerful on account of the gospel message which it contains.  No, it is per se powerful and eternal.  In fact, it is the Word that actually accomplishes the act of salvation physically (John 1:14) and brings it to you verbally (Rom 10:17).  So in His office and work, by eternally uniting God to man in His own person and eternally reconciling man to God by His own obedience, Jesus thus reveals His Word as centrally evangelical.  This is how St. Paul understands it.  It is one motion.  God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the Word of reconciliation.  There is no separation from God’s act of salvation and Paul’s mission to proclaim it: “Therefore,” Paul says as an ambassador for Christ, “be reconciled to God!”  (2 Cor 5:18ff).  Jesus likewise draws no distinctions of importance between His act of salvation and the preaching of repentance and forgiveness.  “It is necessary,” He says (Luke 24:46-47).  It is just as Luther said, you cannot run to the cross for the forgiveness of sins, “[but] I will find in the sacrament or gospel the word which distributes, presents, offers, and gives to me that forgiveness which was won on the cross.” (Against the Heavenly Prophets, AE 40:212-13)

In his “Luther and the Doctrine of Justification”, (CTQ Vol 48, no. 1, 1984), Robert Preus demonstrates Luther’s understanding of the centrality, importance, and usefulness of justification in Christian theology.  Preus quotes Luther extensively, and one quote particularly shows that justification is “not merely the center of theology; it is the very heart of the content of Christian faith (pg. 2).”  Luther says (as quoted by Preus):

In my heart one article alone rules supreme, that of faith in Christ, by whom, through whom, and in whom all my theological thinking flows back and forth day and night.  And still I find that I have grasped this so high and broad and a deep wisdom only in a weak and poor and fragmentary manner.

Luther’s understanding of doctrine as a body with justification at the center helps us in understanding Hebrews 6:4-6, which reads as follows:

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Luther writes (The Disputation Concerning Justification, AE 34:175):

This is what the epistle does, if you examine the argument, namely, it speaks of the whole teaching of the gospel.  The meaning, then, is this, that whoever has fallen from this teaching of the gospel and has followed some other new teaching and persisted in it, should not be saved and God does not forgive his sins, for he cannot be restored and led back to Christ through any other teaching.  It speaks only of a comparison of teachings, not about customs or human actions, but about the total teaching of the gospel.  It warns that we should not reject or abandon that teaching, but that we should remain in it.  For God, since he established a unique sacrifice through which he saved the people, does not want another as the Turk has.  For he wants this to be a unique Christian teaching through which all men can be saved, and no other.  Nor is it possible for restoration to come through any other teaching.  The author of the epistle, therefore, here deals with specific facts concerning doctrine, because the Jews were led away now to Jupiter, now to other gods.

For those who reject the gospel of the free forgiveness of sins for Christ’s sake through faith yet still claim to hold to some kind of Scriptural doctrine, they only hold Christ in contempt.  In our daily lives we know Jesus by His teaching in which He is at the center.  And so His eternal doctrine is our sustenance.  We can thus say that doctrine saves (1st Tim 4:16) not because of all the little details, but we can say this because its central message is the justification of the sinner before God not on account of his own merits but for the sake of Christ’s obedient suffering and death through faith in Christ, or as Luther simply called it, faith in Christ.  This article unites all doctrine together as one body.  Therefore, doctrine is life, just as the Proverb goes (Prov 4:13):

“Keep hold of instruction; do not let go;

guard her, for she is your life.”






Rules for comments on this site:


Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.


Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.


Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.


If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.


Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.


Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.


We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. Mark Preus
    February 1st, 2013 at 22:04 | #1

    “The Word of God is not powerful on account of the gospel message which it contains.”

    Woudn’t this be a false dichotomy? Certainly God’s Word can’t be separated from the Gospel message which it contains. Isn’t that your point?

    Awesome article!

  2. February 1st, 2013 at 23:26 | #2

    Thanks, Mark. Yes, that is my point.

  3. James Warble
    February 2nd, 2013 at 07:29 | #3

    I think the point that Andrew is making is that the Word of God is not powerful on account of what it does, but on account of whose mouth it proceeds from (Isaiah 55:10-11).

    I agree. Very good article!

    Is this right, by the way? After I read this last night, I made this very argument with a “friend” who is a gospel reductionist. I hung my argument in part on this point, quoting Is. 55.

  4. helen
    February 2nd, 2013 at 08:18 | #4

    @James Warble #2
    I think the point that Andrew is making is that the Word of God is not powerful on account of what it does, but on account of whose mouth it proceeds from (Isaiah 55:10-11).

    Consider Andrew’s next sentence: No, it [the Word] is per se powerful and eternal.

    per se “in itself”

    According to John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”

  5. James Warble
    February 2nd, 2013 at 09:03 | #5

    @helen #3
    To speak of the eternal Word as powerful per se would necessitate speaking of the relationship between the Father and the Son. As Jesus said, “I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works” (John 14:8-11). Therefore also, to speak of the spoken word as powerful per se is nothing more than to say who has spoken it, namely, God.

  6. February 2nd, 2013 at 10:13 | #6

    @Mark Preus #1
    Thanks, Mark. Yes, that’s my point. The Word cannot be separated from the gospel. Jesus’ office, work, and commission of His Apostles solidifies this.

    @James Warble #4
    Yes, I agree. We should therefore speak of the Holy Spirit as united with the preached Word as much as He is united with the whole Trinity. With that in mind, to speak of a Spirit-less Word goes hand-in-hand with denying the Trinity. We could speak of felicitous inconsistencies, but either way enthusiasm is scary.

    Isaiah 55 is a great passage to point out. I often point that out to people to express the efficacy of God’s Word, and then I point to the fact that Jesus the incarnate Word did not return to God without earning our salvation, which proves this fact about God’s Word. I think John is really trying to emphasize this. When Jesus says “I go to My Father,” it is just as God says through Isaiah, “My Word does not return to Me empty.” This is therefore true of the spoken Word as well.

  7. “LC-MS Quotes”
    February 2nd, 2013 at 17:31 | #7

    Doctrine.

    Student: There are no express words in Scripture regarding woman suffrage. And there are no express words in Scripture regarding baptism. How is one a doctrine and then the other only an opinion? Can you help me to understand that?

    Walter A. Maier II: A doctrine is something clearly annunciated in the Scriptures. The Great Commission is an express word to follow. We have no express words talking about that entity we call the voters assembly or that activity we call voting. You don’t find any words about it in the Bible. That’s the difference I would see.

    Alvin J. Schmidt: You know that’s an interesting question, because we use the word doctrine in Synod often in a narrow and in a broad sense. I suppose when you say a vow at the time of installation or ordination on, let’s say, the Confessions and the doctrines. Or you’ve heard, I’m sure by now, that we swear to the doctrines in the Confessions not necessarily to the exegesis. Right? That’s kind of an old saying that goes all the way back to Walther. And then, of course, the Synod’s CTCR itself has at least once, if not twice, wrestled with the issue of what is doctrine. And I guess in part you’re asking that question, too. Why is the one a doctrine relative to baptism, and the other one we call it, perhaps, opinion? I have traditionally seen doctrine defined as something that involves an article of faith. Whereas, some of these other things do not.

    Panel Discussion – Walter A. Maier II, Norbert H. Mueller, Alvin J. Schmidt
    “Woman’s Suffrage”
    Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana
    March 28, 1985

  8. February 10th, 2013 at 18:33 | #8

    but many leaders turn a blind eye away from Truth–and side with apostates help Satan destroy our churches-and pastors who promise to stand firm crumble and run away covering their backsides so as to not lose anything or everything for Christ—Utter whimps and cowards

If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.