Machen Chapter 4

How then, can we connect the historical events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection with our modern life and experiences?

      This is a question I have wrestled with in recent years. First, the ramifications of what it means that Jesus was actually a living, historical person. And once you've come to terms with that, then understanding what that actually means for you, a person of the 21st century.
      Machen seeks to tie these points together, while combating the liberalist idea that Christian experience is enough to connect us with Christ. 
       His main point is that, as he mentions on page 60, "Christianity depends, not on a complex of ideas, but upon the narration of an event." This is how Christianity is unlike other religions. It is dependent on a specific event.
      Machen's main point is that this historical event has taken place, but it has effects on people today. We cannot separate these points; both of these truths are necessary for the Christian faith. What the liberalist Christians seek to do is say that the historical event doesn't matter, only the Christian experience that we feel today does.
     Machen argues this with the fact that Christian experience must be based off of the historical events; otherwise, it isn't Christianity.
   
       "Christian experience is rightly used when it helps to convince us that the events narrated in the New Testament actually did occur; but it can never enable us to be Christians whether the events occurred or not" (62).

       To speak on the flip-side of that, I think maybe in Western Christian society, we have almost gone the exact opposite and removed the validity of Christian experience altogether. In fear of those who have denied the historical events, we have almost made it almost entirely about the historical facts. So I appreciate Machen emphasizing that Christian experience does have a rightful place; however, that place is being checked against the historical truths of Jesus.
   
        God works in many mysterious and wonderful ways; but these will always be consistent with who He has revealed himself as in the inerrant Scriptures.

Machen Chapter 3

In Machen's 3rd chapter 

                    he begins to discuss man's relationship with God. He asks the question, "How then shall God be known?" (48), and begins to unfold this idea that God must be known not only through Jesus, as some liberalists would argue, but there must be another foundation before this. He then goes on to distinguish two types of knowledge: knowledge of God and a relationship with God. He continues on to explain how liberalists like the idea of the universal fatherhood of God (meaning, God is the father of all humankind), and how this differs from what Christianity actually preaches. He makes the case that Christianity does not offer less than universal fatherhood, but rather, more. 

           He closes the chapter discussing how liberalism's view of God is not the only difference, but also its view of man. They see man as inherently good, thus devoid of basically any morality, whereas Christianity understands that man is completely sinful -a reality that must first drive Christians to complete repentance, but then ultimately to complete Joy. 

     So what do I make of these points? I think the discussion of man & God is an incredibly important regarding the doctrine of Christianity, and indeed, is one of which I still have a lot of processing to do. However, it was a little surprising to me that Machen went as far as he did about the revelation of Jesus not being enough knowledge about God. He makes the point that in order to understand what it means that Jesus is God, you must have some type of concept about God, and I suppose that is true. However, his argument almost seemed to go a little too far.

        The main issue I had with this part of the book is that he seems to separate the idea of God and Jesus too much; almost splitting the Trinity in an unhealthy manner. If Jesus is the greatest revelation of God, because He was God walking on the earth, then the point must be made that He is the best way to understand God. Of course, we have the rest of the Bible, and we also have our own experiences with God, but Jesus is the Emmanuel, "God with us." The direction Machen went with his argument made me a little comfortable because it felt like it was undermining not only the significance of Jesus' presence on the earth, but seemed to distinguish Jesus from God so much that he seemed to be talking about two separate beings. 

         The issue I have with this could quickly lead into nit-picking language and doctrine almost too much, but I do believe if Jesus is God, then all of God's characteristics (and the very fact that He has a relationship with humans) applies to both Jesus and the Father. 

      Aside from this point, I think his points on the fatherhood of God as well as the sin of man & Christians' response to this truth were very good points, and if we as Christians believe these doctrines to be true, we should truly be the happiest people on the earth. So the question begs to be asked -why aren't we?

Machen Chapter 2

IN CHAPTER TWO of Machen's Christianity & Liberalism, Machen introduces how liberalism and Christianity's doctrine differ, with this chapter focusing mainly on the doctrine of Christianity. Machen goes about presenting questions appearing to be from the liberalist's side about the Bible/the Gospel, and then proceeds to answer them.
     The most interesting topic I found in this chapter was Machen's point of Jesus in history versus Jesus in doctrine. I think this is an incredibly difficult and delicate balance to find, even in the mind of a Christian, let alone someone who denies the majority of the Bible.
    The first point Machen makes is that Christianity was founded on lives changed based on a doctrine, and not the other way around. What does this mean for us? It means our experience does not shape (or should not shape) the basic fundamentals of Christianity, but that these truths should shape our experiences with God! This can be seen Biblically with the case of Paul -the message of the Gospel was given to him, and that is when his life turned around.
     I appreciate what Machen wrote: " 'Christ died' -that is history; 'Christ died for our sins' -that is doctrine" (23). He also says, "The narration of the facts is history; the narration of the facts with meaning of the facts is doctrine" (25).
     So what does this mean for us as Christians? This is the question I have personally been wrestling with the past year. Although I think my problem has been the opposite of what a liberalist's would be -I have focused so long on the doctrine of Christianity, that it wasn't until last year that I really started trying to understand who the "historical" Jesus was. Of course, He is the same person. But to really grasp the understanding that our "doctrinal" or "religious" God in fact became human in history... it was not something that had been adequately expressed to me. While I'm still trying to understand the ramifications of what that actually means in my life, I do think it is important to accept. Jesus was not simply a character made up to believe in. He walked the earth. What's more, Christianity burst on the sight because of the people who actually walked and talked with him. Christianity, against all odds, spread like wildfire and resisted so many attacks against it, and this is both historical and doctrinal.  
     THUS, CHRISTIANITY WAS BASED OFF of a proclamation of an event, an event that was both foretold by Jesus Himself and shared afterward by his disciples. This doctrine continues to be the core of what Christianity is and is worth fighting for -an historical event that carries significant doctrinal implications.