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?
No comments:
Post a Comment