Category: Uncategorized

“People hate the truth for the sake of whatever it is that they love more than the truth. They love the truth when it shines warmly on them, and hate it when it rebukes them.” – Saint Augustine of Hippo

J. Gresham Machen engaged the modern liberalism of the Presbyterian Church in a battle for objective, propositional and biblical truth. The so-called indifferentists increasingly dominated Princeton Seminary. These were not liberals or even modernists, but rather moderates who wanted everyone to just get along. They championed unity instead of truth. They held a compromising attitude by allowing the modernist, liberal presence to seize leadership; not only at Princeton but also in the Presbyterian Church USA.

“The moderates were driven by an almost desperate sense of maintaining unity, cultivating an environment of tolerance – except, or course, of the hard-liner fundamentalists,” explains Dr. Stephen J. Nichols.

Ultimately the issue at this time was about authority and not tolerance. Who has ultimate authority in the church, and para-church organizations, remains the question throughout generations? It is a dispute over the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Do the Scriptures alone possess the ultimate and divine standard for the faith and practice of believers in Christ? Or can the organized church, or para-church organizations such as a seminary, supersede the Scriptures with an authority of their own?

The battle that increasingly and theologically burned in the Presbyterian Church and Princeton Seminary in the 1920’s, continues to spread a century later in the Christian Reformed Church, the United Methodist Church and the churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. The battle for the Bible rages on.

“As Machen famously observed, theological liberalism was no upgraded form of Christianity but an altogether different religion seated in the naturalist/humanist doctrines of the day,” states Dr. David B. Garner, professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia.    

“Machen ably exposed the new religion, its new dogma, and its self-appointed authority. It differs from Christianity in its view of God, of man, of the seat of authority and of the way of salvation.”

Machen contended, as should we, that Scripture alone is the final seat of authority. God inspired it (2 Timothy 3:16-17), God reveals Himself in and through it (2 Peter 1:19-21), and the believer in Christ is sanctified by it (Psalm 1; 19; 119; John 17:17; Hebrews 4:11-13).  

“Armed with the divine Word, Machen spoke with keen insight, sincere compassion, and disarming clarity. He challenged liberalism’s dogmas: its repudiation of the supernatural, its sinful decimation of sin, its arrogant bluster over the ultimate goodness of mankind, its perverse eclipse of historic theology behind a mirage of heartwarming tolerance, and its crafty turning of Jesus into a guru rather than God. Rather than Rome’s magisterial authority, the reigning voice of the day was theological liberalism, founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men,” explains Dr. Garner.

Sentiment replaced Scripture. Therefore, the Bible could mean whatever anyone wanted it to mean. Biblical definitions and doctrines were no longer important or necessary. The church strove for religious exploration and experience, but not dogma. Machen exposed this cunning and pernicious deception.

“Let us not deceive ourselves. A Jewish teacher of the first century can never satisfy the longing of our souls. Clothe Him with all the art of modern research, throw upon Him the warm, deceptive calcium-light of modern sentimentality; and despite it all common sense will come to its rights again, and for our brief hour of self-deception—as though we had been with Jesus—will wreak havoc upon us the revenge of hopeless disillusionment,” wrote Machen.

While the fallen world, and the apostate church, cries freedom, they willingly submit to a cruel and evil master. The deceived fall prey to the same deception that befell the man and the woman in Eden (Gen. 3:1-21).

“Emancipation from the blessed will of God always involves bondage to some worse taskmaster. Let it not be said that dependence upon a book is a dead or artificial thing. The Reformation of the sixteenth century was founded upon the authority of the Bible, yet it set the world aflame. Dependence upon a word of man would be slavish, but dependence upon God’s word is life. Dark and gloomy would be the world, if we were left to our own devices, and had no blessed Word of God. The Bible, to the Christian is not a burdensome law, but the very Magna Charta of Christian liberty,” explained Machen.

Feelings come and feelings go,
And feelings are deceiving;
My warrant is the Word of God–
Naught else is worth believing.

Though all my heart should feel condemned
For want of some sweet token,
There is One greater than my heart
Whose Word cannot be broken.

I’ll trust in God’s unchanging Word
Till soul and body sever,
For, though all things shall pass away,
HIS WORD SHALL STAND FOREVER!” ― Martin Luther

Soli deo Gloria!

“To despise doctrine is to despise the Word of God.” – R. C. Sproul

“False teaching is easily identified by the fact that it is willingly received by all and is to everyone’s liking.” – John Calvin

“Holy Scripture is the highest authority for every believer, the standard of faith and the foundation for reform.” – John Wycliffe

Chapter Two of J. Gresham Machen’s book Christianity and Liberalism addresses the biblical doctrine of God and Man. Our view of God will determine our view of man. Likewise, our view of man will determine our view of God. Both theology (the study of God) and anthropology (the study of man) are mutually dependent.

“The crisis of modern humanity is found in the rupture between anthropology and theology, between the study of human beings and the study of God,” explains Dr. R. C. Sproul.  

“When our story is told in isolation or divorced from the story of God, then it indeed becomes, as Shakespeare’s Macbeth noted, ‘a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.’ If we are considered without reference to God, we become a ‘useless passion’ as philosopher John Paul Sartre declared,”

A useless passion is human life characterized by intense emotions which accomplish nothing. It is a striving in futility because life, without God, or a limited God, results in meaninglessness.

Machen recognized that modern religious liberalism undermined the need for a knowledge, or conception, of God. The liberal argued that God does need to be known from Scripture. Mankind just needs to feel the presence of some so-called deity; in a preferably vague and general sense. It was this growing perspective in the Presbyterian church of Machen’s day that caused him great grief.

“Liberalism had erased the Creator-creature distinction that is so fundamental to true Christianity. It had instead produced a pantheistic God who is simply part of the “world process.” God was no longer a distinct being; His life was in our life and our life was in His life,” explains Old Testament scholar Dr. Jonathan Gibson.  

“Modern liberalism, even when it is not consistently pantheistic, is at any rate pantheizing. It tends everywhere to break down the separateness between God and the world, and the sharp distinction between God and man,” stated Machen.

Machen stressed the importance of acknowledging the immanence but also the transcendence of Almighty God. God is holy (Isaiah 6:1-7) Machen understood and it was this truth that he believed the modern liberal church had rejected. This resulted in a misunderstanding of mankind’s lost condition and along with this a personal consciousness of sin. Man was now viewed as morally good and no longer radically depraved. As one church recently posted on its marquis, “God Thinks You’re Fabulous.” This was the perspective of the modern liberal church of Machen’s day, and also today’s postmodern liberal church.

What are the two foundational truths concerning God and man? How are believers in Christ to understand the gulf that exists between the two?

First, there is the Creator/Creature Distinction. This is revealed in Genesis 1-2. Man is not the Creator, God is. God is infinite, man is finite. God is eternal, man is temporary. God is unchangeable, man is in constant change or flux. God possesses life in Himself while man receives life, in all its forms, from God. God is immortal, while man is mortal.

Second, there is the Holy/Sinful Distinction. This is a serious and present reality but one which the modern liberal church dismisses with a cavalier attitude.

The only message that effectively and truthfully addresses this issue is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God has justified, redeemed and reconciled sinners by grace alone, through faith alone by the person and work of Jesus Christ alone. This truthful message is the only hope for the fallen world and the compromising, liberal church.

Soli deo Gloria!   

“It is better to be divided by truth than united in error.” – Dr. Steven J. Lawson

Chapter One of J. Gresham Machen’s book Christianity and Liberalism addresses the subject of doctrine. Not just doctrine in general, but biblical doctrine in particular.

What is doctrine? Doctrine (διδασκαλία; didaskalia) is instruction and teaching contained in, and communicated from, God’s Word, the Bible (I Tim. 1:10; 4:6; 2 Tim. 3:16; Titus 1:9; 2:1; Heb. 6:1).  

It has become popular among churches, and church leaders, to abide by the maxims “Deeds not Creeds” and “Doctrine Divides, but Love Unites.” The perspective is that how we live for Christ is far more important than what we teach about Christ. The ultimate goal is that we all get along with one another. In other words, fellowship and experience is more important than objective, propositional and biblical truth. Machen encountered this perspective in the theological liberalism of his day.

“At the outset, we are met with this objection. Teachings, it is said, are unimportant; the exposition of the teachings of liberalism and the teachings of Christianity, therefore, can arouse no interest at the present day. Creeds are merely the changing expression of a unitary Christian experience, and provided only they express that experience they are all equally good. The teachings of liberalism, therefore, might be as far removed as possible from the teachings of historic Christianity, and yet the two might be at bottom the same,” stated Machen in explaining religious liberalism.   

Machen understood that at the heart of theological liberalism was a hostility to biblical doctrine. He argued that liberalism had its own doctrine, as previously expressed in this brief article and summarized by the phrase “the universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood of man.”

What modern liberalism rejects are the doctrines contained in Scripture and in the historic creeds of the church. Liberalism believes that God is not understood but experienced. God is not knowable but felt. Therefore, there can be no objective, absolute truth claims. Experience is supreme. Machen understood the ramifications of this perspective.

“That meaning is perfectly plain. The objection involves and out-and-out skepticism. If all creeds are equally true, then since they are contradictory to one another, they are all equally false, or at least equally uncertain. To say that all creeds are equally true, and that they are based upon experience, is merely to fall back upon that agnosticism which fifty years ago was regarded as the deadliest enemy of the Church. According to the Christian conception, a creed is not a mere expression of Christian experience, but on the contrary it is a setting forth of those facts upon which experience is based.”

Machen contended that Christianity was a doctrine and not just a life. The Christian life was rooted and grounded in biblical doctrine. To say otherwise was to be radically false. Machen contended that Christianity could be subjected to historical investigation regarding its origin.

“Christianity is an historical phenomenon, like the Roman Empire, of the Kingdom of Prussia, or the United States of America. As an historical phenomenon, it must be investigated on the basis of historical evidence. The question of what Christianity is can be determined only by an examination of the beginnings of Christianity.”  

Machen argued that the Christian movement was never just a way of living in the modern sense. It was never about moralism. Rather, it was a way of life founded upon a message. Christianity has never been about what Jesus would do, but rather what Jesus has done. Christianity was not based upon mere emotions, or a program, but rather upon an account of facts. Christianity was based upon doctrine. This doctrine begins in Genesis 1:1 and concludes in Revelation 22:21 and is sustained by all points in between.

“The primitive Church was concerned not merely with what Jesus had said, but also, and primarily, with what Jesus had done. The world was to be redeemed through the proclamation of an event. And with that event went the meaning of the event; and the setting forth of the event with the meaning of the event was doctrine. These two elements are always combined in the Christian message. The narration of the facts is history; the narration of the facts with the meaning of the facts is doctrine. ‘Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried’ – that is history. ‘He loved me and gave Himself for me’—that is doctrine. Such was the Christianity of the primitive Church.”

Machen contended that this was to be the Christianity of the twentieth century. This is to be the Christianity of the twenty-first century and beyond.

Soli deo Gloria!   

“In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight.” – J. Gresham Machen

J. Gresham Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism is a relatively short book. My Kindle edition is only 94 pages. Machen concisely presented his support of orthodox Christianity in just six chapters, along with an introduction. The chapter titles include the following: (1) Doctrine; (2) God and Man; (3) The Bible; (4) Christ; (5) Salvation; and (6) The Church. Today, we examine Machen’s introductory thoughts.

From the outset. Machen sought to be conciliatory but not compromising with those with whom he disagreed. He stated that, “Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder, but it always benefits in the end.”  He understood that he would be praised, and persecuted, for what he wrote. Ultimately, his focus was on the ultimate goal of defending orthodox Christianity. It was a worthy goal. It still is.

Machen did not ignore the changes that had occurred in civilization and society. He acknowledged that modern inventions and industrialism created a new world. To isolate and ignore this was unthinkable.

With the rise of the modern scientific age, Machen understood that the past would be scrutinized and subjected to what he called a searching criticism. He sensed that with the embracing of the present, this coincided with a rejection of the past. He knew that the church would face such an examination and searching criticism for “no institution has based itself more squarely upon the authority of a bygone age,” wrote Machen.

“We are not now inquiring whether such policy is wise or historically justifiable; in any case the fact itself is plain that Christianity during many centuries has consistently appealed for the truth of its claims not merely and not even primarily to current experience, but to certain ancient books the most recent of which was written some nineteen hundred years ago. Inevitably, the question arises whether first century religion can ever stand in company with twentieth-century science.”   

This was the problem facing the modern church in Machen’s day in the twentieth century. It remains the problem facing the modern church in our twenty-first century day and time.

Machen’s overall thesis in Christianity and Liberalism was the relation between Christianity and modern culture and whether Christianity could be maintained in a scientific age. Machen understood that this was what modern liberalism sought to answer. However, Machen believed that by abandoning the truth of biblical doctrine, modern liberals had given themselves over to the enemy and that there could be no compromise with those who had done so.  

“Mere concessiveness, therefore, will never succeed in avoiding the intellectual conflict. In the intellectual battle of the present day there can be no peace without victory; one side or the other must win,” stated Machen.

Machen criticized modern liberalism in two areas. First, on the grounds that what they were doing and teaching was unchristian or un-doctrinal. Second, that what they were doing and teaching was equally unscientific. Machen’s primary concern and emphasis concerned the former issue and not the latter. He was fully persuaded that the true church was more than capable of warding off what he called the assaults of modern unbelief.

“In showing that the liberal attempt at rescuing Christianity is false we are not showing that there is no way of rescuing Christianity at all. On the contrary, it may appear incidentally, even in the present little book, that it is not the Christianity of the New Testament which is in conflict with science, but the supposed Christianity of the modern liberal church, and that the real city of God, and that city alone, has defenses which are capable of warding off the assaults of modern unbelief,” explained Machen.

Machen wondered that in the midst of all the achievements of modern life, had mankind lost its soul? Was there some lost secret that would restore to mankind the glories of the past? Machen knew there was.

“Such a secret the writer of this little book would discover in the Christian religion. But the Christian religion which is meant is certainly not the religion of the modern, liberal church, but a message of divine grace, almost forgotten now, as it was in the middle ages, but destined to burst forth once more in God’s good time, in a new Reformation, and bring light and freedom to mankind,”

“By showing what Christianity is not we hope to be able to show what Christianity is, in order that men may be led to turn from weak and beggarly elements and have recourse again to the grace of God.”

Soli deo Gloria!  

“In trying to remove from Christianity everything that could possibly be objected to in the name of science, in trying to bribe off the enemy by those concessions which the enemy most desires, the apologist has really abandoned what he started out to defend. Here, as in many other departments of life, it appears that the things that are sometimes thought to be the hardest to defend are also the things that are most worth defending.” – J. Gresham Machen

The 1922-1923 academic year was a busy one for J. Gresham Machen. Along with his teaching responsibilities, he was also involved in various speaking engagements, Bible studies and writing projects. His publications included two books: New Testament Greek for Beginners and Christianity and Liberalism. Both works remain in print.

The content of Machen’s various addresses included such topics as What is Christianity, The Fundamentals of the Christian Faith and Is Christianity True. These messages would comprise the foundation of his seminal work.

“With Warfield’s passing, and others in the fundamentalist camp consumed with issues of eschatology or revivalism or cultural issues such as Prohibition, it fell to Machen to offer the scholarly defense of Christianity,” explains Dr. Stephen J. Nichols.

The theological liberals of Machen’s day argued that Christianity needed to adapt to modern times or it would find itself out of step. In other words, the Gospel would not be in conformity with the prevailing worldview of life and living. Things have not changed much in a hundred years.

One such liberal, Professor Shailer Matthews in his book The Faith of Modernism, wrote that the doctrine of Jesus Christ as the God-Man must no longer be believed. Other biblical doctrines that were to be rejected included the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

While there were many other individuals and institutions opposed to biblical Christianity at this time, none was as prominent as Pastor Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969). Born in Buffalo, New York, Fosdick graduated from Colgate University in 1900 and from Union Theological Seminary in 1904. He was ordained a Baptist minister in 1903 at Madison Avenue Baptist Church in New York City. He served in several churches and ministries until he became the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Manhattan in 1918. Fosdick was not only a charismatic personality, but he also had the support of America’s richest man, John D. Rockefeller.

In May 1922, Fosdick preached the sermon Shall the Fundamentalists Win in which he supported the theological liberal modernist position. He rejected the virgin birth of Christ as truth and consequently the deity of Christ. He rejected the orthodox and biblical Gospel. He did not believe the Bible to be the literal Word of God.

“He saw the history of Christianity as one of development, progress, and gradual change. Fundamentalists regarded this as rank apostasy, and the battle-lines were drawn,” writes one historian.

Fosdick’s Christianity is best summarized by Christian ethicist H. Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962). In his book The Kingdom of God in America (1937) Niebuhr criticized the liberal social gospel. He described its message as “a God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”

Machen loved biblical doctrine. He loved the truth of God’s Word and the biblical God of truth. He could not sit idly by while apostasy was proclaimed. He summarized his orthodox thoughts in Christianity and Liberalism. A survey examination of Machen’s book will be our focus in the articles to follow.

Soli deo Gloria!

“Again, men tell us that our preaching should be positive and not negative, that we can preach the truth without attacking error. But if we follow that advice we shall have to close our Bible and desert its teachings. The New Testament is a polemic book almost from beginning to end … It is when men have felt compelled to take a stand against error that they have risen to the really great heights in the celebration of the truth.” – J. Gresham Machen

J. Gresham Machen may not have been looking for a theological fight with the religious progressives in the 1920’s. However, a fight came and Machen was ready to lead in the battle. 

 “The promise of a new century fostered a progressive spirit and an unfettered belief in the goodness and potential accomplishment of man. World War I offered a massive setback, especially in Europe. America, however, being an ocean away and untouched by war directly, ran headlong into the 1920s. “The Roaring Twenties,” they would call it. The description for this greater period is modernism. The rejection of God and the dismissal of religion sit atop the list of modernism’s endeavors. This cultural bomb landed hard on the American church,” explains Dr. Stephen J. Nichols.

The scientific progress of the Twentieth Century resulted in many individuals leaving the church and leaving God behind. Church leaders began to rethink and attack biblical doctrine and theological convictions. They wanted to be in sync with the culture. Many church leaders today are committing the same error in judgment. They seek to be cool or “rock star” pastors. What a tragedy.

In spite of the publication of The Fundamentals (1910-1915), religious modernism began to take hold of Protestant churches, seminaries, and entire denominations. Religious progressives subtly attacked biblical doctrines. They denied the inerrancy of Scripture, the sovereignty of God, the sinfulness of man, the virgin birth of Christ, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and the bodily resurrection of Christ.

During this time, Machen and his mentor and colleague B.B. Warfield remained close comrades in holding fast to biblical truth. The aging Warfield exhorted his younger colleague to continue the work that he was doing at Princeton. He encouraged him to hold firmly to your biblical course and convictions.

When Warfield died in 1921, Machen deeply mourned his passing. In writing to his mother, Machen wrote, “Princeton will seem an insipid place without him. There is no one living in the church capable of occupying one quarter of his place. To me, he was an incalculable help and supporter ion a hundred different ways.”

When Machen recalled the removal of Warfield’s casket following his memorial service, he wrote, “It seems to me that the Old Princeton – a great institution it was – died when Dr. Warfield was carried out.”

The leadership mantle of preaching truth and attacking error fell upon Machen. He began publishing scholarly works, such as The Origin of Paul’s Religion.

“Robust, rigorous and responsible scholarship would mark all of his efforts in defending the faith. A better successor to Warfield could not be found,” states Dr. Nichols.

The church needed the right man for this moment in its history. The Lord raised up the right man for the appropriate moment.

Soli deo Gloria!

“In the sphere of religions, in particular, the present time is a time of conflict; the great redemptive religion which has always been known as Christianity is battling against a totally diverse type of religious belief, which is only the more destructive of the Christian faith because it makes use of traditional Christian terminology.” – J. Gresham Machen.

What Machen wrote in 1923 remains true today. We often hear, “Deeds not creeds.” Yet that statement is a creed or doctrine. Machen understood, as should all believers in Christ, that the Scriptures teach both (Eph. 2:8-10; James 2:14-26). An understanding of biblical doctrine impacts biblical behavior. Biblical behavior displays an understanding of biblical doctrine.

“The head or the heart? The mind or the emotions? The will or the affections? Often, we’re tempted to think of them as opposite ends of the spectrum. We can either be filled with information or be ‘filled with the Spirit’ (understood here in the emotional sense),” explains biblical apologist Gregory Koukl. “Both head and heart are important.”

As a young Princeton professor, Machen struggled in understanding this necessary biblical balance. Machen did not desire a biblical intellectualism without faith. Neither did he desire a faith devoid of intellect. He pursued a rigorous scholarship and a vital piety.

 “He (Machen) longed for piety and intellect fused into one, an intellectually informed and compelling faith,” writes Dr. Stephen J. Nichols. “He had forgotten the vital piety he had seen in his home, and for that matter, at Princeton. But he also needed to hear that the vital piety was founded on intellectual merit. The faith that Machen would be defending in the years to come would be no blind faith.”

Machen proved to be a popular professor with the students at Princeton. He interacted with students within, and outside of, the classroom. In spite of other teaching offers, he chose to remain at Princeton.

However, the threats of theological liberalism appeared on the horizon. This looming danger was met with the publication of The Fundamentals (1910-1915). It was a series of combined articles defending biblical Christianity. Contributing authors included C. I. Scofield and Princeton’s B.B. Warfield. 

With the outbreak of World War I, Machen applied his biblical intellectualism and vital piety into practice by serving overseas in the humanitarian efforts of the YMCA. He often led Bible studies among the soldiers, Machen served on the front lines often in the midst of gunfire, bombs, and the noise of airplanes. He encountered destroyed villages and the remains of countless dead. He served among both French and American soldiers.

Following the end of the war in 1918, Machen returned to Princeton. He returned, as did others, a changed man. He was no longer the same quiet professor enjoying the hallowed halls of academia. He would soon face another battlefront, just as important and devastating as the one he encountered in Europe.

“With World War I over, the battle for the faith was only beginning. Through the first two decades of the twentieth century, Machen had been engaged only in the periphery, and most of the time he was not sure that he wanted to be engaged even at that level. In the next decade, all of that would change. As the “Roaring Twenties” came in full force, Machen emerged as the premier defender of the faith,” explains Dr. Nichols.  

Soli deo Gloria!

“I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: ² preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. ³ For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, ⁴ and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (2 Timothy 4:1–4 ESV)

“I am so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it.” – J. Gresham Machen, January 1, 1937.

2023 marks the 100^th anniversary of the publication of the book Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen. It will be advantageous to examine the content and the enduring legacy of Machen’s life and classic work. Let’s begin by identifying the individual and ministry of J. Gresham Machen. Who was this man and why are his writings significant today?

John Gresham Machen (1881-1937) was an American Presbyterian New Testament scholar and educator in the early 20th century. He was the Professor of New Testament at Princeton Seminary between 1906 and 1929.

Machen eventually led a movement against the Modernist Theology at Princeton and formed Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia (1929). As the Northern Presbyterian Church continued to embrace modern theological liberalism, Machen also led a small group of conservative pastors and leaders out of the denomination to form the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1936). 

John Gresham Machen was born in Baltimore, Maryland, on July 28, 1881, to Arthur Webster Machen and Mary Jones Gresham. Arthur was a successful Baltimore attorney. While Arthur was an Episcopalian, Mary was a Presbyterian. She taught her three sons, Arthur Jr., Thomas and middle son John Gresham the Westminster Shorter Catechism from an early age. The family attended Franklin Street Presbyterian Church.

Even as a child, evidenced by his report cards that his mother kept, Machen was an intelligent young man and destined to be a scholar. He excelled in geometry, algebra, Latin, Greek, French, natural science and English by age fourteen. The question was not if he would attend college, but where?  

Following graduation from high school, Machen attended John Hopkins University where he also excelled. Following graduation, Machen took an extended trip to Europe. He visited many cities and museums. However, what captivated him most were the mountains. Mountain climbing became his favorite recreational activity.

Upon returning from Europe, Machen remained uncertain as to his career. He began graduate studies at John Hopkins, and also spent a summer studying international law and banking at the University of Chicago. Machen eventually decided to enroll at Princeton Theological Seminary. He did not consider a call to the pastorate. However, he became a professor and Princeton would remain his home from 1902 -1929.

Machen loved Princeton. Although he was an avid scholar, his activities were not solely academic. He enjoyed Princeton football. “The football at Princeton is a continual delight to me,” he wrote. He also enjoyed Philadelphia baseball.

Machen would serve alongside fellow professor Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, known as the “Lion of Old Princeton.” However, it would be William Park Armstrong who taught Machen the New Testament. Armstrong recognized Machen’s potential and following Machen’s professorship, he would become the young scholar’s beloved mentor.

However, theological storms were on the horizon; not only at Princeton but also in Machen’s personal life. He entered into a dark night of the soul. It was this personal and professional period of crisis that we will examine when next we meet.

Soli deo Gloria!