§ 128. The authority of Holy Scripture cannot be the foundation of faith in Christ; rather must the latter be presupposed before a peculiar authority can be granted to Holy Scripture. 1. The polemical first part of this proposition is solely due to the fact that what we here deny is actually asserted. Possibly as a matter of fact it is more widely held than definitely stated, for all text-books and Confessions which put the doctrine of Scripture as the source of Christian faith in the foreground seem distinctly to favour this view. Hence it is necessary thoroughly to expose the underlying misconception. If faith in Jesus as the Christ or as the Son of God and the Redeemer of men is to be based on the authority of Scripture, the question arises how this authority itself is to be based; for obviously the thing must be so done as to impress the conviction on unbelieving hearts, so that they too may by this path come to faith in the Redeemer. Now if we have no point of departure but ordinary reason, the divine authority of Scripture to begin with must admit of being proved on grounds of reason alone; and as against this two points must be kept in mind. First, this always involves a critical and scientific use of the understanding of which not all are capable; on this theory, therefore, only those so gifted can attain to faith in an original and genuine way, while all others would merely have faith at second-hand and on the authority of the experts. Now even in the sphere of faith we might accept such a graded distinction if we were speaking of insight into doctrine or a correct judgment upon different doctrinal interpretations; but to accept it with regard to the possession of genuinely saving faith is incongruous with that equality of all Christians which the Evangelical Church proclaims, and would, as in the Church of Rome, demand from the laity an unqualified and submissive trust in those who alone have access to the grounds of faith. For the right to the Word of God, which we grant to all Christian people, and the zeal with which we seek to maintain it in vital circulation, has nothing to do with the idea that each individual ought to be able to prove that the books of Scripture contain a divine revelation. Secondly, if such proof could be given and if faith could be established in this fashion—if, that is to say, faith, given a certain degree of culture, could be implanted by argument—then on such terms faith might exist in people who feel absolutely no need of redemption, that is quite apart from repentance and change of mind; which means that, having originated in this way, it would not be genuine, living faith at all. In other words, a conviction of this kind, gained through demonstrative proof, would in itself have no value, for of itself it would not result in true living fellowship with Christ. But where the need of redemption is really felt, the faith that makes alive may spring even from a message about Christ which is in no way bound up with the conviction that the books of Scripture possess a special character, but may rest on any other sort of witness that is accompanied by real perception of Christ’s spiritual power—may rest, that is, simply on oral tradition.
- With respect to the grounds of faith, then, we can admit no distinction between different classes. And no more can we admit a distinction between different periods of time; the grounds of faith must be the same for us as for the first Christians. If it be said that in their case, from the Apostles onward, their grounds of faith sprang from their belief in Scripture, that is, in the Old Testament and especially in the prophecies of Christ it contains, we need only add to what was said above on this point that although the Apostles, at the outset of their connexion with Jesus, do describe Him as the Figure whom the prophets foretold, it is impossible to take this as meaning that they had been led to faith in Him by the study of these prophecies and by the comparison of their contents with what they saw and heard in Jesus. On the contrary, it was a direct impression which awakened faith in souls prepared by the testimony of the Baptist, and their description of Jesus was only an expression of this faith combined with their faith in the prophets. Even in their preaching they took the same line. There they first express their faith communicatively by recurring to Jesus’ words and deeds; then they adduce prophetic testimonies in confirmation, And just as their faith sprang from Christ’s preaching of Himself, so in the case of others faith sprang from the preaching of Christ by the Apostles and many more. The New Testament writings are such a preaching come down to us, hence faith springs from them too; but in no sense conditionally on the acceptance of a special doctrine about these writings, as having had their origin in special divine revelation or inspiration. On the contrary, faith might arise in the same way though no more survived than testimonies of which it had to be admitted that, in addition to Christ’s essential witness to Himself and the original preaching of His disciples, they also contained much in detail that had been misinterpreted, or inaccurately grasped, or set in a wrong light owing to confusions of memory.