Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 40:157 (Jan 1883)
Article: The Argument From Christian Experience For The Inspiration Of The Bible
Author: Frank Hugh Foster

BSac 40:157 (Jan 1883) p. 97

The Argument From Christian Experience For The Inspiration Of The Bible

Rev. Frank H. Foster

The general course of the argument for the inspiration of the Scriptures is well understood. Having proved the existence and the benevolence of God, the theologian deduces from man’s need, of a revelation its, antecedent probability. In examining the question whether the Bible is this revelation, he proceeds from the genuineness to the authenticity of the Scriptures, and then to their claims for themselves, and closes the argument thus conducted with an appeal to the gracious work wrought by the Scriptures as confirmatory of their claims. This is an argument partly rational and partly critical. In its more particular application to the Bible it is entirely critical, since it rests upon the results of historical criticism in respect to the authorship and contents of the sacred books as its foundation. It has consequently certain disadvantages, at least from an apologetic point of view. So long as facts of history constitute a part of the argument, the whole is likely to be shaken with every assault upon these facts. Could another way be found to arrive at the same results independently of historical criticism, this disadvantage would be overcome. The suggestion of such a way is contained in the appeal with which the common argument closes to the results which the Bible has secured, and it is our purpose in this article to develop this argument independently of all other arguments, as in itself sufficient to prove the proposition that the Bible is the word of God. It will be found, we believe, to serve at the same time as a subsidiary proof, by its retro-active influence,

BSac 40:157 (Jan 1883) p. 98

of the soundness of the historical elements of the common argument.

Let us be clearly understood. We do not propose the new argument as an entire substitute for the old, or because we believe the old untenable, or in danger of becoming so. Some theologians have held this view and in their fears for Christianity have gone so far as to say that it is more or less a matter of indifference whether the historical arguments for Christianity are true or not. The eternal spiritual truth, they say, does not depend upon the person either of our Lord, or of his apostles, Sin is sin, and duty is duty, whether Christ died and rose from the dead, or not. But this seems to us a great mistake. With Paul we say: “If Christ hath not been raised, our faith is vain.” Christianity is a historical religion, and with its historical facts it stands or falls. The earliest Christian creed is nothing but a statement of facts, and with these the life of the church from the first has been in the most intimate connection. If Christ did not rise from the dead according to this creed...