whatever interpretat of Christ and His A|i. had definite iil.:i~ .a- t how He came int.. tlii what His death mean: stances, and those only
the language
1.-' it i^ plain that they \li.. (Ill 1-1 was, W'hy and na.il.l, N\liy He died, and To take only a few in- regard to one fact, viz.
Christ's death, it is scarcely a matter for dispute that, when He speaks of giving His life ' a ransom in the place of many ' (Mk 10•'^ Mt 20=«), or of His blood as Covenant-blood ' shed for many unto the remission of sins' {Mt 26°*), He intended to con\-ey
•FACT AKD THKOKY
^
a definite vie.v as to ^J^^^^^^l^^n. The same thing ':°'^1^\7„'''}^ "persoS and Work. Lord's statement'VmUne le ters are occupied to a The whole of t e P^^l^^^^'^tation of the facts of large extent ^vith th? i"t<ill'' , ^ Resurrection, our^ Lord's I"«f:"f,;"„"'t„°::ert that the NT con-
^^^^tl'S^e^^-thei'ir'r^*''^
authority of. tiino'^'^autS, IndstiU insist
nizeasupernatiua re^elaton in ^^j ^^^^^^^ ^^ but who reduce the ^^l ole -^"^^g^y j^ i^man Christianity, ^^f "^amed in the W> reflexion upon these fa.cts (see Kotn ,
fact, IS, to diue u p ,ii,ancloninc; the principle of in i.li"i>m. But rational truth niiciit r.re not Christianity. If „> rliii-tian religion, we must ni, 111 Muril fnrt-i of Christianity -'tivc iiiiriiii"t:ition of them. \,.,v irNrliiiini, i- ouly a product
p. 30«.). Lessing.also |- "tte^ance t. his fa^^^^^^^^ ^^-g^that
* accidental histoncal truths ^i," "^ . j„ regard all of the •eternalrationaltruths' And he^eemed to ^^^ ^^^
historical element in Chnst amtj ^ ace , ^^ j^ ^^^
kernel of Christianrty was ]ust m .ona^^ ^
same way Kant (Vic KtUg- "",, "fV, ._ the abiding kernel of r°™«U«) ™°!l'?"'',^,TcS4 ^he held. C dlthed this ::itiralc?:«on?wS'^l»°»™SS'represent.tions o. eternal
truth. Ficht« ' '"
f^S'^aU"^^SSV^;r:KforeIer;nal ,„,h. Fich.h^MytheSe^^^g^^^^.^'^^;
relipous philosophy and de^trojed for rt IS .^^^ ^^^^ ^^„ „, human reflexion. *"■ oif/Hwel hut with much the same history is seen '" .Sf5^"gp='"?JS; is concerned, because pt residtso fii'-^ ''l^rh?rtSin?tfon between kernel and husk their adherence to the distmction^ .empirical-
History is regarded t^ *^°'/?j'^s ^ffe in the finite spmt. ijLn^feeltto^y'o'j^cSHSi^ n^, important^a.*
^j^^^^^SP'''''"- " '"" "^ '""'
strued upon a pantheiziiiK na » Neo-Hegelian construe
In England, T. H. Green has fc'iv en a 1 ,._»,,„»„ „„^ ,,h.
Englana, i. i'- "'"r:' h" .snhor'dinates' its^'facts and the of Christianity which ?^'™'^'j^™i%hilosophica^ theory
. pp-
[o "ive ui> ""•: authority dination of the facts of in the Eibhrrt Journal,
This is extern;' and rel
; the
liavi
and
Whereas
of the rejiy'i;''- l;'^' ''Y'';;,;',;i,t position opposite
of Christianity, suborrtmating them to a p^ely
iinl the 'ke°mel' of eternal truths of reason. This question of the^importance «« the historical, elementjn
with historic facts
ling historic certitude
held, could not
The objection
C,^S?w^"-=iptheJ^^^^f;,I^F>-,„,,
was not, as more recently, that of -j
The clearest, most ""disputed fa^ ^.^^ ,.,.j_„.„..
support or be the content of f^""^"™ j^^'eal one. Hence all
was therefore a ™^"I'"\'''^,';S\, i,„t outward expressions of
•■■ ; religions \vel_ i.Lnmcn .i. ^^ ^^^ position of the
and, Gcich. der PhU.
t qiint«d show Pauline
they are v-
idea thai li
isadmitteil I'V i""i "' '" Evangelist (see Uemicy, J'
■"''-'-''- ^'^"hT'noraluerat^Te^t^ tie historic ..„.. ^- Christiani y, but "° i^^'^fg e\emphfied. This, it goes Christ apart from the Kteaw men ^^^ ^^^ Christianity The
without saying, is ^^?o■-7,f'^"h,, ^ historic element in its con- claim, also, that faith wiichl^a^ a mstor.^ ^_^.^^, .^ j^^ ^^,,^3
tent is therefore i'S> '■»"'"'"-^." •.;, ,„,,,: i,^,..- a historical elciiifiit of adead f:"tl.. ■- -I" ";'■: ';,,i,'-i .■ ^ ■'■■- i-^^ '^^''^ ■]['-'''■"
charactfr ;i~ ''"'•■ ' ' ' , - ' . i- ' ■".
philosopllj -' ' !•■ : l',,n,.l I i" ' '..','/ ■ '■' ' "-'
the Theol. !:■ ■'■<-' i" ■ '' " '
Experit'yic,;ix't-^): , vT .-nticisiv tli- " ;'
From the standpoint ot ^ i '-'.'^"' 5- :' ' . , • TOc Resurrection and Ascension >arr. ■
^^-■sS'^i^SSSi: ■■^ ^^^ r^
r wSS|or^^i5h^-r-'^ '''^"'•- "^^
"°|h''e"e^,?C%'^u!rnrtS;s\'e-ndei,cy^
of Scripture, and the- •■"nv.4"'" '^ , ,„„„:„,„ .,
Christianily tna tU ' . ,,,., ^^^ of Experience,
.Ian. 19ns. I "'!""' ' ; ,r' to the author, the
hy \V. A. I'l. kii^l ' Mrntification of Jesus
fundamental ni'i ^^^^_^^^ ^.j^h whom is the
Christ \yitli the ^1"' .,_„,„ „.irc confronted with a per-
-'&'sChSi-tl?e;na:rSi.ed-byenlo«on.
T ^„;n„ awav with the historical element m
c,si:s ,"£.«■>;•» X tri;rd:z
of Christianity. . The i- "*"a" ^f- -^.^ revelation of duct of human ideas, but of ^^ff^fi^ect interfer- Gotl to men accompanymg God s cu ^^^^^
ence in tl^f.^^'^Thist^ric foixe Thus, ha^'ing are left ^^ith a nhUosophy of reU 'on. ^^^^^^^^^
even natural religion yam- e ^^^^^ admit the
type of religious philo-'U'i'Y',^ |^^^^^,^^ frankly
1 authority of the Sw'l''^^>;^'^ ^ ,,^^ Christianity.
1 admit that ^^If*,'^,,^' the logical result of the It is, however, simply uie ' p • j „f external entire abandonnient o*. * ^, l^'^'^^'P'""
I ,,,th<,rity inrehgio.iskno«lert^^e.^^^^^^^^^_^^^ ^^ ^^^^
i.M'— . -r' ''"'■"!'■!:■';., .:;,;■ ''r'.ucu they lay
FACT AND THEOEY
FACT AND THEOKY
upon the historic Christ,
Shilosophersisnotiscj mu egree, i.e. of how niu<li retain as kernel and hu' away as huslc. This i^
eterniined largely by
their philosophical standpoint. Hence in their case also there is a subjection of Christian fact and doctrine to an unauthoritative theory. That they do not differ so much in principle from the pre- ceding philosophical solvent of Christianity can be seen from the following considerations. Wherever the principle of external authority is given up, we are sure to meet with the same distinction between kernel and husk in reference to Scripture fact and doctrine. And whenever this takes place, the Scripture idea of revelation has been changed, revelation being simply the product of religious thoughts and feelings in the mind of man. This makes it the product of natural development, and ' ■ ' it to the laws of psychic life. Accordingly that, while these theologians ditt'er from the preceding construction of Christianity in lay- ing greater emphasis upon Christ and in insisting that the essence of Christianity lies not in eternal truth so much as in Christ Himself (see esp. Lip- sius, op. cit.), they nevertheless regard the Scrip- ture facts as ScripturaUy interpreted, i.e. botli fact and dogma, as but the ' sensuous representation ' of rational religious truth.