Fantastic Forsyth

Every other historical fact than the Gospel finds the human mind with such a disposition for truth that it has merely to present itself with sufficient evidence or attraction. It appeals to the instinct for natural certainty or excellence. But with the Christian certainty it is otherwise. The element of natural certainty or proof in it is very subordinate. Its rational appeal is always inadequate, and its desirability is not at once apparent. Nay, it has a power all its own of rousing antagonism and even hate. Its certainty comes with a blow to human nature and human reason, or with an unwelcome demand for submission, or at least preferential treatment. It has no foundation in either nature or reason, but only contact, only points of attachment for appeal. It is more despotic than constitutional, so far as rational law is concerned. How is the natural man to verify a gospel which takes the confidence out of human nature and its instincts, and destroys the egoism which is its first certainty? How can the foolishness of such a Gospel commend itself to man s native wisdom? And is the Gospel not such? I am not speaking of religion. Religion is natural to man, faith is not, Christianity is not. The Gospel revelation means self-condemnation and no confidence in the flesh, in human nature. It upsets the ordinary bench of appeal. Its protectorate begins by dissolving parliament [...] The Gospel must create the power to believe it. Revelation here is so radical that in the same act it must be Regeneration. The calling voice of a holy God to us sinners is such a judging, crushing voice that it becomes effectual only as a new-creating word.

(my bold, italics original, pp.118-119, The Principle of Authority)

Three things that make that brilliant:

The emphasis on the moral: Forsyth's great strength is always to see how its a moral world we live in. Every problem is a moral problem. So often in apologetics we forget the noetic effects of sin. This is probably horrendously wrong, but while Barth would say something similar to Forsyth here (see previous post for an example) I think he isn't usually as good because the moral dimension would not be as prominent. Instead Barth would emphasise the unknowable nature of God as god, in a way which I always feel is something like what I'm told Kant taught about how the phenomenal cannot know the noumenal (this is all way above my pay-grade though).

The recognition of connections with experience/reason/nature/history: While we cannot cannot argue someone to belief starting with where they are, there are "points of attachment for appeal". We can have discussions about the historicity of the gospels, we can show how people's longings for good relationship find their fulfilment only in God, etc. These are valid and fruitful things to do.

The Gospel-word of God creates faith: there are two points here: firstly, it is God that creates faith not our arguments; and secondly, it is through the preaching of the Gospel, and not apart from it that he does his work.