Objective truth, Subjective truth

[Archibald] Alexander's reflection on the themes [of divine truth and the believer's experience] represents his attempt to formulate a theology of religious experience to reconcile two previously separated traditions. On the one hand he attempts to do justice to his Scotch-Irish Presbyterianism by stressing the importance of doctrinal belief. He spoke approvingly of catechetical instruction of children and of the importance of formal education for ministers. On the other hand Alexander acknowledged the validity of religious experience, specifically conversion experiences which the revivalists stressed.

He attempted to combine the best elements from both and to criticize the dangers in accepting the extremes of either position. Alexander's veiled allusion to Presbyterians and their divorce of conversion experience from orthodox theology and his staunch opposition to emotional experiences divorced from a doctrinal basis illustrate the two extremes which were to be avoided at all costs. The confessional element should be prevented from degeneratng into mere speculative faith by the insistence that religious conversion is absolutely necessary. The revivalist tradition is safeguarded from enthusiasm by adopting a confessionalism that will provide a distinctly Christian foundation for experience.

Neither tradition is complete without the other, for genuine religious experience has two referents--the objective basis and the experience itself. This distinction was characterized by his oft-repeated differentiation between the head and the heart. The head refers to the cognitive faculty of man which apprehends the truths of Christianity. This objective element is composed of several elements, all or some of which were refered to as the occasion demanded: belief in the historical facts, the scriptural teachings, and various creeds and doctrinal statements in the history of the church. These objective elements are believed in the act of saving faith.

The objective act of apprehension and assent is followed by a subjective act of apprehension. A logical as well as a chronological order is manifest. In Alexander's scheme the subjective element could not precede the objective element, for his construction demanded that the objective is the basis for the subjective element. To reverse the order would be to allow the possibility of the experience being founded on the person's natural emotional state. The experience would have no objective anchor either in history, the Scriptures, or doctrine to prevent its being confused with other emotional experiences that are not distinctively Christian.

The priority of the objective over the subjective was not due to an inherent inferiority of the subjective, for we have seen that the lack of experience constitutes a serious defect. It is because the subjective element is susceptible to various explanations ranging from differences in temperaments of people and their own natural religious feelings to genuine Christian experiences. On the other hand the objective truths are based on evidence, which were capable of some kind of verification and authentication. Because this was true, the specific facts or truths of Christianity resulted in a specific Christian experience.

-- Andrew Hoffecker, Piety and the Princeton Theologians (pp. 24-25)