| Part 1 The Theory of Faith | Hirohumi Hoshika |
This "Part 1: Theory of Faith Chapter 2" deals with "Views that Prevent from Approaching Christianity", but the reason why "Bible Faith" is taken up here is as follows.
One reason is that "Bible Faith" can act as a gatekeeper, making it difficult for nonbelievers to approach Christianity. Like my example in the previous paragraph, I experienced this firsthand when I was a nonbeliever. Another reason is that "Bible Faith" can become a panacea for believers' problems of faith, hindering them from gaining a deeper understanding of their own religion.
When the pastor told me, a seeker, to "put myself under the Bible," no matter how gentle his words may have been, he was essentially telling me to believe in the Bible without doubt, which is a confusing request for a seeker. Is there no other way to Christian faith than to unconditionally and without reason assume the truth of the Bible?
However, even if we do not assume that the Bible is historically accurate and think that our faith begins simply with faith in Jesus, we cannot know Jesus apart from the Bible. Therefore, if we cannot trust the Bible, it seems reasonable to choose between the following two options: Either we conclude that faith in Jesus is difficult, or we consider a Christian faith that does not require the historical facts of Jesus.
And this is exactly what the early 20th century liberal theologian E. Troeltsch was saying.
Modern theology no longer loudly asserts that "Impossibility of Recognizing Jesus" or "No Need to Recognize Jesus", but it fundamentally believes that this choice between two options is unavoidable. Its underlying tone is either to deny the possibility of faith in Jesus, or to make possible only a faith that is not "based on facts".
In this situation, it is not surprising that conservative pastors urge people to "trust the Bible above all else." To suggest "Let's examine the Bible" would inevitably lead the seeker into a modern theology that is unsound in either case. However, needless to say, it is not the best strategy to divert attention from discussions about the Bible, to require seekers to assume the factuality of the biblical accounts, and to expect believers to have faith in the Bible.
The exhortation to "place yourself under the Bible" is something that should be encouraged after faith has been established, as a sign of humility in faith, and is not something that should be asked of those who have not yet attained faith.If an unbeliever were to take such an attitude toward the Bible, it would be more unnatural than humble. Nevertheless, the fact that we must recommend it means that there is something that needs to be resolved.
Hence, I would like to share my understanding regarding the issue of Bible Faith. The discussion about Bible Faith is not complicated. There is a great deal of talk in conservative writings and the debate appears to be confusing, but this is largely due to a lack of clarity about the issues rather than the difficulty of the problem. The discussions that are taking place cover the following three points:
Argument 1. What Bible Faith should be like (Debates about the orthodoxy of Bible Faith).
Argument 2. Basis for Bible Faith (Debate over the validity of Bible Faith).
Argument 3. Responding to the various views brought about by biblical criticism, modern theology, and modern science.
In Argument 1, the main point of contention is the "inerrancy" of the Bible. When the Bible is said to be the "inerrant Word of God," the word "inerrant" is currently considered to have two meanings.
One is the assertion that the Bible is inerrant in matters concerning human salvation which is its primary message. This is called the "infallibility" of the Bible. The other is the assertion that the Bible is inerrant in all of its statements, including historical accounts. This is called the "inerrancy" of the Bible.
The reality is that the debate over Argument 1, which of these two views—"infallibility" or "inerrancy"—is the correct way to Bible Faith, dominates all discussion of Bible Faith. This is because these two understandings divide conservatives who uphold Bible Faith, and this division has prevented conservative theology from coming together.
Both are based on the belief that "the Bible is the word of God," so from the outside they appear to be no different. However, from the standpoint of "infallibility", "inerrancy" has the problem of being incompatible with modern science, and it has also been criticized for being rigid in its view of the entire content of the Bible as fact, resulting in a faith that does not allow room for flexible interpretation to discover the original intent of the Bible.
On the other hand, the "inerrancy" position argues that "infallibility" position undermines the perfection of God, caters to modern thought and science without seeking deeper consistency in apparent contradictions, and thus, by allowing minor errors in the Bible, opens the way to casting doubt on many other passages.
In Japan, the camps of inerrancy and infallibility tend to be two groups that have differing positions on the doctrinal theories of soteriology (theory about salvation) and sanctification (theory about the state after salvation), namely, the Reformed churches that began with Calvin and the Holiness churches that began with Arminius.
Therefore, the debate between "inerrancy" (≒ Reformed) and "infallibility" (≒ holiness) can be said to have been a case in which two conservative factions that had taken different paths since the 18th century once again made their differences clear, this time in the context of "biblical theory".
In addition, regardless of denomination, people who find the basis and conviction of their faith in the dynamism and mystery of Christianity, such as the present-day work of the Holy Spirit and the eschatological interpretation of Jesus' teachings, tend not to be obsessed with the "inerrancy" of the Bible.
I myself come from a church led by a "moderate Calvinist" pastor, so I would say I am Reformed, but to be honest, I have never been interested in these doctrinal debates ―― not only about biblical faith, but also about understanding the end of the world, the millennium, and "second chances".
This is probably because this type of debate is a contest over the "orthodoxy" of faith, and the resolution is a monotonous discussion that simply involves consulting the Bible or, at most, the history of the doctrine's formation. It's hard to be interested in a discussion where we already know where the answer lies.
However, the question of whether or not the historical accounts of the Bible can be trusted is in any case a serious issue that determines the direction of one's faith. As I mentioned earlier in my reference to Troeltsch, for those who believe that "the events of Jesus give us faith," this is a matter of life and death for faith, and for those who believe that "it is not the historical facts of Jesus that give us faith," it is precisely the negative judgment on this issue that got them to think this way.
Therefore, the issue of biblical faith that has come to be asserted as an answer to this question should not be considered in the same category as other issues concerning the orthodoxy of faith, such as the roles of God and man in soteriology, the relationship between salvation and purification in sanctification, or the two persons of Christ, the Trinity of God, and before and after in Jesus' second coming and the millennial kingdom, which some people derogatorily call so-called "theological debates".
While these are purely theological issues, in other words issues that arise after faith is piled upon faith, the issue of Bible Faith is also an issue that arises after faith, but it is an issue that can be traced back to the nature of faith and has the potential to force a fundamental change in faith.