| Part 1 The Theory of Faith | Hirohumi Hoshika |
The book Seisho shinkō to sono shomondai [Bible Faith and Its Problems], published in 2018 by the "Seishosenkyōkai", a seminary that can be considered a center of Bible Faith in Japan, explains the changes in the meaning of "infallibility" as follows: According to this, the word "infallibility" was traditionally used in biblical faith, but...
"With the rise of biblical criticism, it was argued that the Bible could contain some errors in historical and scientific accounts, and as a result, the meaning of 'infallibility' was narrowed to mean 'not misleading believers only on doctrinal and moral issues'."
Originally, "infallibility" was a word used to indicate the truthfulness of the Bible as a whole, including its historical accounts, but its meaning changed as it came into contact with biblical criticism, and the new term "inerrancy" emerged in order to maintain the original meaning of "infallibility". Therefore, the position of "inerrancy" is now considered to be "infallibility in the true sense", that is, the position of Bible Faith. This is a reasonable explanation.
So, what aspect of the original "infallibility" does the current concept of "inerrancy" attempt to protect? The inerrancy position makes two main arguments.
One is to assert the belief in the 100% accuracy of the Bible, as mentioned above, and the other is to assert that salvation should be recognized as fact-dependent in a broad sense. Both of these are mentioned in the above book.
Of these, I have criticized the "100% faith in facts (The belief that articles written as facts are 100% correct)" in the Bible in the previous section, but my rejection of this is not due to my judgment that there is an incorrect statement somewhere in the Bible. In this regard, it is different from the rejection of "100% faith in ethics (The belief that the Bible is 100% ethically correct)" in the Bible because I judge it contains ethically incorrect passages, as mentioned in the previous section.
I will discuss "100% faith in facts" in more detail later in this section, but here I would like to discuss "100% faith in ethics", which causes greater practical harm.
The Bible should be understood as having completed the progressive revelation of salvation and giving us complete information. However, when it comes to ethics, the Bible is in a state where it could be said that gradual revelation is not yet complete, and I believe that it is not right to follow what is written in the Bible exactly as it is written on issues such as the land issue in Palestine, the status of animals and meat consumption, divorce, and women's head coverings during worship.
In other words, I believe that there should be different principles of interpretation for the parts of the Bible that are written as events related to salvation, that is, the parts that relate to how we have faith, and the parts that are written as commands, that is, the parts that relate to the morality that we should believe in.
In the previous chapter (Chapter 1), I stated that the Enlightenment understanding of Christian faith, which holds that we need only accept the "meaning" conveyed by the Bible, is incorrect, and that the accounts of the Bible must be taken fact-based.However, the opposite holds true for Christian ethics: the commands written in the Bible should not be taken literally, but rather interpreted in an Enlightenment way.
There is no denying that the invasion of Palestine, recorded in the Book of Joshua, mentioned in the previous section, was already fundamentalist at the time. Alternatively, the Old Testament states that "the earth was filled with violence," which implies that there were situations in which peace could only be achieved through force. In any case, to practice this in modern times is an even worse form of fundamentalism than in Joshua's time.
Christian ethics must not take the commands written in the Bible literally, but must grasp at the highest level of abstraction what was intended by the ethical teachings and what significance those commands had in the society at the time they were written. Then, the command must be carried out in a way that reproduces its meaning and spirit in the current situation, rather than in the specific examples written down as commands.
The truth of this principle is readily apparent when we consider such commands as those found in the New Testament as: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything" (Col. 3:22) and "Women f should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak" (1 Cor. 14:34).
These ethics written in the Bible are clearly written as practical, that is, as something that would have immediate effect on the society of the time. To carry this out in a later, changed era would, of course, not mean doing exactly what was written, but rather carrying out what the command meant in the social conditions of the time.
One of the factors that leads believers to turn to extremist fundamentalism is the non-distinction between the treatment of biblical articles in faith and in ethics. In faith, it is important to take biblical texts literally, but when this “factual dependence of faith” is applied directly to ethical teachings, it becomes an extremist fundamentalist faith.
In other words, we are so wary of the Enlightenment understanding of the Bible that we tend to reject the Enlightenment understanding of all biblical passages without distinguishing between facts of faith and commands of ethics, and to assume that a literal interpretation of all passages is the correct interpretation of the Bible.
While "fact-based" should be maintained for accounts of events related to faith, the appropriate interpretive principle when it comes to ethical teachings is to adopt a "non-fact-based" interpretation.
However, this raises the question of whether it contradicts the previous considerations in this essay regarding Christian ethics. This is because, in Chapter 1, we saw that Christian ethics is an ethics that has a fact-based character, which is different from Kant's strict ethics.
According to John Hick, quoted in Chapter 1 - Essay 3, Christian ethics teaches that in a world where the Father God that Jesus taught exists, it is to our benefit to behave as Jesus taught. In this system, a worldview based on faith in "a world endowed with God's grace" precedes action, and therefore Christian ethics can be said to be an ethics based on the facts of the world.
However, the following must be understood here: This means that the concept lumped together as Christian ethics contains two types of ethics.
Chapter 1 examined the way of life that arises from the worldly realities Jesus teaches—that is, the ethics that stem from faith in Jesus. However, there is another kind of ethics, ethics as a code of conduct that arises from direct commands written in the Bible. Let us call the former "faith-based ethics" and the latter "command-based ethics". (The descriptions in this section, color-coded in two shades of blue and blue, correspond to this division.)
I have already stated that "the fact-dependent faith" is an important principle of biblical interpretation in orthodox Christian faith. It is an interpretive principle that prevents us from falling into an Enlightenment understanding of the Bible.
However, even though it is called an "interpretive principle," interpretation based on the "fact-dependent faith" means accepting the events written in the Bible as having actually occurred, and therefore it is a method of biblical interpretation that considers it appropriate not to interpret the biblical accounts. This makes the "fact-dependent faith" synonymous with "bible literal meaning-based in faith".
Therefore, in "faith-based ethics," the same principle of "literal interpretation of the Bible" as "the factual basis of faith" applies. The life of a believer is placed in close relation to the words recorded in the Bible as events, and the words taught in the Bible as facts of the world. "Faith-based ethics" is "ethics based on the fact-based faith," and it cannot be separated from the words of the Bible.
However, the Christian ethics that we are treating here as requiring an Enlightenment interpretation is an "command-based ethics", which should not be understood as being bound to the letter of the Bible. "Factual dependence" refers to relying on the "factual" statements of the Bible, whether of faith or ethics, and not on the "commandment" statements. That is why it is called "factual" dependence.
In Christianity, "factual dependence" means "taking the biblical accounts of events literally," not "taking the commandment statements literally". Therefore, when we think that Christian orthodoxy is maintained by its "factual dependence" (as I believe), we should understand that this means taking literally the words regarding "facts" written in the Bible, and does not include literally affirming the "commands" written in the Bible.
Even if we consider the above understanding to be incorrect, Christian ethics can be interpreted in a way that allows us to understand minor commands, such as those regarding "women's head coverings" (1 Corinthians 11:5-6), as non-literal rules. However, larger commands, such as those concerning God's promises regarding the Palestinian region, are difficult to interpret differently because they are fundamental to the history of Israel as recorded in the Old Testament. That is, if we consider the above understanding to be incorrect, then Christian ethics would be firmly linked to the biblical value of Israel's dominance in Palestine.
This means that Christian faith adheres to the values written in the Bible exactly as they are, and since faith is generally understood to be exactly that, this is sure to cause people to shun Christianity in this sense. This is because such beliefs are seen as fundamentalist beliefs that act as a conduit for particular ideas.
In fact, this trend can be seen in Japanese churches. For example, the "Holy Lands tours" organized by Christian groups, which were carried out lightheartedly amid the complex situation in Palestine in the latter half of the 20th century, show the church's uncritical support for Israeli prioritization. At the briefing session for the "Holy Lands tours" that I heared, it was announced that "this project has been made possible because the United States and Israel control this region." The question must be asked whether this is the right way for the church to deal with the Palestinian region.
When we collect all the ethical statements from the New Testament, we will realize that the amount is surprisingly small. For example, in the 16-chapter epistle of the New Testament, Romans, chapters 12-15 are devoted to ethical writings, or "command-based ethics". Although this is by no means a small amount, it can be said to be a drastic reduction compared to the vast amount of legal descriptions in the Old Testament.
In fact, the Old Testament torah written in the Pentateuch were also the laws of Israel, and as such they are enormous in volume; but it was still not possible to write down all the rules, and people began to keep law books such as the Mishnah in addition to the Bible.
However, in this respect, the ethical commands set forth in the New Testament are fundamentally different in nature from the torah of the Old Testament.
One of these differences is the difference between the Old and New Testaments in the relationship between law and salvation.
In the Old Testament, the principle is "legalism," which states that the torah comes first, and salvation and grace are given through the fulfillment of that torah. (From a Christian perspective, it is not seen that way; even in the Old Testament, God's grace preceded everything, but people in the Old Testament did not understand it that way.) In contrast, in the New Testament, law and ethical conduct are not conditions for salvation; conversely, attaining salvation is a condition that makes it possible to perform ethical acts.
To pick out a few, they are as follows:
"Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience." (Col. 3:12)
"Forgive as the Lord forgave you." (Col. 3:13)
"Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ." (Phil. 1:27)
"I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received." (Eph. 4:1)
"Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love," (Eph. 5:1)
"Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another." (1 Jhon 4:11)
These do not tell us what to do to gain salvation, but what we should do because we have been given salvation.
Thinking back to my own experience, when I was young I preferred to smoke unfiltered cigarettes and asked my pastor what I should do about that if I were to be baptized. The pastor said, "Think of this as a post-belief issue," and his guidance was entirely reasonable in light of the above Bible passage.
That is, the ethics the Bible teaches is "be worthy of the salvation that is given to you," and it does not point out specific words in the Bible each time. Christian ethics primarily provides ethical motivation and is not intended to bind people to the words of the Bible.
Another difference between the ethics of the Old and New Testaments is a thing that is reflected in the difference in the amount of commandments mentioned earlier.
As can be seen in the passage quoted above, the New Testament presents not only specific ethical commands limited to their time but also rules that can be considered fundamental ethical principles. Because the Old Testament contains the "two great commandments" (Matthew 22:37-39) given by Jesus, Christians understand this as a continuity between the laws of the Old and New Testaments, but the people of Israel in the Old Testament did not follow these fundamental ethical principles but rather believed that a lifestyle that followed all the minute rules was in accordance with God's will.
However, the New Testament states:
"For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Gal. 5.14）
"The commandments ... whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Rom. 13.9)
"All the Law and the Prophets (meaning of the entire Old Testament) hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:40）
Other specific commands and exhortations written in the New Testament, such as teachings about food, marriage, and the position of women in the church, can all be said to have been written in a concrete manner based on the social situation and church circumstances of the first century, based on the fundamental principle of Jesus' "two commandments" to "love God and love your neighbor."
If this is the case, then in modern times these specific biblical commands should not be taken literally; rather, taking them literally and making them into modern rules would hinder the fundamental ethical principles set out in the New Testament.
This does not simply mean that the New Testament, unlike the Old Testament, does not have many rules, and therefore there are gaps in the rules, and therefore when it comes to matters not written in the Bible, the "two commandments" given by Jesus should be used as a basis for judging them.
The individual and specific commands in the Bible, whether in the Old or New Testament, were written within the constraints of the times and society. Therefore, even the individual and specific commands actually written in the Bible must be reconsidered in each era based on the fundamental ethical principles set forth by Jesus.
I understand that the New Testament shows that Christian ethics is about reconsidering all commands written in the Bible to suit modern circumstances.
Therefore, the church must also reevaluate its stance on the policies of the State of Israel, a critical issue of our time. God's will to prioritize Israel stated in the Old Testament is unrelated to whether the actual behavior of the Israeli government is good or bad.
Recognizing the Israelites as a chosen people does not mean that their behavior must be considered good, and whether they were good or bad, Israel's status as God's chosen people will never be shaken. The election of God goes beyond good and evil.
Given this, the Church should all the more carefully evaluate the current Palestinian policy of the State of Israel. In the first place, isn't the history of the Israelites recorded in the Old Testament a record of their repeated actions against God's will? Each time this happened, God sent judges and prophets to Israel to urge them to repent, a theme that runs throughout the Old Testament.
Again, acknowledging that Israel is the chosen people is one thing, and approving of Israel's behavior is another. In other words, recognizing faith and recognizing ethics are two different things. Somehow the church has fallen into the childish error in this regard, as if denying Israel's behavior means denying God's promises to Israel as recorded in the Bible.
What basis do those who support modern Israeli policy have for judging that now is the time for the Abrahamic Covenant to be fulfilled?
Once, at the advent of Jesus in the first century, the Jews who welcomed him thought exactly this and poured enthusiastic expectations upon him. For the third time, following the Davidic and Hasmonean dynasties, they hoped that Jesus would be the "King of the Jews" who would take Judea from other nations and make it theirs.
However, Jesus behaved in a completely different way than they had expected, and so the disappointed Jews had Jesus crucified.
The Christian church has described the idea of the people of that time to make Jesus the King of the Jews as foolish and contrary to God's will. However, the Church has learned nothing from the story of Jesus' Passion that it recounts.
For, the Christian church supports Israel as if the present day is the time for the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. However, there is no basis whatsoever for claiming that the wishes of the first-century Jews were foolish, yet their present wishes are not.
This does not invalidate the validity of the Abrahamic Covenant. It simply means that no one can definitively assert that the establishment of Israel in the 20th century was precisely the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Therefore, Christianity, which clearly distinguishes itself from Judaism, should understand that the fundamental ethical principles taught by Jesus take precedence even in the Abrahamic Covenant. When Jews cling to every word of the Old Testament and make it their duty to keep the law to the letter, it is as if they are forcing God to enforce the validity of the Abrahamic Covenant, saying, "We keep it; You should keep it too." However, the Abrahamic covenant will not be based on such legalism, but will surely be realized when Jesus' teachings of loving God and loving one's neighbor take priority.
As noted above, "command-based ethics" does not adhere to the text of the Bible. Therefore, we have a responsibility to build Christian ethics that are in some sense free from the Bible and based on the two important commandments taught by Jesus. The principle at work here is the "Christian ethics being non-fact-dependent".
In the parable of the "Meter Prototype" I explained that the idea of a super-religion does not hold up in Christianity, which has the characteristic of "faith being fact-dependent". This is certainly true of Christianity which has the nature of fact-based faith. However, when Christianity has the characteristic of "ethics being non-fact-dependent" and ethics is understood as not being bound by the words of the Bible, then Christianity can share ethics with other religions. This makes it possible to ensure religious cooperation in society.
This understanding of Christianity that separates faith and ethics to some extent, is consistent with the ideas expressed in Chapter 2 - Essay 2, that "Christianity threatens the truth of others, but does not threaten the rights of others," "What society needs is not the 'supreme truth' or 'true love' taught by Christianity, but simply a minimum guarantee of human rights and freedom," and "Rights must be superior to truth."
Now, with regard to Bible Faith, in light of what has been said above, it must be said that Bible Faith, which claims to "never lead one astray on moral issues," is seriously problematic regardless of whether one takes the position of inerrancy or infallibility. The belief in the Bible that "the Bible provides 100% correct guidance regarding salvation" is harmless except for the theological problems inherent in the belief in the Bible itself, but the belief in the Bible that "the Bible provides 100% correct guidance regarding ethics" can cause very serious problems in practice when it means taking ethical commands literally. People who believe salvation through faith along with literally believe in the ethics of the Bible are fundamentalists.
Let's return to the topic of "100% faith in facts". It is true that we have difficulty with some of the miracles in the Bible's historical accounts, such as the "shadow on the sundial moving backward 10 degrees" during the time of King Hezekiah. However, as I have already stated, the reason I reject "100% faith in facts" is because I believe the logic behind it is incorrect and because I understand that God's perfection is not diminished even if it is not "100% faith in facts".
The original purpose of argument that the Bible is 100% correct seems to be to protect the "factual basis in the broad sense on salvation" which is another argument for "inerrancy". In fact, it is stated that:
"It is difficult to distinguish between history and doctrine in each verse of the Bible. However, since it is an absolute requirement that we accept the doctrine as faith, we have no choice but to believe the historical accounts, which are difficult to distinguish from the doctrine, as well.This is why Bible Faith is necessary."
This understanding leads inerrancy advocates to express concerns that "admitting a small error will lead to admitting a larger error."
Accounts of Jesus' birth, activities, death, and resurrection are historical accounts that directly relate to salvation and faith, but I believe it is impossible to say for sure whether the truth of other matters, such as the sundial incident in the Old Testament (2 Kings) or the account of Daniel's three friends walking unconcernedly through a hot furnace (Book of Daniel), is relevant to our salvation and faith.
However, if we simply deny the truth of these accounts, it will lead to a change in the fact-based view of the Bible that "the Bible tells us the facts," and open the way to accepting that accounts in Genesis such as the creation of the universe, the creation of man, the creation of woman from man, and Eve's sin by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden may be metaphors or myths. In this case, the nature of Christian faith seems to change from what was originally perceived.
Therefore, I understand that "100% faith in facts" in the Bible is a protective fence set up to prevent this danger, and that being 100% is not the goal in itself. In order to protect the Torah, the Old Testament law centered on the Ten Commandments of Moses, the Israelites have created separate legal systems such as the Mishnah and the Talmud to protect the Torah from violation, providing multiple layers of protection.
Certainly, if we accept the Bible as 100% correct, we can completely eliminate the possibility of denying that the Bible conveys facts. This may be a wise strategy to avoid the biblical crisis in which "if one part of the levee is breached, the whole will soon collapse".
However, just as Jesus in his time criticized the lifestyle of his fellow people as "legalistic", "100% faith in fact" is indeed a legalistic way of thinking. Just as they lost sight of the essence of the law and made keeping the law an end in itself, the perspective of what in the Bible must be kept is secondary, and the idea that we will be safe as long as we simply accept everything in the Bible as correct is at the root of modern inerrancy.
As Kantzer pointed out above, it is certainly difficult to draw the line as to which parts of the Bible must be believed to be correct in order for the orthodoxy of the faith to be maintained. However, just because it is difficult to draw the line, it would be too easy to draw it at 100%, and this would lead to sloppy discussion.
The Bible Faith I support is a position that subtracts "100% faith in fact" from "inerrancy," or a faith that maintains fact-based in a broad sense related to salvation. What modern "inerrancy" attempts to protect from "infallibility", which has lost its original meaning, is the truthfulness of historical accounts related to human salvation, but its scope is much broader than current "infallibility" advocates think.
Namely, it is not only the account of Jesus Christ in the New Testament that concerns human salvation.
The account in the Old Testament book of Genesis, which deals with the origin of human existence through the creation of the heavens and the earth, shows that humans are beings connected to God, and therefore makes things such as forgiveness of sins and salvation meaningful for the first time, and therefore must be considered to be matters related to salvation.
Similarly, the account of Adam's fall in Genesis and other historical accounts of God's dealings with the nation-state of Israel are also included in God's plan of salvation, and therefore these factual and historical accounts of the Bible are required to be fundamentally infallible.
If it becomes clear that there is an inaccuracy in this "Fact-Based Faith in a broad sense related to salvation", for example, if it becomes clear that the Genesis account cited above is untrue and beyond the scope of interpretation, then I believe I must re-evaluate Christianity as a religion that is "Fact-Not-Based", declare to myself the error of orthodox faith, and leave my current position. In fact, it is believed that a certain percentage of non-Orthodox Christians have reached their current position through this process.
If the type of fact-not-based faith, then it is impossible for there to be any cognitive error in the faith in the first place. No matter what situation you face, you just need to stand by what you believe in.
However, orthodox Christian faith is fact-based faith and is subject to the possibility of incorrect. We understand that orthodox faith is subject to modification and abandonment, but we maintain this faith because of a certain conviction in Jesus that will be revealed in the next chapter (Chapter 3).
Now, the content of the Bible Faith described above becomes "my Bible Faith" when it is acquired through the "Rothe Principle" described in the next section. I do not support any Bible Faith that is required before believing in Jesus. We will clarify this point in the next section.