| Part 1 The Theory of Faith | Hirohumi Hoshika |
This concludes the discussion on the "inerrant" of biblical faith, which states that "the Bible is the inerrant Word of God." Next, I would like to consider the basis of biblical faith that the Bible is the "Word of God." For non-Christians, this argument may be somewhat more interesting than "inerrant".
There are three reasons for believing that the Bible is the "Word of God": "internal confirmation by the Holy Spirit" (Calvin), "deduction from theism" (Princeton Theology), and "the faith of Jesus" (Rothe). However, I hesitate to call the first two "evidence". If the basis for believing in the Bible is something that also requires faith, such as the Holy Spirit or God, then naturally further grounds are required for believing in the Holy Spirit or God.
Also, if the reason is "because the Bible says so," then it is a circular argument. Belief in the Bible, God, and the Holy Spirit is not a relationship in which one faith provides the basis for the other. Each faith can be believed because Jesus taught it and we believe in Jesus. Therefore, it should be understood that there is no mutual deductive relationship.
Therefore, faith in Jesus is the key to Bible Faith. The third reason given, "the faith of Jesus," does not refer to our faith in Jesus, but rather to the fact that Jesus himself believed the Bible to be the word of God, or that he "knew" it.
Christian faith is believing in Jesus as the Christ (Savior), which is almost synonymous with believing in him as God. So it follows that whatever Jesus stood for and believed, we must also stand for and believe. There is a necessity here.
In fact, setting aside belief in "God," Christians today believe in the "Holy Spirit" something that was probably unfamiliar to them before they came into contact with Christianity, simply because Jesus taught it. Jesus taught that God is the "Father" and that the Holy Spirit is the "worker of God" after Jesus' death, that is, another personal God. Therefore, Christian faith includes not only faith in Jesus Christ, but also faith in God the Father and faith in the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
The same is true of faith in the Bible. If Jesus believed that the Bible is the word of God and taught people based on that conviction, then it is only natural to believe it because of Jesus. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible by early 20th-century theologian B.B. Warfield is a book that makes this point clearly. (Even so, what an imposing title.)
In the book Seisho shinkō ― sono rekishi to kanōsei [Bible Faith: Its History and Possibilities] (by Mitsuru Fujimoto), published in 2015, Warfield, who was the president of Princeton Theological Seminary, is criticized as a staunch believer who asserted the "a priori (a priori meaning not based on experience or observation) inerrancy of the Bible through deduction from theism", but this tendency is not evident, at least in the books introduced in Japan.
Warfield describes three points there:
１．Exemplifications of how Jesus and the Bible writers believed the Bible to be the Word of God.
２．To that extent, we must also believe so.
３．However, faith in the Bible should not be the foundation of the broad Christian faith as a whole, but rather it must be positioned as one and the final "crown" of faith.
The argument that the basis for Bible Faith is that the Bible must be understood as such because Jesus treated the Old Testament as the "Word of God" and the Bible writers treated the letters of Paul, which were later included in the New Testament, as the "Word of God", is not only made by Warfield, but also by J.I. Packer in "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God and in books published by "Seishosenkyōkai" mentioned above.
This view is what Packer calls "the definitive version of Bible Faith," and I agree with it. In particular, Warfield's book points out numerous instances in the Bible where Jesus and the biblical writers treated the words of the Bible as the word of God, and this is beyond dispute.
Jesus quotes the Old Testament and says, "Thus said God," making it clear that he treats the Old Testament as the Word of God. Moreover, this is not limited to the Pentateuch, which appears to be strict in content, but also includes quotations from the Psalms, which have a more liberal content. From this, it is reasonable to understand that Jesus treated the Bible as a whole, not just specific parts of the Bible, as the word of God.
Of course, for those who have absolutely no faith in the Bible, articles like this one about "how Jesus handled the Bible" are also untrustworthy, and Warfield's point becomes meaningless. However, it is safe to say that today there is no scholar, even among non-Christian scholars, who considers the Bible to be a completely unreliable book.
Warfield also tells us that this idea originates from the thinking of the 19th century German Lutheran theologian Richard Rothe, so here I will refer to this basis for Bible Faith as the "Rothe Principle".
In this way, the "Rothe Principle" does not treat Bible Faith as something special, but rather as something that should be believed in on the same kind of principle as believing in God or the Holy Spirit. That is, that means that the only "narrow gate" to faith for us makes Jesus himself. This makes sense in light of the church's belief throughout history that "Christ is the only mediator between God and men."
This means that the entrance to faith, which I referred to as the "double gate" in the previous episode, can now be described as a single "narrow gate". In other words, the single greatest challenge is how it is possible to believe in Jesus, and this includes considerable difficulty. The purpose of my "Theory of Faith" is to clarify this.
However, if we can enter that "narrow gate", we can hold Jesus responsible for believing in God, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible, and we will no longer have to question ourselves as to whether it is right or wrong. This is the basic method of Christian faith.
If we call this method of faith the "Jesus principle of faith", then this is what distinguishes Jesus as the basis of Bible Faith from God and the Holy Spirit, which are also cited as the basis. That is, if we can believe in Jesus, we can believe everything in Christianity.
Therefore, there is a sequence to the formation of our faith: first Jesus, then God and the Holy Spirit, and finally the Bible, the end of the world, angels, heaven, etc. I support the Bible Faith held in this order. However, I do not support the Bible Faith that is placed before faith in Jesus.
Wardfield also states as follows. Hereinafter, the term "plenary inspiration" may be interpreted as synonymous with "Bible Faith".
"Let it not be said that thus we found the whole Christian system upon the doctrine of plenary inspiration. We found the whole Christian system on the doctrine of plenary inspiration as little as we found it upon the doctrine of angelic existences. ... Inspiration is not the most fundamental of Christian doctrines, nor even the first thing we prove about the Scriptures. It is the last and crowning fact as to the Scriptures. These we first prove authentic, historically credible, generally trustworthy, before we prove them inspired."
"We do not think that the doctrine of plenary inspiration is the ground of Christian faith, but if it was held and taught by the New Testament writers, we think it an element in the Christin faith; a very important and valuable element; an element that appeals to our acceptance on precisely the same ground as every other element of the faith, viz., on the ground of our recognition of the writers of the New Testament as trustworthy witnesses to doctrine; an element of the Christian faith, ..."
Biblel Faith is merely one element of faith, and it is not the "foundation" or "primary" element of faith. It is like a "final" "crown", and it is important to academically clarify the authorship and historicity of the Bible regarding its reliability.
Warfield's view of the Bible, combined with the "Rothe Principle," strikes a balance between devotional and rational approaches and can be said to be sound even in conservative theology. However, it is clear that this view of biblical faith is at odds with the approach of contemporary Japanese conservative theology, which emphasizes biblical faith as the foundation of faith and Bibliology as the beginning of knowledge.
Therefore, I find it difficult to understand why the aforementioned book by a leading Japanese authority on Bible Faith (published by seishosenkyōkai) describes Warfield’s work as having been "a great help to biblical faith in Japan."