| Part 1 The Theory of Faith | Hirohumi Hoshika |
Table of contents within this page
〈The Two-Stage Formation of Faith〉
〈Notes on the Order of Arguments〉
〈The Two-Stage Formation of Faith〉
Christianity Propositions 1 through 5, discussed in the previous sections, explain the process by which "spontaneous faith" in Jesus was supplemented by something else to lead to "convinced faith", and they serve as a bridge between the two. A certain "duality" — one that overcomes the preceding stage — can be observed as a common feature of these Christian propositions.
Religiosity B exhibits a duality in relation to Religiosity A. Repetition possesses a literal duality, while praise represents a duality vis-à-vis thanksgiving. The resurrection proposition represents a duality to the disciples' expectant faith that Jesus is the Christ, while the crucifixion proposition represents a duality to the Old Testament way of life, which is absolution through the fulfillment of the law. In each case, the Christianity proposition functions to form the certainty of faith by virtue of being a transcendence and repetition of the mode of existence that preceded it.
Based on these Christianity propositions, Christian faith comprises two stages: the simple faith that arises from knowing Jesus, and the subsequent conviction of that faith's validity; in doctrinal terms, it consists of "justification" and "conviction (1Thes. 1:5)".
While the relationship between these two stages and the two-stage doctrines of "justification and sanctification" — such as the "justification and purification" taught by Holiness churches or the "justification and baptism in the Holy Spirit" taught by Charismatic churches — remains unclear, it is possible that these doctrines have treated what is essentially the assurance of faith as "purification" or "baptism in the Holy Spirit".
From a practical standpoint, the faith of the disciples during the time of the Gospels can be compared to the faith held by children raised in Christian homes or those who hear stories about Jesus in church school.
Ideally, it is hoped that children who have been involved with the church from an early age will also have their faith established through a two-stage process, just like the first disciples. This is because, otherwise, a child may repeatedly make a "decision of faith" yet reach adolescence without ever moving beyond the state of "believing in a vague sense" cultivated in church school — a state that can, in turn, become a burden.
What is important is guiding children from a spontaneous state of faith to a firm conviction in their faith, and that is the role of the church. The church must understand what children who have a sense of faith need at the next stage. Christianity propositions should be presented in that context.
On the other hand, the primary purpose of church school is to enable children to come to know God and Jesus through personal experience, just as the disciples did in the time of the Gospels. The main role of church school is not so much to impart faith as it is to provide the object of that faith.
In other words, the role of church schools is to provide the first stage of faith. In doing so, we will try to give children the prerequisites for the resurrection proposition and the cross proposition, which are the principles for the establishment of faith, as clarified through the considerations in this paper.
The resurrection proposition presupposes that the disciples held a conviction regarding Jesus's divinity during his lifetime; therefore, in church school, the aim is to enable students to form a similar conviction. Specifically, this involves teaching them about Jesus's divine works, beginning with his miracles.
Since the Cross Proposition presupposes a yearning for the forgiveness of sins, it is essential for students to become aware of their own sinfulness. To this end, encountering the holiness of Jesus is crucial; it is effective to share stories of individuals who came to repentance through such an encounter — such as Zacchaeus or the account where no one could cast the first stone as challenged by Jesus.
There is debate over whether church school constitutes a church or a school; however, based on this perspective, it follows that until children reach a certain age, church school can essentially be viewed as a school comprising diverse elements — including church-related subjects. Teachers convey Jesus himself by sharing his works and teachings and by embodying love and leadership.
〈Checking the Issues〉⇧
Now, in Chapter 3 of this "Theory of Faith", I resolved the difficulties surrounding point 3 — one of the three issues under "historical fact and faith" — which is reprinted below.
３．Even if Jesus were standing right in front of us, it is difficult to believe in Him.
That is to say, conviction based on the Christianity proposition overcomes the Jesus' "isolation (otherness)". Furthermore, regarding point 2 — reprinted below, it can be considered that a portion of it has been elucidated.
２．If we leave the question of Jesus's historical existence to historical research, the very nature of faith is compromised.
The nature of necessity in faith that Christianity propositions entail endows the Christian faith — which has a fact-based and contingent aspect rooted in the historical event of Jesus' crucifixion in the first century — with a universal and unchanging character.
However, the "universal" nature of the Christian faith cannot be entirely reduced to Christianity propositions. This is because, although the conviction of faith afforded by Christianity propositions is subjective in nature for each individual, Christian faith is considered to encompass a universality that transcends subjectivity—a universality derived from its transcendent, mysterious, and absolute qualities. It must be shown how this is made possible.
Furthermore, the first issue, reprinted below, has not been touched upon at all so far.
１．The accurate historical facts about Jesus, which are necessary for faith, are not provided.
These remain as issues to be resolved and form the subject matter of the subsequent chapters. In doing so, the issue of "scholarly knowledge of Jesus and faith" — mentioned in point 2 above — inevitably arises.
The fourth issue noted in the summary of this chapter is resolved in the present section, <Historical Fact and Faith>.
〈Notes on the Order of Arguments〉⇧
The following supplement is provided regarding the framing of the argument in Chapter 3.
In Chapter 3, I discussed the subsequent transformation of the apostles' faith, proceeding from the premise that a faith in Jesus — both spontaneous and divine in nature — had emerged among the disciples.
It is evident from Jesus's words to Peter — "I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not faill" (Lk. 22:32) — that they possessed faith prior to the crucifixion; but, it can be said that this faith relied heavily on the reality of Jesus’s miracles. In other words, the discussion in this Chapter 3 is based on the assumption that Jesus’ miracles occurred exactly as recorded in the Gospels.
There are surely those who have doubts about this point. Or perhaps these individuals have been so tolerant of the premise of Jesus' miracles simply because they believe, "That's just what conservative theology is like."
In this study, the possibility of the occurrence of transcendent events such as miracles is addressed in Part 2, "Faith and Reason", while the rational grounds for positing that Jesus performed such transcendent events will be examined in the next chapter, Chapter 4. In any case, their honest impression would be that the entire argument in Chapter 3 is open to question, given that it proceeds from the premise that these matters have already been affirmatively concluded before they are even properly addressed.
The same applies to the "attainment of the historical facts regarding Jesus". In other words, it is inappropriate to discuss the establishment of apostolic faith from the perspective of a first-century individual — as if Jesus were right before one's eyes — before resolving the problem of securing the object of faith itself: specifically, the issue that the precise historical facts about Jesus, which are essential to faith, have not been provided.
These sentiments are natural; indeed, in a study I published previously (2009–2010), I adopted an approach that first discussed the possibility of the occurrence of a transcendent event, then addressed the acquisition of the historical Jesus, and only thereafter arrived at the point of discussing apostolic faith.
At that time, given the restriction of distributing essays once a month, I thought that unless I discussed them in order, I would not be able to secure a place to deal with the apostles' faith formation, so I did this, but with this public website, I do not think it is necessary to be particular about the order of essays.
In short, it means that those who feel the way described above should simply read the material covering those topics prior to this Chapter 3. What is required is to resolve the issues of "pastness" (acquiring an object of faith), "transcendence" (the existence of miracles), and "isolation" (the difficulty of faith); the order in which these are presented is immaterial.
In Chapter 3, the problem of isolation was resolved based on the resolution of the problems of transcendence and pastness. While it would result in circular reasoning if the problems of pastness or transcendence were resolved by depending on the resolution of the problem of isolation, there is no such issue here; in this study, the problems of pastness and transcendence are treated separately and resolved independently.
In fact, regarding the issue of isolation addressed in this chapter, it is advantageous to proceed on the premise that the problems of transcendence and pastness have already been resolved; doing so clarifies the true nature of this issue of "isolation".
This eliminates the risk of going astray — as Bultmann did — by misconstruing this issue as one involving "transcendence" (specifically, the shift from a faith based on historical facts to one not so grounded), confusing it with the difficulties of "pastness" inherent in recovering the historical Jesus, or substituting it with the more general problem of the difficulty of faith, only to "resolve" it by offering a corresponding pneumatological or personalist answer.
Even assuming that the environment surrounding the apostles was ideal as recorded in the Gospels, with Jesus performing miracles, and that a divine faith in Him had already been established among the apostles just as the Gospels transmit — namely, even in a scenario where the problems of transcendence and pastness are completely absent — the apostolic faith passed down to the present still leaves a certain incomprehensible element; it is precisely this setting, which "illuminates the core issue", that holds paramount importance.
〈Faith Model〉⇧
The final view regarding Christian faith will be presented in the concluding section of the next chapter (Chapter 4) under the heading "The Structure of Christian Faith". Here, I will summarize the views on faith discussed in this chapter.
■ The issue of "historical fact and faith" from the perspective that "historical facts give faith"
This position seeks to uncover the truth about the historical Jesus, proceeding from the view that the validity of faith hinges on the actual nature of the historical Jesus.
■ The issue of "historical fact and faith" from the perspective that "historical facts do not give faith"
This position views the faith inspired by the historical Jesus as "spontaneous faith" and emphasizes the qualitative difference between it and the faith of the apostles after Jesus' resurrection. This position also regards the apostolic faith established after the resurrection of Jesus — defined by Bultmann as "faith in Christ that views Jesus as divine", and in this study as "apostolic faith accompanied by conviction regarding Jesus" — as the consummate form of Christian faith; consequently, it seeks to explore the relationship between the historical Jesus and the formation of apostolic faith, rather than focusing on the quest for the historical Jesus itself. The positions of Bultmann and this essay are grounded in this perspective.
■ Bultmannian existential type
The accounts of Jesus in the Gospels are not factual; therefore, the historical Jesus is not divine. The initial faith of the apostles reflected this reality, but it later evolved into a Christ-faith that regarded Jesus as a divine being. In this type of faith model, the transformation of the apostles is attributed to their existential decisions and accorded primary importance, while little weight is placed on the quest for the historical Jesus.
Since the apostles' faith in Christ is viewed as having emerged in a way that diverged from the historical reality of Jesus, that faith does not stem from any necessary motivation rooted in the historical facts of Jesus's life. On the contrary, the apostle's faith can be understood as having been acquired through the apostle's independence, which is free from historical facts. Consequently, the position that "historical facts do not give faith" is strictly upheld.
■ Christian propositional type (this study)
The historical Jesus was godlike, as described in the Gospels, and the apostles' faith was commensurate with that, but their spontaneous Christian faith was extinguished by Jesus' death. This perspective regards the process by which apostolic faith emerged from that initial state as the key to the establishment of the Christian faith. It places little emphasis on the quest for the historical Jesus, holding that even if the historical Jesus were indeed divine — as portrayed in the Gospels—and existed in the most favorable circumstances for the rise of faith, that alone would not have been sufficient to bring apostolic faith into being. Rather, even if Jesus was as described in the Gospels, the formation of apostolic faith remains a mystery, and the focus is on clarifying the transition from the spontaneously arising Christian faith of the Gospel era to apostolic faith.
This position holds that apostolic faith was derived not directly from the historical facts of Jesus, but from the interpretation of those facts; in this sense, it supports the view that "historical facts do not give faith". However, it also supports the view that "historical facts do give faith" insofar as the historical facts of Jesus presented in the Gospels give rise to a spontaneous faith that serves as a precursor to apostolic faith.
In other words, the statement that "historical facts do not generate faith" — within the framework of the propositional model of Christian faith — means that while the historical facts regarding Jesus are necessary, apostolic faith does not arise from those facts alone. The historical facts of Jesus constitute a "necessary condition" for the establishment of apostolic faith, but not a "sufficient condition".
■ Perspectives on the following three gaps
"
"
"
■ Bultmannian existential type
According to the Bultmannian existential type perspective and the prevailing views of contemporary mainline theology, what actually occurred during the time of the Gospels is understood as the Gospel accounts with Jesus' miracles and the accompanying reactions of the people stripped away. Therefore, the
There was Jesus, who imparted new teachings, and the people who listened to and followed him; after losing him, these followers deified him, giving rise to the Christian faith. The Gospels handed down to the present day are the product of this process; consequently, they are argued to record divine acts attributed to Jesus — such as miracles — that did not actually occur.
From this perspective, since the Gospels are a product of Christ-faith, it follows that along with Jesus performing divine works, the responding disciples are also depicted as having already attained this Christ-faith. To be sure, the Gospels do exhibit the apostles’ Christ-faith, as seen in Peter's confession in Mark 8. That is to say, unlike their actual historical reality during the gospel era, the apostles depicted in the Gospels are portrayed as having attained a certain completion of faith.
However, this leads to the conclusion that there is no difference between the
In other words, this perspective explains the
Furthermore, regarding the gap they posit between the
However, regarding the
This effectively refutes the view — articulated by Reimars (Chapter 2 - Easy Study 3), which can be considered the origin of mainstream theology — namely, that there appears to be a discrepancy between the
■ Christian propositional type (this study)
In the Christian propositional model, spontaneous faith and apostolic faith correspond respectively to the
Furthermore, this model does not distinguish between the
The faith of the apostles during the Gospel era was as depicted in the Gospels; while this includes Peter’s faith in Christ, it was a faith that would later falter and was not the fulfillment of faith. Consequently, this implies that there is a disparity between this and the apostolic faith seen in Acts.
The position taken in this essay — that "historical facts do not give faith" — is, just like the position that "historical facts give rise to faith", based on the view that the historical reality of Jesus is necessary for the formation of faith. However, just as was the case for the first-century disciples, we maintain that the historical facts of Jesus alone are insufficient to attain apostolic faith. For the establishment of the apostolic faith, in addition to the historical facts regarding Jesus, some principle of faith formation is required — such as the "Christianity propositions" detailed in this chapter.
〈Historical Fact and Faith〉⇧
However, first of all, why is the historical fact of Jesus necessary for Christian faith? The position that "the historical facts give faith" is itself the answer, but the position that "the historical facts do not give faith" must provide a different answer.
Regarding this question, noted as point (4) in the summary, the analysis in this chapter makes it no longer difficult to provide an answer. As we have seen so far, the first reason why the historical reality of Jesus is necessary is that spontaneous faith — as a precursor to apostolic faith — must first be attained through this. With the exception of cases like Paul the persecutor, arriving directly at apostolic faith without first experiencing feelings of respect or wonder toward Jesus is not the path of Christian faith.
This first stage of faith — spontaneous faith — serves as a preparation for the second stage, which involves the acceptance of Christian propositions. Therefore — to reiterate what was stated at the beginning of this section — the necessary prerequisites for the Resurrection proposition and the Cross proposition must be acquired at this stage.
In the Resurrection proposition, this is a divine conviction regarding Jesus; in the Cross proposition, it is the recognition of one's own sin. This can be attained only through coming to know Jesus as a divine being. Therefore, this is the first reason why the historical reality of Jesus is necessary.
The second reason is as follows. In the past, some branches of Neo-Orthodox theology sought to argue that faith was possible based solely on the "significance" of Jesus, without regard to his historical existence. M. Kähler also asserted that the source of our faith lies not in Jesus himself, but in the apostles' faith in Jesus.
However, in light of the concept of orthodoxy, this understanding of faith is incorrect. This is because a belief unconnected to the facts of the world cannot constitute the faith of orthodox Christianity which is fact-based. The teachings of Jesus also instruct us that one should not live by a belief divorced from reality. For faith to be possible for us, we must ground ourselves in the facts concerning Jesus.
That said, this argument — based on orthodoxy — for the necessity of Jesus as a historical facts has already become tedious for this essay. Bruce's explanation in Chapter 1 - Essay 4, that "orthodox Christian faith is not like that," is certainly one argument for why Christian faith requires the historical facts of Jesus, but this essay does not consider it to be the most important answer. This answer, based on orthodoxy, amounts to a summary dismissal of the question regarding the necessity of the historical Jesus for the Christian faith; it fails to address the essence of the inquiry itself.
In other words, this response — which relies on the orthodoxy of faith as its basis — fails to explain why the historical reality of Jesus is necessary in a sense that encompasses the fundamental question of why faith must be orthodox in the first place. It does not provide an answer to the Enlightenment-style argument that "even if a faith strays from orthodoxy and does not place much importance on the historical accuracy of the Bible, as long as it believes in Jesus as the Christ, isn't that enough?"
Accordingly, the third reason is the following, which is the fundamental reason for the necessity of the historical fact of Jesus.
As this chapter has made clear, the Apostolic faith grew out of the discovery of a particular interpretation of Jesus' resurrection and crucifixion. We know of no other Christian faith than this one. That is why the historical fact of Jesus is important. Because if there is no such fact, there is no interpretation. This is where "historical fact" and "faith" are linked. Additionally, the fact-based faith in which these two are united is found only in orthodoxy.
Therefore, for faith to be possible in the modern age, the events that gave rise to these interpretations must be accurately transmitted. Since interpretation is a form of reasoning known as "affirming the consequent",
In this regard, this does not mean that the historical facts about Jesus must be known with absolute accuracy in every detail. This means that confirmation of the facts is required to the extent necessary to preserve the validity of the apostles' interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. I will discuss this matter in the next chapter.