| Part 1 The Theory of Faith | Hirohumi Hoshika |
In the previous section, we established that the determination of facts in faith is not an intellectual act, but an act of the volition. Believing in Jesus is not a matter of assured trust based on objective evidence, but rather, ultimately, a voluntary acceptance on our part based on our inner conviction regarding Him — a subjective affirmation made in the face of uncertain circumstances.
However, we must carefully examine whether this characteristic of "volitional assent" in faith can be considered "a reason for faith to be established even if the historical facts of Jesus are uncertain". Is it valid to use the fact that faith is largely subjective — involving the acceptance of ambiguous matters lacking concrete evidence — as a reason why the historical uncertainty surrounding Jesus does not hinder the establishment of faith?
It is likely incorrect to understand faith in that way. This is because the classical understanding of faith — "volitional assent" — refers primarily to an affirmation directed toward things one accepts by believing, such as the existence of God or the world as existing under divine grace. That is to say, this assent is considered not to be an acknowledgment — prior to believing — of the facts that serve as the catalyst for the establishment of that faith, but to be an acknowledgment of matters that one comes to assert as true after attaining faith.
Needless to say, the "historical facts about Jesus" at issue here all refer to events that took place before the establishment of the faith.
Even if the ultimate truth of Jesus being the Christ remains uncertain, believing him to be the Christ based on the impression conveyed by the "Christianity Proposition" — discussed in detail in "Chapter 3 - Argument" and subsequent sections — is an act of "volitional assent," and this constitutes a form of faith that is free from deviation.
"Volitional assent" refers precisely to the final stage in the formation of faith — as exemplified by this scene — and pertains to matters that cannot be understood simply by observing the facts; that is, matters such as "Is Jesus the Christ?", "Is He the Son of God?", and "Is the atonement on the cross effective?"—as discussed in Chapter 3 - Review 1. As a result, these become our claims after faith.
However, it must be understood that acknowledging the events concerning Jesus as recorded in the Gospels — which constitute the occasion for the emergence of faith — as having actually occurred in that manner is not a matter of such volitional assent.
For instance, the truth that "God, your Father, clothes the lilies of the field more splendidly than Solomon in all his glory" is something that can be acknowledged through faith; however, the question of whether or not Jesus actually taught this is likely not a matter that one accepts through faith.
We must conclude that such events, which predate the establishment of faith, require "intellectual" rather than "volitional" acceptance. This is clearly evident in the case of Jesus’ disciples. While the recognition that "God clothes the lilies of the field" was likely a belief held by the disciples, that Jesus taught them this was their very experience.
It is often said that "faith is not knowledge", but this refers to the objects of faith that come to be believed through faith, that is, those that are believed after faith has been established. As for the matters that precede faith and serve as the factors that give rise to it, "faith is knowledge".
In church, it is sometimes said that what matters is not the earnestness with which one questions uncertainty, but rather the faith that exists by overcoming it. However, such a way of speaking conflates two things: the event of Jesus — which existed prior to the establishment of faith and served as the catalyst for it—and the heavenly facts that came to be believed only after faith had been established.
The historical uncertainty surrounding Jesus must be overcome not by faith, but by knowledge. While matters of a heavenly nature can be sustained by belief, historical facts can be not. In other words, while the attitude of "faith" toward heavenly matters is not subject to criticism from any quarter, the attitude of relying on "faith" to settle questions of historical fact is an attitude that rightly invites criticism from many quarters. Therefore, we are compelled to take the issue of "historical fact and faith" seriously. Furthermore, the following can be said.
Since all events concerning Jesus—including his resurrection—are the premise for faith, even if some of them seem to leave us with no choice but to believe, they are not something to be believed, but something that must be known.
As discussed in Chapter 2 - Section 2 of "The Theory of Faith and Reason", the resurrection of Jesus involves a type of uncertainty distinct from the uncertainties surrounding the historical facts of Jesus's life. It is an uncertainty that raises the question of whether such a miracle is even possible. While doubts about the historical reality of Jesus concern the Gospels as records of events that took place, the doubts here concern the very possibility of the resurrection itself.
This type of uncertainty is readily linked to belief. Similarly to "bible faith", which attempts to settle the uncertainty of the historical Jesus — a topic addressed in the previous chapter and not expanded upon here — miracles can likewise be misguidedly treated as matters to be 'believed in. That is, while the phrase "believing in the resurrection" is sometimes used in the church, it is a misleading expression.
According to understanding here, the fact that the resurrection occurred is not something we believe by faith. The resurrection of Jesus must be understood not through faith, but as an experience undergone by the apostles — an experience that counts as "knowledge" in modern philosophy
However, this does not mean that the resurrection of Jesus has become part of our current knowledge. This becomes evident when one considers matters that are as yet unknown — such as phenomena related to the cosmos. There is a distinction between a phenomenon being posited in a theory as an object of knowledge and that phenomenon actually being acquired as knowledge through empirical observation.
The resurrection of Jesus must be treated as part of the historical reality of Jesus, and therefore as an object of knowledge. The resurrection of Jesus is not a question of whether or not you believe in it, but a question of whether it actually happened or not, even if it is difficult to know. Approaching the Resurrection based on an understanding that conflates fact and faith — such as the idea that a miracle is something to be believed in for its own sake, or that believing in it turns the Resurrection into a fact — leads faith astray.
As Paul states, "how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?" (Rom10:14) — faith in Jesus arises from knowledge of Jesus. Whether concerning historical fact or the Resurrection, the uncertainty surrounding them must be compensated for by some form of knowledge; this is precisely where one must not resort to the "volitional assent of faith". Based on the foregoing, I would like to formulate the following as the first step in the analysis of faith.
(1) Faith in Jesus arises from knowledge, and all events concerning Jesus — including miracles and the Resurrection — are objects of knowledge.