A Response to Stephen Steele’s Modern Interpretation
The ongoing debate about the preservation and authority of the biblical text centers around a critical question: what did the Reformers and the Westminster Divines believe regarding the purity and accessibility of the Scriptures? Advocates of modern textual criticism, like Stephen Steele in his article entitled Reading the Confession in Context (1): ‘Authentical’, argue that the Reformers and Divines recognized the necessity of ongoing textual work to recover a substantially preserved but not absolutely pure text. However, Steele’s position stems from an Enlightenment-era shift in thinking, particularly influenced by the Jesuit Richard Simon, whose textual criticism aimed to dismantle the doctrine of Sola Scriptura by undermining the certainty of the biblical text. In this blog post, I will demonstrate how Steele’s interpretation is a product of Enlightenment philosophy, which prioritizes human reason and skepticism over divine revelation and providence. This contrasts sharply with the pre-modern worldview of the Reformers, who saw Scripture as the final authority and believed in its providential preservation in such a way that it could be known, used, and trusted by the Church. The Reformers’ confidence in the preserved text of Scripture stands in stark opposition to Steele’s post-Enlightenment reinterpretation.
The Jesuit Counter-Reformation and Richard Simon’s Skeptical Method
To understand the roots of Steele’s position, we must first examine the influence of the Jesuit counter-reformationist Richard Simon. During the late 17th century, Simon launched a direct assault on the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. He argued that the Scriptures contained numerous textual variants and discrepancies that could not be resolved without the guiding authority of the Church. His goal was to undermine Protestant confidence in the Scriptures and elevate the role of Church tradition as the final authority. Simon’s method was deeply influenced by Enlightenment philosophy, which emphasized the autonomy of human reason and the necessity of critical inquiry. This new philosophical approach sought to subject every truth claim, including those of Scripture, to human scrutiny. It introduced a level of skepticism that was foreign to the Reformers and fundamentally opposed to their doctrine of biblical preservation. Instead of placing the locus of final authority in Church tradition as Simon did, Steele seeks to place it in the magisterium of textual critics, the majority of whom are just as lost as the counter-reformationists.
Steele’s Enlightenment Reinterpretation of the Westminster Confession
Steele’s interpretation of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), particularly the phrase “kept pure in all ages” in Chapter 1, Section 8, reflects this Enlightenment influence. Steele argues that the Confession does not assert an absolute textual purity but instead acknowledges the need for ongoing textual criticism to recover a substantially pure text. He suggests that the Divines were aware of the existence of textual variants and accepted that the original readings were not fully preserved in any single manuscript or printed edition. However, this interpretation relies on a post-Enlightenment understanding of preservation and purity, one that prioritizes human reason over divine providence. Steele’s view aligns closely with Richard Simon’s critique of Sola Scriptura, which questioned the integrity of the Scriptures based on the existence of textual variants. By embracing this modern skepticism, Steele reinterprets the historical context of the Confession through the lens of Enlightenment philosophy, rather than the pre-modern worldview of the Reformers.
The Reformers’ Pre-Modern Approach to Scripture and Authority
The Reformers, in stark contrast to the Enlightenment skepticism of Richard Simon and Stephen Steele, held a fundamentally different view of textual variants and biblical authority. They believed in the absolute authority of Scripture over all truth claims, including those related to textual criticism. This view was grounded in their conviction that God had providentially preserved His Word in purity and accessibility, enabling the Church to appeal to the Scriptures as the final judge of all truth claims. This pre-modern approach is evident in the writings of key Reformers like John Calvin and Reformed theologians such as Francis Turretin. Calvin acknowledged the existence of textual variants but emphasized that they did not compromise the essential integrity of the Scriptures. He held that the Scriptures were self-authenticating and that their authority was inherent, not dependent on external validation by critical scholars.
The Self-Authenticating Nature of Scripture
Central to the Reformers’ understanding of biblical preservation was the concept of self-authentication. The Scriptures were not seen as needing external validation, such as that coming from the modern textual critic, to be authoritative; their divine origin ensured that they carried their own authority. This doctrine of self-authentication was a direct challenge to the Enlightenment emphasis on human reason and skepticism. Francis Turretin, one of the leading Reformed theologians of the post-Reformation period, articulated this view clearly. He argued that the Scriptures were “authentic” because they were preserved in purity, despite the presence of textual variants. Turretin acknowledged that there were variations among manuscripts, but he maintained that these did not undermine the authority or integrity of the biblical text. Instead, he believed that God’s providence had ensured the preservation of the Scriptures in such a way that their essential message and doctrine remained intact. This understanding of self-authentication stands in direct opposition to Steele’s modern approach, which places the final authority in the hands of textual critics rather than in the Scriptures themselves. By subjecting the text to the scrutiny of unbelieving critical scholars, Steele’s position effectively undermines the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the Reformers’ confidence in the preserved Word of God.
The Role of the Westminster Confession in Affirming Preservation
Steele’s interpretation of the Westminster Confession attempts to reconcile his modern skepticism with the historical context of the Confession. He argues that the Divines’ use of the phrase “kept pure in all ages” does not imply an absolute textual purity but rather a general reliability. This interpretation aligns closely with the post-Enlightenment view of progressive textual purification, in which the goal is to recover the original text through ongoing critical scholarship. However, Milne’s analysis in Has the Bible Been Kept Pure? reveals a different understanding. The Westminster Confession’s statement in Chapter 1, Section 8, affirms that the Old and New Testaments, in their original languages, were “immediately inspired by God” and “by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages.” This phrase is not a vague assurance of general reliability; it is a declaration of confidence in the complete preservation of Scripture in its authentic form. The Confession’s use of the term “authentical” does not merely distinguish the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures from the Latin Vulgate. Rather, it affirms that the Scriptures, as preserved in the original languages, are the final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. The Divines were not advocating for an ongoing reconstruction of a lost original text but were asserting that the Scriptures had been providentially preserved in a way that made them accessible and reliable for the Church in their day.
Scripture as the Final Judge of All Truth Claims
One of the most significant differences between Steele’s position and the Reformers’ view lies in the role of Scripture in evaluating truth claims. The Reformers believed that Scripture was the ultimate judge of all truth, which must include claims about the text itself. This conviction is rooted in the self-authenticating nature of Scripture, which asserts its own authority and reliability through its divine origin. Steele’s position, however, shifts the final authority from Scripture to the conclusions of unbelieving textual critics. By embracing an Enlightenment skepticism toward the integrity of the biblical text, Steele’s approach effectively replaces the authority of Scripture with the authority of human reasoning. This shift is a direct consequence of the Enlightenment philosophy introduced by Richard Simon into the textual debate, which prioritized human autonomy and rational analysis over the authority of divine revelation.
Rejecting Steele’s Enlightenment-Based Skepticism
The Enlightenment brought about a significant shift in the way truth claims were evaluated. Where the Reformers relied on the authority of Scripture as the final standard, Enlightenment thinkers like Simon introduced a new framework that emphasized human reason and skepticism. This new approach fundamentally challenged the Reformation’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura and introduced doubt about the integrity of the biblical text. Steele’s position is a continuation of this Enlightenment skepticism. By reinterpreting the Confession to allow for ongoing textual reconstruction and subjecting the Scriptures to the scrutiny of critical scholars, the vast majority of whom were unbelievers, Steele effectively removes Scripture from its position as the final authority. Instead, he places human judgment at the center, relying on the conclusions of “scholars” to determine what parts of the Bible are authentic.
The Reformers’ Confidence in a Knowable and Preserved Text
In contrast to Steele’s modern skepticism, the Reformers’ confidence in the preservation of Scripture was grounded in their belief in God’s providence. They believed that God had preserved His Word in such a way that it could be known, used, and trusted by the Church in their day. They didn’t need to wait over 400 years for us to have computers to know if they had the entirety of God’s word. This confidence is reflected in the writings of key Reformers and theologians like Calvin, Turretin, and the Westminster Divines. The Reformers did not argue for an ideal, hypothetical text that could not be known or accessed. They affirmed that the Scriptures, as preserved in the original languages, were reliable and authoritative and existed in their day. This belief was not based on the conclusions of critical scholars but on the doctrine of divine providence and the self-authenticating nature of Scripture.
Conclusion: Returning to a Pre-Modern Confidence in Scripture
Steele’s reinterpretation of the Westminster Confession and the Reformers’ doctrine of preservation is not merely a matter of historical interpretation—it is a product of Enlightenment philosophy. By embracing the skepticism introduced by Richard Simon, Steele undermines the authority of Scripture and elevates human reason as the final arbiter of truth. This shift fundamentally contradicts the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the pre-modern worldview of the Reformers. Milne’s analysis in Has the Bible Been Kept Pure? offers a corrective to this modern skepticism by reaffirming the Reformers’ confidence in a knowable and reliable text. The Westminster Confession’s affirmation that the Scriptures have been “kept pure in all ages” is not a vague assurance but a declaration of God’s providential preservation of His Word. This preservation is not an ideal or hypothetical concept but a tangible reality that enables believers to appeal to the Scriptures as the final judge of all truth claims. Believers today must resist the allure of Enlightenment-based textual criticism that undermines the authority of Scripture. Instead, we should return to the pre-modern confidence of the Reformers, who upheld the Bible as the supreme authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. In doing so, we affirm that God’s Word is not only authentic and reliable but also accessible and trustworthy for His Church in all ages. By grounding our confidence in the providence of God and the self-authenticating nature of Scripture, we uphold the central Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This is not merely a historical affirmation but a living conviction that shapes how we understand, use, and trust the Scriptures today.
