Section 3: Refutation of Lane Keister’s Review
3.1 Inconsistency with the Doctrine of Preservation
The preservation of Scripture is a cornerstone of biblical theology, yet Lane Keister’s Review presents a flawed and inconsistent view by failing to extend this doctrine to the Greek New Testament. While acknowledging the meticulous care God demonstrates in preserving the Hebrew Old Testament, Keister limits the promises of preservation in Matthew 5:18 to the Hebrew Scriptures alone. This approach undermines the unity of Scripture and creates a theological inconsistency that cannot be reconciled with Christ’s teachings or historical theological thought.
William Whitaker, in Disputation on Scripture, affirms the universal nature of preservation:
“The Scriptures, whether written in Hebrew or Greek, are alike the Word of God, and their authority depends not on the church, but on the testimony of God who hath preserved them.”
Whitaker’s statement reflects the consistent Reformed position that divine preservation applies to all Scripture, regardless of the language in which it was originally written. By denying this, Keister’s position aligns more closely with modern textual criticism than with the historic doctrine of providential preservation.
3.2 The Logical Necessity of Applying Matthew 5:18 to the Greek New Testament
If the promises of Matthew 5:18 are limited to the Hebrew Old Testament, the Greek New Testament is left without the same divine guarantees of preservation. This raises a critical theological question: how can the New Testament, which is equally inspired and authoritative, lack the same divine safeguarding as the Old Testament? Such a view creates a dichotomy within the canon that undermines the New Testament’s reliability.
James Ussher, in Body of Divinity, demonstrates the absurdity of such a division:
“Not one jot or prick of the Law shall perish, whereby it should appear that the Law and the Prophets… had vowels and pricks. This care belongs to the entirety of divine Scripture.”
By Ussher’s reasoning, the promises of Matthew 5:18 must extend to the New Testament. The failure to apply these promises consistently results in a fragmented and unstable view of Scripture, where the Old Testament is seen as preserved while the New Testament is treated as subject to human error and reconstruction.
John Owen also addresses the necessity of preservation for the entire canon:
“The Scripture differeth from all other writings not only in the matter and subject of it, but also in the manner of its preservation, which is by the singular providence of God.”
The divine care Owen describes applies to both Testaments. To deny this is to reject the theological unity of Scripture as the Word of God.
3.3 Keister’s Alignment with Modern Textual Criticism
Keister’s approach in limiting preservation to the Hebrew text aligns more closely with the principles of modern textual criticism than with the historic Reformed understanding of Scripture. Modern textual criticism assumes that the original text of the New Testament must be reconstructed through human effort, effectively denying the sufficiency of God’s providence in preserving His Word.
William Whitaker critiques such reliance on human methodologies:
“The Scriptures were not given to be altered or corrected by the whims of men, but to be received as the perfect Word of God, preserved in its entirety by His will.”
Whitaker’s warning is especially relevant in light of Keister’s reliance on textual criticism. By adopting this methodology, Keister undermines the promises of Matthew 5:18 and the historic doctrine of providential preservation. His approach treats the Greek New Testament as a flawed and incomplete text, subject to the uncertainties of scholarly conjecture rather than the assurance of divine preservation.
3.4 The Theological Implications of Keister’s Position
The failure to apply Matthew 5:18 to the Greek New Testament has significant theological consequences. If the Greek text is not divinely preserved, it cannot function as the authoritative Word of God. This undermines the sufficiency of Scripture and introduces uncertainty into the foundation of the Christian faith.
James Ussher emphasizes the inseparability of the Testaments:
“The Word of God is one in substance and authority, differing only in its administration between the Old and New Testaments. To deny the preservation of one is to deny the preservation of the other.”
By creating a division between the preservation of the Old and New Testaments, Keister’s position calls into question the entire doctrine of Scripture. The Greek New Testament, as the fulfillment of the Old Testament, must be preserved with the same care, or the integrity of the canon is compromised.
John Owen also addresses the dangers of denying preservation:
“If the Scripture were left to the uncertainties of human opinion, its authority would be diminished, and its purpose as the rule of faith and life would be lost.”
Owen’s observation highlights the practical implications of Keister’s position. By rejecting the preservation of the Greek New Testament, Keister leaves the church without a reliable standard for faith and practice.
3.5 Historical Testimony Against Keister’s Position
The consistent testimony of historical theologians stands in stark contrast to Keister’s view. Whitaker, Ussher, and Owen all affirm the divine preservation of Scripture in its entirety, including the Greek New Testament. This historic consensus reflects the biblical teaching that God’s Word is preserved in both its Testaments, ensuring its reliability for every generation.
Whitaker asserts:
“The immutability of Scripture cannot be confined to the Old Testament but must include the New Testament, which is equally the Word of God.”
Ussher likewise affirms the comprehensive scope of preservation:
“Neither one jot nor one tittle shall be lost.”
These statements leave no room for the fragmented view presented by Keister. The preservation of Scripture is a unified doctrine that applies to the entire canon, providing a firm foundation for the church’s faith and practice.
Conclusion to Section 3
Lane Keister’s Review fails to uphold the biblical and theological doctrine of preservation. By limiting the promises of Matthew 5:18 to the Hebrew Old Testament, Keister creates a fragmented view of Scripture that undermines the authority and reliability of the Greek New Testament. This position aligns more closely with modern textual criticism than with the historic Reformed understanding of Scripture, which affirms the preservation of the entire canon.
As the writings of Ussher, Whitaker, and Owen demonstrate, the promises of Matthew 5:18 extend to the Greek New Testament, ensuring its place as the divinely preserved and authoritative Word of God. Keister’s failure to recognize this truth results in a theological inconsistency that jeopardizes the integrity of Scripture and the confidence of the church. By affirming the comprehensive scope of preservation, we uphold the unity, authority, and sufficiency of God’s Word in its entirety.
Section 4: Testimonies from Historical Sources
4.1 John Owen on the Divine Preservation of Scripture
John Owen, one of the most prominent theologians of the Reformed tradition, provides a robust defense of the doctrine of Scripture’s preservation. Owen’s writings affirm that the entire Bible, in both Testaments, is divinely preserved as the authoritative and infallible Word of God. In The Works of John Owen, Vol. 16, he declares:
“The Word of God differeth from all other writings not only in the matter and subject of it, but also in the manner of its preservation, which is by the singular providence of God.”
This statement emphasizes that preservation is a distinguishing characteristic of Scripture. Unlike human writings, which are susceptible to corruption, God’s Word is divinely safeguarded so that it may remain pure and reliable for His people. Owen’s testimony is particularly relevant in refuting Lane Keister’s position, as it underscores the necessity of preservation for both the Old and New Testaments.
Owen also addresses the theological implications of denying preservation:
“If the Scripture were left to the uncertainties of human opinion, its authority would be diminished, and its purpose as the rule of faith and life would be lost.”
By failing to affirm the preservation of the Greek New Testament, Keister aligns himself with a methodology that undermines the authority of Scripture. Owen’s insights highlight the danger of such a position and reaffirm the comprehensive scope of God’s promise in Matthew 5:18.
4.2 William Whitaker on the Immutability of Scripture
William Whitaker, in his Disputation on Scripture, provides one of the most detailed and precise defenses of the preservation of Scripture. He argues that the immutability of Scripture applies to every part of the text, including its letters, syllables, and words:
“This verse affirms that God’s Word is immutable or unchangeable… This attribute is applied to every letter, syllable, word, and sentence.”
Whitaker’s statement is grounded in the promises of Matthew 5:18, which affirm that not one jot or tittle will pass away until all is fulfilled. By applying this promise to the entirety of Scripture, Whitaker directly counters the fragmented view presented by Keister. The Greek New Testament, no less than the Hebrew Old Testament, is subject to God’s preserving care.
Whitaker also critiques the human-centered methodologies of textual criticism, which prioritize scholarly reconstruction over divine providence:
“The Scriptures were not given to be altered or corrected by the whims of men, but to be received as the perfect Word of God, preserved in its entirety by His will.”
This critique is particularly applicable to Keister’s reliance on modern textual criticism. Whitaker’s testimony reaffirms the Reformed position that Scripture is preserved by God’s providence, not reconstructed through human effort.
4.3 James Ussher on the Scope of Preservation
James Ussher’s Body of Divinity offers a comprehensive view of Scripture’s preservation, emphasizing that God’s care extends to the minutest details of the text. He writes:
“Neither one jot nor one tittle shall be lost, for the perfection of the Word of God consisteth in this, that nothing may be added thereto, nor taken therefrom.”
Ussher’s affirmation of divine preservation aligns with Christ’s declaration in Matthew 5:18. The promise that not one jot or tittle will pass away ensures that every aspect of Scripture is preserved, from the smallest details to the overarching message. This promise cannot be confined to the Old Testament, as Ussher argues that the entirety of divine Scripture, including the Greek New Testament, is subject to the same preservation.
Ussher also addresses the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, emphasizing their unity in substance and authority:
“The Word of God is one in substance and authority, differing only in its administration between the Old and New Testaments. To deny the preservation of one is to deny the preservation of the other.”
This statement highlights the theological inconsistency of Keister’s position. By denying the preservation of the Greek New Testament, Keister effectively undermines the unity of Scripture and the reliability of the entire canon.
4.4 The Testimony of the Reformed Tradition
The consistent testimony of the Reformed tradition affirms the doctrine of providential preservation as applying to both Testaments. Owen, Whitaker, and Ussher represent a unified theological perspective that recognizes the promises of Matthew 5:18 as extending to the entire canon. This historic consensus stands in stark contrast to the fragmented view presented by Keister’s Review.
Whitaker summarizes the Reformed position succinctly:
“The Scriptures, whether written in Hebrew or Greek, are alike the Word of God, and their authority depends not on the church, but on the testimony of God who hath preserved them.”
This affirmation leaves no room for the methodological skepticism of modern textual criticism. The Greek New Testament, like the Hebrew Old Testament, is preserved by God’s providence, ensuring its reliability and authority for the church.
4.5 The Danger of Departing from Historical Testimony
Lane Keister’s failure to affirm the preservation of the Greek New Testament represents a departure from the historic Reformed understanding of Scripture. By limiting the promises of Matthew 5:18 to the Hebrew text, Keister aligns himself with modern textual criticism rather than the testimony of theologians like Owen, Whitaker, and Ussher.
John Owen warns against such departures:
“The Word of God, if not preserved by His providence, would be reduced to a matter of conjecture, undermining its role as the ultimate rule of faith and life.”
Keister’s reliance on textual criticism introduces this very uncertainty, treating the Greek New Testament as a text in need of reconstruction rather than a divinely preserved Word. This approach not only undermines the authority of the New Testament but also jeopardizes the unity and sufficiency of Scripture as a whole.
Conclusion to Section 4
The historical testimonies of John Owen, William Whitaker, and James Ussher provide a robust defense of the doctrine of providential preservation, affirming that the promises of Matthew 5:18 apply to the entire canon of Scripture. These theologians consistently emphasize that preservation extends to the minutest details of the text, ensuring the reliability and authority of both the Old and New Testaments.
Lane Keister’s position, by denying the preservation of the Greek New Testament, departs from this historic consensus and aligns with the unstable methodologies of modern textual criticism. By reaffirming the testimony of the Reformed tradition, we uphold the comprehensive scope of preservation promised in Matthew 5:18, ensuring that Scripture remains the divinely safeguarded and authoritative Word of God for all generations.
