This series is a response to Lane Keister’s response to my previous series about his heresy. You can read his response here. It’s a doozy. In 532 words he promotes 12 distinct heresies and demonstrates he doesn’t understand the basic principles of hermeneutics.
Introduction to the Debate
The doctrine of biblical preservation is central to the Christian faith, serving as the foundation for the authority, infallibility, and sufficiency of Scripture. Within this doctrine, two competing views have emerged: textual preservation and conceptual preservation. [You can read here how applying the view to Matthew 5:18 weakens the entire doctrine of Preservation]. These paradigms represent fundamentally different approaches to understanding how God has preserved His Word for successive generations. The implications of adopting one over the other are profound, influencing not only the interpretation of Scripture but also the integrity of Christian doctrine and practice. This article provides an exhaustive examination of these two views, their theological underpinnings, and their consequences, setting the stage for a detailed exploration of the dangers associated with rejecting textual preservation.
Overview of Textual vs. Conceptual Preservation
Defining Textual Preservation
Textual preservation is the belief that God, by His special providence, has preserved the actual words of Scripture as they were originally given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. This view holds that the precise words inspired by God have been faithfully transmitted through the centuries, ensuring that the church possesses the very Word of God. Textual preservation is rooted in a high view of verbal plenary inspiration, the doctrine that every word of Scripture is divinely inspired and authoritative (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Matthew 5:18).
Key biblical passages supporting textual preservation include:
- Psalm 12:6-7: “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”
- Matthew 5:18: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
- Isaiah 59:21: “My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.”
These verses affirm that God has preserved not only the concepts of His revelation but also the precise words necessary for the church’s faith and practice. The Reformers and post-Reformation theologians uniformly held to this view, emphasizing the importance of the providential preservation of the authentic Greek and Hebrew texts.
Defining Conceptual Preservation
Conceptual preservation, on the other hand, posits that while the precise words of Scripture may not have been perfectly preserved, the essential concepts or teachings of Scripture have been maintained. This view allows for textual corruption, arguing that the original message or intent of the biblical authors can be reconstructed through scholarly interpretation and textual criticism. Proponents of conceptual preservation often emphasize the broader theological themes of Scripture rather than the preservation of its exact wording.
The implications of this view are significant:
- Reliance on Human Scholarship: Conceptual preservation shifts the responsibility of reconstructing the biblical text to human scholars, undermining the doctrine of providential preservation.
- Subjectivity in Interpretation: Without a preserved text, theological interpretations become dependent on the subjective judgments of textual critics.
- Erosion of Scriptural Authority: If the words of Scripture are not preserved, the authority of Scripture as the infallible Word of God is called into question.
Examples of the Controversy
The debate between textual and conceptual preservation is not merely theoretical; it has played out in significant controversies within the church. One such controversy involves the interpretation of Matthew 5:18. Historically, Reformed theologians understood this verse to affirm the preservation of the biblical text, emphasizing the enduring nature of every jot and tittle of Scripture. However, some contemporary theologians, such as Lane Keister, argue that this passage refers only to the enduring presence of the law as a concept, not to the preservation of its textual form.
This reinterpretation has far-reaching implications. By divorcing the text from its divine preservation, proponents of conceptual preservation open the door to:
- Doctrinal Ambiguity: Essential doctrines such as the Trinity, justification, and sanctification rely on specific biblical texts. Without textual preservation, the basis for these doctrines becomes uncertain.
- Ecclesiastical Division: Divergent interpretations of Scripture, arising from textual uncertainty, threaten the unity of the church.
- Theological Relativism: The absence of a preserved text leads to the reinterpretation of biblical doctrines according to contemporary cultural and ideological trends.
Purpose of the Series
Exposing the Dangers of Rejecting Textual Preservation
The rejection of textual preservation in favor of conceptual preservation carries severe theological and practical consequences. At its core, this rejection undermines the very foundation of Christian faith and practice by introducing uncertainty into the text of Scripture. Without a preserved text, doctrines derived from Scripture are subject to reinterpretation, and the church is left without a firm foundation for faith and life. As the series will demonstrate, conceptual preservation:
- Compromises the Infallibility of Scripture: Infallibility applies to the words of Scripture, not to abstract concepts. If the words are not preserved, the doctrine of infallibility becomes meaningless.
- Erodes Confidence in the Authority of Scripture: The authority of Scripture depends on its textual reliability. Conceptual preservation reduces Scripture to a fallible human document, undermining its role as the ultimate standard for truth.
- Leads to Doctrinal Relativism: Without a preserved text, the interpretation of Scripture becomes subjective, leading to doctrinal chaos and heresy.
Affirming the Biblical and Confessional Necessity of Verbal Plenary Preservation
This series will affirm the biblical and confessional doctrine of verbal plenary preservation, demonstrating that the preservation of Scripture’s words is not only a theological necessity but also a biblical mandate. Drawing from Scripture, historical theology, and confessional standards, the series will argue that:
- Preservation is Essential to Infallibility: The inspired words of Scripture must be preserved for the Bible to remain infallible.
- Preservation is a Divine Promise: God has explicitly promised to preserve His Word throughout all generations.
- Preservation Safeguards Doctrinal Integrity: The preservation of the text ensures the integrity of essential Christian doctrines, protecting the church from heresy and error.
Conclusion
The debate between textual and conceptual preservation is more than an academic exercise; it strikes at the heart of the Christian faith. By rejecting textual preservation, proponents of conceptual preservation introduce uncertainty into the very foundation of Scripture, jeopardizing its authority, infallibility, and sufficiency. This series will expose the dangers of this view, affirm the necessity of verbal plenary preservation, and provide a robust defense of the biblical and confessional doctrine of preservation. In doing so, it will call the church to uphold the enduring truth of God’s Word, preserved in its original form for the benefit of all generations.
Loss of Objective Authority
The authority of Scripture is foundational to the Christian faith, establishing the Bible as the ultimate standard for truth and the definitive guide for faith and practice. This authority hinges on the preservation of Scripture in its textual form. Without the preservation of its exact words, the authority of Scripture becomes subjective, open to reinterpretation, and vulnerable to distortion. Lane Keister’s interpretation of Matthew 5:18 and his broader approach to textual preservation undermine this foundation, raising critical questions about the relationship between the law, its textual medium, and the enduring authority of Scripture.
Keister’s Claim About Matthew 5:18
Lane Keister has argued that Matthew 5:18—which states, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”—refers solely to the enduring presence of the law as a concept rather than to the preservation of the biblical text itself. In his view, this passage affirms that the moral and ceremonial law remains valid throughout history but does not specifically promise the preservation of Scripture’s precise words.
This interpretation raises significant theological concerns. The law, as the revealed will of God, is intrinsically tied to the textual form through which it has been communicated. If the text is not preserved, the law’s enduring presence becomes meaningless, as its very communication relies on the integrity of the written Word. Keister’s view severs this necessary connection between the law and its textual medium, leading to questions about the coherence of his interpretation and its implications for the authority of Scripture.
Refutation
The Essential Connection Between Text and Law
The enduring authority of the law cannot exist apart from the preservation of the text. Scripture consistently emphasizes the inseparability of God’s law and its written form. For example:
- Deuteronomy 31:24-26: Moses commands that the law be written and placed beside the Ark of the Covenant as a witness for all generations.
- Psalm 19:7-8: The law is described as perfect, sure, and righteous—qualities that presuppose the accuracy and preservation of the written text.
- Isaiah 40:8: “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”
These passages affirm that the authority and endurance of the law are intrinsically tied to its textual preservation. If the text is corrupted or lost, the clarity, reliability, and enduring relevance of the law are compromised.
Keister’s Disconnection of Text and Law
By interpreting Matthew 5:18 as referring only to the enduring presence of the law without textual preservation, Keister introduces a false dichotomy. His approach implies that the law can exist independently of its written form, a view that undermines the very foundation of biblical authority. Without the preserved text, the law’s authority becomes abstract, subject to human interpretation rather than grounded in the unchanging Word of God.
Implications for Scriptural Authority
Keister’s interpretation has far-reaching implications:
- Subjectivity in Interpretation: If the law is not preserved in its textual form, its meaning becomes open to subjective interpretation, weakening its role as an objective standard for truth.
- Erosion of Confidence in Scripture: The authority of Scripture depends on its textual integrity. Keister’s view calls this integrity into question, undermining the church’s confidence in the reliability of God’s Word.
- Doctrinal Instability: Without a preserved text, essential doctrines derived from Scripture become vulnerable to reinterpretation, threatening the coherence of Christian theology.
Keister’s Mischaracterization of Criticism
In his defense of this interpretation, Keister accuses Chris Thomas of libel against himself and his presbytery, framing the critique as a personal attack rather than a theological disagreement. This accusation shifts the focus from the substantive issue of textual preservation to personal grievances, muddying the core debate.
Response
The critique of Keister’s interpretation is not personal but theological. It addresses the logical and doctrinal implications of his view for Reformed orthodoxy, particularly its alignment with historical Reformed theology and the Westminster Standards. The question at hand is whether Keister’s interpretation of Matthew 5:18 upholds the biblical and confessional doctrine of preservation or introduces theological inconsistencies.
Keister’s Deflection from the Core Issue
By framing the critique as libel, Keister diverts attention from the potential doctrinal instability caused by his interpretation. This approach obscures the central concern: the implications of his view for the authority of Scripture. Rather than engaging with the theological critique, Keister focuses on defending his personal integrity and the reputation of his presbytery.
Impact on Authority
Undermining Scriptural Objectivity
Keister’s interpretation of Matthew 5:18 weakens the objective authority of Scripture by detaching the law from its textual foundation. If the preservation of Scripture’s precise words is not guaranteed, the law’s authority becomes dependent on human efforts to reconstruct its original meaning, introducing subjectivity into the interpretive process.
The Role of Textual Preservation in Authority
Textual preservation is essential for maintaining the authority of Scripture. As the inspired Word of God, Scripture’s authority derives from its divine origin and its faithful transmission through the ages. The Westminster Confession of Faith reflects this principle, stating that the Scriptures have been “kept pure in all ages” (WCF 1.8). Without this preservation, the church loses its ultimate standard for truth, leaving doctrine and practice vulnerable to human error.
The Danger of Conceptual Preservation
Keister’s emphasis on the enduring presence of the law as a concept, divorced from its textual preservation, aligns more closely with the view of conceptual preservation than with the confessional doctrine of verbal plenary preservation. This shift:
- Compromises Doctrinal Clarity: Abstract concepts are inherently less precise than specific words, leading to ambiguity in interpretation.
- Elevates Human Reasoning: The reliance on human scholarship to reconstruct Scripture’s meaning shifts authority from the text to human interpreters, undermining sola Scriptura.
- Opens the Door to Theological Error: Without a preserved text, heretical interpretations of Scripture can gain traction, as the text’s integrity is no longer a reliable safeguard.
Conclusion
The objective authority of Scripture depends on the preservation of its text. By interpreting Matthew 5:18 as referring only to the enduring presence of the law without textual preservation, Lane Keister undermines this authority, introducing subjectivity and uncertainty into the foundation of Christian doctrine. His mischaracterization of theological critique as personal libel further detracts from the core issue, diverting attention from the serious doctrinal implications of his view.
This article has demonstrated that the enduring authority of the law, as affirmed in Matthew 5:18, necessitates the preservation of its textual medium. Any attempt to separate the two compromises the integrity of Scripture and weakens its role as the ultimate standard for truth. Subsequent articles in this series will continue to explore the dangers of rejecting textual preservation and affirm the biblical and confessional necessity of maintaining the precise words of Scripture as God’s inspired and authoritative revelation.
