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.
Theological Relativism and Doctrinal Pluralism
The authority and clarity of Scripture serve as the foundation for Christian unity and doctrinal consistency. However, the rejection of textual preservation in favor of conceptual preservation inevitably leads to theological relativism and doctrinal pluralism. This shift undermines the church’s ability to maintain a unified confession of faith, replacing the firm foundation of God’s preserved Word with subjective interpretations and human reasoning. In this article, we will examine how conceptual preservation fosters relativism and pluralism, eroding the unity and doctrinal integrity of the church.
1. Relativism Through Conceptual Preservation
The Nature of Relativism
Theological relativism arises when the meaning of Scripture is no longer fixed but instead becomes dependent on the interpretations of individuals or communities. This subjectivity often stems from the assumption that the specific words of Scripture are not preserved, leaving only the “concepts” or “teachings” to be reconstructed and applied. In such a framework, competing interpretations of these concepts proliferate, each claiming validity without an objective standard to adjudicate differences.
How Conceptual Preservation Promotes Relativism
Conceptual preservation detaches the authority of Scripture from its textual foundation, replacing the precise, God-given words of Scripture with abstract ideas. This approach:
- Shifts Authority from the Divine to the Human: If the words of Scripture are not preserved, human interpreters must reconstruct the text’s intended meaning. This reliance on human reasoning introduces a variety of interpretations, each influenced by cultural, ideological, or theological biases.
- Redefines Doctrinal Boundaries: Without a preserved text, the boundaries of doctrines become fluid. For example:
- The doctrine of justification, grounded in texts like Romans 3:28 and Galatians 2:16, could be reinterpreted to align with contemporary views on works-based salvation.
- Key Christological passages, such as John 1:18 and 1 Timothy 3:16, may lose their precision, leading to conflicting views about the nature and identity of Christ.
- Reduces Scripture’s Objective Authority: Conceptual preservation allows for multiple, equally valid interpretations of Scripture, effectively making the Bible say whatever a given interpreter wishes it to say.
Biblical Warning Against Relativism
Scripture itself warns against the dangers of relativistic interpretation:
- 2 Peter 1:20-21: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
- This passage underscores the divine origin of Scripture and its protection from subjective reinterpretation.
- Proverbs 30:5-6: “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
- The integrity of Scripture depends on its words, not abstract concepts, remaining pure and unaltered.
The Relativism of Conceptual Preservation in Practice
Historical examples illustrate the dangers of theological relativism:
- Arianism and the Nature of Christ: Early church heretics like Arius manipulated scriptural concepts while rejecting the precise words of Scripture, leading to Christological error.
- Modern Liberal Theology: Contemporary theologians often emphasize the “spirit” or “message” of Scripture over its literal text, leading to the reinterpretation of biblical doctrines to fit modern sensibilities.
By rejecting textual preservation, conceptual preservation opens the door to these same errors, allowing theology to drift with the tides of cultural and ideological change.
2. Pluralism’s Erosion of Unity
The Nature of Doctrinal Pluralism
Doctrinal pluralism refers to the coexistence of conflicting theological positions within the church, often justified under the guise of unity in diversity. While the church has always faced some level of theological disagreement, the rise of pluralism as a normative standard is a direct result of the relativistic approach to Scripture promoted by conceptual preservation.
How Conceptual Preservation Fosters Pluralism
Conceptual preservation undermines unity by providing no fixed standard for resolving doctrinal disputes. When the exact words of Scripture are no longer authoritative, theological disagreements multiply, as each party appeals to differing interpretations of abstract concepts rather than to the concrete text of Scripture. This fragmentation manifests in several ways:
- Competing Doctrinal Frameworks: Without a preserved text, denominations and theological traditions develop diverging interpretations of key doctrines, such as the nature of the atonement or the authority of Scripture.
- Toleration of Heresy: In the absence of a clear textual standard, heretical views gain acceptance under the premise that they represent legitimate interpretations of Scripture’s broader concepts.
- Erosion of Confessional Unity: Historical confessions of faith, such as the Westminster Confession, rely on the precise words of Scripture to articulate doctrine. Conceptual preservation renders these confessions vulnerable to reinterpretation and diminishes their authority as unifying doctrinal statements.
Biblical Call for Unity in Truth
The Bible calls for unity in the truth of God’s Word:
- John 17:17, 21: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth… That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”
- Unity is grounded in the truth of God’s Word, which requires the preservation of its textual integrity.
- 1 Corinthians 1:10: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”
- Speaking “the same thing” necessitates a shared commitment to the precise words of Scripture as the basis for doctrinal agreement.
The Historical Impact of Pluralism
The history of the church demonstrates the dangers of doctrinal pluralism:
- The Protestant Reformation: The fragmentation of the church during the Reformation was partly due to disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture. However, the Reformers maintained unity by affirming the verbal preservation of the biblical text as the standard for resolving disputes.
- Modern Ecumenical Movements: Efforts to unify the church through broad theological consensus, rather than adherence to Scripture, have often resulted in doctrinal compromise and the erosion of biblical fidelity.
Without textual preservation, the church cannot maintain the unity that Christ prayed for, as its foundation is no longer the unchanging Word of God but the shifting sands of human opinion.
Conclusion
The shift from textual to conceptual preservation introduces theological relativism and doctrinal pluralism, undermining the church’s ability to stand united on the truth of Scripture. Relativism arises when the exact words of Scripture are no longer authoritative, leading to subjective interpretations and doctrinal instability. Pluralism follows as competing interpretations fragment the church, eroding its unity and compromising its witness.
The preservation of Scripture’s text is essential for maintaining its authority, clarity, and sufficiency. Without this foundation, the church risks losing its distinct identity as the pillar and ground of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). As this series continues, we will further explore the dangers of rejecting textual preservation and reaffirm the biblical and confessional necessity of preserving the precise words of God’s inspired revelation.
Article 4: Denial of Infallibility
The doctrine of infallibility asserts that Scripture is wholly true and trustworthy in all it affirms. This characteristic of Scripture is inseparable from the preservation of its text; without the preservation of the exact words of Scripture, its trustworthiness becomes questionable. Lane Keister’s claim to affirm the preservation of the biblical text is undermined by his rejection of Matthew 5:18 as a reference to manuscript preservation. This creates an inconsistency in his position that not only calls into question his understanding of infallibility but also weakens the historical and confessional foundations of his argument.
Keister’s Assertion of Belief in Preservation
Keister’s Position
Lane Keister asserts that he believes in the preservation of the original text of both the Old and New Testaments through manuscripts. He emphatically denies accusations that he rejects the doctrine of preservation, stating that his view aligns with the Westminster Standards. However, Keister also argues that Matthew 5:18 does not refer to manuscript preservation but instead to the enduring presence of the law as a concept.
The Inconsistency
Keister’s rejection of Matthew 5:18 as a reference to manuscript preservation introduces a logical inconsistency:
- Enduring Presence Requires Enduring Text: If Matthew 5:18 affirms the enduring presence of the law, this necessarily implies the preservation of the text through which the law is communicated. Without a preserved text, the law’s clarity, sufficiency, and authority are compromised.
- Disconnection Between Claim and Interpretation: By affirming preservation while rejecting Matthew 5:18 as a basis for manuscript preservation, Keister divorces the text from its theological foundation. This creates a disconnect between his stated belief and the logical implications of his interpretation.
Undermining Infallibility
Keister’s position weakens the connection between the preservation of Scripture and its infallibility. If the text is not preserved in its exact words, then the infallibility of Scripture cannot be maintained, as the trustworthiness of its teachings depends on the integrity of its words.
The Problem of Inconsistency
The Law and Its Textual Foundation
Keister argues that Matthew 5:18 refers to the enduring presence of the law rather than the preservation of its text. However, this interpretation undermines the very nature of the law as revealed in Scripture:
- Text as the Medium of Revelation: The law is communicated through the written Word of God. Its enduring presence is inseparable from the preservation of the text, as the text is the medium through which the law is transmitted across generations.
- Scriptural Examples: The Bible consistently ties the authority of the law to its textual preservation:
- Deuteronomy 31:24-26: Moses commanded the written law to be preserved as a witness for future generations.
- Psalm 19:7: The law is described as perfect and sure, qualities that presuppose the preservation of its textual integrity.
Logical Implications
If Matthew 5:18 affirms the enduring presence of the law without requiring textual preservation, then:
- The Law Becomes Abstract: Without a preserved text, the law’s clarity and application become subjective, leading to theological relativism.
- Infallibility is Undermined: The trustworthiness of the law depends on the preservation of its words. A law without a preserved text cannot be fully reliable.
Keister’s interpretation severs the necessary link between the law’s endurance and its textual preservation, introducing instability into the doctrine of infallibility.
Keister’s Mischaracterization of Criticism
Framing the Critique as Personal
Keister accuses his critics, including Chris Thomas, of misreading his position and equating his disagreement over Matthew 5:18 with a denial of preservation. He frames the critique as a personal attack rather than engaging with the substantive theological issues raised by his interpretation.
The Actual Issue
The critique is not about Keister’s personal beliefs but about the logical and doctrinal implications of his interpretation. By rejecting Matthew 5:18 as a basis for manuscript preservation, Keister introduces a theological inconsistency that undermines the coherence of preservation and infallibility.
The Importance of Historical Theologians
Keister’s Minimization of Historical Contributions
Keister dismisses the views of historical theologians, including the Reformers, who tied Matthew 5:18 to textual preservation. He relegates their insights to mere “individual opinions,” suggesting that their interpretations are irrelevant to contemporary theological discussions.
The Role of Historical Theologians
The views of historical theologians are not isolated opinions but the collective wisdom that shaped confessional orthodoxy. The Westminster Standards were crafted within this theological framework, drawing heavily on the writings of the Reformers and post-Reformation theologians. Their interpretations of passages like Matthew 5:18 reflect a consistent commitment to the doctrine of providential preservation.
Keister’s Severing of Confessional Roots
By dismissing historical interpretations of Matthew 5:18, Keister severs the Westminster Standards from their historical and theological roots. This undermines the authority of the confession, which cannot be properly understood apart from its historical context.
Response
Theological Instability
Keister’s separation of the Westminster Standards from the insights of historical theologians introduces doctrinal instability:
- Weakening Confessional Authority: The confession relies on the historical and theological context provided by the Reformers. Ignoring this context reduces the confession to a set of disconnected statements, vulnerable to subjective reinterpretation.
- Compromising Infallibility: The Reformers’ emphasis on textual preservation was central to their affirmation of Scripture’s infallibility. Keister’s rejection of their insights undermines this foundation.
The Necessity of Verbal Preservation
The Reformers consistently affirmed the preservation of Scripture’s exact words as essential to its infallibility. Keister’s interpretation challenges this principle, creating a doctrinal inconsistency that threatens the coherence of Reformed theology.
Conclusion
Lane Keister’s claim to affirm preservation is undermined by his rejection of Matthew 5:18 as a reference to textual preservation. This creates a theological inconsistency that weakens the connection between preservation and infallibility. By dismissing the insights of historical theologians, Keister further destabilizes the confessional framework that supports the doctrine of preservation.
The preservation of Scripture’s text is essential for maintaining its infallibility. Without a preserved text, the trustworthiness of Scripture is compromised, and the church is left without a firm foundation for faith and practice. As this series continues, we will explore the broader implications of rejecting textual preservation, reaffirming the biblical and confessional necessity of maintaining the precise words of God’s inspired revelation.
