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.
Dependence on Human Authority
The doctrine of textual preservation has historically emphasized divine providence in safeguarding Scripture, ensuring its integrity across generations. When this doctrine is abandoned or reinterpreted, the vacuum left behind is often filled by reliance on human authority, including scholars, textual critics, and subjective interpretations. Lane Keister’s rejection of historical theological opinions and his reinterpretation of Matthew 5:18 to exclude manuscript preservation exemplify this shift. This article examines the rise of dependence on human authority in theological interpretation, critiques Keister’s dismissal of historical consensus, and demonstrates how this trend undermines the doctrine of sola Scriptura and the church’s historic role in upholding textual authority.
1. The Rise of Scholars and Textual Critics
Human Reasoning Over Divine Revelation
When the preservation of Scripture is redefined or denied, reliance shifts from the divine promise of preservation to the fallible reasoning of human authorities:
- Textual Critics: Scholars become the arbiters of what constitutes the “true” text of Scripture, relying on methods shaped by Enlightenment rationalism.
- Subjective Reconstruction: Without the assurance of preserved words, the Bible is treated as a malleable document to be reconstructed based on human judgment rather than divine preservation.
The Elevation of Academic Consensus
- Textual criticism assumes that the original text is lost and must be reconstructed through fragmentary evidence. This places immense authority in the hands of scholars.
- This approach directly contradicts the biblical promise of preservation, as seen in Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 5:18, and Isaiah 59:21.
The Resulting Dependence
- The church becomes reliant on ever-changing academic conclusions rather than the unchanging Word of God.
- This dependence undermines confidence in Scripture’s infallibility and introduces instability into doctrine and practice.
2. Keister’s Rejection of Historical Opinions
Keister’s Dismissal of Historical Theology
Lane Keister has argued that interpretations of Matthew 5:18 by past Reformed theologians, which connect it to manuscript preservation, are merely “individual opinions” that are not binding. Instead, he asserts that the Westminster Standards alone are the measure of orthodoxy within the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC).
Why This is Problematic
- Severing Historical Context:
- The Westminster Standards did not arise in a vacuum. They were crafted within a rich theological tradition that included the collective wisdom of the Reformers and post-Reformation theologians.
- By dismissing these writings, Keister separates the confession from the historical and theological framework that shaped its content.
- Elevating Personal Interpretation:
- Keister’s dismissal effectively prioritizes his interpretation over the consensus of Reformed theologians who informed the Westminster Standards. This reflects a modern, individualistic approach to theology.
Historical Examples of Theological Consensus
The writings of the Reformers and post-Reformation theologians consistently affirm the preservation of Scripture as extending to its exact words, not merely its concepts:
- John Calvin: Stressed the enduring authority and integrity of the text, relying on God’s providence in its preservation.
- Francis Turretin: Explicitly defended the doctrine of verbal preservation as central to the infallibility of Scripture.
- Westminster Divines: Their formulation of the doctrine of Scripture in Chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession was informed by this robust theological heritage.
3. The Role of the Church in Upholding Textual Authority
Historical Defense of Scripture
The church has historically played a critical role in defending the integrity of the biblical text:
- Early Church: Faithfully preserved manuscripts and rejected spurious texts, such as Gnostic writings, based on the recognition of divine inspiration.
- Reformation Era: Reformers emphasized the preservation of the authentic text as a testimony to God’s providence, countering Roman Catholic claims of ecclesiastical supremacy over Scripture.
The Danger of Replacing Divine Authority with Human Authority
- Subjectivity in Interpretation:
- When historical theology is dismissed, Scripture’s meaning becomes increasingly subject to individual interpretation, influenced by contemporary biases.
- This leads to a fragmented church, as competing interpretations emerge without a unified, historically grounded framework.
- The Erosion of Sola Scriptura:
- Sola Scriptura emphasizes Scripture as the supreme authority. Dependence on scholars and textual critics subtly shifts this authority to human judgment, undermining the sufficiency of Scripture.
4. Broader Implications of Keister’s Approach
Alignment with Enlightenment Rationalism
Keister’s rejection of historical consensus reflects the Enlightenment-era shift toward individual interpretation and rationalism:
- Historical Parallels: Enlightenment thinkers prioritized human reason over tradition and divine revelation, leading to skepticism about the supernatural and the reliability of Scripture.
- Modern Impact: This approach continues to influence textual criticism, which assumes that Scripture’s text has been corrupted and must be reconstructed by human effort.
Doctrinal Instability
By disconnecting the Westminster Standards from their theological roots, Keister’s approach introduces significant risks:
- Loss of Interpretive Consistency:
- The confessions were designed to summarize biblical doctrine within the context of historical theology. Detaching them from this context opens the door to reinterpretation and doctrinal drift.
- Undermining Trust in Scripture:
- If the collective wisdom of the Reformers can be dismissed as irrelevant, the foundation of confessional orthodoxy is weakened, and reliance on contemporary human authorities becomes inevitable.
5. Refutation: The Necessity of Historical Context
The Westminster Standards as a Product of Theological Consensus
The Westminster Standards were informed by the collective wisdom of the Reformed tradition, drawing on the works of theologians like Calvin, Turretin, and Perkins:
- Doctrinal Unity: These writings provide the interpretive framework necessary for understanding the confessions.
- Keister’s Error: By dismissing these contributions as “individual opinions,” Keister undermines the interpretive integrity of the Westminster Standards.
Reaffirming Sola Scriptura
- The doctrine of sola Scriptura rests on the belief that Scripture, as divinely preserved, is the final authority for faith and practice.
- Historical theology supports this by affirming the continuity and preservation of the biblical text. To reject this heritage is to erode confidence in Scripture and open the door to dependence on human authority.
Conclusion
Keister’s dismissal of historical theological opinions and his reinterpretation of Matthew 5:18 exemplify a broader trend of dependence on human authority. By prioritizing personal interpretation and contemporary scholarly consensus over historical confessional theology, this approach undermines the doctrine of sola Scriptura and the church’s historic role in defending textual integrity. The Westminster Standards cannot be divorced from the theological context in which they were crafted. To do so is to sever the confessions from their foundation, introducing doctrinal instability and eroding trust in Scripture.
The church must reject this reliance on human authority and reaffirm the divine promise of preservation. Scripture’s authority is not contingent on the conclusions of scholars or textual critics but rests on the unchanging character of God, who has faithfully preserved His Word. In the next article, we will explore how dependence on human reasoning ultimately fragments the church and leads to theological relativism.
Fragmentation and Division in the Church
The church of Jesus Christ is called to unity in faith, doctrine, and practice. However, this unity is built on the foundation of Scripture as the infallible and preserved Word of God. When the doctrine of textual preservation is abandoned or redefined as conceptual preservation, the inevitable result is doctrinal schism, theological relativism, and division within the church. This article explores historical and modern examples of fragmentation caused by conceptual preservation and demonstrates why textual preservation is essential as the unifying standard for Christian unity.
1. Doctrinal Schisms Rooted in Conceptual Preservation
Historical Examples of Division
Throughout church history, deviations from textual preservation have been at the root of many doctrinal divisions:
- Gnosticism in the Early Church:
- Gnostic heresies emerged by reinterpreting Scripture’s concepts rather than adhering to the text. They claimed to have a deeper, mystical understanding of biblical truths, leading to a radical departure from orthodox teaching.
- The early church countered Gnosticism by affirming the precise words of Scripture as the standard of truth.
- Theological Confusion in the Middle Ages:
- During the medieval period, the lack of access to accurate biblical texts allowed allegorical interpretations and speculative theology to flourish, contributing to widespread doctrinal confusion.
- The Reformers addressed this by returning to the preserved biblical text as the ultimate authority.
Modern Examples of Division
Conceptual preservation continues to cause doctrinal fragmentation in contemporary contexts:
- Liberal Theology:
- By emphasizing the “spirit” or “concepts” of Scripture over the actual words, liberal theologians have justified departures from biblical morality, including the redefinition of marriage and gender roles.
- This approach undermines the infallibility of Scripture and creates theological pluralism, where conflicting interpretations are deemed equally valid.
- Ecumenical Movements:
- Many ecumenical efforts prioritize doctrinal minimalism, reducing Scripture to broad concepts to accommodate divergent traditions. This dilutes the gospel and weakens doctrinal distinctiveness.
Impact of Doctrinal Schisms
- Erosion of Trust in Scripture:
- When the text of Scripture is not preserved, confidence in its authority diminishes, leading to subjective interpretations and doctrinal chaos.
- Fragmentation of the Church:
- Without a shared commitment to the exact words of Scripture, differing theological camps emerge, each claiming fidelity to the “concepts” of Scripture while promoting contradictory doctrines.
2. Why Textual Preservation is the Unifying Standard
The Role of Textual Authority in Unity
Textual preservation provides a stable and objective foundation for church unity:
- Objective Standard:
- The exact words of Scripture serve as the ultimate arbiter in theological disputes, preventing subjective interpretations from gaining a foothold.
- John 17:17: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” The Word’s truth is not abstract but rooted in the preserved text.
- Common Ground for Doctrine:
- Churches across denominational lines have historically agreed on core doctrines because they share a common textual foundation. The preservation of Scripture ensures that these doctrines remain consistent and unaltered.
Textual Preservation and the Westminster Confession
- The Westminster Confession of Faith affirms the sufficiency, clarity, and infallibility of Scripture as the foundation for faith and practice. These attributes depend on the preservation of the exact words of Scripture.
- Without preserved words, the confession’s authority is undermined, as doctrinal formulations rely on the precision of the biblical text.
Why Conceptual Preservation Fails
- Subjectivity of Concepts:
- Concepts are inherently abstract and open to interpretation. Different individuals and traditions may interpret the same concept in conflicting ways.
- This subjectivity leads to a proliferation of doctrinal differences, as there is no objective textual authority to settle disputes.
- Doctrinal Drift:
- Over time, reliance on conceptual preservation allows for gradual reinterpretation of Scripture’s teachings, resulting in theological drift away from orthodoxy.
- For example, reinterpretations of “love” in Scripture have been used to justify unbiblical practices, such as affirming sin in the name of inclusivity.
3. The Consequences of Fragmentation
Weakening of the Church’s Witness
- Division within the church undermines its credibility and effectiveness in proclaiming the gospel.
- John 13:35: “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” Unity rooted in truth is essential for the church’s witness to the world.
Loss of Doctrinal Integrity
- When textual preservation is abandoned, the church’s ability to uphold sound doctrine is compromised.
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4: “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” The abandonment of textual preservation paves the way for such doctrinal instability.
A Call for Restoration
- The church must return to the biblical doctrine of textual preservation to restore unity and doctrinal integrity.
- Psalm 119:89: “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.” The church’s unity must be grounded in the enduring and unchanging Word of God.
Conclusion
The fragmentation and division within the church are direct consequences of abandoning the doctrine of textual preservation. Historical and modern examples demonstrate how reliance on conceptual preservation leads to doctrinal relativism, theological pluralism, and the weakening of the church’s unity and witness. Textual preservation, by contrast, provides an objective standard that upholds the infallibility of Scripture and ensures the church’s faithfulness to its mission.
As the church faces increasing challenges from both within and without, it must reaffirm its commitment to the preserved Word of God as the foundation for unity, doctrine, and practice. Only by holding fast to the exact words of Scripture can the church maintain its integrity and fulfill its calling to be the pillar and ground of the truth. In the next article, we will explore how this unity in the preserved text equips the church to stand firm against heresy and error.
