Higher criticism, as practiced by liberal, non-evangelical scholars, does not adhere to the traditional theological position of Scriptural Inerrancy. Many liberal scholars have few reservations about contradicting the truth claims found in the Bible if they feel that they have academic, evidentiary, or even theoretical warrant. And any externally imposed constraints that would limit a skeptic’s freedom to openly critique the Bible are often viewed as dogmatically narrow-minded and intellectually stifling.
This leaves the evangelical scholar in a decidedly uncomfortable position. On the one hand, conservative scholarship seeks to remain faithful to Scripture’s self-witness to its “special revelation” and inerrancy; and yet they feel pressure from liberal scholarship to be academically “open minded” and theologically “neutral.” In his article from the book Inerrancy, Payne describes this tension as a conflict between the “freedom” of negative higher criticism and the “commitment” of the evangelical to theological convictions. In other words, the fundamental dividing point between the liberal and conservative scholar is presuppositional in nature.
Negative higher criticism cannot itself invalidate the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy since the belief (or disbelief) in Biblical inerrancy is presuppositional in nature. In fact, the methodology used in higher criticism is determined by one’s opinion of Biblical inerrancy. When a skeptic expresses, for example, an opinion that contradicted Scripture’s self-testimony, that skeptic is coming to his conclusions based on the presumption that Scripture can err. Samuel Schultz writes:
Basic among all these questions is the presupposition of critics regarding the trustworthiness of the Bible. This is the watershed that ultimately divides them into two camps. One group regards the Bible at face value—reliable, trustworthy, and inerrant. The other group may presuppose various other positions except the recognition that the Bible is reliable throughout. . . [Instead, it is] treated on the purely human level.On a deeper level, the skeptic’s denial of Biblical inerrancy often has its roots in anti-supernaturalism. George Ladd writes,
They [the liberal scholars] interpret the Bible from within the presuppositions of the contemporary scientific world view. Such a world view assumes that all historical events are capable of being explained by other known historical events. In other words, what we call the supernatural is not the immediate activity of the living God; for it belongs to the area of legend and myth and not to the area of historical reality.”Although many liberal scholars will label their methodology as “scientific”, their anti-supernatural presuppositions actually oppose true scientific inquiry. Because history is not a reproducible entity that can be scrutinized like a laboratory experiment, rare events—such as miracles—cannot be excluded or dismissed simply because they do not fall into the realm of typical human experiences. Such a bias is not itself a “scientific” or logical deduction but rather a “faith-based” presupposition.
In 2 Peter 1:16, the apostle writes, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” For every scholar who practices higher criticism, the question then becomes: whose authority will he trust? Payne summarizes the issue in this way: “For every critic—the liberal just as much as the evangelical—establishing limits is a matter of faith, either in one’s own, internal competence or in another’s (Christ’s) external authority.” And Payne later writes, “It seems to boil down to this: either human criticism gains the place of honor, or Jesus does.”
Posts
