Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

The Protestant Reformation, a pivotal movement in Christian history, undeniably achieved one of its greatest triumphs: giving the Bible to the people in their own languages. This monumental development allowed individual believers to access the Scriptures in a way that had previously been restricted to the clergy. However, the Reformation also birthed a wave of divisiveness within Christianity. The fragmentation of the Church that followed has led to thousands of denominations, each claiming to hold the “true” understanding of Scripture, yet each presenting conflicting interpretations.

But beyond the surface of these divisions, there exists a much more insidious threat to the authenticity and authority of the Bible. The advent of higher criticism, particularly the German school of thought, has sought to unravel the foundation of Christian doctrine. This article will explore the dangerous impact of higher criticism and the liberalism it fosters, tracing its origins and the damage it continues to inflict upon the Christian faith.

The Rise of Higher Criticism and Its Destructive Legacy

At the heart of modern liberal theology lies the German influence of higher criticism, which began in the 18th century. These scholars questioned the authenticity of the biblical text, seeking to prove that the Bible was not the divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God but rather a collection of human stories and myths that had evolved over time. The goal of higher criticism was not to affirm Scripture’s truth but to debunk its authority.

Figures such as Friedrich Schleiermacher and Wilhelm de Wette led the charge in the development of biblical criticism. Their methods applied modern, humanistic thinking to the Bible, suggesting that many parts of the Old and New Testaments were later additions and not authored by the figures traditionally associated with them. For example, higher critics denied Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible, argued that multiple authors contributed to the book of Isaiah, and suggested that the prophecies of Daniel were written after the events they purportedly foretold. This shift in methodology laid the groundwork for centuries of theological confusion, which continues to affect many so-called Christian scholars today.

The impact of this shift was not limited to the academic world. It affected the faith of countless believers who, confronted with these challenges to the Bible’s integrity, began to question whether they could trust the Scriptures as they once had. As higher criticism gained traction, it moved away from a literal, historical-grammatical method of interpretation toward a more speculative, subjective approach that sought to deconstruct the Bible rather than preserve its authority.

The Bible as Myth and Legend: Denying the Inerrancy of Scripture

One of the most harmful consequences of higher criticism is the rejection of the Bible’s inerrancy. Higher critics have long argued that much of the Bible is composed of myth and legend, with no firm basis in historical reality. This view became widespread in the 19th and 20th centuries, particularly within the realms of liberal theology. Moses was no longer seen as the author of the Pentateuch, and the grand narratives of the Old Testament were regarded as mere fables. The story of Jonah, for instance, was dismissed as allegorical, and the accounts of miracles in the Gospels were considered embellishments rather than genuine events.

This critical approach denies the Bible’s self-attestation, where it consistently presents itself as the inspired, authoritative Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16). The Scriptures were written by human authors under the inspiration of Jehovah Himself, not as the product of mythic imagination or speculative thought. As the psalmist declares, “Forever, O Jehovah, Your word is settled in heaven” (Psalm 119:89). To reduce the Bible to mere myth or legend is to rob it of its divine authority, rendering it powerless in the lives of believers.

The Rise of Evangelical Acceptance of Higher Criticism

Despite the damage caused by higher criticism, some within the evangelical community have gradually accepted its methods. Prominent scholars such as Norman Geisler, Gleason Archer, and others have fought to defend the integrity of Scripture against the claims of liberal theology. However, their efforts have been met with increasing resistance as more and more scholars—particularly in seminaries—adopted the liberal views that arose from higher criticism.

One of the most troubling aspects of this shift is the increasing tendency for evangelical apologists to embrace elements of higher criticism while claiming to defend the inerrancy of Scripture. Scholars such as William Lane Craig, John Lennox, and others have advocated for the use of higher criticism in their work, leading to confusion about what it means to be a faithful interpreter of the Bible. These scholars claim that higher criticism offers useful tools for understanding the historical context of the Bible, yet they fail to acknowledge the fundamental flaws of this approach.

The use of higher criticism in evangelical circles has led to a watering down of the doctrine of inerrancy. Once scholars accept the premises of higher criticism, they find themselves unable to fully uphold the Bible as the inspired, authoritative Word of God. The rise of “open-minded” or “progressive” evangelicalism, which embraces the idea that parts of the Bible are culturally bound and no longer applicable, further weakens the authority of Scripture. In this environment, the Bible becomes a product of human culture rather than the divine revelation of Jehovah.

Textual Criticism and the Erosion of Biblical Certainty

Another area where higher criticism has taken its toll is in the field of New Testament textual criticism. For centuries, scholars worked diligently to reconstruct the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament and produce reliable Greek texts. However, in the 19th and 20th centuries, the field was overtaken by higher critics who introduced skepticism regarding the authenticity of many of the biblical manuscripts. This led to the development of a “critical text” that included conjectural emendations and textual variants which were seen as more scholarly than traditional readings.

The influence of higher criticism has also led to the redating of certain biblical manuscripts, particularly those of the New Testament. What was once understood to be clear evidence for the early dating of the New Testament books has now been questioned by critics, leading to the destabilization of the historical foundations of the Christian faith. As critical scholars continue to push for more radical changes in the dating and interpretation of biblical manuscripts, the certainty of the biblical text continues to erode.

The Pseudo-Scholarship of Higher Criticism

It is critical to recognize that higher criticism is built on speculative assumptions rather than hard evidence. There is no conclusive evidence to support the claims made by higher critics regarding the authorship and dating of the biblical texts. Many of the theories put forth by higher critics have been discredited, yet the methodology remains entrenched in many academic institutions. Higher criticism has produced pseudo-scholarly works that have contributed to the undermining of Christians’ confidence in the Bible. These theories present themselves as objective and scientific, but in reality, they are rooted in humanistic assumptions that are antithetical to the divine revelation of the Scriptures.

The Way Forward: Returning to the Historical-Grammatical Method

The solution to the damage caused by higher criticism is to return to the objective, historical-grammatical method of interpretation. This method acknowledges the Bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God, which must be interpreted in light of its original languages, historical context, and literary genres. The historical-grammatical method does not allow for speculative interpretation or the imposition of human ideas onto the text. Instead, it seeks to understand the meaning of the biblical text as the original authors intended it to be understood, guided by the principle that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Christian apologists who defend the integrity of the Bible must reject the errors of higher criticism and return to the solid foundation of the historical-grammatical method. The fight to preserve the truth of Scripture is not over, but it requires a return to faithful scholarship that affirms the authority and inerrancy of the Bible. It is crucial that Christians, especially in the academic world, stand firm in their commitment to the truth of God’s Word and reject the speculative and destructive methods of higher criticism.

Conclusion: Standing Firm in the Faith

The damage done by higher criticism is profound, and the repercussions are still felt today. The rise of liberal theology and the widespread acceptance of critical methodologies have resulted in the fracturing of the Christian faith. The challenge now is to restore confidence in the Bible as the inspired, inerrant Word of God. By returning to the historical-grammatical method of interpretation and rejecting the speculative theories of higher criticism, we can protect the integrity of Scripture and preserve its authority in the lives of believers.

The time is short, and the need to stand firm in the faith has never been more urgent. The church must unite around the truth of God’s Word, not around human philosophies or speculative theories. Let us proclaim the Word of God boldly, teach sound doctrine, and make disciples of all nations, knowing that the great tribulation is on the horizon and the need for faithful witnesses is greater than ever.

You May Also Enjoy

Why Did Celsus Launch His Attack Against Christian Faith, and How Should Believers Respond?

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).