The Dangers of Higher Criticism

Philosophical Presuppositions and Spiritual Consequences

Higher criticism—the historical-critical method applied to biblical texts—poses significant dangers that extend beyond academic methodology into the spiritual formation of believers and the life of the church. The core problem isn’t the desire to understand Scripture historically, but rather the philosophical assumptions embedded within the method itself.

Unexamined Philosophical Foundations

Evangelical scholars often adopt the tools and methods of historical-critical theology without carefully considering the philosophical-atheistic background that permeates their usage[1]. More troubling still, those who embrace the method’s fundamental assumptions become enmeshed in its presuppositions whether aware of it or not, and go astray even when opposing historical-critical conclusions[1]. This represents a subtle capture—scholars think they’re maintaining independence while operating within a framework designed to exclude supernatural explanation.

The Hermeneutic of Suspicion

Rather than approaching texts with openness, practitioners of the historical-critical method employ a hermeneutic of suspicion that purposely and systematically doubts the veracity of manuscripts[2]. This creates an impossible standard: the method “pretends to search for ‘assured results,’ ‘objective knowledge,’ when in fact the method presumes radical epistemological doubt, which by definition devours each new spawn of ‘assured results’”[2]. The result is perpetual skepticism masquerading as scholarship.

Disconnection from Spiritual Formation

Perhaps most damaging, the historical-critical method completely ignores or deliberately underestimates three crucial areas: personal formation, practical application, and direct encounter with God, leaving believers spiritually unsatisfied[2]. Biblical scholarship increasingly exhibits remoteness from Scripture itself, with God’s Word barely appearing in theological works unless explicitly studied, and God’s revelation not taken seriously as a source of knowledge[1].

Authority Displaced by Consensus

Rather than citing biblical truth, scholars tally scholarly opinion to establish facts and validate arguments—yet God’s Word’s truth doesn’t depend on solutions favored by the majority[1]. This substitutes human consensus for divine authority, fundamentally inverting the relationship between Scripture and scholarship.

The danger isn’t rigorous thinking but rather the smuggling of atheistic assumptions into biblical study under the guise of objectivity—assumptions that systematically exclude the possibility of divine action, inspiration, and revelation.

[1] Eta Linnemann, “Historical-Critical and Evangelical Theology,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society (1994), 5:2:22–23.
[2] Dean B. Deppe, All Roads Lead to the Text: Eight Methods of Inquiry into the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011), 265–267.