Why Did Philosophers in the 17th Century Challenge the Truth of Scripture?
1. The Growing Confidence in Human Reason
In the 17th century, one of the primary reasons philosophers challenged the truth of Scripture was the rise of human reason as an independent authority. The intellectual movement of the Enlightenment sought certainty through rational method, apart from divine revelation. Thinkers like René Descartes emphasized reason as the starting point for all knowledge, which shifted theology into a defensive position.
When human reason was assumed to be a priori correct, Scripture was forced to submit to its judgments. Instead of revelation providing the foundation for truth, philosophers argued that truth must be measured by rational inquiry. Yet according to the Bible, human reason is affected by sin (Romans 1:21–22), and apart from God’s self-disclosure, true knowledge of Him is impossible (1 Corinthians 1:20–21). The 17th century’s exaltation of reason above revelation represented not progress but a profound reversal of biblical priorities.
2. The Rise of Historical and Scientific Criticism
Another reason Scripture came under suspicion was the growing belief that history was contingent and unreliable when compared with supposed universal truths established by reason. Philosophers began to treat biblical accounts as historically conditioned documents rather than as divine revelation.
This shift was accelerated by the scientific revolution. The rise of empirical observation and natural philosophy made the physical world appear more “legible” than the Bible. Discoveries in astronomy, such as the heliocentric model, raised questions about traditional interpretations of Scripture. Others began to argue that the study of nature provided more reliable knowledge of reality than theological claims.
But Scripture itself insists on the reliability of God’s historical acts and words. The psalmist praises God’s faithfulness to all generations (Psalm 119:90), and Paul roots the Gospel in historical events—Christ’s death and resurrection “in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). To dismiss history as contingent is to undermine the very framework through which God reveals His salvation.
3. The Decline of Dogmatic Authority
Philosophers in the 17th century also rejected the traditional theological language used to describe Scripture. Words like “revelation,” “inspiration,” “authority,” and “canon” were increasingly viewed as unfit for scientific or academic discourse. If theology wanted to remain credible in the new intellectual climate, it was expected to abandon dogmatic claims and reframe itself as a “history of religion.”
This trend weakened the conviction that Scripture was God’s word. If the Bible was no longer treated as revelation but merely as religious expression, its authority was reduced to subjective experience. Yet according to the Bible, God’s word is not optional or partial but binding truth: “Forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89). The loss of confidence in Scripture’s inspiration and authority left theology vulnerable to being reshaped entirely by human reason.
4. The Emergence of Alternative Models of Revelation
As philosophers challenged traditional views of Scripture, alternative models of revelation were introduced. Some argued that revelation was not tied to a text but to human self-understanding, reducing the Bible to a record of religious experience. Others limited the authority of Scripture to its “saving purpose,” suggesting it could not be trusted in history or doctrine.
Still others claimed that revelation was found primarily in Jesus Christ as the Word, with Scripture serving only as a witness to Him. While it is true that Christ is the center of revelation (Hebrews 1:1–2), the Bible itself affirms that the written word is inspired by the Spirit and authoritative for all generations (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21). By separating Christ from the Scriptures that testify about Him (John 5:39), these new models fragmented the unity of God’s word.
5. The Theological Consequences for the Church
The 17th-century challenges to the truth of Scripture had lasting consequences. By treating the Bible as a collection of diverse historical documents rather than as the unified word of God, many theologians abandoned biblical theology. Instead of tracing the unfolding story of God’s redemptive plan, Scripture was reduced to religious history.
This shift obscured the church’s confession that “what Scripture says, God says.” Without confidence in revelation, the church risked being guided by human opinion, cultural trends, or philosophical speculation. Yet the Gospel depends on the truthfulness of God’s word. If the Scriptures are not reliable, the promises of Christ cannot be trusted. But as Peter declares, “The word of the Lord remains forever. And this word is the good news that was preached to you” (1 Peter 1:25).
The challenges of the 17th century remind believers today of the importance of holding fast to Scripture’s divine origin and authority. God has spoken, and His word is trustworthy, sufficient, and binding for all generations.
Conclusion
Philosophers in the 17th century challenged the truth of Scripture by elevating reason above revelation, by questioning the reliability of history, by discarding dogmatic categories, and by proposing alternative models of revelation. These developments threatened to reduce the Bible from God’s authoritative word to a merely human document.
According to the Bible, however, Scripture is the living word of God, inspired by the Spirit, sufficient for salvation, and enduring forever. The Gospel itself depends on this truth, for only if God’s word is trustworthy can His promises be believed.
The lesson of the 17th century is clear: whenever human reason is elevated above God’s revelation, the authority of Scripture is weakened, and the church is left without a sure foundation. But when God’s people trust His word, they find in Scripture both the voice of their Creator and the hope of their Redeemer.
