The Facts on the False Views of Jesus (Harvest House, 1997) pp. 31-32
Is higher critical methodology necessarily opposed to God and His Word?
What the critics of the Bible seem not to have internalized is that the individual steps that are followed in any critical method can only be as useful or valid as the assumptions which underlie them. If the assumptions are false, the conclusions based on them must also be false.
Which radical scholar accepts the supernatural? Yet miracles and the supernatural are inherently a part of what God does in history because God is a supernatural being. The Bible is checkered with miracles from beginning to end, from creation, the fall, and the flood to the exodus, conquest, prophets, captivity/return to the Gospels, Acts, epistles, and Revelation.
Which radical scholar accepts a first-century date of the New Testament and the traditional authorship of the Gospels? Which radical scholar believes Jesus is Lord and Savior? In using the methodology of unbelief, it is hardly surprising that the end results in unbelief.
As Eugene Klug writes in the foreword of The End of the Historical-Critical Method, “Historical-critical methodology cannot be claimed as a neutral discipline. It holds sway in ‘scientific’ theology pretty much as evolutionism rules the scientific disciplines. Theories multiply, often with total disdain for the facts, at times even though the facts contradict the conclusions. People finally believe what they want to believe.” (Gerhard Maier, The End of the Historical-Critical Method (St. Louis: Concordia, 1974), p. 8