Preservation: How and What? Part 4

Read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Biblical doctrine is teaching derived from Scripture. While we may possess many strong convictions based on our experiences, on our understanding of history, or on the opinions of experts, these do not rise to the level of biblical doctrine or tests of orthodoxy.

The case of Bible preservation is no exception. Any position we identify as “the doctrine of preservation” must be taught in Scripture. In this series I’ve argued that while Scripture does give us a doctrine of preservation, that doctrine does not include all the particulars some attach to it. God assures us that His Word will endure forever and will not pass away. He assures us that believers will have sufficient access to His Word until all is fulfilled.

But some insist that the true doctrine of preservation must also include all of the following:

  • Every word in its original form
  • Continual access by many believers
  • Certain identifiability in the form of a perfect text

That every single word is preserved is not in dispute. Whether it is preserved on paper, parchment or vellum here on earth is disputed by a few. Whether it is preserved here on earth in a discrete form we can point to and say, “there is the word-perfect preserved text” is contested by many.

A clear view of the central question

This series has not aimed to examine the case for perfect text preservation (PTP) comprehensively. Rather, my aim has been to scrutinize the biblical facts and identify what believers may properly term “doctrine of preservation.” Do we have biblical statements that say, or clearly imply, that believers will always have access to every word of Scripture in the form of a text they know is flawless?

Please note what the question is not. It is not, “Do verses indicate God’s Word will last forever?” It is not, “Do passages teach that God has tasked His people with maintaining written copies?” It is not, “Do verses emphasize that the words of Scripture are vital for Christian doctrine and Christian living?” Nor is the question, “Do people try to distort and sabotage the words of God?” Finally, the question is not, “Is God able to overcome human nature so that those He chooses perfectly preserve the text?”

The answers to all of these questions is yes. But if we look closely at what Scripture claims regarding the how-and-what details of preservation—and read the relevant passages with a scriptural view of human nature in view—what we see over and over again is that PTP is neither stated nor clearly implied.

A final look at Thou Shalt Keep Them

In part 3, I focused on the book Thou Shalt Keep Them (TSKT) as an example of one of the better efforts to establish PTP biblically as the correct doctrine of preservation, and evaluated several key passages. Here, I’ll consider remaining biblical arguments in the book, some of the secondary Bible-related arguments, and a few miscellaneous other points.

“It is written”

In TSKT’s eighth chapter David Sutton argues for PTP based on the perfect tense employed in the phrase “it is written.” The phrase occurs frequently in the NT to mark quotations from OT passages. Since the Greek perfect “shows completed past action with the results of that action continuing to the present” (p.76), Sutton observes, “Based on their inspired use of the perfect passive gegraptai, the writers of Scripture believed in perfect preservation” (p. 81).

Though Sutton’s explanation of the perfect tense is accurate, the chapter does not support the particulars of word-perfect text preservation. First, “it is written” expressed the condition that existed at the time the NT writers used the phrase. The tense does not communicate anything about the future. Second, “it is written” expressed the stands-written quality of the particular passages they were quoting. The writers did not say, “It stands written, along with every single word God ever inspired.” Third, even if we take the phrase to mean “will always stand written” and include every inspired word, the phrase still falls short of informing us that we will always be able to identify every word that stands written and access every one of them in the form of a perfect text.

“The word is very nigh unto thee”

Chapters 9 and 10 aim to support the continuing availability of every word of Scripture. In ch. 9, Kent Brandenburg examines Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and Romans 10:6-8 (where Paul quotes from the Deuteronomy passage).

For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. (Deut. 30:11-14)

The argument focuses on the nearness communicated in the passage, especially by the phrase “the word is very nigh.”

[The words] could also just reside in heaven, which the text goes on to dismiss as a valid possibility. God guaranteed access to the Words would not require passing over a sea. … Since hearing and doing is dependent on accessibility, the text promises that these Words will not be inaccessible.* (p. 89)

Soon after, the author illustrates a widespread error in TSKT’s argument—the leap from “words” to “every one of the words.” “By saying that His Word is available, the context clearly implies that every one of His Words is also accessible” (p. 90). However, the passage does not say that every jot and tittle had to be in their “mouths” before they could obey.

“Mindful of the words… Remember the words”

The same leap from “words” to “every word” occurs in Gary La More’s chapter (10) on 2 Peter 3:2 and Jude 17. Peter and Jude warn their readers to be “mindful of the words” and “remember the words,” respectively. The chapter fails to make a strong case but claims to have done so anyway:

The correct and obvious interpretation of these texts and the implied belief of the apostles was that they had every Word of God preserved and available to them. Based on legitimate application of this text, the Lord’s true churches today have available to them not only the Words of the Old Testament prophets but also the Words of the New Testament apostles and other New Testament writers. The teaching of the availability of every Word of Scripture has been and continues to be a strong basis for opposing the attacks on the teaching of Scripture by apostates. (p. 94)

Indirect biblical arguments

Chapter 15 focuses on the phenomenon of textual attack, a genuine problem, to be sure. But the reality of this problem does not help us find a biblical answer to the question of whether God’s people are able to maintain perfect texts.

Chapters 16-18 defend the thesis that proper doctrine cannot be maintained without PTP. These chapters provide dozens of examples of passages where differences in manuscripts have doctrinal implications—if each passage in question is taken alone. But there’s the rub. None of the texts in question actually do stand alone. None of them is even the primary—much less exclusive—basis for the doctrine in question.

A random example is 1 Peter 2:2. Here, the UBS Greek text reads “that you may grow up into salvation” (ESV), whereas TR reads “that you may grow thereby.” Gary Webb and David Sutton conclude that “the TR never says to grow into salvation, for this is works salvation” (p. 190). But by this standard, Philippians 2:12 would also be teaching “works salvation,” along with James 2:24 and other passages. The doctrine of salvation by grace through faith is abundantly clear in Romans and numerous other passages and informs our interpretation of 1 Peter 2:2, with or without “grow into salvation.”

Every textual difference in these chapters is similarly non-decisive doctrinally. Though the examples are numerous, they do not add up to evidence that we must have every word in hand in order to maintain proper doctrine. We are able to believe and do what we should despite the variations among the manuscripts. It’s easy to see why. We know what we’re being told to do whether someone says, “Go jump in a lake” or “Depart and deposit yourself with vigor into a body of water larger than a pond but smaller than an ocean.”

This is not to say the actual inspired words are unimportant. Rather, it illustrates the fact that accurate knowledge of what God wants us to believe and do is not dependent on every pronoun, article and suffix being perfectly preserved.

Other arguments

TSKT offers several additional arguments. Chapter 19 argues that just as the 66 books of the biblical canon were established because the churches received them, so also the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus are received. The implication is that we cannot accept canonical books without accepting the canonical words. But, in reality, the books of the Bible are canonical because God inspired them. His people were able to exercise discernment and recognize their inspired quality, but how does one discern whether “he” or “who” is the inspired reading in a passage where the theological meaning is unaffected by either option? In any case, employing the canonicity argument in favor of the MT and TR in particular rests on one’s interpretation of history.

Pseudo-arguments are employed in TSKT as well. Examples include guilt by association (with theistic evolution, p. 143; with humanism, p. 47; with rationalism pp. 151, 255 and others), as well straw man fallacies—such as Webb’s question, “Should believers put their faith in Bibles put together by unbelieving textual critics?” (p. 50. Though the textual scholarship of unbelievers has had a role, no translations available today are based on texts put together exclusively by unbelieving critics.)

A little mind-reading is sprinkled through TSKT as well. Various writers characterize all who disagree with them as holding to their views because they want to win the esteem of liberal academia (p. 126), or because they have embraced rationalism (pretty much all of Addendum C), etc. In most cases, these assertions are not supported by any evidence beyond the fact that the targets do not accept the PTP view of preservation.

But these are all distractions from the more fundamental question. By a large margin, what matters most in the preservation debate is whether Scripture reveals a doctrine of preservation that includes the how-and-what particulars of word-perfect text preservation.

One thing is certain. God has preserved His Word in the manner in which He chose and in a form that is sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.

*TSKT consistently capitalizes “Word” and “Words” whenever they refer to the words of Scripture. In quotations, I have attempted to follow the capitalization in the source. Sometimes the result looks a little odd because, at SI, we generally only capitalize “word” and “words” when using these as titular synonyms for “the Bible.”


Aaron Blumer, SI’s site publisher, is a native of lower Michigan and a graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He, his wife, and their two children live in a small town in western Wisconsin, where he has pastored Grace Baptist Church (Boyceville, WI) since 2000. Prior to serving as a pastor, Aaron taught school in Stone Mountain, Georgia and worked in customer service and technical support for Unisys Corporation (Eagan, MN). He enjoys science fiction, music, and dabbling in software development.

Discussion

Thanks again Aaron for the work you put into this. I think your summary here is excellent. Your point on doctrine is, to me, the crux. Show me where any major doctrine is altered by any translation or even the paraphrases. It isn’t. I also agree strongly with your observation regarding history. I have become increasingly alarmed at the widespread acceptance of undocumented historical views such as “The Trail of Blood” as well as various textual histories that are given. Too much of it simply historical fiction.

Jon Bell Bucksport, ME "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and

I haven’t researched the historical part of the question much. I think if we can establish that this is not legitimate doctrine, folks are then free to interpret the history as they believe the known facts warrant and take a non-doctrinal stand. That is, it’s still legitimate in my view to apply the principles of preservation to one text or another, but the principles do not include a promise of word-perfectness in what humans have made, so the application has to take the form of a “we believe this text best represents what God has preserved” on historical grounds. What you have then is not doctrine put a position. The difference is important because if it cannot rise to the level of Bible doctrine, it is not appropriate for groups to be divisive and militant on the matter to the degree many have been.

“Separation” over text and translation would still sometimes be appropriate for practical reasons but not as a matter of rejecting “false doctrine” or “unbiblical compromise” etc.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Aaron,

I think you did a great job in this four part series. (I’m assuming it is only four parts). Another text I’d use to counter the claim that 1 Pet. 2:2 teaches works salvation in the modern versions, is Rev. 22:14 in the KJV. New versions like the ESV say the ones who have the right to the tree of life who may enter the heavenly city are those “who wash their robes”. The KJV says it is those who “do his commandments”. So the charge could easily be levied against the KJV that it teaches “works-based salvation”.

Thanks again for the work on this.

Bob

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Thanks, Bob. Yes, four parts. I’ll be glad to move on to other topics for a while. I hope folks will continue to find it helpful. I may do another post on the general topic but along the lines of annotated bibliography. I would like to get caught up on the literature on the subject and make the results of that available to folks in some form that is friendlier and more useful than just a list of titles. Down the road.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Be sure to include One Bible Only? Examining the Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible edited by Kevin Bauder and Roy Beacham (Kregel, 2001) on your bibliography. That is the single best book on the issue in my opinion. I’ve read widely on the topic but that book covers everything especially well.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Yes, it’s on my short list. One of its great strengths is brevity.

Another really good one is God’s Word in Our Hands eds. JB Williams and Randy Shaylor. From Ambassador Emerald in 2003.

It does not appear that we have a good popular-level book devoted entirely to the subject of preservation though (on the non-PTP side of things). At least, I have not seen one yet. (Hmm… shd I write one? I’ve got four chapters already).

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

agreed

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Thanks, David. Just gave it a quick peruse it looks like Combs’ piece is very thorough.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Don’t forget Combs’ excellent piece on [URL=http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/ERASMUS.PDF] Erasmus[/URL] and also his article on [URL=http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1999/Combs.pdf] errors in the KJV[/URL].

I have amassed some helpful articles pro and con on the KJV Only debate at this site: the [URL=http://www.freewebs.com/kjvonlyresearch/index.htm King James Only Research Center[/URL]. You can click on defending or answering KJVO for the list of links. I’m eventually going to source all this info over on my KJV Only Debate Blog at [URL=http://kjvonlydebate.com] KJVOnlyDebate.com[/URL].

Just sharing resources for anyone interested in further discussion.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

Appreciate that, Bob.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

[Bob Hayton] Don’t forget Combs’ excellent piece on [URL=http://www.dbts.edu/journals/1996_1/ERASMUS.PDF] Erasmus[/URL]….
I love Comb’s quote (from Bentley) in the Erasmus article on page 39:
Again it was assumed that the making of the Vulgate Latin version had been guided by inspiration of the Holy Spirit; it had been sanctified by eleven hundred years of use in the Latin Church; and it was most intimately related to the most sacred traditions of worship, piety and doctrine. Many thought that to turn aside to the Greek was not only unnecessary, it would begin the dissolution of the Catholic authority.14
In addition, many medieval scholars, beginning in the twelfth century, had even begun to teach that the Latin Scriptures were more reliable than the Greek.15
By replacing “Vulgate” and “Latin Scriptures” with “KJV 1611” we can agree with Solomon that there truly is nothing new under the sun.

MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10

[MShep2] By replacing “Vulgate” and “Latin Scriptures” with “KJV 1611” we can agree with Solomon that there truly is nothing new under the sun.
And then you have the Septuagint being prized by Augustine and most of the church in the 300s AD. Jerome’s going back to the Hebrew for the Old Testament was not appreciated either.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

My response to the “it is written” argument: what I did was offer several counterarguments beginning with the weakest and finishing with the strongest. The one you declared to be a red herring is actually the strongest argument there: the tense and voice of “it is written” does not communicate anything about the nature of what is preserved that is anywhere near what PTP requires (every word, continuously accessible in the form a word-perfect text).
This is rather like saying …
No, it isn’t.

Canonization: what I believe about how the books of the Bible are recognized really has no bearing at all on what the Bible teaches about its preservation. My argument there is that recognizing the canonicity of the books is a very different process from recognizing which words/forms of words among the MSS are correct readings. In the article I summarized very briefly why it is different.

“Cheering for the home team.” Well, take it that way if you like. I’ve really aimed this series at those who are studying the matter and want to get at what the Bible teaches about its own preservation and what it does not teach about that preservation. The kinds of pseudo arguments I mentioned …. I do not call them pseudo arguments to be snide but to point out that they do not engage with any of the relevant facts and are, in fact, a method of not engaging with what the verses actually say and do not say.

As I mentioned in the conclusion of the piece, whether proponents of PTP believe all others are following rationalism or are trying to win praise of academia etc. is immaterial. The real question is whether Scripture teaches PTP and, therefore, whether it can be properly termed Bible doctrine.

You’re going to find that I keep coming back to that.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Roland, it’s much simpler than all that. Either the Bible teaches that God will preserve an accessible word-perfect text or it does not. There are no “epistemological issues.” We both believe the Bible, do we not? We both believe Bible doctrine must come from the Bible, do we not?

Part of the problem with your point of view is burden-of-proof confusion. Anyone who asserts that a set of ideas is a doctrine of Scripture has the burden to prove that from Scripture. I’m not “imposing” that on anyone. It’s a result of the fact that words mean things: “Bible doctrine” has “Bible” in it.

What I have argued is that the Bible does teach that God preserves His word and that there will be sufficient access for as long as His people need it. I’ve backed that with Scripture, mostly in part 1. The second half of my argument has been simply to point out what the Bible does not teach and what, therefore, cannot legitimately be included in the “Bible doctrine of preservation.” When one argues that something is missing from Scripture, he is still arguing from Scripture. Where else could we look to see that something is not there? Note the fact that all four parts of this series are dominated by examinations of Scripture.
[RPittman] the basic contradiction that you cannot support ideas that you call doctrine (e.g. inerrancy, infallibility, etc.) under the same criteria and conditions that you try to impose upon the preservations.
Are you saying the Bible does not teach inerrancy and infallibility?

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.