Preservation: How and What? Part 2

Read Part 1.

Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals believe God has preserved His word. The debate among them is mainly over the manner of preservation and the form the preserved word has taken. Some believe we have a God-preserved, word-perfect text we can identify with certainty. Others believe we do not.

Those who hold to identifiable, word-perfect preservation cite several passages in support of their doctrine. Part 1 of this series examined several of the strongest of these to see what they they actually teach.1 I concluded that these passages lead us to believe God will preserve His word perfectly in a form that is at least potentially discoverable, but that they do not promise that God’s people will always be able to point to a particular manuscript or text and confidently claim it is the word-perfect, preserved text.

Others have examined these passages (and others) and come to very similar conclusions (Moritz, 86-88; Beacham and Bauder, 116-123; Williams and Shaylor, 83-111), and defenders of certainly-identifiable, word-perfect preservation have responded with counterarguments and accusations. Many of these obscure the real issues in the debate and attempt to frame it in a way that heavily favors their view.

Thou Shalt Keep Them

A fairly recent example is the book Thou Shalt Keep Them, edited by Kent Brandenburg in 2003 and revised in 2007. The book may well be the most thorough and thoughtful effort to make a biblical case for “verbal, plenary preservation” (23), but it also alleges that those who disagree with it’s view of preservation approach the Scriptures with attitudes strongly influenced by rationalism, humanism, and unbelieving textual critics (46-47, 131, 255), and with the aim of “trying to please the academic crowd” (126).

In Part 1, however, I argued exclusively from Scripture (both what it says and what it does not say), not from any external evidence. I cannot prove that I am not a rationalist or that I have no interest in winning the praise of the “academic crowd” (though perhaps “innocent until proven guilty” would be an appropriate principle here). What I can do is focus once again on what the Scriptures themselves reveal and, in the process, move toward framing the debate more accurately.

The Bible and Human Fallibility

Do the Scriptures teach that human beings normally do anything perfectly? If they teach that even faithful believers normally err in all they do, proponents of word-perfect preservation must make a biblical case for why believers would not err in the process of copying Scripture. So when we turn to the Bible, what do we find?

1. The fallibility of believers

We’re all sinners and all we do is tainted by that sinfulness (Rom. 3:23, Rom. 3:10, Isa. 64:6). Though believers are “new creations” (2 Cor. 5:17), sin remains an ongoing problem (Heb. 12:4, 1 John 1:8). We continue to sin both intentionally and unintentionally (Psa. 19:12-13).

In addition to this ongoing problem of wickedness, we also suffer from ordinary weakness (Matt. 26:41, 2 Cor. 11:29, 1 Thess. 5:14, Heb. 5:2). We make mistakes, forget things, express ourselves inexactly, grow weary, become confused, reason poorly, and literally fall down.

What sort of quality should we expect in the work of such beings as ourselves? Paul warned Timothy to exert himself diligently so that he would “rightly divide” (accurately handle) the “word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15; see also 1 Tim. 4:16). The clear implication is that he was capable of failing to be adequately diligent and capable failing to handle the word properly. What’s more, even mature, committed, well-trained believers such as the apostle Peter sinned in ways that distorted the gospel (Gal. 2:11-14).

Our understanding of inspiration and preservation must account for what Scripture reveals about believers’ propensity to err and sin.

2. The fallibility of Israel and the churches

The writers of Thou Shalt Keep Them claim that God has used two key institutions to maintain word perfect copies of His word. Thomas Strouse summarizes their view as follows.

[T]he Biblical writers clearly delineated the means for the preservation of God’s OT and NT words in Scripture. That the Lord used His NT congregation, as He did His OT saints, to be the agency through which His Words were preserved, is irrefragible [sic]. (109)

Chapters 11-14 focus on making a biblical case for this view. But weighing the biblical evidence for the idea of perfect preservation through the community of true believers requires that we first recognize what the Bible teaches about the character of these institutions.

Scripture reveals that, when it comes to wickedness and weakness, what is true of individual believers is also true of the body of believers. The epistles were all written to address problems in local churches, and some of these problems were severe. Though the church is described as “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), these words describe the responsibility given to the church, not the church’s inherent character (cf. Brandenburg, 117-121). Paul does not assert that the church will perform its role as pillar and ground perfectly.

In the Bible, only one local church receives an evaluation free of criticism for failures. Christ commends the church of Philadelphia (Rev. 3:7-13) on every point. However, even this church receives the solemn warning to “hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown” (3:11, KJV). Even this church was capable of slipping and failing to do its work properly.

The body of true believers in the Old Testament was certainly no better! That they were given the responsibility of keeping and declaring the words of God (Brandenburg, 100) is not in dispute. But they were given many other responsibilities as well, and ultimately failed to execute any of them perfectly.

Prior to the reign of Josiah, idolatrous kings even managed to lose a vitally important copy of “the book of the law” for years, until Hilkiah accidentally rediscovered it (2 Kings 22:8). Opinions vary regarding whether this “book” was Deuteronomy or the entire Pentateuch, or whether any other copies of “the Law” were then available. Josiah’s reaction (22:10-13) suggests this “book” was, at best, one of very few surviving copies at the time. Some might object that these Israelite kings do not represent the true people of God during this time. However, if the leadership in Judah was not the chosen agency for preservation during that era, who could have been? It was certainly not the consistently idolatrous kings of the northern tribes.

In both the OT and the NT, the community of faithful believers is revealed to be one prone to error, and our doctrines of inspiration and preservation must take this clear biblical truth into account.

Implications for inspiration and preservation

Because the Bible teaches that imperfection is normal for God’s people, any claim that they have done something perfectly requires strong biblical evidence of an exception to the rule.

In the case of inspiration, we have that evidence. We are told that God acted directly on the writers of Scripture as they spoke and wrote. “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet. 1:21), and every Scripture is theopneustos, God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). In every part, it possesses the quality of having flowed from God Himself.

That the Scriptures thus inspired must be God’s words—word for word—is the point of Peter’s “no prophecy…is of any private interpretation.” Peter’s assertion is, literally, that Scriptures are not of one’s own epilusis—explanation or analysis. Though the meaning of epilusis is debated, the context clearly contrasts the idea of one’s own epilusis with the idea of speaking as the Spirit moves. Consequently, the point is that the Spirit produced the words.

This miraculous phenomenon of fallible men infallibly communicating God’s words is what David describes in 2 Samuel 23:2. “The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.”

So in the case of inspiration, we have strong biblical evidence that God miraculously overcame select believers’ normal fallibility so that they would produce His perfect word. But in the case of preservation, do we find equally strong biblical evidence? Though passages indicating God expects His people to faithfully “keep”2 His word are indeed numerous (Brandenburg, 100-102), does the Bible indicate that God’s people will certainly obey that charge or that they will do so with word-perfect accuracy?

Conclusions

Though Scripture speaks often of the preservation of all of God’s words, it contains no direct descriptions of the process of word-preservation that parallel the kinds of statements we have about inspiration.3 No passage refers to men of old copying, guarding or preserving as they were moved by the Spirit—much less, translating with miraculous intervention to ensure a perfect result.

Nonetheless, the authors of Thou Shalt Keep Them (as well as others), believe a strong biblical case for miraculous, verbal, plenary preservation can be derived from multiple passages that speak to the subject less directly.

Future articles in this series will examine that evidence to see whether it should lead us to believe that God has enabled fallible human beings to make error-free copies of His word.

Works Cited

Brandenburg, Kent, ed. Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology for the Perfect Preservation of Scripture. Revised edition. El Sobrante: Pillar & Ground, 2007.

Moritz, Fred. Contending for the Faith. Greenville: BJU Press, 2000.

Williams, James B., and Randolph Shaylor, eds. God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us. Greenville: Ambassador-Emerald International, 2003.

Beacham, Roy E., and Kevin T. Bauder, eds. One Bible Only: Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001.

Notes

1 Kent Brandenburg objects at his blog that I ignored historical context in Part 1. However, the historical case for or against certainly-identifiable, word-perfect preservation is worthy of consideration in a separate article (or several). As demonstrated in Thou Shalt Keep Them, the Scriptures themselves are the best place to begin.

2 Brandenburg argues that the meaning of “keep” in many OT passages includes includes guarding and protecting physical copies (Brandenburg, 103). While I suspect this idea of “keep” is not in view in many of these passages, I grant this meaning here for the sake of argument.

3 Some have argued that the “scriptures” Paul says Timothy knew from childhood (2 Tim.3:15), refers specifically to copies they possessed at that time and that, therefore, the “all Scripture” described as “inspired” in 3:16 refers to copies as well. However, it is likely that Paul actually intends no distinction between the copies and the originals here because his point does not require that distinction. For all practical purposes, the copies partake of the quality of God-breathedness along with the originals. Thou Shalt Keep Them specifically denies any kind of re-inspiration on p. 204.


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

The problem with TSKT-VPP KJBOism is that of projecting what God’s ability and intent must be, and then extrapolating from that a particular act (“Verbal plenary preservation”) which He did not do.

Beyond the theological and philosophical arguments that refute Brandenburg’s approach is the example of the Scriptures themselves.

Wouldn’t it be quite sensible to see if Jesus and the NT writers adopted a VPPist understanding of preservation? As Bible believers, we have found solid footing on the verbal, plenary inspiration; authority; and sufficiency of the Scripture in the Scriptures themselves. Examples include direct statements as well as the example of Christ at His Temptation prefacing his OT quotes with “It is written,” Jude and Paul commending believers to keeping by the Word of God, Peter affirming that the OT’s writers were borne by the Spirit, and so on.

What we do NOT see is affirmation or example of preservation being verbal, let alone in one text-type or edition (Masoretic, Majority, Alexandrian, TR-Scrivener, or TR-Beza), MS, version, or edition of a particular version (e.g. the 1900 “Pure Cambridge Edition” of the King James or the 1769 Blayney KJB).

What we DO see is that Christ accepted and quoted non-KJB texts authoritatively. Now, this may have sounded a little anachronistic, but if the Hebrew Bomberg Masoretic text were the VPPed Word of God, as some KJBOs claim it is (particularly those of the TKST/VPP camp), then wouldn’t we expect Christ or Luke to eschew a Bible that’s different and hence “corrupted”? The prime example (there are many others in that category; italics and bold added for comparison/emphasis):
KJB Luke 4 17And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

18The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

19To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

20And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

21And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
When we look up this Esaias in KJB, we see words that are changed, added, removed, etc.:
KJB Isaiah 61 1The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

2To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Faced with the evidence of Scriptures, VPPers have several options, none of which are comfortable for them. Did God fail to preserve His Word verbally in AD30? Or is the Bomberg Text corrupt, seeing it deviates from the Textus Receptus of Luke? Remember the old KJBO adage, “Things that are different are not the same?”

Typically, VPPers will try to duck the evidence of Luke 4 and such passages—it’s where the rubber meets the road and all their theorizing evaporates from the heat of substantive examples. Basically, Christ and the Apostles didn’t go around hissing “Yea hath God said” at the Word of God in other translations than the Masoretic/TR, nor did they affirm a manmade VPP theory to attain some level of spiritual comfort or certitude. In spite of substantive differences in the text, they showed that God’s Word remains authoritative and profitable for perfecting the man of God unto all good work.

This is a great thread—thanks OP—and I’ll see if I can link [URL=http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com/reply/49347/t/Enough-of-the…] the VPP thread there[/URL] over to this board.

Right now I’m intentionally not using the “what about NT quotations of OT” or “What about LXX” arguments, for couple of reasons. One is that I want to build a “biblical theology of preservation” following the pattern of TSKT. That is, using TSKT as a pattern of what it’s authors believe to be a “biblical theology of pres.,” build an alternative one.

The other reason that I frankly don’t really know a thing about what’s being quoted where and haven’t yet found the time and energy to sort it out (so it’s either laziness or good time management!)

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 Blumer] Right now I’m intentionally not using the “what about NT quotations of OT” or “What about LXX” arguments, for couple of reasons. One is that I want to build a “biblical theology of preservation” following the pattern of TSKT. That is, using TSKT as a pattern of what it’s authors believe to be a “biblical theology of pres.,” build an alternative one.
I would imagine that the example of Christ and the NT is useful in informing any “biblical theology of preservation.” But I did miss [URL=http://sharperiron.org/article/preservation-how-and-what#comment-8797] Bob Hayton’s earlier posting of the same on this earlier thread[/URL].
The other reason that I frankly don’t really know a thing about what’s being quoted where and haven’t yet found the time and energy to sort it out (so it’s either laziness or good time management!)
Yes, it’s complex trying to unravel whether the variation was due to text or translation or some other factor. Yet we don’t necessarily have to figure it all out (we may well never!). Whichever might be the case, it is clear that VPP doesn’t fit—which should make the enterprise worthwhile.

[RPittman]
[J Ng] No, this is not how the preservationist position begins; it is only your perception and supposition of another’s thought processes. The preservationist position begins with the presupposition via faith that we have a reliable source of God’s revelation faithfully handed down across the centuries to our present day. If God did not preserve His Word, then we have no reliable, authoritative source if it depends on man’s scholarship or efforts because man is a fallible, erring creature who is unable to establish or maintain truth in contextual purity and consensus. This is the general outline of how the preservationist proponent thinks. If you desire to refute another’s position, then contradict what he says that he believes rather than giving your own interpretation of his beliefs or thought processes.
Actually, there’s no misinterpretation at all.

Both sides affirm a reliable, authoritative preservation at the outset, just not necessarily in a single MS or text or version or edition thereof.

Where it deviates is the VPPer’s presumption of such an entity, which goes against two things: 1. the extant variants in all Bibles (including the numerous variants among the KJBs and TRs), and 2. the teaching and example in and of the Scriptures themselves (see Lk 4 vs Isaiah 61).

The thought processes of VPPers are not united on the issue of variants within their supposedly monolithic TR and Masoretic Text—some prefer to ignore those differences while others, e.g. D.A. Waite, arbitrarily picks the Beza edition of the TR. Ultimately, they can run, but they can’t hide from those 2 things: the MS evidence and the Scripture evidence (e.g. the NT quoting the OT and not showing any notion of VPPism).

[RPittman] On the one hand, they prepositionally accept inspiration of the Scriptures by faith. This is good; so do we. However, they bootleg in the back door an intellectual-rational component by adding that the Scriptures attest to their own inspiration.
No “bootlegging” here. 2 Tim. 3:16 actually declares that.
Then, we actually have no “sure word of prophecy (II Peter 1:19).” For inspiration to have any meaningful sense and use at all, we must posit divine preservation as well. Otherwise, we are reduced to the lowest denominator—dependence upon man’s scholarship and “rationalism.” We propositionally accept preservation as a necessary inferential corollary to inspiration (This is rational, not “rationalism). Thus, all the perplexing problems of the faithful transmission of God’s Word across the centuries are not refutation of the preservationist position any more than our lack of understanding of how God used men’s own words and vocabulary to inspire His own very words.
Like I’ve mentioned in an earlier post, no one’s doubting preservation. Both sides affirm it. But what’s in question is the nature of that preservation. The bootlegging, if one must, begins here—when one party starts to wax imaginative about it—that it is VPP, that that VPP preservation resides only in one particular text type or authorized translation thereof—in the face of historical and biblical evidence.

Yes, God preserves, but, having accepted the declarations of the Scripture attesting to that truth, let’s look into the Scriptures and see exactly how He does or doesn’t do it.

[RPittman] On the one hand, they prepositionally accept inspiration of the Scriptures by faith. This is good; so do we. However, they bootleg in the back door an intellectual-rational component by adding that the Scriptures attest to their own inspiration.
No “bootlegging” here. 2 Tim. 3:16 actually declares that.
Then, we actually have no “sure word of prophecy (II Peter 1:19).” For inspiration to have any meaningful sense and use at all, we must posit divine preservation as well. Otherwise, we are reduced to the lowest denominator—dependence upon man’s scholarship and “rationalism.” We propositionally accept preservation as a necessary inferential corollary to inspiration (This is rational, not “rationalism). Thus, all the perplexing problems of the faithful transmission of God’s Word across the centuries are not refutation of the preservationist position any more than our lack of understanding of how God used men’s own words and vocabulary to inspire His own very words.
Like I’ve mentioned in an earlier post, no one’s doubting preservation. Both sides affirm it. But what’s in question is the nature of that preservation. The bootlegging, if one must, begins here—when one party starts to wax imaginative about it—that it is VPP, that that VPP preservation resides only in one particular text type or authorized translation thereof—in the face of historical and biblical evidence.

Yes, God preserves, but, having accepted the declarations of the Scripture attesting to that truth, let’s look into the Scriptures and see exactly how He does or doesn’t do it.

[RPittman]

II Timothy has the force of truth only if you have a priori accepted Scripture as true. Even though Scripture attests to its own inspiration, no one is contesting that, it has no external persuasion for those who demand evidence based on “empirical rationalism.” So, any attempt to empirically establish the inspiration of Scripture via “rationalism” by offering the testimony of Scripture to its own inspiration is circular reasoning. The bottom line is that we accept the inspiration of Scripture by faith, even if you want to call it belief of what Scripture states.
Speaking of misrepresentation, this sounds like a misrepresentation of the position on inspiration of most of us.

You can’t make it into an all “a priori” belief so that VPPers can justify their fideistic position.

The belief in inspiration is supported by lots of internal and external evidence. It is not a blind leap of faith; quite different from the belief in VPPism.
Finally, you are either stereotyping or putting words in the mouths of preservationists. We, at least I don’t, know how God preserved His Word. We just believe that He did in some inexplicable way as He inspired in an unexplainable way.
According to most VPP “preservationists” I’ve read, the way the Bible is preserved is anything but “inexplicable” or “unexplainable.”

They’re very clear about it: it’s solely in the TR and Masoretic texts, which is best represented by the KJB for just about all time.

[RPittman] Oh, do you presume to tell me what I think? How do you know? … the preservationist presupposes preservation in a single text or family of texts. According to you, the other side does not.
So, cutting to the chase, maybe I guessed right after all.
So, you are pitting empirical evidence (i.e. variants), which is “rationalism,” against faith.
Actually, I’m pitting blind faith (fideism) vs an informed faith. One can believe in the Bible in a way that’s against what the Bible and everything else teaches. That’s not the same as believing in the Bible in line with what it teaches and what history shows.

In the case of inspiration, one could believe in the mechanical dictation theory and accuse other Bible believers of human reasoning and prejudice. Of course, a brief survey of the biblical evidence would show that the mechanical dictation theory—sincere as its champions may be—doesn’t hold up to the evidence. No amount of desperate appeal to presuppositionalist apologetics can help.

So, too, a VPP theory of Scripture. Having affirmed the truth of preservation, one must inform that affirmation and understanding by examining the nature of that preservation in Scripture and, as it happily turns out, history.
There are alternative explanations, some acceptable and some not, for variants. And, your inferences drawn from a comparison of Luke 4 and Isaiah 61 are not compelling.
Come again? What kind of acceptable or unacceptable variants?
It is an interpretation based on human reasoning, prejudice and limited knowledge.
The last element is quite true.

But why is it wrong to reject VPP’s fideism—namely, that of presupposing something that runs counter to special revelation and history, i.e. “preservation in a single text or family of texts”?

[RPittman] If you subject inspiration to this empirical methodology, then you have Modernism. Furthermore, “rationalism” will not allow you to use the circular reasoning of Scripture’s own testimony for inspiration. My point, which you seemed to have completely missed, is that you must be consistent in your methodology—you can’t pick and choose when it suits your purpose.
Actually, in the face of a false dichotomy, I can.

As I’ve pointed out, there’s a tertium quid. Scripture doesn’t come to us in a vacuum, tumbling down from heaven like Joseph Smith’s golden plates. It intersects with history, with human minds, human hands, etc. It didn’t come through mechanical dictation, which doesn’t automatically mean that it came through human device or creed.

But coming back to that false dichotomy the Brandenburger camp has erected, what, praytell, compels the fideist to pick a particular text over the others for his/her preserved scripture?

What merit might Scrivener’s TR have over Erasmus’ Second Edition or Beza’s or the Sinaiticus? I’m curious how those who claim to exclude external and internal evidence make their decision.

You two aren’t going to change eachother’s minds… you know that, right? ;)

I do have a question regarding faith and presuppositions, though… for RPittman.

Above you said that preservationists presuppose that God has preserved His word. If this is the case, we have nothing to talk about. Why write a book like TSKT to make a case for verbal, plenary preservation if it’s all about what one presupposes?

About faith… I’m not sure if I understand how you’re using the term. In Scripture, faith is always a response to something God has said. So again, all sides of the preservation debate (or at least “all sides” held by believers) look to Scripture to decide what to believe. There can be no faith without a biblical case… without looking at what is written, interpreting it and drawing inferences from it.

I do have presuppositions, but they do not include a view of preservation. Rather, they go up to, and include, that the Bible is God’s word. So my basis for believing in inspiration and inerrancy, for example, is not presuppositional, but based on what the Bible says about itself.

My beliefs about preservation are derived via the same process (though what Scripture says about itself does not exhaust the process… there is not enough revealed to construct a detailed view of the what and how of preservation. One ends up going to external evidence eventually… as even TKST does).

So this is not about “faith” versus “rationalism” or “fideistic” vs. “scientific,” (some of Brandenberg’s terminology). It’s about whether the Bible we all have faith in really says what it is being alleged to say.

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 Blumer] What passages have I misinterpreted and in what way?
You make an assumption that the passages you quoted (don’t forget Isaiah 40:6-8) refer to the sort of understanding of preservation referred to in TSKT.
[Aaron Blumer [31)] I want to build a “biblical theology of preservation” following the pattern of TSKT. That is, using TSKT as a pattern of what it’s authors believe to be a “biblical theology of pres.,” build an alternative one.
[J Ng (36)] Like I’ve mentioned in an earlier post, no one’s doubting preservation. Both sides affirm it.
I am not convinced that any Scriptural promises of preservation of God’s Word(s) has anything to do with keeping written versions of His Word(s) around.

Instead, I believe that God promised to preserve (keep) His Word. That is, His promises WILL be fulfilled and His prophecies WILL come to pass. What He said He will do, He will do. Whether it is maintained in written form has nothing to do with preservation.

I do believe that He has seen to it that His Word is available for us.

[RPittman] Clue me into what the false dichotomy is.


The false dichotomy the one Brandenburg camp has erected, namely either to presuppose his unbiblical VPPist bibliology or embrace an unbiblical rationalism. I’m saying that there’s one (or more) that’s both believing, not irrational/anti-historical, and biblically sound. In other words, it’s not that different from the rest of orthodox Christian theology, which is consonant with biblical evidence, archaeological data, commonsense reason, and a devout faith toward God. They’re not mutually exclusive as TSKT attempts to make it out to be (and we know why).
J Ng, I don’t follow your reasoning here. I can’t see how this relates to being consistent in methodology. Perhaps I am missing something.
It doesn’t; it’s a question assuming the correctness of Brandenburg’s thesis—that we’re stuck on the horns of a dilemma—if that is so, why choose one horn (KJBOism) over the other (Modernity)? And why should that horn be so shaped, as VPP?
As for decision-making, I’m not sure how to answer. I cannot answer for Mr. Brandenburg or anyone else. However, an essential part, IMHO, is the work of the Holy Spirit just as coming to faith is in salvation. It involves the intellect and reason as well as faith produced by the mysterious working of the Holy Spirit. I will say that it is rational (not contradictory or contrary to reason and good sense) as opposed to “empirical rationalism” (rational decision predicated entirely on the empirical (i.e. observable) evidence. At this point, I am not prepared and do not have the time necessary to outline my thoughts on knowledge, thinking, and epistemology similar to that of the Pre-Modern era (i.e. before the Enlightenment). The key to understanding my thought, as I have several times averred, is that I have rejected Modernity. Now, don’t go any place with that—I’m not a Post-Modernist.
Rejection of Modernity does not necessarily entail acceptance of VPP fideism, which I was interested to hear your views about. What kind of “intellect and reason as well as faith” might VPPism be based on, and how come the Holy Spirit didn’t tell the rest of us to fall for it? I hear the same thing from folks claiming the Holy Spirit’s guidance for the Perfect Cambridge Edition of the KJB in 1900. If you don’t have the time necessary to outline that epistemology now, it’s understandable. Perhaps we could have the benefit of your thoughts at a later time?
Mr. J Ng, part of our problem is communication because we are speaking different languages. You alluded to Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith” but this is a concept foreign to my idea of faith, although I do view faith as rational without empirical evidence. Kierkegaard’s definition is not the only one on the books. His is a bumbling intellectual attempt to establish a “rationalistic” definition of a construct defying the empiricism of Modernity. He fell short by a mile. He was headed in the right direction indicated by Modernity, whose rational conclusion is existentialism.
I think we’re speaking the same language here—you seem to understand what I’m talking about. The difference between Kierkegaard and Brandenburg is not blind faith. Both insist on making presuppositions without biblical or historical evidences. So here’s the difference: Brandenburg picks VPP as his object of faith; Kierkegaard picks something else. And they both take a leap in the dark (while smiling wryly at the others still on the diving board).

But like Aaron kinda interjected, the problem’s with doctrinaire entrenchment—I’m unwilling to be persuaded without biblical and historical evidence, the very stuff Brandenburg rejects.

[RPittman] [quoter=Aaron Blumer] I do have presuppositions, but they do not include a view of preservation. Rather, they go up to, and include, that the Bible is God’s word. So my basis for believing in inspiration and inerrancy, for example, is not presuppositional, but based on what the Bible says about itself.
1. [My presuppositions] go up to, and include, that the Bible is God’s word.

2. [M] y basis for believing in inspiration and inerrancy, for example, is not presuppositional

3. [My belief in inspiration is] based on what the Bible says about itself.

My thinking is:

#1 is a statement of presuppostional belief in inspiration. Is it not?

#2 contradicts #1

#3 contradicts #1

#3 is not a valid belief according to Modernity until #1 is established (i.e. circular reasoning)

Thus, my argument is that our belief in inspiration is presuppositional. However, I would actually like to back away from this term because it is too closely defined and associated with Modernity. Rather, I would like to express it simply as “I accept by faith (not Kierkegaard’s faith) the inspiration of the Bible.” One can’t do any better than that.A presupposition is something you believe without basing it on something else. So the presupposition—at least in my own case—is that I believe the Bible is true and from God, then, because it claims to be inspired, I believe it is inspired. The second belief is derived from what is written and is not a presupposition. So 2 & 3 explain #1. They do not contradict it… and #3 is not a problem either, since #1 is my presupposition.

@Dan, in this series I’m going with the view that there is a promise to preserve the written word in some written form. What little case I’m going to make for that in this series is in part 1. Since I agree with the TSKT (et. al.) folks that there is a promise to preserve in writing, I’m focusing mainly on what I think they’ve gotten wrong: the manner and form of preservation.

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’s second paragraph presents a straw man as it regards the position presented by Thou Shalt Keep Them (TSKT). The book does not assert that the Bible teaches preservation of a “particular manuscript or text.”
When I said “single manuscript or text,” I definitely did not say “the same single manuscript down through the ages.” I presumed that in your view, there would always have to be at least one MS (as in copy) that is perfectly preserved. Am I incorrect on that? If not, why wouldn’t there be?
“I would want to know how we obscure the real issues. And I would wonder what he thinks “the real issues” are. I never got any specifics from his article, just the accusation.”
I assumed readers would figure that part out by reading the article. The real issues include What does the Bible teach about the nature of believers’ efforts, but that’s a subset of the really big issue: what did God say He would do with respect to preservation? The former is important for understanding the latter.
“If someone takes a position that differs from Scripture or that contradicts what God’s Word teaches, from where should we say that he has received his view?


Precisely my point. We need to correctly understand the Scriptures, which is where my focus has been exclusively.

My gripe is that you have taken the position a priori that disagreeing with you is disagreeing with Scripture rather than proving it to be so.
“…he says that inspiration is different in that God guarantees perfection for inspiration, that God superintended inspiration in a way that would give us every Word and all of them. But not in preservation. Why not? The Bible says enough for us to conclude supernatural intervention in both inspiration and preservation.”
I am quite clear in the article that the biblical evidence for verbal plenary pres. differs from that for inspiration in that it is less direct and explicit. But I am also clear that I’ll be looking at that evidence in the future to see if the less-direct case is still clear. So I believe that the Bible can teach something clearly without teaching it directly in a couple of crystal clear passages. The question is whether we have that in this case. Part 3.
TSKT didn’t say that there wouldn’t be errors made in copying. It did say that supernatural, divine intervention would result in the preservation and availability of every Word for every generation of believers. This is another straw-man in Aaron’s arguments.”
TKST clearly asserts that God’s chosen institutions have preserved every one of His words in a form they know to be perfect. So if the institution involved doesn’t make perfect copies, is it your view that it makes them perfect afterwords by correcting them?

Wouldn’t that me [be] “textual criticism”?

If God promised continuously accessible, certainly-identifiable word-perfect preservation, why would He not see that His instruments make perfect copies?
“What is ironic about this section is that this is the very basis for a presuppositional apologetic that buttresses the point of TSKT. We’ve got to trust that God would do what He said He would do. We assume He would. We look to see How He did.”
It’s a big [bit] disingenuous at this point to act like you don’t know what the debate is really about: which is whether God said He would do what you are claiming He said He would do. I absolutely believe He does what He says.
“God’s Word tells us what to believe, not external evidence, which we should assume is spoiled and that man cannot interpret because of His sinfulness.”
I have used precisely zero external evidence.
“Aaron then takes this same point of fallibility and applies it to what all of Israel or an entire church does, regardless of what God said He would do.”
What I’ve written does not question that God keeps His promises. Anyone can see that. The question is what has He promised?
“Aaron writes this, conceding a major point made in TSKT:
‘That they were given the responsibility of keeping and declaring the words of God (Brandenberg, [sic] 100) is not in dispute. But they were given many other responsibilities as well, and ultimately failed to execute any of them perfectly.’
A major point of Aaron’s whole first offering on preservation was that the “how” was sharply disputed. Here he says that the “how” is not in dispute. Despite the fact that Aaron did not admit that he had been persuaded on this point, I accept the admission that the “how” of preservation is no longer in dispute with him. He has accepted Scripture as to the “how” of preservation. God used His church. I congratulate Aaron for this concession.”
That’s classic, Kent.

Even [in] the part you quoted, I said they failed to execute. Conceding that a responsibility has been assigned is not conceding that a responsibility has been carried out. Again, anybody can see what I’m saying there. By all means disagree, but this is a conspicuous attempt to put words in my mouth.

Of the Book of the Law found in Josiah’s day…
“If there was one copy remaining, that indicates preservation”
Now this is an actual concession. There can be preservation without access? Nobody had access to the copy until it was found. The idea that the words can be preserved without being in hand is actually my view, not the view of TKST.
“Aaron ended by saying that future articles would explore whether God has “enabled fallible human beings to make error-free copies of His Word.” Again, this is a straw-man. God promises every Word and all Words. There is no promise of a man making an error free copy.”
Again, the book is pretty clear that God’s chosen institutions perfectly preserve [e] very word. How could they do that without making perfect copies? Are you saying they would make imperfect ones, then perfectly identify the errors? Why not make them perfect in the first place?

I fail to see how this is any kind of straw man. What you’re apparently suggesting happened is harder to prove than the “perfect copies” scenario.
“What we have here is a matter of faith. Abraham did not see and yet believed”
Abraham believed what God said, as do I, as best I can discern that. You are again trying to reframe the debate into an “our view or unbelief” false choice. The real options here include several ways of understanding what God has said.

I’ll fix the misspellings of your name in the article. I’m actually not sure how that happened!

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.