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

Mr. Pittman. How can you continue like this? What the church has always done is to see what scripture teaches and formulate doctrine from within that. There has also always been the temptation to formulate things as doctrine that are extra-biblical. So we can clearly see that the Bible teaches that there is one God and also that Christ and the Spirit are divine yet separate entities from the Father. So God must be Triune or else we cannot make any sense of the biblical data. Aaron has done a wonderful job of laying out the position for general preservation. Simply that the Bible teaches that the Word will be preserved and it is empirically true that we have the same Bible that the church has had since the Apostles finished writing it. Now you made it clear under section three of this article that you do not like that kind of straight-forward formula but this is exactly how the church has always worked with doctrine. If you find it to be overly influenced by Greek rationalism and further polluted by the developments of western rationalism then we have no traditional basis to understand ANY doctrine. If that is the case then I think you will have to show from your ontology how anything orthodox is true and valid. I just don’t think you should expect many people to go along with you while you doing that! Our simplistic western rationalistic mindset has worked for nearly 2000 years as the Church has proclaimed the Gospel and taught orthodoxy. As soon as you start trumping reasonable thought submitted to the scriptures with piety you are in a swamp. If the Holy Spirit has mystically convinced you that the KJV is the perfect preservation for all English speaking peoples what do you say when others say that the Holy Spirit has mystically told them that the NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NET or anything else it THE one? Then we are back to considering the evidence and the scriptures no where teach that any people will have a completely perfect (to the exclusion of all others) translation of the fixed Word of God. And Aaron has laid this all out well in this series.

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

Roland, the reason I asked if you deny that the Bible teaches inerrancy and infallibility is because you made this statement…
[RPittman] you cannot support ideas that you call doctrine (e.g. inerrancy, infallibility, etc.) under the same criteria and conditions
The “criteria and conditions” I use are, simply put, does the Bible state the doctrine directly or strongly imply it. I’m not even saying “necessarily imply” it, which is a standard I think most people would accept for legitimate “biblical doctrine.”

Since the Bible does strongly imply (I would say “necessarily imply”) inerrancy/infallibility, it does in fact qualify as “biblical doctrine” by the same process I’ve used in developing the preservation doctrine I presented.

In short, my aim is to include everything in the doctrine that the Bible states directly or strongly implies. In the articles I presented arguments that showed the Bible does state it is preserved forever. I presented evidence that it strongly implies availably to at least some of God’s people “until all is fulfilled.” However, I also pointed out that the biblical evidence does not state or strongly imply some particulars: every word (identified for certain), wide accessibility, the form of a text that is known to be word perfect. These particulars of the PTP view are not stated or strongly implied and therefore are not “biblical doctrine.”

Now, of course, a person may take what is revealed about preservation and apply it in the form of a conviction that we have every word preserved perfectly in this text or that. But an application is not Bible doctrine, it is application of Bible doctrine. Applications are very human things. Doctrine is revealed.

I have no problem at all with folks saying “It is my belief that MT and TR are the word perfect preserved texts based on the teaching of Scripture that God preserves His word (etc) plus my understanding of the history of assembled texts, and other evidence.” However, the “plus” part goes external to Scripture and puts that position outside the scope of “biblical doctrine” and off the list of things that are appropriate tests of orthodoxy.

This, may PTPers are not willing to do. And they are doing wrong to identify “word perfect text” as the biblical doctrine of preservation.
However, we disagree on how it is derived. One is rationalistic (what I can understand through reason) and the other is a more open, although reasonable, approach of faith and leading of the Holy Spirit. The working of the Holy Spirit is beyond our comprehension. However, the Scriptures teach it and I believe it.
Do you have any consistent method for identifying this kind of teaching? Any way of persuading others that it is correct? Is there any way of putting it in the form of argument? Or is it an intuitive “I feel this is what it means even though it doesn’t say that” kind of thing? If it’s the latter, we have nothing more to talk about. If another person does not feel the same thing you feel is true, there is no way to persuade them you are right. That sort of epistemology puts your conclusion completely outside the realm of inquiry.

All anybody can say is, I don’t feel what you feel.
[RPittman] BTW, one of the problems is that I have not seen where you have defined “an accessible word-perfect text.” What do you mean by this? What are the precise requirements?
Well, I think it’s clear enough for the purposes I used the term for. A text is a complete OT or NT in its original language. Accessible means lots of people can get to it and read it. Since I use the expression to describe the PTP view, what it means depends to a degree on what they mean. But exactly how widely accessible it would have to be in their view, I’m not sure. Didn’t see that spelled out anywhere.

“Word perfect” just means word perfect: all the same words God originally inspired. In TSKT they even assert a few times that all the letters and Hebrew vowel points are preserved.

Examples of “texts” would be MT, BHS for Old Testament and TR, Majority/Byzantine, and NA27 for the New Testament (technically you have a couple of TR texts to choose from and of course, a few different editions of NA as well as the old Westcott-Hort… there are lots of texts).
[RPittman] You still do not seem to have grasped that you are interpreting thing according to your own epistemological construct. It seems that you cannot grasp that others operate outside your paradigm and do not share your methods. Therefore, you arguments are nonsense to them.
Roland, tell me what your paradigm is and how it works and I’ll see if I can give it a go. I’ll try almost anything once.

I’ve been clear about what my epistemology is, what sort of thought process I use. So folks can decide they find it persuasive or not. But you have yet to tell us how you arrive at your conclusions so we can decide if they are persuasive.

Let’s suppose for a moment that I am eager to think according to your paradigm. I’m a zealous disciple who wants to learn. Teach me how to arrive at conclusions the way you do.

I actually am extremely curious, since you’ve been referring vaguely to this Other Way for months. Could you either explain it or stop referring to it? I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

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.

So, let me get this straight. You don’t really have a system that you can explain to anyone (despite frequent requests); you want US to throw out all the traditional way to work with scripture and formulate understanding; and you want to push the inference that the KJV is the only Bible for english-speakers while simultaneously questioning if we really even have the perfectly preserved Bible at all.

Well, in OUR system of understanding one can make inferences like the Trinity and one can even make up extra-biblical terms like triune and hypostatic to codify the inferences that everyone has agreed on as orthodox. This whole debate is about trying to push the inference that any preservation has to be particular preservation. Similarly people have tried to push the biblical data to say that the only orthodox position on soteriology is THEIR view of soteriology whether Arminian or Calvinist. Now what Aaron has said, and I have said is that there is room in orthodoxy for particular preservationism but that you have to recognize that it is not the ONLY position. Those of us who are general preservationists still believe in preservation. Furthermore I am very concerned about particular preservationism because, just as this series has shown, it takes up a lot of time and generates a lot of “Hath God said…” arguments! I have no questions in my mind (or heart!) about what the Word of God teaches and I am convinced that I can hold in my hands everything I need for life and for Godliness. Some of those books may be better and clearer and some may be poorer (or “meaner” as the KJV translators called them) but they all are the Word of God. To my hide bound, rationalistic, modern way of thinking the only really consistent inference is that the Holy Spirit inspired the KJV translators and we no longer need to even reference the original languages.

Mr. Pittman, at the end of the day you are demanding that a supermajority of orthodox christians bow to the inferences about *how* God preserves His Word that are held by a minority. In 2500 years there have been three particular preservationist movements: The Septuagint, the Vulgate and the KJV. They all share the same arguments and ideas. They all function on the same paradigm. Are you willing to believe or has the Spirit showed you that those other 2 translations are perfect too? I don’t think even the orthodox Jews or the Romanists who are descended from those who held those positions still hold them. If the Lord tarried another 200 years will your view still hold up as modern english moves farther away from Elizabethan english? What are the inferences of the KJV position for all the other thousands of people groups in the world? How can they know when they have a perfect translation? How can they know if the one they have is imperfect? The swamp that I referred to is where the Spirit has showed you something He hasn’t seen fit to show me or Aaron. So we are having this conversation and we are showing you that your inferences are unfounded and unnecessary according to scripture. But you can blow us off and you don’t have to submit to anything that anyone other than you can show because the Spirit showed you! That is a swamp: muddy, hard to move through, difficult to navigate and inhospitable. Your position is attractive to me. I would love for every person in the english speaking world to have one Bible. It would simplify things and make it easier to learn and quote scripture and to deal with difficult translation issues. But it has never and will never happen! We have to submit to the historical fact that there have always been multiple MSS and multiple translations and struggles with understanding multiple passages. We have to preach what is clear: the Gospel! We can struggle with all the difficulties but we cannot call into question that God has preserved His Word for all people of all time everywhere.

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

In a rush this AM

wanted to resond to this:
Then, the preservationist argument can be legitimately called Biblical doctrine if implied by Scriptural teachings on preservation. Right?
With one qualifier, yes. I want to say “strongly implies.” The historical sola scriptura standard is more demanding I think: “necessarily implies.”

But I would be willing to grant the PTP view the respect of being in the biblical doctrine category if it were strongly implied by Scripture. Unless there was a contrary position that also seems to be strongly implied, I’d probably embrace it.

But in the articles have pointed out that Scripture does not strongly imply the conclusions PTP requires (in face, it does not usually even offer what can be taken as a hint at those particulars).
Aaron, this is a big task to develop or explain a different paradigm as I have already noted. I suggest that you read some of the aforementioned men’ works.
Roland, I respectfully suggest this is a dodge. I can explain my paradigm without recourse to “go read a bunch of authors.” If you are going to

a. insist I have a particular paradigm, and

b. assert that the paradigm is faulty

you’re not going to persuade anybody if you don’t demonstrate what my paradigm is and why it is fault and what would be better.

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.

[Jon Bell]….

Your position is attractive to me. I would love for every person in the english speaking world to have one Bible. It would simplify things and make it easier to learn and quote scripture and to deal with difficult translation issues. But it has never and will never happen! We have to submit to the historical fact that there have always been multiple MSS and multiple translations and struggles with understanding multiple passages. We have to preach what is clear: the Gospel! We can struggle with all the difficulties but we cannot call into question that God has preserved His Word for all people of all time everywhere.
Thanks, Jon, for your last post. You have well-stated what a lot of us are thinking.

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

Mr. Pittman: You have more dodges than the Chrysler dealer down the street. No one is misjudging you. You have established a quite voluminous record of dodging direct and simple questions.

I still keep shaking my head that you are trying to overturn and impugn 2000 years of reasoning that underpins our theology in order to prove that we should use an antiquated translation made by Anglicans to push their ecclesiology based on a manuscript that was critically edited by the Roman magisterium!

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

Aaron, I respect the fact that you have other things demanding your attention. However, it appears to me that we have come down to the basic contention whether the Scriptures under consideration imply or strongly imply Scriptural preservation and the inferences of PTP. It boils down to two conflicting opinions of what either side understands is implied or not implied. This, I suggest, is a very narrow basis for denying the preservationist equal status, although not necessarily agreement, with your series and position.
No, it’s not a small thing at all. If we believe in the sufficiency of Scripture for doctrine, then Scripture must at least strongly imply anything we identify as biblical doctrine. That’s an absolute minimum and probably a bit too loose. “Necessarily implies” would be better. I cannot give what the Bible does not say equal status with what it does.

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.

At least grant it equal, although disputed, status with your own closely held doctrines that hinge upon inference, implied meaning, and nuance of interpretation. Would not that be fairness?
All inferences are not created equal. There are valid inferences and invalid inferences. There are necessary inferences and optional inferences. I do not base any of what I call biblical doctrine on optional or invalid inferences if I can help it.

In the case of the relevant doctrines here, what I have taught on preservation is not based on inferences at all, just going down the road as far as the Scriptures speak and that point saying Scripture says no more so the biblical doctrine road ends here. The PTP view is a case of adding additional features beyond what is written. But the point of departure on the road is where inferences begin. The rest, as I have pointed out, is a matter of clear statements that God preserves and He ensures sufficient access for our faith and obedience.

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.