Can Verbal Plenary Inspiration do without Verbal Plenary Preservation?

Question: Can Verbal Plenary Inspiration do without Verbal Plenary Preservation?

Answer:

The doctrine of Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) is a historic confession of the church. It affirms that every word of Scripture, in the original manuscripts, was breathed out by God (2 Tim. 3:16) and thus fully trustworthy, authoritative, and without error. This conviction was universally upheld by the early church, the Reformers, and the mainstream evangelical tradition. Crucially, VPI refers to what God did once-for-all at the point of inspiration, when the prophets and apostles wrote the sacred texts under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

By contrast, Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) is a modern, novel doctrine. It asserts not only that God inspired the original autographs, but also that God has perfectly preserved every single word of those autographs in a specific manuscript tradition (commonly the Textus Receptus) or in one translation (often the King James Version). This claim goes beyond historic orthodoxy and shifts the doctrine of Scripture from inspiration to preservation in a way that Scripture itself does not teach.

1. The Biblical Witness

The Bible affirms inspiration clearly (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21), but it never promises that a single manuscript line or translation would remain perfectly intact without variation. While God promises that His Word will endure forever (Ps. 119:89; Isa. 40:8; Matt. 24:35), these promises refer to the abiding truth and authority of Scripture, not the mechanical preservation of every jot and tittle in one textual stream. The providence of God has ensured the wide and faithful transmission of Scripture through thousands of manuscripts, but this is not the same as claiming that one edition or translation is perfectly preserved.

2. The Testimony of Church History

Throughout history, Christians affirmed inspiration without demanding a corresponding doctrine of perfect preservation. Augustine, Jerome, Luther, Calvin, and the Westminster divines all recognized textual variations while still confessing the full inspiration of Scripture. The Reformers labored with the best manuscripts available, yet they never claimed to possess a single perfect text free of scribal variations. Their confidence rested in the sufficiency of God’s Word as a whole, not in the perfection of one manuscript tradition.

3. The Dangers of VPP

The doctrine of VPP is both new and dangerous for several reasons:

• It confuses categories. Inspiration is a completed act of God in the original writings; preservation is God’s providential care over history. To equate the two is to blur the distinction between miracle and providence.

• It fosters sectarianism. By insisting that God preserved His Word only in one textual tradition (TR) or one translation (KJV), proponents of VPP divide the body of Christ and delegitimize faithful translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc.) that have served millions of believers.

• It undermines confidence in God’s providence. Ironically, instead of strengthening trust in Scripture, VPP suggests that unless one has access to a particular edition, one does not truly have God’s Word. This creates fear, suspicion, and unnecessary division.

• It departs from historic orthodoxy. VPP cannot be found in the creeds, confessions, or theological consensus of the church. It emerged only in recent debates fueled by KJV-Onlyism and is a reactionary doctrine, not a biblical one.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, Verbal Plenary Inspiration does not require Verbal Plenary Preservation. The former is a divine act in history; the latter is a human addition in recent times. To conflate them is to distort the doctrine of Scripture. The church is right to affirm the inspiration, authority, and reliability of the Bible as faithfully transmitted through many manuscripts and translations. But the notion that God has preserved His Word perfectly in one line of manuscripts or one translation is a new and dangerous doctrine, foreign to Scripture and tradition, and one that sows confusion and division rather than faith and unity.