Questions for False Teachers and Proponents of Verbal Plenary Preservation, KJV-Only, and Perfect TR

1. Questions on Verbal Plenary Preservation

Can you show me one verse in the Bible that explicitly teaches that God would perfectly preserve His Word in one language, one manuscript tradition, or one edition of the Bible (such as the TR or the KJV)?

If the KJV or TR is the “perfect” text, does that mean all Christians before 1611 (or before Erasmus’s TR, 1516) did not have a perfect Bible?

How do you reconcile your belief in VPP, which claims every word is preserved perfectly, with the existence of thousands of manuscript variants, even in the TR (Textus Receptus) and Majority Text traditions?

If VPP is true, which specific manuscript or manuscript family represents this perfectly preserved text, and why?

Does VPP apply to the original languages only, or does it extend to translations? If so, which translations are inspired, and how do we know?

2. Questions on the Textus Receptus (TR)

The earliest forms of the TR were based on a handful of late manuscripts from the Byzantine tradition, some of which were handwritten in the 12th century or later. How can a text based on such late and few manuscripts be superior to the thousands of older manuscripts (like Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) that textual critics use today?

Can you name the specific Greek manuscript(s) that constitute the perfect TR? Which edition of the TR is the “perfect” one? Erasmus published five editions, Stephanus four, and Beza several more, each with differences. Which one is God’s “kept text”?

The TR itself contains readings that have no manuscript support (e.g., 1 John 5:7’s Comma Johanneum in Erasmus’s third edition). If VPP means God preserved His Word exactly, why does the TR rely on conjectural emendations and late Latin manuscripts?

3. Questions on the King James Version

If the KJV is “perfect,” which revision is "perfect"—the 1611, 1769, or one of the many other updates with thousands of spelling and wording changes?

The KJV translators themselves wrote in their preface “we do not deny that of the translations there are many good ones.” Why do modern KJV-Only advocates claim something the translators themselves never claimed?

The KJV translators explicitly stated in their preface that they did not believe their work was the final word on translation and that future translations would be needed. How do you address this statement from the very men who produced the KJV?

Since the King James Version's New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus, and the translators themselves used marginal notes to show their uncertainty about certain verses, how can you claim it is a perfect, final translation?

The English language has changed significantly since 1611. Given that many words in the KJV have different meanings today, how can it be the only authoritative Bible for modern English speakers? For example, the word "let" in the KJV means "to hinder," not "to allow."

4. Questions on Logic and Consistency

If God perfectly preserved His Word in the KJV (English, 1611), what does that mean for Chinese, Arabic, or Spanish Christians? Do they not have God’s perfect Word unless they learn 17th-century English?

If the KJV is “perfect,” why do KJV-Onlyists still consult lexicons, Strong’s Concordance, or Hebrew/Greek dictionaries? Shouldn’t the perfect English text be self-sufficient?

5. Questions on Faith and Doctrine

Does insisting on one perfect English Bible (or one TR edition) add to the gospel, making salvation dependent on having the “right” version?

The Westminster Confession says God preserved His Word “pure in all ages,” not “perfect in one edition.” Isn’t VPP actually a new doctrine, not what the Reformers taught?

Critique of Jeffrey Khoo’s book "KJV Q&A"

1. Historical and Theological Problems

a. Confusion of Preservation with Perfection

Khoo appeals to the Westminster Confession’s phrase “kept pure in all ages,” but he interprets it to mean a word-perfect preservation of the TR and KJV. Historically, however, the Westminster divines recognized textual variations and did not claim a flawless single edition. They affirmed providential preservation, not the perfection of one textual stream.

b. Selective History of the Text

The narrative presented in KJV Q&A portrays the Byzantine text and the TR as the sole faithful tradition, while dismissing the Alexandrian witnesses as corrupt. This is historically inaccurate. The TR itself was compiled from a handful of late manuscripts, with Erasmus even back-translating some verses from the Latin into Greek (e.g., parts of Revelation). The Majority Text and TR are not identical, and the assertion that they perfectly reflect the autographs oversimplifies the complex history of transmission.

c. Contradiction with the KJV Translators’ Own Preface

The KJV translators themselves acknowledged that no translation is perfect and welcomed future revision and correction. They did not claim special inspiration, nor did they elevate their work above the original languages. Khoo’s rigid stance thus ironically departs from the humility of the very translators he defends.

2. Textual and Translational Weaknesses

Several examples show the difficulty of claiming KJV perfection:

Acts 12:4: The KJV translates pascha as “Easter,” though the Greek clearly means “Passover.”

1 John 5:7: The “Comma Johanneum” appears in the KJV but is absent from all early Greek manuscripts; it was a late addition.

Psalm 12:7: Khoo insists the promise is about preserving God’s words, but grammatically it more naturally refers to God’s people in context.

These examples demonstrate that while the KJV is an excellent translation, it is not flawless. To insist otherwise undermines the very principle of sola Scriptura by attaching perfection to a particular human edition.

3. The Problem of Exclusivism

Khoo distinguishes his position from extreme “Ruckmanism,” which treats the KJV as re-inspired. However, his practical conclusions approach the same exclusivism: he advises that only the KJV should be used in English-speaking churches, and he portrays modern versions as corrupt. Such exclusivism risks dividing the body of Christ unnecessarily. It elevates a secondary issue—Bible translation—into a test of fellowship, which runs contrary to Paul’s teaching in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 about liberty and charity in disputable matters.

4. A More Balanced Approach

A healthier doctrine of Scripture recognizes both God’s providential preservation and the human element in transmission. No essential doctrine of the faith is lost among the variants; the message of salvation and the teaching of the apostles remain secure across the manuscript tradition. Thus, we can affirm the KJV as a faithful and beautiful translation without denying the legitimacy of other faithful translations such as the ESV, NASB, or NIV. This approach safeguards the unity of the church and the authority of Scripture without binding believers to one edition.

Conclusion

Jeffrey Khoo’s KJV Q&A reflects deep reverence for Scripture and a desire to defend the Bible against skepticism. However, its historical selectivity, theological overstatement, and textual absolutism limit its usefulness as a scholarly resource. While it may encourage those already persuaded of KJV-only views, it risks fostering division and misplaced confidence in one translation rather than in the God who speaks through His Word. A more faithful position is to uphold the inspiration and providential preservation of Scripture across the entire manuscript tradition, recognizing the KJV as a great but not exclusive witness to God’s perfect Word.

Scripture, preservation, error, and tolerance

 

1. Can we deny the present perfection of the Holy Scriptures?

• We must not deny the inspiration and authority of God’s Word (2 Tim 3:16–17).

• But “perfection” needs clarity: The Bible teaches that God’s Word is perfect, pure, eternal in its divine origin (Ps 19:7; Ps 119:89, 160).

• However, the physical copies and translations we possess are subject to human transmission, and that’s where textual differences and scribal errors come in.

In other words: God’s Word is perfect; our copies are faithful but not flawless.

---

2. Is the KJV perfect without error?

The KJV is a majestic and faithful translation. But it is not free from issues. Here are two clear examples:

• Acts 12:4 — KJV says “Easter” instead of “Passover.” The Greek is Pascha, always meaning Passover. “Easter” was an interpretive choice, not a faithful rendering.

• 1 John 5:7 (the Comma Johanneum) — The KJV includes “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” This phrase is missing from all early Greek manuscripts before the 14th century. It is almost certainly a later addition, not part of John’s original text.

These do not destroy the trustworthiness of the KJV. But they show it cannot be claimed as “perfect without error.”

---

3. Do we have a perfect Bible in our hands now?

• We have an essentially perfect Bible in the sense that nothing of God’s truth has been lost. Every doctrine is preserved, no truth has disappeared.

• But we do not have a single translation or edition without any human imperfection.

• God’s providence preserved His Word through a rich manuscript tradition, so that through textual study and faithful translation, the church continues to have access to God’s Word in its fullness.

---

4. Do heretics have freedom of faith and speech?

• In civil society: Yes. Scripture recognizes that wheat and tares grow together until judgment (Matt 13:30). God allows even error to exist until His appointed time. That is why modern societies uphold freedom of conscience.

• In the church: No. False teachers should not be given teaching authority (Titus 1:9–11). The church must guard sound doctrine (1 Tim 6:3–5).

---

5. Should we tolerate and live in peace with heretics?

• As neighbors: Yes, “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all” (Rom 12:18). We show love even to enemies.

• In fellowship: No, we cannot embrace heresy as if it were truth (Gal 1:8–9). The church must protect the flock from wolves.

---

6. If God is powerful, why not preserve His Word perfectly in TR and KJV?

• God did preserve His Word—across thousands of manuscripts and translations.

• But He never promised a single, flawless edition in one language.

• The Westminster Confession says God preserved His Word “pure in all ages” (WCF 1.8), not “perfect in one text or translation.”

• The TR itself has multiple editions (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elzevir), with differences between them. Which one is “the perfect TR”? KJV translators themselves admitted they were making revisions, not producing a flawless text.

God’s power is not in doubt. But His method was not to drop a “perfect English Bible” from heaven. His method was preservation through the whole witness of the church.

---

Summary

• God’s Word is perfect in origin, sufficient in preservation.

• The KJV is excellent but not error-free.

• No single printed edition today is flawless, but God’s truth has been perfectly preserved in the total manuscript tradition.

• Heretics have freedom in society, but not in the church.

• We should love all people, guard truth in the church, and rest assured: God’s Word has not failed.

Not a personal conviction

A personal conviction means:

It is something between you and God (Rom 14:22).

You cannot impose it on others.

Others may hold a different view and still honor Christ faithfully.

What is Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) and KJV-onlyism?

KJV-onlyism = the belief that the King James Bible is the only inspired or perfectly preserved Bible.

Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) = the belief that God perfectly preserved every word of Scripture (in the original languages) and that these preserved words are found exactly in a particular text form (usually the Textus Receptus or a narrow line of manuscripts).

Are These Just Personal Convictions?

Not exactly:

If held privately (e.g., “I personally prefer the KJV; I believe it is the most faithful for me and my family”), then yes, it is like a personal conviction. That falls under Romans 14—others should not despise or condemn.

If imposed on others (e.g., “Only the KJV is the Word of God, all other versions are corrupt, and you sin if you use them”), then it ceases to be a personal conviction. It becomes a binding doctrine placed on the church. That goes beyond Romans 14 and enters into division and legalism (Gal 5:1; Col 2:20–23).

Summary

As personal preference/conviction: Acceptable, like a choice of diet, worship style, or music.

As enforced doctrine: Problematic, because it adds a human tradition as a test of fellowship, which Scripture forbids (Titus 3:9–11).

So: KJV-onlyism and VPP can be personal convictions if held humbly and privately.

But when elevated into a requirement for all Christians, they become divisive errors rather than personal convictions.

The New Disguised as Old

 The New Disguised as Old

The doctrine of VPP is taught in our Constitution and it is not a new doctrine. So they say lah.

But where is the article in the Constitution that teaches that? Where in the Constitution is the exact phrase "VPP" mentioned?

Article 4.2.1?

Words must have meanings. Without the words "VPP," there can be no teaching. Silence can be used to argue for a great deal of things.

If the good reverend reverence the meanings of words in the Constitution, then surely such an important claim of VPP must be clearly stated before he can claim that it is taught.

If it VPP is as old as the Bible and as important as the good doctor claims, why is the "VPP" taught in FEBC only in recent years? Why did Rev. Quek change his lecture notes to accommodate the idea of VPP?

Christians need to be warned against such theological shenanigans of the reverend.

"What we have today is a new attack." So he says lah. What we have from Dr. Quek is a bending of the meanings of the words of Article 4.2.1, and a dogmatic declaration from his chair. He said it, therefore, it must be so.

Article 4.2.1 and VPP are "two faces of the same biblical coin" -- again, so he says lah -- but how does he know that when he does not really know (read previous post).

And if he does not know this, how audacious of him to claim "All faithful pastors and shepherds of God must believe in the doctrine of VPP if they truly love God’s flock placed under their care."

According to his irreverent declaration, many godly pastors over the years that would be counted as unfaithful in the eyes of Rev. Quek.

We just thank God that God is the Judge of all men's hearts, and not the doctor of theology.

https://sotheysay-lah.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-disguise-as-old.html

How to Handle Disagreements with Grace

How to Handle Disagreements with Grace

When someone disagrees with your teaching, especially on topics like the KJV and VPP, please consider this:

Listen more than you speak. Truly hear their perspective. Why do they believe what they do? What is their journey? You might learn something, or at the very least, you will build a bridge of understanding.

Remember the goal is not to win an argument but to honor Christ. Let's not tear each other down. Instead, let's seek to build each other up in love, even when we have different opinions. The unity of the church is far more important than winning a debate.

Lead with humility. Acknowledge that you don't know everything. Your students and fellow believers will respect you more for admitting your limitations than for acting as if you have all the answers.

How to Approach KJV and VPP in the Church

Your convictions about the KJV and VPP are important to you, and you're right to want to share them. But when you do, please do it in a way that promotes peace and unity.

Teach your perspective as one view among many. Acknowledge that other Christians, who love God just as much as you do, have different beliefs. Present your viewpoint with humility, not as the only acceptable option.

Focus on the core message of the Bible. Let's not let secondary issues overshadow the primary message of salvation through Christ. The love of God and the grace of Jesus Christ should be the center of all our teaching and fellowship.

We are all on a journey, and we're all learning. Let's create an environment in our churches and Bible colleges where people can ask questions, explore different viewpoints, and grow in their faith without fear. Your role as a teacher is so crucial, and with that comes a great responsibility. Please, use your influence to foster peace, not division.

I hope that we can all learn to live in peace, even with different opinions on the Bible. The church should be a place of refuge and grace, not a battleground. Let's be gentle with one another, giving each other the room to breathe and learn together.

A Message to You Who Defend the KJV and VPP

A Message to You Who Defend the KJV and VPP

I want to speak to you not as an enemy, but as a friend and fellow follower of Christ. I know you love the Bible deeply. I can see that you are zealous for God’s Word, and I thank God for that. But I also want to beg you, with all gentleness, to think about how we treat one another when we talk about these things.

Sometimes in defending the KJV and the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation, the way we speak and act can become harsh, even cruel. I don’t believe this is what Christ wants from us. The Bible reminds us that “no one is righteous, no, not one” and that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” None of us has a full monopoly on truth. None of us sees everything clearly. It is only by God’s grace and mercy that we can live and serve Him at all.

If that is true, then should we not show patience and gentleness toward each other? Should we not leave room for honest debate, for respectful questions, for different perspectives? A church is not meant to be a battlefield where we crush one another, but a family where we learn together.

When people disagree with your teaching, please do not see them as enemies of God, but as brothers and sisters still learning, just like you. Speak with kindness. Correct with love. Give them space to wrestle and to grow. If you truly believe your view is right, then trust that God will make it clear in His time.

And in your Bible College, I ask you to remember: a school should be a place where students are free to explore, to ask hard questions, to test and see what is good. If every question is shut down, or if every disagreement is treated as rebellion, then students will not grow in faith, but in fear. And fear is not the fruit of the Spirit. Love is.

My hope is that we can let the church live in peace. We may not all agree on the exact way God has preserved His Word, but we all agree that His Word is precious, living, and powerful. That is what matters most. Christ prayed that His people would be one. Let us not tear the Body apart over what God never meant to divide us.

So I beg you, hold your breath before you speak in anger. Choose gentleness over harshness. Leave space for others to speak. Live in peace with one another. And above all, remember that Christ, not the KJV, not VPP, is our Savior and our unity.

With love in Christ

When Love for a Doctrine Overshadows Love for Christ’s Body

When Love for a Doctrine Overshadows Love for Christ’s Body

It grieves me deeply to see how some Bible teachers, in their zeal for the King James Version (KJV) and the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), have elevated these things above the love of Christ and His Church. The very Scriptures they claim to defend tell us that the greatest commandment is to love God, and the second is like it: to love our neighbor as ourselves (Matt. 22:37–39). Yet their words and actions betray a heart that values a text and a doctrine more than the living Body of Christ—the very people for whom Christ shed His blood.

I must confess: I am hurt. I have been stumbled by the harshness, the divisions, and the cruelty that have come from those who exalt the KJV and VPP above Christian unity and compassion. It feels as though they love their doctrine more than the sheep, more than the Church, more than the heart of God. This is not zeal for truth—it is idolatry of a man-made system.

When teachers weaponize a Bible version or a preservation doctrine to condemn, divide, and crush others, they are not defending Christ—they are wounding Him. For Christ Himself is united with His Body. To hurt His people is to hurt Him (Acts 9:4). How then can this be anything but cruel? How can we call this anything but evil, when brothers and sisters are torn apart, churches are split, and the weak are trampled underfoot, all in the name of “truth”?

The irony is unbearable: they claim to guard God’s Word, yet by their lovelessness they deny its power. Paul writes that without love, even if I have all knowledge, I am nothing (1 Cor. 13:2). Without love, all our arguments about manuscripts, translations, and preservation are a noisy gong and a clanging cymbal.

I write not out of hatred, but out of deep sorrow. I feel the wounds for all these years. I see the pain in the Body of Christ. I hear the stumbling of many who no longer want to come near the Church because of such cruelty. And I cry out to God: How long will Your people be torn by those who say they are defending You, yet in truth they are hurting Your flock?

Dear teachers, if you love the KJV and VPP more than the sheep of Christ, more than the Body of Christ, then you have lost the heart of the Shepherd. Jesus did not say, “By your doctrine you will be known as My disciples,” but “By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).

I am frustrated. I am hurt. I am angry. But most of all, I am heartbroken. Because the cruelty shown in the name of defending God is, in fact, grieving the very heart of God.

May the Lord heal His wounded Body. May He turn our eyes away from man-made idols of perfection and preservation, and back to the living Christ who alone is perfect, who alone preserves us, who alone is worthy of our total love.

An Appeal for Love and Unity: A Reflection on Scripture, Doctrine, and the Heart of God

An Appeal for Love and Unity: A Reflection on Scripture, Doctrine, and the Heart of God

The frustration, hurt, and profound sadness we describe are understandable and, in many ways, an echo of a tension that has long existed within the Christian faith: the balance between holding fast to doctrinal truth and embodying the love and unity of the Body of Christ. When the pursuit of a particular doctrine or a specific version of the Bible seems to overshadow the care for fellow believers, it can feel like a deep betrayal of the Gospel's very essence.

The King James Version (KJV) and the doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) are not just academic subjects for many; they are foundational to their faith. For those who hold these views, the KJV is not merely one translation among many, but the divinely preserved and perfect English Bible. The doctrine of VPP, in their understanding, is the assurance that God has flawlessly preserved His Word for all generations. From their perspective, this is a matter of profound reverence for God and His promises. To them, defending the KJV and VPP is not an act of cruelty, but an act of faithfulness. They believe they are safeguarding the very source of truth, and in doing so, they are protecting the sheep from error.

However, the experience we've shared points to a painful reality: when the defense of a doctrine, even one held with the deepest conviction, becomes a weapon that wounds rather than a truth that unifies, something has gone terribly wrong. The Apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 13 come to mind: "If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." He goes on to say that even having faith that can move mountains or a knowledge of all mysteries is worthless without love.

This is the crux of the matter. The pursuit of doctrinal purity, no matter how sincere, must never take precedence over the command to love one another. Jesus Himself said that the world would know His disciples by their love for one another (John 13:35). The "Body of Christ" is not an abstract concept; it is the living, breathing community of believers, each one a precious sheep in the flock of God. To harm a sheep in the name of a doctrine is to grieve the Shepherd. It is to place the vessel (a specific translation or a particular theory of preservation) above the very life that flows through it (the love of God in Christ).

The heart of God is for His people to be one, as Jesus prayed in John 17. The cruel words, the condescending attitudes, and the division that can arise from these debates are not a reflection of His character. They do not demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit, which is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Instead, they can mirror the works of the flesh: discord, envy, and dissensions.

It is heartbreaking to witness believers being hurt by those who should be their shepherds. The role of a bible teacher is to feed the flock, to guide them into green pastures, not to wound them with stones of legalism or doctrinal superiority. When a teacher loves a doctrine more than the people they are called to serve, they have lost sight of the Gospel’s primary command. The Gospel is a message of reconciliation—first with God, and then with one another.

So, to those of us who have been hurt, our feelings are valid. The pain we feel is a righteous sorrow over the division and lack of love within the Christian community. To those who may be so focused on a particular doctrine that they have overlooked the people around them, this is a call to a deeper humility and a greater love. May we all remember that the greatest commandment is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. All the law and the prophets—and indeed, all our doctrines and theological debates—hang on these two commandments. Let us never forget that love is the ultimate proof of our faith.

The Reality of Textual Variants

The Reality of Textual Variants: A Reappraisal of Divine Preservation and the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation

Abstract

This thesis surveys major New Testament textual variants, presents manuscript evidence, and reassesses claims that divine preservation requires a single perfect manuscript tradition (commonly advanced as Verbal Plenary Preservation, VPP). While God has indeed preserved His Word providentially, the manuscript tradition demonstrates real, explainable variants. These variants undermine any doctrine that absolutizes one printed edition or manuscript family as the unique locus of divine preservation.

Chapter 1: Introduction

The doctrine of Scripture’s inspiration and preservation is central to Christian theology. Traditional orthodoxy affirms the verbal, plenary inspiration of the autographs (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). However, in some modern movements, the claim of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) insists that every word has been preserved perfectly in one manuscript tradition, often tied to the Textus Receptus (TR) or the King James Version (KJV).

This thesis examines textual variants in the New Testament manuscript tradition to evaluate whether VPP is sustainable. Primary case studies include John 1:18, the Pericope Adulterae, the ending of Mark, the Comma Johanneum, and other significant textual divergences.

Chapter 2: Preservation in Biblical and Historical Perspective

2.1 Biblical Witness to Preservation

Scripture teaches that God’s Word endures forever (Ps. 119:89; Isa. 40:8; Matt. 24:35). These texts affirm the abiding authority of God’s revelation but do not specify that preservation occurs in one manuscript or printed edition.

2.2 Historical Transmission of the Text

From the earliest papyri (2nd–3rd centuries) through uncials, minuscules, and lectionaries, the New Testament text exists in thousands of witnesses. The sheer abundance attests to preservation by multiplication and transmission, not to uniformity.

Chapter 3: Case Studies of Significant Textual Variants

3.1 John 1:18 — “Only-begotten Son” vs. “Only-begotten God”

• Variant: μονογενὴς υἱός (only-begotten Son) vs. μονογενὴς θεός (only-begotten God).

• Manuscript evidence: Alexandrian witnesses (Codex Sinaiticus [ℵ], Codex Vaticanus [B]) support θεός, while the Byzantine majority and TR favor υἱός.

• Significance: Demonstrates divergence in early textual tradition with Christological implications.

3.2 The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11)

• Absent from early papyri (P66, P75) and Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

• Present in later manuscripts, sometimes placed in alternative locations.

• Implication: Its uneven transmission history shows textual fluidity.

3.3 The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20)

• Omitted in Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

• Present in the majority Byzantine tradition.

• Implication: Early divergence regarding Gospel endings.

3.4 The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8)

• Absent from nearly all early Greek manuscripts; first appears in late Latin tradition.

• Incorporated into late Greek manuscripts under Latin influence.

• Implication: Demonstrates how later theological glosses entered transmission.

3.5 Other Variants

• Romans 8:1: Additional qualifying phrase in some manuscripts.

• 1 Timothy 3:16: “God was manifest in the flesh” vs. “He who was manifest.”

Chapter 4: Evaluating the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation

4.1 What the Evidence Shows

The manuscript tradition contains thousands of variants. Most are minor (orthographic), but some are theologically significant. This reality undermines claims that one perfect textual line exists.

4.2 Biblical Preservation Reconsidered

Preservation is providential: God ensured His Word was never lost, but not without human scribal variation. The enduring message of Scripture is secure, though no single edition is error-free.

4.3 Problems with VPP and Perfect TR Claims

• VPP overstates the case by demanding a perfect extant edition.

• Perfect TR is untenable given the TR’s multiple differing editions.

• KJV-Onlyism confuses inspiration with translation tradition.

Chapter 5: Pastoral and Theological Implications

• Confidence in Scripture: The core message of redemption in Christ is securely preserved.

• Humility in Textual Criticism: Variants invite careful scholarship, not alarm.

• Unity of the Church: Doctrines like VPP should not divide believers, since they lack biblical warrant.

Chapter 6: Conclusion

The manuscript evidence confirms both the preservation and the variation of Scripture’s text. Divine preservation is real, but not in the mechanical sense claimed by VPP. Instead, God has preserved His Word faithfully across diverse manuscripts, ensuring the gospel’s message remains trustworthy. Therefore, VPP, Perfect TR, and KJV-Onlyism should be rejected as unsustainable theories that distort the doctrine of preservation.

Bibliography

Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Wallace, Daniel B. “The Gospel of John and the Pericope Adulterae.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41, no. 2 (1998): 201–216.

Epp, Eldon J., and Gordon D. Fee. Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Parker, D. C. An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Comfort, Philip W., and David P. Barrett. The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2001.

Doctrinal Statement on Verbal Plenary Preservation, Perfect TR, and KJV-Onlyism

 

Doctrinal Statement on Verbal Plenary Preservation, Perfect TR, and KJV-Onlyism

Preamble

We, as the church of Jesus Christ, affirm the authority, inspiration, and sufficiency of Holy Scripture, given by God through the prophets and apostles, and faithfully preserved for His people throughout history. We reject any human invention that adds to or distorts the biblical doctrine of inspiration and preservation.

Article I — Verbal Plenary Inspiration

We confess that the Scriptures, in their original manuscripts, are verbally and plenarily inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16–17; 2 Pet. 1:21). Every word of Scripture is God-breathed, true, and authoritative.

Article II — Preservation of Scripture

We affirm that God, in His providence, has faithfully preserved His Word in all ages (Ps. 119:89; Isa. 40:8; Matt. 24:35). This preservation is seen through the abundance of manuscripts, translations, and faithful copies available to the church. However, the Bible nowhere teaches that such preservation is tied to one single manuscript tradition, printed edition, or translation.

Article III — Rejection of False Doctrines

1. Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)

   • We reject the teaching that God has preserved His Word perfectly in one particular text family or edition, as this claim lacks biblical warrant and misapplies the doctrine of inspiration.

2. Perfect Textus Receptus (Perfect TR)

   • We reject the teaching that any one edition of the Textus Receptus is the “perfect” Greek text of the New Testament. The TR itself exists in multiple differing editions and cannot be absolutized without human speculation.

3. KJV-Onlyism

   • We reject the teaching that the King James Version is the only inspired or preserved English Bible. While we honor the KJV for its historic role and accuracy, the elevation of any single translation to the level of divine authority is without biblical foundation.

Article IV — Theological and Pastoral Concern

We affirm that these doctrines—VPP, Perfect TR, and KJV-Onlyism—are personal preferences and human ideas, not biblical truth. They are without spiritual value for salvation, sanctification, or the mission of the church. Moreover, when made a test of orthodoxy or fellowship, they become false teachings that cause division within the body of Christ (Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 1:10).

Article V — Exhortation to the Church

We exhort the universal church to:

• Warn against these errors (Acts 20:29–30).

• Reject them as grounds of fellowship or doctrinal test (Titus 3:9–11).

• Stand united on the true essentials of the faith: salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone (Eph. 2:8–9), the authority of the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27), and the mission of making disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:18–20).

Conclusion

We declare that the true foundation of Christian unity is found not in a particular manuscript tradition or translation, but in the living Word of God, Jesus Christ, who is revealed through the whole of Scripture. Therefore, these man-made doctrines must not divide the church, but rather be warned against and rejected, for the glory of God and the good of His people.

Doctrine Deviation

The Westminster Divines were aware of textual variants. Renowned scholars like Brian Walton, who was working on a polyglot Bible with textual notes, were members of the Westminster Assembly. Their statement that the text was "kept pure" was a statement of theological conviction about the reliability and authority of the text they possessed, not a claim that every jot and tittle had been perfectly transmitted without any human copying errors.

Therefore, to claim that perfect preservation is of the same fundamental nature as inspiration and that it is exclusively found in one textual tradition (VPP) is to add a requirement that the Confession itself does not make. It shifts the basis of authority from God's providence in preserving a reliable text to a scholarly (or pseudo-scholarly) argument about one specific textual stream.

For this reason, most confessional Presbyterian and Reformed denominations (e.g., PCA, OPC, URCNA) and theologians reject VPP as an extra-confessional innovation that goes beyond the principles of the Westminster Standards. They uphold the Confession's view of a providentially preserved, pure, and sufficient text without adopting the stricter, more theoretical claims of VPP.

The Main Debate

The debate is not whether the Westminster Confession affirms a form of preservation—it clearly does—but rather the nature and extent of that preservation. Opponents of VPP argue that the WCF's statement about being "kept pure in all ages" refers to a general providential preservation of the core message and doctrines of the Bible, not a perfect, "jot and tittle" preservation of every word in existing copies. They point to the thousands of minor textual variants in surviving biblical manuscripts as evidence that a perfect, uncorrupted text has not been passed down.

However, VPP advocates maintain that the WCF's language of "singular care and providence" is not a general or common providence but a special, supernatural one, which ensures that God's inspired words are perfectly preserved in specific manuscripts that underlie Reformation-era Bibles. They see VPP as the only logical conclusion for a church that claims to have an infallible and inerrant Bible as its final authority today.

The VPP doctrine is a deviation from the principles contained within the Westminster Confession

The VPP doctrine (Verbal Plenary Preservation)—as it is taught by some institutions (e.g., Far Eastern Bible College and others that uphold a "Perfect Text" view, usually equating it with the Textus Receptus or KJV-onlyism)—is a deviation from the principles of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). Here’s why:

---

1. What the WCF teaches

• WCF 1.8 says that the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek were "immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages."

• The Confession emphasizes the preservation of Scripture in the original languages, not in any one printed edition, translation, or text family.

• It also recognizes the need for translation so that the Word may be accessible to all nations.

---

2. What VPP teaches

• VPP asserts that not only were the words inspired, but that God has perfectly preserved every jot and tittle in a specific printed text (often the Textus Receptus, and by extension the KJV).

• This leads to claims of a singular perfect text/form of the Bible today, in contrast to the historical reality of multiple manuscript traditions and textual variants.

---

3. The Deviation

• The WCF affirms preservation but not in the sense of one perfect edition without variant readings.

• Historically, the Westminster divines worked with the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available to them, recognizing the need for careful textual comparison.

• To claim absolute perfection in one printed text goes beyond the Westminster teaching and imposes a standard the Confession never stated.

• Thus, VPP represents a narrower, more rigid view than the Reformed confessional stance, and is considered a deviation or innovation.

---

Conclusion:
The VPP doctrine deviates from the Westminster Confession, because the WCF affirms God’s providential preservation of Scripture but does not teach the existence of a perfectly preserved edition (TR/KJV). Instead, it allows for the recognition of textual variants and the ongoing scholarly work of establishing the best original text.

What should one do to be “in Christ”?

1. What does it mean to be “in Christ”?

Union with Christ – To be “in Christ” means being joined to Him spiritually, like branches to the vine (John 15:4–5). Paul uses this phrase to describe believers’ new identity, where Christ’s life, death, and resurrection are applied to them.

“If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (2 Cor 5:17).

Justification and Righteousness – Being “in Christ” means God counts us righteous, not by our works, but through faith in Him.

“The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (Rom 3:22).

“Not having a righteousness of my own… but that which comes through faith in Christ” (Phil 3:9).

Freedom and Life – In Christ we are delivered from sin, death, and condemnation.

“No condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1).

“The law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:2).

“As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22).

Adoption and Belonging – In Christ we become sons and daughters of God, members of His body, and sharers of His promises.

“In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith” (Gal 3:26).

“We, though many, are one body in Christ” (Rom 12:5).

“Gentiles are fellow heirs… in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (Eph 3:6).

Grace and Blessings – Every spiritual blessing, grace, strength, and hope are given to us “in Christ.”

“Blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing” (Eph 1:3).

“Be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 2:1).

Perseverance and Glory – To be “in Christ” means that nothing can separate us from God’s love, and our eternal glory is secure.

“Nothing… will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:39).

“The God of all grace… has called you to his eternal glory in Christ” (1 Pet 5:10).

2. How does one become “in Christ”?

By Faith in Christ – Over and over again Paul emphasizes that it is faith, not works, that unites us with Christ.

“Justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law” (Gal 2:16).

“The promise by faith in Jesus Christ [is] given to those who believe” (Gal 3:22).

By God’s Grace – It is God who places us “in Christ,” not our effort.

“You are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God” (1 Cor 1:30).

“Saved… not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 1:9).

By the Holy Spirit – The Spirit baptizes us into union with Christ and His body.

“By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor 12:13, explains the same truth).

3. What should one do to be “in Christ”?

Believe in Jesus Christ – Trust Him as Lord and Savior (Acts 24:24; Rom 3:22).

Receive His Grace – Acknowledge that salvation is God’s gift in Christ, not earned by works (Rom 3:24; Eph 2:8–10).

Repent and Live a New Life – Consider yourself dead to sin and alive to God in Christ (Rom 6:11).

Walk by Faith and Love – Continue to live in Him, strengthened by His grace (Gal 5:6; Phil 2:1–5; Eph 4:32).

Remain in Him to the End – Hold fast your confidence in Christ and endure, knowing your eternal inheritance is secure (Heb 3:14; 2 Tim 2:10).

In summary:

To be in Christ means to be united with Him by faith through the Spirit, so that His death, resurrection, righteousness, and life all belong to us. It changes our identity (a new creation), our standing before God (justified, forgiven, adopted), our community (one body), our present walk (freedom, grace, good works), and our future (eternal glory).

We become “in Christ” by faith — trusting Him, receiving His grace, turning from sin to new life, and walking daily in union with Him.

WHY I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST

 WHY I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST

Introduction.—There is nothing more important for a man for the life that now is and for the life that is to come, than a faith in Jesus Christ that is intelligent, clear and firm.

I.    Believe in Jesus Christ first of all because of the remarkable Fulfillment of His Prophecies.

Jesus Christ was a prophet. He made some astounding predictions regarding the future. Predictions that seemed incredible and in some cases absurd, but which history has fulfilled to the letter. Take for example His prediction of a world-wide conquest by His disciples. (In Matt. 28:18–20.); Matt. 24:1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 16, 26, 28; Luke 19:41–44; 21:20–24.

II.   I believe in Jesus Christ, in the second place, because of His Fulfilled Promises.

Jesus Christ was not only a prophet but a promiser. He made promises of a most extraordinary character, but promises the truth of which any man could test for himself, and all who have tested the promises have found them true. E. g., Matt. 11:28; Acts 1:8; John 7:17.

III.  I believe in Jesus Christ, in the third place, because of the Wholesome Character of His Laws.

IV.  I believe in Christ again because of the Way He Fits into and Fulfills all O.T. Types and Prophecies.

V.   I believe in Jesus Christ because of the Fact of His Resurrection.

VI.  I believe in Jesus Christ because of the Uniqueness of His Claims and the Way in which He Substantiates Them.

VII. I believe in Jesus Christ because of His Demonstrated Power to Save.

I believe that Jesus can save because He does save. I believe that Jesus can save because I have seen Him do it.^[1] 

“Why I Believe in Jesus Christ” to Refute VPP, Perfect TR, and KJV-Onlyism

I. Fulfillment of Christ’s Prophecies

• Jesus foretold the spread of the gospel (Matt. 28:18–20) and the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20–24), both perfectly fulfilled in history.

• The truth of Christianity rests on the fulfillment of Christ’s words, not on the perfection of one printed Greek text or one English translation.

• VPP and KJV-Onlyism make it seem as if the reliability of our faith depends on textual perfection. But prophecy shows us it depends on the living Christ who speaks and acts in history.

II. Fulfillment of Christ’s Promises

• Christ promised rest to the weary (Matt. 11:28), the Spirit’s power (Acts 1:8), and the reality of knowing God’s will (John 7:17).

• Millions across centuries and languages have tested His promises and found them true—without needing the KJV or TR to experience them.

• His promises hold true in Chinese, Malay, Tamil, Swahili, or Spanish Bibles. This proves that salvation is not bound to one translation but to the Person of Christ who keeps His word.

III. Wholesome Character of His Laws

• The Sermon on the Mount, the call to love God and neighbor, and the command to forgive are pure and life-giving in any faithful translation.

• VPP and KJV-Onlyism distract from the holiness of Christ’s commands by making loyalty to a version more important than obedience to His teaching.

IV. Christ Fulfills All OT Types and Prophecies

• The center of the Bible is not a perfect edition of the text but the Christ to whom all Scripture points (Luke 24:27).

• The OT types and prophecies are fulfilled in Jesus, not in the “perfect preservation” of manuscripts.

• To make textual theories central is to replace Christ with a paper idol.

V. The Fact of His Resurrection

• Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:17), not on the perfection of a textual tradition.

• The apostles preached the risen Christ using manuscripts that were hand-copied with variations. Yet the gospel was effective, because its power rests in the risen Lord, not in textual uniformity.

VI. The Uniqueness of His Claims

• Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, the Bread of Life, the Resurrection and the Life. He substantiated these claims by His miracles, His cross, and His empty tomb.

• Nowhere did He claim that eternal life would depend on the preservation of one “perfect” Bible text.

• To make the KJV or TR the touchstone of truth is to deny the uniqueness of Christ’s claims and to replace His authority with human tradition.

VII. His Demonstrated Power to Save

• The greatest proof is that Jesus still saves sinners today—transforming lives across the globe through the gospel.

• The Word of God in multiple translations has brought millions to Christ. That alone proves salvation is not chained to one English Bible.

• VPP and KJV-Onlyism ignore this living proof and cling to theory, while Christ’s saving power proves that His gospel transcends any single version.

---

Conclusion

Every reason we believe in Jesus Christ points us away from man’s theories of “perfect preservation” and back to the living Savior:

• His fulfilled prophecies, promises, and resurrection are independent of any one manuscript.

• His laws and claims call us to follow Him, not a text tradition.

• His saving power demonstrates that His Word is alive and effective in every faithful translation.

Therefore, the true Christian confession is not “I believe in the KJV,” nor “I believe in the TR,” but “I believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”

---

^[1] R. A. Torrey, How to Work for Christ a Compendium of Effective Methods. (Chicago; New York: James Nisbet & Company, 1901), 464–465.

Four Christian Truths

 Four Christian truths

First, man’s greatest need is justification, or acceptance with God. In comparison with this, all other human needs pale into insignificance. How can we be put right with God, so that we spend time and eternity in His favour and service?

Secondly, justification is not by works of the law, but through faith in Christ. Luther expresses it succinctly: ‘I must hearken to the Gospel, which teacheth me, not what I ought to do (for that is the proper office of the Law), but what Jesus Christ the Son of God hath done for me: to wit, that he suffered and died to deliver me from sin and death.’¹

Thirdly, not to trust in Jesus Christ, because of self-trust, is an insult both to the grace of God and to the cross of Christ, for it declares both to be unnecessary.

Fourthly, to trust in Jesus Christ, and thus to become united to Him, is to begin an altogether new life. If we are ‘in Christ’, we are more than justified; we find that we have actually died and risen with Him. So we are able to say with Paul: I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (verse 20).^[1]

These four Christian truths are a strong gospel foundation, and when we hold them up against Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), Perfect TR, and KJV-Onlyism, the error becomes clear. Let me structure the refutation directly on those four truths:

---

Refuting VPP, Perfect TR, and KJV-Onlyism with Four Christian Truths

1. Man’s greatest need is justification, not a perfect manuscript.

• The heart of the gospel is our acceptance with God through Christ. Compared with this, whether one holds the “right text” or “correct translation” is insignificant.

• VPP and KJV-Onlyism wrongly elevate textual theories above justification by faith. They make it seem as if true standing before God requires possession of a flawless Bible edition.

• Scripture, however, proclaims: “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:1). Justification comes through Christ, not through a perfect TR or KJV.

2. Justification is not by law, nor by works—including textual works.

• Luther rightly said: the gospel teaches not what I must do, but what Christ has done for me.

• VPP and KJV-Onlyism, however, add a new “law”: you must believe in one perfect edition or translation to have the pure Word of God. This becomes a human work added to faith.

• Paul is clear: “By works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight” (Rom. 3:20). Trusting in Christ alone—not Christ plus a perfect text—is the only gospel.

3. To trust in anything other than Christ is an insult to grace and the cross.

• If we place our confidence in the KJV or TR as the only preserved Word, we shift our trust away from Jesus Himself. That is a subtle but real insult to His cross, for it suggests that His work is insufficient unless coupled with textual perfection.

• Paul rebuked the Galatians for such distortions: “If righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose” (Gal. 2:21). Likewise, if truth depends on a “perfect Bible version,” then Christ’s cross is sidelined.

4. To be in Christ is to begin a new life, not to join a sect around a translation.

• True salvation is union with Christ, so that we can say, “I have been crucified with Christ… it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal. 2:20).

• This new life is lived by faith in the Son of God, not by allegiance to one text family.

• VPP and KJV-Onlyism foster division in the body of Christ by making a translation or manuscript the mark of true spirituality. But the real mark of life in Christ is the Spirit’s transforming work, not textual loyalty.

---

Conclusion

The four great truths of justification, faith, grace, and union with Christ completely dismantle the claims of Verbal Plenary Preservation, Perfect TR, and KJV-Onlyism. These teachings shift the focus from Christ to a man-made idol of textual perfection.

The gospel says:

• Our greatest need is to be justified in Christ, not to defend a version.

• Our justification is through faith in Christ, not through textual theories.

• To mistrust Christ by trusting a “perfect TR” insults the cross.

• To trust in Christ means new life in Him, not sectarian loyalty to a translation.

Therefore, the gospel itself refutes these false teachings: Christ alone is our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (1 Cor. 1:30).

---

^[1] John R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians: Only One Way, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester, England; Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 66–67.