The Chinese Congregation of Calvary Pandan Bible-Presbyterian Church

The Chinese Congregation of Calvary Pandan Bible-Presbyterian Church (BPC) rejects the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) for theological, historical, and practical reasons, rooted in their commitment to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and a cautious approach to biblical textual criticism. Here’s a concise explanation of their stance:

1. Theological Deviation from Historical Confessions

The church’s traditional position, based on WCF 1.8 and its constitution, affirms that God providentially preserved Scripture’s meaning through centuries of transmission, not that every word was miraculously preserved in specific manuscripts like the Masoretic Text (MT) or Textus Receptus (TR). VPP, however, claims God “miraculously” preserved every word (“jot and tittle”) in these texts, equating them with the lost original autographs. This contradicts the church’s belief that no copy or translation holds equal authority to the inspired originals. By elevating the TR/MT to autograph-level authority, VPP introduces a novel doctrine unsupported by historical Reformed theology.

2. Lack of Biblical Basis

The church argues that VPP relies on misinterpreted proof texts. For example:

Psalm 12:6-7 is cited by VPP proponents to claim God preserves His words. However, the Hebrew grammar shows “them” refers to “the poor” (v. 5), not Scripture.

Matthew 5:18 emphasizes Scripture’s enduring authority, not textual perfection in specific manuscripts.

The church asserts that Scripture nowhere specifies where or how preservation occurs, making VPP an extrapolation without explicit biblical grounding.

3. Logical Inconsistencies

VPP’s claims falter under scrutiny:

The TR itself evolved through multiple editions (Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Scrivener), with revisions reflecting human editorial choices. Even the KJV translators diverged from the TR at times, incorporating other sources like the Latin Vulgate.

VPP proponents inconsistently praise the Chinese Union Version (CUV) as “faithful” while condemning its underlying Westcott-Hort text. This undermines their insistence on TR/MT exclusivity.

Asserting that pre-Reformation Christians lacked a “preserved” Bible contradicts church history, as the gospel was preached for centuries without the TR.

4. Divisive and Dangerous

VPP has fractured churches by branding non-adherents as “unbelievers” in preservation. The BPC highlights splits in other Bible-Presbyterian congregations, blaming VPP’s rigid dogmatism. By equating salvation with TR/KJV adherence, VPP undermines confidence in translations like the CUV, sowing doubt in lay believers. The church warns against elevating secondary issues (textual preferences) to tests of orthodoxy, which distracts from core doctrines and fuels unnecessary conflict.

5. Constitutional and Confessional Integrity

The BPC’s constitution (Article 4.2.1) affirms Scripture’s inerrancy in the original languages, not specific manuscripts. VPP proponents attempted to amend the constitution in 2005 to enshrine VPP but failed. The church argues that retrofitting VPP into existing confessions violates their historical intent and creates schism. They stress that adopting VPP would require formal constitutional revision, which members have not endorsed.

Conclusion

The BPC rejects VPP as an unnecessary, divisive innovation that strays from Reformed confessionalism. They uphold the KJV as a faithful translation but refuse to absolutize it or its underlying texts. Instead, they affirm God’s providential preservation of Scripture’s meaning across diverse manuscripts and translations, prioritizing unity and doctrinal humility over textual perfectionism. For them, VPP exemplifies a “foolish” distraction from the gospel, echoing 2 Chronicles 16:9’s warning against misplaced trust in human constructs rather than God’s sovereign care.