Calvary Pandan BPC has published an article at https://static.calvarypandan.sg/images/resources/article/doctrines/vpp-vpp.pdf about Verbal Plenary Preservation, click the link to go to the article.
I am now providing a critique of the those VPP arguments drawing on textual scholarship, historical theology, and hermeneutics:
1. While VPP proponents claim it's about the original languages, not translations, the practical application of VPP (insisting only the originals are "perfect") inevitably undermines confidence in all translations, including the KJV they often favor, as no translation perfectly mirrors the hypothetical preserved originals.
2. The leap from affirming VPI (divine inspiration of the autographs) to requiring VPP (divine preservation of every word of the autographs in accessible manuscripts) is a theological assertion not explicitly mandated by Scripture itself; inspiration does not logically necessitate perfect, word-for-word preservation in all subsequent copies.
3. The cited proof texts (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18) do not explicitly teach VPP as defined; Psalm 12:7 likely refers to God preserving the poor and needy (v. 5), not the "words" (v. 6) in a textual sense, and Matthew 5:18 speaks to the enduring authority and fulfillment of the Law's intent, not the flawless textual transmission of every letter.
4. The claim "Without VPP there is no VPI" is a false dichotomy; one can fully affirm God inspired the original writings (VPI) while acknowledging, based on manuscript evidence, that the transmission process involved minor textual variations (none affecting core doctrine), trusting God preserved His "message" and "authority" without requiring absolute textual perfection in every extant copy.
5. Stating VPP means "every Christian holds in his hand a perfect BIBLE" is demonstrably untrue based on textual criticism; no single manuscript or printed edition (including those underlying the KJV) contains the "perfect" original text in every detail, as all are copies with known variants.
6. The Westminster Confession (WCF 1.8) states God "kept pure" the originals "by his singular care and providence," meaning His message was preserved authentically 'through' the textual tradition; it does 'not' teach the modern VPP doctrine of flawless word-for-word preservation in a single identifiable text form, but rather God's providential oversight ensuring the substance remains intact despite minor copyist variations.
7. While distortions of VPP cause division, the core VPP doctrine itself "is inherently divisive" because it brands all who acknowledge the reality of textual variants (including most conservative scholars and translators) as undermining inspiration (VPI) and the Bible's authority.
8. The argument that faith rests on the perfect originals, not translations, is valid "only if" one has access to those perfect originals; VPP claims they exist in current manuscripts, but textual scholarship shows no such perfect manuscript exists, making this claim practically meaningless for faith based on actual texts.
9. Rejecting VPP does not equate to rejecting VPI; one can firmly believe God inspired the autographs (VPI) while also believing God providentially preserved His message through the manuscript tradition despite minor, identifiable scribal errors in copies, without requiring the autographs' absolute textual perfection to exist today.
10. The 1% discrepancy calculation is a scare tactic; textual criticism reveals variants overwhelmingly concern spelling, word order, or minor omissions/additions (like "Lord" or definite articles), with no variant affecting any core Christian doctrine, demonstrating God preserved the substance even if VPP's demand for word-for-word perfection in all copies isn't met.
11. While the term VPP might be new, the doctrine as defined (flawless preservation of every word in accessible manuscripts) is a novel theological development beyond historical Reformation confessions like the WCF; historically, "preservation" referred to the survival and authenticity of the message, not the modern VPP claim of textual perfection in transmission.
Conclusion:
The doctrine of VPP is ultimately untenable because it imposes an extrabiblical requirement for flawless, word-for-word textual preservation—a concept neither explicitly taught in Scripture nor historically affirmed by the church. By conflating inspiration (VPI) with preservation (VPP) and declaring them inseparable, VPP proponents create a false dichotomy that misrepresents orthodox bibliology.
No comments:
Post a Comment