Here is a reasoned response and refutation to the article titled “What REALLY is the Doctrine of VPP?” published by Calvary Pandan BPC, this article can be retrieved at https://static.calvarypandan.sg/images/resources/article/doctrines/What%20is%20really%20the%20Doctrine%20of%20VPP.pdf, which promotes the false teaching of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP). This critique will focus on the central theological, exegetical, and logical errors found in the article, followed by a conclusion.
A Reasoned Refutation of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)
1. Confusing Inspiration with Preservation
The article repeatedly equates verbal plenary inspiration (VPI) with verbal plenary preservation (VPP), claiming that the moment God inspired His Word, it was also perfectly preserved without error throughout history. This is an unbiblical conflation of two distinct doctrines.
-
Biblical Inspiration (2 Tim 3:16) refers to how Scripture was breathed out by God through the prophets and apostles. This was a historical event, not a continuous process.
-
Preservation, as taught in Scripture, refers to God's general care and protection over His Word (e.g., Isa 40:8; Matt 24:35), but the Bible never promises the perfect, word-for-word, jot-and-tittle preservation of any specific text form, translation, or manuscript.
The author falsely assumes that a perfect original must result in a perfect copy forever, but that is a logical fallacy—it demands a perfection Scripture never promises.
2. Misuse of Key Verses
The article misapplies several Bible verses to defend its claim of perfect preservation:
Psalm 12:6–7
"The words of the LORD are pure words...Thou shalt keep them, O LORD..."
This is a commonly misunderstood passage. The context is not about Scripture preservation across generations, but about God protecting the poor and needy (v.5). Most modern translations clarify that "them" refers to the people, not to the "words." The article rips this verse out of context to support an idea the psalm never intends to teach.
Matthew 5:18
"One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law..."
This verse affirms the authority and enduring relevance of God’s moral law, not the perfect preservation of every manuscript copy. Jesus upholds the truthfulness and fulfillment of the Law in Himself—not the scribal accuracy of all future manuscript traditions.
3. False Dilemma and Strawman Arguments
The author asserts:
“Either the Bible is perfectly preserved word-for-word, or it is wholly unreliable and full of errors.”
This is a classic false dilemma. There is a vast middle ground: the doctrine of preservation in substance, meaning that while minor copyist errors exist, the message and authority of Scripture have not been lost. This has been the belief of the historic Protestant church, including the Reformers and early translators like Tyndale and Luther, who did not believe in a perfect TR or perfect preservation of any one textual family.
Moreover, the article paints anyone who doesn’t hold to VPP as believing the Bible is “full of mistakes,” which is a strawman argument. Mainstream evangelicals and scholars believe in the inerrancy of the autographs and that God's Word has been faithfully preserved through thousands of manuscripts, allowing reliable reconstructions.
4. Illogical Theology of the Perfect Bible in History
The author writes:
“There was never a time on earth when the perfect Word of God was not with man.”
This is historically and theologically absurd:
-
Were there perfect copies circulating before the printing press?
-
What about the centuries of textual corruption, as in the case of the Latin Vulgate or miscopied Byzantine manuscripts?
-
If only one version or manuscript line is perfect (usually the KJV/TR in VPP thinking), does that mean all other Bible translations and manuscripts are “corrupt”? This nullifies the global church's access to God's Word outside that tradition.
5. VPP Undermines Biblical Authority by Making a Particular Text Form Infallible
The author elevates a particular textual tradition (e.g., the Textus Receptus or the King James Version) as the perfectly preserved Word of God, effectively replacing the authority of Scripture with the authority of a human tradition.
Ironically, this becomes a new form of Roman Catholicism, where infallibility is transferred from the Pope to the TR/KJV and its defenders. It adds to Scripture something the Bible itself never teaches.
6. Accusations and Emotional Manipulation
The article frequently accuses those who disagree with VPP of being:
-
Deceivers
-
Ungodly
-
Wolves in sheep’s clothing
-
Not born again
-
Possessed by Satanic deception
This is an uncharitable and spiritually abusive tone. It avoids serious theological engagement and instead weaponizes fear and guilt. This approach mirrors cultic behavior, not the spirit of Christ or healthy doctrinal debate.
Conclusion: VPP is a Dangerous and Unbiblical Teaching
The doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) is not only unsupported by Scripture, it directly contradicts:
-
Textual evidence (which shows scribal variation)
-
Historical theology (the Reformers never taught it)
-
Basic exegesis (misusing verses like Psalm 12 and Matt 5)
It leads to division, legalism, and false assurance, while attacking the integrity of all other faithful Bible translations and textual traditions.
Instead, Christians should believe:
-
That God’s Word was perfectly inspired in the autographs.
-
That it has been providentially preserved through thousands of manuscripts.
-
That modern textual criticism, while not infallible, allows us to recover the original meaning of Scripture with extremely high confidence.
We do not need a myth of a perfect manuscript to trust in a faithful God who has preserved His Word in substance and truth. Our confidence is not in human scribes or printers, but in the living Word who speaks through the written Word that has been faithfully handed down to us.
“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” (Isaiah 40:8)
No comments:
Post a Comment