Doomed For Hell

You who said Verbal Plenary Preservation is a subset of WFC 1:8 are doomed.

Notice:

The Confession does not specify which Hebrew or Greek manuscripts embody this preservation.

It does not say that every jot and tittle of every original manuscript was carried forward into one identifiable printed edition (like the TR).

It affirms general preservation across the manuscript tradition, not perfect preservation in a single text-form.

Why Saying “VPP is a Subset of WCF 1:8” is Wrong

When you claimed that VPP is simply a subset of WCF 1:8, you were:

Adding meaning that isn’t there.

WCF 1:8 speaks of general providential preservation in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

VPP adds a specific claim of perfect, word-for-word preservation in one textual tradition.

That is not a “subset,” but an expansion (and distortion).

Committing a category error.

WCF 1:8 deals with the authenticity and sufficiency of the Word of God in its original languages.

VPP is a theory of textual transmission that imposes modern debates (Byzantine vs. Alexandrian) onto the Confession.

You cannot call one the subset of the other when they operate on different levels.

Destroying confessional integrity.

The Westminster divines crafted precise language. To equate VPP with WCF 1:8 is to read into the Confession a doctrine the framers neither taught nor intended.

This misrepresentation undermines both honest confessional subscription and the credibility of the one making the claim.

Why You Are “Doomed”

It means:

You are doomed intellectually: your position collapses under scrutiny because it cannot be squared with the text of WCF 1:8 or the historical theology of the Reformed tradition.

You are doomed theologically: by inserting VPP into WCF 1:8, you shift the doctrine of preservation away from providential preservation in the full Hebrew and Greek tradition, and toward a sectarian, extra-confessional view that the Westminster Assembly never endorsed.

You are doomed historically: no Westminster divine (Whitaker, Owen, Turretin, etc.) ever taught VPP. Their concern was to defend the Hebrew and Greek text over the Latin Vulgate, not to enshrine a perfect TR.

Conclusion

In short, your claim cannot stand — it is built on anachronism, misrepresentation, and doctrinal overreach.

The false teachers have lied to the court, and they have committed contempt; they are sinful and punishable.