Part of the constitution:
4.2.1.1 We believe in the divine, Verbal Plenary Inspiration (Autographs) and Verbal Plenary Preservation of the Scriptures (Apographs) in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the perfect Word of God, the Supreme and final authority in faith and life (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21; Ps 12:6-7; Matt 5:18, 24:35);
4.2.1.2 We believe the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament underlying the Authorised (King James) Version to be the very Word of God, infallible and inerrant;
4.2.1.3 We uphold the Authorised (King James) Version to be The Word of God – the best, most faithful, most accurate, most beautiful translation of the Bible in the English language, and do employ it alone as our primary scriptural text in the public reading, preaching, and teaching of the English Bible;
First, the underlying theological problem.
The constitution rightly affirms verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. That is classic evangelical doctrine. The problem arises when it adds verbal plenary preservation in a way that is undefined, unbiblical, and then functionally resolved by elevating the King James Version and its underlying textual tradition to a unique status.
Scripture clearly teaches inspiration. Scripture does not teach a doctrine of perfect, word-for-word preservation in any one manuscript family, edition, or translation. Preservation is real, but it is providential, not mechanical; corporate, not singular; historical, not instantaneous.
When preservation is defined in such a way that only one text tradition or one translation qualifies, preservation quietly becomes re-inspiration by another name.
Now let’s look at each article carefully.
4.2.1.1 — What is wrong
The statement says:
“Verbal Plenary Inspiration (Autographs) and Verbal Plenary Preservation (Apographs) … in the original languages … perfect Word of God”
There are several issues here.
First, Scripture explicitly teaches inspiration of the autographs, but it never defines preservation as “verbal plenary” in the same sense. Second Timothy 3:16 refers to the act of God breathing out Scripture, not to the later history of copying. Second Peter 1:20–21 speaks of prophetic origin, not manuscript transmission.
Second, Psalm 12:6–7 is frequently misused here. In Hebrew grammar, “them” most naturally refers to the oppressed people, not the words. Even if one takes it as referring to God’s words, the passage affirms God’s faithfulness, not a theory of perfect manuscript replication.
Third, the phrase “perfect Word of God” becomes ambiguous. If “perfect” means the inspired message God intends to communicate, evangelicals can agree. If it means every copied form is textually perfect, Scripture itself contradicts that, since we know the apostles cited Greek translations that differ slightly from the Hebrew (e.g., Hebrews using the Septuagint).
Biblical correction
The Bible teaches:
– Inspiration is verbal and plenary (every word, fully God-breathed).
– Preservation is real but providential, seen in the abundance of manuscripts, not in the perfection of one stream.
– Inerrancy applies properly to the inspired text as given by God, and derivatively to faithful copies and translations insofar as they accurately convey it.
Biblically amended version
A faithful revision would read:
4.2.1.1 We believe that the Holy Scriptures were verbally and plenarily inspired by God in the original writings, being the very Word of God, wholly truthful and without error in all that they affirm. We believe that God has faithfully preserved His Word through His providence in the manuscript tradition, so that the Scriptures available to the Church in the original languages are sufficient, reliable, and authoritative for faith and life. Therefore, Holy Scripture remains the supreme and final authority in all matters of belief and practice (2 Tim 3:16–17; Matt 5:18; Isa 40:8; 1 Pet 1:24–25).
This affirms everything Scripture teaches and avoids claiming what it does not.
4.2.1.2 — What is wrong
This clause states:
“the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament underlying the Authorised (King James) Version to be the very Word of God”
This is theologically and historically problematic.
First, there is no single, fixed Greek or Hebrew text “underlying” the KJV. The translators used multiple editions of the Textus Receptus, the Masoretic Text, and sometimes consulted other sources. To speak as though one stable, perfect textual form exists behind the KJV is simply false.
Second, this statement identifies the Word of God with a particular editorial tradition (late medieval Byzantine Greek texts and early modern printed editions). Scripture never authorizes that move.
Third, it implies that Christians before 1611—or believers using other faithful translations today—do not possess the Word of God in the same sense. That implication is ecclesiologically disastrous.
Biblical correction
Jesus and the apostles treated Scripture as authoritative across textual forms. The New Testament quotes the Old Testament in ways that reflect Hebrew texts, Greek translations, and interpretive renderings—without anxiety. Authority rests in God’s Word as given, not in a single editorial snapshot.
Biblically amended version
A sound evangelical revision would read:
4.2.1.2 We believe that the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, as preserved in the manuscript tradition and faithfully represented in critical editions, constitute the Word of God written, infallible and inerrant in the original writings, and fully authoritative in all that they teach.
This keeps authority where Scripture puts it: in God’s Word, not in one printed form.
4.2.1.3 — What is wrong
This clause is the most serious:
“We uphold the Authorised (King James) Version to be The Word of God … and do employ it alone…”
Here the constitution crosses from preference into dogma.
Calling the KJV “the most beautiful” is subjective and harmless. Calling it “the best” or “most faithful” is debatable but allowable as an opinion. Calling it “The Word of God” in an exclusive sense, and enforcing exclusive use, is where the theology breaks.
No translation is inspired. Translations are ministerial, not magisterial. Even the KJV translators explicitly denied that their work was perfect or final. To absolutize it is to contradict their own preface.
This article effectively creates a secondary canon, where faithfulness to Scripture is measured by loyalty to one English translation. That is not evangelicalism; it is confessional overreach.
Biblical correction
Scripture authorizes the public reading and teaching of God’s Word, not the exclusive use of one translation. The early church used multiple languages freely—Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin—without anxiety, because the authority lies in the message faithfully conveyed.
Biblically amended version
A responsible and biblical revision would say:
4.2.1.3 We affirm the Authorised (King James) Version as a faithful and historic English translation of Holy Scripture, which we value and may employ in public reading, preaching, and teaching. We also acknowledge the legitimacy and usefulness of other faithful translations that accurately reflect the original languages, and we submit all translations to the authority of the inspired Word of God.
This protects Scripture without idolizing a translation.
Final theological assessment
The original constitution is motivated by reverence, but it suffers from category confusion:
– Inspiration is confused with preservation
– Preservation is confused with textual uniformity
– Textual tradition is confused with translation
– Translation is confused with canon
When those lines blur, the result is not higher doctrine of Scripture, but a smaller Bible bound to one tradition.
A truly evangelical doctrine of Scripture is confident, not anxious. It trusts that God has preserved His Word through history, languages, manuscripts, and faithful scholarship, so that the Church hears His voice clearly—not because one edition is perfect, but because God is faithful.
That confidence is biblical, catholic, and reformational.
No comments:
Post a Comment