I am now disputing an additional piece on the webpage of https://www.truthbpc.com/v4/main.php?menu=resources&page=resources/vpp_05
Engaging in a critical analysis of this article on Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), I will address its argumentation step-by-step, identifying theological, hermeneutical, and logical concerns. The article seeks to use Psalm 119:89 as a prooftext for the belief that every word of the original biblical autographs has been perfectly preserved in all ages, often applied to a specific extant text (e.g., the Textus Receptus or Masoretic Text). While affirming the authority and truthfulness of Scripture, I must point out significant errors in this interpretation.
Step 1: Clarifying the Claim
The article asserts that Psalm 119:89 teaches Verbal Plenary Preservation — that every word of Scripture is not only inspired but also divinely preserved in a specific, accessible form throughout history, “settled in heaven” in a way that guarantees earthly textual perfection.
Key propositions drawn from the article:
Psalm 119:89, "Your word, Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens."
“Settled” means permanently established, unchanging, and applies to every word of the entire Bible (including NT, by extension).
This “settled” Word is preserved perfectly, untouched by earthly changes or human corruption.
Any view that allows for textual variants or limits inerrancy to the original autographs is a “man-centered” deviation.
Step 2: Examining the Exegesis of Psalm 119:89
Error 1: Contextual Misappropriation
Psalm 119 is a meditation on God’s law (torah), His commandments, statutes, and promises — God’s revealed will and character. The “word” (dabar) here refers to God’s self-revelation and covenant faithfulness, not to the physical preservation of every consonant and vowel in future manuscripts.
The immediate context (vv. 90–91) speaks of God’s faithfulness in creation and governance, not textual transmission.
Error 2: Semantic Overextension
The Hebrew נִצָּ֥ב (nitsav) in Niphal participle means “is firm, stands firm, is established.” It speaks of the trustworthiness and enduring validity of God’s spoken word/promise.
The verse does not address the textual transmission process, nor does it claim that every copy will be free from scribal variations. It affirms God’s commitment to His promises.
Error 3: Unwarranted Expansion to the Whole Canon
The author extends this verse to all 66 books, including unwritten NT texts, by “application.” While theologically we affirm the unity of Scripture, using this verse as a proof for NT preservation is anachronistic and circular.
Step 3: Theological Overreach
Error 4: Conflating Inspiration with Preservation
The article argues that because all Scripture is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16), it must also be perfectly preserved in every detail. This is a non sequitur. Inspiration pertains to the origin of the autographs; preservation pertains to God’s providence over copying and transmission. Most orthodox theologians distinguish these while affirming God’s general preservation of the text’s substance.
The Westminster Confession (1.8) speaks of God’s “providential care” in preserving the text, but also acknowledges the need for textual criticism due to copyist errors — not a “verbal plenary” preservation of every syllable in every copy.
Error 5: Rejecting Textual Criticism as “Man-Centered”
The article labels any acknowledgment of textual variants as “man-centered theology” and a “ploy of the Devil.” This is rhetorically charged and theologically uncharitable.
Historic Protestantism (e.g., Luther, Calvin, the Reformers) acknowledged textual variants and engaged in careful scholarship to ascertain the original reading. This is not a rejection of divine authority, but a humble recognition of human fallibility in transmission.
Step 4: Logical and Historical Problems
Error 6: Ignoring the Reality of Textual History
No extant manuscript is perfect; all contain scribal errors. Even the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text have known variants and corrections. The doctrine of VPP must either ignore these or redefine “preserved” to mean one particular printed edition (which itself has variants).
If “settled in heaven” means physically unchanged on earth, why do we have thousands of variants among manuscripts? The article’s answer seems to be that one tradition (e.g., the Byzantine text-type) is the “settled” one, but this is an arbitrary selection.
Error 7: Misuse of Supporting Commentators
The quotes from Barnes, Calvin, and Spurgeon speak of the trustworthiness of God’s Word, not perfect textual preservation. Calvin even speaks of looking to heaven for truth because earthly things are changeable — which actually undermines the idea that one earthly text is immutable.
Step 5: Conclusion and Correction
Psalm 119:89 is a beautiful affirmation of God’s faithful, unchanging, and eternal commitment to His revealed Word. It assures believers that God’s promises stand firm.
It does not teach:
That every jot and tittle is perfectly preserved in every copy or edition.
That textual criticism is invalid.
That there is a single, identifiable, inerrant manuscript tradition available today.
A responsible doctrine of preservation should affirm:
God has sovereignly preserved the substance of Scripture through history.
The original autographs were inspired and inerrant.
Through textual scholarship, we can ascertain the original text with very high confidence, though not with absolute mathematical precision for every variant.
Our faith rests in God’s ability to communicate His saving truth reliably, not in a positivist notion of textual perfectionism.
The article’s approach, while well-intentioned, risks turning a pastoral affirmation of God’s faithfulness into a rigid bibliological dogma that the text itself does not support and that history cannot sustain. True confidence in Scripture comes not from denying the complexities of transmission, but from trusting God’s providence through them.
No comments:
Post a Comment