Blind Spots in VPP

1. Confusing inspiration with preservation — Verbal plenary inspiration does not automatically prove preservation of one exact textual edition.
2. Assuming preservation means one identifiable edition — Scripture promises preservation, but does not explicitly identify the Textus Receptus, Majority Text, or KJV as the uniquely preserved form.
3. Treating the Textus Receptus as one fixed text — Different TR editions contain differences, raising the question of which TR is supposedly the perfect preserved text.
4. Confusing ecclesiastical reception with textual perfection — A text becoming widely received does not, by itself, prove every reading is original.
5. Making theology override textual evidence — The doctrine of preservation should guide faith, not be used to dismiss manuscript, patristic, versional, and internal evidence.
6. Making the doctrine unfalsifiable — If every contrary manuscript is automatically dismissed because "God preserved the text," the conclusion becomes circular.
7. Confusing providence with a textual method — Divine providence does not necessarily mean "majority reading," "oldest manuscript," or "TR reading" is automatically correct.
8. Equating VPP with KJV-Onlyism — Preservation of Scripture does not logically establish the inspiration or perfection of one English translation.
9. Failing to distinguish autographs from copies — God can preserve His Word without making every manuscript, copy, or printed edition verbally perfect.
10. Treating textual criticism as an enemy of preservation — Textual criticism can function as a ministerial tool for recovering and preserving the transmitted wording.
11. Overstating Westminster Confession 1.8 — "Kept pure in all ages" does not explicitly identify the TR or KJV as the uniquely preserved text.
12. Overconfidence in unresolved textual questions — We can have confidence in Scripture's authority without claiming certainty about every textual variant.
13. Adding an extra doctrine to biblical preservation — The greatest danger is turning the true doctrine that God preserves His Word into the additional claim that He preserved it in one particular post-apostolic textual edition.

In short: The error is not believing in God's preservation of Scripture. The error occurs when providential preservation is equated with the verbal perfection of a particular later textual tradition or translation without sufficient biblical and historical warrant.