"The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever."

1. The Tension in the Statement

The Westminster Shorter Catechism Q.1 teaches:

“The chief end of man is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.”

This statement calls the church to worship, delight, and unity in Christ. Yet, in reality, churches sometimes descend into lawsuits, schisms, and harsh disputes over things like Perfect TR or KJV-onlyism.

This is a painful contradiction:

On one hand: Glorify and enjoy God.

On the other hand: Fight and sue each other over Bible versions.

Yes, it can sound cruel and ironic, almost as if we betray the very God we claim to glorify.

2. Why This Happens

Misplaced Zeal

Christians sometimes love their doctrinal systems more than they love God Himself or their fellow believers (Rom. 14:17–19).

Confusing Secondary with Primary Issues

  The gospel is central (1 Cor. 15:3–4). But when Bible version debates are elevated to the level of the gospel itself, unity is broken.

Pride and Fear

  Instead of trusting that God can preserve His Word without our battles, fear drives believers to over-defend, even against brothers in Christ. Pride makes us say: “Only we are right.”

3. The Cruel Irony

When Christians sue each other over Perfect TR/KJV, the watching world sees a divided, bitter church rather than a people who glorify and enjoy God.

Paul rebuked the Corinthians for this exact problem:

“To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?” (1 Cor. 6:7).

The cruelty lies in the fact that the very Word of God—given to bring life, unity, and joy—is turned into a weapon of division.

4. How to Reconcile

If we truly want to glorify God and enjoy Him forever:

1. Keep the Gospel Central — Bible translations are important, but salvation in Christ is infinitely more important.

2. Practice Humility — admit no one has a monopoly on truth except Christ Himself (John 14:6).

3. Seek Peace, Not Lawsuits — Scripture calls lawsuits among believers a failure (1 Cor. 6).

4. Use Scripture to Build, Not Break — God’s Word was given “for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16), not for church politics and lawsuits.

It does sound cruel when churches that should glorify God by enjoying Him forever instead end up dividing, suing, and fighting over Bible versions. It shows how easily human pride can hijack holy things.

FEBC’s Position

FEBC’s doctrine of VPP, Perfect TR, and KJV-Onlyism reflects a zeal to defend God’s Word, but it does so at the cost of sound exegesis, historical accuracy, scholarly integrity, and church unity. While the Bible is indeed preserved and trustworthy, insisting on a single “perfect” TR and English translation has no biblical command, no confessional mandate, and no historical consensus.

The safer evangelical stance is:

• Inspiration applies uniquely to the autographs.

• Preservation applies generally through God’s providence in the manuscript tradition.

• Translations are faithful insofar as they accurately reflect the inspired text, but no translation is “perfect.”

Thus, FEBC’s teaching must be seen as a new and sectarian development, not the historic Reformed faith.

Matthew 24:35 / Luke 21:33

1. What Jesus Meant in Matthew 24:35 / Luke 21:33

Jesus says:

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”

Context: In Matthew 24 and Luke 21, Jesus is speaking about the end times. He is contrasting the temporary nature of creation with the enduring reliability of His promises and teaching.

Meaning: Jesus assures His disciples that everything He has spoken — including His prophecy of the destruction of the Temple, His promises of salvation, and His warnings of judgment — will surely come to pass.

This is not about the mechanics of manuscript preservation or about one Bible translation, but about the certainty and authority of His teaching.

3. Why Applying Matthew 24:35 to Support VPP / TR / KJV-only is Wrong

Misuse of Context

Jesus’ statement is about the permanence and reliability of His teaching, not about a guarantee that one particular manuscript tradition or translation will be perfectly preserved.

He never mentioned Greek manuscripts, the Textus Receptus, or a future English translation.

Historical Reality

The early church did not have a single “perfect” manuscript. The apostles and church fathers quoted from a variety of textual forms (e.g., Septuagint, different NT manuscript families).

If Matthew 24:35 meant a single, perfectly preserved text, we should expect the apostles and early Christians to identify it. They never did.

Contradiction with Transmission Facts

All manuscript traditions (TR, Byzantine, Alexandrian, etc.) have minor variations.

Claiming one text is “perfectly preserved” ignores the evidence of scribal errors, corrections, and natural transmission processes that God allowed.

Theological Overreach

The doctrine of inspiration applies to the original writings (autographs), not to every later copy or translation.

Preservation in Scripture means that God’s Word remains accessible and reliable throughout history, not that one printed edition (TR, 16th century) or one translation (KJV, 17th century) is flawless.

KJV-only Circular Logic

Using Matthew 24:35 to claim the KJV is perfect assumes what it tries to prove:

Premise: God preserved His Word perfectly.

Assumption: The KJV is that perfect preservation.

Conclusion: Therefore the KJV is perfect.

This is not exegesis but circular reasoning.

4. What Matthew 24:35 Really Teaches for Us

The Bible we have — whether in English, Mandarin, Malay, or Greek — faithfully conveys Christ’s words and message.

Despite the differences between manuscripts and translations, the gospel and core teachings of Jesus are preserved and remain trustworthy.

The promise is not about an error-free 17th-century English translation, but about the enduring truth and authority of Christ’s message.

Conclusion:

Matthew 24:35 and Luke 21:33 assure believers of the permanence of Jesus’ teaching and the certainty of His promises. To use these verses to promote Verbal Plenary Preservation, Perfect TR, or KJV-onlyism is a misapplication, because Jesus was not speaking about manuscript traditions or translations. These later doctrines take a spiritual promise and force it into a narrow textual or translation theory that the Bible itself never teaches.

Jesus Christ on the Word

References to the Word of God by Christ are quotes from the Old Testament. Among these is the one used against the devil during the temptation. The written Word became alive on His lips and was powerful to defeat the devil. The quote is from Deuteronomy 8:3:

And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

The Word of God was the subject of the principal parable among all the parables that Jesus gave. This is recorded in Matthew 13, Mark 4, and Luke 8. It is the parable of the sower, the seed, and the soil. Jesus indicated that it was unlikely that they could understand any parable without an understanding of this one. In explaining the parable Jesus stated, “Now the parable is this: The seed is the Word of God” (Luke 8:11).

In referring to His own words, Jesus stated that they would never pass away (Matt. 24:35; Luke 21:33).

The Pharisees were scored by Jesus for nullifying the Word of God with their traditions (Mark 7:13).

Mary was impregnated by the Word of God (Luke 1:37).

Folks were amazed that Jesus taught the Word of God with power and authority (Luke 4:32).

Demons were removed from people through Jesus’ use of words (Luke 4:36).

Miracles resulted when the disciples obeyed the Word of Jesus (Luke 5:5–7).

The centurion understood the concept of the authority of the Word of God as he trusted Jesus to simply “say in a word, and my servant shall be healed” (Luke 7:7).

Jesus pronounced a blessing on those who hear the Word of God and obey it (Luke 11:28).

Eternal life belongs to those who hear His Word and believe in God (John 5:24).

He said of His words, “They are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63).

Knowing the truth is the means of freedom (John 8:32).

Abiding in Christ and abiding in His words are the prerequisites to continuously answered prayer (John 15:7).

Jesus prayed that God would sanctify us through the truth, truth being identified as “thy Word” (John 17:17).

Jack R. Taylor, The Word of God with Power: Experiencing the Full Meaning and Blessing of the “Word of God” (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 150–151.

Matthew 4:4

Matthew 4:4

"Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’"

What does living “by every word of God” (Matt. 4:4) signify? 

Trusting all his promises, and keeping all his commands.

Higher Criticism vs Lower Criticism

Higher Criticism

Higher criticism, also known as the historical-critical method, focuses on the "world behind the text." It investigates the literary and historical context of the biblical books. Scholars using this method ask questions about authorship, date of composition, sources, and the historical development of the text. For example, a higher critic might analyze the book of Isaiah to determine if it was written by one author or multiple authors over different periods. This approach treats the Bible like any other ancient text, using methods from history, linguistics, and literary analysis.

Lower Criticism

Lower criticism, more commonly called textual criticism, focuses on the "text itself." Its goal is to establish the most accurate and original wording of the biblical books. Since we don't have the original manuscripts (autographs), textual critics compare thousands of surviving manuscripts, fragments, and ancient translations to identify and correct scribal errors, additions, or omissions that occurred over centuries of copying. Their work involves meticulously examining differences in wording to reconstruct a text that is as close as possible to the author's original. For example, a textual critic might compare Greek manuscripts of the New Testament to determine the correct wording of a particular verse.

Key Distinctions

The simplest way to distinguish the two is by their primary focus:

Higher criticism is concerned with the history and authorship of the biblical books.

Lower criticism is concerned with the words and transmission of the biblical text.

Think of it this way: a textual critic (lower criticism) tries to figure out what the original author wrote, while a historical critic (higher criticism) tries to figure out who the original author was and why they wrote it.

The Harm of Higher Criticism

The primary concern with higher criticism lies in its foundational presupposition that the Bible is a purely human document, subject to the same literary and historical forces as any other ancient text. This approach often leads to:

Undermining Divine Inspiration: By seeking naturalistic explanations for biblical events and authorship, higher criticism can dismiss or reinterpret miraculous accounts and prophecies, thus denying the supernatural element of the Bible.

Challenging Traditional Authorship: Theories like the Documentary Hypothesis, which posits that the first five books of the Bible were written by multiple, anonymous authors, directly contradict traditional religious belief that Moses was the sole author.

Creating Doubt and Disbelief: For many believers, the conclusions of higher criticism can lead to a loss of faith in the Bible as a trustworthy, authoritative, and infallible Word of God. This can be seen as a "disintegration" of the text's message.

The Role of Lower Criticism

In contrast, lower criticism (textual criticism) is generally seen as constructive rather than harmful. It operates from a different premise and has a different goal.

Restoring the Original Text: Textual criticism does not question the divine origin of the Bible; rather, it aims to purify the text by identifying and removing errors introduced by scribes during centuries of manual copying. The goal is to get as close as possible to the original, divinely-inspired words.

Strengthening Faith: For scholars and believers, the meticulous work of textual criticism provides a stronger foundation for the biblical text. The vast number of manuscripts and the high degree of agreement between them often reinforce confidence in the Bible's transmission over time.

In summary, higher criticism is viewed as harmful because its methods can lead to a fundamental rejection of the Bible's spiritual authority, while lower criticism is viewed as beneficial because it helps to preserve the integrity of the Bible's physical text.

INSIGHTS ON FAITH FROM SMITH WIGGLESWORTH

God’s Word is a tremendous word, a productive word. It produces what it is—power. It produces Godlikeness. We get to heaven through Christ, the Word of God; we have peace through the blood of His cross. Redemption is ours through the knowledge of the Word.

Nothing in the world glorifies God as much as simple rest of faith in what God’s Word says. “This is the work of God, that you believe” (John 6:29).

The Bible is truth; it is the Word of God; it is God Himself portrayed in Word. You see God in the Word. God can manifest Himself through that Word until we become a living factor of that truth because “God is light and in Him is no darkness” (1 John 1:5). God is life. God is revelation. God is manifestation. God is operation. So God wants to truly bring us into a place where we have the clearest revelation—even though there may be much conviction through it—the clearest revelation of where we stand.

Smith Wigglesworth, The Greatest Bible Promises for Faith & Miracles, The Greatest Bible Promises (New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 2017), 109.

A more sure word

       “A more sure word, … whereunto ye do well that ye take heed.” (2 Pet. 1:19.)

      A Word sent down from God in heaven,

      A Word from Christ to mortals given,

      A Word of truth, a Word of love,

      What matchless mercies doth it prove:

           God’s Holy Word.

      A Word inerrant always true

      Through all the ages ever new;

      Though heaven and earth shall pass away,

      This Word abideth on for aye:

           God’s Living Word.

      A Word that’s named, God’s Holy Book,

      A Word on which the angels look,

      A Word to which the saints give heed,

      A Word which meets their every need:

           God’s Faithful Word.

      A Word which God has authorized

      The Living Word, all vitalized,

      A life-begetting Word to all

      Who trust in Christ, and on Him call:

           God’s Saving Word.

      A Sacred Word, a lamp, a light

      That shineth through the darkest night;

      A Word that gleams upon our way,

      That brighter shines till perfect day:

           God’s Blessed Word.

      A Word that came from God’s own hand,

      A Word of power and command;

      A Word by which all things were made,

      A Word by which the storm was stayed:

           God’s Mighty Word.

      A Word of Grace, a Word replete,

      The staff of life of finest wheat;

      A Word that’s stamped with God’s “amen,”

      I’ll preach it over moor and fen:

           God’s Wondrous Word.

R. E. Neighbour, Gems of Gold: Daily Meditations (WORDsearch, 2010), 167.

Verbal Plenary Preservation, the “Perfect TR,” and KJV-Onlyism:

A Historical and Theological Critique

Introduction

In recent decades, some movements within conservative Protestant circles have promoted the doctrines of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), the Perfect Textus Receptus (TR), and King James Version Onlyism (KJV-Onlyism). These teachings claim that God has not only inspired the original autographs of Scripture but also providentially preserved a perfect text—often identified exclusively with the TR behind the King James Version (1611)—so that the church today possesses a “perfect Bible.” Advocates often insist that all other modern translations and critical editions are corrupt and even spiritually dangerous.

This article argues that such doctrines are not biblical, not apostolic, and not part of the Reformation or evangelical heritage. Rather, they are modern innovations that distort the doctrine of Scripture, foster division, and mislead the people of God.

1. The Witness of the Apostles: Paul, Peter, and Jesus Christ

Neither the Lord Jesus nor His apostles taught a doctrine of a “perfectly preserved text” in a single manuscript tradition. They did not even criticize the Septuagint (LXX) by calling it corrupt or demonic.

1. Jesus Christ affirmed the divine authority of the Old Testament (e.g., Matthew 5:17–18), but He did so while using the Greek Septuagint and Hebrew manuscripts in circulation, both of which showed textual variation. He did not demand a single textual form but pointed to the substance of God’s Word as authoritative. 

2. Paul the Apostle declared that “all Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16), grounding authority in divine inspiration, not in a later preserved textual edition. His citations of the Old Testament sometimes follow the Septuagint (e.g., Romans 9:25–26), at other times the Hebrew text, demonstrating that he did not bind the church to a single textual tradition.

3. Peter the Apostle also affirmed the inspiration of Scripture (2 Peter 1:20–21), but he nowhere suggests that the church in the future would possess one perfect copy. Instead, he emphasized the sufficiency of God’s Word as given by the prophets and apostles.

Thus, the New Testament witness is clear: inspiration belongs to the original autographs, while authority and truthfulness extend across the manuscript tradition, even with minor textual variations.

2. The Reformation and the Reformed Tradition

The Reformers—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others—did not teach a doctrine of VPP or KJV-Onlyism.

• Luther translated the Bible into German using the best Hebrew and Greek sources available to him. He never claimed his text was “perfect,” but that God’s Word shines clearly in the gospel of Christ.

• Calvin often noted textual variants and encouraged careful study of manuscripts. He wrote in his commentaries that God has preserved His truth even though scribal errors entered the transmission process. For Calvin, authority lay in the message of Scripture, not in a supposedly perfect text-form.

• The Reformed confessions (e.g., Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647) affirmed that the Scriptures were “immediately inspired by God” and “by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages” (WCF 1.8). This statement points to God’s providential preservation of the Bible’s truth across history, not the existence of a single flawless edition. The Westminster divines themselves used multiple textual sources and did not identify a “Perfect TR.”

• Later evangelical scholars such as B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, J. Oliver Buswell, and more recently John MacArthur upheld the inspiration and inerrancy of the original autographs, while also affirming the reliability of the manuscript tradition. None of them endorsed VPP or KJV-Onlyism.

• Even revivalists like John Sung in Asia never promoted such doctrines. His focus was on the gospel of Christ, repentance, and the transforming power of Scripture—not on an allegedly perfect English translation.

Thus, from the Reformation through modern evangelicalism, the consistent stance has been: inspiration is tied to the autographs, preservation is providential and general, and textual criticism is a legitimate means of seeking accuracy.

3. The Danger of VPP, the Perfect TR and KJV-Onlyism

The doctrines of VPP, the Perfect TR, and KJV-Onlyism are not ancient but modern developments, arising primarily in the 20th century.

1. New Doctrines – These views were unknown to the early church, the medieval scholastics, the Reformers, and classical evangelical theologians. They emerged from a reactionary mindset against modern textual criticism and from an attempt to secure certainty by absolutizing one textual tradition.

2. Sectarian Tendencies – By claiming exclusive possession of the “perfect Bible,” proponents often denounce other Christians, translations, and churches. This spirit of pride and division runs contrary to the unity for which Christ prayed (John 17).

3. Misrepresentation of God’s Providence – To say that God preserved a perfect TR or KJV is to impose on His providence what He never promised. Scripture promises the enduring truth of God’s Word (Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 24:35), but not a perfect copy immune to scribal error.

4. Danger to the Church – These doctrines lead to unnecessary strife, foster mistrust of faithful Bible translations, and elevate human traditions over the true authority of Scripture. They also divert believers from Christ-centered discipleship to textual polemics.

4. A Biblical and Faithful Response

The church must respond by returning to the biblical doctrine of Scripture:

• Affirming Inspiration – The Bible is fully God-breathed in its original writings.

• Trusting Preservation – God has preserved His Word faithfully across manuscripts and translations, so that His people may know the truth of the gospel.

• Using Responsible Scholarship – Textual criticism, when done reverently, helps the church recover the text of Scripture more accurately, without undermining its authority.

• Rejecting Extremism – Teachers who claim exclusive possession of a “perfect Bible” should be avoided, for they distort the truth, cause division, and burden consciences with false certainty.

Conclusion

The doctrines of Verbal Plenary Preservation, the Perfect TR, and KJV-Onlyism do not originate with Christ, the apostles, or the Reformers. They are modern, reactionary, and divisive. By contrast, the historic church—across the centuries from Luther and Calvin to Warfield, Machen, and beyond—has consistently confessed the inspiration of the autographs, the providential preservation of Scripture, and the sufficiency of God’s Word in faithful translations.

For the health of the church and the glory of Christ, we must stay away from these false teachings. Instead, let us treasure the Scriptures as God’s inspired Word, faithfully preserved in the manuscript tradition, and sufficient to lead us to salvation in Christ Jesus.

What Paul himself taught about Scripture?

What Paul himself taught about Scripture in the New Testament, and whether he believed in a “perfect text” of the Old Testament in the way some later groups (like KJV-onlyism or VPP) claim.

1. Paul’s Teaching on Scripture

Paul’s letters consistently affirm that Scripture is:

Inspired by God

“All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16).

Paul emphasizes divine origin, not the perfection of any one manuscript.

Sufficient for salvation and spiritual growth

“...which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:15).

The OT Scriptures (the only “Bible” Timothy had) were enough to point him to Christ.

A witness to Christ

“For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Rom 15:4).

Paul saw the OT as instructive and Christ-centered, not as a text to be idolized for its exact form.

Living and authoritative

Paul quotes the OT frequently, but often in Greek (Septuagint, LXX), sometimes paraphrased, and sometimes with adaptations under the Spirit’s inspiration (e.g., Rom 10:6–8 citing Deut 30:12–14).

  This shows he trusted the message of Scripture, not a “perfect textual form.”

2. What Paul Actually Used

Paul primarily used the Greek Septuagint (LXX) when writing to Gentile churches, even though it differed from the Hebrew Masoretic Text in places.

He occasionally quoted from the Hebrew text or Aramaic Targums when needed.

His inspired writings freely mix these traditions, showing no anxiety about preserving a single “perfect” edition.

This demonstrates Paul did not subscribe to the later idea of a “perfect Old Testament text” (whether Masoretic, TR, or otherwise).

3. Did Paul Teach a Doctrine of Perfect Preservation?

No evidence: Paul never taught that God preserved a single perfect manuscript or translation.

What he taught instead: God inspired Scripture and ensured its message was trustworthy, sufficient, and Christ-centered.

He emphasized faith in Christ through the Word, not textual perfection.

4. Contrast with Later Doctrines

KJV-only / VPP claims: That God preserved one perfect text (TR or KJV).

Paul’s actual teaching: God inspired Scripture, but he himself used different textual traditions without hesitation.

If Paul demanded a “perfect text,” he could not have used the Septuagint so freely, since it often differs from the Hebrew.

Conclusion

St. Paul affirmed the divine inspiration and sufficiency of Scripture, but he did not subscribe to the idea of one perfect textual edition of the Old Testament. His use of multiple versions shows he trusted the message of God’s Word, not a flawless manuscript tradition.

Leaving or staying?

Many thoughtful Christians do reconsider or leave movements that emphasize Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), KJV-onlyism, or a “Perfect Textus Receptus” (Perfect TR), but it depends on the person’s convictions and understanding of Scripture. Here’s a detailed, balanced look:

1. Why some leave or distance themselves

Doctrinal extremism: VPP and KJV-onlyism often insist that only one version of Scripture is perfectly preserved (e.g., the KJV), and that other translations are corrupt. This can feel divisive, legalistic, or unbiblical to many believers.

Church division: Strict adherence to “perfect TR” or KJV-only teaching has historically caused denominational splits, lawsuits, and alienation from other Christians. Some people can’t reconcile this with Christ’s call to unity (John 17:21).

Biblical scholarship: Modern textual criticism shows the Bible has many manuscript witnesses, and no church historically ever held that one single text was “perfect” from the first century onward. Learning this can prompt critical reflection.

Practical faith: Some believers feel that focusing on a “perfect Bible” distracts from living out the gospel, loving God and neighbor, and practical obedience.

2. Why some stay

Trust in authority: Some hold tightly to these doctrines because they see them as protecting God’s Word from corruption.

Community: Many remain because of strong church fellowship, family ties, or long-term spiritual mentorship. Leaving can feel like leaving a spiritual family.

Fear of error: VPP/KJV-only proponents often teach that using “modern translations” risks losing salvation or doctrinal purity, creating a strong incentive to stay.

3. How people typically respond

Gradual reevaluation: Many read broadly (original languages, textual criticism, modern translations) and slowly shift away from extreme views.

Reformed or evangelical alternatives: Some move toward mainstream Reformed or evangelical churches that honor Scripture as inspired and sufficient but don’t insist on a single “perfect text”.

Remaining in the same church but questioning: Others stay in the same congregation but choose not to adopt extreme textual views, focusing on faith and life over textual debates.

4. Key principle

Faith in God’s Word vs. human tradition: Believers often distinguish God’s providential preservation of Scripture (a theological truth) from humanly constructed dogma about a single translation or manuscript. When teachings start elevating a human-made system (KJV-only, Perfect TR) above the gospel itself, some Christians step back or leave.

Summary:

Many Christians reconsider their affiliation with churches teaching VPP, KJV-onlyism, or Perfect TR once they see the divisive, unbiblical, or extremist nature of these doctrines. Others stay out of loyalty or fear. It often comes down to whether one prioritizes faithfulness to Christ and Scripture or adherence to a rigid textual ideology.

Can Verbal Plenary Inspiration do without Verbal Plenary Preservation?

Question: Can Verbal Plenary Inspiration do without Verbal Plenary Preservation?

Answer:

The doctrine of Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) is a historic confession of the church. It affirms that every word of Scripture, in the original manuscripts, was breathed out by God (2 Tim. 3:16) and thus fully trustworthy, authoritative, and without error. This conviction was universally upheld by the early church, the Reformers, and the mainstream evangelical tradition. Crucially, VPI refers to what God did once-for-all at the point of inspiration, when the prophets and apostles wrote the sacred texts under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

By contrast, Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) is a modern, novel doctrine. It asserts not only that God inspired the original autographs, but also that God has perfectly preserved every single word of those autographs in a specific manuscript tradition (commonly the Textus Receptus) or in one translation (often the King James Version). This claim goes beyond historic orthodoxy and shifts the doctrine of Scripture from inspiration to preservation in a way that Scripture itself does not teach.

1. The Biblical Witness

The Bible affirms inspiration clearly (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21), but it never promises that a single manuscript line or translation would remain perfectly intact without variation. While God promises that His Word will endure forever (Ps. 119:89; Isa. 40:8; Matt. 24:35), these promises refer to the abiding truth and authority of Scripture, not the mechanical preservation of every jot and tittle in one textual stream. The providence of God has ensured the wide and faithful transmission of Scripture through thousands of manuscripts, but this is not the same as claiming that one edition or translation is perfectly preserved.

2. The Testimony of Church History

Throughout history, Christians affirmed inspiration without demanding a corresponding doctrine of perfect preservation. Augustine, Jerome, Luther, Calvin, and the Westminster divines all recognized textual variations while still confessing the full inspiration of Scripture. The Reformers labored with the best manuscripts available, yet they never claimed to possess a single perfect text free of scribal variations. Their confidence rested in the sufficiency of God’s Word as a whole, not in the perfection of one manuscript tradition.

3. The Dangers of VPP

The doctrine of VPP is both new and dangerous for several reasons:

• It confuses categories. Inspiration is a completed act of God in the original writings; preservation is God’s providential care over history. To equate the two is to blur the distinction between miracle and providence.

• It fosters sectarianism. By insisting that God preserved His Word only in one textual tradition (TR) or one translation (KJV), proponents of VPP divide the body of Christ and delegitimize faithful translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc.) that have served millions of believers.

• It undermines confidence in God’s providence. Ironically, instead of strengthening trust in Scripture, VPP suggests that unless one has access to a particular edition, one does not truly have God’s Word. This creates fear, suspicion, and unnecessary division.

• It departs from historic orthodoxy. VPP cannot be found in the creeds, confessions, or theological consensus of the church. It emerged only in recent debates fueled by KJV-Onlyism and is a reactionary doctrine, not a biblical one.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, Verbal Plenary Inspiration does not require Verbal Plenary Preservation. The former is a divine act in history; the latter is a human addition in recent times. To conflate them is to distort the doctrine of Scripture. The church is right to affirm the inspiration, authority, and reliability of the Bible as faithfully transmitted through many manuscripts and translations. But the notion that God has preserved His Word perfectly in one line of manuscripts or one translation is a new and dangerous doctrine, foreign to Scripture and tradition, and one that sows confusion and division rather than faith and unity.