In 1558 William Whitaker, a master apologist for the truth of sola Scriptrua, wrote his comprehensive apology against the Roman Catholic dogma of Bellarmine and Stapleton on the topic of Holy Scripture - Disputations on Holy Scripture. Under the First Controversy and the Sixth question Whitaker writes concerning the necessity of Scripture,
"For if in civil affairs men cannot be left to themselves, but must be governed and retained in their duty by certain laws; much less should we be independent in divine things, and not rather bound by the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule, lest we fall into a will-worship hateful to God." 
So for this brief post, here is the question, to those whose trust rests in the quality and certainty of modern scientific textual criticism [MSTC], in what way is MSTC "bound by the closest ties to a prescribed and certain rule" seeing that Holy Scripture falls most conspicuously under the category of "divine things"?
I maintain that MSTC is not bound but rather is a "will-worship hateful to God." For the nay-sayer, I concur that a form of textual criticism was in practice before the likes of MSTC, but that form was not of the same genus. Not of the same genus in that pre-Enlightenment textual criticism was subject to the leading of the Holy Ghost as manifested in the spirit-filled believing community of the time, whereas MSTC is subject to the scientific deductions of select scholarly board. For those perhaps a bit confused on this point, here is a slice of Theology 101. Where the Holy Spirit is leading the word of God is also present, and where the word of God is present so also is the leading of the Holy Spirit. MSTC pretends no such thing. You need not look any further than the several prefaces to the various editions of the leading Greek NT's on the market today. The goal of the MSTC scientific exercise is not for certainty, truth, or doxology, but for scientific worship of their own wills by oppressing the church with their findings and declaring all others uneducated, ignorant, and old-fashioned. So I conclude, where the Spirit of God is leading, the word of God accompanies that leading, thus pre-Enlightenment textual criticism is not of the same genus as MSTC, and should not be considered as such.
For those who seek to position MSTC with in the limits of the "prescribed and certain rule" [i.e. Holy Scripture], know that if you cannot, then you are in danger of condoning, supporting, and advancing a "will-worship hateful to God." Why is it will-worship? Because MSTC's goal is professedly not that of God's will but of a never-ending scientific endeavor governed by the limitations of human cognition to locate God's words. [i.e. men worshipping their own will to decide certain content qualities of divine revelation] Why is it hateful to God? A willful act not subject to the will of God is what brought us sin and the fall of man. Thus, MSTC is nothing more than an present day extension of that god-overthrowing will evidenced by our first parents.
The purpose of this post is to sharpen the iron of the supporters of the MSTC, by challenging them to locate MSTC in the greater exegetical and historical tapestry of Bibliology and if they cannot, to abandon MSTC as a system suitable for the work of Christ's Kingdom.
Some will say that no one has commented because it is "just such a waste of time." Others will say that it is "just a worn-out, now boring, so yesterday issue." Some might say that they are "through with King James Onlyism."
If his post were of the Ruckman, double inspiration, or even English preservationist fare, it would get comments. People would say something. Long stretches of commentary and argument have been made over on Sharper Iron on this subject, even recently. What Van Kleeck writes is not old and boring and so yesterday. Those who support what he calls MSTC (modern scientific textual criticism) haven't dealt with what Van Kleeck is writing.
Now I'm going to get into opinion, even speculation. Why is it that no one over at Sharper Iron is answering Van Kleeck?
First, it is very difficult to answer. Someone doesn't want to embarrass himself by answering. It is true and whatever someone throws up against him will look bad. Ignoring is the better tack. There's deniability there.
Second, he sounds like he knows what he is talking about and it is easier to make points against straw men and people who don't know what they're talking about. And then you just broadbrush everyone else into that person's category. Here you have someone that knows theology, philosophy, and history.
Third, and related to the second, he has read more about this than the normal Sharper Iron reader. The normal Sharper Iron guy has read what fundamentalists have written, the modern books. He doesn't know historic bibliology.
Fourth, and related to the second and third, the Van Kleeck post ruins the fundamentalist and evangelical fake narrative on this issue. They've got to have it be a twentieth-century only issue. That narrative is easier to shoot down. What Van Kleeck is writing about is the actual issue, the true, the real narrative, and no one would want to give it any credibility by even commenting to it. They feel better off just ignoring it.
Fifth, you won't be able to use your typical cliches, propaganda, and mockery with what Van Kleeck wrote. It doesn't soundbyte very well for your affectionate crowd.
Sixth, MSTC have now created an environment where they don't have to answer to the truth. At least on earth. They will be better off with a Bible with a percentage of doubt. They will get along with more people, be more popular, and even be more faux-scholarly. The emperor is still wearing no clothes.
Seventh, Van Kleeck just seems very, very smart and Sharper Iron guys just don't want to get whipped up on. Even the name, Van Kleeck, Jr. sounds intimidating, like he would be a theological sharpshooter who would throw up theological raisins and shoot them out of the air.
So the cowering continues.