Thursday, June 21, 2012

A Confession of Faith on the Inspiration and Preservation of Scripture, part 2


The material below is the second and final part of this confession on the inspiration and preservation of Scripture.  Part 1 is here.  Lord willing, next Friday I will post the two parts together and ask you if you are willing to subscribe to this confession.  At this point, any discussion of this part should take place in the comment section of this post.


I further confess that, receiving with the faith of a little child (Matthew 18:3; Luke 18:16-17) God’s own testimony to His own perfectly inspired, preserved, and self-authenticating Word, only the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Received Texts of Scripture, those original language texts from which the Authorized Version of the Bible was translated, fit the Biblical model of preservation.  I confess that the modern critical Greek text of Scripture, represented in the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society editions, being a modern creation that was not in use by the people of God for well over a thousand years and differing in c. 7% of its text from the Received Bible, can by no means be reconciled with God’s promises about the preservation of His Word.  I likewise confess that the printed Hodges-Farstad and Robinson-Pierpont texts, while far superior to the critical Greek text and far closer to the perfectly preserved Textus Receptus, do not fit the Scriptural pattern for the preservation of Scripture when they differ from the Received Text, for true churches have not been led by the Spirit of God to receive their texts as perfect, the idea that the pure Word of God was not available for century after century but only came into existence in print in 1992, and that God’s people have not had the pure Word in their vernacular languages, as no major translations in any language whatever have been made from the Hodges-Farstad and Robinson-Pierpont texts, is impossible.  Furthermore, I confess that the Hodges-Farstad and Robinson-Pierpont texts are most improperly designated the “Majority Text,” for neither of them is a collation of the 5,000+ Greek manuscripts currently in existence, but they are rather collations of only a few hundred manuscripts, and there are hundreds of verses where they do not follow the reading of the majority of manuscripts.[i]  Rather, the Textus Receptus that underlies the Authorized Version of the Bible, that holy Word that was in use by Baptist churches and believers in other denominations[ii] both in the time from the invention of the printing press until the present day, and also the type of text in use by the line of true churches and believers, who were first denominated Christians, and then Baptists or Anabaptists, in the ancient and medieval periods, is the true Majority Text, and the only text that the Spirit has led Bible-believing churches who accept the testimony of Scripture to its own preservation to receive as canonical and perfectly preserved.[iii]  I therefore confess with true churches, countless martyrs, and the humble and faithful people of God, that the Textus Receptus, loved, copied, printed, translated, read, memorized, meditated upon, and preached for century after century, is indeed God’s very living and holy Word, delivered miraculously from heaven, providentially[iv] and perfectly preserved, and with holy joy and wonder received by me in faith as His own living oracles in my hands.

I likewise confess that I reject all textual criticism that denies or ignores God’s own promises about His providential work in preserving His Word, and that approaches the holy Scriptures in an atheistic and naturalistic way as if God’s Word were to be evaluated as if it were any common, uninspired and unpreserved book, instead joyfully receiving, with love, holy reverence, awe, and fear (Psalm 119:97; 119:120; Isaiah 66:2), that very Received Text that has been in use by true churches and the people of God from the time that God gave the autographs until this day.  I confess with such true churches and saints that the Scriptures I can with reverent delight hold in my hands, “being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and Providence kept pure in all Ages, are therefore authentical,” and likewise join such churches to confess that, while there is plentiful external evidence for the inspiration and preservation of Scripture, nonetheless our “full persuasion, and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.”[v]

In relation to the English translation of the Authorized Version, I confess that I receive it with veneration, believing that the God who providentially works in all of history would certainly providentially work in relation to the translation of His Word that would be in use by Baptist churches for over 400 years in the language that God ordained would become the first truly world-wide language since the tower of Babel.  I confess that I do not believe that modern Baptist churches should use any other English translation than the Authorized Version, nor do I see any necessity for revising the KJV at any time during my lifetime.[vi]  However, I also confess that the promises of preservation are specifically made for Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words, not English words (Matthew 5:18), and that there are no specific promises that state that Scripture would be translated without error.  Since no verses of the Bible promise a perfect English translation, I respect the views of brethren who, while receiving the promises of God concerning the preservation of His perfect Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words, believe that there are places where the English of the King James Version would be better rendered otherwise.[vii] Furthermore, I recognize that there can be more than one accurate way to translate a verse from the original language into the vernacular.[viii]  Nevertheless, because the people of God who do not know the original languages should have (a justified) confidence that when they hold the King James Bible in their hands, they have God’s very Word in their own language, and because I respect the high confidence that the Head of the church has led His congregations to place in the English of the Authorized Version, and because I have found in my own language study that, time and again, there are excellent reasons for the translation choices in the Authorized Version, and because I am not aware of any single place where I can, with a certain confidence and definitiveness, affirm that the English of the King James Version cannot possibly be justified as a translation but is indubitably in error,[ix] I refrain from criticizing the English of the King James Bible, and when it is appropriate in preaching and teaching to mention a different way the text can be translated, I choose to say, “this word (or verse, etc.) could also be translated as” rather than “this word (or verse, etc.) would be better translated as.”  This is the faith that I confess in relation to the translation of the Bible into my mother tongue.

All of the above is the faith in the inspiration and preservation of Scripture I believe and confess with my whole mind and heart.  Unless convinced otherwise by the Scriptures, I will continue to believe and confess this faith, by the enabling grace of God, until Christ’s return or my death.

-TDR



[i] For example, in Ephesians 5:21 the Textus Receptus follows about 70% of MSS with the reading en phobo Theou, while both the CT/UBS and both editions of the printed “Majority” text, Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont, contain en phobo Christou, following c. 30% of Greek MSS;  in Romans 13:9 the Textus Receptus, with 67% of Greek manuscripts, reads ou psudomarturesis, while the Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont “Majority” texts follow 33% of manuscripts in omitting the words and removing the ninth commandment from between the eighth and the tenth;  in Romans 6:1, the Textus Receptus reads epimenoumen with the majority of Greek manuscripts while the Robinson and Hodges “Majority” texts follow 19% of manuscripts to read epimenomen. Sometimes the Hodges/Farstad and Robinson/Pierpont texts contradict each other;  for example, in Romans 12:2, the  Textus Receptus, as well as the Hodges/Farstad text, supported by 65% of Greek manuscripts, contain the imperatives suschematidzesthe and metamorphouesthe, while the Robinson/Pierpont “majority” text follows 35% of Greek manuscripts to print the infinitives suschematidzesthai and metamorphousthai.

In the book of Revelation, Pickering notes that very early on, probably within the second century, three main independent lines of transmission developed, and then a variety of variations within those streams.  Thus there are some 150 variant sets where no reading receives even 50% attestation, and another 250 sets where the strongest numerical attestation falls below 60%.  In these 400 places to speak of a “majority” text is not convincing (cf. http://walkinhiscommandments.com).  However, the Textus Receptus tends to follow the largest of these three divisions in Revelation, but that grouping does not always represent the actual majority of MSS. Hoskier declared, concerning the TR text of Revelation:  “I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest number of existing MSS [manuscripts] in the world of one type, he could not have succeeded better” (cited on pg. 16, J. A. Moorman, When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text, 2nd ed. Collingswood, NJ:  Bible For Today, 1988).


Of course, there are certainly instances where, because of the evidence of ancient versions or a variety of other reasons, in the providence of God the Textus Receptus follows a smaller number of Greek manuscripts than the majority (e. g., 1 John 5:7).  Indeed, there are instances where the Textus Receptus, the Hodges-Farstad, Robinson-Pierpont, and modern critical texts all follow a reading that has less than 50% support (e. g. 2 Timothy 3:7, where all printed texts, whether TR, CT, or H/F & R/P, read Moousei with c. 30% of Greek MSS, while Mouse has c. 60% of Greek MSS, but has never been put in print in any edition.

[ii] Historians recognize that the Received Text was identified with the autographs by both Baptists and even the general body of Protestantism.  The Textus Receptus “was . . . the Bible of the Middle Ages and much more, since it was independent of interpretation by Popes, councils, canon lawyers or university doctors.  In one sense both Zwingli and the radicals [such as the Baptists] were uncritical about the Bible in that they made no attempt to go behind the received Hebrew and Greek texts to original manuscripts, and were not concerned that alternative readings were possible — quite the contrary, there was but one text . . . Zwingli and the Anabaptists . . . both accepted the received text, and both agreed that tradition, the hierarchy and any human authorities, however ancient or eminent, must give way to the Word. . . . [the Baptists defended what this unbelieving historian calls] narrow and uncompromising bibliolatry” (Pg. 172-173, Zwingli, G. R. Potter.  London: Cambridge University Press, 1976). One of the editors of the modern critical text stated:  “It is undisputed that Luther used the Greek Textus Receptus for his translation of the German New Testament in 1522 and all its later editions (although the term itself was not yet in use at the time). . . . [So did] all the translators of the New Testament in the 16th century (e.g., the Zürich version). All the translations of the 17th century, including the King James version of 1611, the “Authorized Version,” were also based on this text. Thus the New Testament of the church in the period of the Reformation was based on the Textus Receptus.  It is equally undisputed that in the 16th or 17th century (and for that matter well into the 18th century) anyone with a Greek New Testament would have had a copy of the Textus Receptus. . . . Finally it is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus.” Indeed, the Textus Receptus “was regarded as ‘the text of the church’ . . . from the 4th . . . century” (pg. 143, ibid.).  It is therefore not surprising that throughout Baptist and Protestant Christiandom in the Reformation and Post-Reformation era the “Textus Receptus . . . was regarded as preserving even to the last detail the inspired and infallible word of God himself” (pg. 11, The Text of the New Testament, Kurt & Barbara Aland, trans. Erroll Rhodes. Grand Rapids, MI:  Eerdmans, 1989).

[iii] See “The Canonicity of the Received Bible Established From Baptist Confessions” at http://faithsaves.net/bibliology/.

[iv] I confess that the preservation of Scripture is providential rather than miraculous.  No miracle of the sort performed by Christ and the Apostles took place when scribes were copying Scripture, or when Scripture was being translated, or when any edition of the Textus Receptus was being compiled and printed.  Therefore, the Scrivener edition of the Textus Receptus, the edition that exactly underlies the English Authorized Version, was not the product of a miracle or the product of an act comparable to that through which the Scriptures were given to holy men of God in the autographs (2 Peter 1:16-21).  Nonetheless, the providence of God was involved in all stages of the transmission of the Bible, and there is nothing imperfect about God’s providence.  Since all of history takes place in accordance with the decree of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His own will (Ephesians 1:11), and God can bring about in perfect detail the sort of astonishing acts of providence that are recorded in the book of Esther without a specifically miraculous action, and the providential preservation of the Bible did not cease with the invention of the printing press, and there are no verses of Scripture that affirm that God is unable or unwilling to lead His people to certainty about the text of the Bible through having His pure words printed, and, while Christians before the age of printing could know with certainty what the words of the canon were but a perfect, mass-produced edition was not possible without miracle before the age of the printing press in the centuries after the autographs and their earliest apographs passed away, I therefore confess with the vast numbers of Baptist churches who receive the testimony of the Spirit to the words He dictated and preserved, and who believe the promises of Scripture concerning its own preservation, that the canonical words of God have been through Divine providence perfectly preserved in the common printed Received Text, the Scrivener edition underlying the Authorized Version.

[v] 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689.

[vi] In the unlikely event that the Lord were not to return for some hundreds of years into the future, and the English language changed in such a manner that the early modern or Elizabethan English of the Authorized Version were to have the comprehensibility of the Old English of Beowulf, it would certainly be right to update Biblical language.  However, I believe that the Holy Spirit would lead Biblical Baptist churches to have general agreement that such a revision of the English Bible is needed.  Without such clear Divine leadership, any revision would be inferior to the Authorized Version (as such versions as the NKJV most certainly are), and detrimental to the cause of Christ.

[vii] E. g., someone who affirmed that baptize would be better rendered as immerse.

[viii] E. g., rendering peripateo as “walks” instead of “walketh” in a text such as 1 Peter 5:8 would not make such a translation inaccurate or erroneous.

[ix] That is, for example, baptize rather than immerse more clearly communicates the character of the baptismal ceremony as a religious ordinance, immerse does not specifically indicate that the person who receives baptism is not only to be plunged under the water but also to arise out of it, and the verb to immerse was not commonly used in the English language in 1611 (and thus appears nowhere at all in the KJV; cf. the Oxford English Dictionary).  Furthermore, the argument sometimes advanced that men like King James were seeking to cover up the fact that baptism was properly performed by dipping is highly questionable in light of the fact that King James, Queen Elizabeth, and other English monarchs actually were dipped as infants, not sprinkled or poured upon, following the dominant Anglican liturgical practice of their day.

18 comments:

d4v34x said...

It seems to me to be the proper function of a confession to stake out what one affirms without all manner of accompanying denials.

Thomas Ross said...

Dear D4,

While there are confessions of many different sorts, confessions from the ancient Nicene Creed to the reformation Augsburg Confession to many, many others (those two come to mind at the moment) connect positive statements of belief with many denials; Scripture itself has many statements with negative/positive combinations, etc. A statement of what one believes together with what one does not believe often makes things much clearer.

Anonymous said...

I may have missed it before, but is this a confession strictly for the English-speaking world? Some of your statements indicate that it might be; if it is for the English-speaking world, I can subscribe it, but if it was meant to be for all peoples of all languages, I might have to consider more carefully. For instance, the Bible of the underground churches of China is essentially taken from the CT, but with the portions that refer to Christology being from the TR. As the Chinese Christians have bled for this Bible, they feel about it the same way that we would feel about the KJV. Also, in some countries, the Bibles they were given were done by liberals (like in West Africa), so they do not have the pure Word in their languages and rely on the English or French translations for a reliable translation (some are working on restoring the errors put in by liberals).

Thomas Ross said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Thomas Ross said...

I do not believe that people who do not speak English and are in countries where English is not spoken need to learn English.

Where a foreign language translation does not accurately render the perfectly preserved Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words of the OT and NT Received Texts, such translations ought to be changed. That does not mean that believers who only have these Bibles cannot get God's blessing through the portions, usually the large majority, that are not corrupt.

Thomas Ross said...

I deleted my previous comment because I accidentally posted exactly the same thing twice.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Ross - Interesting that God in His providence went outside of His institution of the local church to produce the translation that local NT churches would choose to use. You do not believe that the NT restricts the ministry of Bible translation to the pillar and ground of the truth? (that is, the KJV was not "under the local church," so we shouldn't necessarily expect to see only local churches doing translation work today?)

Thanks for your time,

Bob

Thomas Ross said...

Dear Bob,

If a non-Baptist, or a group of non-Baptists, produce an accurate Bible translation, that is a wonderful thing, just like if a non-Baptist preaches the gospel and someone is born again. That does not mean that God's plan is that there should be any people who are saved who reject or are not members of true churches, or that the Biblical pattern for the work of God being done is that people are outside of NT churches.

By the way, the KJV is 90% (or so) Tyndale's Bible, and Tyndale was either a Baptist or very Baptistic, and his parents were Baptists. Note the following from chapter 14, vol. 1 of J. T. Christian's History of Baptists:



The Lollards practised believers’ baptism and denied infant baptism. Fox says
one of the articles of faith among them was “that faith ought to precede
baptism.” This at least was the contention of a large portion of those people.
The Lollard movement was later merged into the Anabaptist, and this was
hastened by the fact that their political principles were identical (Hook, Lives
of the Archbishops of Canterbury, VI. 123). The Lollards continued to the days
of the Reformation. Mosheim says: “The Wyclifites, though obliged to keep
concealed, had not been exterminated by one hundred and fifty years of
persecution” (Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, III. 49).
Davis (History of the Welsh Baptists, 21) claims that William Tyndale (A. D.
1484-1536) was a Baptist. He was born near the line between England and
Wales, but lived most of the time in Gloustershire. “Llewellyn Tyndale and
Hezekiah Tyndale were members of the Baptist church at Abergaverney, South
Wales.” There is much mystery around the life of Tyndale. Bale calls him “the
apostle of the English.” “He was learned, a godly, and a good-natured man”
(Fuller, Church History of Britain, II. 91). It is certain he shared many views
held by the Baptists; but that he was a member of a Baptist church is nowhere
proved. He always translated the word ecclesia by the word congregation, and
held to a local conception of a church (Tyndale, Works II. 13. London, 1831).
There were only two offices in the church, pastor and deacons (I. 400). The
elders or bishops should be married men (I. 265). Upon the subject of baptism
he is very full. He is confident that baptism does not wash away sin. “It is
impossible,” says he, “that the waters of the river should wash our hearts”
(Ibid, 30). Baptism was a plunging into the water (Ibid, 287). Baptism to avail
must include repentance, faith and confession (III. 179). The church must,
therefore, consist of believers (Ibid, 25). His book in a wonderful manner
states accurately the position of the Baptists.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Ross, thank you for your response. In your response you say it is not the Biblical pattern for the work of God to be done by people outside of NT churches. Does that mean that the KJV was done in NT churches? Or does that mean that the KJV does not fit the Biblical pattern? That's my first question.

By the way, I'm glad you brought up Tyndale, as I was going to if you did not. But my original question concerned the KJV, since your confession concerns the KJV and not the Tyndale (which incidentally is available). Also, you said, "the KJV is 90% (or so) Tyndale's Bible." Did you mean to say the KJV New Testament is 90% Tyndale's New Testament? This is my second question.

Again, my original question is: Do you believe the NT regulates the translation of the Bible? Does God give the responsibility with the Bible to local churches, or may non-local, non-immersionist, parachurch type groups share the responsibility? Whichever way you answer, can you cite Scripture? That's my third question.

I've got just a couple more questions to follow up with I think.

Thank you for your time in answering and thank you for the time you put into your confession and for making it available.

Bob

Thomas Ross said...

Dear Bob,

The KJV translators, whenever they committed sin, did not fit the pattern of Scripture. It is a sin to practice paedobaptism. The words of the KJV did not commit sin, because they are words. Since the words are accurate, they have the breath of God on them.

I am happy, as I have time, to answer questions, but I think we could save time if the question is meant to have a follow up, and another follow up, etc. to simply state what the argument is that we are making in a propositional form.

Certainly the KJV cannot follow Tyndale in the portions not translated by Tyndale.

I believe part one of the confession of faith answers your third question. You can also see my essay on Baptist Confessions and canonicity at http://sites.google.com/site/thross7. The NT makes no mention of any believers who refused to join Baptist churches.

Joshua said...

"In your response you say it is not the Biblical pattern for the work of God to be done by people outside of NT churches."

Hello Bob,

Just to expand further upon this one - I would agree that the Biblical pattern is for the work of God to be done by people in NT churches.

This is the pattern that all Christians should follow. It does not follow therefore that nothing that takes place outside of the NT church is God working. He clearly uses the obedient and the disobedient to work his purposes.

Take for instance evangelism. This is supposed to be carried out by faithful local NT churches. But the Lord will still use a disobedient New Evangelical who is faithful to preach the gospel. We can rejoice in the fact that God used that man to bring a soul to repentance, all the while remaining utterly unchanged regarding his practice.

The King James Bible is another example. God used disobedient pedobaptists in a pseudochurch that was disgustingly yoked with the State who nevertheless believed rightly concerning the Scriptures to produce the best translation in English to date.

These were then accepted by faithful and non-faithful churches alike, and that is the seal we are looking for (the faithful accepting). We don't then work our way backward to "well, therefore God must view Anglicanism as faithful NT Christianity".

The Lord seems to take and bless that which is good and in accordance with him. No true Christian should be satisfied with this - we seek for obedience from a pure heart, not "I'll do what I want and God can bless the good stuff".

The classic mistake is to extrapolate either way "God used this disobedient one, therefore he must be fine with their disobedience" or "We are faithful, therefore God will only use us".

None of this changes the NT pattern. God's work is to be done by Christians in NT churches. Any work done by the disobedient outside may be good, but the confirming seal will be placed by faithful churches.

A final example and I'll leave it - Creation Science. Disobedient Neo-evangelicals in unbiblical parachurch organizations have done some great work based off their faith in the first chapter of Genesis. We take and use their stuff, and praise God for them. If they cared to ask our opinion, we would tell them that what they are doing is good, but they are outside of God's authority and should submit themselves to a faithful local church.

Hope this helps!

Cheers,

Joshua

Anonymous said...

Mr. Ross,

My proposition would be: only the NT church has the authority to produce translations. My Bible verse would be Matthew 28:20. The institution that immerses is the institution that is responsible to teach all nations to observe all things that Christ commanded. Matthew 28:20 anticipates translations.

An application of this would be: the KJV is in violation of Matthew 28:20. It does not fit the NT pattern.

Bob

Anonymous said...

Joshua, thank you for your helpful response. In it you refer to the KJV translators as being "disobedient pedobaptists in a pseudochurch that was disgustingly yoked with the State." Later on you make the statement, "No true Christian should be satisfied with this." This is the essence of my question. Are you satisfied with the KJV when it clearly was not produced according to the Biblical pattern? (Matthew 28:20, I Timothy 3:15) If you are satisfied, then what else can we use for worship in our churches that is not according to the Biblical pattern? If I excuse the KJV, what else can I excuse? What other forms of worship do you welcome into your church that are accomplished outside of the NT church by pedobaptist, state church types, etc? Do you see what I'm trying to ask?

Again, I appreciated your comment.

Let me know what you think.

Bob

Anonymous said...

Also, Mr. Ross, maybe if I word my proposition this way it will help you refute it more easily: the KJV is an oxcart. It is doing the right thing the wrong way. Accurately translating the correct text of Scripture is good, just like properly immersing true converts is good, it's just that Matthew 28:20 only gives the authority to one institution for both the baptizing and the teaching all nations: the pillar and ground of the truth. You don't believe the KJV translators had true authority to baptize. What verse do you believe gives them the authority to translate the Bible for NT churches? Or do you believe there's no regulation for this?

So again, if the oxcart analogy that Mr. Brandenburg uses from time to time applies to Fundamentalism, mission boards, parachurch organizations, etc., does it apply to the KJV translators and the KJV?

Again, thank you for your time, patience, and consideration.

Bob

KJB1611 said...

Dear Bob,

The propositional form of your argument would then seem to be:

1.) Only the NT church has the authority to produce translations.
2.) The KJV was not translated by the NT church.
3.) Therefore, the KJV was not produced by NT church authority.

I agree that Anglicanism has no authority to produce translations or exist. This is a different question from whether or not NT churches have recognized the KJV as the translation that English speaking churches should use and as a proper translation of the underlying language texts. True churches have recognized the KJV in this latter sense.

Perhaps this will help as an illustration:

38* And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39* But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40* For he that is not against us is on our part. (Mark 9:38-40)

Should this man have followed the disciples in the pre-Pentecost NT (Baptist) church? Yes, he should have. Does that mean that absolutely nothing of benefit was done by him? No, it does not. It certainly does not mean that the people who had devils cast out of them were still possessed or that the pre-Pentecost church should not have recognized that devils were indeed cast out. So, the fact that Anglicanism should not exist does not mean that NT Baptist churches should not recognize the value of the KJV or should not use it.

Joshua said...

Hey Bob,

When I said "no true Christian should be satisfied by this" I meant satisfied to justify their own disobediences because hey, God can use a rebel.

You can be satisfied with any good fruit of the disobedient eg KJV, or a rebellious man who wins one to Christ. That shouldn't be used to comfort to the rebellious however.

Cheers,

Joshua

KJB1611 said...

Tyler Robbins said...

KJB 1611:

I read your confession. I'm going to be taking a close look at Bro. Brandenburg's book this week, too.

Why do you believe the words of the text were preserved in the TR? I really appreciate your emphasis that preservation was providential, not miraculous. It seems to me that you believe the preservation was sealed and delivered in the TR. Why has this preservation not continued? Is it that there was a unanimity around the TR in a way there simply isn't about the critical text?

12:43 PM

Dear Tyler,


Only the TR fits the biblical model of preservation. The CT did not exist in use among God's people for many centuries, and what is called the Majority Text, when it differs from the TR, was not even in print until 1992 and does not exist in translation in practically any language in the world. Furthermore, as demonstrated my essay here:

http://faithsaves.net/canonicity-of-the-received-text-or-textus-receptus-established-from-reformation-and-post-reformation-baptist-confessions/

true churches have received the TR as canonical. Therefore, the TR, and it alone, fits the biblical model of preservation.

I'm not sure what you mean with your statement "Why has this preservation not continued?" Perfect preservation has continued, and it will continue until heaven and earth pass away.

Thanks for the question.

KJB1611 said...

Tyler Robbins said...

KJB 1611:

I read your confession. I'm going to be taking a close look at Bro. Brandenburg's book this week, too.

Why do you believe the words of the text were preserved in the TR? I really appreciate your emphasis that preservation was providential, not miraculous. It seems to me that you believe the preservation was sealed and delivered in the TR. Why has this preservation not continued? Is it that there was a unanimity around the TR in a way there simply isn't about the critical text?

12:43 PM

Dear Tyler,


Only the TR fits the biblical model of preservation. The CT did not exist in use among God's people for many centuries, and what is called the Majority Text, when it differs from the TR, was not even in print until 1992 and does not exist in translation in practically any language in the world. Furthermore, as demonstrated my essay here:

http://faithsaves.net/canonicity-of-the-received-text-or-textus-receptus-established-from-reformation-and-post-reformation-baptist-confessions/

true churches have received the TR as canonical. Therefore, the TR, and it alone, fits the biblical model of preservation.

I'm not sure what you mean with your statement "Why has this preservation not continued?" Perfect preservation has continued, and it will continue until heaven and earth pass away.

Thanks for the question.