Recently I've taken up the cause of the preservation of Scripture, mainly in view of an edition of Frontline magazine, which has an article by David Shumate, entitled: "The Doctrine of Preservation: The Need of the Hour in the Bible Version Debate." John Vaughn referenced this same statement, "the doctrine of preservation is 'the need of the hour in the Bible-version debate.'" He refers to our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, in his article.
In so many posts through the years, I've repeated the point that this doctrine of perfect preservation that we teach is the biblical and historical doctrine. I've mentioned that Dan Wallace agreed with this. I've mentioned that presentation of renowned historian, Richard A. Muller, and his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2: Holy Scripture : The Cognitive Foundation of Theology. The position we take is the one found in John Owen and Francis Turretin and the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of Faith, and more. Nothing else was taught as a position. There was not a debate on this fact.
Men know that it wasn't until we get Benjamin Warfield, reading a new position into the WCF, that we get the modern position. It's brand new. Warfield had his reasons for inventing it. It should be admitted that he did this. Admit it.
Of course, I know why men don't admit it. Dan Wallace does though. And again, we're talking about the doctrinal position on preservation. This is what Christians believe. Was there a total apostasy on the correct doctrine? This really needs to be established if we're going to go with a new doctrine and it should be developed by the theologians. Where are the developed doctrinal statements with the new position? And if not, why not?