Does the Bible suddenly change its meaning? When God speaks on a certain subject in His Word, do we take what He says as the truth or do we conform it to naturalistic or humanistic presuppositions? I ask these question especially here about the biblical doctrine of the perfect preservation of scripture.
Master’s Seminary and John MacArthur
I was watching an interview of the leaders of the Master’s Seminary about its founding, including John MacArthur, and I came to a crucial, foundational section of the interview. A little after the 15 minute mark, MacArthur said:
Obviously I have a very strong commitment to the Word of God and to its accurate interpretation and to sound doctrine. . . . [We needed] to come up with our own exhaustive doctrinal statement. . . . [A] seminary has to have a unified doctrinal statement. . . . We didn’t have any wiggle room. It was sound doctrine or nothing, and we were going to fight for that at all costs. . . . We tightened everything we could tighten with a very detailed doctrine that to this day is still our statement with some more refinement.
Even now we’re doing some refinement, having it right. It was in order to maintain sound doctrine and have a solid, unified set of convictions all the way from theology proper and bibliology down to ecclesiology and even eschatology, the whole thing. And that’s what’s been defining for us. And here we’ve been doing this since 1986 and nothing has moved.
Bibliology Statement at Master’s Seminary
When I heard MacArthur say this over a week ago, I wondered about the bibliology statement in the seminary doctrinal statement, so I looked it up. Here’s the fundamental part of what it says, the first four paragraphs:
We teach that the Bible is God’s written revelation to man, and thus the sixty-six books of the Bible given to us by the Holy Spirit constitute the plenary (inspired equally in all parts) Word of God (1 Corinthians 2:7-14; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
We teach that the Word of God is an objective, propositional revelation (1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 2:13), verbally inspired in every word (2 Timothy 3:16), absolutely inerrant in the original documents, infallible, and God-breathed.
We teach the literal, grammatical, historical interpretation of Scripture which affirms the belief that the opening chapters of Genesis present creation in six literal days (Genesis 1:31; Exodus 31:17), describe the special creation of man and woman (Genesis 1:26-28; 2:5-25), and define marriage as between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5). Scripture elsewhere dictates that any sexual activity outside of marriage is an abomination before the Lord (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 18:13; Matthew 5:27-32; 19:1-9; 1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 6:9-10; 1 Thessalonians. 4:1-7).
We teach that the Bible constitutes the only infallible rule of faith and practice (Matthew 5:18; 24:35; John 10:35; 16:12-13; 17:17; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 4:12; 2 Peter 1:20-21).
As you read that, maybe you think it’s a boilerplate, typical orthodox, scriptural, and historical statement of bibliology. In a statement on bibliology, in the first four paragraphs Master’s Seminary gave a gigantic chunk of space to interpretational philosophy, emphasizing a young earth interpretation and biblical definition of marriage. I’m fine with including that, but how do you include that and say nothing about the preservation of scripture?
The Bible and the Preservation of Scripture
Does the Bible teach its own preservation? Does it say anything about that? Did you notice in the second paragraph on inspiration, it applies verbal inspiration and inerrancy and infallibility to the “original manuscripts”? After a third paragraph on interpretation, a fourth paragraph then says “the Bible constitutes the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” According to the statement, the Bible itself is not infallible, except in the original manuscripts, yet it still constitutes an infallible rule of faith and practice. These types of conclusions do not follow the premises for them.
The physical original manuscripts (autographa) do not exist. No one can look at them to get a rule of faith and practice. People can look only at copies of copies (apographa) of the original manuscripts. Without a doctrine of preservation, one cannot conclude an infallible rule of faith and practice. Is there no doctrine of preservation of scripture in the Bible?
MacArthur states in the interview that he obviously has a very strong commitment to the Word of God. Does he have a strong commitment to the Bible’s teaching on the preservation of scripture? He commits to six day creation based on his scriptural presuppositions. MacArthur commits to a biblical definition of marriage. The statement includes nothing about preservation of scripture. Is he committed to the teaching of the Word of God on its own preservation? I don’t see it.
Legacy Standard Bible
The same Master’s Seminary faculty took the project of the Legacy Standard Bible (LSB). Upon its completion in 2021, the editors of the LSB wrote in its preface:
The Legacy Standard Bible has the benefit of a number of critical Greek texts in determining the best variant reading to translate. The 27th edition of Eberhard Nestle’s Novum Testamentum Graece, supplemented by the 28th edition in the General Epistles, serve as the base text. On every variant reading the Society of Biblical Literature GNT as well as the Tyndale House GNT were also consulted. In the end, each decision was based upon the current available manuscript evidence.
This statement alone reveals a rejection of perfect preservation. Instead of God preserving His Words perfectly as scripture teaches, it reflects a failed attempt at restoration of the original text God inspired. This helps explain the doctrinal statement leaving out a doctrine of preservation. What does the Bible teach about a believers expectations between AD100 and the present regarding the preservation of scripture?
Even if the evidence of modern science says the world is a billion years old, a believer accepts the revelation of the first chapter of Genesis. He explains the science according to scripture, because scripture is truth. Even if the evidence of modern science says that there are errors in present printed editions of the original language Bible, a believer accepts the doctrine of the preservation passages. It also says that men alone have the task of preserving scripture like any other book. Everyone either begins with a naturalistic or a supernaturalistic presupposition, and no one is neutral.
Preaching on Preservation
When exposing the text in front of him, MacArthur has said the following, first on Matthew 24:35:
Finally, Jesus said this: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words” – what? – “shall not pass away.” That is an unchanging authority. And He closes the parable with an unchanging authority. “My Word shall not pass away.” In Luke 16:17, He said heaven and earth will pass away and it’s easier for them to do that than for one tittle out of the law to pass away. He said not one jot or one tittle in Matthew 5:18 will pass away until all is fulfilled. In John 10:35, He said Scripture cannot be broken. And so if we believe the Word of God, we believe this is going to happen – it’s going to happen.
So in a sermon to people, who sit there thinking that Almighty God will preserve His Words, it sounds like he preaches perfect preservation. But no, ‘we really don’t believe that.’ ‘We just say that in the texts that say that.’
Master’s Seminary has no statement on preservation of scripture, because it does not believe in the preservation of scripture. It does not believe that someone can prove the preservation of scripture on exegetical grounds. It says God inspired every word on exegetical grounds, but it doesn’t say on exegetical grounds that God then preserved every one of those words. The seminary says that God nowhere in scripture promised that He would preserve His Word. Historic Christianity writes doctrinal statements that say something different.
Historical Bibliology on Preservation of Scripture
The London Baptist Confession of 1689 says:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
Dutch Theologian Herman Bavink (1854-1921) wrote in The Sacrifice of Praise (p. 21):
All scripture was not only once given by inspiration of God but it is also as such continually preserved by God by His Almighty and everywhere present power.
In a book, Fundamentalism Versus Modernism (1925), Eldred Vanderlaan wrote:
Christ guarantees that as a part of the sacred text neither the tittle or the yod shall perish.
In a Chronological Treatise Upon the Seventy Weeks of Daniel (1725), Benjamin Marshall wrote:
And as not one jot or tittle of the former was to pass without being fulfilled, so neither could one jot, or tittle of the latter pass away without being accomplished. Consequently not one jot or tittle, much less could one word. . . . pass away. . . , without its actual completion, and full accomplishment in the express letter of it.
Believing God’s Promise of Preservation
A multitude of passages in scripture teach in their context the perfect preservation of scripture (see our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, here and here). God promised He would preserve every one of His written Words unto every generation of believer. It’s interesting to me what men, who have been in the same orbit as MacArthur, say about the sovereignty of God. R. C. Sproul famously wrote and said:
If there is one maverick molecule in the universe, one molecule running loose outside the scope of God’s sovereign ordination, then ladies and gentlemen, there is not the slightest confidence that you can have that any promise that God has ever made about the future will come to pass.
It amazes me that they can believe that every molecule functions under the control of God, but God would not and did not fulfill His promises of perfect preservation of scripture.
Thank you for sharing and I agree with all. Reading here brought Hebrews 11:3 & 6 to mind for me. If a man believes God has the power to save his soul, and will continue to save His soul in the future (an event that hasn’t happened yet from our perspective), it should follow, that same man would believe God has kept His word through the ages, and will keep His word into the future; for by it the worlds were made (Heb 11:3), and without faith in God it’s impossible to please Him, a believer must come to the Lord as He is (Heb 11:6); on God’s terms according to His words, not mans. Denial of preservation and adopting a restoration approach to manuscript evidence, dethrones God, replacing Him with man and his intellect. “..whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” (Rom 14:23).
Thanks Benjamin! Agreed!
The problem of believing in the preservation of Scripture — based on the teaching of Scripture — represents a great breakdown of modern Christian faith. Even people who will take the Bible’s teachings on creation, miracles, and so on, instead of accepting the modern scientific “evidentiary” explanations of those things, suddenly get cold feet when asked to believe the Bible’s teaching on preservation of scripture instead of accepting modern textual “evidentiary” explanations. Suddenly the teachings in the Bible itself is not their sole rule of faith & practice.
Related. 1. I notice that the Master’s Seminary uses Matthew 5:18 twice in their doctrinal statement. This is interesting, since I find that many who oppose my position on preservation say that Matthew 5:18 is not speaking of preserving the Scriptures. Has any of them have taken MacArthur to task for using it? 2. I wonder if it would be possible to find the original statement of the Master’s Seminary from 1986 on The Holy Scriptures? Anyone out there know? Thanks.
Robert,
People might call this unfair, extreme, or lacking in tone, etc., but there is an inherent dishonesty almost always in this discussion. I’ve read the historic position. I know what the Bible says. People deny it like it was never believed. No one ever believed perfect preservation, they would say, like we originated it. In general, I believe people in the pews, who believe the Bible, believe perfect preservation.
Dan Wallace, rather than talk about it, will refer people to a journal article he wrote many years ago. I reviewed that article in a three part series now also years ago and it has multiple errors in it. I pointed those out. They are clear, and again, full out denial.
What I’m describing is the norm in the discussion with the other side. As a further example, look at what they’ve done with Thomas Ross. He shows clearly that the Nestles Aland text, the critical text with the apparatus used by Modern Version proponents, translated into the Legacy Standard Bible, etc. in over a hundred readings has no textual attestation. That reading is found in zero manuscripts. Crickets. No answer. Men acting like nothing happened. Just ignored. On the other hand, a couple of individual words in a small number of manuscripts, big attention given to those, along with the smirks, etc. It seems like an overall dishonest conversation, unless I’m misrepresenting it, and I don’t think I am.
Here’s another one. In Psalm 12:6-7, they bring up gender discordance. I look up the Hebrew on gender discordance and it is normal with a reference to scripture. Especially look at usages in Psalm 119. Again, crickets. Nothing. They can’t admit this argument is debunked. It’s dishonest to me.
Hey, Kent, hope you are going well.
Regarding this — “in over a hundred readings with no textual attestation” — is this a reference to Dr. Maurice Robinson’s work where he identifies 105 places in the CT where the complete verse reading is not to be found in any Greek manuscript?
Hi Andy,
Thanks for asking. I’m talking about Dr. Reuben Swanson’s New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines Against Codex Vaticanus: John, as well as his other volumes in this series (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and Galatians). This shows that there are huge numbers of short sections of Greek text where no manuscript on earth reads like the critical text — hundreds for short sections and thousands for longer sections. You can also see this by looking yourself at the modern printed Majority Text editions by Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad’s The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text, Maurice Robinson and William Pierpont’s The New Testament in the Original Greek: According to the Byzantine/Majority Textform, and Wilbur N. Pickering’s The Greek New Testament According to Family 35.
For instance, James White attacks a minority reading in the TR for one word in Ephesians 3:9 and Revelation 16:5, yet just look at one chapter, John 13 and you see the following:
In John 13 alone, the Nestle-Aland text rejects: 90% or more of Greek manuscripts 43 times, 95% or more of Greek manuscripts 42 times, 99% of Greek manuscripts or more 28 times, 99%+ of Greek manuscripts 18 times, and 100% of Greek manuscripts in John 13:2.
Eberhard Nestle himself wrote:
Eberhard Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd ed., trans. & ed. William Edie & Allan Menzies [New York: G. P. Putnam, 1901], p. 164.
Thanks, Kent. It does sound like you are talking about the same basic issue. Since verse numbering was not part of the original text, I do think it is better to say like you do above, “in short sections of Greek.” Personally, I don’t think this is such a big deal. The eclectic text position already admits that no Greek manuscript exists that perfectly matches the original. The copying process is going to have various manuscripts picking up various errors in different places.
Regarding John 13:2, even if no extant manuscript contains all the variants that the CT considers as original, the CT does have the benefit over the TR of not contradicting the rest of the chapter, since the supper was clearly going on when Satan put it into his heart to betray him (cf., 13:27-28).
Anyway, I did not listen to the White/Ross debate and didn’t know what you were referring to, so thanks.