Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Part Six Part Seven
Textual variants were not the reason for the change in doctrine on the preservation of scripture. Those began to exist after men started making hand copies of the Greek New Testament from the originals. Everyone should acknowledge that what churches and church leadership universally believed before and after Chapter 1 and Paragraph 8 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, however, did start to change in the 19th century. All along the participants knew of textual variants, but outside of the kind of churches which believed in the authority of scripture, other forces worked toward changing the doctrine of preservation.
A foundational philosophical and theological change and a shift in worldview buttressed a doctrinal change. This also brought greater uncertainty about the Bible and its authority. In the very late 18th century and then early 19th century, the changes were subtle, as I mentioned (in part 6) the New Hampshire Confession of Faith of 1833 (NCHC). The NCHC was primarily drafted by John Newton Brown of New Hampshire. Appointed by the New Hampshire Baptist Convention in 1832, Brown, a Baptist pastor and editor, produced a moderated statement to serve as a guide for churches, later revised in 1853.
Changes by J. Newton Brown in the New Hampshire Confession
J. Newton Brown did not explicitly reject the doctrine of preservation in the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 (LBCF), but he offered a milder and broader version of it. While LBCF (like WCF 1.8) specifies that the Hebrew and Greek words of scripture were “kept pure in all ages” by God’s “singular care and providence,” Brown’s NCHC (Article 1) focuses on the Bible being written by men “divinely inspired” and serving as a “perfect treasure of heavenly instruction.” That moves away from the biblical and historical teaching of the perfect preservation of scripture held by believers for hundreds of years.
By omitting the rigid language of “kept pure in all ages,” the confession became more compatible with the findings of textual criticism, which was beginning to highlight manuscript variations against the older “pure text” language. Brown intentionally avoided the 17th-century claim that the Hebrew and Greek words were kept pure in all ages, a shift that made the confession, which allowed for the recognition of scribal errors in copies while maintaining the inerrancy of a far more ambiguous divine message.
Reasons for the Change in the Statement by Brown and Then the Churches
Historians point to three main lines of evidence, which explain the change in NCHC by Brown:
- Systematic Deletion of the “Providential Care” Clause: Brown’s New England circle was moving away from the doctrine of perfect providential preservation as seen in LBCF. His Confession (NCHC) strips this entire providential preservation argument away. By omitting the process of how God preserved the text and focusing only on the result (truth without error), Brown made the confession non-committal on the specific mechanism of manuscript preservation, so it could effectively serve as a center of Christian union between those with varying views on emerging textual criticism.
- The Shift to “Milder” and “Concise” Language: Historians describe Brown’s work as designed to be timeless. By the 1830s, the rise of textual criticism was beginning to make the older “kept pure” language a liability, as textual scholars emphasized the many variants in the manuscripts. Brown’s decision to replace the technical WCF 1.8 language with the broader claim that scripture is a “perfect treasure of heavenly instruction” allowed the confession to remain valid even as men used manuscript discoveries to challenge the idea of a single, perfectly preserved “Received Text.”
- Irenic and Missionary Intent: Brown drafted the confession to unify Baptists for missionary work. Including specific, debated claims about the “purity” of the Textus Receptus, the underlying Greek text of the KJV, would have invited unnecessary controversy. His irenic or peace-seeking approach meant removing rigid systems like the LBCF, which were seen as too abrasive for the warm evangelism and revivalism of the age.
The New Path of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith Against Preservation of Scripture
Historians like William Lumpkin note that the New Hampshire Convention specifically sought to restate their beliefs in very moderate tones to correct misimpressions and deflect opposition from those who found some of the previous doctrinal stands repellent. The NHCF became a very widely accepted confession in the Northern and Western states because it successfully navigated in moderate middle between conflicting doctrinal controversies.
Last October 2025, I almost finished a series entitled, “Steps in the Right Process for Belief Change,” now seven parts. I bring this to your attention so that you’ll read it related to the change that came in the preservation doctrine, so that you can assess that change according to the Bible. Changes occur either toward biblical teaching or away from it. The changes away from it are apostatizing. They are turning from the faith. That should be unacceptable to a believer. He should ask how and why the changes came. I’m explaining that here and it was not because of a study of the Bible, but the opposite.
A true believer should not embrace doctrinal change that doesn’t start with what the Bible says. True and biblical sanctification come from scripture. This answers Jesus prayer to the Father in John 17: “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth.” The Bible is also the test of faith. Belief comes by hearing the Word of God, not some naturalistic argument or an irenic statement that could bring a more wide ranging union between disparate factions, who believe something different from one another. That is not the union for which Jesus prayed in John 17 either.
More to Come