For those reading, next week either Monday or Wednesday, I will provide as concise an answer as possible to the question, “Which TR?”  I’ve answered this question before several times, but it’s usually just ignored, never answered.  I’ve never had it answered.  It’s asked as a gotcha question, then I give the answer, followed by silence.  I’m going to try to do the best I’ve ever done at the answer.

**************************

A group of four men calling themselves The Textual Confidence Collective recorded seven podcasts for youtube.  These men posted their first on Monday, July 11, 2022.  The purpose of their gathering in Texas for these recordings was to persuade people of a new position on preservation of scripture.  They call it “textual confidence.”  They’ve given their own new position an enticing or attractive label, but it is still new.

Confidence sounds very good.  Confidence in Collective parlance is akin to the word “trust.”  I believe that’s what they mean by “confidence.”  Placing confidence in someone or something is trusting it or trusting in it.  In the scriptural use of the word “trust,” God does not call for confidence or trust in the uncertain.  Uncertainty also does not bring biblical trust. Confidence relates to God, Who is always certain.

As a label, “Textual Confidence” definitely sounds superior to “Textual Doubt.”  The four men testify they want to help Christians have confidence in the underlying text of their English translation of the Bible.   They say it’s not a sure, settled text, and unlike their opponents, they’re honest.  This admission of less than one hundred percent surety, they argue, engenders confidence.  The text of scripture is something pure like Tide detergent, not 100%, but still good.

The Collective Confidence falls short of certainty.  Three of the men replaced certainty with what they call confidence. The discovery of textual variants, that is, variations in hand copies, destroyed their certainty.  This shows they do not stand on biblical presuppositions.  They also listened to men who contradicted certainty.  Now they are confident in the text without certainty about the words.  They reject certainty and also want to push their uncertainty on others, bringing every church in the world to the same position, what they call “unity.”

The Collective also says they’re just telling the truth in contrast to people with differing positions, deceived or lying.  Those who take their view — according to them — are very nice, super balanced, great with their rhetorical tone compared to the others.  Part of this, they say about themselves, is their focus on Jesus and the gospel rather than on the text of scripture.  This implies that supporters of other positions than theirs elevate the Bible above Jesus in an unbalanced and perverted way.  The latter is an example of their tone.

Jesus said, “Thy Word is truth” (John 17:17).  Delivering the teaching of scripture is truth.  What the Bible says about itself is true.  The existence of textual variants does not change the biblical doctrine of the preservation of scripture.

Many people have suffered for believing something different than they once did, including from family.  No one will invite me to the same functions as Mark Ward.  Certain doors close depending on what you believe.  If you believe an error, the same thing will occur.  I don’t condone a kind of mean or vicious form of separation that just cuts people off.  I don’t practice that kind of separation either.  Many evangelicals practice like this, even though they don’t even believe in biblical separation.  Facing exclusion though doesn’t make a position right.

Two of the Collective testified to suffering from parents and siblings for changing positions on the Bible.  I don’t think someone should hang on to a false position because they don’t want to lose their family.  The Collective, however, treats this suffering as proof their new position is true and right.  It doesn’t prove either position.  No one should come to a conclusion for what’s right by comparing who suffers the most.  This is common, however, among modern version proponents.

The Collective distinguishes their view from what they present as two false extremes, “textual skepticism” and “textual absolutism.”   The men used Bart Ehrman as an example of the former.  They weren’t clear who was the former, but I’m confident they’re talking about a wide range of King James Version and textus receptus advocates, anyone who is certain about the text of scripture.

A strong statement of the first podcast is that skepticism and absolutism come from the same place or are closer than what the audience may expect.  The Collective says that an absolutist perspective turns people into skeptics more than skeptics do because of their defense of “every iota across the board.”  I’m skeptical about this point, because the certainty that brings trust in scripture comes from what the Bible says about itself.  Jesus defended every iota across the board.

Should people belief in the words of scripture as absolute, what someone might say is without variableness or shadow of turning?  In other words, does the Word of God reflect the nature of God and its immutability?  That is what scripture says about itself and it is what our spiritual forefathers passed down to us.

Modern textual criticism does not and has not increased trust in the inerrancy and authority of the Word of God.  Since I’ve been alive, as the prominence of textual criticism grows, trust in scripture diminishes.  Scriptural presuppositions on the other hand provide increasing spiritual strength through believing what God said, trusting in the Word of God as absolute authority.  Greater faith proceeds from certainty, not uncertainty.