Featured What if we wrote a course on preservation?

I have never taught such a course, but have written a few sets of lecture notes down through the years in preparation for such a course someday. I'll post those notes, and you can feel free to interact, agree, critique, etc. Here is the first set. Please note that this forum does not preserve formatting. The footnote numbers appear as blue, but they don't really link. Look at the bottom for the references.

Lecture 1—Preservation
The General Doctrine of Preservation

INTRODUCTION: Down through the centuries, great theologians have always believed that God preserves His creation. Though the preservation of Scripture has rarely been discussed by the theologians until the twentieth century, there has always been a belief among Christians that God preserves.

So, there is a general doctrine of preservation in the Bible. That is, the Bible does teach that God preserves many things, among them His Word, the Bible. (NOTE: This will only be a statement of the general doctrine of preservation, not an exhaustive treatment, since these outlines are on the specific preservation of Scripture.)

I. Definitions of Preservation

A. “Preservation is that continuous agency of God by which he maintains in existence the things he has created, together with the properties and powers with which he has endowed them. As the doctrine of creation is our attempt to explain the existence of the universe, so the doctrine of Preservation is our attempt to explain its continuance.”[1]

B. “By preservation we mean that God, by a continuous agency, maintains in existence all the things which He has made, together with all their properties and powers. In preservation we have, therefore, the first manifestation of God’s sovereign rule. Note what this definition implies: iIt implies that preservation is to be distinguished from the act of creation, for that can only be preserved which is already in existence; that the objective creation is not self-existent and self-sustaining; and that preservation is not merely a refraining from destroying that which has been created. Let us note the proof for this view of preservation.”[2]

C. “The providence of God means the continuing action of God in preserving his creation and guiding it toward his intended purposes.”[3]

D. The doctrine of general preservation stated:

1. The sovereign God, who created all things, also preserves all things; the entire universe and everything in it are held together only by His power (Neh. 9:6, Col. 1:16-17).

2. One of God's names is “Preserver” (2 Sam 22:3, Job 7:20).

II. Three Theories of General Preservation

A. The Deistic Theory. Deism explains preservation in terms of natural law. It holds that God created the universe and endowed it with powers sufficient to keep itself in existence. The universe is, thus, a great self-sustaining mechanism; and God is a mere spectator of the world and of its operations, exerting no direct efficiency in sustaining it. But this is a false assumption; for where is there a machine that can sustain itself? Do they not all run down and need repairing and rebuilding? Furthermore, there is evidence to show that God has not withdrawn from the universe.”[4]

B. The Continuous Creation Theory. This theory confounds creation and preservation. The deistic view holds that all is upheld by natural law; this view holds that moment to moment God creates the universe with all that is in it. It is based on the conception that all force is divine will, and that in direct exercise; whereas there is also human will and the indirect exercise of the divine will, namely, in the form of natural law. To this we reply (a) that we are conscious that the regular activity in nature is not the repetition of creation, but the indirect exercise of His power; (b) that the theory destroys all continuity of existence, for if God creates everything every moment out of nothing, then things cease to be the same things and are something new every moment; (c) that it impugns the truth and holiness of God, in that continuous creation merely makes us seem to be the same personalities from moment to moment, when in reality we are not; (d) that it destroys all evidence for the existence of the external world, for what we regard as such, is but inward states of consciousness produced momentarily by the creative agency of God; and (e) that, in making all will God’s will, the theory makes God the author of sin also.[5]

C. The Theory of Concursus. This we accept as the true theory. It holds that God concurs in all operations, both of matter and of mind. Though God’s will is not the only force in the universe, yet without His concurrence no force or person can continue to exist or to act (1 Cor. 12:6, Acts 17:28). His power interpenetrates that of man without destroying or absorbing it. Men retain their natural powers and exercise them. But it is evident that, although God preserves mind and body in their working, He concurs with the evil acts of His creatures only as they are natural acts, and not as they are evil.[6]

III. The Objects of His Preservation

A. The saints—For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off" (Ps. 37:28). "He that keepeth thee will not slumber" (Ps. 121:3b). He will preserve:

1. their lives (Gen. 45:5, Deut. 6:24, Ps. 30:3, 33:19-20)

2. them from trouble and evil (1 Chron. 4:10, Ps. 32:7, 121:7, John 17:15, 2 Thess. 3:3)

3. them from evil men (Ps. 31:20, 41:2, 97:10, 140:1, 141:9)

4. their path (Gen. 28:15-22, Ex. 23:20, Josh. 24:17, 2 Sam. 8:6, Ps. 91:10, 121:8, Prov. 2:8)

5. the fatherless and widows and foreigners (Jer. 49:11, Ps. 146:9)

6. their spirit, soul and body for Heaven--eternal security (John 17:11-12, 1 Thess. 5:23, 2 Tim. 1:12, 1 Peter 1:5, Jude 1)

7. them from sin, according to their prayers (1 Sam. 25:39, Ps. 19:13, 141:3, Jude 24)

8. them from Satan (John 17:15)

9. them from temptation (1 Cor. 10:13, Rev. 3:10)

B. Israel (Josh. 24:17, Jer. 31:10)

C. Jerusalem (Is. 31:5)

D. The animal kingdom (Ps. 36:6, Matt. 10:29)

E. His ordained governments (2 Chron. 6:16, Col. 1:16-17, Rom. 13:1)

F. His own secrets (Matt. 13:35, Rom. 16:25)

G. The heavens and the earth (2 Peter 3:7)

H. His own Word, the Bible (Ps. 12:6-7, etc.)

CONCLUSION: God created everything, and thus has the power to preserve everything. This doctrine should be a great comfort to the Christian. If not even a sparrow can fall to the earth without His knowledge, how much more must He watch over us!

However, there is a responsibility resting on the shoulders of the believer also: he must trust in the Lord. If by his own foolishness the child of God gets into trouble, the Lord may answer his prayer for deliverance. However, how much better it is for the Christian to pray ahead of time to be kept from sin and trouble and evil men! That is a prayer that the Father will gladly answer for the modern saint just as He did for Jabez (1 Chron. 4:10), David and a host of others (Heb. 11

[1] Augustus Strong, Systematic Theology (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1907, 1976 reprint), 410-411.
[2] Henry Thiessen, Lectures on Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1949), 174.
[3] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 412.
[4] Thiessen, 176.
[5] Ibid., 176.
[6] Ibid., 176-177.

 

I'm not sure this negates my point in the first outline. The doctrine I presented was general preservation. True, I named some particular things, but in each case the Scripture clearly says that God has preserved these things. The word "preserved" is used in each passage.

I'm well aware of the Second Law, but my points are not negated by it, since I referred directly to Scripture. Every single passage I mentioned has "preserve" or some cognate in it.

Granted, you have a good point, which is that in that outline I should distinguish between permanent preservation and temporal preseservation.

The purpose of my listing the passages was merely to establish the facet that God is the Preserver. I think I have done that.

But you do make some valid points here.

 

If you'll look at I, C, you'll see that providence is the method by which God preserves. There I quote Millard Erickson, who said, "“The providence of God means the continuing action of God in preserving his creation and guiding it toward his intended purposes.”

 

In my outline I mention a number of things that are permanently preserved by God, in particular His saints. I think we all believe in the preservation of the saints here.

But I get it that we need to distinguish between non-permanently and permanently preserved things.

 

Lecture 2—Preservation
The Doctrine of the Preservation of Scripture

INTRODUCTION: Those who use history or tradition to determine their doctrine of preservation should abandon such unbiblical methodologies. Any doctrine derived from anything other than the Word of God will invariably lead to heresy.

Therefore, first of all examine your own doctrine and see if you truly derived it from the Word of God. If not, abandon it. Then open your mind and heart to the Word of God. To the best of my ability, I have derived the doctrine in this outline from the Word of God.

I. The Doctrine Stated
A. God has promised to preserve His Word, and does so. "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" (Ps. 12:6-7).

B. No evil man or heretic can permanently harm God's Word, though they will surely try. "The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor" (Prov. 22:12).

II. The Basis of God's Preservation of His Word
A. Just as the universe and all things in it are preserved by God just as He created them (Neh. 9:6, Col. 1:16-17), so God preserves His Word just as He inspired it (Ps. 146:6).

1. God gave His Word through verbal-plenary inspiration. That is, every Word of the Bible was given by God, and the Word of God in its entirely was given by God (2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21).

2. In the giving of His Word, though using sinful men to write it, God preserved His Word from error, so that in the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) in the original manuscripts, the Word of God was preserved from error. The Bible plainly teaches in many places that the Word of God is inerrant.

B. The question remains, can sinful man harm that which God used sinful man to give? Are the manuscripts that we have of the Bible in its original languages preserved from error? Does God preserve His Word in translation as well as in the originals? These questions will be answered in the outline, "Man's Preservation of God's Word."

III. The Purposes of God's Preservation of His Word
A. God preserves His Word because it contains His promises to Humankind. (Deut. 7:12)

B. God preserves His Word because it is about His people, Israel. (Hos. 12:13)

C. God preserves His Word because it contains the record of His prophecies, which will all be fulfilled (Matt. 5:17-18).

D. God preserves His Word in order to give His people instructions in how to live godly lives (Matt. 5:17-19, John 7:19).

IV. The Method of God's Preservation of His Word
A. Note the difference between providence and a miracle.

1. Providence is God working through nature and circumstances (Rom. 8:18).
2. A miracle is a supernatural intervention by God that sets aside the laws of nature.
3. Thus, providence should be thought of as a process, while a miracle is an event.

B. The Bible in the original languages was inspired by a miraculous act of God.

C. On the other hand, God’s preservation of the Word of God is providential.

CONCLUSION: God created all that is in the universe. He is the First Cause and the First Preserver. Not only that, He is perfect and holy, so His Word is also perfect and holy.

The question remains, are we living by His Word? Are we forming every doctrine and practice by His Word? Are we rightly dividing His Word, or are we allowing our own thoughts, prejudices, traditions and errors to color our interpretations and teachings?

It is a fearful thing to stand in the presence of the Living God. How fearful we ought to be of mishandling the Bible, of teaching that which it does not teach. However, many do just that when they teach about the preservation of the Word of God. Though they would not dare to base their doctrines of salvation, baptism, etc., on man's ideas or tradition, as the Roman Catholics do, yet they will glibly teach history, tradition and men's ideas when they come to the preservation of Scripture. Oh, may God forgive us for our pride in thinking we can produce a doctrine of His Word without His Word!!

 

Good point. I wrote this outline a long time ago. I've since studied that issue out, but I disremember what conclusion I came to! At any rate, if I do ever teach a class using this outline, I'll be sure to study it out again and prepare my points better.

This is an excellent idea, and I'm going to copy and paste into my outline and then expand your suggestion, if you don't mind.

 

Lecture 3—Preservation
God Preserves His Word Perfectly

INTRODUCTION: Now we are coming to the controversial parts of these outlines. The burning questions of the day are, has God preserved His Word inerrantly as He inspired it inerrantly? Can we stand before men and say, "I have in my hand the preserved Word of God"? How does God work through man in the matter of translation? I have had more than one Godly, scholarly preacher tell me that these questions are not answered in the Bible. I believe that they are, and that the Word of God is sufficient in these matters for our faith and practice, as in all else.

I. The Problem Stated
A. Perhaps the most important question we must ask is, has God perfectly preserved His Word? That is, can we hold in our hands an inerrant Bible?

B. This problem must be distinguished from the issue of whether or not God gave an inerrant Bible in the original manuscripts. That problem deals with the inspiration of Scriptures, not preservation.

II. The Problem Faced
A. The Bible clearly states that God preserves His Word perfectly. The passage we used to state the doctrine of preservation teaches a perfect preservation clearly: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" (Ps. 12:6-7).

B. The Bible also teaches, though, that men can add to or take from God's Word (Rev. 22:18-19, Deut. 4:2, 12:32).

C. However, we have God's promises that He will reprove any who adds to the Word of God: "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" (Prov. 30:5-6; see also Prov. 22:12).


III. The Problem Clarified

A. Before we jump to conclusions concerning the possible inerrancy of text-types and translations, though, we must realize one important thing: there are two places where the Word of God is preserved: Heaven and Earth!

B. Note first what the Bible teaches about its Heavenly preservation.

1. The Bible clearly states that God's Word is perfectly preserved in Heaven: "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in Heaven" (Ps. 119:89). The word "settled" teaches us that the Word of God is perfectly preserved in Heaven. The Hebrew word is nâtsab (נצב), with the relevant meaning being “to fix, establish” (The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon).

2. When the Word of God is destroyed on earth, God is completely able to replace it!

a. After Moses destroyed the Decalogue (Exod. 32:19), God was able to replace every word (Exod. Ch. 34).

b. Remember that when the only earthly copy of a portion of God's Word was destroyed by evil king Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:23), God was able to give every word back to Jeremiah perfectly (Jer. 36:27-32).

3. What form does the preserved Word of God take in Heaven? We know that there are many books in Heaven (Ezek. 2:9-10, Dan. 7:10, Mal. 3:16, Phil. 4:3, Rev. 3:5, 5:1, Ch. 10, 20:12, etc.). Could it be that the original manuscripts of the Bible were taken to Heaven by angels? Or is there an original in Heaven from which the earthly Word was given? The Bible does not answer these questions. We do know, though, that God has a "pure language" (Zeph. 3:9). My Hebrew teacher taught facetiously that the language of Heaven is Hebrew!

4. What we can know is that the Bible exists in Heaven in a far more permanent state than any mere book—that is, in the mind of the omniscient God!

C. We are still left with a difficult question: how and to what extent is the Word of God preserved on earth? That important question will be answered in the next outline.

CONCLUSION: We ought to be reassured. God is in control. He has preserved His Word perfectly, and will continue to do so. Every promise in the Bible is sure, and every prophecy will come to pass. He is LORD!

 

Point taken. There is a movement nowadays to produce audio Bible translations for 3rd world tribal peoples.

However, while non-written books are common in the 21st century, it was not true in Bible times, when a book was either a scroll or a codex. So, until recording devices were invented, a Bible had to be physical.

 

So, in light of the Biblical evidence which I gave in my outline, would anyone still like to argue that an earthly Bible translation can be perfect? Be sure you do it biblically, though, because that's what I'm using as my source for doctrine: the Bible!

 

Lecture 4—Preservation
Mistaken Theories of Preservation

INTRODUCTION: I am concerned that we Fundamentalists, while seeking to exalt God's Word, are basing our doctrine of the preservation of God's Word on human thinking. While giving lip service to the Baptist distinctive of the Bible as "sole rule of faith and practice," we are going elsewhere than the Bible for our teaching. Believing in thed verbal plenary inspiration and the inerrancy of Scripture, we should be using God's Word to systematize our doctrine.

Let me point out some mistaken, human-derived theories of preservation.

I. The Argument from Science

A. This is the idea that the science of textual criticism is sufficient to provide us a doctrine of preservation.

B. Objections to the argument.

1. According to the Bible, God's Word is settled in Heaven, not on the earth (Ps. 119:89). As important as it is, textual criticism will never produce a finished product, no matter what text family or methodology it gives priority to.

2. Textual criticism is not a science, but a subjective scholarly discipline. (See Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism, by Gordon Clark.) This does not negate it, but nevertheless means that dogmatism should be very rare.

C. The point here is that an actual doctrine of preservation cannot be derived from textual criticism. We cannot make the point that the Bible endorses any method or text type.

1. This is not to say that I oppose textual criticism per se. I have participated myself with an essay in a friend’s festschrift.

2. However, I do believe that the discipline of textual criticism has a ways to go, and I think my scholar-friends will agree with me.

3. For the record, my position is Byzantine Priority, and my team and I translated into Japanese from the Scrivener Textus Receptus.

II. The Argument from History

A. This theory attempts to prove through an examination of the history of a certain text-type (usually either the Alexandrian or Byzantine) that it is the particular text-type that God has preserved. It may take this form: "Since text-type 'A' is the oldest because of proofs 'X, Y, and Z,' it is God's preserved Word."

B. Objections to the argument.

1. The Bible itself never mentions text-types per se.

2. While we can obviously learn from history, it is wrong to use it to invent doctrines with. This approach negates the sufficiency of the Word of God.

C. While studying the history of the text-types is necessary, we should not be using that history in place of Bible-produced doctrine.

III. The Argument from Blessing

A. This argument usually takes this form: "I was saved and called to preach through Bible version A, and God uses it when I preach, so it must be the preserved Word!"

B. Objections to the argument.

1. There were several versions of the Septuagint available when Christ was preaching, but He endorsed none of them (nor did the writers of the NT), nor did the NT use any of them exclusively.

2. If we carry this argument out to its logical conclusion, we must experimentally preach with every new version that comes out to see which one produces the most blessing!

3. This is akin to the ancient idea, "The end justifies the means," which is certainly not Biblical, but rather smacks of situation ethics.

IV. The Argument from Scholarship

A. This argument may be stated something like this: "Well, the best scholars have said that Greek text A (or Bible version B) is the best, so that's good enough for me."

B. Objections to the argument.

1. This is an intellectually lazy theory. Any one with the ability to find out what the scholars say should be able to search the Scriptures for what they say about preservation. "Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not" (Prov. 4:5).

2. The best of scholars can be wrong. In fact, even the majority of the best of scholars can be wrong!

C. While recognizing the importance of good scholarship, we must make Scripture the foundation of all doctrine if we truly believe in the inspiration and sufficiency of the Bible.

V. The Argument from Tradition

A. According to this argument, we must use Bible version A or text-type B because it is the one the majority of churches have used for the longest.

1. Scripture specifically prohibits obeying the traditions of men (Matt. 15:1-9, Col. 2:8).

2. This argument is akin to Catholic arguments for the primacy of the Latin Vulgate, which we immediately reject, and in fact which Protestants have always rejected. (See The Doctrine of Scripture, by Francis Turretin.)

CONCLUSION: Let us be done with all human teaching about the Word of God, in particular about the doctrine of the preservation of Scripture. Instead, let us go to the inspired Word of God itself for our teaching.

 

Caveat: this outline was probably written 15 years ago, and I would phrase things differently nowadays. So the outline cries out for revision!

Point taken. However, I hesitate to call TC a science. You can't carry out an experiment that can be duplicated in TC. I would call it a scholarly discipline.

The problem is, textual critics differ so much among themselves. Just read some of Metzger's textual commentary. The UBS guys have plenty of rules for deciding texts, but over and over the text has to be decided by the majority of the committee. Even then, they often don't follow their own rules. My contribution to the festschrift for Dr. Maurice Robinson, Digging for the Truth (2014), shows that the UBS team was inconsistent in following its own rules when looking at εὐθυς/εὐθεως in the book of Mark ("A Translator Takes a Linguistic Look at Mark's Gospel").

Agreed.

True as far as it goes. However, my choice of the Scrivener was based on skopos theory rather than textual criticism. In other words, I chose Scrivener as the source document most suited to the target audience of the translation.

This is true, but I really was not trying to get away from TC, just trying to show its limitations.

So am I!

John

 

What branch of science would we be talking about here.

Nestles' Greek text is an excellent resource for textual criticism, better than the UBS in the apparatus, though they have the same Greek text. However, being Byzantine preferred, I much prefer to go to the Robinson-Pierpont Greek NT, which has a better apparatus for the Byzantine viewpoint. But I do check Metzger's Textual Commentary quite often.

Very true.

So, the lecture I am going to post now teaches a rare viewpoint, which is that on the earth, it is we saints who are in charge of the preservation of Scripture: textual criticism, editing a text, printing the Bible, etc.