A Bible Doctrine of Preservation

[John of Japan]

In the thread on books on Bible translation, Rob wrote:

Ahh, you promised a future thread on preservation… still awaiting that one.

Rob

So here we go. I actually began studying the preservation of Scripture in 1986 before our first furlough, when I had learned that the KJVO thing was big in the US. So I decided I should be ready in case someone asked me about the issues, and ordered some books from the States. You should know that there is very little discussion about preservation in Japan--just occasionally among missionaries. As it turned out, that first furlough no one ever asked me a thing about the subject on that furlough! Folks were too caught up in the fact that I am the grandson of a famous preacher.

At some point in my studies I figured out that any discussion of preservation should go from general (God preserves His whole creation) to particular (God preserves His Word). Here are some Scriptures that teach that God preserves His creation:

"Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshipeth thee" (Neh. 9:6).

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or power: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Col. 1:16-17).

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

 

[John of Japan]

Now, almost all systematic theologies have a statement of the general preservation of creation by God. Here are some quotes:

“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: it 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.”
Henry Thiessen, Lectures on Systematic Theology, p. 174. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1949), 174.

“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”
A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1907, 410-411.

“PRESERVATION. This form of divine activity is but the continuous working of God by which He maintains and consummates the objects of His creation. The doctrine of preservation answers the claim of deistic philosophy, and asserts that the sovereign decree of God will be perfected forever (cf. Neh. 9:6; Ps. 36:6; Col. 1:17, Heb. 1:2, 3).”
Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology, vol. 1. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947), 25.

"The idea of divine preservation follows from the doctrine of the sovereignty of God. This can only be conceived of as absolute; but it would not be absolute if anything existed or occurred independently of His will."
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 170.

 

[John of Japan]

Thiesen has the best treatment of this doctrine, though it is the shortest of my sources. He says there are three versions of the doctrine of preservation:

“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.” (Thiessen, p. 176)

“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 everey 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.” (Thiessen, p. 176)

“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” (Thiessen, p. 176-177).

 

[Deacon]

Thiessen… I have his book but have never read it. It was one of those I was about to pass on but didn’t.
I see he separates Preservation from Providence, interesting…

The only other authors I can find that use the phrase, ‘Theory of Concursus’
are Charles Hodge (Syst. Theo. Vol.1’ p. 603) and A.A. Hodge (Outlines. p. 272).

Rob

 

[John of Japan]

Thiessen… I have his book but have never read it. It was one of those I was about to pass on but didn’t.
I see he separates Preservation from Providence, interesting…

I'll give quotes on preservation as a function of providence.

The only other authors I can find that use the phrase, ‘Theory of Concursus’
are Charles Hodge (Syst. Theo. Vol.1’ p. 603) and A.A. Hodge (Outlines. p. 272).

Rob

It's an obscure corner of theology, true.

 

[JesusFan]

In the thread on books on Bible translation, Rob wrote:

So here we go. I actually began studying the preservation of Scripture in 1986 before our first furlough, when I had learned that the KJVO thing was big in the US. So I decided I should be ready in case someone asked me about the issues, and ordered some books from the States. You should know that there is very little discussion about preservation in Japan--just occasionally among missionaries. As it turned out, that first furlough no one ever asked me a thing about the subject on that furlough! Folks were too caught up in the fact that I am the grandson of a famous preacher.

At some point in my studies I figured out that any discussion of preservation should go from general (God preserves His whole creation) to particular (God preserves His Word). Here are some Scriptures that teach that God preserves His creation:

"Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshipeth thee" (Neh. 9:6).

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or power: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Col. 1:16-17).

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

Does that doctrine apply towards the originals only then, or also to the manuscripts and other textual sources God has preserved for us to use today?

 

[John of Japan]

Now, to understand the doctrine of preservation, it is necessary to understand providence.

"The doctrine of God’s Providence is the teaching that God watches over and guides all that happens."
Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 78.

"Providence means that continuous activity of God whereby He makes all the events of the physical, mental, and moral phenomena work out His purposes; and that this purpose is nothing short of the original design of God in creation."
Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1942), 177.

“Providence may be defined as that continued exercise of the divine energy whereby the Creator preserves all His creatures, is operative in all that comes to pass in the world, and directs all things to their appointed end.”
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 166.

"Providence is the execution in all its details of the divine program of the ages."
Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology, vol. 1. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947), 54.

 

[John of Japan]

Conservative theologians agree that preservation is a function of providence.

“By providence, we mean the continuing action of God by which he preserves in existence the creation he has brought into being and guides it toward his intended purposes for it.”
Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 359.

Now, through His providence, God preserves many things in His creation:

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, etc.)

 

[John of Japan]

Does that doctrine apply towards the originals only then, or also to the manuscripts and other textual sources God has preserved for us to use today?

Keep reading, I'll get there. The argument for the preservation of Scripture is often approached willy nilly, going right to the KJV (or whatever) without developing the arguments theologically.

 

[John of Japan]

So, then, preservation is a providential act by God. It is sometimes called a miracle, such as by John R. Rice in this quote, but that is not accurate. It is a process rather than instantaneous. Rice wrote:

"This supernatural, miraculously living Bible may be typified by the pot of manna which was collected and put within the ark of the covenant and there preserved miraculously from spoiling century after century (Exodus 16:32-34; Heb. 9:4). The preservation of that manna, the bread from Heaven, was a living, physical miracle down through the centuries. If God had failed to sustain it miraculously one day, then it would have decayed and ‘stank’ as the manna did that had been kept more than a day by the people. That was an every-day miracle. But the same kind of miracle lives today in the Bible, the Word. It is a miracle Book. It has life in it. It 'is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart' (Heb. 4:12)."
John R. Rice, Prayer—Asking and Receiving (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publ., 1942), 266.

While his point that there is spiritual power in the Bible is right on track, it is theologically inaccurate to call the preservation of Scripture a miracle. A miracle in the Bible sense is an instantaneous act of God that defies the laws of nature. At this point, people bring up the crossing of the Red Sea. But that does not negate my point. The original miracle was instantaneous, but then the physical condition caused by the miracle was sustained. Again, the blind man on whose eyes Jesus spat required a second miracle to heal him after he only saw "men as trees walking" (Matthew 8:22-25). So there were two instantaneous miracles. Why Christ chose to do it that way is a matter of interpretation.

A KJVO author says, "The Doctrine of Providential Preservation states: God has promised to miraculously preserve forever all of His Word, His Words, and all His teachings with the words in which they are expressed" (Steve Combs, A Practical Theology of Bible Translating, 42). He gave many great Scriptures prove his point. However, the verses usually said "forever" or "all generations," or some such thing. These words indicate extended periods of time, not instantaneous miracles such as fill the Bible.

Some systematic theologies don't teach the instantaneous nature of miracles. Chafer says, "That in the physical world which surpasses all known human or moral powers and is therefore ascribed to supernatural agencies is called miracle" (Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, 256). However, Strong says, "A miracle is an event palpable to the senses, produced for a religious purpose by the immediate agency of God" (Systematic Theology, 117). If a miracle is an event, then it is not a process.

Then, the $50 question: is the preservation of Scripture a process (providence), or an instantaneous event (miracle)?

 

[Deacon]

…the short definition “purposeful sovereignty”…
John Piper, in his recently published book, Providence
2020 Crossway

Rob

 

[JesusFan]

So, then, preservation is a providential act by God. It is sometimes called a miracle, such as by John R. Rice in this quote, but that is not accurate. It is a process rather than instantaneous. Rice wrote:

"This supernatural, miraculously living Bible may be typified by the pot of manna which was collected and put within the ark of the covenant and there preserved miraculously from spoiling century after century (Exodus 16:32-34; Heb. 9:4). The preservation of that manna, the bread from Heaven, was a living, physical miracle down through the centuries. If God had failed to sustain it miraculously one day, then it would have decayed and ‘stank’ as the manna did that had been kept more than a day by the people. That was an every-day miracle. But the same kind of miracle lives today in the Bible, the Word. It is a miracle Book. It has life in it. It 'is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart' (Heb. 4:12)."
John R. Rice, Prayer—Asking and Receiving (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord Publ., 1942), 266.

While his point that there is spiritual power in the Bible is right on track, it is theologically inaccurate to call the preservation of Scripture a miracle. A miracle in the Bible sense is an instantaneous act of God that defies the laws of nature. At this point, people bring up the crossing of the Red Sea. But that does not negate my point. The original miracle was instantaneous, but then the physical condition caused by the miracle was sustained. Again, the blind man on whose eyes Jesus spat required a second miracle to heal him after he only saw "men as trees walking" (Matthew 8:22-25). So there were two instantaneous miracles. Why Christ chose to do it that way is a matter of interpretation.

A KJVO author says, "The Doctrine of Providential Preservation states: God has promised to miraculously preserve forever all of His Word, His Words, and all His teachings with the words in which they are expressed" (Steve Combs, A Practical Theology of Bible Translating, 42). He gave many great Scriptures prove his point. However, the verses usually said "forever" or "all generations," or some such thing. These words indicate extended periods of time, not instantaneous miracles such as fill the Bible.

Some systematic theologies don't teach the instantaneous nature of miracles. Chafer says, "That in the physical world which surpasses all known human or moral powers and is therefore ascribed to supernatural agencies is called miracle" (Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, 256). However, Strong says, "A miracle is an event palpable to the senses, produced for a religious purpose by the immediate agency of God" (Systematic Theology, 117). If a miracle is an event, then it is not a process.

Then, the $50 question: is the preservation of Scripture a process (providence), or an instantaneous event (miracle)?

God preserved His word to us in all of the manuscripts, and all textual sources, but He did not preserve it in any specif translation, correct?

 

[37818]

Without citing ,His written word He has given, God being infinite. He is immutable. And His word is immutable.

 

[John of Japan]

God preserved His word to us in all of the manuscripts, and all textual sources, but He did not preserve it in any specif translation, correct?

I'll get there. Please be patient.

Application of a doctrine comes after the doctrine is clearly delineated.

 

[John of Japan]

Thiessen… I have his book but have never read it. It was one of those I was about to pass on but didn’t.
I see he separates Preservation from Providence, interesting…

I see them as as quite different. Providence is what God does, and preservation is one fruit of providence.

The only other authors I can find that use the phrase, ‘Theory of Concursus’
are Charles Hodge (Syst. Theo. Vol.1’ p. 603) and A.A. Hodge (Outlines. p. 272).

Rob

Not in my library, but I have access to them. But I'm too lazy to walk up to our library right now.

 

[John of Japan]

…the short definition “purposeful sovereignty”…
John Piper, in his recently published book, Providence
2020 Crossway

Rob

An understandable term.

 

[John of Japan]

So now, providence and preservation have been defined. Preservation depends on God's providence. God preserves His creation by providence--all of His creation, including His Word. Now there are scholars who deny that there is a doctrine of preservation, usually in reaction to the radical ideas of Ruckman and others.

For Daniel Wallace, the sticking point is when King James advocates such as Edward Hills describe preservation as "a necessary corollary of inspiration" ("Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism," Grace Theological Journal, 12-1, 1992, 31. Accessed 7/14/22, https://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gtj/12-1_021.pdf).

However, as we have seen, God preserves His creation, and the verbally inspired Word of God is His creation. Therefore it is perfectly proper theologically to say that God preserves His Word providentially.

What is causing confusion here? It is putting the cart before the horse, trying to say that God preserves His Word with no background of a doctrine of providence. God does preserve His Word in just the same way He preserves all of His creation. Where both sides are missing the boat is that they confuse God working through a miracle and God working through providence. The Word of God was inspired miraculously. "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). The word "moved" here is an aorist tense, looking at the action as a whole. The verbal aspect is therefore not imperfective (continued action). Therefore, the inspiration of Scripture was a miraculous event.

 

[John of Japan]

So that is where I differ from Daniel Wallace. I believe that preservation logically follows inspiration. But we must clarify that this all rests on the general doctrine of preservation, which occurs through God's providence.

Here is where I agree with Wallace. He further writes, "I wish to address an argument that has been used by TR/MT advocates-an argument which' is especially persuasive among laymen. The argument is unashamedly theological in nature: inspiration and preservation are intrinsically linked to one another and both are intrinsically linked to the TR/MT" (ibid., 22). I would say that both are not intrinsically linked to the TR/MT. So, are they linked at all? More on that later.

Now if some critic wants to argue that Wallace is a great and famous Greek scholar, while I'm just a little nobody on the BB, I am actually at the same place in my career as he was when he wrote this paper. He just got more prestigious degrees than I, and teaches at a more prestigious institution than I. But, "the fear of man bringeth a snare," so I'll soldier on.

 

[John of Japan]

I'll post more this afternoon, but I want to get one more thing in here. In the meantime, feel free to post questions or comments or your own views, as always.

Now, why did not God preserve His Word miraculously? The answer is that the purposes of preservation and miracles are not the same. Here is what the purposes of God's preservation of Scripture are:
1. God preserves His Word because it contains His promises to Humankind (Deut. 7:12).
2. God preserves His Word because it is about His people, Israel (Hos. 12:13).
3. God preserves His Word because it contains the record of His prophecies, which will all be fulfilled (Matt. 5:17-18).
4. God preserves His Word in order to give His people instructions in how to live godly lives (Matt. 5:17-19, John 7:19).

The purpose of miracles is quite different. Note that the most common word for "miracle" in the Bible is σημεῖον (semeion). Friberg's 3rd definition is: "as a miraculous event contrary to the usual course of nature and intended as a pointer or means of confirmation, often used with τεράς (wonder) sign (MK 13.22); as a miraculous event resulting from personal action sign, miracle (JN 2.11; RV 13.13 )." (Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, Neva Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000), 348.

So, God does not use miracles in preservation because they are not needed. As long as the Scriptures are fulfilling God's purpose in preservation as given above, no miracle is needed. It is therefore not theologically correct to say that God's preservation of Scripture is ever miraculous.

 

[Deacon]

Daniel Wallace, "Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism," Grace Theological Journal, 12-1, 1992, 31. Accessed 7/14/22

I've read this article before--it covers a lot of material...certainly worth reading.

I approach things from a background of science. I recognize this bias of mine. It's not that I dismiss God's preservation of Scripture (I don't), I desire to define and observe the evidence of how preservation works.

God's preservation in creation is a general preservation.
When speaking of Scriptural preservation it is an implied special preservation, analogous to verbal plenary inspiration.
Does preservation of God's Word require verbal plenary preservation (every word/letter, fully or completely preserved - Matthew 5:17-20)?

How is the Word of God preserved?
Even the phrase 'preserved Word of God' needs to be defined:
Is God's Word only that which was written? ...for there are prophets of God whose words have not been preserved in writing (e.g. 1 Samuel 10:10-12).

Can translations be trusted to represent the preserved Word of God? The use of a variety translations the NT seems to imply that translations can adequately convey the Word of God.

I stumbled across a booklet published by Tyndall House called, 'An Introduction to the Greek New Testament' (by Dirk Jongkind). It echos some of Wallace's criticisms of [the doctrine of] Providential Preservation but clarifies the idea of a general preservation of Scripture.

Providential Preservation
The distinctive reason for accepting the Textus Receptus is rarely historical but rather theological, and it rests on the notion of providential preservation. That is, God in his providence steered the course of history in such a way that at the time of the invention of the printing press and the dawn of the Reformation, the church had access to the perfect shape of his Word. Therefore, Textus Receptus proponents avoid the historical question Is this the text backed up by the best historical evidence? by answering the following theological question in the affirmative: Is this text given to us by God?

In the English-speaking world, this position is often combined with a strong preference for the King James Version, which is based on the Textus Receptus. The attachment to this old and beautiful translation is so strong that even a fresh translation of the Textus Receptus is off limits. In my personal experience of interacting with “King James Only” advocates, their defense of the Textus Receptus rest chronologically (and sometimes even logically) on their respect for the King James Version. Thus, they accept the Textus Receptus because it served as the source for the King James Version.

… I have no problems with the notion that God has preserved his Word. On the contrary, I believe that he did. But I do not believe that God is under any obligation to preserve every detail of scripture for us, even though he granted us good access to the text of the New Testament. Or conversely, God could have given us a fixed master copy of the Scriptures, yet he chose not to. I believe that God, and his grace, preserved his Word for us but also that there is no apparent external reason to believe that the Textus Receptus is in someway special or set apart from the rest of the manuscript tradition. There is no divine confirmation that the text printed by Erasmus and those immediately after him was the restored (or perhaps intended) shape of the text that the apostles had delivered to the church.​

Rob