Textus Receptus and the Doctrine of Preservation (Part 2)
This lecture describes the major problems of TR-only people, who subscribe to an unbiblical Doctrine of Preservation, which as defined, effectively emerges as a Marcionite view of the Bible. Wallace claims that while there is no biblical, exegetical, or empirical basis to argue for the doctrine of preservation, God has overwhelmingly preserved Scripture in a way that is not true of any other ancient literature.
Erasmus and the Textus Receptus
Textus Receptus and the Doctrine of Preservation (2 parts)
I. DEFINING TERMS
II. SELECT STATEMENTS FROM TR/MT ADVOCATES
III. CRITIQUE OF THE DOCTRINE OF PRESERVATION
A. Question-begging approach
B. Faulty assumptions
C. Non-biblical doctrinal basis (Marcionite)
1. Heretic who believed the God of the OT was evil
2. Preservation must treat the OT and NT differently
a) E.F. Hill (The King James Version Defended!) argued for the TR on the basis of public accessibility through the church
b) What about the OT and the possible of corrupt Hebrew mss?
3. This doctrine not taught in the Bible
a) Not a doctrine of the ancient church
b) First articulated in Westminster Confession (1646) and the Helvetic Consensus (1675)
c) The usefulness of the doctrine is also not an argument for it.
d) Proof-texts falsely used (Psalm 119:89; Isaiah 40:8; Matt 5:18; 24:35; John 21:25)
a) There is no biblical, exegetical, or empirical basis to argue for the doctrine of preservation
b) To argue for this doctrine is Marcionite
c) What can we say about preservation then?