Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 84:2 (Fall 2022)
Article: Must Presuppositionalists Be KJV Only? A Re-Examination Of Van Til’s Presuppositions In Respect To Providential Preservation
Author: Richard F. Brash

WTJ 84:2 (Fall 2022) p. 225

Must Presuppositionalists Be KJV Only?
A Re-Examination Of Van Til’s Presuppositions In Respect To Providential Preservation

Richard F. Brash

Richard F. Brash is Associate Professor of Theology at Christ Bible Institute in Nagoya, Japan.

This article re-examines the arguments of Cornelius Van Til in respect to the providential preservation of the Bible. Two of Van Til’s disciples, Edward F. Hills and Rousas J. Rushdoony, contended that Van Til’s own principles demand the providential preservation of the written word of God in the Textus Receptus (which lies behind the King James Version of the New Testament). In addition, Rushdoony claimed that Van Til himself adopted this view in his later years under Hills’s influence. It is argued, however, against Hills and Rushdoony and following other Van Tillians such as Greg Bahnsen, that Van Til’s presuppositions do not in fact commit him to such a view, but rather offer space for the understanding that God has preserved his written word in the entire manuscript tradition of both testaments with a providential commitment to “essentially accurate” transmission. This is fully adequate for believers. In addition, it is shown that there are resources in Van Til’s thought which offer a rationale for eclectic textual criticism founded on biblical presuppositions that may draw on the work of unbelievers.

I. Introduction

A few years ago, I wrote a short book called A Christian’s Pocket Guide to How God Preserved the Bible.1 In that book, I revisited the doctrine of the providential preservation of Scripture from a primarily theological perspective, advocating a position of eclecticism in respect to the biblical text.2

WTJ 84:2 (Fall 2022) p. 226

What I argue is that God has not appointed any one particular text or textual tradition as the “approved” text of Scripture. Rather, Scripture is preserved for us in the entire textual tradition, including translated manuscripts. Although I am not a textual critic—and so the specifics of textual criticism are not a focus of this article—I accept the need for ongoing work on a critical text of both testaments.3

It is frequently assumed that eclecticism of the sort that I have defended is the polar opposite of a doctrine of providential preservation.4 Where the Pocket Guide is at least somewhat subversive is that I arrive at my position on the basis of a biblical and theological argument for God’s providential preservation o...