There is an idea within the Christian communities that I frequent that is about as well-founded as any Christian idea can be. It is this: We can expect God to preserve His Word. Unfortunately, as stated, this principle is false. And, due to its falsity, it has the potential to damage the faith of those who hold it when the Word falls short of their expectations for how well it should have been preserved. So, in this post, I want to fix what is lacking in this principle.
The principle that we can expect God to preserve His Word is typically a principle that is used to help bolster faith in the idea that the Bible, as we have it, is the preserved Word of God. And, for this reason, the principle is of little good if it is merely lifted from the pages of scripture, as the trust-worthiness of the scriptures is the very thing in question. So, rather, this principle is the sort of principle that we are suppose to be able to conclude when we consider, roughly, the existence of a caring Creator who has spoken to His creation.
But, if it is through reason alone that we are suppose to be able to arrive at the conclusion that we can expect God to preserve His Revelation, then it should be through reason alone that we can answer the following question: Why? Why can we expect God to preserve to His Word? Answering this question isn’t that difficult, at least in a vague sort way. For, the answer to this question was built right into the premises, our reasons, for believing the original principle (that we can expect God to preserve His Word). We accepted the principle that we can expect God to preserve His Word as the conclusion to an argument, though an argument that was probably presented in an inexact and non-explicit sort of way. However, if it had been presented explicitly it would have looked, roughly, something like this:
1) There is a creator and this creator has a purpose for His creation. (ASSUMPTION)
2) The achievement of some of the creator’s purposes for His creation depends upon some revelation to His creation. (ASSUMPTION)
3) If there is a creator who has a purpose for His creation and the achievement of some of the purposes for His creation depends upon some revelation to His creation, then we can expect the creator to both provide and preserve that revelation to, and only to, the degree that is required for the creator to accomplish those purposes. (PREMISE)
4) THEREFORE, we can expect the creator to both provide and preserve whatever revelation is required for the creator to accomplish His intended purposes to, and only to, the degree that is required for the creator to accomplish those purposes. (CONCLUSION)
So, when the argument is made explicit, we can see that the real principle, the one that we are more justified in concluding, isn’t the unqualified “We can expect God to preserve His Word.” Rather, it is something more like this: We can expect God to preserve His revelation to, and only to, the degree that is required to accomplish His purposes for that revelation. And, this qualification (“to, and only to, the degree that is required to accomplish His purposes for that revelation”) is significant. Because, our understanding of God’s purposes for His revelation should directly effect our expectations for the degree to which God will preserve His Word.
Now, what is God’s purposes for His revelation? That is a good question. But, one for another day. What I will say here, however, is this: Whatever God’s purposes are for His revelation, they can be accomplished through whatever He has preserved. How well has God preserved His revelation? Well, that is also a another question for another day.
An important take away is this: If good reasons surface to question whether some book should probably have been preserved but wasn’t or if good reasons surface to question whether what we have really is God’s Word, we needn’t worry. Perhaps we have simply misunderstood God’s purposes for His revelation. Perhaps that misunderstanding needs correcting. But, the principle still stands: We can expect God to preserve His revelation to, and only to, the degree that is required to accomplish His purposes for that revelation.
As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
Isaiah 55:10-11
the main things preserved in the bible-who is Jesus and what is the Holy Spirit.
after getting the Spirit one doesn’t need to be in discussions of badly interpreted bible.
I think your argument is valid, though I haven’t thought about it at all until right now. My question is, does this distinction matter in practice? Most christians believe God will preserve His word and so take it as truth. If they believed he only preserved his word enough to achieve the purposes he sent it for, would this result in different conclusions or action? We would still be confident in his word, because it will accomplish His purpose. We would still view it all as truth.
Thanks for the comment, Isaac.
The degree to which this distinction will make a practical difference will be to the degree that the accomplishment of God’s will depends upon our believing truths.
I think that this distinction has huge apologetic implications, especially for believers.