Common Misconceptions and Controversies
Series Title: “Understanding Confessional Bibliology: Historical, Theological, and Practical Perspectives”
Introduction
In the preceding articles, we have surveyed the foundations and theology of Confessional Bibliology—an approach rooted in Reformed confessions (e.g., Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8, Second London Baptist Confession of Faith 1.8) and historically championed by theologians such as William Whitaker, John Owen, and Francis Turretin. In Article 1, we defined Confessional Bibliology and set the stage; in Article 2, we examined historical and confessional development through the Reformation and Post-Reformation era; in Article 3, we probed the theological underpinnings that link God’s sovereignty, self-authentication (autopiston), and textual preservation; and in Article 4, we compared the Received Text tradition with modern Critical Text methodologies.
Now, in Article 5, we address the common misconceptions and controversies surrounding Confessional Bibliology. These misconceptions stem from misunderstandings or from conflating Confessional Bibliology with other stances. We will discuss:
- Misconception #1: “It’s just KJV-Onlyism.”
- Misconception #2: “It’s anti-research, anti-science.”
- Misconception #3: “It ignores manuscript evidence.”
- Intra-Reformed debates: Points of disagreement among otherwise confessional scholars, touching on textual variants like Mark 16:9–20 and the Pericope Adulterae.
By engaging each misconception directly, we hope to show that Confessional Bibliology is not a fringe or simplistic movement. Rather, it is a robust, historically informed, and theologically consistent position that stands within the mainstream of the Reformed confessional tradition.
I. Misconception #1: “It’s Just KJV-Onlyism.”
1. Understanding KJV-Onlyism
KJV-Onlyism is a modern phenomenon that insists the English King James Version (KJV) of the Bible alone is correct, sometimes extending to the claim that the KJV was re-inspired or that no other translation can be the Word of God. KJV-Only advocates often argue that the KJV “corrects” the underlying Greek or Hebrew if there are perceived discrepancies, effectively treating the 17th-century English translation as final or even perfect in a way that excludes all other versions.
In contrast, Confessional Bibliology, though it might result in many of its adherents using the KJV (or the NKJV) for practical reasons, does not rest its case on an exclusive or re-inspired English translation. Instead, it emphasizes the providentially preserved original-language text—Hebrew for the Old Testament, Greek for the New Testament—that underlies Reformation-era translations, including but not limited to the KJV. The difference between these positions is foundational.
2. The Historical-Theological Grounding of Confessional Bibliology
Whereas KJV-Onlyism often arose in 20th-century American fundamentalist circles, Confessional Bibliology has its origins in 16th- and 17th-century Reformed theology:
- William Whitaker (1588, A Disputation on Holy Scripture) and John Owen (1659, “Of the Divine Original of the Scripture”) were dealing with issues of textual authority long before the KJV had become a litmus test in any modern sense.
- The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and the Second London Baptist Confession (1689) both articulate that God’s Word, given in the original tongues, was kept pure, and thus remain the “authentic” Scripture. This confessional claim existed well before the KJV was fully entrenched in the English-speaking world.
Hence, Confessional Bibliology is anchored in older Reformed confessions that predate the KJV-Only movement by centuries. It identifies “the standard text” with the Hebrew/Greek commonly recognized by the Reformed tradition (commonly known as the Masoretic text for OT and Textus Receptus for NT), not exclusively with a single English version.
3. Why Many Confessional Bibliologists Recommend or Use the KJV
Though not KJV-Only, many confessional bibliologists do use or recommend the KJV or translations derived from the same underlying text tradition (for instance, the NKJV, MEV, or other TR-based Bibles). Several reasons exist:
- Historical Precedence: The KJV is a direct product of the Reformation-era Greek and Hebrew sources.
- Literary Quality & Stability: The KJV’s widespread influence in English Protestantism fosters unity and a shared scriptural vocabulary in many Reformed traditions.
- Textual Alignment: The KJV aligns with the confessional text (TR for NT, Masoretic for OT). Since confessional bibliologists consider the TR/MT the preserved text, using the KJV is a straightforward option.
Nevertheless, such usage does not equate to “KJV-Only.” They allow that Spanish, French, Chinese, or other translations can likewise be faithful if based on that same confessional text.
4. Conclusion on Misconception #1
Confessional Bibliology diverges from KJV-Onlyism fundamentally in its grounding:
- KJV-Onlyism: The final authority is effectively the 1611 English translation itself.
- Confessional Bibliology: The final authority is the Hebrew and Greek recognized by the Reformed Church since the Reformation, from which faithful translations in multiple languages can be made.
Thus, calling it “just KJV-Onlyism” is a misunderstanding, as Confessional Bibliology rests on a centuries-long confessional bedrock, not on an English-only stance.
II. Misconception #2: “It’s Anti-Research, Anti-Science.”
1. The Charge of Anti-Intellectualism
A second frequent myth is that confessional bibliologists dismiss textual research or scholarly tools entirely. Critics accuse them of either burying their heads in the sand regarding manuscript evidence or ignoring philological and historical-critical methods.
However, the historical record refutes this. Reformed theologians in the 16th and 17th centuries were among the most erudite scholars of their day:
- Stephanus (Robert Estienne) in his 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament included an apparatus with variant readings, demonstrating active scholarly engagement.
- Theodore Beza, the successor of Calvin, studied multiple Greek manuscripts, weighed variant readings, and still affirmed that the mainstream usage represented the authentic text.
- John Owen and Francis Turretin extensively addressed the existence of minor scribal errors. They simply contended that none of these errors rose to the level of destroying or corrupting the text’s substance.
Modern advocates of Confessional Bibliology often have advanced degrees, regularly consult manuscript data (including newly discovered fragments), and are aware of the genealogical arguments used by mainstream textual critics. They do not object to comparing manuscripts; rather, they object to the assumption that the real text was lost until modern times.
2. Confessional Scholars and Historical Theology, Patristics, Textual Criticism
Far from shunning academic disciplines, Confessional Bibliology:
- Emphasizes Historical Theology: Studies how the Church historically recognized the text, citing patristic references, medieval usage, and Reformation consensus.
- Engages Patristic Evidence: Early Church Fathers often quote Scripture extensively. Confessional bibliologists note that the Church’s majority usage parallels the traditional text.
- Employs Textual Criticism in a subordinate role: The difference is that confessional scholars approach textual variants presupposing that the “ecclesiastical text” is correct unless strong evidence demands a minor adjustment. By contrast, modern critical scholars treat all variants as equally probable until external canons decide.
In practice, confessional bibliologists see God’s providential hand working through the centuries of copying, not purely random scribal processes. This approach is no more anti-science than a Christian geologist is anti-science for presupposing God’s creation in studying geological data. It simply incorporates theological premises often omitted by secular or purely naturalistic textual critics.
3. Properly Situating Research under Confessional Standards
Just as Reformed confessions shape theology, worship, and ethics, they also shape how textual evidence is interpreted. The confessions declare “by His singular care and providence [the Scriptures] have been kept pure in all ages,” so any method claiming multiple chapters or entire passages were certainly spurious contradicts that confessional anchor.
Hence, confessional bibliologists do not reject science but submit it to confessional doctrine. As an analogy, a Reformed Christian might study genetics extensively but remain guided by the principle that humankind descends from Adam and Eve. Similarly, a confessional textual scholar might study all the variants but remain guided by a theological principle that Scripture was never lost to the Church.
III. Misconception #3: “It Ignores Manuscript Evidence.”
1. The Accusation
Critics often accuse Confessional Bibliology of ignoring the large corpus of ancient manuscripts—like Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, or newly discovered papyri—and blindly clinging to the medieval-based “Textus Receptus.” The argument goes that confessional advocates refuse to weigh older manuscripts that might show earlier forms of the text.
2. Actual Stance: Recognition through a Confessional Lens
Historically, Reformed editors and theologians did weigh manuscripts, but they also considered the following:
- The Ecclesiastical Text (sometimes called the “Majority Text” or “Traditional Text” approach): They noticed that the bulk of manuscripts used in the Church throughout history converged on what became the TR. Minority or isolated witnesses (like Vaticanus, Sinaiticus) that deviate in numerous places from that majority were seen as less reliable.
- The Providential Preservation Argument: If God promised to keep His Word “pure in all ages,” then the Church at large would not adopt a significantly corrupt text while an uncorrupted reading lay forgotten in a single codex.
- Comparisons with Scripture: Passages contradictory to the broader biblical witness, genealogical data, or consistent church usage are suspect. An example is the “Asa vs. Asaph” reading in Matthew 1:7; confessional editors prefer “Asa” since the Old Testament genealogies confirm King Asa, not the psalmist Asaph.
Hence, confessional bibliologists do not ignore manuscripts like Vaticanus or Sinaiticus; they simply interpret them within a theological-historical framework that privileges the mainstream text recognized by the faithful for centuries.
John Owen expressed that any codex disused by the believing community for ages is less likely to be the correct text. The confessional principle is that the Holy Spirit leads the Church to maintain the genuine reading across time, not allowing essential corruption to overshadow the Church’s recognized text.
3. Emphasis on Providential Preservation through the Church
The claim “It ignores manuscript evidence” overlooks the fact that confessional scholars do weigh those manuscripts, but they do not treat them as automatically superior just because they might be older in date or more recent in discovery. They factor in:
- Ecclesiastical usage
- The consistent reading of the majority of manuscripts
- Internal scriptural coherence
- Patristic citations
For them, it is not “oldest is best” but “widest usage over time aligns with God’s preserving hand,” consistent with the confessional statements of Reformed Orthodoxy.
IV. Addressing Intra-Reformed Debates
Even among Reformed or confessional theologians who broadly share Confessional Bibliology’s premises, there can be debates about certain passages or how strongly to articulate the ‘no corruption’ principle. These differences do not overthrow the general confessional stance, but they illustrate that confessional bibliologists can nuance their approach.
1. Points of Disagreement
- Approach to Minor or “Minority” TR Readings: Even the various TR editions differ in small ways (e.g., the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:13, the exact reading of Revelation 16:5, etc.). Some confessional scholars accept minor modifications if a strong majority tradition in the manuscripts differs. Others prefer a “canonical TR” (often the Scrivener 1894/1902 edition).
- Interpretations of “Kept Pure in All Ages”: Some will say it means that the text is preserved in the multitude of copies (so no passage is wholly lost, though minor variants exist), while others might hold an even more absolute “no corruption” viewpoint that every letter is precisely the same from the originals.
2. Case Studies in Variants
- Mark 16:9–20: Historically received as canonical in Reformed tradition. Modern critics bracket it. Among confessional bibliologists, there’s near consensus that Mark’s extended ending belongs.
- The Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11): Also widely accepted historically, though recognized as missing from some manuscripts. Some Reformed scholars note patristic references to it, concluding it’s genuine.
- 1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma): A hotly debated text. While mainstream Reformed scholastics used it for Trinitarian theology, some confessionalists today remain cautious. Yet official confessional statements never singled it out for exclusion, so many confessional believers maintain it is Scripture.
3. Mutual Theological Grounding
In all these debates, the broader theological posture remains: the Church is not left to ephemeral guesswork. Each side acknowledges a commitment to WCF 1.8 or 2LBCF 1.8 that Scripture remains “kept pure.” They differ only on the specifics of particular verses, thus illustrating that confessional bibliology is not a monolithic block but a family of closely related approaches grounded in the same underlying principle of preservation.
Conclusion
Article 5 has tackled four major misconceptions or controversies around Confessional Bibliology:
- “It’s Just KJV-Onlyism”: This is false. While confessional bibliologists often use the KJV or other TR-based translations, they do so because they hold that the authentic text is in the original Hebrew/Greek recognized historically, not because they see the KJV as re-inspired.
- “It’s Anti-Research, Anti-Science”: Also untrue. Historical Reformed scholars engaged manuscript analysis extensively, and modern confessional bibliologists likewise employ critical tools, simply rejecting the assumption that Scripture was ever lost or wholly uncertain.
- “It Ignores Manuscript Evidence”: Confessional bibliology weighs evidence but interprets it via theological premises (God’s providential guidance, the Church’s consensus). They do not adopt a purely naturalistic “earliest is best” methodology.
- Intra-Reformed Debates: Even within confessional circles, minor differences exist on textual variants like Mark 16:9–20 or 1 John 5:7, but all parties affirm the principle that no essential corruption has overtaken Scripture.
Why do these clarifications matter? Because Confessional Bibliology is often straw-manned as either naive fundamentalism or dogmatic disregard for scholarship. In reality, it stands in continuity with the Reformed confessional tradition, bridging robust academic work with a theological confidence in God’s singular care over His Word.
In the upcoming Article 6, we will move from these controversies to explore practical implications—how Confessional Bibliology shapes preaching, pastoral ministry, and the local church’s daily life. We will see that this approach yields confidence in the pulpit, cohesive catechesis, and a stable foundation for doctrinal teaching. Thus, the resolution of misconceptions paves the way for a fruitful application of confessional textual convictions in every aspect of church life.
