“The special providence of God is particularly evident in the fact that the text of the Greek New Testament was first printed and published not in the East but in Western Europe where the influence of the Latin usage and of the Latin Vulgate was very strong. Through the influence of the Latin-speaking Church Erasmus and his successors were providentially guided to follow the Latin Vulgate here and there in those few places in which the Latin Church usage rather than the Greek Church usage had preserved the genuine reading. Hence the Textus Receptus was a further step in the providential preservation of the New Testament. In it the few errors of any consequence occurring in the Traditional Greek Text were corrected by the providence of God operating through the usage of the Latin speaking Church of Western Europe. ”
Saying that “the Textus Receptus was a further step in the providential preservation…” intimates that preservation is progressive rather than constant. I would have thought this in opposition to his thinking as the Westminster Confession points out that the preservation is pure in all ages, not progressive.
Besides that, if preservation is progressive, what’s to say that it stopped with the Textus Receptus. Why not say that it kept progressing even through the current Critical Text?
I also find it a strange thing that he wants the Latin to correct the Greek. Again, the Westminster Confession states that it is in the original languages (not Latin) that the Scriptures are preserved.