Steve, I wll make a few comments on my own accord although will not make lengthy comments in the future. I will leave it to the more gifted here.It may well be that he took a stand on what the WCF and its framers actually stated, the alternative to which is the confusion and wrangling we find now in our land and churches, and even in this thread.
I used to believe that the Received Text was the most reliable text. I used to be a New Zealand agent for the Trinitarian Bible Society. One of that Societies Directors examined me to ensure I had solid convictions re the Received Text!
But I have changed my position. I believe the WCF statement "kept pure in all ages" needs to reflect mss discoveries of the past 80-100 years.
Let me give an example. Rev 16:5 has been changed by Beza's conjectural emendation. The Received text of Erasmus 1522 and Stephanus 1555 have the correct reading. The Coverdale translation of 1538 "Holy One" has the correct translation. Yet the KJV has been changed by Beza's conjectural emendation! The WCF was written after this KJV change. The KJV has not been "kept pure". Further, in the KJV, the translations with footnotes make comments that Luke 10:22, Luke 17:36, and Acts 25:6 have some textual uncertainty. These footnotes in the KJV suggest textual variation was a issue even in the time of the Reformation. In fact the footnotes suggest the "text was not kept pure in all ages"!
I suggest the WCF would be best revised to consider the papyri discovered in the last 80-100 years. Scholars in the 15 and 16th centuries used the term "ad fontes" - to the sources. This means going back to the original documents as a standard of truth rather than relying on a preconceived theory.
Perhaps to tie this all together I will summarise James White's Excursus on New Testament transmission [ I mentioned this a few weeks ago. It is found in his King James Only Controversy Rev ed pp 79-88.] I will add a few of my own comments in [].
Early scribes sought to faithfully transmit the text faithfully. We can observe variants but only normal scribal errors. Further, the mss discovered in the past 80-100 years bring us back closer to the original text. Two key points:
1] Wholesale changes to the mss would require a centralised controlling authority. There is no evidence such an authority existed. Dr White gives evidence that such an authority DID exist for Islam which creates major problems re them checking they have the original text.
2] Any corruptions to the text would stand out like a "sore thumb". [When Dr White debated Dr DA Waite on this issue, Dr Waite argued that the critical text has been corrupted. Dr White said "prove it"! Dr Waite could not prove it and it made me personally realise the critical text was reliable]. The discovery of the papyri have moved our knowledge of the NT text back much closer to the original [James White, as a Muslim scholar, is aware how powerful argument for the critical text this is. The Muslim would say the text is corrupted so we cannot trust the Bible. Dr White can show the earliest mss are reliable and are closest in time to the originals. ]
Dr White concludes his argument by stating that he has had a lot of experience debating Muslim scholars and Liberal scholars. He says that those who defend the Received Text could not provide a consistent defense of scripture against Muslim scholars and Liberal scholars. White states "King James Onlyism cripples its adherents apologetically in a day when such can have devastating results."
It is interesting to note that when the Cannon of scripture was affirmed the church used the critical text. So why not use the text of scripture that was used when the Cannon was affirmed?
In terms of debates with Muslim scholars and Liberal scholars, Dr White gives another example in his book - the disputed passage 1 John 5:7. Dr White states that if the Greek mss tradition can be so corrupted that one can loose this intire reading without a trace, you esentially concede a point to the Muslim scholars and Liberal scholars. Therefore using the mss tradition that goes back the closest to the original text gives the evangelical position on the Scriptures more credibility.
Finally, if someone contacts Dr Milne, perhaps they could challange him to a debate with Dr White. I am not convinced Dr Milnes arguments could be upheld in cross-examination but I could be wrong
There was an interesting debate between James White and British pastor Jack Moorman done a few years ago. James White, In my humble opinion, gave a convincing presentation of the critical text.
I realise I have not tied up all the loose ends; I have tried to keep to the key points. Because of time constraints I will limit my discussion in the future.