Faithlife/Logos Bible Software, yea or nay?

A friend who is a missionary (and who uses Logos) took exception to some comments in an e-book that was warning about the dangers of Logos Bible Software. I generally agree with him, but have some reverse concerns I think are worth considering. For safety’s sake (location-wise), I will not identify him. This friend wrote:

Recently, David Cloud’s ministry wayoflife.org has published an ebook warning about the dangers of Logos Biblesoftare. As a regular user of Logos Bible Software since 2018 who finds much benefit from using the software, I must respectfully but firmly disagree with the warnings issued in this article.

The descriptions given in the article above seem to reflect a misunderstanding of how Logos actually works and what it truly is.

Consider the following excerpt from the article:

“In the very simplest terms, Logos links together thousands of texts and keys them all to the Scripture. The Bible becomes a sort of hub around which the whole tradition revolves. But, all the texts are linked to each other as well. So, as you read the Bible the software is mining the data of the library for information about the passage. What did St. Augustine say? Aquinas? Vatican II? Once you start following a thread, you can go in any direction with it. This is a recipe for doctrinal disaster and spiritual shipwreck.”

This comment is misleading. What the article fails to mention is that Logos functions based on the contents of your personal library and you are the one who chooses what goes into it.

For example, my own Logos library consists largely of theologically conservative resources and technical linguistic tools, due to my involvement in Bible translation. I also own a copy of the Quran and a Christian commentary on it for reference. I have a Pentecostal Study Bible as well, not for doctrine, but to understand how Pentecostal readers interpret certain passages, because Pentecostalism is popular in the Ugandan context we minister in. If someone wanted to, they could build a Logos library made up entirely of trusted authors and resources. Logos itself is not deceptive or dangerous, it’s a tool. The danger comes only if someone naively fills their library with bad theology.

Yes, I recognize that the company behind Logos (Faithlife) includes people I strongly disagree with theologically. But so does the company that made the computer or smartphone used to write and publish the article in question and which you are using to read this! Using software developed by people with wrong theological views is not equivalent to partnering in ministry with theological liberals, and it certainly isn’t a violation of biblical separation.

I am a fundamentalist. I am a conservative. I believe in biblical separation. But this article misrepresents both the software and the issue. Separation applies to fellowship and cooperation, not owning or reading reference books that contain error. Even Paul quoted pagan poets (Acts 17:28) and was aware of non-Christian writings (Titus 1:12).

Another article on wayoflife.org claims:

“Logos and Faithlife are actively promoting Catholic books, not to scholars but even to the weakest believers, again, with no warning whatsoever.”

Again, this is misleading. When you browse Logos to purchase a base library, you’re clearly presented with denominational options; Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Reformed, Catholic, and so on. Suggesting that Logos is “promoting” Catholicism is like claiming your local public library promotes Catholicism simply because Catholic materials are on the shelves.

Don’t take my word for it, visit the Logos website yourself. See if it actually appears to be “promoting” Catholicism. From what I’ve seen, it’s clear that the platform offers theological libraries tailored to various users’ beliefs. Would I personally offer Catholic resources if I ran Logos? Possibly as reference tools. (As I said, I own an Orthodox Study bible and a Pentecostal Study Bible on Logos, not for doctrine or to try and gain edification from them, but to be familiar with their views in order to refute them.)

In the south, there’s a Christian bookstore chain called Mardel. They carry many theologically problematic books, but they also sell KJV Bibles, Strong’s Concordances, and other similar resources. Am I compromising by purchasing only good resources from them? Or am I responsible for exercising discernment in what I choose to buy and use? I believe it’s the latter.

There is no reason why someone who is part of a solid Bible-teaching church could not ask their pastor for guidance on trustworthy authors and then buy resources from those authors and use Logos in a biblically safe and edifying way. The issue is not the software, it’s how it’s used.

Would we also warn against using Amazon Kindle because it offers morally and theologically corrupt books? Amazon offers really awful books, and I mean morally bankrupt stuff. Ironically, the bottom of the wayoflife web page includes this line:

“Format Note: Kindle apps and devices can now use/convert ePub format.”

Where is the warning about Kindle? Or Libraries? Or Bookstores?

Logos is a powerful digital tool that can be used for good or bad, depending on the wisdom and discernment of the user. To reject it outright based on guilt-by-association or hypothetical dangers is not justified.

Any tool when used by an untrained or undiscerning person can be misused. That is not an argument against the tool, it’s an argument for biblical discipleship and spiritual maturity. We should be warning people about poor study habits and bad theology, not about Bible software that can serve faithful students of God’s Word if used wisely.

Initial disclaimers: I have read my friend’s critique, but have not read the free e-book on David Cloud’s site, “The Deceptive Dangers of Logos Bible Software,” by Brian Snider. I do not use Logos Bible Software (not because of theological or separation reasons, but for practical and financial reasons).

The short version of the charges asserted by Brian Snider is that Logos (1) is an ecumenical blending machine, and (2) can easily draw the individual into association with heretics and put him under the influence of heresy.

I generally agree with the pushback made by the missionary. We have liberty to do business with companies that serve our needs, whether they are providing food, fuel, facts, and so on. 1 Corinthians chapter 8 provides some helpful direction here. I regularly fuel up my car at a station that provides a decent price per gallon, as well as certain discounts. I have no knowledge of their religious or moral persuasion (nor do I have that knowledge concerning any other fuel providers in my area). I think that rule applies in a general way across the board. It’s not wrong to buy leg of lamb at the local meat market owned by a United Pentecostal couple, even though I might suppose that they tithe in support of their local church, which teaches several heresies.

However, the lines can get a little blurrier with businesses which operate as quasi-ministries. For example, though I assume Faithlife/Logos probably most simply considers itself a business, they do throw around statements that claim they are involved in Christian ministry – like their mission being “to equip the Church to grow,” “to serve the Church,” “to increase biblical literacy,” and such like. Additionally, some of the stuff on their website sounds quite ecumenical and even DEI-leaning. That does not make me feel a need to condemn anyone who is benefitting from this technology. On the other hand, if I were considering such an investment, it would drive me personally to look elsewhere. Your mileage may vary. Here is an illustration of how I would approach it. If we had two meat markets in town, with equally honest and respectable owners, the owner of one being United Pentecostal and the owner of the other being Baptist – I would throw my business toward the Baptists, even if the meat at the other store might tend to be slightly better/cheaper/etc.

Additionally, I believe it is a logical fallacy to say that if someone does not warn against everything, they cannot warn against anything. It is not humanly possible to know and warn about everything! Sometimes we simply prioritize our warnings.

Finally, a sort of Romans 14:3 application might go a long way here: “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth.” If you believe you need to warn people about possible dangers of Logos/Faithlife, do so. If a faithful friend knows how to navigate it for personal benefit, do not judge him as unfaithful. Receive the benefit you can from both “Brian Snider’s ebook” and the pushback against it. As for me, I can get along fine without Logos/Faithlife, while not condemning everyone who uses it. However, be careful with any and every tool you decide to use! A wonderfully beneficial electric circular saw can also cut off your finger.

Feet washing in Baptist Periodicals

In 2008 I published my book Materials Toward a History of Feet Washing among the Baptists, consisting of Historical References to the Practice among the Missionary Baptists, including miscellaneous notes on other groups. Over the years I have continued to pursue this interesting subject, with hopes of one day revising the book and adding much more material that I have found since then. Most recently I made a connection I had not noticed. The old association I grew up in, Mt. Zion, was discussing feet washing circa 1867-1870. At this same time, there were debates on the subject printed in The Tennessee Baptist, edited by J. R. Graves.

Mt. Zion Baptist Association minutes, 1870, p. 3

Articles on feet washing in The Texas Baptist, The Tennessee Baptist, and The Baptist Chronicle. The Texas Baptist is freely accessible online. Unfortunately you will need a subscription to see The Tennessee Baptist and The Baptist Chronicle (or will have to find access to them another way).

The Texas Baptist, Anderson, Texas (1857-1861).

• “Washing of Feet,” September 23, 1857, p. 2, “Montgomery” (against)
• “Feet Washing,” July 15, 1858, p. 2, Michael Ross (for)
• “Feet Washing,” August 19, 1858, p. 2, Stephen Ray (against)
• “Feet Washing,” September 16, 1858, p. 1, Stephen Ray (against)
• “Did Christ Make ‘Feet Washing’ a Church Ordinance?” August 25, 1859, p. 1, Stephen Ray (against)
• “Feet Washing a Church Ordinance,” October 18, 1860, p. 2, Ira M. Camp (for)
• “Feet Washing,” January 3, 1861, p. 1, Ira M. Camp (for)
• “Queries. Answer No. Four,” April 18, 1861, p. 2, “B” [G. W. Baines] (against)
• “Reply to Brother Camp,” June 14, 1861, “B” [G. W. Baines] (against)
• Title unknown/unreadable, June 14, 1861, Ira M. Camp (for)

Notes: G. W. Baines was editor of The Texas Baptist. Ira M. Camp was in Grimes County, Texas. Stephen Ray (1788-1871) was at Weatherford, Texas at this time, then later at Owensboro, Kentucky when he debated the subject again in The Tennessee Baptist.

The Tennessee Baptist, Memphis, Tennessee (1867-1870).

• “Did Christ Enjoin Feet Washing as a Church Ordinance?” September 7, 1867, p. 5, Biblius (against)
• “Washing the Saints’ Feet,” February 1, 1868, p. 2, Elihu (for)
• “Prize Essay No. 3.—JOHN XIII. 14.” February 22, 1868, p. 2, Minus (against)
• “Feet Washing,” March 28, 1868, p. 2, J. S. B. (against)
• “Feet-washing,” September 26, 1868, p. 2, Elias George (against)
• “Deliberative Meeting,” October 31, 1868, p. 2, among other subjects, R. A. Coleman and M. H. Neal were appointed to write papers on “Feet-washing”
• “J. B. Gambrell,” March 13, 1869, p. 4 (note from editor to J. B. Gambrell, to publish 8 more articles on feet-washing, four representing each side)
• “Did Christ Design, or Appoint Feet-washing to be Observed as a Church Ordinance?” April 24, 1869, p. 2. Stephen Ray (against)
• “Feet Washing,” July 10, 1869, p. 2, M. H. Neal (for)
• “Feet Washing, Is It of God or Man?” July 24, 1869, p. 1, J. B. G. [J. B. Gambrell] (for)
• “Feet Washing,” July 24, 1869, p. 3, D. B. R. [D. B. Ray] (against)
• “Feet Washing Again,” September 18, 1869, p. 2, Stephen Ray (against)
• “Is Feet Washing of God or Man?” October 2, 1869, p. 2, J. B. Gambrell (for)
• “Feet Washing Again,” October 2, 1869, p. 2, Moses Green (against)
• “Feet Washing,” October 9, 1869, p. 2, M. G. Turner (against)
• “Feet Washing, No. 3,” October 9, 1869, p. 2, D. B. Ray (against)
• “Feet Washing,” October 30, 1869, p. 6, M. H. Neal (for)
• “Union Meeting of 2d Dist. Tippah Association,” September 17, 1870, p. 2 (“Feet-washing—of God, or man” to be discussed at next union meeting)

Apparently J. R. Graves tired of the discussion of feet washing and stopped printing articles about it in 1869, when “the discussion became stale and heavy, and we closed it out” (cf. Tennessee Baptist, May 5, 1882, p. 8). “We request that no more articles be sent us on this subject, as it has been fairly and fully discussed in our columns. With the articles in hand, that will appear in our next, the discussion closes, for this year, at least” (Tennessee Baptist, October 2, 1869, p. 4) Nevertheless, in the 1880s (cf. Tennessee Baptist, August 25, 1882, p. 7), when Graves disagreed with J. B. Gambrell (now a “rival” editor) on something, he referred to Gambrell as the “champion advocate of feet-washing in the Southwest,” and the like (“in Mississippi,” “as a church ordinance”).

The Baptist Chronicle, Ruston, Louisiana (1895-1912).

• “Please Note,” January 3, 1895, p. 2, editorial commentary about book by D. B. Ray on subject
• Programme of Ministers and Deacons Meeting, March 21, 1895, p. 4 (query turned in too late)
• “Feet Washing,” June 13, 1895, p. 1, Unknown, editor? (against)
• No title, July 25, 1895, p. 2, editorial comments (against)
• Third District 5th Sunday Meeting, May 14, 1896, p. 3 (query for discussion)
• “Questions and Answers,” November 5, 1896, p. 4, editor? (against)
• “Jesus Washing Feet,” March 16, 1899, p. 6 (info for ordering tract on the subject)
• “Program,” July 14, 1904, p. 7 (subject for 5th Sunday Meeting discussion)
• “Program,” June 20, 1912, p. 7 (“Is foot-washing a church ordinance” to be discussed at 5th Sunday meeting of Big Creek Association)

Religion vs. Relationship

I have seen this meme going around Facebook. Some of the sources credit it to David E. Taylor: “Religion is a guy in church thinking about fishing. Relationship is a guy out fishing thinking about God.”

I think this has a genuine point it is trying to make. What I assume is intended is to highlight the posture of the heart. Yes, you can be bodily in a church service, while the heart is not there. And when you have a relationship with God, it goes with you everywhere you go, at all times, even fishing. Truth.

I probably could just stop there, but on the other hand I see possible deficiencies leading to misunderstanding.

The first two are somewhat minor. The meme stereotypes the word “religion” as negative, while in fact it can be meant either positive, neutral, or negative. And the meme can leave the impression that church is just a building where we go. The church is the people, the congregation. I don’t stop here, because I think the way some people will take this meme is to try to justify going fishing in place of going to church. I have heard many justify it in almost this way!

What one is thinking at these two different times (church vs. fishing) reveals something of the heart. However, the meme contains a logical fallacy (false dilemma) that limits the choices to two. It misses other options (one can fishing and not be thinking about God). It especially misses this much better option – to be at present when the time comes to assemble with our fellow believers AND to be thinking about God! What a blessing!

We don’t want to just go through the motions. We want to truly connect with God. We can do that while gathered at church. We should do that while gathered at church. While first and foremost is our relationship with God, we also have an obligation to our relationship with believers, and to obey the command of God to assemble.

Where the heart is is important (cf. Matthew 6:21). Our connection to and relationship with God certainly is not confined to one location. It is a lifetime of moments, thoughts, and places. Nevertheless, if we do not feel close to God when we gather in church, the solution is not to go fishing, but to examine our hearts. And if we do not feel close to God when we are fishing – or at work or at home – that is cause to examine our hearts as well.

Deuteronomy 6:5 and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

Hebrews 10:25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

The Apostle Junia?

I recently reviewed the book A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership. About the same time, I had a Facebook acquaintance argue that the plain reading of Romans 16:7 is that Junia (and Andronicus) were apostles.[i] This friend did not make much of a defense of his position, simply restating several times that “of note among the apostles” meant they were apostles.[ii]

Romans 16:7 (Greek and English).

• 1894 TR: ἀσπάσασθε Ἀνδρόνικον καὶ Ἰουνίαν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γεγόνασιν ἐν Χριστῷ
• UBS: ἀσπάσασθε Ἀνδρόνικον καὶ Ἰουνιᾶν τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ συναιχμαλώτους μου, οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ.

• KJV: Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
• RSV: Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners; they are men of note among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

The issue in Greek (TR vs. CT) is Ἰουνίαν (accusative, singular, feminine) vs. Ἰουνιᾶν (accusative, singular, masculine).

Paul is addressing [You (all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints)] directing them (among all the other greetings) to salute Andronicus and Junia. He describes these two as “my kinsmen” (apparently related in the flesh), “my fellowprisoners” (having suffered persecution for the faith),[iii] “of note among the apostles” (two who are notable to the apostles), and “in Christ before me” (having been in the faith longer than Paul).[iv] The relative clause describes two people, Andronicus and Junia. Who are they and what are they? They are “of note.” Of note where? Of note “among the apostles.” Neither this sentence nor this clause means that Andronicus and Junia are apostles.

Neither the grammar nor the definitions of the words prove that Junia was an apostle. A plain reading of the Bible shows that Paul did not write, “Andronicus and Junia are notable apostles.” Instead, he was inspired to write that they “are of note among the apostles.” The expression is not the one which would have been used if they had been apostles. What the expression “of note among the apostles” means is that were well-known to the apostles. It is also worth considering that the word “apostles” is masculine plural (ἀποστόλοις, dative masculine, plural), grammar not fitting with Junia being part of the group.[v]

 

Brief information on the name.

In the Greek text, a difference of accent distinguishes between this person being a man or woman – Ἰουνίαν (accusative, singular, feminine, Junia) vs. Ἰουνιᾶν (accusative, singular, masculine, Junias).[vi] So, as we have it in the King James Bible, this is the name of a woman. The name itself is rare in Greek – the masculine form being even rarer than the feminine form.[vii] Some translations have (apparently) opted to remove the “difficulty” by changing Junia (feminine) to Junias (masculine).[viii]

Considering “of note” and “among.”

• Of note – (εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι) well-regarded, prominent, important, well-known, deserving distinction. 
• Among (ἐν) – meaning can be situated in, surrounded by, with, a part of, in contact with

• Inclusive use – “among” means a part of the body of the apostles
• Exclusive use – “among” is comparative to but not included in the body of the apostles

An example of exclusive use is found in Euripides’ Hippolytus (line 103), where the goddess Aphrodite is “prominent among mortals,” – although she is not a mortal. Exclusive use of “among” is not odd or unusual.

ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις (exclusive or inclusive)

• 2 Peter 2:1 among the people ἐν τῷ λαῷ (exclusive and inclusive)
• 1 Peter 2:12 among the Gentiles ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν (exclusive, they vs. you)
• Acts 15:22 among the brethren ἐν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς (inclusive)
• Matthew 2:6 among the princes ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν (uncertain)
• Mark 5:3 among the tombs ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν (exclusive)

Some history.

According to various sources, the early church writers thought Junia was a woman (as well as later writers).[ix] See, for example, Origen (ad Romanos), Ambrosiaster (ad Romanos), Jerome (Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum), Theodoret of Cyrrhus (ad Romanos), Theophylact of Ohrid (ad Romanos), Peter Abelard (ad Romanos), and Peter Lombard (ad Romanos).[x]

Final thoughts.

The debate about Junia/Junias and the apostleship is, in my opinion, a demonstration of just how far feminists are willing to stretch to Bible to make it say what they want it to say. There are some difficulties with this passage. It should be interpreted in the light of clear passages, and not made to walk on all fours. Our King James English translation can be trusted in both identifying Junia as a woman, and in not addressing her (or Andronicus) as an apostle.

---

[i] He was only arguing about Junia because he wanted to prove there was a female apostle. Whatever is true of Junia in this verse is also true of Andronicus. Andronicus were probably husband and wife, or brother and sister. Paul considered them kinsmen according to the flesh.

[ii] In a past writing on the apostles, I included “Andronicus and Junia” in a list of other possible apostles – not because I think they were, but because I was listing all the possibilities that different students consider on the subject.
[iii] Philemon 1:23 There salute thee Epaphras, my fellowprisoner in Christ Jesus; (cf. Colossians 1:7; 4:10-12).
[iv] Early disciples, before Paul was converted. Likely they were converted elsewhere and then later moved to Rome.
[v] In the case of the masculine use for “kinsmen,” it would be used whether this was two men, or a man and a woman – that is, the plural form used to include both male and female persons is nevertheless grammatically masculine. That is in a different part of the structure of the sentence, though, from the use of “apostles.”
[vi] That is, in the Romans 16:7 passage, the name Junia is in the accusative case.
[vii] See Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, New York, NY: Doubleday, 1993, pp. 737-738.
[viii] For example, see ASV, DRA, NASB1995, RSV, RV.
[ix] There is more involved in the appeal to the church fathers than some (on either side) have suggested. For example, the evidence of Origen comes from the Latin translation by Rufinus. The manuscripts of Rufinus are not consistent, where some give the name as Junias and some Junia. Epiphanius believed Junias was male and the bishop of Apameia (Index Discipulorum from Epiphanius of Salamis). I am not saying that the name is masculine; I think Junia was a woman. However, those who appeal to the church fathers need to admit that there is no universal agreement among the church fathers about this verse. One interpretation of Origen on the phrase in Romans 16:7 was that Andronicus and Junia might have been among the 70 disciples (Luke 10:1) sent out by Jesus, then at the least implying he thought this was a man. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Origen wrote, “When Mary the prophetess spoke, she was the leader of some women; for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church, and I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to have authority over a man. And also from other passages I will support this thesis, since the point has been made certain concerning the fact that a woman is not to be directing the man by means of discourse.” This tends to suggest that Origen thought Junias was a man, and those manuscripts are accurate representations of what he wrote.
[x] In many cases, it is not necessarily that they commented, but simply that they used the feminine form of the name in their writings/commentary. Of these, it appears that John Chrysostom thought Junia was both a woman an apostle (In epistulam ad Romanos). Some editor at Wikipedia (which loves to promote leftist liberalism) has misrepresented the writings of Bernadette Brooten to claim that all early patristics thought Junia was an apostle. According to the editor, Brooten “points to additional early Christian commentators, all of whom gave no indication of doubt that the epistle referred to Junia and that she was a woman and an apostle.” This is not correct. The accurate fact in the article is that Brooten points to Chrysostom believing Junia was a woman and an apostle. The most that can be derived from the other writers is that they took the name as feminine. B writes, “John Chrysostom was no alone in the ancient church in taking the name as feminine…In fact to the best of my knowledge, no commentator on the text until Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316) took the name to be masculine.” (“Junia … Outstanding among the Apostles” (Romans 16:7), Bernadette Brooten, Women Priests: A Catholic Commentary on the Vatican Declaration, Arlene and Leonard Swidler, editors. Paulist Press: Ramsey, NJ: 1977, p. 141).

Deacons

From a liberal magazine, re Deacons. This is not posted as an analysis or endorsement of the following material, but more as a matter of saving it for review.

“Deacons and the go-between God,” Ed Kaneen. The Baptist Ministers’ Journal, October 2012, Volume 316, journal of The Baptist Ministers’ Fellowship (of Wales?), 18-24.

“In a landmark publication in 1990,⁴ John N. Collins surveyed diakonos in ancient sources outside the Bible. He discovered people described by this term doing such varied work as ambassadors, pagan priests, Lotharios, and even contract killers! While the term could also be used to describe servants and those who ‘wait on tables’, these ideas did not form the core semantic field. Rather, Collins proposed such ideas as ‘go-between’, ‘representative’, and ‘agent’, and suggested that this was true of the New Testament also. The significance of this change should not be underestimated: as Collins puts it, ‘a redefinition of the Greek words is inevitably going to work towards a reassessment of the deacon and his office’ (Diakonia: re-interpreting the ancient sources. New York: OUP, 1990, p. 41).” (Page 19)

‘go-between’ is an appropriate gloss for the New Testament ‘deacon’, and can contribute to a theological understanding of the modern diaconate. (Page 23)

Apart from the gospels,⁶ the term diakonos only occurs in the Pauline literature, where we find nine individuals so named.⁷ Only in two passages are deacons referred to in a corporate sense (Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8, 12), where they probably represent distinct groups of church leaders. This has led to a tendency, found also in Fiddes’ work, to draw a distinction between the former examples, where diakonos is a description of the ministry of some New Testament figures, and the latter two examples, where diakonos is probably the title of an ecclesial office. (Page 23)

4. John N. Collins, Diakonia: re-interpreting the ancient sources. New York: OUP, 1990.

6. The gospels occasionally use the term, primarily in one saying (Mark 10:43 and pars), but we do not have space to pursue this here. [Note: “pars” or “pars.” is an abbreviation for “parallel passages” in academic and biblical contexts. rlv]

7. Rulers (Rom 13:4); Christ (Rom 15:8; Gal 2:17); Phoebe (Rom 16:1); Paul (1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23, 25); Apollos (1 Cor 3:5); Timothy (2 Cor 3:6, 6:4; 1 Tim 4:6); false apostles (2 Cor 11:15, 23); Tychichus (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7); Epaphras (Col 1:7). Note that twice these ‘individuals’ are groups: rulers and false apostles.

This is important for Fiddes, also, who says, ‘They [deacons] gave service in two directions—to the community and also to the episkopos [overseer = elder/minister] whom they assisted’ (A Leading Question: The Structure and Authority of Leadership in the Local Church. Didcot: Baptist Publications. 1983, p. 32). p. 25

The Baptist Ministers’ Journal, October 2012 volume 316, journal of The Baptist Ministers’ Fellowship (of Wales?)

Settling of a Minister

Chapter 5. Of Settling a Minister. From A Treatise of Church Discipline, Samuel Jones (1735-1814). Lexington: T. Anderson, 1805.

5. In settling a minister, having appointed a time and place, and invited a council from one or two of the neighbouring churches to assist, and to witness the transaction, one of the ministers, after praying and singing should preach a suitable sermon. Then he, or another of the council, is to put such questions to the minister to be settled, and to the representative of the church appointed for that purpose, as will draw from each of them promises to fulfil their respective parts of the covenant and agreement between them, upon which he pronounces him, in the presence of God and of the whole assembly, to be the pastor and overseer of that church, and said church to be his flock and charge. Then the settled minister and representative of the church give each other the right hand of fellowship, with expressions of mutual joy and congratulation.

6. After this a charge should be delivered to the settled minister, Col. iv. 19. [sic.] and his church; and then, prayer, singing, and a benediction, will close the service.

7. The transactions of the day, and particularly the terms of agreement between the settled minister and the church, should be entered at large on the records of the church.

8. Some may say, that so much formality in the business, with witnesses, is unnecessary, and that a private agreement between the parties is sufficient. But as a public form of marriage is indispensable; so the above is expedient and useful, as might be shewn were it necessary.

Based on my personal observations, black Baptist churches in East Texas follow this practice (at least generally, if not exactly) and white Baptist churches in East Texas do not.

The Bible and Women in Ministry

Review of A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership (ebook).

Stone, Meredith J. A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership, Waco, TX: Baptist Women in Ministry, 2023.

A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership is a brief 21-page booklet provided by the Baptist Women in Ministry organization, written by the organization’s executive director. Meredith J. Stone has a PhD from Brite Divinity School (TCU), is Executive Director of Baptist Women in Ministry (organized 1983 as Women in Ministry, SBC), and is author of Empire and Gender in LXX Esther (2018).

The book is an easy read to provide an overview of the approach taken by some Baptist women who promote full access for women in Christian and church ministry. The author seeks to address questions of women in church ministry, leadership roles, ordination, etc. She acknowledges, “These questions have been the source of conflict for decades, and the heart of the matter is how we interpret biblical passages related to women’s roles and leadership” (p. 1).

The booklet starts with an unlabeled “Introduction,” followed by eight sections: Women in the Bible (3-4); Women and Creation (5-7); Affirmation of Equality among Women and Men in the New Testament (8); Women as Wives in Submission to Husbands in the New Testament (9-10); Specific Limitations of Women’s Leadership and Speaking in the Church (11-13); Theological, Practical, and Historical Considerations (14-15); Conclusion (16-17); and Discussion Guide (18-21).

Stone initially inserts a misguided application of the priesthood of believers and the autonomy of the local church. This may appeal to unthinking Baptists, but lays a shifting foundation for the work. Just because some Baptists interpret the scripture on their own (which they are free to do), is no guarantee that the interpretation and resulting practice is correct. Just because a Baptist Church is free to govern itself and make its own decisions apart from the influence of any other church does not mean she should make decisions contrary to the word God. The priesthood of believers and the autonomy of the local church only function properly in submission to God and his revealed word. In this introduction, Stone signals early on that the authority of many biblical passages (at the least the ones that challenge “women in ministry”) will be dismissed on cultural and literary grounds (p. 2). These passages will be painted as complicated matters of interpretation which have been unshackled by “women in ministry” in recent years.

Women in the Bible. In this section Stone highlights certain women in the Bible that seem to fit her agenda – Deborah, Huldah, Esther, Mary, Anna, Lydia, Priscilla, Philip’s daughters – noting, “While some women in the Bible exist in submissive roles to men, other women have authority and are prominent leaders” (p. 3). While all these women have an important place in the Bible, the author primarily throws their names out and hopes the reader will come down on her side – rather than, for example, dealing with why none of the prominent women in the New Testament are ordained officers in the church.[i]

Women and creation. Without attacking the creation account directly, Stone delivers a dose of doubt by calling Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 two different creation accounts – rather than clearly affirming the second is giving the details of the same creation account.[ii]  She renders Adam amorphous by claiming a better translation of “man” in Genesis 2:4-25 is “person.”[iii]  A silly illustration of the animals created before the woman is made – trying to side line any discussion of the order of creation of Adam and Eve as ridiculous. That Eve was created to be a helper (Genesis 2:20) is dismissed because the Hebrew word is also used in reference to God (pp. 5-6). 1 Timothy 2:13-14 is pitted against Romans 5:12-19 without resolution, beyond in her own mind simply impeaching 1 Timothy 2 (p. 6). Genesis 3:16 becomes merely “descriptive” rather than “prescriptive” (p. 6).[iv] 

Affirmation of Equality among Women and Men in the New Testament. Galatians 3:28 is not exegeted for meaning, but simply given as a prooftext of equality of ministry (p. 8). 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 and 11:4 provides cover for women praying and prophesying, while the head covering is lifted as merely a respectful temporary item of the cultural context. Stone grabs on to a controversial passage that even liberals dispute the meaning of, that Paul supposedly “calls” Junia an apostle, so that supports the position of the author. Meanwhile, almost no one actually thinks Junia was an apostle.[i] Notably, when Jesus chose the twelve, he did not appoint any women.

Women as Wives in Submission to Husbands in the New Testament. Stone mentions Colossians 3:18; Ephesians 5:22; Titus 2:5; and 1 Peter 3:1-6. The teaching of these texts may be set aside since they are in the epistle genre (p. 9) – a communication between two parties which a third party will not understand. This denies the perspicuity of most of the New Testament. Yet oddly, a third party like Stone is able to figure out that it does not mean anything in our culture today. This was only for particular wives in particular congregations in this particular time. The author writes, “A decision must be made as to how to interpret the passages in light of each other” (p. 10). However, no real decision is made other than that no interpretation is needed for the passages since they should not have to obey them in modern times.[v]

Specific Limitations of Women’s Leadership and Speaking in the Church. Often Stone uses a “double down” technique. First, the instructions in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 for women to be silent are contextual and not universally applicable (p. 11). Further! verse 36 should be considered a refutation of the command in verses 34-35, making “you” mean “you male Corinthians.” So, it means that only women in this very specific context at this time in Corinth were to remain silent, but wait … it actually means Paul was not telling them to be silent! The author plans to have her cake and eat it too. In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, the author focuses on “assume authority” (αὐθεντέω) as a hapax – a word used only once in the New Testament. She thinks it can only mean inappropriate power, and just in case, also limits it to a particular congregation (pp. 12-13). To be carefully complete, Stone rejects other matters in the context as irrelevant in “modern practice in worship” (p. 13). For a general principle, the author extracts that it means they were to act “in a way that is appropriate to one’s culture” (p. 13).[vi] To throw in the kitchen sink, Stone mentions that verse 15 is not consistent with salvation by grace through faith (making this a troublesome passage, without offering any explanation of it beyond simply using it to bolster her case for women in ministry). She feigns disbelief that such a passage exists, since women having children is not the cause or means of salvation.

Theological, Practical, and Historical Considerations. A careful observer should notice a plan of action in A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership. Stone accepts any “favorable” mentions of women in the Bible as prescriptive – promoting the idea that women should be in leadership. Stone rejects any “unfavorable” mentions of women in the Bible as descriptive – literary, cultural, and not teaching anything concerning women in leadership. It is “shocking” how it all works out in a way that is always consistent with what she is promoting! Nevertheless, we should again be reminded that the exceptions prove the rule. 

Conclusion. The conclusion reminds the reader that the book is intended to offer a perspective so “more women will be able to embrace and embody their callings…” (p. 16). In other words, the book did not set out to see what were the most valid interpretations of various passages of scripture, but to interpret them in way to fulfill the book’s purpose. For example, Stone highlights Joel 2:18-32 and Acts 2:14-18 and we are supposed to just accept it as meaning women should be in leadership roles in the church without any dealing with the prophecy, fulfillment, and its context. Apparently only the context should be noted when it can be used to nullify a command. One simple thing to note about Acts 2:14-18 is that Peter believed everything he preached on this day of Pentecost, including what he referred to from the prophet Joel. Yet he and none of the other apostles ever interpreted that as a reason to engage in the ordination of women.

Discussion Guide. The book concludes with a “Discussion Guide” with discussion questions. These are divided into general discussion questions, followed by specific questions related to each section of the book. The questions are more oriented toward feelings – “what does this text mean to you” than facts – “what does this text actually say.”

This book can be “recommended” as a good example of the application of a particular hermeneutic (the theory and methodology of the interpretation of biblical texts) that will support and promote the leadership of women in church ministry.[vii] Of this type of hermeneutic, former feminist Rosaria Butterfield states:

“Ordaining women is the gateway to gay theology. There is no denomination that ordains women that will not eventually ordain homosexuals. I’m not a prophet. I don’t need to be. You just have to read your church history. The reason it is the gateway is that it is the same hermeneutic – different Bible passages, but the same hermeneutic – that is used to ordain women is used to ordain homosexuals.” (“How Parachurch Ministries have Failed to Stand against the LGBTQ Movement.” You can start listening about 32:00 for context, and the quote is at about 35:14 in the video.)

I didn’t find this book existing in print. The book seems somewhat obscure, in that if you do not know of BWIM and their website, you probably won’t be aware of it. I only discovered it because someone promoting ordination of women and rebuking me for citing Rosaria Butterfield mentioned the BWIM site as providing valuable information about the calling of God on women’s lives to allay my ignorance on the subject. And thus, I came to give this review of the booklet.

As an example of what to not believe, I can point readers to A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership. A cruise around the Baptist Women in Ministry site will demonstrate Rosaria Butterfield’s observation about hermeneutics and the ordination of women. BWIM does not just support women in ministry, but “is committed to supporting and advocating for any individual who identifies as a woman…to celebrating and supporting LGBTQ+ women and open and affirming congregations,” as well as “non-binary persons.” The book displays interpreting scripture in a way that fits the changing moods of society while rejecting the rather consistent historical interpretation of the churches for 2000 years. If the hermeneutic of this book is applied to homosexuality, it brings about the same approving results for ministry and ordination of homosexuals as it does for women.

As a valid exposition of biblical truth, A Baptist Reflection of The Bible & Women in Ministry and Leadership gets “0” stars, and no recommendation. It is not Baptist. It is not biblical.

---

[i] Stone will later (p. 8), claim that Paul calls Junia an apostle (and inferring that Junia is a woman, this part probably correctly). This hangs a lot on a passage over which there is much dispute. Paul says, “Andronicus and Junia…are of note among the apostles,” not that they are apostles (though some people do receive it with that meaning).
[ii] Most (if not all) of these “Baptist Women in Ministry” supporters exist in the plain of liberalism, since conservatism is inconsistent with their views.
[iii] Most translators disagree, even moderate to liberal ones. For example, of the nearly 60 translations on Bible Gateway, only the idiosyncratic Complete Jewish Bible, the work of a single translator, David H. Stern, uses person in Genesis 2:8 –while all the rest use man.
[iv] One consistent theme is that commands that are inconsistent with the views of Baptist Women in Ministry are always the ones that are “descriptive.”
[v] Stone also used the proximity of the instructions to women to the instructions to servants and masters to further diminish the authority of the instructions (p. 10). She does not bother to explain that 1 Peter 3 has no such context and still exhorts wives to be subject to their husbands.
[vi] An uncomfortable conclusion of accepting this principle is that, at some point, women in the churches in the United States ditched not only the text, but the simpler principle as well, by starting to break out of the cultural norms that we had in place. As far as biblical church order, ordained ministers have a calling and an office, but are not of greater importance than everyone else in the church. Men who are not preachers have their gifts. Women have their gifts. All are a part of the church body (cf. Romans 12:4-8; 1 Corinthians 12). All have differing gifts for the edification of the body. “If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?”
[vii] Some women in leadership have dubbed their biblical interpretations “her-meneutics” as opposed to “his-meneutics” – a focus on women’s interpretation of the Bible. “Her.meneutics” is the Christianity Today blog for women.

What we lose

As an old dinosaur, perhaps, I am particularly pained and puzzled by the move away from Bibles as books to Bibles on screens, phones, and computers. Now to be clear, I am not against using these resources when they can be a help – but, like Dustin Benge (a younger person and also an educator), overall, I see the switch is a loss rather than a gain.

What we lose when the Bible is only on a screen:

1. You remember where the verse lives on the page and aids memorization.

2. The page shows you much more at once. You see the context, not just a few verses at once.

3. The page keeps your notes. Years from now they will still be there, in your own hand.

4. The page cannot distract you with a notification. It only asks to be read.

5. The page is something your children watch you open and they know it’s the Bible.

The screen gives much. The page gives more.

- Dustin Benge

Household baptisms, reprise

In total there are three clear statements referencing “household baptism” in the New Testament (Acts 16:15, 33-34; I Corinthians 1:16), as well as two that may be considered implied (Acts 10:47-48; 18:8). Pædobaptists assert that “household baptism” are proof of “infant baptism.”[1]  However, the second (infant baptism) does not logically follow the first (household baptism).[2] In addition to the logical fallacy, contextual statements in each biblical case provide evidence against rather than support for infant baptism. 

Rather than infant baptism, the Bible teaches believers’ baptism. The command, precept, and example of the New Testament is that belief – faith in the Lord Jesus Christ – must precede baptism (immersion in water).

Below is a chart showing these five biblical “household baptisms.”

---

[1] “…when the NT merely says that Lydia believed and she was baptized and her household, it is far more natural to assume her children were included.” Derek Carlsen, Faith and Courage, page 374. “Pædobaptist” is a theological term for those who baptize infants. Most are more properly “pædorantist,” that is, they sprinkle (ραντιζω) rather than baptize (immerse, βαπτιζω) infants.
[2] Pædobaptists must assume that all households always have infants, which is incorrect. Notice that Carlsen must assume (1) Lydia is married, (2) Lydia has children, (3) Lydia has young children for whom she must stand proxy, and (4) the household in this needed case must necessarily include parents and children.

Baptism and Church Communion

“To the Christian reader. 

“When it pleased God, of his free Grace, to cause me to make a serious inquiry after Jesus Christ, and to give me some taste of his pardoning Love, the sense of which did engage my heart with desires to be obedient to his will in all things, I used all indeavers both by Converse with such as were able, and also by diligently searching the Scriptures, with earnest desires of God, that I might be directed in a right way of Worship; and after some time concluded, that the safest way was to follow the Footsteps of the Flock (namely) that Order laid down by Christ and his Apostles, and practiced by the Primitive Christians in their times; which I found to be, that after Conversion they were Baptized, added to the Church, and continued in the Apostles’ Doctrine, Fellowship, Breaking of Bread, and Prayer; according to which I thought my self bound to be Conformable. And having continued in the Profession of the same for these forty years, although through many Weaknesses, and Fears, Temptations, and Sufferings, yet not without some Witness from God of his gracious Acceptance and Strength to this very day: The sense I have of my own Weakness and Inability, would have been a Bar to me to appear in this Publick way, did I not see a necessity lying upon me for the Truth’s sake, and the sakes of many, by reason of some that have lately risen up to weaken, if not to make void, that great Ordinance of Baptism, by indeavouring to maintain, that all persons that Believe, although they never did, nor do Practice the same, may partake of the Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, and all other Gospel instituted Duties.”

A Sober Discourse of Right to Church-Communion, William Kiffin, 1681 [“…we dare not break that Rule and Order by which we find the Primitive Saints walkt…” (pp. 130-31)]

William Kiffin answers Robert Poole

QUERIE V. How can you vindicate by the Word of God, your Anabaptisticall way, from the sinfull guile of notorious Schisme, and disection from all the Reformed Churches?

Ans. They that run may reade what fire this pen and heart was inflamed withall in the writing and inditing this querie; but first of all, if by Reformed Churches, you mean those Churches planted by the Apostles in the Primative times, which are the platforme for all Churches in all ages to look unto, to be guided by these Apostolicall Rules left them; wee then shall vindicate by the Word of God our Anabaptisticall way, as you are pleased to call it, from that guile; and first, although wee confesse our selves ignorant of many things, which we ought to know and desire, to waight daily for the further discoveries of Light and truth, from him which is the only giver of it to his poor people, yet so far as we are come, we desire to walke by the same Rule they did, and first of all, wee Baptize none into Christ Jesus, but such as professe faith in Christ Jesus, Rom. 6.3. by which faith they are made sonnes of God, and so having put on Christ, are Baptized into Christ, Gal. 3.26, 27. and that Christ hath commanded this, and no other way of Baptisme, See Matth. 28.19. Mark. 1.4, 5. Luke 3.7, 8. and that this also was the Practise of the Apostles, See Acts 2.41. and 8.12.36, 37 and 10.47, 48. and that being thus baptized upon profession of Faith, they are then added to the Church, 2 Act. 41. and being added to the Church, wee conceive our selves bound to watch over one another, and in case of sinne, to deale faithfully one with another according to these Scriptures, Levit. 19.17, 18. Matth. 18.15. and if they remain obstinate, to cast them out, as those that are not fit to live in the Church, according to that Rule, 2 Cor. 5.4, 5. Matth. 18.19, 30. by all which, and many other parteculars I might name, it appears through Mercy, we can free our selves from that guile; and truely, if your eyes were opened to peruse your own practises and wayes, you would then see wee could better free our selves from that notorious guile of Schisme from those Reformed Churches, then you can free your selves from the notorious guile of Schismying from Rome; For 1. You hold their Baptisme true, their Ordination of Ministers true, their maintenance by Tythes and Offerings true, their people all fit matter for a Church, and so true, and yet you will seperate from them for some Corruptions; now for our parts, wee denie all and every one of these amongst you to be true, and therefore doe seperate from you; so then, when you have made satisfaction for your notorious Schisme, and returne as dutifull Sonnes to their Mother, or else have cast off all your filthty Rubbish of her abominations which are found amongst you, we will returne to you, or shew our just grounds to the contrary.

Pages 12-13 of A briefe remonstrance of the reasons and grounds of those people commonly called Anabaptists, for their seperation, &c. Or certaine queries concerning their faith and practice, propounded by Mr. Robert Poole; answered and resolved by William Kiffin. London: 1645.

Speaking in the square

In Imagined space in Sacred Harp singing, Jonathon M. Smith writes about controlling divisiveness by limiting leaders addressing the class from the hollow square. Today, this is often presented and misrepresented as the standard historical practice which must be held as the norm. Yet, Smith himself acknowledges this is a teaching method imposed in modernity that does not actually square with historical practice.[i] On page 246, footnote 139, Smith writes:

“Documentary evidence suggests that this norm was regularly breeched in Sacred Harp singings in the Southeast throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by singers who addressed the class when called to lead. However, modern singing schools promote the ideal of refraining from speaking from the center of the square as an important historical precedent.”

Just because you can get up a singing camp to promote the views of a select group as normative does not change historical facts. In days gone by, when the standard practitioner of Sacred Harp was a Christian, no one tried to suppress testimonies in the square. They were offensive to none, with the possible exception of someone who went on and on with no end in sight! However, that was about the consumption of time, not the content of the talk. Today, many modern practitioners feel a special need to suppress such spiritual expressions, since they offend their worldview of unbelief. Somehow they are able to compartmentalize the sacred nature of the old Christian hymns in The Sacred Harp, but cannot abide a real-time expression of the same sacred nature made by living Christian witnesses. May God help us.

---

[i] Smith twice alludes to this being standard historical practice, including claiming that “early Sacred Harp singings” adopted the practice of not speaking in the square. Significantly, he does not actually provide any historical evidence.

[ii] Some things to think about. Who says the purpose was to control divisiveness? Is there any historical evidence that it was used this way? Why is this a modern concern? Who brought in divisiveness?

Baptists and Baptism Lite

“Baptism has been secularized; God, for all intents and purposes, is shuffled to the sidelines. The entire focus is on what those being baptized are doing. They are taking a step of obedience to God, and they are publicly professing their faith. But what, if anything, was God, who we know best in Jesus Christ, doing? Was God involved at all? Was God even present? If so, how, and what was he doing? Did baptism do anything? Or is baptism a matter that is entirely human, without any significant divine involvement?” Mark G. McKim, The Secularization of Baptism: How Baptists Took God out of Baptism, and How to Fix the Problem, Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2025

“The ordinances are a crucial part of what makes a church a church. When rightly understood, they present to the eye and the mouth a sensible gospel—a gospel that can be felt, seen, and tasted.” Josh Manley in “Who Should Administer the Ordinances?”

How singularly strange that many of the churches identified as “Baptist” possess an anemic and ambiguous view (and practice) of their most defining characteristic, baptism of believers by immersion!

It is theologically important. The Bible is our rule of faith and practice, and therefore the source of instruction on the meaning and practice of baptism. Baptism should follow the Bible, not modern secular philosophy. Baptism of the believer is important, but the God of the baptism of believers is the most important focus of biblical truth. Cf. Romans 11:36; 1 Peter 5:11; Revelation 4:11.

It is practically important. If the God of all the universe, who commanded baptism, is not involved in each baptism, then we become weak and sickly in the importance we place on it. Many modern Baptists try to “de-stress” baptism as much as possible – it doesn’t matter, it is not that important, it is okay for a believer to go through life unbaptized, and such like. This is ridiculous! Many professing Baptists live by a secular and deistic pattern, as if God has little involvement in the day-to-day matters of their lives. Acts 8:37-39; 1 Peter 3:21; Hebrews 8:5.

It is relationally important. The right heart, the right response, the right sincerity that moves the believers to identify initially, objectively, and publicly with their redeeming Lord. The heart of the matter should dwell in unity, with the Lord of the baptism and in the mode of baptism. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Cf. John 4:24; Ephesians 4:5; 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.

In The Secularization of Baptism, McKim theorizes and demonstrates that “four factors led to the symbolic-only position becoming dominant. These were suspicion, in reaction to Roman Catholicism, of the idea of God revealing himself through the physical; the influence of the Enlightenment (and ‘embarrassment’ with claims that God could be acting in the world today); reaction against the Oxford Movement; and reaction against the understanding of baptism advocated by the Disciples of Christ (‘Campbellites’).”

Let me be clear. We Baptists believe that baptism is symbolic rather than salvific. I believe there is a bad tendency among some to go into a kind of sacramentalism on this issue. However, the it-is-only-a-symbol-and-does-not-matter-much is not the true Baptist position. Consider historically that the early American Baptist language on baptism was so strong that many of them initially mistook Alexander Campbell to be saying the same things they were. (Boy, were we fooled!) I fear that often modern Baptists just find it easier to adopt the it-is-only-a-symbol-and-does-not-matter-much attitude rather than do the hard work of carving out the middle position where the Bible stands. It is easy, and it fits the spirit of the age. And it is or can be hard work to explain it correctly. If you veer too far one way, it sounds like salvific sacramentalism. If you veer too far the other way, it sounds like anything, everything, and (mostly) nothing! It leads to many of the errors of modern day Baptists, from careless (e.g., not carefully requiring a sound profession of faith) to indiscreet (e.g., fire engine baptisteries and water slide baptisms). May God help us seek the old paths and walk therein.

Romans 6:3-6 ;Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.