Yes, Doug, I am a genealogist

“A half truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.” -- J. I. Packer

Last week, in contrast to Jonathan Burris, I mentioned that I have found non- and anti- KJV controversialists who are open, honest, and sincere.[i] I find others who are stuck playing one string on their banjoes and can pluck no other! In some cases, they may be willingly ignorant, determined to debate (regardless), and even deceivers & being deceived.

The Gary Hudson-Doug Kutilek-Rick Norton team of contenders seem to fit that description. They have lit on their “true truth,” found the one string they can pluck, and will not be dislodged from it regardless of the evidence. In “The TRUE Genealogy & Genesis of ‘KJV–Onlyism,’” Doug Kutilek writes:

In the realm of King-James-Version-Onlyism, just such a genealogy of error can be easily traced. All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (died 1968), through one of two or three of his spiritual descendants.

They have determined to dismiss “King James Only” theology and history out of hand by foisting on it a genealogy error. Doug Kutilek and others have made a cottage industry out of it.

Find someone who believed only the King James Bible was the word of God before Benjamin Wilkinson? “Dismissed! They can’t be KJVO because that does not fit our pre-determined genealogical scheme.” If my Baptist ancestors never heard of Benjamin Wilkinson, J. J. Ray, Fuller, or Ruckman, but believed their King James Bibles represented the inspired word of God? “Dismissed! This can’t be so, because we have already set the parameters and drawn the lines.” There is no reasoning with these guys. They will not be budged by any kind of evidence. How do we know? We’ve tried, and they still won’t move.[ii] 

The H-K-N team excels in hypocrisy. When olden King James Bible supporters say they could accept some changes in the KJV, this team then erases them from the line of “KJV Only” supporters. However, when contemporary King James Bible supporters say they could accept some changes in the KJV, this team charges that these are lying and are still to be considered “KJV Only.”

These are:

• Deceivers, Deceiving, Being Deceived?
• Woefully Willfully Ignorant?
• Dogmatically Dead-Set to Debate?
• Quibblers Qualified in Quibbling?

“A half truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.” -- J. I. Packer

---

[i] When I first became acquainted with him, I thought Mark Ward fit in that category. Continued interactions with him make me doubt it.
[ii] 1. One of Rick Norton’s perennial lines is that Archbishop Richard Bancroft (or another prelate or somebody) altered “robbers of temples” in Acts 19:37 to make it say “robbers of churches.” He can find one old 1671 quote to that effect; inflate the claim with dozens of others with no evidence other than the first claim; ignore the fact that that translation previously appeared in the translations of Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Taverner, the Great Bible, and the Bishop’s Bible; ignore the fact that the King James translators used “churchrobber” in 2 Maccabees 4:42, clearly in reference to the temple; and then just keep repeating the claim ad infinitum. 2. Plenty of Pre-Wilkinsonian historical evidence has been provided of the existence of supporters of the exclusive use of the King James Bible as the word of God. It seems to be dismissed out of hand because they simply cannot be KJVO. For a few samples, see HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Congregational psalm-singing

I do not advocate exclusive psalmody (that all our worship songs must be based on the Psalms), and I am unsure of whether the author of these words, Alistair Roberts, does or does not. However, I think much of what Roberts says about psalm-singing in the excerpt below is a great corrective to what American church singing has devolved into, a performance-based consumer-oriented mess that steals the songs from the congregation. (And unfortunately, many congregations “love to have it so.”)

“Too often, modern worshipers treat worship as if it were something chiefly to be consumed by them as individuals (leading to a great concern that church music styles cater to their more general tastes in music consumption). Yet worship is not chiefly to be consumed quasi-passively, but to be an act. In the purposeful and practiced act of singing psalms together, we joyfully and lovingly present our hearts and our assemblies to God and we take his word into us. Because it is an act of worship, we should want to take time to learn how to do it well. Typically greater delight will follow.

“A huge obstacle to good psalm-singing is the ingrained passivity that comes with a lifetime of being consumers of music. Great psalm-singing is entirely achievable, but we must approach worship more as an act of making music before the Lord, demanding practice and effort.

“Indeed, the more the church’s music is driven by the musical tastes of religious consumers, the more divided it will be. The corporate act of making music has a power to unite that exceeds the unity produced by the convergence of private tastes in its consumption. Congregational psalm-singing is a form of expression of God’s Word by which, within the body of Christ, we address each other and by which Christ’s word and his Spirit indwell us (Colossians 3:16; Ephesians 5:18-21). As we do it, the body can become self-aware in a new way. As we don’t merely sing along with performers at the front, but sing in unison or in harmony as a congregation, we take fuller ownership of the words that God has given us as our own joyful and purposeful expression and also receive those words from the lips of our neighbours.”

[Note: I do advocate that we need to sing more of the Psalms. Our singing is sadly lacking if we do not do so.]

Eternal honour be to him

HYMN CCCCXV.

Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us. 1 John. iii. 16.

1. Eternal honour be to him,
Who saved us by his blood!
His love shall be our joyful theme,
The boundless love of God.

2. But few would die to save a friend,
He died to save his foes;
His love no measure has, nor end,
’Tis such as no man knows.

3. No words can tell its depth or height,
No love can equal his;
The love of God is infinite,
Like God himself it is.

4. No sacrifice appeared too great,
The love of God to prove;
And thence we learn to estimate
The greatness of his love.

5. Yet all we know is, that his love
Exceeds all others far;
How far, not all the hosts above
Are able to declare.

6. But what we know makes wealth and fame,
And pleasure seem but loss;
And renders dear the glorious name
Of him who bore the cross.

Hymnwriter Thomas Kelly (1769–1855) was a Church of Ireland clergyman from his ordination in 1792 to 1803. Relations between Kelly and the church had been strained, and in 1803 he formally broke with this church. He did not seek to form a new denomination, but the people who followed him were often dubbed “Kellyites.” His evangelical views were influenced by Rowland Hill, William Romaine, John Walker, and the Haldane brothers. Kelly was a prolific hymn writer, producing over 700 hymns. Kelly’s hymns were published in A Collection of Psalms and Hymns (1802), Hymns on Various Passages of Scripture (1804), and Hymns of Thomas Kelly, Never Before Published (1815). “Look, ye saints, the sight is glorious” is possibly his best-known and most printed hymn. “Blessed fountain, full of grace” appears on pages 366-367 of Hymns on Various Passages of Scripture (Fifth Edition, Thomas Kelly, Dublin: Martin Keene, 1820). This hymn is written in Common Meter, and might be paired with most any good Common Meter tune. Primrose would make a good selection, in my opinion.

Some folk want enough, and other quotes

The posting of quotes of human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources. (I try to confirm the sources that I give, but may miss on occasion; please verify if possible.)

“Some folk want enough Jesus to bless their plans, but not change their plans.” -- Kevin Lake

“A selfish person is all about self and not about the Saviour.” -- Johnnie Johnson

“You grow when the word of God means more to you than the words of people.” -- Unknown

“Children have a much better chance of growing up if their parents have done so first.” -- Susan Peters

Referring to Matthew 16:18, Charles Spurgeon stated, “The wine of Romanism is not to be pressed out of this cluster.”

“Until sin be bitter, Christ will not be sweet.” -- Thomas Watson

“Among the first steps toward happiness and success are the church steps.” -- Unknown

“We bring so little glory to Christ, because we seek so much of our own” -- Octavius Winslow

“Men do not reject the Bible because it contradicts itself, but because it contradicts them.” -- E. Paul Hovey

“Bitterness borrowed from yesterday always bankrupts tomorrow.” -- Ian Simkins

“Gay marriage isn’t marriage.” -- Charles E. Hamilton Jr.

“Fallen man is totally depraved, utterly corrupt, spiritually dead, and without desire or ability to even acknowledge, let alone change, what he is.” -- Don Fortner

“Preach the word whether it fills up a room or clears it out.” -- Charles E. Hamilton Jr.

“A few more nights, then everlasting day! A little more pain, then endless pleasure! Just a few more sleepless nights, then eternal rest! Just a little more trouble, then everlasting ease! Just a little more dying, then eternal life!” -- Don Fortner

“False doctrine set to music has always been one of the Devil’s favorite ways of inculcating untruths in the ears and hearts of people who sing them.” -- Chad Bird

“Affliction is often the forerunner of blessing.” -- Daniel Goodman

Old bluster and bluff

Reading Greek.

I ran across these comments that I had saved from a Facebook group. Several years ago, a preacher named Jonathan Burris – who had “disembarked” from the use of only the King James Bible and had been “dislodged” from his church – joined the Facebook group and hit the ground running. He “knew all” and “told all.” Burris usually wrote in superlatives. He claimed to meet all comers and answer all questions, but I found “a few” he would not answer. Here is one. After touting his Greek skills, he would not answer whether he could actually read Greek with comprehension. He snuggled back in a safe position of “if someone will debate me I will prove that I can.” A simple answer was not simple enough, because the answer was probably simply, “no.” Here was our conversation.

Robert Lee Vaughn: “Btw, Jonathan Burris, you may have missed my earlier question. When you were suggesting doing live videos, I asked if would you do a live video in which you read and then giving the meaning of a reading from the Greek, that you would not know what it is until handed to you live. What do you think? Thanks.”

Jonathan Burris: “Robert Lee Vaughn, if you are curious if I can truly read Biblical Greek or not, I would love to have a KJVO debate me and during cross-examination, my opponent could ask me to read and parse a random portion of text from either the Greek NT or the Septuagint. Someone should debate me if they think I am bluffing.”

Robert Lee Vaughn: “Jonathan Burris, so that is a ‘no’ to my question? I am curious whether you read Greek or ‘read’ Greek. Thanks. https://danielstreett.com/2011/09/08/what-does-it-mean-to-read-greek/”

Jonathan Burris: “Robert Lee Vaughn, would you like to do a live, in-person, moderated debate with me and find out? During cross-examination, you can ask me to read and parse a random portion of the Greek NT or the Septuagint. If you don’t think I can read and understand Koine Greek, call my bluff.

“Else, let’s put this to bed and present a coherent argument for us to discuss. Or, just move on and have a good weekend.”

Robert Lee Vaughn: “I do my ‘debating’ on paper and electronic media. I am old and a slow plodder, and never was a quick thinker anyway. Plus I don’t have the face for visual media! Additionally, I don’t really see why you can’t answer the question without having a debate. Do you read it with comprehension like you do your native language, or you ‘slosh through it’ like Bart Ehrman said in an address he made at Loyola Marymount University in 2013? ‘Today when somebody is highly skilled in Greek, like Jeff Siker and me, we’re considered highly skilled – that means we can kind of slosh our way through a Greek text if we have a good dictionary sitting next to us.’

“By the way, I have ‘called your bluff.’ I have asked for a straight answer and so far you won’t give it, for some reason.

Since I saved these remarks for some reason, I decided to go ahead and post them here and get them out of the queue. I found many interlocutors on the non-KJV side to be open, honest, and sincere. Jonathan B. was not one of them. If you run across him, keep one eye and both ears open.

Safe at last

Safe at last, Acts 27:41-44

Verse 41: The mariners ran the ship aground at a place where two seas met. The suggests land such as a sandbar where the creek dumped into the sea, with deeper water on either side, i.e., “where two seas met.” The front of the ship stuck aground and would not move. The back of the ship was battered by the waves and broken apart.

Verse 42: A new problem arises, as the soldiers think it is wisdom to just kill the prisoners. That way they will not have to worry about any of them escaping, while they are trying to save their own lives. For discussion of the responsibility of guards for prisoners, see comments at Acts 12:19 and Acts 16:17. God spared all the occupants of the ship for Paul’s sake. The centurion desired to save all the prisoners for Paul’s sake.

Verses 43-44: The centurion in charge, intending to save Paul, would not allow it. He kept his soldiers from killing the prisoners. He commanded those who could swim to jump into the sea and get to land that way. Those who could not swim clung to the wreckage, boards and broken pieces of the ship and thus made their way to land as well. “And so it came to pass, that they escaped all safe to land,” just as Paul had prophesied. “all safe” as God promised Paul, there would be no loss of life. Of all 276 people, God who promised none would be lost, lost none. 276 were alive in the ship. 276 made it to land alive. What God had promised, he was able also to perform, Romans 4:21.

Green line suggesting possibilities concerning the voyage

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.

The chiasm of human life

The chiasm of human life: 

“We are first children to our parents, then parents to our children, then parents to our parents, and finally children to our children.” -- Unknown