I am in a strait betwixt two

A political post that will likely be disliked by the majority of readers on either side. In Texas in November, we will make a choice for U. S. Senator, predicted to be either Ken Paxton or James Talarico.

Almost three years ago I wrote the following about Ken Paxton:

The Republican Party platform says, “We affirm God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior between one biological man and one biological woman, which has proven to be the foundation for all great nations in Western civilization” (p. 29). For some members of the Republican party, this may only be a generic plank to show a reason for the opposition to the marriage of people of the same gender. It certainly is and should be that, but it is more than that. It affirms “God’s biblical design for marriage and sexual behavior” – which Attorney General Ken Paxton has flaunted. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and we could forgive him for the sin of adultery. However, after this sin he multiplied sin upon sin. Attorney General Paxton lied to his wife, lied to his supporters, lied to Texas, continued to pursue the adultery he promised to put behind him, and used his position as Attorney General of the great State of Texas in his doing so! I do not and cannot trust liars.

Recently, I compiled the following about James Talarico:

As bad, and probably worse, is the religious ignorance—and deliberate misrepresentation—from an oleaginous seminarian aspiring to be a slick politician. James Talarico is a very liberal member of a very liberal PCUSA church in Austin, Texas. He does not accept the inspiration, infallibility, and authority of the Bible. The biblical positions he presents are biblical nonsense (though probably having wide appeal among those who like to pick and choose the parts of the Bible they like and don’t like). Talarico’s bizarre “biblical” claims include: God is nonbinary, there are six biological sexes, transgender men need abortion rights, Jesus was a feminist, Mary was a revolutionary and a poster child for “bodily autonomy” (demonically using the virgin birth to promote murdering babies), the teachings Jesus do not cover homosexuality or abortion, the Gospel of Thomas was “later omitted from the Bible,” and salvation is not only through Jesus Christ, but all faith traditions lead to salvation (though we Bible believers know Jesus said, “if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins”).[i] James Talarico cloaks his political beliefs in spiritual rhetoric. The problem is that his spiritual rhetoric is of the worst kind, departing from two thousand years of general understanding about what is the orthodox teaching of the churches from Scripture. Over and over again, James Talarico’s views, judged by the Bible, are heretical! Summed up – like others he charges with being Christian nationalists, James Talarico also wants a “Christian nation” – just so long as it implements his version of “Christian.” It is a version of Christianity that many Bible-believing Christians will not recognize. I do not and cannot trust heretics. (And in this case, the religious heretics is also a liar, as can be seen in his attempts to rehabilitate his views for the statewide race.)

Paul said he was in a strait betwixt two – dying to be with Christ or living to serve for Christ. Literally, there were only two options. He would either live or die. However, in the race for the U. S. Senate in November, there actually are more than two options. In addition to Paxton and Talarico, the following people will apparently be on the ballot for U. S. Senator from Texas, November 3, 2026: Ted Brown (Libertarian), David B. Collins (Green Party), Joshua Cain, Ronald Evans, Camencia Ford, Jade Simmons, and Hans Truelson (Independents).

We have no reason to be in a strait betwixt two. There are choices, surely (possibly? hopefully?) at least one of whom would be more in line with Christian values and principles than immoral Paxton or ungodly Talarico. We do not have to choose the lesser of two evils, but rather can chose to vote for someone else. Until we grow a backbone, we will never change. I know the tired old line about only voting for either the Democrat or Republican, because one of them is bound to win. I hate the two-party control system, but that latter assessment is probably right. If so, is it not likely a sign that we are under God’s judgment, if he should raise up one of these two sorry rascals to represent us? Then again, regardless, maybe a rascal representing rascals is absolutely appropriate! Will we believe God, humble ourselves, and repent? The admonition to the people of Israel in 2 Chronicles 7:14 was not only to humble themselves, and pray, but also to seek God’s face, and turn from their wicked ways.

---

[i] I have documented all the statements by Talarico, and will eventually get around to posting a fuller exposure of his heresies. If you want to see it sooner, let me know.

Baptists and Evangelicals

While, as you know, I am not Southern Baptist, I believe this comment below by Malcolm Yarnell is worthwhile for general instruction for all of us who are Baptists. Many Baptists seem to think they are just evangelicals, but there are reasonable reasons to understand that we actually are not.

“...Southern Baptists must never compromise those beliefs which have made us Baptists: specifically, the drive for a regenerate New Testament church membership, founded upon the biblical and historical doctrine of the divine–human covenant, evidenced at first in the ordinance of believers-only baptism by immersion, continually expressed in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, lovingly maintained by the practice of local church discipline, and fervently expanded by the expository proclamation of the Word of God. Southern Baptists will endeavour to speak these and other non-negotiable truths in love, inviting evangelicals inter alia to join us in becoming consistent with Scripture, not only theologically but ecclesiologically.”

“Are Southern Baptists Evangelicals? A Second Decadal Reassessment,” Malcolm Yarnell III, Ecclesiology 2.2 (2005) SAGE Publications, page 212

inter alia: (adverb) among other things.

The Royal Invitation

The song The Royal Invitation (391, The Sacred Harp, 2012 Cooper Edition) was first published in The Sacred Harp in 1907. The tune was written by Daniel James Givens. The author of the words, below, is unknown. Perhaps Givens wrote them, or found them elsewhere and arranged to use with this tune. The text presents what Givens called “The Royal Invitation” for sinners to come to Jesus.

The chorus is sung after each stanza.

1. Come, sinner, come, and help bear the cross,
Jesus has suffered the great loss;
He will redeem you from all your sin,
If you will come, He will take you in.

2. Jesus so sweetly bids you to come,
He will receive you to His home;
Come to the fold, why do you delay?
Come to the Saviour, O! come today.

Chorus:
Come, sinner, come, without delay,
He is the truth, the light and the way;
He has the pow’r to save from all sin,
If you will come, He will take you in.

If anyone is aware of the author or origin of these words before the 1907 Sacred Harp, please let me know. So far, I have not found them anywhere else. D. J. Givens wrote six songs that are included in The Sacred Harp, and is credited with writing the words to The Crucified Saviour (p. 84). So, perhaps he wrote these words also and the original typesetter simply failed to put his name on the hymn side.

Daniel James “Jim” Givens (November 11, 1879–April 23, 1957) was born in Henry County, Alabama, a son of John Anderson Givens and Minerva A. R. Melvin. He married Lenora S. “Nora” Wiggins (1879–1950), a niece of W. M. Cooper’s stepfather Hopewell Wiggins. They had at least three children: Willie, Jewell, and Mavis. Jim and Nora are buried at the Webb Cemetery in Webb, Houston County, Alabama. His song, The Lamb of Calvary 508, was removed in 1992. Givens was primarily working as a farmer living in Houston County, Alabama.

84 The Crucified Saviour 

391 The Royal Invitation

490 Canaan’s Peaceful Shore

491 Closer Walk With God

541 I’m Going Home to Die No More

572 We Will Sing With the Angels There

Baptist history on Ancestry

If you have an Ancestry subscription, are interested in Texas Baptist history, and especially if you are interested in the Anderson Baptist Church (formerly Antioch) of Grimes County, Texas, there are 29 pages of membership records here:

https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/62267/records/3289

There are some records of five other churches that follow alphabetically (some, unfortunately, not that well labeled).

Or for broader searches, see HERE.

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.

Jude 1:19 in the KJV & NKJV

Jude 1:19 gives another test case on whether the New King James Bible prefers a Critical or Majority Text reading over the Textus Receptus. First, remember their claim:

“While the New Testament scholars were free to consult any available Greek text, and they did so, each agreed to follow the Greek text developed by Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener. This text, originally published by Cambridge University Press, reconstructed as closely as possible the Greek text underlying the King James Version.” (“A New King James Version,” in “The History of the King James Bible,” Holy Bible, The New King James Version, p. 1234.)

Does the “they” of Jude 1:19 “separate themselves” or “cause divisions”? Compare the difference in the translations of the King James and New King James.

• AKJV: These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
• NKJV: These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.

Now also compare the printed Greek Critical Text, Majority Text, and Textus Receptus. The first two are the same and the Textus Receptus contains a word not found in those two.

• CT: Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες.
• MT: Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοί, Πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες.
• TR: 19 οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες ἐαυτούς, ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες.

Finally, compare these pictures Greek text of the 1598 Theodore Beza, which the King James translators followed (first picture) and the Majority Text of Hodges and Farstad, which the New King James editors inadvertently suggest they followed.

The first picture is from the 1598 Novum Testamentum by Theodore Beza (p. 520).[i] The yellow highlighting shows the Greek word ἐαυτούς, which is not found in the Critical Text or Majority Text.

The second picture is from The NKJV Greek English interlinear New Testament (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994, p. 838), edited by Arthur Farstad and others. The red arrow shows the word ἐαυτούς is missing in this text.

This interlinear uses The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, by Hodges and Farstad (2nd Edition, 1985, Thomas Nelson). This tacitly shows that the translation of the New King James Bible in this place matches the Majority Text (and in effect the Critical Text, which is the same) rather than the Scrivener TR as promised by the editors.[ii] The translation matches more closely modern translations rather than the King James Bible because the translators were influenced by a different underlying Greek text. There is a difference here. It is not just a translation decision.

Jude 1:19 presents another case in which the NKJV editors and translators say one thing and do another. If you wish to use the New King James Version that is your prerogative – but don’t keep telling us that it is a faithful modern update of the King James Bible.

---

[i] Beza adds this note about verse 19:
Qui seipsos segregani, οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες ἐαυτούς. Addidimus ἐαυτούς ex Veteris interpretis & trium vetustorum codidum fide: quanquam etiam possimus non inepte hoc referre ad alios quos isti a verae Ecclesiae coetu abducant. Hi sunt inmirum quos Paulus ἰτεοδιδασχαλυῶ τας & αἰοεποκοις vocat, id est qui peculiarem doctrinam docent, & sectas instituunt. 
Who separate themselves, οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες ἐαυτούς. We have added ἐαυτούς (themselves) from the faith of the Old Interpreter and the three ancient codices: although we can also not inappropriately refer this to others whom these lead away from the assembly of the true Church. These are the ones, no doubt, whom Paul calls ἰτεοδιδασχαλυῶ τας & αἰοεποκοις, that is, those who teach a peculiar doctrine, and establish sects.
It is not clear to me to which old interpreter Beza is referring. In his commentary on this text, John Calvin noted that “Some Greek copies have the participle by itself, other copies add ἑαυτοὺς, ‘themselves’.” His conclusion was that the meaning “is nearly the same,” and that Jude means those that separated from the church. That meaning would be gathered from ἑαυτοὺς.
[ii] In this case, supporters can declare that the NKJV is following a different TR, such as the 1550 Stephanus. However, while this is correct, remember that the editors themselves claimed they were following “the Greek text developed by Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener.” In The NKJV Greek English interlinear New Testament the editors state, “The word-for-word interlinear English is the first translation of the Majority Text.” So clearly they understand that the NKJV translation they have matches the Majority Text over the TR in this place.

The Prayer of Cyrus Brown

Cyrus Brown and his advisers, on the posture of prayer:

THE PRAYER OF CYRUS BROWN

“The proper way for a man to pray,”
  Said Deacon Lemuel Keyes,
  “And the only proper attitude
  Is down upon his knees.”

“Nay, I should say the way to pray,”
  Said Reverend Dr. Wise,
  “Is standing straight with outstretched arms
  And rapt and upturned eyes.”

“Oh, no, no, no,” said Elder Snow;
  “Such posture is too proud.
  A man should pray with eyes fast closed
  And head contritely bowed.”

“It seems to me his hands should be
  Austerely clasped in front.
  With both thumbs pointing toward the ground,”
  Said Reverend Dr. Hunt.

“Las’ year I fell in Hodgkin’s well
  Head first,” said Cyrus Brown,
  “With both my heels a-stickin’ up,
  My head a-p’inting down;

“An’ I made a prayer right then an’ there;
  Best prayer I ever said;
  The prayingest prayer I ever prayed;
  A-standin’ on my head.”

– By Samuel Walter Foss (1858-1911)