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.

Dream of Thomas Oden

In his book, A Change of Heart: A Personal and Theological Memoir, Thomas C. Oden reported on a dream he had:

In the season of Epiphany 1971 I had a curious dream in which I was in the New Haven cemetery and accidentally stumbled upon my own tombstone with this puzzling epitaph: “He made no new contribution to theology.” I woke up refreshed and relieved. (p. 143)

He summed up his life story this way:

My life story has had two phases: going away from home as far as I could go, not knowing what I might find in an odyssey of preparation, and then at last inhabiting anew my own original home of classic Christian wisdom. The uniting theme of the two parts of my life can only be providence. For confessing Christians it is a familiar story of a life unexpectedly turned around by an outpouring of grace ... I had been enamored with novelty. Candidly, I had been in love with heresy. Now I was waking up from this enthrallment to meet a two thousand year stable memory. (p. 140)

A man who early on bought into heresy and religious fads could end his journey happy that “He made no new contribution to theology.” The word is written, the canon is closed. We are not called to create new theology, but to faithfully pass down the truth once for all delivered to the saints.

1 Corinthians 4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

1 Timothy 6:3-5 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

May we reject the temptation either to tell, or to hear some new thing. We are called to be faithful stewards of the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was once delivered to the saints, and which has been passed down to us by faithful teachers of the word. Oh, Lord, deliver us making new contributions to theology.

Since man by sin has lost his God,
He seeks creation through;
And vainly strives for solid bliss,
In trying something new.

From A Select Collection of Songs Designed for the Use of the Pious of Every Denomination (A. & J. Shirley, Portland, ME, 1816)

Christ through the front door

Philippians 2:5,9 Christ Jesus … God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name...

1 Corinthians 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified…

Ephesians 3:21 unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus…

Many 21st-century American churches have an ABC focus – anything but Christ. On the right it may be separatist, conservative, and combative. On the left it may be welcoming, affirming, and transforming. In the middle it may be moderate, irenic, and ecumenical. Anything but Christ.

In my experience, the “run-of-the-mill” “Bible-believing” church likes to focus on things in the realm of entertainment and activity. We’ll get folks attention with a Super Bowl party, a Six Flags trip, or a Celebrity guest. Maybe a food and games festival. Then we’ll sneak Christ in the back door. 

Avoid such a church like you’d avoid the plague. Flee it like you’d flee the path of a raging storm. Ask for the old paths, where is the good way. Look for a church that seeks Christ in its prayers, worships Christ in its songs, and exalts Christ in its preaching. Look for a church that glorifies and magnifies his name. Look for a church that marches the Lord Jesus Christ in through the front door and seats him center stage for all to see. Avoid a church that smuggles him in under cover.

Seven aspects of church music

We might say that Colossians 3:16 expands the aspects of Christian singing to bring out seven things.

Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

1. “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom” The “devotional” aspect of Christian singing.
2. “teaching and …” The “educational” aspect of Christian singing. 
3. “… and admonishing” The “motivational” aspect of Christian singing.
4. “one another” The “congregational” aspect of Christian singing.
5. “in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” The “biblical” aspect of Christian singing.
6. “singing with grace in your hearts” The “internal” aspect of Christian singing.
7. “singing with grace … to the Lord” The “vertical” aspect of Christian singing.

Taking offense

A true story illustrating a point, a reasonable, responsible, honest, and mature approach to things with which we disagree.

A gentleman from one of the churches of Christ (Disciples of Christ) attended a service with some of his friends at their Baptist Church. When the sermon was concluded, these friends – knowing that their Baptist pastor had preached things strongly and much at variance with what their friend believed – began to make apologies for the sermon. Rather than soak in the apologies, this gentleman rebuked his friends, asserting that he was not offended. He said that when he attended a Baptist Church, he expected Baptist doctrine to be preached! Why would he be offended by that? He explained that if they visit his church of Christ, his church’s doctrine will be preached. They do not have to believe it, but should not be offended by it. Why expect something different?

So, apply this to The Sacred Harp. The book, like it or not, is firmly rooted in Christian (mostly, if not nearly altogether, Protestant) theology. Folks need to deal with that up front, understand it for what it is, and not be offended! Why deliberately come to, join in, participate in a Christian tradition, and then decide to be offended by it?

---

Note: In the United States of America (but not here only) we have grown a culture of offense, watering and nurturing it, in which people think it is both their right to be offended and their right to fix the offense & the offender. This post is incited particularly by the recent revision of the 1991 edition of The Sacred Harp (one of 3 editions used) in such a way as to remove certain perceived offenses to people who are not part of “the people of the book.” In a strange case of cultural appropriation, non-Christians who like the style of music in The Sacred Harp have decided it is their right to remake it in their own image, to take our culture and mold it to fit theirs. Strangely, these same people usually oppose cultural appropriation when they think someone else is doing it!

Four aspects of church music

Ephesians 5:19 speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

1. “speaking to yourselves” The “congregational” aspect of Christian singing.
2. “in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” The “biblical” aspect of Christian singing.
3. “singing and making melody in your heart” The “internal” aspect of Christian singing.
4. “singing and making melody … to the Lord” The “vertical” aspect of Christian singing.

Credobaptism

Introduction.

“Us simple folk” are more likely to refer to “believer’s baptism” or “believer’s immersion” than to credobaptism – but credobaptism is good terminology, and sits well across from the more common or popular term “pedobaptism.”

Credobaptism (from the Latin word credo meaning “I believe” + baptism) is the practice of baptizing only those who make a conscious credible profession of faith. Believer’s baptism.

Pedobaptism, or paeodobaptism (from the Greek word paido meaning “child” + baptism) is the practice of baptizing infants or small children (usually on the credit of their parents being believers). Infant baptism.

More important than the right terminology is the right theology. Credobaptism is right biblical orthodoxy (right belief), biblical orthopraxy (right practice), and biblical orthokardy (right heart). Orthodoxy is always essential for Orthopraxy (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Romans 3:4; James 1:22-25); Orthopraxy is always essential to Orthokardy (Hebrews 8:5; John 14:15); Orthokardy is always essential to Orthodoxy (John 4:24; 13:35; I Corinthians 13:1-3). 

Credobaptism is Biblical.[i]

The biblical theology, orthodoxy. Credobaptism fits the doctrine of salvation, soteriology, and the doctrine of the church, ecclesiology. Salvation is by grace through faith, with a good confession required prior to baptism. The church is a congregation made up of a regenerate (born again, believing) membership. No fuzzy math is needed to fit credobaptism with these theologies.

The biblical example, orthopraxy. Throughout the New Testament there are clear examples of the baptism of adults who responded in belief to the preaching of the gospel. This is indisputable, even by those who practice pedobaptism. Infant baptism is at best inferred – but the inferred passages do not stand up to scrutiny. See “Household Baptisms” and “Unbelieving spouses and unbaptized children.”

The biblical unity, orthokardy. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. In Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and much of the Protestant tradition, there are multiple baptisms – baptism of unknowing infants and baptism of professing believers; baptism by sprinkling, baptism by pouring, and baptism by immersion. The heart of the matter should dwell in unity.

Biblical theology and practice settle the matter. However, there are two supporting legs that fit properly into the biblical theology and practice.

Credobaptism is Practical.

The believing person submitting to baptism acts in a manner in response to God, answering a good conscience before God (1 Peter 3:21).[ii] That person will understand the purpose of baptism (Acts 8:37), encounter the rite in an experiential way (Acts 8:38), and remember the experience (Acts 8:39). Both the conscience and conscious are involved. There will be no mental void where baptism is concerned. You will not have to be told by someone else that you were baptized. The baptism of believers is meet, fitting, “suited to every sinner’s case.”[iii]

Credobaptism is Historical. 

Credobaptism is the historic New Testament practice – and the historic practice of the early churches before the rite was corrupted. It continued to be historical in churches that practiced it, even when most others had departed from biblical faith and practice. 

In some of the early sources such as the Didache, believer’s baptism can be seen, even though little additions were beginning to creep in.[iv] For example, that the persons being baptized are volitional believers is assumed, in that they are commanded to fast before they were baptized (Didache, 7.4).

The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus shows the build-up of non-biblical practice, while still maintaining a general baptismal base practice that arises from believer’s baptism. The catechumens were asked about their belief in God the Father, their belief in God the Son, and their belief in God the Holy Spirit.[v]

“That the churches of the post-apostolic age did not long remain faithful to apostolic precept and example in all respects [not just baptism, rlv] would be generally admitted.” (A History of Anti-Pedobaptism from the Rise of Pedobaptism to A.D. 1609, Albert Henry Newman, page 1)

Conclusion.

“Infant baptism was an inevitable consequence of the acceptance of the magical efficacy of water baptism itself to impart salvation. One countervailing error that slowed its introduction was the idea held and taught by some that ‘mortal sins’ committed after baptism could not be forgiven. Quite a reason to delay baptism to the expected end of life!”[vi]

This is not to say that every denomination that practices pedobaptism believes there is magical efficacy of salvation in the water. However, the origins of it are inexplicably tied to such superstitions, and the maintenance of the practice reveals a deficiency in applying sola scriptura to an extra-biblical, emotional, incremental, and traditional practice.

Credobaptism stands on solid ground. The Bible supports it. It is, unsurprisingly, universally recognized as scriptural by all Christian churches that practice some form of baptism. All other forms are on shifting sand.

---

[i] Most Bible students are forced to admit this – unless they have jettisoned baptism altogether. Baptism of believers is obvious, exampled, and necessary. Baptism of infants has no biblical example, is unnecessary, and must be extrapolated (after a fashion) from the old covenant circumcision.
[ii] The person about to submit to baptism or the person who has just been baptized is called a “baptizand.” That terminology is not in common use among most Baptists, at least in my experience.

[iii] Baptism is delayed until a credible profession of faith (credobaptism vs. pedobaptism) but not delayed after a credible profession of faith.
[iv] However, the additions likely were not in the original document.
[v] The three questions before baptism were: “Dost thou believe in God, the Father Almighty?” “Dost thou believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Ghost, etc.?” “Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost…?” The baptizand was required to answer in the affirmative, “I believe.”
[vi] Source lost, unknown (Or else I wrote this, but I do not remember that I did.)

“Sola Scriptura” “Solo Scriptura” “Nuda Scriptura”

“Sola Scriptura” “Solo Scriptura” “Nuda Scriptura” “Nada Scriptura”

What is Sola Scriptura? Sola Scriptura is a Latin phrase meaning “scripture alone.” It is a Christian bibliological doctrine. It means that the Bible is the sole source of authority (either explicitly or implicitly) for Christian faith and practice. If only the canonical Scriptures are completely inspired and the only encapsulation of all truth, then only the Scriptures are authoritative in a way nothing else is. “The scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice” has been a common way Baptists have stated their belief in the Bible.

On Facebook awhile back, Alexander Thomson wrote “there is a growing attempt to argue that ‘Sola Scriptura’ is not ‘Solo Scriptura; and that resort to Scripture-only proof is ‘Biblicism’.”

A cadre of evangelical theologians today like to contrast “Sola Scriptura” with phrases such as “Solo Scriptura” and “Nuda Scriptura” – or draw a hard line between only and alone (which, of course, are English synonyms). Some of them may merely be trying to correct radical errors of individualism.[i] Others, however, are watering down the strength of Sola Scriptura.[ii]

Jeremy D. Myers, a former pastor who would like to redeem Christians from their biblical faith and practice, defines “Solo Scriptura” thusly: “‘Solo’ Scriptura is the idea that we can learn all matters about faith and practice using the Bible alone, plus nothing else.”

Marty Foord, a lecturer at the Evangelical Theological College in Singapore tells us that “sola scriptura does not mean that the Bible is the only authority for believers.”

Canadian minister Lawson Murray expands the idea, claiming, “Protestant reformers made a distinction between the principles of ‘sola Scriptura’ (Scripture alone) and ‘nuda Scriptura’ (bare Scripture). ‘Sola Scriptura’ has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as the Christian’s supreme authority in all spiritual matters. ‘Nuda Scriptura’ is the idea that the Bible is the Christian’s only theological authority in all spiritual matters. The best transliteration for ‘nuda Scriptura today is ‘solo Scriptura’ (just me and my Bible).”[iii]

Greek Orthodox Archpriest Andrew Stephen Damick (who doesn’t believe in either sola or solo) piles on against the “Protestants,” writing, “Solo scriptura, it is argued, is what most Evangelicals would probably understand as their basic matrix of church authority—the Bible is above everything. Some might say that the Bible is the only authority in church life, while others might say it is the primary authority in church life, but it’s still over everything.” In the end he concludes, “this ‘sola’ vs. ‘solo’ business is really a distinction without a difference” and that “sola” is really “just a better-read version” of “solo.” I sort of agree, though I would change “better-read” to “more sophisticated.”[iv] After receiving a thoroughly “liberal” education, some want a more sophisticated way to explain Sola Scriptura. They elevate themselves above being so simple in belief as to receive the phrase from a children’s song, “the Bible tells me so.” (Cf. Matthew 18:1-4.)

Many “Protestants” now nuance the terminology. They may argue that the Bible is not the “only authority,” just the “supreme authority.” It is not the “sole authority,” but “an authority” (or “final authority”) above other “lesser” authorities.[v] 

We do not (and should not) reject the teaching of God’s people in his churches through the years, neither what someone has written in a commentary or theological book, nor how the Holy Spirit has led someone else to understand the passage – but we still stand on “Scripture alone,” “Only Scripture,” and/or any or whatever term means that the only authority for our faith and practice is found in the Bible. The book of Acts extols the virtues of the Bereans, who would not take the word of an apostle, if such word did not agree with Scripture (Acts 17:11). The Bible trumps every Roman pope and every little Baptist “pope.” It is above all of them, the one and only and final authority. We do not use the Scriptures as our “sole resource” – but it is the “sole recourse.” There is no higher court of appeal.

If we do not believe that the Scriptures, inspired by God, throughly furnishes us with all we need for every good work, including doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17), then we have gone over to the other side![vi]

Beware of the new nuancers. The nuancing of the term “Sola Scriptura” is an admission that the term is not “sufficient” and may even suggest that those nuancing the term do not really believe the Scriptures themselves are sufficient! In the end, the fight against “Sola Scriptura” or “Solo Scriptura” may leave us with “Nada Scriptura.”[vii]

---

[i] Radical individualism rejects the study and interpretation of the Bible from within the gathered church community and installs it in the “Lone Ranger” Christian – making such an one his own authority. Sola Scriptura includes interpreting the Scriptures in the church community as guided by the Holy Spirit. It does not make either the individual or the church supreme.
[ii] “Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science.” I do not disagree with anything here by John McArthur, but I wonder why he found it necessary to write it. Which advocate of Sola Scriptura is arguing that we should go to the Bible to learn the rules of Chinese grammar, for example?
[iii] He did not cite any Reformer or Radical Reformer who used this term positively. I get the impression that it is primarily a new term to try to encapsulate an older idea. It does seem that Calvin may have at least once used “ex nudis scripturis” to describe depending on the scripture alone (Concerning Scandals, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978, p. 18). Anabaptist/Baptist leaders (if properly understood) might well be described as holding a sort of “Nuda Scriptura” view without appealing to such terminology (i.e., correctly understanding that “Sola Scriptura” demonstrates their belief). Additionally, the reason many of these teachers did not accept the traditions of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches is not because they totally rejected any continuity of teaching the Bible. Rather it was because they rejected the Catholic and Orthodox as being part of that continuity; that is, they are not true churches in the New Testament sense.
[iv] This may be seen in those who argue for replacing “sola” with “prima.” Are they not tacitly admitting they do not even believe “Sola Scriptura” – or at least that they think “sola” and “solo” are equivalent terms.
[v] If it is the “final authority” then it is the “sole authority” – other things called authorities are not authorities, merely servants or helps.
[vi] Many “highly educated” students are coming out of Baptist and Protestant seminaries with the idea that the Bible itself does not teach Sola Scriptura. Consider the teaching and implications of these texts: Deuteronomy 12:32, Revelation 22:18-19, do not add to or take away from God’s word; Psalm 119:89, God’s word is settled, forever; Isaiah 8:20, for truth and light, we must speak according to the word; Mark 7:6-9, the traditions of men vs. the commandments of God; Romans 10:17, the word is foundational to our faith; 1 Corinthians 4:6, do not think above what is written; Galatians 1:8, there is only one gospel, not many; Ephesians 6:17, the word of God is the sword of the Spirit; 1 Thessalonians 5:21, we have the resource to prove all things and hold fast the truth; 2 Peter 1:3, we are given all things that pertain to life and godliness; Jude 3:5, the faith is once delivered; 1 John 4:1, the word necessary to try the spirits.
[vii] “Nothing Scripture,” that is, without any biblical authority. (Sorry for switching from Latin to Spanish. ... Not really.)

The Unorthodox C. S. Lewis

“C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) is loved with an equal fervor by conservative evangelicals, emergents, Roman Catholics, Mormons, even atheists, a fact that speaks volumes to those who have ears to hear” (David Cloud, “C. S. Lewis’s Denial of the Blood Atonement”).

I have no desire to trash C. S. Lewis. He said a lot of good things, and is eminently quotable. He excelled as a writer. On the other hand, there are so many starry-eyed love-struck devotees among American evangelicals when it comes to Lewis, I also believe it is imminent that we orthodox “Biblicists” fire a warning shot across the bow. The fundamental theology of Lewis lacked orthodoxy, and folks should be told that.

“…the whole point of that book [The Pilgrim’s Regress by C. S. Lewis, rlv] is to say that by clear thinking, you can think yourself from a rationalist or atheistical position into the Christian position. And he actually, at one time, founded in Oxford what he called the Socratic Club, which used to meet on Monday nights, in which he used to try to show people how to reason themselves into Christianity. ‘With the heart man believeth unto righteousness.’ You cannot do it merely by a process of intellectual reasoning” (D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, “A Change of Heart,” a sermon on Romans 10:9-10). Martyn Lloyd-Jones also said:

“C. S. Lewis had a defective view of salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement.” (Christianity Today, Dec. 20, 1963; as requoted in “Mere Atonement,” Ariel James Vanderhorst, Touchstone Magazine, March 2009)

David Cloud further points out that C. S. Lewis not only “denied Christ’s substitutionary atonement,” but also “held a sacramental view of salvation…did not hold to the infallible inspiration of Scripture,” and called the six-day creation “a Hebrew folk tale.” In The Problem of Pain, Lewis wrote, “If by saying that man rose from brutality you mean simply that man is physically descended from animals, I have no objection.” I cannot see how such a statement can be recycled into orthodox biblicism.

If you read Lewis, read with both eyes open.

Worship

Worship defined: (verb) to render religious reverence and homage to God; to adore, pay honor and reverence to; to attend services of divine worship; (noun) the act of paying reverent honor, adoration, and homage to God; formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage.

In some languages the equivalent word for “worship” literally means “bend over,” “fall down (before),” or “bow down (before).”

Our English word “worship” comes from the Old English worthscipe, “worth” + suffix “–ship” – acknowledging one in the condition worthy of reverence and honor. 

• Worth: deserving honor, worthy, valued.
• -Ship: quality, condition, state, or relation.
• Worthship: condition of being worthy.
• Over time this becomes “reverence paid to Deity.”

The Bible does not give an explicit or formal definition of worship. The biblical view of worship must be discerned from the teachings on the subject throughout the Bible.

Preparing to worship

The principle of worship proceeds from the concept that there is someone worthy to be worshipped (and then that there is someone in a position to worship, render honor).

Worship is regulated by the one worshipped; in truth, John 4:24. Deut. 12:32

The Regulative Principle of Worship – Whatever is commanded in the Scriptures for the public worship of God is required, and whatever is not commanded is prohibited. This principle accepts that only God and not man ordains how he will be worshipped. Exodus 20:3-6.

Worship is responding from an inner heart movement; in spirit, John 4:24

• Fear before him
• Humble yourselves

We see that God is worthy of our submission and homage, (then) we give him our reverence and respect (then) we are ready to do service and offer sacrifice. Romans 12:1

The London Baptist and Philadelphia Baptist Confessions describe acceptable worship: “…the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.”

In our doctrinal and position statements, our church declares “The sufficiency of Scripture for all matters of faith and practice,” which declarations insist that our worship is dictated by God to us through his Scripture.

• Psalm 29:2 Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.
• Psalm 95:6 O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the Lord our maker.
• Psalm 96:9 O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth.
• Psalm 99:5 Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at his footstool; for he is holy.
• Revelation 4:10 the four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
• Revelation 5:14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.
• Revelation 7:11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,

Reverential Anthem

Fundamentalist Religion

The following quote from Kirsopp Lake (1872-1946) is important and enlightening because it is a frank admission by a liberal scholar that fundamentalism rather than liberalism is the closer representative of the historic teachings of Christianity.

“...it is a mistake, often made by educated persons who happen to have but little knowledge of historical theology, to suppose that Fundamentalism is a new and strange form of thought. It is nothing of the kind: it is the partial and uneducated survival of a theology which was once universally held by all Christians. How many were there, for instance, in Christian churches in the eighteenth century who doubted the infallible inspiration of all Scripture? A few, perhaps, but very few. No, the Fundamentalist may be wrong; I think that he is. But it is we who have departed from the tradition, not he, and I am sorry for the fate of anyone who tries to argue with a Fundamentalist on the basis of authority. The Bible and the corpus theologicum of the Church is on the Fundamentalist side.” (The Religion of Yesterday and To-morrow, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1925, pp. 61-62)

Oh, that the modern liberal would learn to admit as much as Kirsopp Lake! Yes, it is the liberal who has departed from traditional Christian theology. Let them not pretend otherwise.

---

[i] Lake goes on to look down on Fundamentalism as not “the intelligent survival of the old theology.” It is, however, the survivor rather than the position of liberals. Kirsopp Lake (1872-1946) was a church historian, New Testament scholar, textual critic, Greek Palaeographer, and a professor at Harvard Divinity School. Born in England, he came to the United States in 1913 and taught at Harvard from 1914 until his retirement in 1938. Not only did he reject the fundamental theology of the Bible, he rejected its fundamental morals as well. In 1932 he divorced his wife and married a former student, with whom he had a child four years earlier. 
Of the name “Fundamentalist” Lake wrote, “This name is commonly used in America; it is not, I think, widely known elsewhere, but it is easy to understand, and I do not know any word to take its place which would be equally intelligible on both sides of the Atlantic.”
corpus theologicum means the body of theology.

Catholicity and Separation

I just read an article in which a conservative Calvinistic Southern Baptist trashed separatism and promoted catholicity. He reserved special attention for the “fundamentalist” brand of separatism. The author is not someone who moved from Fundamentalism to Liberalism, but rather someone who has moved from Fundamentalism to a Reformed position.

He makes some good points. Fundamentalism can exalt carnality, pride, and an “us four, no more” attitude. Their gospel is not broad enough or deep enough to save and sanctify anyone who does not dot their i’s and cross their t’s. Division over extremely exacting eschatological theories becomes the norm.

There is a right sort of “catholicity”[i] that chronologically sees across time and generations, knowing we belong to the same church institution as and adhere to the same gospel preached by the apostles.  It geographically reaches across continents, nations, and communities.[ii] It linguistically embraces different tongues and peoples. “…I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.”

Unfortunately, this sort of “catholicity” often embraces “Catholicism” as representative of the “true church” up until the time of the Protestant Reformation. It flies in the face of a New Testament Christianity that separated itself from infidelity, heresy, and immorality (e.g., 2 Corinthians 6:17; Titus 3:10; Ephesians 5:1-4). It distinguishes itself from and denies the poor and afflicted faithful martyrs of Jesus (e.g., Revelation 2:10, 13; 17:6). It recognizes the unorthodox majority and rejects the orthodox remnant.[iii] 

There is a right sort of “fundamentalism” that loves, seeks for, and adheres to the fundamental principles of the Bible, and the Christian religion based on it. It rejects compromise of those principles, while enthusiastically and evangelistically sowing those principles in the field of the world.

Unfortunately, strains of fundamentalism promote individuality to the detriment of the corporate nature of gathered believers (Romans 15:5-7; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27), as well as the fellowship of the churches (1 Corinthians 7:17; 14:33). It minimizes the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5-9; Revelation 1:5-6).[iv] It elevates private interpretations as the norm to determine orthodoxy, fellowship, and separation (Mark 7:9; 2 Peter 1:20). It becomes a haven for little dictators.[v] 

Where does the middle way begin? Perhaps: The Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice. Autonomous churches that are guided by this belief about the Bible. A gospel that is to be preached to every creature. And strong doses of humility.

Both “Big F” Fundamentalism and “Big C” Catholicism miss the mark, in different directions. Let us take up our Bibles and learn the Bible way of the unity of the faith and separation unto the gospel of God.

---

[i] Recognizing that the words “catholic” and “catholicity” have a broader more generic meaning, I nevertheless generally avoid them as more likely to help rather than hurt the recognition of the Roman Catholic Church.

[ii] Human beings and local churches are limited by geography, but connect with other congregations across the globe through fellowship of the word and Spirit.
[iii] I am unable to read the Bible, see the New Testament church there, research church history, and then pretend that the only church that existed for 15 centuries was Roman Catholic! I have sadly heard too many Reformed brethren say so. Away with such.

[iv] “A keen awareness of where the church has always stood” is needed, if we also have the biblical insight to understand what the church is, biblically.
[v] On the other hand, Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy (and at least some species of Reformed churches) are havens for big dictators!

Not forsaking the assembling

“...a threefold cord is not quickly broken.” Ecclesiastes 4:12

As long as I have been in the ministry (and even before that, I suppose), I have known people who claimed to be Christians who also claimed they did not need to go to church. Such folks fall into different categories. Some are nominal Christians who have zero interest in church. Some have been hurt or offended at some church and have dropped out and stay home. Some have figured out they can “do church” by listening to the radio, watching TV – or perhaps “attend” their own church’s live online service. Some are so radical that they cannot tolerate any who do not agree with them, and apparently cannot go to church until they find the perfect church (i.e., that agree with them on all points). There are doubtless other categories, but these are the four that come to mind first for me.

A few weeks ago, someone I know had some work done at his house. The man doing the work professes to be a Christian but says he does not need to go to church. My friend talked to him a bit, especially pointing him to the Hebrews 10:25 passage about “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.” He did not make any headway. He later asked me about, especially concerning what Scripture might be used to convince folks that they should go to church. The Bible does teach the gathering of baptized believers. Rather clearly. Sometimes the problem is not so much showing someone what the Bible says. The actual problem is that the non-church-going Christian will not accept the authority of the Bible as their sole rule of faith and practice in this matter and submit to it.

Another related problem might be a common American/Western idea of “going to church.” It is just somewhere you go and something you do on a regular or semi-regular basis, rather than a commitment to the Lord and his people. Related to this is a consumer mentality, in that one “goes to church” for what he or she can get out of it, rather than considering there might be something to put into it. Taken together, with this mentality, when church going no longer seems pleasing or beneficial, the church-goer just stops going and does something else that is pleasing and beneficial.

The best scriptural case for “going to church” is made with the “threefold cord” of command, precept, and example.

Command.

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 Bible teaches Christians to gather. In the context of commands to draw near God (v. 22), to hold fast the profession of our faith (v. 23), and to consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works (v. 24), the writer to the Hebrews commands the Lord’s people to assemble (stated as a command to not forsake the assembling they are presently fulfilling in conjunction with the other commands given).

Assembling with fellow believers “because God said so” really ought to be good enough for the servant of God. Nevertheless, assembling is not merely for the sake of assembling. Assembling integrates with other commands to the Christian. We fulfill them as we gather together: we combine in corporate worship (1 Corinthians 14:25; John 4:24), hear the preaching of the word (2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:3), edify/build up one another (1 Thessalonians 5:11), baptize (Acts 2:41), eat the Lord’s supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34), exercise church discipline (1 Corinthians 5:4-5), sing to God & one another (Colossians 3:16), and pray together (James 5:16; Acts 4:31).

Other New Testament admonitions made in relation to “One Anothering” indicate near presence, the expectation of gathering together (bear one another’s burdens, exhort one another, greet one another, give an holy kiss, wash one another’s feet, the right hand of fellowship, the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, anointing with oil, admonish one another, comfort one another). Heath Woolman, Pastor of Fruit Cove Baptist Church in St. Johns, Florida, wrote, “Scripture also commands us to take part in the reciprocal imperatives of the Christian life (1 Cor. 12:25, Gal. 6:2, Col. 3:13, et.al.).” Writing in the context of technology driven “online church,” he observes that these imperatives “cannot be adequately expressed or obeyed through technology-mediation, ‘online churches,’ or ‘online church membership.’” I would add they cannot be fulfilled through the church of the fishing boat, becoming one with nature, or simply staying at home doing nothing. Christians obey their Lord.

Precept.

The New Testament concept and doctrine of the church is an assembly. The church is an ekklesia, a called-out assembly, a congregation of baptized believers. The very thing church means assembly and exudes the idea of gathering. “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20).

The church of Corinth was an assembly, a local body of believers in the city of Corinth. Notice 1 Corinthians 12:25, “that there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.” They came together with psalms, teachings, tongues, etc. See 1 Corinthians 14:26, “How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.” Paul warned that they must bring it all into an orderly fashion, in consistency with the God of order. There were local bodies of believers assembling in the cities of Asia (Revelation 2:1-3:22), in Galatia (Galatians 1:2), in Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 1:1), in Macedonia (2 Corinthians 8:1), and so on. Assembly is found within the very nature of these bodies.

One modern foe of assembling is the ascendancy of the idea of the “universal invisible church.” Many emphasize that they are members of that church, with little or no need to acknowledge the visible nature of the church. However, New Testament churches were local and visible, gathered assemblies that met together at certain times and in certain places. The ascendancy of the “invisible” church dethrones “the true church” (i.e., local visible churches). The church is an assembly; if she does not assemble, she is not a church. May we labor to recover this church truth, and in doing so realize again the importance of assembling ourselves together.

Example.

The New Testament is replete with examples of the baptized disciples gathering together. They were intricately involved in one another’s lives, joys, sufferings, ministry, and goals. Each time the Bible describes a church gathering, assembling, coming together, etc., it has provided an example of the believers practicing the command of God taught in the precepts of God. Notice a few examples from the book of Acts:

• Acts 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
• Acts 11:26 and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
• Acts 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.
• Acts 14:27 And when they were come, and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all that God had done with them, and how he had opened the door of faith unto the Gentiles.
• Acts 20:8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.

Conclusion.

The disciples who “were called Christians first” were an assembling body of believers in Antioch Syria. They represent the New Testament “norm.” The “Lone Ranger” who does his own thing apart from the churches of Christ is not a New Testament type of Christian. He is not submitting to the authority of the word of God. Command, precept, and example combine to teach us believers should assemble together in local churches. This should be what some might flippantly call “a no-brainer.” God commands assembly. Obey. With joy.

May we with the sweet psalmist David once again excitedly say, “I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord” (Psalm 122:1).

Benjamin Franklin’s “Faith”

I have seen the following quote online, credited to Benjamin Franklin:

“Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.”

I have heard a lot of conflicting things about Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790). So, I put a question mark by the quote. Would he have said that? Well, he did – or rather wrote it. These are the words of Franklin. However, the brief extracted quote above sounds more “orthodox” Christian than Franklin actually was. The context brings out more of the “faith” or “religion” associated with Franklin. He follows this statement above in saying “That the most acceptable service we render to Him is in doing good to His other children.” He goes further to address man being judged by his good works, that the religion of Jesus is “the best the World ever saw,” but that he has “some Doubts as to his Divinity, tho’ it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon.” Nevertheless, Franklin saw “no harm however in its [Jesus’ Divinity] being believed,” as long as that belief resulted in the good consequences.

I suppose the whole is a good summary of what Benjamin Franklin believed – and that is what Franklin intended it to be. He did not hold biblical Christianity, though he considered it to be generally a good thing.

The statements are made in a letter from Franklin to U.S. educator and theologian Ezra Stiles, dated March 9, 1790, written a little over a month before his demise.

Pictures of Jesus

I have long thought Jesus did not look like any of the portraits we generally see of him. This ties in with a question that comes to the minds of Christians, “Should Christians display artists’ conceptions of Jesus?” I think this best to “leave well enough alone” – that is, it is best that churches and Christians avoid displaying paintings of Jesus on their walls. We have no idea of what Jesus looked like, beyond perhaps a general idea of how a first century Jewish male might have appeared. The Bible shows no interest in detailing how Jesus looked physically, so why should we?

The books of nature and of the Bible provide our “picture” of Jesus. They declare who he is – his creation, his nature, his law, his acts, his death, his resurrection, his return.  A portrait hanging on a wall or a picture reproduced on a bulletin cannot begin to be an accurate display of the “image” of God, and doubtless creates a “false image.” The Bible portrait of Christ should hang on the “wall” of our mind!

It was fairly common when I was growing up to see pictures of Jesus hanging on the cross or praying in Gethsemane in some homes and on some church house walls. I don’t think anyone was trying to worship these images, and that it was a sort of cultural thing. Nevertheless, I do not think that can be our standard to follow.

Rather, may we consider the ethics of Sola Scriptura, the Regulative Principle of Worship, the Second Commandment, and the Great Commission. There is a lot of overlap in what these teach us.

Sola Scriptura. If the Scriptures given by inspiration of God completely furnish us with what we need for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, and all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17) – we do not need a painting or image that is not furnished in the Scriptures. If we have a painting or picture, it is essentially a false image in the sense that it does not actually or accurately portray what Jesus looked like in the physical realm. If the Bible is our sole source of faith and practice, we have very little information with which to even imagine how Jesus looked, and even less need to know.

2nd commandment. The emphasis of the second commandment is more on the worship of images rather than just the engraving of images (Exodus 20:4-5). However, they are related. Having a picture that purports to be Jesus hanging in a home or a church building does not mean that those folks are actively practicing idolatry. On the other hand, simply saying they are not practicing idolatry provides no positive support for the practice of displaying such pictures. To me, an image (picture) that purports to be God – even God in the flesh – must at least be approaching the realm of what is forbidden and is better avoided than indulged in. Why not fence it off and leave it alone?

Regulative Principle and Confessions of Faith. The Normative Principle of Worship looks to accept what is not forbidden. The Regulative Principle looks for what is sanctioned. We find no biblical sanction for pleasing our imaginations with imaginary pictures of Jesus Christ. The 2nd London and Philadelphia Baptist Confessions affirm the Regulative Principle in this way: “But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures” (Chapter 22, paragraph 1). Chapter 7 of the 1st London Baptist Confession (1644) puts it this way: “The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not mans inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures.” It was then revised thusly in 1646: “The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship of God, in which is contained the whole duty of man, is (not men’s laws, or unwritten traditions, but) only the word of God contained [viz., written] in the holy Scriptures; in which is plainly recorded whatsoever is needful for us to know, believe, and practice; which are the only rule of holiness and obedience for all saints, at all times, in all places to be observed.” In our church statements we assert, “The sufficiency of Scripture for all matters of faith and practice”

The Great Commission. We Baptists use this terminology frequently to describe the authoritative sending of the church by their Head, Jesus Christ (especially as recorded in Matthew 28:18-20). The command of Jesus Christ specifies, directs, and limits the work of the Lord’s churches. Coupled with the Regulative Principle, we find making pictures of Christ is not part of “all things commanded.”

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth, John 4:24. A picture of Jesus, to me, seems to add nothing to spirit or to truth. Jesus dwells with us by his Spirit, not in a picture.

When the people of Israel were gathered before Horeb and God spoke, they saw no image. “Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female…” Deuteronomy 4:15-16. Even when Jesus came in the flesh, he made no attempt to appeal to man by the way he looked – “he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.” Isaiah 53:2.

Let us allow the Bible to be our source of knowledge about Jesus. Leave the displaying of pictures and images for those who do not hold a “Scripture Alone” position.

===========================

Addenda: Benjamin Keach’s Catechism and the 2nd Helvetic Confession

Keach’s Catechism.

Q. 56. What is required in the second commandment?

A. The second commandment requires the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances, as God has appointed in His Word.

(Deut. 32:46; Matt. 28:20; Deut. 12:32)

2nd Helvetic Confession.

Chapter IV, Of Idols or Images of God, Christ and The Saints, Paragraph 2.

IMAGES OF CHRIST. Although Christ assumed human nature, yet he did not on that account assume it in order to provide a model for carvers and painters. He denied that he had come “to abolish the law and the prophets” (Matt. 5:17). But images are forbidden by the law and the prophets (Deut. 4:15; Isa. 44:9). He denied that his bodily presence would be profitable for the Church, and promised that he would be near us by his Spirit forever (John 16:7). Who, therefore, would believe that a shadow or likeness of his body would contribute any benefit to the pious? (II Cor. 5:5). Since he abides in us by his Spirit, we are therefore the temple of God (I Cor. 3:16). But “what agreement has the temple of God with idols?” (II Cor. 6:16)

Say, Do We Have the Text of John 11?

Mark Ward posted “Do We Have the Text of John 11” on YouTube December 15, 2022. In it, Mark “interviews” Darrell Post, a former teacher at Maranatha Baptist University,[i] about the Greek text/manuscripts of the Gospel of John, chapter 11. I write “interview” because it is short on interview, and long on presentation. The material presented by Post is quite interesting.

Details presented

“There are 945 words [in John chapter 11] in two of the three current edition of the Greek NT, with a third edition including 952 words.”[ii]

In the 1390 manuscripts Post has checked thus far, there are 3785 variations.[iii] He breaks them down in this way.

• Nonsense readings/Obvious errors - 950
• Easily identified mistakes - 1577[iv]
• Singular readings (variation found in only one manuscript) - 856
• Sort order (words not in dispute, only the order) - 75
• 3785 minus 3458 leaves 327 variations that are omissions (175), additions (87), and substituted words (65).

Post says that the only variants of these 327 that should concern readers are those that are (1) difficult to resolve and (2) affect the meaning of the text. Of the 327 left, Post believes only five of those could be concerning. He concludes that even these five difficult to resolve variations do not affect our understanding of the text.[v]

In this (above) we have a quick breakdown of the information Darrell Post produces, whether or not we agree.

Coopting a presentation

Post refers to an attack on the historicity of John 11 by a Duke PhD student. He says, “That’s where I got started with John 11.” So Darrell Post did this work in response to Duke PhD student Elizabeth Schrader attacking the historical content of John chapter 11. She suggests that the sister named Martha was added to this story in John 11 in the second century, and that the Mary of the story was originally Mary Magdalene before scribes changed the context. (See “Was Martha of Bethany Added to the Fourth Gospel in the Second Century?” Harvard Theological Review, Volume 110, Issue 3, July 2017, pp. 360 – 392.)

In discussing the manuscripts of John 11, Post responds to skeptics like Schrader and Bart Ehrman. However, Mark coopts this presentation out of its context to take jabs at “Textual Absolutists” – Christians who, unlike Schrader and Ehrman, believe the Bible is inspired, infallible, and providentially preserved. Nice.

Practically every time Darrell Post mentions something about skeptics, Mark breaks in to make a comment on “Textual Absolutists” (as if the word “skeptic” triggers him).

For examples:

0:10:40 Post discusses that the number of variations to words (3785 to 945) is troubling to people. It is one reason why the extreme skeptical side has such force. Mark breaks in and comments that the “Textual Absolutist” view is so appealing because “They don’t even have to think about all these variations because they can just pick one...” This is a horrible mischaracterization from the lowest common denominator. We don’t even think about it? Moreover, eventually, our problem is their problem as well, because they also have to “pick one.”

0:45:10 Post talks about skeptics having so much “fuel” (“the embarrassment of riches”) from which to argue. Mark jumps in again to take another swipe at the TR/KJV folks (Textual Absolutists). Folks in that world don’t “talk at this level of detail.” Another mischaracterization from the lowest common denominator. Some TR and/or KJV folks can and do discuss the manuscript evidence. However, “most people” – including Mark Ward – do not talk at the level of detail presented by Darrel Post in this video, having collated 1390 manuscripts (as well as 57 lectionaries).

1:04:00 Post is excited when he says this real data shows his students that they do not have to follow the skeptics. They can be confident in the face of the arguments of people like Ehrman and Schrader. Mark breaks in to assure his listeners that “They also don’t have to listen to the Textual Absolutists who say that any textual variation is demonic.” Can we say again “lowest common denominator?” In addition, I wonder if Mark believes any textual variation could be either deliberate or demonic?

I realize Mark’s wheelhouse is fighting the “Textual Absolutists,” but this constant cutting in on Post and down of Christians who believe their Bible really blunts the force of Posts’s arguments against biblical skepticism and would have been better left to another day. However, that is not Mark’s way.

The evidentiary method

0:06:45 Post says he has collated about 75% of the continuous manuscripts and “I don’t expect to find much new or different.”[vi] Yes, it is probable that there are no major differences in the remaining uncollated manuscripts. However, we don’t know until we find out! When manuscript evidence drives the conclusions, then the conclusions are only as good as the amount of evidence inspected. The conclusions are subject to change when new evidence is uncovered. They must usually remain “as far as we know.”

This is the basic difference between a presuppositional approach and an evidentiary approach. The presuppositional approach looks at the biblical data first – that is, what the Bible says about itself. The manuscript evidence should be dealt with – and honestly sometimes can be hard to account for. However, the Bible itself establishes our doctrine of bibliology, just as it establishes every other doctrine we believe. The evidentiary approach looks at the manuscript data first, then seeks to conform what the Bible says about itself to the data. This is a reason many modern evangelical scholars now reject providential preservation as a biblical doctrine.[vii]

Don’t miss the irony

In “Was Martha of Bethany Added to the Fourth Gospel in the Second Century,” Elizabeth Schrader attacks the historicity of the Lazarus, Martha, and Mary story of John 11. The Mary Magdalene research and biography of this Duke PhD student manifests to be both augural and feminist-agenda driven.[viii] She describes the inauguration of her research as being an answer to prayer given while she was praying to the Virgin Mary. “Maybe you should talk to Mary Magdalene about this,” Schrader relates. What’s more, biblical writers and later scribes were guilty of misogyny.

“Schrader’s central discovery, which she wrote about in a paper published by the Harvard Theological Review two years ago, is that Mary Magdalene’s role was deliberately downplayed by biblical scribes to minimize her importance… Schrader argues that the Mary of the original text is Mary Magdalene, not Martha or Martha’s sister, Mary... The reason for the change, Schrader said, was that later scribes did not want to give Mary Magdalene too big a role in the events of Jesus’ life... Schrader posited that Mary Magdalene caused tension with Jesus’ male disciples, especially his handpicked deputy, Peter, that is evident in several noncanonical gospels... Schrader’s paper comes at a time when many scholars are trying to recover women’s roles in early Christianity – roles the early church fathers tried to suppress.”[ix]

The Evangelical Textual Criticism blog made three posts for Elizabeth Schrader to discuss/promote her idea about John 11. Tommy Wasserman, the editor who posted it for her, disagreed with her overall conclusion, but wrote, “I think her findings are very significant”. Furthermore, he writes, “I have invited Elisabeth to share her research.” There was some pushback by commenters, but also quite a bit of breathless gushing over her presentation.[x]

Don’t miss the irony. Darrell Post researches and opposes Elizabeth Schrader’s unorthodox work against biblical texts and biblical truth. Mark Ward coopts this discussion derived from opposition to Schrader’s work, to use (at least in part) against “Textual Absolutists.” Mark’s friends at the Evangelical Textual Criticism[xi] blog invite and promote Schrader’s work as at least something important for evangelical text critics to consider “significant.” Hmm. “People are strange.” So says Jim Morrison.

Miscellaneous

0:05:20 Darrell Post mentions the shift in the goalposts of textual criticism. Most text critical scholarship has shifted and is no longer trying to reconstruct the original text. Rather than trying to rediscover what the original says, some of them even present the text of the first 200 years of church history as “chaotic.” This is a fact some evangelical text critics have tried to deny or obfuscate.

1:08:10 Near the conclusion of the video, Mark takes down those of us who stand where we have always stood and use what we always have. He lectures us about sowing discord among the brethren. Nothing for the new guys who come along and want to change. Never discord sown by them, right? Unbelievable. It no longer takes two to tango.

In summation, with this video Mark gets “utter gold” and “Textual Absolutists” get the shaft.

---

[i] He is also a teacher at Freedom Baptist Church of Chesapeake, Virginia, where he presented this material in Adult Bible Study.
[ii] 945 words in the NA-28 and Tyndale House Greek NT. 953 words in the 2005 Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text. In addition, there are 942 Greek words in 1881 Westcott-Hort text, and 958 in 1894 Scrivener Textus Receptus.
[iii] Note, for example, that the same variation in two different texts is counted as two variations. Update Note: As of 24 April 2025, Darrell Post reports “I have now collated 2,192 manuscripts against John 11…”
[iv] This includes minor variations of spelling, abbreviations, different form of the same word, confusing vowel sounds, corrected mistakes and mistaken corrections.
[v] John 11:19 (“the Jews came to Martha and Mary” or “the Jews came to ‘the ones around’ Martha and Mary”); John 11:31 “saying” or “thinking”); John 11:45 (“things” or “thing”); John 11:50 (“for us” or “to you”); John 11:57 (“a commandment” or “commandments”). Post also asserts that outside of issues like the Pericope Adulterae, the Long Ending of Mark, and some few others, most of the stuff of variants is innocuous like what he presents about John 11.
[vi] Darrell has also collated about 3% of the available lectionaries. In a comment posted on YouTube, he points out some difficulties with the accuracy of the numbers – “the INTF keeps cataloging newly found minuscules” (which increases the number) and “as I collate, I occasionally find manuscripts where chapter 11 was lost from a damaged manuscript, and so this reduces the number.”
[vii] They merely accept preservation of artifacts as an historical reality.
[viii] Schrader’s Duke Scholar page states, “Her research interests include the New Testament Gospels, the Nag Hammadi corpus, Mary Magdalene, textual criticism, and feminist theology.”

[ix] See Scribes tried to blot her out and How a singer-songwriter from Portland became a Mary Magdalene scholar.
[x] And apparently there were several comments that Wasserman did not like and deleted. One commenter was accused of “mansplaining” (the explanation of something by a man, typically to a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing).
[xi] Mark has posts there. Additionally, he and ETC co-editor/contributor Elijah Hixson are members together of the Textual Confidence Collective.