Charity or Love?

Below you will see a point made by Will Kinney in favor of the word “charity” in the places it is used in the New Testament (it does not appear in the Old Testament). “Charity” is used 28 times in 24 verses, and in every case the translators reserve it in context of the love Christians have or ought to have, using the English word “love” more broadly. My personal position is that “love” would not wrong in these places, but that “charity” is better. Everything below was written by Will Kinney.

Well, let’s look at 1 Corinthians 13 for a moment and then compare the characteristics of “charity” to those of “love” as found in some other Scriptures. We will see that by translating the word agape as “love” instead of “charity,” the modern versions in fact create several contradictions.

In 1 Corinthians 13:5-6 we read that CHARITY “doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own.” Charity as well “thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth.”

However, when the new versions tell us that “love (agape) thinks no evil, does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth” (NKJV), then this creates several direct contradictions with the rest of Scripture.

If “love seeks not her own and thinks no evil,” and if “love rejoices not in iniquity but rejoices in the truth” then what do we do with the following Scriptures where “love” (agape) clearly seeks her own and does rejoice in evil and not in the truth?

John 3:19 “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men LOVED darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” Agapao

John 12:42-43 “they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they LOVED the praise of men more than the praise of God.” Agapao

Luke 6:32 “for sinners LOVE those that LOVE them.” Agapao

2 Timothy 4:10 “For Demas hath forsaken me, having LOVED this present world...” Agapao

2 Peter 2:15 “Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam to son of Bosor, who LOVED the wages of unrighteousness.” Agapao

1 John 2:15 “If any man LOVE the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” Agapao

It should be abundantly clear that the scholar who insists the word “agape” means an unconditional, God-type love has not compared Scripture to Scripture. Words have different meanings in different contexts, and in 1 Corinthians 13 the King James Bible’s rendering of “charity” is far more accurate and consistent with the rest of Scripture. It is the modern versions that create the contradictions!

Applying Caulking and Raising Children

“When someone does work for you, you also know the difference between the two [superior versus average, rlv]. You know the difference between a good caulking job, average, and poor. Probably many of you wouldn’t even accept average, let alone poor, and you know the distinctions.”

The above comment by Kent Brandenburg on his blog spurred some further thoughts in a slightly different direction from his main point. Brandenburg explained that when someone does work for you, you know “the difference between a good caulking job, average, and poor.”

A person does not have to be capable of doing a good caulking job to know a good caulking job when he sees it. If the homeowner complains, the caulker might retort, “Have you ever applied caulk?” The homeowner might be forced to answer, “No.” This, nevertheless is not an effective retort. One who cannot do a good caulking job can nevertheless have eyes to see and recognize a job that is not good!

Sometimes a person is trying to do something, or live in a certain way, and things are not going well. Someone else recognizes they are not doing a good job. Let’s say a parent is having difficulty raising a child. A childless unmarried Christian might advise the parent that he must not “spare the rod.” The parent might retort, “Have you ever raised a child?” The childless Christian is forced to answer, “No.” This, however, does not prove the advice itself is bad. (Yes, it is easy for a person with no children to hand out advice to folks who are in the midst of raising children, and sometimes even be arrogant about it.) Nevertheless, biblical counsel is true regardless who gives it, if they give it out correctly as God gave it. God knows all things. He knows how to raise children. He wrote the book on it! Knowing the Bible, you can know what a “good job” (regarding anything) is.

Is Giving Children the King James Bible a Sin?

In a recent debate, the ubiquitous anti-KJVO apologist Mark Ward asserted that the King James Bible should not be given to children. 

“There comes a point at which it’s so close to this ditch that actually it is a sin for a given Bible translation to be handed to children. I’m saying we’ve reached the point where there’s a sufficient number of readability difficulties that it’s time to turn away from the King James in institutional contexts. Would I say it’s a sin to hand to your child? Here’s what I’d say, quoting the King James: ‘to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not to him it is sin.’”

Some people have tried to defend Mark by saying that he “misspoke.” I am not aware that Mark has said he misspoke. Regardless, this is not an isolated statement. He recently said much the same in an interview with Scott Ingram. He also is pretty clear about the sin issue in his book Authorized. He says that using the King James Bible “for most situations…using the KJV violates Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 14” (Authorized: the Use and Misuse of the King James Bible, p. 137). And what is disobedience to God’s instructions through an inspired apostle, if not sin? I do not believe Mark misspoke. If he has, he needs to clearly and flatly, without caveats and calculations, say that using the KJV and giving the KJV to others to use IS NOT a sin.

Even folks who are not supporters generally of the King James Bible recoiled from such a claim. One of those folks is James Snapp Jr. In a recent blog post he brought out several points against what Mark said. I found one particularly intriguing contradiction of Mark’s claim that I had not thought about previously. It is this – even the practice of Bible publishers disagrees with Mark’s assertion about not giving a KJV to children.

“Mark Ward: … Thomas Nelson Publishers disagrees with you. They publish a children’s version of the KJV. Lo and behold Hendrickson Publishers also publish a Children’s KJV New Testament. Lifeway and Holman Bible Publishers also publishes a Kids KJV. There are even KJV Bibles marketed to be given to illiterate babies. The KJV Armor of God Bible is marketed with the claim that it is ‘perfect for ages 6-10.’ Is it sinful to give such Bibles? No.”

I suppose one could argue that these publishers are merely creating those Bibles in order to make more money. However, I think it would be hypocritical for Mark himself to make such an argument, since he has been making a living in the Bible publishing industry.

Since I wrote the above, Mark has added a new video to his repertoire, Continuing the Conversation, in which Mark is supposed to clarify his statement about giving the King James Bible to children. You can listen yourself to see what you can find about it.

And now there is another video, Mark interviewed by Dwayne Green in Its SINFUL to give a KJV to a CHILD? | Debate Retrospective with Mark Ward. As best I can understand, these are clarifications that ultimately fail to clarify. Mark even said, “There’s my slight sort of clarification that really isn’t.”

Head covering links

On Tuesday May 14, I made a brief post on the head covering and “Doth not nature teach you?” (1 Corinthians 11:14.

I am following up here with some links to what others have said on the subject. I limit the links to what Baptists have said. Most are familiar with head coverings among the Amish and Mennonites, but what do Baptists say? From the links you will find they had said a good bit, but not always in agreement with one another. I have not tried to find only those who advocate a certain view, and have not tried to see whether all views are equally represented. These are the top links I found via a Google search. No author is given preference, other than presenting the links in alphabetical order.

• An Admonition To Christian Women
• Are Women Required to Wear Head Coverings in Church?
• God Has Ordained Headship
• Head Covering in the Worship of God
• Of Foot Washing And Head Covering: Principle And Application
• Proper Honor – I Corinthians 11:1-16
• The Biblical Case Against Head Coverings
• The Woman’s Hair and Head Coverings
• The Woman’s Head Covering
• Why Should a Woman Wear a Head Covering in the Church?
• Why Women Should Not Wear Head-Coverings
• Women and Head Coverings: Explaining and Applying 1 Corinthians 11:2–16
• Yes. Head Coverings

Posting of these links do not suggest agreement with the writers or their web sites. In fact, I have some quite wide disagreement on various subjects with some of those who address the subject of head covering in these links above (even to the point of thinking a few of them are not “good Baptists.”). These links are posted for the research benefit they might possess for my readers.

---

Added at no charge😉, some notes I had made in an old Bible. (Nothing earth shattering, just some notes I put down while going through the text many years ago.)

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Genesis 3:16

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth (καταισχύνει) his head. 

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered (ἀκατακαλύπτῳ) dishonoureth (καταισχύνει) her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven (ἐξυρημένῃ). 

6 For if the woman be not covered (οὐ κατακαλύπτεται), let her also be shorn (κειράσθω): but if it be a shame (αἰσχρὸν) for a woman to be shorn (κείρασθαι) or shaven (ξυρᾶσθαι), let her be covered (κατακαλυπτέσθω). 

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover (κατακαλύπτεσθαι) his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory (δόξα) of God: but the woman is the glory (δόξα) of the man. Genesis 1:27; Acts 17:28-29

8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Genesis 1:27; 2:21-22

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. Genesis 2:18; 1 Timothy 2:13

10 For this cause ought the woman to have power (ἐξουσίαν) on her head because of the angels. 

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. Genesis 1:26-28; Job 14:1

12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Mark 10:7-9; 2 Corinthians 5:18

13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely (πρέπον) that a woman pray unto God uncovered (ἀκατακάλυπτον)?  Comely = befitting, proper.

14 Doth not even nature (φύσις) itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair (κομᾷ), it is a shame (ἀτιμία) unto him? Revelation 9:7-8 “the faces of men” (bearded?) ... “the hair of women” (long?). At least there is a natural distinction that can be written of. “Nature” includes the distinction between male and female, as well as the woman’s natural head covering. 

15 But if a woman have long hair (κομᾷ), it is a glory (δόξα) to her: for her hair is given her for a covering (περιβολαίου). Mary’s hair was long enough to wipe Jesus’s feet (John 12:3) and Malchus’s hair was short enough that Peter cut off his ear, not his hair (John 18:10).

16 But if any man seem to be contentious (φιλόνεικος), we have no such custom (συνήθειαν), neither the churches of God. The practice of the churches agrees with the teaching of Paul. A few people have tried to interpret this statement as Paul cancelling out everything he just previously said!

Each of the reasons given for the head covering is taken from permanent facts. Paul says nothing of period hairstyles or social customs.

Answering William’s Thirty Questions

Thirty questions on our ecclesiology, by William Thornton, posted on SBC Voices.

William is a retired SBC pastor who is quite amiable, with whom I have interacted in a couple of forums (Baptist Life & SBC Voices), and who I would describe as slightly to the right of moderate. On the Baptist Life forum, which tended very moderate to liberal, he stood out as conservative there.

The subject of women pastors is one of high alert in the SBC at the moment. Discussions abound. In their June 2023 Convention the delegates voted to uphold the decision of the Executive Committee, which sees churches with women pastors in violation of the Baptist Faith and Message (the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture) and not in friendly cooperation with the Convention. One was the high-profile Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, founded by Rick Warren. A lot of current SBC discussion is nuanced on positions that may not be pastoral but has pastor or minister in the job title, or positions that are pastoral, but do not have pastor or minister in the job title (e.g. director, instead).

I am not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. Some of the questions are really outside my interest, since they are pretty specific to the SBC. On the other hand, I noticed few people at SBC Voices seemed willing to tackle them head on. Rather, they just post what they want to say, throwing something in the general vicinity of the questions. So I thought I would do so, primarily to exercise my slumping brain on the subject of Baptist ecclesiology (a very important subject).

The thirty questions and thirty answers:

1. If a church has multiple pastors, who is the pastor and how does the congregation express this?

If a church has a scriptural plurality of pastors (elders) then they would express it by calling them all pastors equally. The problem is that many churches that have multiple pastors usually have an hierarchy of employees called “pastors” while employing many of them in positions that have little resemblance to biblical pastoral ministry.

2. Is the fresh-faced nineteen-year-old summer student pastor the same as his ultimate supervisor?

I have no idea what a “summer student pastor” is, and less inclination to find out. It does not sound like a biblical pastoral position to me.

3. The SBC spent decades with a pastor/deacon model. Those decades were the greatest in our growth. Why is that model so easily discarded?

I am not SBC, so probably not highly qualified to answer this question. The one SBC church with which I am most familiar concerning their “pastor/deacon” model may have employed it successfully, but not scripturally, in my opinion. The business of the church was conducted in the private deacon’s meeting and then presented to the church for approval by “perfunctory” vote (see William’s question 24). I think that model should be discarded.

4. How much of our ecclesiology can be traced to American affluence and liberty?

I believe that American affluence and political views on freedom, liberty, and democracy have influenced the ecclesiology in Baptist Churches in the U.S. I have no idea how much, but do believe it has had some negative effect – in the sense of looking to the “U.S.” as a model rather than the Bible.

5. If churches didn’t have buildings and budgets would church governance look different?

I expect so, at least somewhat. Nevertheless, our bigger problem is the more general lack of focus on biblical faith and practice.

6. Is it fair to say that Southern Baptists, once megachurches and their celebrity pastors moved to the multi-site model, changed their ecclesiology to accommodate that?

Yes, I think megachurches and celebrity pastors have negatively affected the ecclesiology of Southern Baptists, as well as other Baptists in the U.S. A church meeting in several locations does not meet the biblical definition of a congregation.

7. Concomitantly, why do we always avoid the title “bishop” when referring to the pastor who has charge of multiple churches?

I do not think this is new. It is my own experience in the churches with which I have been associated in my lifetime, that they have generally either avoided or neglected the use of the word “bishop” to refer to pastors. This was well before megachurches, multi-site churches, and (mostly) celebrity pastors. It is my opinion that this scriptural word was avoided mainly because of its misuse by other denominations and in a desire to steer clear of misunderstanding – that “elder” and “pastor” would carry less baggage than bishop in most cases.

8. If any kind of woman pastor is constitutionally prohibited, don’t we have to get into the business of functional job duties?

No, just do not have women in pastoral job duties. However, it is problematic that some churches give women the same functional job duties they would consider pastoral, but skirt the issue by calling them by some “title” other than pastor.

9. If we delve into job duties are we not then forced to decide on the age of males at which females are prohibited from teaching, supervising, and directing?

Yes, I would say that some churches give women authority over males at certain ages, which, if they were called pastors, to which they would object.

10. Is there any ecclesiastical component other than women as pastors that would receive the level of scrutiny that we are now giving to churches?

Is there? I don’t know. Should there be? Yes – divorce and remarriage in the ministry being one of them. And all the other qualifications should be resurrected with proper emphasis. It is a fact that many churches have punted the biblical qualifications in favor of instead judging one’s experience, educational, and executive qualifications, and such like.

11. Is the focus on women motivated in large part by the ease at which men can distinguish between a woman and a man?

Probably not. Hopefully Southern Baptists still can distinguish, but many in our society cannot profess to tell the difference between a woman and a man.

12. Is there any other qualification of pastor that is likely to receive such scrutiny? Why not?

Traditionally, “husband of one wife” has received a lot of scrutiny, but that bird seems to have flown the coop. See also question 10.

13. If a church has an executive pastor, why can that position not be filled by a woman?

What is an executive pastor, biblically? If it is a biblical position to be filled according to the qualifications of I Timothy and Titus, how can it be filled by a woman?

14. What does a worship pastor pastor?

What is a worship pastor, biblically? If it is a biblical position, wouldn’t all pastors be “worship pastors” whose qualifications are set forth in Timothy and Titus?

15. What other major statement of faith, creed, or confession utilizes forward slash phrases?

Huh? This was initially meaningless to me, until I found that William refers to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message using slashes in Article VI – “pastor/elder/overseer.” William always like to insert a little humor.

16. How much sense does it make to declare that your church can cooperate with other churches that have female directors or ministers but not cooperate with those who have female pastors?

A local church is autonomous, and so can cooperate with whomever she wishes. However, biblical cooperation is based on biblical principles. Are there any biblical principles for female directors, female ministers, or female pastors? What is the difference? I assume William is probably hinting at a hypocrisy hidden in there being no difference in function, only in name.

17. One of our few success stories of this century is the increasing proportion of African American and other ethnic churches who identify as SBC. Does it concern anyone that we may totally undermine these successes?

How is this being undermined? William does not say. We are not SBC, so this question is somewhat immaterial to us. Our church, as a local church, fellowships with “ethnic churches” based on shared biblical faith and practice rather than our supporting a common program.

18. If a mixed adult group has man/woman team teacher and the main teacher is the woman, is this a problem?

Yes, it sounds like a way of circumventing not having a woman teach adult men (i.e., by calling in a team).

19. How long has it been since your church prohibited women from speaking in a church conference?

We do not prohibit it, though they do not run the church business. We do not prohibit men who are not pastors from speaking in church conference either. Prohibiting women from speaking in conference is more an issue of one’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14:34 than with the issue of women pastors. I know some churches that do prohibit this, based on that Scripture in 1 Corinthians. Is William trying to imply churches are inconsistent to refuse women pastors while allowing them to speak in church conference? We also allow women to sing and testify.

20. If our constitution says a woman may not be “any kind of pastor” is it acceptable to have other titles, e.g., minister, director, assistant?

This seems to be rooted in a progressivism that desires to create positions that the Bible does not create or recognize as Scriptural offices.

21. What is a co-pastor?

I suppose it is according to what the church that uses it means. Sometimes it has the sense “together; joint or jointly; mutual or mutually” (suggesting equality); “sometimes it has the sense “auxiliary, subsidiary” (suggesting subordination). A group of equal plural elders would be “co-pastors” in a sense according to the first definition. A group of “under-pastors” serving under a the direction of a senior pastor would be “co-pastors” according to the second definition.

22. If a church has pastors, elders, and deacons should they be excluded?

What? Excluded from what? I do not understand this question.

23. If deacons have administrative authority, and in most SBC churches this is the case, how is this unbiblical?

Biblically, deacons are servants of the church. If the church assigns them administrative duties, then they could be biblically serving the church. If they have administrative authority over the church, it would be unbiblical.

24. Is a church legitimately congregational if only perfunctory votes are taken?

Perfunctory is likely a matter of perspective. Do you think some other church’s votes are perfunctory, and does that church see that operation as perfunctory? Perfunctory in this context likely means “performed merely as a routine duty.” The votes of the church I mentioned in question 3 seemed “perfunctory” to me. However, it is likely that their “routine” approval of the deacons’ motions and seconds could turn to something else if the deacons proposed something they did not like. So, though I did not like their system, and perhaps they were not congregational carefully enough, but in the end still exercised congregational oversight.

25. Should all women who have affixed to their church position the term “pastor” be considered carnal Christians, ipso facto disobedient, and out of fellowship with God?

They would be disobedient to the extent they disobeyed the biblical faith and practice. Same as a believer who refuses to be baptized, or one who deliberately chooses sprinkling over immersion, and so on.

26. How has our American system of itinerant ministry shaped our ecclesiology?

Here I am assuming William means the common practice of preachers moving from church to church (often upwardly), rather than ministering long-term in one church (especially the church in which they were raised and ordained). To me, a true itinerant minister is not a pastor. However, that has often be the effect in churches. A pastor is called, becomes acclimatized, and the church soon gives him to the boot. Or, a pastor is called, becomes acclimatized, but soon finds a much better offer which “calls” him away. I am not sure this has shaped our ecclesiology in terms of definitions (though perhaps so), but I do believe it has negatively shaped our ecclesiology in practice.

27. Is ordination a consideration in any discussion of women pastors or ministers?

Yes, it should be. If women should not be pastors (and they should not), then they also should not be ordained.

28. What determines whether or not speaking is preaching? Is it the furniture involved or the gender of the speaker?

Preaching is an act of public biblical proclamation and teaching. Furniture and gender do not determine it; the Bible is our rule of faith and practice.

29. How long before Lottie, Annie, and Bertha lose their high standing in today’s SBC?

I have no idea, but have always thought it a bit odd to have all the big offering pushes in the SBC named after women.

30. Do you think folks in the pews care about all this?

Yes, in our pews in our church they do care.

A trainload of Baptists

In lieu of a post here today, see “A trainload of Baptists” at the Mt. Carmel/Rusk County Baptist history blog.

Who is Naughty and Nice

Yesterday I posted about the “Pick-a-Bible” syndrome and its relationship to a post-truth society. Today I consider the “naughty vs. nice” method of deciding who is right on religious matters (e.g., re faith and practice). In a post-truth feelings-based society, it becomes natural to turn to how nice a person is in order to decide who is right. How do you feel about that person? If a person is “not nice,” then the “truth” presented by that person is probably wrong. If a person is “nice,” then the “truth” presented by that person is probably right. Kent Brandenburg considers this in his The Who-Is-Nicer or Who-Is-Meaner Argument for the Text of Scripture blog post. Not only are “deciders” using the “nice” criteria, but also “debaters” are putting it out there to help the “deciders” decide. Kent wrote, “I wish there was a moratorium on mentioning it [the “style” and “tone” of argumentation, rlv]. Just leave it alone and continue the debate.” This is a discussion we Christians shouldn’t have to have, but nevertheless need to have.

We all could be kinder, nicer, love more, forgive more. I believe that. However, how “nice” we are does not mean we are correct when we speak about the Bible, salvation, or any number of theological issues. God’s transcendent truth decides right and wrong, good and evil – not how we feel about it, or how we feel about the persons presenting it.

Furthermore, this is not an issue of one side is always nice and the other side is always naughty (i.e., mean, mean-spirited).[i] Both sides in the Bible versions debate can be both nice and mean. It is a matter of how the different sides approach this, their “style.” The “fundamental” side (and KJVO in Bible version debates) tends to express their meanness plainly without any façade.[ii] The “neo-conservative” side (and MVO in Bible version debates) tends to dress up their meanness in “nice clothes” so we can focus on the clothes instead of the meanness. This is especially noticeable to me because I have worked part of my life in construction, where strong men may get mad and express it forcefully; and part of my life in education, where you seldom see much of the in-your-face mean and nasty stuff. Instead it is more likely “stab you in the back with one hand while shaking your hand with the other” – all the while keeping a bright smile on the face, being quite “nice.” There is something better about the severe blow that you can see coming from someone you know is mean, as opposed to the sucker punch that is about to blindside you from someone whom you thought was nice![iii]

This “nice equals right” mentality rises from secular, saccharine, and silly views of what “nice” is. In support of this – or because of it – both secularists and people called Christians have recreated Jesus in their own image of “nice.” The Jesus of the Bible tells us to turn the other cheek. The Jesus of the Bible also turns over the tables of the moneychangers. The Jesus of the Bible tells us to speak the truth. The Jesus of the Bible also calls people hypocrites, serpents, and vipers. I have a feeling some people need to reassess the concept of Jesus that they have installed in their minds.

“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” John 17:17

“Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.” Psalm 119:160

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth…” John 14:6

“…yea, let God be true, but every man a liar…” Romans 3:4

---

[i] Is “arrogant and condescending” better than “mean and nasty”? No. However, it is often easier to weasel out of what you said in an “arrogant and condescending” way – “I didn’t mean it that way.” That malarkey is easier to sell to the foolish than claiming you didn’t mean something you said in a “mean and nasty” way.
[ii] Perhaps this is a general trait of “Fightin’ Fundamentalism.” Additionally, too many King James supporters have drunk from the fountain of Peter Ruckman’s nastiness. I lived 60-something years of my life without owning or reading any of his works, except one small pamphlet on segregation that another preacher gave me years ago. Last year I decided I might not be as knowledgeable as I should be on the KJV debate issues without actually reading something Ruckman wrote, so I ordered a couple of his books. If the rest of his books are anything like those, they could be edited down to about half size by taking out all the bombast about how wrong everyone is except him.
[iii] Example: “I’m going to guess you can’t read the original Bible languages,” by a guy who might not be able to read them in the way regular folks think folks mean when they say they can read something.

Continuity and discontinuity of the word

On Wednesday, July 20, I posted some excerpts of blog comments by Peter Van Kleeck, Jr. that I titled “Words in the KJV that people don’t know.” In it, Peter stated that one reason the King James translation has become “archaic” is because “the language of the standard sacred text has fallen out of use both in the church.” When some people read this, their first thought is others can verify their theory that the KJV is “archaic.” Mark Ward mentioned that Noah Webster (Webster Bible, page iii) complained about this in 1833, and followed it up with corroborating testimony by Benjamin Franklin.[i] There is no reason to suppose that people did not perceive problems with KJV around the turn of the 19th century. However, this does not address the problem.

When I read Peter’s statements, my mind did not go to the possibility that some previous person might have disagreed with him. Instead, I saw a truth in it. My mind went rather to our failure in our churches to continue to faithfully pass down what we have been taught – both the churches that have abandoned the continuity of the word for continual changes of it, and the churches that have not faithfully, carefully, and taught the word that they hold in continuity. We possess ancient truth that has been and is to be passed down. Even when the English language changes in society, if the meaning of English words we use in church were taught in our churches, we would continue to know what they mean. If I were to admit ERI^® is a valid principle (which I do not admit to the extent Mark proposes it), it clearly is not the only principle taught in the Bible! How about this one? “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” (2 Timothy 2:2; cf. Psalm 145:4; Exodus 1:8; Joshua 24:31; Judges 2:10). EERC, Edification and Endurance Requires Continuity. We have a faith written by God 2 Timothy 3:16), given to the apostles/church (John 17:14), and passed down to us by our forefathers in the faith. To what extent have we failed to do this – especially with the truths, but even with the words? Perhaps more than any Christian culture in time or space, Christians in the U.S. have perpetuated the idea of “lone ranger” Christians who sit at home in their chairs and interpret their Bibles on their own apart from faithful biblical leaders and Bible believing congregations. Here’s another principle, ERO¹, Edification Requires One-Anothering (Ephesians 4:12; Romans 14:19; 15:1-3). When the Bereans searched the scriptures daily, it is unlikely that every household had its own copy of the OT, but rather that they came together and searched the scriptures together.

What about the world of the lost? They are not taught in church, therefore not heirs to this principle. Well, some of them are brought up in church, but, yes, what about those who know nothing of the church or the Bible? Enter two other principles – ERG, Edification Requires Guidance (Acts 8:30-31) and ERO² Edification Requires Obedience (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15; Acts 8:26-27). The lost do not understand the word, and have bigger issues to overcome than whether a besom is a broom, what a mandrake is, or what halt means. It is the duty of the church to carry the message and explain/teach what it means. Is it too much to expect us to teach a few words along the way?

Additionally, when I contemplate the biblical and spiritual failures of my life, very few of them are related to not knowing a besom is a broom. Mark Twain supposedly said something like this, “It is not the parts of the Bible that I cannot understand that bother me – it’s the parts that I do understand.” Whether or not Twain said that (I haven’t checked), I find my life struggles are related more to what I know than what I do not.

“O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”

---

[i] It is not clear to me whether this was actually written by Benjamin Franklin, and if so, to what end. This appears as part of a letter from “A. B.” “To the Printer (Franklin ?) proposing a new version of the Bible with modern expressions and turns of phrase. See Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Volume 3, pages 307-309.

Links on my right sidebar

On my right sidebar, I have 16 links. I do not think I have ever written about this in any direct or specific way. Here is some explanation of what is there and why. One reason they are there is to make them easy for me to find. I hope it has the further benefit of making it easy for you!

Personal blogs, sites, and music interest

Two of the links are pages from this blog, About it (and me) and Guidelines for posting. Four others are sites I maintain (some not very well), and the other is our official or semi-official website for the Sacred Harp singings here in Texas.

• East Texas Sacred Harp - A site to promote the Sacred Harp Singings that we have in East Texas.
• Mt. Carmel blog - Includes the text of my history of the old Mount Carmel Baptist Church in southern Rusk County, Texas, as well as other Rusk County Baptist History (churches, people, places).
• Old Prospect Baptist Church - Our church website, not very well kept up. Not exactly my best skill set.
• Sacred Harp Singing in Texas - A website that promotes Sacred Harp Singings in Texas, with singing announcements, history, biography, and more. Maintained by Gaylon Powell.
• What’s Happening at Old Redland? - Information about the progress, or lack of progress, in maintaining the old Redland church house (aka we have no money).

Biblical and textual related blogs
Not all the posts on these blogs are about the Bible, but the defense of the Traditional Text of the Bible is a primary interest and topic of the owners and contributors. Each have a slightly different approach to the subject. Very helpful. 

• Standard Sacred Text.com - Blog of son and father Peter Van Kleeck, Jr. and Peter Van Kleeck, Sr., to promote and defend what they define as a Standard Sacred Text.
• Stylos - Blog of Jeff Riddle, pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church. Defense and promotion of the traditional original language texts and related issues.
• What is Truth? - Blog of Kent Brandenburg (Baptist missionary in Utah) and Thomas Ross (Baptist Mukwonago Baptist Church). Defense and promotion of the traditional language texts, the KJAV English translation, and related issues.

Other

• Baptist History Homepage - The Baptist History Homepage is a huge site for Baptist history, original Baptist documents, Baptist biographies, etc, maintained by Jim Duvall, Editor.
• Biblical Studies Blog - The blog of BiblicalStudies.org, an online host of Journals, Monographs and Lecture Series. The blog primarily consists of free downloads of public domain titles. Recent examples include Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations by Benjamin Blayney, Regnum Dei (Kingdom of God) by Archibald Robertson, and Treatise on the Use of the Tenses of Hebrew by Samuel Rolles Driver.
• Find-A-Grave - “Search or browse cemeteries and grave records for every-day and famous people from around the world.”
• Praisegod Barebones - “The online musings of Bart Barber,” a Southern Baptist pastor historian. Not very active anymore (as a personal blogger).
• The Baptist Sentinel - A pastor friend writes about the doctrines and books of the Bible, and preaching the Word of God, history of Christianity, and pastoral ministry.
• Viajando Ligera - Related to my daughter’s time in Costa Rica. Not currently active (i.e., no new posts are being added).

Check these out. Maybe you will find something that intrigues you.

The Scrivener Textus Receptus

Is the Textus Receptus Perfect in Every Jot and Tittle? Ambrose vs. Scrivener

I do not put this forward because I agree with Mark Ward. In addition, I think he tried to be a bit too clever with his hero Henry Ambrose. However, I think this is worth reading, something of which any KJV-Only or TR-Only supporters should be aware. It might help them prepare their arguments better, and perhaps strip away some extreme positions that cannot be supported. 

The following article is a slightly modified version of a lecture I delivered at BJU Seminary in Greenville, SC, on Nov 1, 2021.

The particular edition of the Greek New Testament used in all sectors of KJV-Onlyism is called “Scrivener’s”...I bought a copy of Scrivener’s Greek New Testament some months ago; my copy was published by the UK’s Trinitarian Bible Society, one of the most important and influential and responsible KJV-Only groups in the world.

To say that Scrivener’s Greek New Testament is used in all sectors of KJV-Onlyism is perhaps not quite right. The Ruckmanite extremists don’t have much patience for Greek...

Now that you have seen this, you have to read it, or else you may think you know something you don’t.

10 Things You Should Know

Links to some articles in Crossway’s “10 Things You Should Know” series.

• 10 Things You Should Know about Charles Spurgeon -- “Spurgeon believed that Christian ministers should expect a special degree of suffering to be given to them as a way of forming them for Christlike, compassionate ministry.”
• 10 Things You Should Know about Christian Hospitality -- “Every Christian is called to practice hospitality, but that does not mean that everyone practices it in the same way.”
• 10 Things You Should Know about Church Discipline -- “There are many wrong motivations for church discipline, which have led to abuses in the process. The one right motivation for discipline is love.”
• 10 Things You Should Know about Scientism -- “Strong scientism is the view that the only knowledge we can have about reality are those that have been properly tested in the hard sciences (especially physics and chemistry).”
• 10 Things You Should Know about Sex -- “When it comes to sexual sin, the greatest sexual danger to any human being anywhere lives inside him, not outside.”
• 10 Things You Should Know about the Bible’s Teaching on Men and Women -- “Who we are as men and women defines the core of our existence, not merely its periphery.”

Systemic Racism Discussion

Karen Swallow Prior on systemic racism, and a reply by Peter Lumpkins. You might find these interesting.

• Don’t believe in systemic racism? Let’s talk about the sexual revolution. -- “If you still don’t believe in systemic racism, let’s talk about the sexual revolution. ‘The sexual revolution that started in the 1960s — spread through popular culture, enacted by the masses and codified in law — is now as pervasive and inescapable as the popup ads on our computer screens. Almost no home or family or person has been unaffected by it.”
• Systemic Racism & Sexual Revolution: Replying to Karen Swallow Prior -- “When Prior returns to describe the analogous nature between the 60s sexual revolution and systemic racism in our culture, she offers no real similarities apart from her raw assertion there exists similarities. For example, the sexual revolution ‘spread through popular culture . . . now as pervasive and inescapable as the pop-up ads on our computer screens . . . From myriad loudspeakers, it broadcasts the words and rhythms of pop-music erotica. And constantly, over the intellectual Muzak, comes the message sex will save you and libido make you free.’ But where would we similarly find systemic racism like this in our culture?...In the end, Prior contradicts her own analogy.”

Jeff Riddle and a Turretin Fan

The following links present an interesting discussion about the Textus Receptus (or Traditional Text) between Jeffrey Riddle and a blogger who styles himself TurrentinFan (i.e., a fan of Francis Turretin).

• Word Magazine # 75: James White Versus Francis Turretin -- “JW typically confuses the TR and Majority text position with KJV-Onlyism. Furthermore, he criticizes KJV-Onlyism for all the wrong reasons.”
• Responding to Jeff Riddle - Regarding James White and (the real) Turretin -- “Our brother in Christ, Jeff Riddle (JR), has posted some comments regarding James White (JW) and the real Francis Turretin (FT), which because I'm a friend of the former and a fan of the latter, I would like to address.”
• Responding to TurretinFan on (the real) Turretin -- “Though I would take exception to most of TF’s critique I wanted to offer an initial response to what I believe to be the central intellectual area where this critique is problematic.”
• Muller on Turretin and Textual Criticism – Follow-Up Response to Jeff Riddle -- “Riddle responded by quoting Richard Muller’s discussion of views of issues related to inerrancy, contrasting folks like Turretin with later folks like B.B. Warfield.”
• Even more thoughts on Muller and (the real) Turretin -- “ What Muller is saying is that the Protestant orthodox, like (the real) Turretin, did not seek the ‘infinite regress’ of the reconstruction (restoration) of the hypothetical inerrant ‘original autograph.’”
• WM # 76: Rejoinders to TurretinFan -- (Sermon audio)

The Shepherd and the C.E.O.

On the SBC Voices blog, Clayton Pruett, an SBC pastor in Illinois, wrote about The Shepherd and the C.E.O. Though I don’t agree with all points as he expressed them, I think the following excerpt below comparing the Shepherd and C.E.O highlights some problems with the “C.E.O mentality” that permeates American churches. It is good that someone in the SBC speaks against it.

·         C.E.O. Leaders use people for progress

o   Shepherd Leaders love and invest into people

·         C.E.O. Leaders see friendship and pastoral work as an obstacle to success.

o   Shepherd leaders see friendship and pastoral work as success.

·         C.E.O. leaders see accountability as a challenge to their authority.

o   Shepherd leaders see accountability as caring for their heart.

·         C.E.O. leaders know how to work the system and manipulate to get their way.

o   Shepherd leaders know how to work through things with others to get God’s way.

·         C.E.O. leaders build a talented team to carry out their vision.

o   Shepherd leaders build a talented team to cultivate the church and each other.

·         C.E.O. leaders see other churches as competition.

o   Shepherd leaders see other churches as family.

·         C.E.O. Leaders use the Bible to reveal their vision

o   Shepherd leaders use the Bible to reveal Jesus

You may read the entire article at the link above.

Transitioning from One Leader to the Next

In How to Transition God’s People from One Leader to the Next: Lessons from David and Solomon, David Huffstutler (a pastor at First Baptist, Rockford, Illinois, who blogs Religious Affections) writes, “Any church or Christian organization can feel somewhat lost when a pastor or leader steps down...we have an interesting example for transitioning leadership in the lives of David and Solomon.”

Based this example of David transferring the kingdom to Solomon, Huffstutler offers five suggestions he believes will help in transitioning from one leader to the next.

• Put your house in order before you finish your ministry.
• Warn your successor of the “problem people” that he will inherit.
• Pass off projects well.
• Don’t wait too long to pass the baton.
• Give people a proper transition from one leader to the next.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Revelation, back and forth

Revelation: What About Those Who Have Never Heard? -- "Because everyone has a sufficient amount of light to see and believe in Him so as to receive more light, no one has an excuse for unbelief."

Give Me Revelation! -- "If people don’t even need the specifics, if people don’t even need the whole counsel of God, then is there any blood on anyone’s hands for shrinking back?"

History posted on Mount Carmel blog

Rusk County Minister Writes The Free Will Baptist

Taking the Bible literally?

An interesting read, by Glenn T. Stanton. Check it out.

I Don't Take The Bible Literally, And Neither Does Anyone Else

A recent report from Pew tells us that only 39 percent of Christians take the Bible literally.

Why? It’s quite simple: Literally no one takes the Bible literally. NO ONE. But otherwise intelligent pollsters and journalists continue to ask the question as a gauge for who really takes the Bible seriously—or too seriously. And Christians continue to play along.

Of course, when we answer “Do you take the Bible literally?” we are simply taking it as short-hand for “Do you take the Bible as truth?” But the faithful student should have long ago dispelled such misinformed assumptions, correcting the questioner with, “You don’t really understand much about Christianity or the Bible, do you?” The serious student of Dante or Shakespeare wouldn’t tolerate such ignorance of their beloved texts. We shouldn’t either.

A variety of music blogs

Below is a collection of music blogs, of a few different varieties. A few a devoted almost entirely to music, while some others by musicians who blog about whatever strikes their fancy. Some are mostly for announcements, some for news and some for musical topics. Perhaps you will find something that interests you. The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked.

* Charlottesville Sacred Harp Singers
* Lauren's Southern Gospel Blog
* Leland Paul Kusmer
* Relevant Reverence
* Singing Church
* Swain's Musings
* The European Bluegrass Blog
* The Gospel According to Torrence
* The Gospel Blog
* Yankee Gospel Girl

More Linkin, Abraham

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

Barna Describes Religious Changes Among Busters, Boomers, and Elders Since 1991 -- "The three oldest generational segments of America’s population have been actively redefining their faith over the past two decades."
Dewey President Williams -- "As a child, Williams was instructed in the singing of Sacred Harp or shape-note hymns by his grandmother in the kitchen of her house."
How math illumines our infinite God -- “In Mathematics Through the Eyes of Faith, Gottfried Leibniz, the co-founder of calculus, thought that 'most scientific problems need infinitesimal calculus because everything in nature bears the signature of an infinite author.'”
Lawyers: The purpose of marriage is procreation -- "Marriage exists for its procreative potential, not just as recognition of a loving relationship between two people, and the U.S. Supreme Court agrees, lawyers for an Oklahoma clerk said in a new court filing."
Make a joyful noise: The revival of sacred harp singing -- "...people singing power chords!"
Mom Pleads for Help in Search for Missing Nursing Student -- "Bahia Bisharat was last seen on March 19 at St. Charles Community College near St. Louis, and her car was found in the parking lot..."
Party of the rich: In Congress, it's the Democrats -- "Republicans are the party of the rich, right?...But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican."
Poetry is a Way of Seeing: A Conversation with Betty Adcock -- "I feel my roots grow in both sides of the south’s past: the poor-white, dirt-farming majority and the plantation-owning minority. I know more than one thing because of that."
Racial Imaginaries and Folklorization at the Society for American Music -- "My session also featured Florida State musicology doctoral candidate Sarah Kahre, who presented a fascinating paper on what revisions of the tune “Boylston” in different editions of The Sacred Harp tell us about revisers priorities."