“Warding Off” Confessional Bibliology

“Warding Off” Confessional Bibliology: A Reply to The Authority of the Septuagint

I subtitle this “A Reply to” rather than “A Review of” The Authority of the Septuagint. It contains some review, but I also make severe criticisms and strong complaints about the work, and focus on certain authors, traits, and chapters far above the others.

The Authority of the Septuagint: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Approaches was released by IVP Academic October 30, 2025.[i] Edited by Gregory R. Lanier and William A. Ross, they add contributions from ten other scholars: Levi Berntson, J. V. Fesko, Edmon L. Gallagher, Karen Jobes, Thomas Keene, Joshua McQuaid, James B. Prothro, Myrto Theocharous, Daniel Treier, and Mark Ward. (When I look at the list, the last name seems to be the “odd man out,” in several ways.)[ii] The contributors combine to create nine chapters (one an introduction by Lanier and Ross and one a summary by Theocharous), two excursuses, and an afterword. The bulk of the work is followed by an extensive bibliography, brief information about the contributors, a meager general index, as well as scripture and ancient text indices.

In the introduction, Lanier and Ross introduce their purpose, provide overviews for the coming chapters, and set up three interesting categories of test cases. The purpose of the book is to address the question of whether the Septuagint has any authority for churches today (and, if so, what is the nature of that authority). Up front they make it clear that voices at the far poles will be excluded – the Greek Orthodox because they hold the LXX as their definitive text, and any variety of Protestants who believe the LXX has no authority. Here, on page 2, they boldly conflate as one two different views that are not the same – exclusive use of the King James Bible and Confessional Bibliology. In this they will go from bad to worse. While the Greek Orthodox position will simply be ignored, the Confessional Bibliology position will not. The Greek Orthodox gets no place at the table, while the Confessional Bibliologist gets no place at the table and gets an entire “chapter” (excursus) attacking their position. Myrto Theocharous, in her summary, mildly rebukes the exclusion of the insights of “the Christian traditions of the East” (pp. 205-206, 232), but seems to generally accept as “gospel” the hatchet job on Confessional Bibliology.

The three categories of test cases (pp. 6-17) are (1) New Testament citations that align with the LXX against the Hebrew; (2) New Testament citations that align with the Hebrew against the LXX; and (3) New Testament citations that do not align with one another. These cases have interesting potential, but are not engaged by every contributor. I have not analyzed all the test cases, but one caught my eye – NT quotations of Genesis 2:24 (pp. 15-16). This example is presented as textual diversity or non-alignment of citations. One difference cited is the difference “of the verb for ‘cling’.” Matthew, in NA-28, has κολληθήσεται while Mark and Paul have προσκολληθήσεται. However, there is a variant here, a case where some MSS of Matthew have προσκολληθήσεται (compare NA-28 with TR and RP in Matthew 19:5).[iii] It does not exude confidence, whether the editors simply did not know this or chose not to mention this to their readers.

Chapter Six – but especially the two excursuses – appear designed to challenge and refute the Confessional Bibliology view of the Septuagint. Confessional Bibliology almost seems to be a burr under the saddles of the editors. On the one hand, they wish to sideline it as a view unworthy of notice, while on the other hand giving it prominent notice in their design to refute it! Berntson has a good historical overview of the Reformed view of the LXX, but, in my opinion, seems to overemphasize the minority views (pp. 113-137). In her summary, Theocharous, without drawing attention to Berntson, corrects this with her conclusion (Table 9.1, p. 232) by stating the consensus view of the Reformers and Early Scholastics was that the Hebrew text was authoritative and the LXX was not.

In his excursus “‘Kept Pure in All Ages’?” (pp. 138-146), J. V. Fesko fires a warning shot across the bow of Confessional Bibliology by addressing the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8, which states (among other things) that “The Old Testament in Hebrew” is “Authenticall.”[iv] Without specifically mentioning it, Fesko reviews a primary point of Confessional Bibliology. When all is said and done, however, the shot misses its mark. The Westminster Confession still places authority in “The Old Testament in Hebrew” – the Old Testament in Hebrew, not the Old Testament in Greek!

The excursus by Mark Ward is titled “The Septuagint and Confessional Bibliology.”[v] Rather than have a proponent discuss their view and its relation to the Septuagint, the editors hired a hit man to write a hit piece. Ward is not a random scholar chosen to write about this subject, but an opponent who has prayed imprecatory prayers against Confessional Bibliology![vi] The excursus begins its excursion poorly and ends it badly. In violation of his promise to stop identifying Confessional Bibliology with IFB King James Bible “Onlyism,” he calls the two views “fraternal twins” (p. 169).[vii] For his schtick, Ward “reviews” the Reformation Bible Society Conference of 2024 (p. 170). He undertakes to summarize and reply to “the main confessional bibliology arguments levied against the use of the Septuagint.” He further misunderstands, since the conference focused on the Old Testament and the LXX, that Confessional Bibliology has found some new direction.[viii] Something is not new simply because it just dawned on him!

Ward falsely indicates that he is interacting with “the four key presenters at the Reformation Bible Society conference” (p. 170, fn 6).[ix] He includes three of the plenary lectures given at the Reformation Bible Society conference, but avoids the fourth. He knows he is misrepresenting the facts – and so does editor William Ross, who attended the conference. The four plenary lectures were: “What Exactly is the Septuagint?” by Russell Fuller; “How Did the Early Church Use the LXX?” by Jeffrey Riddle; “What was the Reformation Perspective on the LXX?” by David Kranendonk; and “Why Does the Septuagint Matter Today?” by Christian McShaffrey.[x] He avoids the fourth and replaces it by mentioning – and then dismissing – a short paper that was not particularly relevant to his cause (because it was a paper given in a breakout session).[xi] When Ward excludes one of the primary speakers at the conference he is reviewing, how can we have any confidence when he says things like, “none of the speakers reckon in any detail with…” (p. 173). How can the reader know this, when Ward refuses to present all the facts?

On page 173 Ward muddies the waters by implying that Confessional Bibliologists are tilting at windmills, then gives examples that show they are not, including citing the ESV preface concerning using the LXX (and other ancient versions) “to support a divergence from the Masoretic text” (p. 174). He further stirs the mud by saying that Confessional Bibliologists oppose use of the LXX (p. 176), as if the conference presenters do not know the difference between using the LXX to help understand Hebrew words and using it to emend the base text to reflect the reading of the LXX rather than the MT. Their opposition is not to use of the LXX or other early versions to help understand words and such like, but to the use of the LXX to change the Hebrew Masoretic text. Ward even points to examples where modern versions do just that, such as the NIV at Genesis 4:8.[xii] Who’s tilting at whom?

Perhaps Ward raises some questions that Confessional Bibliologists will need and want to answer, but the overall excursus runs off in the wrong direction, smattered with misrepresentations and falsehoods.

While excluding the Confessional Bibliologists from giving their viewpoint, the editors chose to have a Roman Catholic scholar give a Catholic viewpoint. James B. Prothro’s chapter “A Roman Catholic Approach” injects further questions about the authoritative canon (pp. 190-191), gives due deference to the deuterocanonicals (pp. 184, 187, 204), and even in an indirect way questions sola scriptura (pp. 193).[xiii] However, “A Roman Catholic Approach” fits the mold for which the editors were looking – a view between the poles that gives some authority to the LXX, rather than all or none (p. 2).[xiv] The book ends with Myrto Theocharous summarizing things, and Septuagint scholar Karen Jobes reflecting on the overall topic.[xv]

Straight talk, no excursus.

The Authority of the Septuagint contains a lot of information that I found interesting, educational, and even helpful, even though I disagree with the book’s aim and its conclusions. Nevertheless, to a greater degree, I found that The Authority of the Septuagint, like sheep and commentaries, went far astray. This is especially true in the choice to have Mark Ward – of all people – write the excursus on Confessional Bibliology. In his so-called review of the Confessional Bibliology book Why I Preach from the Received Text, Mark Ward ended with an imprecatory prayer against Confessional Bibliology, “I pray that its days will be few.” On his blogpost “Breaking My Two-Year Silence on Confessional Bibliology,” Ward professed to disliking leading proponents of Confessional Bibliology.[xvi] Yet Lanier and Ross chose this man to run off and on about Confessional Bibliology.[xvii] They obviously knew that Ward was an opponent of the position. Ross, in fact, was a guest on the podcast when Ward “broke his silence.”[xviii] Ross also attended the very Reformation Bible Society conference that Ward misrepresented in his excursus! He knew better. The editors could not have not known that Ward misrepresented parts of the conference, dislikes leading proponents of the position, and desires that the Confessional Bibliology position should be destroyed! I find their choice of Mark Ward to write about Confessional Bibliology in their book to be misguided, reprehensible, and unsuitable for a book foisted on the public as “academic.”

In their “Preface,” Lanier and Ross say that a project like this could easily “go off the rails” (p. vii).[xix] I believe it did. This book will stand as a perpetual stain on the reputation, honesty, and decency of its editors, as well as a question mark on the quality of oversight and care put into the materials published by InterVarsity Press/IVP Academic.

Endnotes.

---

[i] https://www.ivpress.com/the-authority-of-the-septuagint
[ii] The information about contributors says that Mark Ward “serves as editor for Crossway Publishers.” Ward was not an editor with Crossway when the book was published in 2025. He was only there from May to November in 2024. However, he probably was in that position at the time he contributed the excursus. https://byfaithweunderstand.com/c-v/ | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wewxfs5gE9Q
[iii] For example, κολληθήσεται appears in B D W Θ 078; προσκολληθήσεται appears in א C L Z f¹ 33.
[iv] Authentical = original, genuine, trustworthy, reliable.
[v] He also includes this “chapter” on his YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w2hkulghmI
[vi]  https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2022/07/24/review-why-i-preach-from-the-received-text/ “I am dismayed that the tiny Confessional Bibliology movement has gathered enough strength to publish it. I pray that its days will be few.”
[vii] http://www.jeffriddle.net/2022/07/wm-243-responding-to-another-comment-by.html I was one of several individuals – including Dane Jöhannson, Dwayne Green, and Tim Berg – who advised and asked Mark to stop calling Confessional Bibliology “KJV-Onlyism” – to which he agreed, writing, “I have prayerfully considered their appeals and yours, and I have decided to stop using that label” for Confessional Bibliology. However, he did not stop.
[viii] This is another instance showing that Ward misunderstands Confessional Bibliology and is not qualified to lecture or write about it. First, it implies that Ward is not familiar with the OT views of the Reformers and the Protestant Scholastics. Westminster 1.8 (as well as the Savoy and 1689 London Confessions) is a touchstone of the Confessional Bibliology movement, and clearly includes the Old Testament in Hebrew as one of the two confessional texts. Additionally, this is addressed in Why I Preach from the Received Text (e.g., pp. 15-17), which Mark Ward reviewed as soon as it was available in July 2022. To address Confessional Bibliology’s position on the Old Testament as if it were some new thing suggests either pretense or incompetence.
[ix] Ward again misrepresents that he is discussing the “four main presenters” on page 178.
[x] https://www.textandtranslation.org/videos-2024-reformation-bible-society-conference/
[xi] Not that there was anything wrong with this short paper, just that it is misrepresented by Ward as if it were one of the plenary lectures. Short papers in breakout sessions are usually situated somewhat more peripherally to the main topic than the plenary lectures. Ward knows how conferences work in this regard.
[xii] The ESV adds from the LXX to the text of Psalm 145:13, and this book notes other places where the LXX “corrects” the Hebrew.
[xiii] Prothro provides a “fraternal twin” to Daniel Wallace’s “gift that keeps on giving.” Prothro writes: “At the same time, it is not as though we do not have God’s Word unless we have a perfect Bible. Given the textual evidence, it would be difficult in most cases to know that we had such a Bible even if we did” (p. 190).
[xiv] …there must be some option between these two poles…” Another interesting thing about the inclusion of a Roman Catholic view: Many modern Protestants and evangelicals sound closer to the Roman Catholics who were debating the Protestant Scholastics and further from the view of men like John Owen and Francis Turretin. Greogry Lanier describes Prothro as “one of our Cambridge buddies who is now Roman Catholic.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69JlFGgO7g4
[xv] It was my impression that Myrto Theocharous is not all that familiar with Confessional Bibliology and assumed that Ward was shooting straight.
[xvi] https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2024/09/26/breaking-my-two-year-silence-on-confessional-bibliology/
[xvii] Gregory Lanier has also exhibited personal distaste for representatives of Confessional Bibliology. He has described them as “grumpy Protestants who really don't like what we’re doing.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69JlFGgO7g4

[xviii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wozfw14b4n8
[xix] There is an interesting “fraternal twinship” between “go off the rails” and “excursus.” The latter comes from Latin excurrere, “to run out of.”

Truth in Translation, and other reviews

The posting of book and other reviews are for information and instruction and do not constitute endorsement of the materials or reviews of materials that are linked (or the sites on which they appear).

• A brief review of BeDuhn’s “Truth in Translation” -- “BeDuhn seems to operate under the impression that he has avoided all bias in his analysis. At no point in the book does he reveal his own personal theological biases.”
• A Brief Review of Strict Baptist Periodicals (UK) -- “The following is a work in progress and is sure to have some gaps and errors (especially as it pertains to original publishing dates in light of periodicals with shared names and the length of time that has transpired since the magazines were first released).”
• A journey from religious radical to nothing new -- “Oden shows such a return to the ancient Christian witness is an essential journey for all of us fatigued by unfulfilling and agenda-driven theology.”
• Book Review: What If It’s Wonderful? by Nicole Zasowski -- “Zasowski writes like a therapist. She writes with a measured compassion that invites you in and holds space for safe exploration of one’s fears...”
• God’s Monsters, by Esther J. Hamori -- “Unfortunately, the book suffers from several weaknesses. First is the myopic way the work seeks to compartmentalize these monsters and horrors, isolating them from the greater narrative.”
• Presuppositional Analysis – The Received Text: A Field Guide -- “In The Received Text: A Field Guide, DeSoto presupposes that Scripture has always existed in a continuous form available to God’s people...”
• Review of Why I Preach from the Received Text -- “The book nearly equally provides a wealth of quotations from proponents of the Critical Text (CT) position, wherein their lack of faith and commitment to pragmatism is on clear display.”
• Review: ‘The Widening of God’s Mercy’ by Christopher and Richard Hays, by Rebecca McLaughlin -- “Richard Hays Thinks God Changed His Mind About Same-Sex Sex. Is He Right?”
• The Received Text: A Field Guide – Review -- “A vigorous defense of the Received Text tradition, distinguished by its confessional convictions and acute observations about modern text-critical uncertainty.”
• To Honour God: The Spirituality of Oliver Cromwell -- “To Honour God would be excellent for devotional reading. There are 30 short chapters, perfect for complementing daily Bible reading.”

A New Exposition,and other reviews

The posting of book or film reviews does not constitute endorsement of the books or book reviews that are linked.

• “A New Exposition of the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689,” ed. Rob Ventura: A Review -- “In summary, there is much to applaud in this book...The Exposition does not, however, equally maintain this quality between its various authors and chapters.”
• Book review by Gary Pinkerton of A Boundary Atlas of Texas, 1821–1845s -- “Any researcher familiar with the difficulties of understanding the boundaries of pre-statehood jurisdictions will immediately appreciate the value of this remarkable effort.”
• Book Review: Gregory R. Lanier and William A. Ross, The Septuagint: What It Is and Why It Matters -- “The book comes out of an elective course the authors co-teach on the Septuagint.”
• Book Review: Rough Country: How Texas Became America’s Most Powerful Bible-Belt State -- “Rough Country offers an important contribution to American religious history as it shows the contours of religion, race, and politics in America’s most powerful Bible-belt state.”
• Book Review: Uncomfortable, by Brett McCracken -- “...pursuit of comfort has made its way into our lives as Christians as well as in the church.”
• Confusion - A Biblical Critique of the New Teachings of Dr. Peter Ruckman -- “Confusion - God is not the author of confusion, but the false teachings of false teachers has resulted in much confusion today.”
• Ex-Worship Leader: Why I Left the CCM Movement -- “The author is a Christian who says he realized CCC was man-centered and unavoidably associated with a spirit of immorality.”
• GHC Review 22: Three Types of Religious Philosophy -- “Summarizing much of Clark’s philosophical thought, this clearly-worded and fairly short volume makes for a nice overview of Clark’s philosophy.”
• Review: “Sheltered but Not Protected: Learning to Love, Forgive, and Heal After Emotional and Sexual Abuse” -- “The church culture around him not only permitted but protected this sort of behavior, and instead of reporting the abuser as a child molester, the pastor forced the victim to repent in front of the church.”
• SWJT names ‘Mere Christian Hermeneutics’ its 2024 Book of the Year -- “The award recognizes a top overall Book of the Year and the top books in 12 categories related various academic disciplines.”
• The Pursuit of Safety: A Theology of Danger, Risk, and Security -- “Interesting discussions frequently bog down in what seem to be tangential analyses many readers will find tedious. Dedicated readers will find these apparent asides eventually support the broader argument”
• Three Types of Religious Philosophy, Gordon H. Clark, Book Review -- “The fact is that all persons are philosophers whether they know it or admit it or not. That is to say, all persons have a worldview...”

Lewis Foster on NKJV

Some interesting comments by Lewis Alvin Foster, who was a translator on both the NIV and NKJV. He wrote a book titled Selecting a Translation of the Bible. The bulk of the book consists of his going through nine English translations, giving some history, pro & cons, and recommendations. Concerning the “Weaknesses” of the New King James Version, he writes:

“The choice to follow the Greek text of the King James Version (1611) gives unwarranted precedence to the Textus Receptus (see above). Although much careful work has gone into the publishing of the Majority Text, the real use of this study has been thwarted by following whatever the King James reads whether supported by the Majority Text or not (for example, over 15 instances in the Gospel of Luke). Whether one agrees with advocates of the Majority Text in their consistent preference for its readings, one must recognize the healthy corrective that has been imposed on the Westcott-Hort tradition and long accepted assumptions in this area of textual criticism.” (Lewis A. Foster, Selecting a Translation of the Bible, Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing, 1983, pp. 123-124)

Foster makes an intriguing charge of dispensational bias in the translation of Matthew 24:33, in changing changing “it” to “He”. 

“Some changes that do appear in the NKJV cannot be explained by a difference in the Greek text, or by what was in the 1611 version, or by the demands of contemporary usage. Only the favoring of a particular interpretation has been served. Giving but one example, a passage reflects the dispensational view—when ‘it is near’ is changed in the NKJV to ‘He is near’ (Matthew 24:33).” (p. 125)

I wish he had given more examples of his belief that they followed doctrinal bias. This example is outdated. It was initially translated and published as “He”. “He” as in the 1979 NKJV NT was at some point changed back to “it”. Maybe someone noticed their bias was showing! The 1982 print edition of the whole Bible NKJV that I own has “it” but with a footnote that says “Or, He.”

The Cincinnati Enquirer, Sunday, March 28, 2004, p. B7

Proper pronunciation

How important to biblical scholarship is the proper pronunciation of Greek words?

In the linked video, Mark Ward, John Meade, and Will Ross give a “response” to the sessions of the first meeting Reformation Bible Society. In a complaint about the scholarship, Will Ross (starting at about 13:51) says there were problems with “even basic things like mispronounced words that would be common to people who work in more detail with Septuagint scholarship.” Is this a legitimate complaint, or more a closing of ranks, “You’re not a scholar if you don’t pronounce Greek words like I do”? How well do we really know that everyone across the Roman empire pronounced Koine Greek the same way? I notice that Englishmen, even those in the same country, have a wide range of pronunciations which does not amount to ignorance, but may properly be ascribed to accent. I notice even Mark, John, and Will do not have the same accent. Starting about 47:01 Mark and Will refer to Peter Van Kleeck’s paper on Augustine. Mark calls him “uh-guhs-tin” which I perceive to be popular in academic circles. Will calls him “aw-guh-steen” (for which he gets high points for speaking a little drawl-like, as we talk here in East Texas!). Maybe one or both of them are not well-schooled in their historical scholarship. Or, more likely, they just speak differently. But is not this the pots calling kettles black? Physicians, heal yourselves before you scold others.

I hear and read in the Bible version debates a lot of things from both sides that I believe are petty and lacking in substance. They distract from the substance of the arguments. I see such pettiness in their pronunciation complaint. The more I hear British English on TV, in lectures, videos, and such like, the less I believe there is one proper pronunciation of most English words. Even the Brits do not have one pronunciation shared among themselves. And neither do we.

Mark likes to say that others in the Bible version debates are offensive, but I find their raising themselves up on the backs of others to be offensive.

• Also interesting, the rejoinder by Jeff Riddle to Meade, Ross, and Ward.

God Bless the USA Bible

This post is not a recommendation of the Bible views of Tim Wildsmith. However, his review of the God Bless the USA Bible is timely and interesting because of the political circumstances. The reviews are not political, but rather talk about the binding and print quality of this particular Bible.

Critique of “A Nearly Forgotten Heritage: The Geneva Bible”

A critique of “A Nearly Forgotten Heritage: The Geneva Bible,” by Jonathan Edwards (a modern one, not the Puritan preacher) represents another curious piece of the “pro-Geneva/anti-KJV” puzzle.[i] It contains some of the so-called “common knowledge” that is “widely available online” which passes for historical truth.

“In 1568, the Bishops Bible was published. Although partially using the Tyndale work, it mostly translated from the Latin Vulgate.”

This is false, The Bishops Bible was not “mostly translated from the Latin Vulgate.”

“The Geneva remained popular, and despite many reprints, the Geneva did not require any revisions.”

This is also false. Yes, the Geneva Bible was revised – one revision admitted by this author – but there were others as well. The Geneva Bible itself finds its basis in the prior English translations. Some Geneva Bibles were printed with the New Testament revised by Laurence Tomson (for example, this 1590 printing).[ii]

“All of the KJV printings prior to 1666 contained the Apocrypha...”

This is probably generally true, but not totally correct, in an age when printers bound Bibles in all sorts of ways (e,g., they might add the Book of Common Prayer, Sternhold and Hopkins Psalter, etc.) This 1637 printing of the KJV does not contain the Apocrypha, but skips from Malachi to Matthew.

“…the King James Bible…also included the Apocrypha, books the Roman church used, but which had been removed from the Geneva (the 1560 edition did include the books in an ‘inter-testamental’ section). No marginal notes, no cross-references…”

This statement implies that King James translation did not have the Apocrypha in an “inter-testemantal” sections – but it does! It does not deal with The Prayer of Manasseh, which in the Geneva Bible did not include in or ever move to the “inter-testamental” section. He further misunderstands marginal notes and cross references, both of which the 1611 contain. However, it did not have commentary or study notes, as the Geneva Bible.

“It was a publishing failure. The people did not flock to the new Bible, they continued to use the tried and true Geneva.”

“In its first five years of existence, readers called for seventeen editions, compared with six editions of the Geneva Bible during those same years. Expanding the time frame, in the first 35 years of its existence the KJV went through a whopping 182 editions.” See “The Reception of the King James Bible” in Correcting the Internet.

“The Mayflower pilgrims brought the Geneva to America. As I learned my family history as a 10th generation descendant of John and Priscilla (speak for yourself, John) Alden, I became interested in the Geneva Bible. John’s Bible is on display in the museum at his home near Plymouth, Massachusetts.”

Apparently, this descendant of John Alden does not know Alden’s Bible on display in the museum at Plymouth is not a Geneva Bible, but is rather a King James Bible instead.

“The KJV...is nearly word-for-word identical to the Geneva. Because of the exceptionally close copy of the KJV to the Geneva, I refer to the ‘Authorized Version’ as the ‘Plagiarized Version.’ It is simply hard to believe that being so close, with the exception of maybe 10 places, the KJV is not simply plagiarized rather than an actual work of dedicated scholars.”

This is strange complaint from one touting the Geneva Bible. If it is so great, then he ought to be glad its replacement was so exactly like it! However, in honesty the King James translation definitely is not a plagiarized version of the Geneva Bible, and there are certainly many more than 10 places where the Geneva is different. Many many more. Yet it is true that all the early generations of the English Bible are all built on the work of one William Tyndale. And rightly so.

It is good that this (probably young) “amateur Christian historian” is interested in the Geneva Bible and the history of the English Bible. It is bad that he gets so many facts wrong – facts that someone else can now come along and say this is information “widely available online”! Sadder still that a site that dubs itself “Christian History Institute” allows such to pass as “Christian History.” “Maybe 10 places” the KJV is different from the Geneva? Does anybody at CHI even check the stuff that gets posted?

---

[i] “Jonathan Edwards is an amateur Christian historian living in the Salt Lake Valley. He has studied many eras of Christian history in depth, most recently focusing on the Reformation. He is a descendant of John Alden, a crew member of the historic 1620 voyage of the Mayflower, which brought the English settlers known as Pilgrims to Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts.”

[ii] A Dictionary of the Bible, Extra Volume, James Hastings, Editor. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912, p. 250.

Bart Ehrman’s Armageddon, and other reviews

The posting of book reviews does not constitute endorsement of the books or book reviews that are linked.

• A Review of Bart Ehrman’s Armageddon: What the Book of Revelation Really Says -- “In reality, the subtitle of the book reveals the philosophical Nicolaitanism of which Ehrman has long projected over his audience, and which, ironically, the book of Revelation records that Jesus hates​...”
• A Review of Steve McVey, Grace Walk -- “With careful examination and reflection the reader will find that McVey has taken some major detours from the classical Biblical doctrines of salvation and sanctification.”
• Bold and Broken – Witty, Intriguing, and Powerful -- “Even though the writing style is casual, this book has an inexcusable number of grammatical errors (around thirty-two) many of which are typos.”
• Book Review: Baptist Distinctives and New Testament Church Order, by Kevin Bauder -- “This book is designed to be a primer on six Baptist distinctives, and, in that regard, it is a welcome addition.”
• City of Man, Kingdom of God Author Q&A with Jesse Johnson -- “When the COVID lockdowns started, I began looking for resources that might help Christian leaders think through government regulation of church worship.”
• Mark Ward’s “Authorized” Lies: False Friends -- “The more I look into the meat and substance of Mark Ward’s book, the more that the issues become glaringly obvious.”
• Review: Comanche Empire -- This book demonstrates that Comanches were indeed a powerful nation with a fascinatingly diffuse and structurally flexible culture who were nonetheless engaged in a constant struggle with surrounding nations.
• Review of Stephen Lahey’s translation of John Wyclif’s Trialogus -- “The volume includes a substantial introduction, with a brief overview of Wyclif’s life followed by a discussion of the contents and aims of Trialogus.”
• The Canceling of the American Mind, by FIRE’s Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott -- “Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott get under its surface and at the deeper problem: the extraordinarily rapid erosion of America’s once-thriving free speech culture.”
• The Genesis of Gender: A Christian Theory by Abigail Rine Favale -- “So-called ‘Christian feminism’ is, too often, secular feminism with a light Jesus glaze on top, a cherry-picked biblical garnish.”
• Translating the Bible: From William Tyndale to King James -- “The bulk of the book is the text of the prefaces to these translations (sometimes prefaces to more than one edition) with the text slightly updated for ease of reading.”

Peer review, smear review

Some people believe that “peer review” supposedly “does the same thing for science that the ‘inspected by #7’ sticker does for your t-shirt – provides assurance that someone who knows what they’re doing has double-checked it.” I say supposedly, because though in theory that may be true, in practice “not so much.” Or – perhaps – you still get peer-reviewed junk just like you get junk t-shirts even when they have been “inspected by #7”! Here is a fine example of that:

Academics Expose ‘Grievance Studies’ Field by Submitting Hoax Papers to Journals -- “In one particularly telling example, the academics submitted a paper to the feminist geography journal Gender, Place & Culture detailing the canine rape culture supposedly prevalent within dog parks.” 

The essay was made up out of whole cloth, and the peer-reviewed journal hastened it into print. The linked article details other such cases. Seven of twenty outlandishly outlandish articles were accepted and printed in so-called peer-reviewed journals. See also:

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals -- “A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that ‘the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts’.”

Is the Peer Review Process for Scientific Papers Broken? -- “...many of the most influential texts in the history of science were never put through the peer review process, including Isaac Newton’s 1687 Principia Mathematica, Albert Einstein’s 1905 paper on relativity, and James Watson and Francis Crick’s 1953 Nature paper on the structure of DNA.” 

In 1936, Albert Einstein—who was used to people like Planck making decisions about his papers without outside opinions—was incensed when the American journal Physical Review sent his submission to another physicist for evaluation. In a terse note to the editor, Einstein wrote:

“I see no reason to address the—in any case erroneous—comments of your anonymous expert. On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish the paper elsewhere.”

Probably most people perceive peer review as a reliable process, based on objective and unbiased facts. When peer-reviewed journals receive and print preposterous pieces (like those mentioned above), it becomes obvious that could not be further from the truth. Additionally, I think our recent journey into the Covid-19 era really highlighted the manuevering and bullying used to quell opposing opinions. Whether scientific, religious, cultural, or other peer-reviewed journals, most all have bought stock in a flawed process.

As someone has pointed out, the purveyors of a system supposedly rooted in science instead have a belief in peer review that is not scientific (i.e., not based on evidence). “How odd that science should be rooted in belief.” All is not well with the peer review process! Be aware and beware.

Review of “Does the Book of Acts Teach Spontaneous Baptisms?”

Review of Caleb Morell’s “Does the Book of Acts Teach Spontaneous Baptisms?”

The author, Caleb Morell, is a graduate of Georgetown University and The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, as well as a pastoral assistant at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC. Morell gets down to business and promptly arrives at a definition of spontaneous baptism: “A baptism is spontaneous in (sic) when it happens without forethought or planning.” I would say that this phrase and its definition is somewhat skewed by our modern ideas and practices – more so than being a “biblical definition.” In writing on the topic, I preferred the words “urgent” (very important and requiring attention) and “immediate” (accomplished without delay) over spontaneous. Nevertheless, there are those who promote a similar practice who use the word spontaneous to describe their view. For example J. D. Greear writes, “After all, every single baptism recorded in the New Testament, without exception, is spontaneous and immediate.” Those who believe, as a matter of faith and practice, that baptisms should be immediate do not believe them “spontaneous” in the sense of “without forethought or planning.” They have studied the Bible, thought about what it teaches, and plan to put that biblical teaching into practice at the proper time. Yes, for the baptizand, it might be as spontaneous as his unexpected and unplanned repentance and belief. It should not be for the church[i]

You readers who know me know that I am a lover of history in general, and church history in particular. In the end, though, church history proves history. It proves what has been done historically in churches and by Christians. However, we must go to the Bible itself, our only rule of faith and practice, to prove and know what is to be our faith and practice. This brings us to his next section, “The Pattern of Acts.”

Considering the baptismal instances in Acts, Morell must admit, “Assessing the data, this seems to be largely accurate”[ii]  that the baptisms were immediate. Morell finds nine “Instances of Baptisms of Acts.” I would add a tenth “generic” reference.[iii]  After tentatively agreeing with the data, Morell quickly cordons off four of the nine, leaving “five instances of baptism as possible models for spontaneous baptisms.” He thinks the timing of the baptisms of Lydia and her household in Acts 16, and the Corinthians in Acts 18 is “ambiguous.” While we might spot a little bit of ambiguity in the description about Lydia, there is no reason to suppose any in regard to the Corinthians, who heard, believed, and then were baptized.[iv]  He excludes the other two because they “involve the delayed reception of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:12ff; Acts 19:5).

After cordoning off these four baptisms, Morell attempts to build an exclusionary, somewhat theological hermeneutical, case that the baptisms in Acts are not normative.[v]  That “Luke records surprisingly few baptisms in Acts” Morell thinks “suggests that the baptisms actually recorded are unusual or even inimitable.” What a strange conclusion for a Baptist, and for anyone who believes the Bible is our rule of faith and practice, the inspired word that is profitable, completely, “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” For this project of exclusion, the author stresses “Three features characterize the baptisms in Acts.”

1. The baptisms recorded all involve “first converts” in a historically-redemptively significant setting.
2. Nearly every baptism is accompanied by supernatural acts of the Holy Spirit.
3. Each baptism takes place in response to believing the Apostolic message.

To the first, Morell concludes “one of the main reasons baptisms are recorded in Acts is to highlight God’s work in pioneer settings as the gospel advances to new regions.” That, in itself, seems reasonable, and hardly any reason to reject the practice of baptism in these cases as normative.

Morell believes Luke connects baptism “with the visible work of the Holy Spirit” in order to highlight “that the Spirit of God is driving the expansion of the gospel and the growth of the church.” Again, not unreasonable, and hardly any reason to reject the practice of baptism in these cases as normative. In fact, the author thinks “these visible manifestations of the church help its unity because they signify the movement of the same Spirit.” Yet he then oddly argues for a disunity of baptismal practice.

His third point is similar to the second. 

“The point of each recorded baptism is to highlight how the expansion of the gospel doesn’t result in the fragmentation of the church. Rather, the church remains firmly united despite their diversity because of the Holy Spirit and the consistent apostolic message.”

This is confusing. Morell thinks many baptisms are not recorded, and the ones that are recorded serve a purpose (that is, for their being recorded in Scripture). I agree. Surely the purpose is not to teach us that the multitudes of unrecorded baptisms are different from the recorded ones! And that we should therefore practice differently than what is written.

Writing on the anomaly of receiving the Holy Spirit after baptism, this author misses several points. He in unclear on what he thinks this reception of the Holy Spirit is, and gratuitously assumes the disciples at Ephesus are “John the Baptist’s disciples.”

Morell comes back to the cases of Lydia’s household and the Corinthians, as these will now serve his purpose. They “leave out any mention of visible supernatural work” and (according to Morell) “leave out any mention of the timing of baptism.” He acknowledges “it’s possible to read this as taking place immediately,” but wishes it to be otherwise. If otherwise, it allows the naysayers to insert “some period of instruction” before baptism.[vi]  Concerning the practice in Corinth, Morell appeals to Peterson (probably David Peterson)[vii] that in this account “the use of the continuous tenses in the Greek (‘hearing’ and ‘believing’ and ‘being baptized’) suggests an ongoing pattern of responding to gospel preaching.” I fail to see any reason why this “ongoing pattern of responding to gospel preaching” excludes immediate baptism. On the face of it, it does not, and perhaps even supports it.

Interestingly, Morell included the baptism of the eunuch of Ethiopia among those associated with supernatural acts, because Philip is told by angel of the Lord where to go. On the other hand, he did not include the baptism of Lydia and her household, even though Paul went to Macedonia because of a vision that appeared to him in the night.

After setting the stage, Morell is ready to answer whether we should practice “spontaneous” baptisms. He concludes that “The claim that Acts demonstrates a uniform pattern of spontaneous baptisms is overstated.” The data really is not all that complex, as regards the timing of baptism. Furthermore, those of us who believe that the book of Acts provides patterns for us to follow do not have a problem agreeing that “Luke’s purpose in recording baptisms in Acts was not simply to provide a model to follow.” But does that purpose also include providing a model to follow? Why would it exclude it?

To finish his arguments, Morell condescendingly takes us all to “Hermeneutics 101.” Yes, some of us barely passed the class, but others passed with flying colors. We know that you cannot make a pattern of everything described in the New Testament. The word must be rightly divided. What the apostles taught and practiced, and that the churches received very well could be establishing practices for us. Inquiring minds want to know. Morell suggests applying two principles for discerning whether or not a pattern is binding. 

• “First, we should assume the principle of non-contradiction: however complex the issue, we should assume the unity of Scripture and draw widely from Scripture to discern which principles are binding.” 
• “Second, we should look for reinforcement for the doctrine or practice in question in other parts of the New Testament. As John Stott puts it, ‘What is descriptive is valuable only in so far as it is interpreted by what is didactic.’”

Then in two “slam-dunk” sentences, Morell vanquishes “positive warrant for baptizing immediately.” Or does he?

There is nothing in the principles or unity of Scripture that opposes immediate baptism, neither does the didactic contradict the descriptive. Morell cannot just wave his hand and make it all disappear. In fact, he is aware that “baptism is so closely connected with conversion that Paul can speak of them as one and the same event” – and at the same time wishes to put some contrived distance between the closely connected. In fine, the difference in modern practice and New Testament practice becomes “we live in different days” (my words for their words), or as Morell puts it, “Our context today is simply not analogous.” This is a deadly doctrinal trend, which, if not used sparingly, allows us to dismiss most of the Bible as neither commended nor critical for our current situation.[viii]

In many ways I appreciate the conservatism of 9Marks folks much more than some of the progressive Southern Baptists who are advocating “spontaneous” baptisms. On the other hand, I think they are somewhat lacking in their ecclesiology and orthopraxy, causing them to weaken biblical Baptist practice as I see it.

Ultimately, folks like Morell ask us to reject the models of Acts as “not a model” and rather adopt their own practically developed models as the models we ought to follow. On biblical grounds, I protest.

Baptism, a rite of immersion in water, is important, urgent and should not be unnecessarily delayed because:

• It is commanded [to both converts to proclaim (Acts 2:38; 10:48) and to the church to perform (Matt. 28:18-20)].
• It is the believer’s first act of obedience (Acts 2:33-39; Acts 10:47-48; Matthew 10:32).
• It pictures the gospel and testifies of new life (2 Corinthians 5:17).
• It signifies a spiritual commitment, that we who are born again are now free to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4).

The unity of the command, precept, and example braid a three-fold cord that is not easily broken – and that should not be readily discarded.

 I strenuously object to the easy-believism and pseudo-evangelistic methods often associated with “spontaneous” baptisms. Nevertheless, New Testament command, precept, and example must govern and we must submit. I am not urging our rushing professors into the baptismal waters like driving dumb dogies through a dip. But I am saying this – if a church accepts a person’s profession as genuine, there is neither doctrinal reason nor biblical example to delay baptizing that person.

---

[i]  A “baptizand” is a person who is about to submit to baptism.

[ii] He must needs insert “largely” as a weasel word, since he will not allow the biblical data to affect his practice.

[iii]  In Acts chapter 2, we are told believers were added to the church in Jerusalem daily. If the Lord was adding to the Jerusalem church daily such as should be saved; then they were also baptized daily – since baptism precedes church membership.

[iv]  Of course the same is true of Lydia and her household, so not so ambiguous in my opinion.

[v]  Morell here comes close to a precipice. If the record of baptisms, though consistent, are not normative for his purposes, why should one allow them to be normative for believers’ immersion, for example?

[vi]  If the same Peterson, in his commentary he also allows that “some period of instruction intervened” between the belief of the eunuch and his baptism by Philip. I cannot speak with certainty concerning Peterson, but I have read the 9Marks philosophy. They do not just mean the instruction between professing faith and teaching them they then need to be baptized. They mean putting a person in a class and teaching/catechizing that person over several weeks or months before he is baptized.

[vii]  Morell does not give a good citation, but apparently this is David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (The Pillar New Testament Commentary), Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2009.

[viii]  Polar opposites Morgan Edwards and William Whitsitt understood this, though for different reasons and with different concerns.