Ministry and Music - Seeking the Old Paths

Monday, January 24, 2022

Baptist baptism, and other links

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

Baptism -- “On Pentecost, once the gospel message was received, the next step for the believers was baptism (Acts 2:41-47). It should be the same today.”
Baptist Baptism, by Les Potter & Mac Woody -- “What centuries of persecution could not do, the Trojan horse of fundamentalism did magnificently.”
Bret Baier Challenges CDC Director To Call Out Justice Sotomayor On COVID Misinformation -- “Baier began with a direct quote from Sotomayor, who claimed, ‘We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators.’”
Dead Certain -- “And then one day, like the Grinch, I had a wonderful awful idea. I’d tell the loan company I was dead, and they would go away. Brilliant!”
Furred Responders -- “What began in 1988 as a home-based, one-dog-at-a-time endeavor has grown into a 6-acre campus near Dripping Springs, complete with a training facility, kennel and devoted team of trainers and caregivers.”
How Should Christians Respond to Coronavirus? -- “Lord, help us to be prepared to glorify our Savior, to reach others and to benefit spiritually from the trials that lay ahead.” (advice one pastor gave when the virus first raised its ugly head)
John Bunyan: His Life, Times, and Work -- “...notwithstanding the many lives of Bunyan that have appeared, there is still room, and even need, for one that should aim at the strictest accuracy, and bring up to present date all that can be known concerning him.”
Joined by a Fence -- “Fort Benton’s latest development is a barbed wire telephone communication.”
Legal Breakdown of Bill C-4 with André Schutten of ARPA -- “The Canadian government unanimously passed Bill C-4, which renders any counselling that encourages an individual to reduce non-heterosexual attraction or behaviour as illegal.”
Lönnig on Darwin’s “Abominable Mystery” -- “All orders and families of the angiosperms appear abruptly in the fossil record (the same for most lower systematic categories). ”
Rasmussen Poll: 56 Percent Believe Cheating Tainted Biden’s 2020 Victory -- “A total of 56% of respondents are convinced ‘it's likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election,’ Rasmussen Reports said. That included 41% who said it was ‘very likely.’”
The Battle Against Onlyism -- “As much as conservatives in 2021 want to think that they have a sturdy theology of Scripture, the reality is that they do not.”
The church did NOT start on the Day of Pentecost -- “We undoubtedly have gleaned from the Bible that the church is the local and visible assembly of baptized believers, founded and built by Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry.”
The Doctrine of Preservation; The Need of the Hour in the Bible Version Debate -- “All of these views affirm that God has preserved His Word, but they disagree significantly as to what that means. The positions on preservation are often closely linked with their supporters’ views on the history of the text.”
The Providential Preservation of the Text of the New Testament -- “Just as surely as the King James text was woven into the spiritual life of Antioch in Syria, so was the modern versions text in Alexandria.”
The Text of Reasoned Eclecticism: Is It Reasonable and Eclectic? Part One of a Four-Part Response to Dan Wallace -- “In this article...My purpose here is not to endorse the Byzantine Text in its entirety but to show that Dr. Wallace’s reasons for rejecting it are insufficient (and to clarify some peripheral misstatements in his article).”
The Two Streams of Bibles Model of Transmission: Its Origins & Accuracy -- “These observations have significant implications for the ongoing dialogue in the Bible version debate.”
The Wasteland of Modern Textual Criticism -- “Since 1881 and the inauguration of what was commonly referred to as the Westcott/Hort (WH) method of textual criticism, how much closer is the Academy or Church to recovering the autographs?”
Vote-By-Mail: Most Voters Think It Will Cause More Cheating -- “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 65% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that wider use of mail-in voting will lead to more cheating in elections, including 51% who say it’s Very Likely.”

Look to Jesus

...we must keep looking to Jesus as the One whom we should follow in our daily conduct. Our Lord Jesus says to us, His disciples to-day, as He said to his early disciples, “Follow Me.” The whole secret of true Christian conduct can be summed up in these two words, “Follow Me.” “He that saith he abideth in Him ought himself so to walk even as He walked” (I John 2:6). One of the commonest causes of failure in Christian life is found in the attempt to follow some good man whom we greatly admire. No man and no woman, no matter how good, can be safely followed. If we follow any man or woman, we are bound to go astray. There has been but one absolutely perfect Man on this earth—the Man Christ Jesus. If we try to follow any other man we are more sure to imitate his faults than his excellencies. Look to Jesus and Jesus only as your Guide.

Reuben Archer Torrey

Sunday, January 23, 2022

I usually think of this song as “Once on a hillside,” but the correct title is We Shall See Jesus. According to this page and others, Dianne Branscum Wilkinson (1944-2021) wrote the words and music. She lived West Memphis, Arkansas when she wrote the song circa 1981. She was a long-time member and pianist at Springhill Baptist Church in Dyersburg, Tennessee. Dianne was inducted into the Southern Gospel Music Hall of Fame in 2020.

The song focuses on four mountaintop or hillside experiences when people gather in reference to Jesus Christ – the feeding of the multitude (John 6:3ff.), the crucifixion (John 19:16-18), the ascension (Matthew 28:16ff.), and the glorious coming of Jesus (Zechariah 14:4). It alludes to numerous other biblical stories of Jesus along the way (including 1 John 3:1-3).

Dianne recalls writing the story this way:

“I was living in West Memphis, Arkansas, in 1981, and I began to think about the times when Jesus was on a hillside with people gathered around Him. As I thought of that settting, I wondered what it must have been like to just reach out and touch His hand—to be there in His presence, face to face. Suddenly, I realized that one day we will have the same opportunity that those people in Bible days had. Some day I will see Him just as they Him, as they sat with Him on the hillside, as He fed the thousands, touched the blind eyes, and healed the broken spirits. The song began to unfold in that way—in a triple setting.” Stories Behind 50 Southern Gospel Favorites, Volume 1 (Lindsay Terry, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2002, p. 80)

Once on a hillside, people were gathered

Hoping to see him as thousands were fed.

He touched the blind eyes, he healed broken spirits

He moved with compassion, when he raised up the dead.

Once on a hillside, people were gathered

Watching as Jesus was crucified.

No one showed mercy to one who had healed them,

Yet Jesus loved them, as he suffered and died.

Once on a hillside, people were gathered

For Jesus had risen and soon would ascend;

But then as He blessed them, he rose to the heavens

And he gave them this promise: that he’d come back again.

We shall see Jesus, just as they saw him;

There is no greater promise than this.

When he returns in power and glory

We shall see Jesus

(We shall see Jesus) just as he is.

We Shall See Jesus was first sung by and became the signature song of Glen Payne, lead singer of the Cathedral Quartet.

Glen Weldon Payne was born October 25, 1926 in Royse City, Texas. For fifty-five years he was a Southern gospel music singer, first joining the Stamps-Baxter Quartet in 1944. The Cathedral Trio was formed in 1963, and became the Cathedral Quartet when they added bass singer George Younce in 1964. Though the group changed some through the years, Payne and Younce were there from beginning to end – the only lead singer and bass singer the group ever had. Glen died in Franklin, Tennessee October 15, 1999 after he was hospitalized during the Cathedral’s farewell tour. His last recorded song was perhaps I Won’t Have To Cross Jordan Alone, sung over the phone from his hospital bed during the National Quartet Convention.

Glen Payne was inducted into the Southern Gospel Music Association Hall of Fame in 1997. He is buried at Williamson Memorial Gardens in Franklin, Williamson County, Tennessee.

Saturday, January 22, 2022

Pine Grove Church Building Restoration

Pine Grove Church Restoration -- “The old Pine Grove church house, not used by an active congregation in nearly 120 years, is the oldest church building in Rusk County. While inactive as a church for over a century the impact of this old church building can still be felt throughout the community. It is used annually for the Pine Grove Cemetery homecoming and Rusk County Singing Convention, both held on the fourth weekend in April. The Pine Grove Church has a long-standing connection to Sacred Harp singing. The Sacred Harp book was even used in church services, and has provided the singing in conjunction with the cemetery day homecoming.”

If you wish to send a check or money order rather than contribute through GoFundMe, you may send it to:

Pine Grove Cemetery Association
C/o Melinda Rice
11334 CR 3112D
Mt. Enterprise, TX 75681

Endorse to the “Pine Grove Cemetery Association” and note that it is for “Building Repair.”

Friday, January 21, 2022

A (really bad) Introduction to the Geneva Bible

Review of “An Introduction to the Geneva Bible” by Michael H. Brown

Though I often use The Reformed Reader to view transcriptions of historical documents, this “Introduction” to the Geneva Bible by Brown has not been on my radar until recently. I “happened” upon it at The Reformed Reader while searching for information about John Bunyan and the Geneva Bible. It turned out to be one of the more egregious offenders re that topic.

After finishing what I wrote about Bunyan, I turned into Brown’s “Introduction” for a closer look. I found it to be inaccurate, inconsistent, incohesive, inordinate – and in my colloquial speech, just plain weird. Perhaps weirder still is that reputable sites such as A Puritan’s Mind and The Reformed Reader deign to give it credibility.

Though posted on those sites, and perhaps others, its point of origin appears to be this. “An Introduction to the Geneva Bible” is printed on pages i-x of The Geneva Bible: a facsimile of the 1599 edition with undated Sternhold & Hopkins Psalms (Buena Park, CA: Geneva Publishing Company, 1991), where it is called “An Introduction to the Facsimile Edition,” and dated 1988. This writing is not just online rambling, such as I do here, as it might appear, but rather is an introduction for a printed facsimile Bible. That exacerbates its oddity, and exaggerates its worth.

Inaccurate; incorrect, or untrue.

Numerous times throughout the “Introduction,” Michael H. Brown gets his facts wrong. As I have previously noticed, Brown asserts, “William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, John Milton, the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, and other luminaries of that era used the Geneva Bible exclusively” (p. i).[i] I have given ample evidence of the inaccuracy of the statement regarding Bunyan, and we might find the rest of the statement incorrect or incomplete as well. He further alleges that none of the groups named in the preceding paragraph [the Reformation, the Puritans, the Calvinists, and the Pilgrims] used a King James Bible nor would they have used it if it had been given to them free” (p. i). That is “bulloney” with a capital “B” on the bull and long “ō” on the “baloney”!

Brown states that when “James ascended the English throne in 1603” that he “wasted no time in ordering a new edition of the Bible in order to deny the common people the marginal notes they so valued in the Geneva Bible” (p. v). King James did not conceive the idea of a new Bible translation. Historical records well attest this fact. The idea immerged out of a conference, convened at Hampton Court Palace in January 1604. John Reynolds / Rainolds, on behalf of the Puritans, requested a new translation of the Bible. The king accepted the request but did not originate the idea.

Further, Brown implies that it was King James who “set up rules” (p. vi) for the translation. Most scholars of the King James Bible history, however, believe that he simply gave approval to the translation principles drawn up by Richard Bancroft, the bishop of London.[ii]

Inconsistent; or self-contradictory.

A number of Brown’s opinions are inconsistent, or self-contradictory. He tries to “have it both ways.” Brown complains of the directive that “The old Ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word ‘church’ not to be translated ‘congregation,’ etc…” (p. vi). He claims this deliberate mistranslation work on behalf of the Church of England. History tells us a different story. English Bibles between 1526 and 1560, following Tyndale, used the word congregation.[iii] The 1560 Geneva Bible bucked that trend! This can be seen in checking Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, and Great Bibles in places where we familiarly read the word “church.” Compare, for example, Tyndale (congregation) versus the 1560 Geneva Bible (church) in these places.

Brown informs us that when the Bible was finished, “It was not technically a translation.[iv] What the flunkies employed by King James did was revise and compare other translations of which they simply plagiarized about 20% of the Geneva Bible” (p. vi). In addition to “plagiarizing” the Geneva Bible, he concludes that the New Testament translation was simply a copy, “almost word for word” of “William Tyndale’s 1525 New Testament” (p. vii). Given Brown’s view of the Geneva and the King James, why does he complain about these things? That the new Bible follows Geneva and Tyndale (which was “labeled as ‘seditious material’ by Henry VIII”) should be admirable and commendatory, according to other points he made. If the King James Bible follows Tyndale and Geneva so closely, as he says, then it is not quite the English government and Church of England Bible that he claimed (p. ii).

He notices “in James’ time…religion was controlled by the government” and that “The hapless individuals who fell into the hands of the government for holding religious opinions of their own were simply punished according to the royal whim” (p. iii). What he acknowledges concerning England and Rome, he fails to acknowledge concerning “his beloved” Geneva. The laws in Geneva made heresy punishable by death. Therefore, his heroes were guilty of the same kind of evil as the others (even if not to the same degree). The theocratic government of Geneva enforced the death penalty for such crimes as idolatry, blasphemy, adultery, sorcery (witchcraft), and heresy. The best-known case is that of Michael Servetus, burned at the stake for heresy on October 27, 1553. Jacques Gruet was tortured (for information, apparently), then executed by beheading on July 26, 1547. In Geneva, others were hanged, beheaded, burned at the stake, and drowned, for various crimes – including women suspected of being witches.[v]

Inordinate; unrestrained in feelings, disorderly, or excessive.

Brown drags in any charge that might set the King James Version in disarray, including the claim that King James was homosexual (p. v), and that his mother was an adulteress (p. ii). Even for contrasting the Geneva Bible and KJV, such is unusual and unnecessary, and exhibits a churlish spirit.

Brown knows all. Concerning the king’s sexuality, “there is no room for debate on the subject” (p. v). In their book Early Modern England 1485–1714, Robert Bucholz and Newton Key tackle that claim about King James and find that it “is murky.”[vi] Still some room for debate, despite Brown’s certainty! It seems that the charge of King James being homosexual was (1) made by his enemies, and (2) not until after his death. This does not mean it is not true, but should give pause regarding its validity. Whether or not King James was homosexual is not important to the history of the Geneva Bible, and not much even in regard to the origin and history of the Authorized Version of 1611.

That James “was a great coward” who “fouled his breeches in fear” (p. v), even if true, is impertinent and inapplicable to the task at hand. Throughout “An Introduction to the Geneva Bible” Brown gives vent to feelings of anger toward the King James Bible rather than faithfully introducing us to the Geneva Bible.

Incomprehensible; or baffling, confused.

This example definitely baffles me!

A backwoods preacher, Noah Fredericks, wrote a book titled, Pilgrim Ships, in which he claimed the people of the Old Testament came from outer space, Moses’s rod was an electronic control used to open a fortress (mistranslated, “rock”), Elijah introduced a path for current to flow from the ionosphere to the ground in order to fry two platoons of Ahab’s infantry, and other theological positions that will probably never be taken seriously by anybody (unfortunately). (p. ix).

Why it is unfortunate that no one takes these ideas seriously, I am unable to comprehend. Seems to this backwoods preacher that it would be a great blessing if anyone and everyone rejected such nonsense. Nothing unfortunate about it.

Incohesive; or disjointed, lacking unity.

This last example might well be included under the heading “inordinate.”[vii] It seems to inject some feelings in favor of both divorce and polygamy! Here is the paragraph:

The last run of Geneva Bibles was printed in 1644. That was the year John Milton was invited to instruct the English Parliament on the actual teachings of the Bible regarding divorce (it was allowed). What Milton understood that none of our modern “experts” seem to was that “He who divorces his wife and marries another,” was not a prohibition of divorce, it was a prohibition against throw-away people. As John Milton in his On Christian Doctrine and Martin Luther in his essay on Deuteronomy 21:15 pointed out, having more than one wife was Scriptural. You just weren’t supposed to throw them away when you got bored with them. (pp. viii-ix).

Though this could be included under the heading “inordinate,” nevertheless, it also exposes the disjointed nature of Brown’s “Introduction.” We can wonder why the circumstance of Milton instructing Parliament about divorce is essential in reference to the last run of Geneva Bibles, especially to those people being first introduced to it! Just because it happened the same year? Luther died 14 years before the coming of the 1560 Geneva Bible, yet to be introduced to it we must know what he believed about polygamy?[viii]

Rejected; not recommended.

In the end, we discover more about how Michael H. Brown feels about the Reformation, the demise of the Geneva Bible, the rise of the King James Bible, King James’s character, and the views of Luther and Milton on polygamy than we do about the Geneva Bible itself. We can gather a few introductory facts along the way, but readers should not have to be pulled down into the quicksand of Brown’s biases in order to learn a little of the history of the Geneva Bible. Surely there are better sources out there on the Web (though many seem to be tainted with the folklore aspect of “who exclusively used” the Geneva Bible). I don’t presently have time to look through them all. Maybe try these: The Geneva Bible at Bible-Researcher.com, Geneva Bible at Britannica, The Geneva Bible, A Bible of Firsts, even Wikipedia.

[i] Page numbers are in reference to the facsimile Bible, which is available to “borrow” at Archive.org. It may be that Brown’s essay is the source for the misinformation about Bunyan’s and Milton’s primary or exclusive use of the Geneva Bible.
[ii] For example, McGrath describes them as “drawn up by Bancroft and approved by James…” In The Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture, Alister Edgar McGrath. New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 2001, p. 173.
[iii] I obviously have not checked every single reference in every one of these Bibles. However, the references I did check have the word “congregation”. Intriguingly, the Bishop’s Bible, which came eight years after the Geneva Bible, has “congregation” in a few places.
[iv] The rules directed that the translators consider and follow the Bishop’s Bible, Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Whitchurch’s (Great Bible), and Geneva. They were to alter these if necessary to better agree with the truth of the original language texts.
[v] Other names mentioned in items I read were Daniel Berthelier and Jerome Bolsec (arrested and banished). See also L’inquisition Protestante: les Victimes de Calvin, Jean-Maurice Rouquette, Paris: Librairie Bloud, 1910; “Un procès d’athéisme à Genève : l’affaire Gruet (1547-1550),” François Berriot, Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français, Vol. 125 (October-December 1979), pp. 577-592; “Judicial drowning in the Republic of Geneva (1558-1619),” Sonia Vernhes Rappaz. Crime, History, and Societies, Vol. 13, No.1, 2009, pp. 5-23. I primarily express this in regards to the government in Geneva. When it comes to John Calvin himself, everyone has an ax either to grind or polish. It is hard to wade through the morass. Calvin, who had corresponded with Servetus, informed the French Inquisition of his location. Had Servetus been captured, he would have been executed. Instead, he escaped, only to be captured, arrested, convicted, and executed in Geneva. Considering the religious persecution in Geneva, keep it in perspective. These executions were apparently numerically mild in comparison to the Roman Catholic persecution of heretics.

[vi] Early Modern England 1485–1714: A Narrative History, Robert Bucholz and Newton Key. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004, p. 208.

[vii] And some of the examples under the other headings expose the rambling nature of Brown’s narrative.

[viii] I checked and, apparently, Michael H. Brown did get this correct, as far as Luther’s and Milton’s beliefs about polygamy. See The Facts about Luther (Patrick F. O’Hare. New York, NY, F. Pustet & Company, 1916, p. 334; originally from De Wette II, 459, pp. 329-330), and A Treatise on Christian Doctrine compiled from the Holy Scriptures Alone (John Milton. Translated by Charles R. Sumner, Cambridge: University Press, 1825, p. xxxiii). What this has to do with an “Introduction” to the Geneva Bible, however, is beyond comprehension.

Thursday, January 20, 2022

Puritan preaching. Who said Geneva?

All against the KJV, All the time?

In a footnote in my piece on John Bunyan yesterday, I wrote, “The general idea that the Puritans disliked the King James translation is a hand overplayed.” By this comment I do not discount that some Puritans did not like the new translation. However, some have stretched the idea beyond measure, even to the breaking point. To them it cannot just be a matter of folks being satisfied with the Bibles they had, not wanting to change, and such like. No, it must be a hatred for the King James Bible. A full hatred. By all Puritans. All the time.

Now, clearly there was opposition to the King James Bible on a level that exuded hatred. Hugh Broughton (1549–1612), a Puritan, shines as such an example. His critique of the new Bible was exceptionally rash. He wrote:

“The late Bible, (Right Worshipfull) was sent to me to censure, bred in me a sadnesse that will grieve me while I breathe. It is so ill done. Tell his Majest. I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, than that any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor Churches.”[i]

However, Broughton’s critique needs to be viewed in context. He had eaten sour grapes and his teeth were set on edge. He was an exceptionally skilled Hebraist who was passed over. He was not included in the team of translators for the new Bible. Despite his skill, he was a hot-tempered contrarian whose people skills were lacking, to understate it. Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540–1609), a French Calvinist religious leader and scholar, called Broughton “furiosuset maledicus” (abusive madman, frantic railer, raging maniac). Richard Hooker called him vain.[ii] Not only could he not tolerate the churchmen, he picked fights with his fellow Puritans, including John Reynolds / Rainolds (who suggested the new translation, and was a leading man on the Oxford Company of translators). He bitterly opposed Beza. Even John Lightfoot, who collected and published Broughton’s Works, described him as “Sharp, and severe,” could “withal be very angry with Scholars,” and “It were to be wished, he had been more sparing of his own Praises, and of bitterness, and Invectives against others…”[iii]

In a sermon preached to the Honourable House of Commons, on August 27, 1645, Broughton’s editor, John Lightfoot, suggested their undertaking to review the translation of the Bible to make it more exact. He spoke of the translation in which he found his Revelation 20:1-2 text – the KJV, not Geneva.[iv]

Ambrose Ussher, who made an English Bible translation himself, implied that he thought the KJV translation was rushed. When King James “at your first coming…sharpe set” then “the cooke hasted you out a reasonable sudden meal…”[v]

I grant that some Puritans preferred the Geneva Bible to the KJV. Some of these spoke or wrote of it in negative terms. Others thought it a good translation that could be made better. Some simply continued to use the old Bibles they had.

On the other hand, unscrupulous authors present undocumented invective against the King James Bible, such as the accusations that they were “damnable corruptors of God’s Word,” blasphemers, and such like. “Damnable corruptors of God’s Word” is spread across the World Wide Web.[vi] Thus far, I have been unable to identify a source for this accusation. More simply, for most English-speakers, after its printing in 1611, the King James Bible progressively made its way into their experience, their acceptance, and their lives.

In The King James Bible After Four Hundred Years, Hamlin and Jones describe the timeline in this manner:

“Although the monopoly broke down along with the monarchy itself in the 1640s, English (mainly London) printers continued to prefer the KJB to the Geneva, perhaps because so many editions of the Geneva continued to be printed across the channel. Although one might think that the Puritan Commonwealth would have been committed to the Bible most associated with English Puritans (the Geneva), even Oliver Cromwell now favored the KJB (printed by John Field, first Printer to Parliament and then ‘one of His Hignes [i.e. Cromwell’s] Printers’)...” Even before the end of the Commonwealth, no one was printing anything but the KJB, and its domination of the English Bible market was assured for the next 250 years.”[vii]

Puritan preaching

A brief demonstration from the writing and preaching of Puritans shows that they used the King James Bible translation in their works. This is not a claim that they were somehow “King James Only,” but evidence that they were not “Geneva Bible Only” – as some would have us believe.[viii] The list below, set in order by date, link just a few of the sermons available at the University of Michigan “Early English Books Online” Partnership. In most cases, there are three links – the transcribed sermon at EEBO, the 1611 KJV page showing the text, and the 1560 Geneva Bible page showing the text.[ix] This will be followed by a comment on which Bible the text used matches.[x]

Cornelius Burges was an influential Puritan minister active in the Westminster Assembly of Divines (which drew up the Westminster Confession of Faith). Stephen Marshall was an ally of Burges, powerful in oratory. Alexander Henderson represented the Scottish Church at the Westminster Assembly.

Cornelius Burges, Baptismall regeneration of elect infants professed by the Church of England, 1629
Romans 2:28-29, KJV
Romans 2:28-29, GNV
Matthew 3:11, KJV
Matthew 3:11, GNV
Acts 2:38, KJV
Acts 2:38, GNV

The referenced texts match the KJV reading rather than Geneva.

Cornelius Burges, House of Commons, November 17, 1640, text Jeremiah 50:5
Jeremiah 50:5, KJV
Jeremiah 50:5, GNV