An “Authorized” Book Review

Note: 12-31-2025

Book Review of Authorized by Mark Ward

Authorized: the Use and Misuse of the King James Bible. Mark L. Ward, Jr. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018. $12.99, 168 pages. ISBN 9781683590552. This book is available in digital or paperback from Amazon, Lexham Press and others. Mark L. Ward, Jr. received his PhD in New Testament Interpretation from Bob Jones University in 2012. He is the author of multiple high school Bible textbooks for BJU Press, and now serves as a Logos Pro[i] for Faithlife. In addition to Authorized, he is co-author (with Tom Breeden) of Can I Smoke Pot?: Marijuana in Light of Scripture. He blogs at By Faith We Understand.

Just out in late January 2018, Authorized: the Use and Misuse of the King James Bible by Mark Ward comes highly recommended. It says so right on the front cover! The book has garnered a very impressive array of endorsements. In addition to D. A. Carson on the cover, there are Kevin Bauder, John Frame, John McWhorter, Mark Minnick, Tom Schreiner, and Mark Strauss. Surely a book with these recommendations is worth reading, whether one agrees or disagrees with the premise.

I intended to excoriate the book and its author – just ’cause – but the author was likable and even made a few good points! On a more serious note, Mark Ward’s Authorized is short, well-written, and engaging. It is long enough to make and sustain its points, yet short enough that the reader doesn’t feel the needle. (Authorized would be almost as easy to read as the NIrV if it weren’t for all the King James jargon he included in the text!😉)

Survey

The book divides into 9 parts – an introduction, seven chapters, and an epilogue. In his introduction Ward gives a quick overview of the King James Bible, Bible translation, the trend away from the KJV,[ii] and the burning question in the minds of many – “what do we do with the KJV?” Chapter 1 demonstrates Ward’s view of the KJV, of which he seems to speak respectfully and does not disparage as a poor translation. Here he acknowledges and laments five things we lose as Christians move away from the King James Bible.[iii]

In chapter 2 Ward presents what he perceives to be a weighty reason to move away from the KJV – trying to share the gospel only to meet the objection, “I can’t understand this language.”  This will play better in Peoria than in Predestinarianville. (I suspect that the author perceives the majority of his audience as Peorians.) I find this perspective interesting in light of this – most of the more laborious “soul-winners” that I know are IFB near-rabid KJV-Onlyists! The KJV doesn’t seem to hinder them. Moving into the heart of the book, Ward deals with dead words,[iv] false friends,[v] reading levels,[vi] and “the value of the vernacular.”[vii] At heart of Ward’s writing, his discussion is never about whether the KJV is a bad translation. It is always about the vernacular – what modern people speak and understand. He roots his case in certain biblical examples – the Great Commission, Nehemiah 8:8, 1 Corinthians 14 and within-the-text translations of “not-so-very-old, or merely foreign, words.”[viii] He makes one point with which it is hard to argue – you don’t know what you don’t know! (There might be a few things he does not know also.)

After establishing the need of a Bible in the current tongue of the people, Ward answers ten objections to using new Bibles in the vernacular in place of the KJV. The objections are not concocted strawmen. The author engages objections from Joel Beeke to the Trinitarian Bible Society.[ix] He follows this with chapter 7 – “Which Bible Translation is Best?” As you might expect, his answer is not the King James Bible. But his answer is not as you might expect. According to Ward, picking a “best” translation is a faulty idea. He argues “that the major evangelical English Bible translations are both usefully different” and “substantially similar.” The value placed on the vernacular ultimately means to choose any version other than the KJV for preaching, evangelism, and discipleship.

Ward’s epilogue contains a call to action – buy and read a new translation you’ve never read before.[x] Take advantage of comparative study Bibles and Bible software.

Three Quibbles

No index. An index would be nice for reviewing parts of the book after the fact. The endnotes are okay, just in the wrong place. Those of us who actually read them love to have them at the foot of the page. On pages 77 and 78 the “heat maps” of Luke 14 in the KJV and ESV are too small and obscure to be functional. These old eyes could hardly make heads or tails of them.

Recommendations

Mark Ward falls nowhere within the “KJVO” spectrum, but in his writing reveals a certain type of respect not found among many who promote moving to new Bible versions, and sometimes not found among certain KJVOs and KJVPs.[xi] I found this approach refreshing, and better for the blood pressure. My recommendation of Authorized is a qualified yes. Yes, because the book is well-written, a clear and reasonable presentation of a certain rationale to move from King James to a modern translation. Yes, because KJV Defenders need to be aware of this rear assault of the King James Bible. Qualified, because my recommendation does not convey agreement with the premise. My reading of this type book is not extensive, but does include Carson and White. I rank Ward’s book higher (much higher than White’s).

A challenge is good. I recommend the challenge. With the recommendation comes this advice:

• If you are KJVO to the max, on steroids (e.g. Hylesite, Ruckmanite), read the book. It won’t hurt you, and might provide some anti-biotic for what ails ya’.
• If you are KJVO regular, read the book. We need to be conversant in the arguments put forward for modern versions versus the King James Bible. It will sharpen your mind.
• If you are KJV-lite, before reading, take several doses of vitamins K, J, and B. Read Dean Burgon, David Otis Fuller, and writings about the King James Bible on my blog. After reading Ward’s book, follow up with several more doses of vitamins K, J, and B. If you’re too “lite,” go on a diet – just don’t read the book – or if you don’t take my advice, then don’t let the door hit you on the backside on your way out.
• If you are anti-KJV, read the book. Ward’s respectful tone towards the KJV is an antidote you need for your bad attitude.
• Read the book, but do not be carried away with the false premises.

---

[i] Which is outside my field of knowledge, but must have something to do with Logos Bible Software.

[ii] I use the name “King James Bible,” but when abbreviating use the more common and better-known initialism KJV (King James Version).

[iii] Here Ward does not go into issues such as underlying texts or faithful translation, but, for example, in losing the KJV “We lose Scripture memory by osmosis.”

[iv] Words no longer in common use.

[v] A “false friend” is a word in one language that looks or sounds similar one in another language and is wrongly assumed to have the same meaning. Loosely, to Ward, it is a word that you expect to mean something that it doesn’t. I have previously complained about his “false friends” HERE. It subtly plays into the “KJV is a foreign language” mantra. Nevertheless, KJV readers should be diligent to ferret out words we don’t know, and even ones we think we do. The anti-KJV crowd are often fooled by so-called false friends as well, often complaining about mistranslations in the KJV when it is they who misunderstand the meanings of the words.

[vi] I am in general agreement with Ward concerning readability tests, which I have written about HERE and HERE. I find “which Bible does the computer say is easier to read” to be a waste of time argument. In Flesch-Kincaid results, foreign languages, I point out that the Flesch-Kincaid can read any language easily, and proves little about human ability to read any given material tested.

[vii] By which the author means the everyday language spoken by people. My wry sense of humor is here delighted by the use of a word that is probably not commonly used by many modern Americans. In my imagination I view them either passing over it, or looking it up in the dictionary. How fitting the topic!

[viii] For example, Mark 5:41, “And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.” In my view, such an example does not prove – and may even contradict – Ward’s conclusion. Rather than an example of the “translator” (i.e., writer) putting words in easy vernacular, which is what is advocated, this shows the writer using a word the readers might not understand and then explaining it!

[ix] Ward’s attention to the T-V distinction is a distraction. The tu/vous informal/formal distinction is not the same as the thou/ye distinction in the KJV, which is a singular/plural distinction. The argument that this singular/plural distinction is only an odd occasional help has sent me on a mining expedition that I will hope to share with my readers in the future. (Within a couple of hours, I had listed a couple dozen incidents.)

[x] He proposes seven possibilities – CSB, ESV, LEB, NASB, NET, NIV, and NLT.

[xi] A list of various positions taken toward the King James Bible may be found HERE.

Christ Sent Me Not to Baptize

Christ Sent Me Not to Baptize: the Meaning of 1 Corinthians 1:17

The text: 1 Corinthians 1:10-17

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.  Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

A question: what is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 1:17?

This text was brought to the forefront of my thinking last week by a “controversialist” (in a different venue) whom I struggled to understand.[i] I am not sure whether his focus on Paul’s statement “Christ sent me not to baptize” was intended to deny the command to baptize in water for the present day,[ii] to differentiate Paul’s doctrine from Baptist doctrine (since Paul seems to downplay baptism here), to criticize Paul for baptizing when he was not so sent, or something else. Nevertheless, that brought my focus on this passage of scripture and its meaning. It is obvious that the bare sentence in verse 17a distinctly says, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” This sets forward a conundrum. If Paul says he was sent to preach the gospel rather than to baptize, why did he baptize in addition to preaching the gospel? Did Paul do something that Jesus didn’t instruct him to do?

We must consider the biblical background of baptism.

For background, it is well to remember that at least some apostles, in some sense, seem to be sent to baptize. Consider Jesus’s command recorded in Matthew 28:18-20 (baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost) and Mark 16:15-16. (I would maintain, nevertheless, that in the strictest sense of biblical interpretation, only one individual has ever been sent to baptize – that being John the Baptist (cf. John 1:6; John 1:33).) Water baptism was a rite practiced by John the Baptist, by the disciples of Jesus during his tabernacling among men (John 4:1-3), and by the early church after Jesus’s ascension and the baptism of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost (e.g. Acts 2:38-42; Acts 8:12-16, 8:36-38; Acts 9:18; Acts 10:47-48; Acts 16:14-15, 16:32-33; Acts 18:8; Acts 19:5). It is also well to remember that Paul put forward some strong teaching on the rite of baptism (e.g. Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12), and even connects its meaning with the gospel (that is, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; cf. Romans 6:3-6 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-4).[iii]

We must consider the context of the statement.

A quick scan of the context shows this is Paul, an apostle, writing a letter to the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:1-2). After some preliminary remarks, Paul comes quickly to the report declared unto him about the contentions in the church at Corinth.[iv] The party spirit – proclaiming to follow after one or the other, Paul, Apollos, or Cephas) – led them into division, divisiveness, and discord. Paul was disturbed that they were focusing on and exulting in the messengers, rather than the message and the God who gave it (1 Corinthians 3:4-6). It is within this context of division that Paul declares “I thank God that I baptized none of you” (with a few exceptions).[v] Paul goes further to emphasize that he was “sent not to baptize.” In this context, two things regarding baptism are evident. Paul says “Christ sent me not to baptize” and Paul did baptize. In the same breath that Paul said that he was not sent to baptize, he also said that he did baptize!

We must consider the manner of expression.

Some approach Paul’s statement as a sort of “either/or” proposition – either preach the gospel or baptize, but not both. The manner of expression Paul uses stresses rank – “not this” in rank of importance, “but that” instead is most important. In the 1 Corinthians 1:17 “not ... but” passage we have a hyperbolic expression that emphasizes the priority of preaching the gospel over against performing baptisms. It is not an absolute statement that he was not supposed to baptize. If so, he should not have baptized anyone and would have been in rebellion doing so. But Paul did baptize. To tie such a tight knot in this “not ... but” passage deprives it of its true meaning. If Paul was absolutely sent not to baptize, it follows that he disobeyed when he baptized those few that he said he did. If it were an absolute, then never, at no time, did Paul’s sending involve baptism. The immediate context shows that is not the case.

The 1 Corinthians 1:17 “not ... but” passage is one of several in the Bible in which a primary idea is expressed in a way that negates the secondary – not for the purpose of literally negating the secondary, but to emphasize the primary. Here Paul expresses a preference of the gospel over baptism. The gospel must precede faith, and faith must precede baptism. Baptism is a subservient work that can only follow rather than precede the gospel.[vi] A preacher can fulfill his calling to preach the gospel without ever baptizing even one. This is not a denigration of baptism, but simple recognition of the nature of baptism, the answer of a good conscience toward God.

The “not this, but that” contrast is a common way of expressing and emphasizing the importance of the main point. Here are six other biblical examples of some “not this, but that” contrasts.

• The higher power Genesis 45:8 So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God: and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt. (It was not that the brothers had no culpability of their act, but that behind the scenes there was a higher power who sent Joseph to Egypt.)
• The genuine speaker Matthew 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. (It is not that they spoke not at all, but that when they spoke it was through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit.)
• The crucial labor John 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life (Jesus is not discouraging working for temporal food, but contrasting it to the crucial spiritual importance.)
• The greater lie Acts 5:4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. (It was not that they literally did not lie at all to Peter and the apostles, but that the greater lie was to the one to whom the church belonged.)
• The abundant worker 1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. (It is not that Paul was a wet dishrag just lying there, but what he did have no significance about from the work of the grace of God.)
• The primary adorning 1 Peter 3:3-4 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4 but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. (It is not that there should be no adorning at all, but that the outward adornment is superficial without inward spiritual adornment.)

Used in various places in the Bible, “not this, but that” is observable as a rhetorical device or figure of speech expressing emphasis of one thing “at the expense” of another.

We may compare the thoughts of others.[vii]

Adam Clarke Commentary: “For Christ sent me not to baptize – Bp. Pearce translates thus: For Christ sent me, not so much to baptize as to preach the Gospel: and he supports his version thus – ‘The writers of the Old and New Testaments do, almost every where (agreeably to the Hebrew idiom) express a preference given to one thing beyond another by an affirmation of that which is preferred, and a negation of that which is contrary to it: and so it must be understood here, for if St. Paul was not sent at all to baptize, he baptized without a commission; but if he was sent, not only to baptize but to preach also, or to preach rather than baptize, he did in fact discharge his duty aright’.”

Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible: “For Christ sent me not to baptize – That is, not to baptize as my main business. Baptism was not his principal employment, though he had a commission in common with others to administer the ordinance, and occasionally did it.”

Geneva Study Bible: “…that he gave not himself to baptize many amongst them: not for the contempt of baptism, but because he was mainly occupied in delivering the doctrine, and committed those that received his doctrine to others to be baptized.”

Matthew Poole’s Commentary on the Holy Bible: “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel; baptism was not his principal work, not the main business for which Paul was sent; it was his work, otherwise he would not have baptized Crispus, or Gaius, or the household of Stephanas, but preaching was his principal work.”

Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: “In the assured consciousness that the design of his apostolic mission was teaching, Paul recognised that baptizing, as an external office and one that required no special gift, should as a rule be left to others, the apostolic ὑπηρέται (Acts 13:5),[viii] in order to avoid, for his own part, being drawn away from following out that higher aim, which was his specific calling. A very needful and salutary division of duties, considering the multitude of those converted by him...Nor was this contrary to Christ’s command in Matthew 28:19, seeing that, according to it also (comp Luke 24:47; Mark 16:15), teaching was the main business of the apostolic office, while the baptismal command was equally fulfilled by baptism performed by means of others authorized by the apostles.”

Conclusion: Sent not primarily to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.

In the existing climate of division in the church at Corinth, Paul was thankful that he had performed but few baptisms there. The specific performer of the rite was insignificant to Paul. He kept no records and was not even certain that he could recall all those whom he baptized – though he did recall a few. Paul baptized a few and he faithfully discharged his duty. Any supposed baptizing contrary to God’s design, without his being sent to baptize, is a figment of modern imagination. 1 Corinthians 4:1-2 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. 1 Corinthians 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. 1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Paul faithfully followed Christ.

Paul was free of ambition. He had no desire to start his own party. He made no claim to baptizing in great numbers. This was especially significant in demonstrating he had no desire to exalt himself or be party to division. Paul’s mission was not simply to secure the baptism of people. Paul doesn’t state this in order to depreciate baptism. He holds baptism in high esteem and argues its importance elsewhere. He was sent as an apostle (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1) – not as a baptizer; but the apostles did baptize. He preached the gospel for a response of faith. Baptism would soon answer to that (cf. 1 Peter 3:21).

A former school teacher compared the situation in Corinth with math students “caught up in the novelty of the manipulatives” used in the classroom. A teacher might tell the students, “I am not here to bring you coins and bills to play with. I am here to teach you how to make change and make it quickly and in your head.” That statement did not mean that they never use play money to “manipulate” with their hands and in their minds.  It means that the manipulative money is a part of a bigger picture, and that the bigger picture may be misunderstood if the focus is placed on the manipulatives.

If Paul’s statement that he was not sent to baptize were an absolute, then he should never have baptized anyone. But in the very context he clearly states that he sometimes did so, regarding the matter under consideration. We read that he baptized at another time (cf. Acts 19:6). The act of baptizing could have been done by Paul or others – such as Silas and Timothy, who came there to meet Paul – and thus was not an imperative for the apostle himself. In this case, because of the spirit of division in Corinth, he was thankful that it worked out just that way – that is, that he had baptized only a few.

“Christ sent me not to baptize” is neither a denunciation nor a nullification of the biblical rite of baptism.

---

[i] The struggle to understand was probably the fault of us both, exacerbated by the distance created by our very different approach to the text.

[ii] “Where baptism in water does not exist, there is no Church, no brother, no sister, no fraternal discipline, exclusion or restoration. I speak here of the visible Church as Christ said (Matt. 18).” – Balthasar Hubmaier

[iii] Paul baptized some of the Corinthians (Acts 18:8; cf. I Corinthians 1:14-16) and about twelve men in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7).

[iv] Speak same thing | no divisions | be joined together | contentions | divisions | Paul not crucified | not baptized in his name | thankful baptized but two & one household | didn’t remember any others | Paul exhorts against division. The way things should be, v. 10; what Paul had heard, vs. 11-12; the reply – question, v. 13; the reply – evidence, v. 14-16; why he is thankful, v. 17.

[v] Some of the Corinthians were baptized by Paul, while we may safely assume the majority were baptized by Silas and Timothy. Cf. Acts 18: 1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth… 4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. 5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ…8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized… 11 And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

[vi] Notice should be taken of this argument – that is, baptism is subservient to the gospel and must be preceded by faith. This fact is an explicit denial of infant baptism, proxy baptism, and such like.

[vii] Adam Clarke (ca. 1760-1832) was a British Methodist; Albert Barnes (1798-1870) American Presbyterian; Matthew Poole (1624-1679) English Nonconformist; Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer (1800-1873), German Protestant; Geneva Study Bible (1560), Protestant Reformation Bible. I have chosen to quote those not Baptist, to show the interpretation most often agreed upon is not a Baptist calculation. We might well have quoted from John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible: “For Christ sent me not to baptize,...Some think the apostle refers to his particular mission from Christ, Acts 26:16 in which no mention is made of his administering the ordinance of baptism; but no doubt he had the same mission the rest of the apostles had, which was to baptize as well as preach; and indeed, if he had not been sent at all to baptize, it would have been unlawful for him to have administered baptism to any person whatever; but his sense is, that baptism was not the chief and principal business he was sent about...”

[viii] Augustine is often quoted as saying (though I have not located the source): “Even the less learned can baptize perfectly, but perfectly to preach the Gospel is a far more difficult task, and requires qualifications which are far more rare.” [Note: this footnote is my addition and not part of Meyer’s Commentary.]

Additional Anabaptist Accounts

A few writings related to the history of Christians who hold believers’ baptism:

• A History of Anti-Pedobaptism, from the Rise of Pedobaptism to A.D. 1609 by Albert Henry Newman, 1852-1933 (Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1897)
• A Manual of Church History by Albert Henry Newman, 1852-1933 (Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication Society, 1903)
• A Plea for Anti-pædobaptists, against the Vanity and Falshood of Scribled Papers, entituled, The Anabaptists Anatomiz'd and Silenc'd in a public dispute at Abergaveny in Monmouth-shire Sept. 5. 1653 by John Tombes, ca. 1603-1676 (London: Printed by Henry Hills, 1654)
• Balthasar Hubmaier and the Authority of the Church Fathers -- "...Hubmaier uses the scriptural commentaries of the Greek fathers to enhance his argument for believers’ baptism." (by Andrew P. Klager, Historical Papers 2008: Canadian Society of Church History; Scroll down and search for PDF)
• Balthasar Hübmaier: the Leader of the Anabaptists by Henry Clay Vedder, 1853-1935 (New York, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1905)
• History of the Ancient Christians Inhabiting the Valleys of the Alps by Jean Paul Perrin (Philadelphia, PA: Griffith and Simon, 1847)
• The Bloody Theater, Or, Martyrs Mirror of the Defenseless Christians by Thieleman Janszoon van Braght, 1625–1664 (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1886, 3rd English Edition, trans. by Joseph F. Sohm)
• The Proper Candidate: an Examination of the 1525 Debate between Ulrich Zwingli and Balthasar Hubmaier concerning Baptism -- "Hubmaier saw another weakness in Zwingli’s argument since infant baptism is not forbidden, then it is acceptable." (Master of Arts Thesis by Kurt J. Thompson, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, April 2009)

And for good measure, on persecution:

• Actes and Monuments of these Latter and Perillous Dayes, Touching Matters of the Church (aka Foxe’s Book of Martyrs) by John Foxe, 1516-1587 (London: John Day, 1563, this edition edited by William Byron Forbush)

A portrayal of human nature and God's grace

"The recent cultural struggle resulting in near deification on the one hand and effective demonization on the other of key historic figures is, at best, confusing to students. The biblical treatment of such historic figures as King David or Solomon who, despite their sinful natures and commission of sinful acts, were mightily used by God to further his kingdom on earth provides a more realistic portrayal of human nature and God's grace - and one with which our students are far more likely to identify." -- Littlejohn & Evans, Wisdom and Eloquence, ch. 6

My Dream

My Dream by John Melvin Henson is a short song and tune that I have always enjoyed very much. “One of his contemporaries described Henson as ‘the only person in America, and probably in the world, that could write the words and music to a song, set the type, make the plate, print and bind the book, play the music on piano or organ, and sing the song.’”

I do not know when this song was originally published, but it is found in several Primitive Baptist song books – including Harp of Ages (No. 89; where I became acquainted with it), the Old School Hymnal (No. 402), and the new revision of the Primitive Baptist Hymnal (No. 89). It seems to be popular and widely requested among Old School Baptists who use these books. (I have also sensed that among some there might be some objection to using it in regular services.) My Dream seems to present a sort of “day dream” vision of Jesus and his glory – but one from which we often awake and no longer have the loving and a close relationship with him of which we dreamed.

“I found him whom my soul loveth.” (Song of Solomon 3:4)

I sat by my Savior And looked on His face.

‘Twas full of His glory, And shining with grace.

His smile was endearing, His touch so divine,

His presence most cheering, This Savior of mine.

I could not believe it, That one such as I

Could sit down with Jesus In glory on high.

The poorest of mortals I felt on that hour,

Yet rich with my Savior, Endued with His power.

O’ wonderful story, O’ could I still dream

And rest with my Savior  By life’s flowing stream.

More words for My Dream were written by Theata Lawrence of Fort Worth, Texas, words that apply to after we wake. Henson’s tune with Lawrence’s words are number 90 in the Primitive Baptist Hymnal, immediately following the tune with Henson’s words.

But when I awoke, I then heard His sweet voice.

He told me the way To go on and rejoice.

Dear child, take upon you My yoke every day;

Walk on in my footsteps Ne’er ceasing to pray.

With truth gird about you, A garment so fair,

Press on in my Kingdom And dwell with me there,

With hope a sure anchor, My Word as your guide,

My Spirit to lead you Whatever betide.

My gospel a light For your wandering feet,

My staff for your comfort, My chastening sweet,

My smile will encourage When goings are rough;

My touch will secure you, My promise enough.

My child, then arise And your master obey;

Step out on my promise; Oh, do not delay.

My smile will be with you, My presence afford.

This dream is come true While you trust in the Lord.

Bermuda Revokes, 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.

• Bermuda Revokes Same-Sex-Marriage Rights -- "Less than a year after legalizing same-sex marriage, Bermuda is reversing course, implementing a law that says same-sex couples can enter domestic partnerships but not marry."
• Evangelical Political Theology: The Church Fathers on Romans 13, I Peter 2 & I Timothy 2 -- "Building on that essay Repairing Evangelical Political Theology, today we will see what a few of the church fathers said about these texts."
• Exposing the Deep Rot in the Deep State -- "The School Officers are the primary foot soldiers carrying out political policy. Engaging an active shooter on campus is the furthest thing from their skill-set you could imagine."
• Hatmaker explains why she rejected the “bad fruit” of the Bible’s teaching about sexuality -- "Hatmaker...alleges a variety of negative consequences that flow from calling homosexuality a sin."
• How Do People Buy Guns Legally? - The Legal Brief! -- "This week on The Legal Brief, it has become rather clear that a number of people are undereducated on how guns, like the AR15, are bought and who can actually buy them."
• Is the Bible God’s Word? -- "Resources Presenting Evidence that the Bible is God’s Word"
• Jesus was not an illegal immigrant or refugee -- "Due to the political situation at the time of Christ, moving from Bethlehem to Aegyptus would not make Jesus a refugee.  Jesus was born a common provincial or a peregrinus within the authority of the Roman Empire."
• Judge Who Removed Trans Teen From Parents Highlights What’s At Stake -- "...the judge seems suspicious that just as everything’s a nail to a person with a hammer, every troubled kid is “transgender” to a gender “specialist” with hormones to dispense."
• The 3rd Rail: Why the Middle View is Here to Stay -- "That middle might be not a fence but a third rail from which the Biblical truth radiates."
• The Baptist General Conference: a Fundamentalism File Research Report -- "This report is intended to be a resource to help Fundamentalist Christians in studying and evaluating religious leaders and movements."
• The Saga of Sam McCulloch, a Free Black Man in the Republic of Texas -- "Samuel McCulloch, Jr. was born in South Carolina in 1810. He moved with his white father, Samuel, Sr., to Alabama at the age of five (there is no mention of his mother in any official records)."
• Tomi Lahren's Final Thoughts for Those Who Are 'Offended by Thoughts and Prayers' -- "If you think Christianity is a mental illness, if you are offended by thoughts and prayers, if you think the solution to our familial, social, cultural and political issues is to remove God and religion from our country, these final thoughts are for you."
• What About Erasmus?  -- "...Erasmus is a complex and many-faceted individual. His true face is difficult to delineate."
• When What’s Best for Your Child Doesn’t Make Sense to Anyone Else -- "It’s nine o’clock AM, and I am sitting outside my daughter’s first grade classroom with my laptop open and my heart a little nervous."
• When Will the Shooting Stop? -- "The liberal order that has long dominated American society is falling apart. As it crumbles, it is creating monsters. The appearance of these shooter-monsters is an ominous harbinger of this disintegration."

Baptismal regeneration, 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.

• Baptismal Regeneration in Acts 2:38 -- "...water baptism in Acts 2:38 functions as neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition of salvation, but as a declaration that one has been saved."
• Baptists Agree to Start Hiring Homosexuals for Mission Service -- "...the CBF governing body has stated that it will “consider” the sexuality of proposed staff or missionaries, but unlike the 18-year-old policy now replaced, it will not ban them from service."
• CBF relaxes policy on hiring LGBTQ staff, but maintains some restrictions -- "The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship will continue to make sexual orientation a consideration in some, but not all, employment decisions with a new hiring policy and implementation plan adopted Feb. 9 by the CBF Governing Board."
• ‘Evangelical’ Isn’t a Dirty Word -- "Justified revulsion over politics is no reason to renounce a religious identity."
• Five words of hope in the face of horrific evil and pain -- "When horrific evil unfolds before our very eyes, there is a temptation to lose sight of the verities that ought to sustain and comfort us."
• Is Evolution Biblically Acceptable? The Question of Genesis 1 -- "Given what World Magazine has called a "major, well-funded push" to promote the acceptance of evolution among evangelical Christians, the case must be persuasively made against the compatibility of evolution and the Bible."
• Some women don't want reproductive rights. I'm one of them. -- "As much as Republicans' behavior offends many women, there will always be some women who find the Democrats more unpalatable still. And abortion is the biggest reason why."
• Temple Texas Christians Take a Stand Against Gay Mafia in Public Library -- "One bulletin board decorated with rainbows read, “Be inspired: Celebrate pride month.” Informational sheets and LGBT-themed books divided by age group were displayed on a table near the children’s desk."
• The New Independent Baptists -- "One of the great benefits of being Independent Baptist was supposed to be the lack of denominational control. Sadly, our movement has not always been able to live up to this ideal."
• Where Circus and Church Meet: A Plea for the Recovery of Sola Scriptura in Worship -- "Surely my ears were deceiving me: did this dear brother in Christ, this member of the pastoral search team, really just ask me, “What is your view of clown ministry in the local church?”"
• Why I Encourage People Not to Observe Lent -- "Lent is not in the Bible, nor anything resembling it. Movement toward Lent is movement away from the idea that the New Testament should give us the pattern for ecclesiastical celebrations or individual spiritual formation."
• 13 Words That Are Even More Offensive And Sexist Than 'Mankind' -- "At a recent town hall, Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau explained that the word 'mankind' is not inclusive enough. 'Peoplekind' is the acceptable form."

Remembering Billy Graham

On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 Evangelist Billy Graham passed from the walks of this life. He seemed to be almost idolized by many – vilified by others. The majority fell somewhere in between. From my point of view, he seemed like a likable person of integrity, but I diverged widely from his methodology and some of his theology. Graham’s message was kept simple, his methods (using decoys, repeat-after-me prayers, etc.) were misguided, and his alliances were ecumenical. Here are some of the favorable and unfavorable thoughts from the World Wide Web – most written after his recent death and a few from his prime.

• All living US presidents expected to attend funeral of Billy Graham -- "But it was unclear if a member of the Royal Family would attend the service in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Friday."
• Billy Graham and Your Local Church: A Thought Experiment -- "If Joe said what Billy said, would he still be qualified to be the pastor of Rowland Springs Baptist Church?"
• Billy Graham, Elmer Gantry, and the Performance of a New American Revivalism -- "Throughout Billy Graham’s career, the evangelist sought performative manners to ensure that he would not be perceived as another “Elmer Gantry”, or huckster preacher out to win money, fame, and favor."
• Billy Graham Led Millions Astray With False Hope, Altar Calls -- "His crusades, filling stadiums and drawing crowds in the hundreds of thousands, even over a million once in Seoul, Korea, are a legacy that will be remembered forever."
• Billy Graham’s Ministry of Error (from 1966) -- "The more we read of Graham the more apparent it becomes that he is not a Fundamentalist, but a liberal ecumenist."
• Biography from the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College -- "Billy Frank, as he was called as a child, grew up in Charlotte, North Carolina, expecting to follow the lifestyle of his father and grandfathers. Frank and Morrow Graham owned a 300-acre dairy farm..."
• Examining Billy Graham's Theology of Evangelism -- "‘Examining Billy Graham’s Theology of Evangelism’ was written to advance an unbiased understanding of Billy Graham’s theology and practice."
• Franklin Graham remembers dad, Rev. Billy Graham -- "The younger Graham said his father was the same at home as he was on television."
• Remembering Billy Graham (1918-2018) -- "Billy Graham was perhaps the most significant religious figure of the 20th century, and the organizations and the movement he helped spawn continue to shape the 21st."
• There will never be another Billy Graham, because the world that made him possible is gone -- "...the fact that American Christianity hasn’t given rise to a leader like Graham over the last two or three decades isn’t just a result of the fracturing of evangelicalism into different factions..."
• When Did Graham’s Compromise Begin? -- "[In 1957] The Graham crusade committee in New York included 120 theological modernists who denied the infallibility of Scripture. The wife of modernist Norman Vincent Peale headed up the women’s prayer groups for the Crusade."

Random remarks re the suckling and the service

Or, what about nurseries?

I grew up in a church that thought parents and children should be in the service together. There was no nursery. Spanking was also still in vogue! Children learned to behave in church at a young age. It scarred me for life. I became a Baptist preacher.

Modern societies often remove children from public life because doing otherwise is inconvenient and inexpedient. Some civilized societies (so-called) even remove children from life itself. In contrast, children ought to be cherished, nurtured, nourished, and seen in the Lord’s churches. The biblical worldview holds a radically different and counter-cultural approach from the world system. Young people, young families, small children, and babies have been basic to the progress of the Lord’s churches throughout this age – have been, continue, and will continue to be so. This should include integrating children into the church’s gathered services.

Recognizing that children of believers are lost – not just little believers in training – we also submit to the Word, which gives neither command nor example to follow the consumer-based models of creating separate services to satisfy the cravings of the children and convenience of the adults. When small children are brought to services, as they should be, parents of these children can (as much as possible) avoid deliberately distracting everyone. Those who do not have small children should welcome them and their parents – and be forbearing at times when such is necessary.  Parents should remove children when it is appropriate to the situation – but must also be very careful so that the children do not learn to use disruption to get their wants and way! Children learn how to behave at the church meeting by being in the church meeting. If church services are absent of children, soon both adults and children are warmed to the idea that they shouldn’t be there (even though they will vociferously deny it).

Don’t view babies at church as a problem. If you do, maybe you have a problem! If a baby starts crying, thank God that he is still blessing the world with babies. Thank him that your church has benefitted from that blessing. Thank him that your church can be a witness to the next generations. Thank him that your church hasn’t become so old and dead that no new life (even physical) can enter. Thank him that the baby is healthy and has a good set of lungs! I see nothing wrong with having a room where a parent can take a child to nurse them, feed them, change them, or rock them, as needed, but the concept of having a place so the babies will not “distract” the adults arises more from a negative view of the presence of children than any supposed benefits the baby (or small children) derive from it. Someone observed that if most of the young families have babies hanging on their shoulders, fewer will worry about a couple of babies screaming. May God bless us all with that problem!

Baptists and Religious Liberty, reprise

From the distant and not-so-distant past:

• Four Aspects of the Baptist stand for Religious Liberty
• Legal and Biblical Considerations of Religious Liberty
• Standing for Truth
• The Interpretation and Application of Romans 13
• Footnotes on Religious Liberty
• A Well-rounded View of Religious Liberty
• Practical thoughts on religious liberty and spiritual adultery
• 20 quotes from Baptists on religious liberty

Still the King

King James is Still the King: a list of writings posted on Seeking the Old Paths related to the King James Version of the Bible

• Answering the Anti-KJV Agenda
• Answering the Anti-KJV Agenda, Part 2
• Answering the Anti-KJV Agenda, Part 3
• Answering the Anti-KJV Agenda, Part 4
• Archaic words
• Bible reading ease (or not)
• Bible reading ease, random thoughts
• Difficult reading?
• Easter in the King James Bible
• English Bibles published before 1611
• Flesch-Kincaid and Bible versions
• Flesch-Kincaid results, foreign languages
• Irenaeus and Mark 16
• KJV and archaic terminology, reprise
• King James and the Apocrypha
• KJV to "UNV" to KJVO: a Journey
• LORD, Lord and lord
• Preservation: Not a KJVO debate
• Proorizo in the King James Bible
• Random Ruminations on the KJV
• Should Acts 8:37 be included in the Bible?
• The apple tree, the apple tree
• The King James Bible, Jack Hyles and Peter Ruckman
• The King James Bible and Jack Hyles
• The King James Bible and Peter Ruckman
• The KJV Quiz
• The “Anti”-KJV Quiz
• The Johannine Comma
• Thoughts on King James
• Use of "-est" and "-eth" in the KJV
• What's Wrong with the Greek?
• Why the Ye's and Thou's
• Why the Ye's and Thou's by Bruce Cummons
• 3 positives of the King James Bible, and a 4th
• 5 positions on original Bible manuscripts
• 11 Books related to the history of the King James Bible

I decided to put a list of links together with essays and tidbits that I have written related to the King James Bible and the Bible Versions debate. I was surprised that I have this many. Here are links to all of them (that I found) that were written prior to March 2018.