Menno uses Psalm 12:(6)7

...in reference to Scripture.

De doop echter is ons allen tot een teeken der gehoorzaamheid door Christus bevolen, met welken men betuigt, als men hem ontvangt, dat men des Heeren woord gelooft, date men leedwezen en berouw heeft van zijn vroeger leven en dat men met Christus begeert op te staan tot een nieuw leven, en verzekerd is van schuldvergiffenis door Jezus Christus, maar niet, dat de doop zulks kan bewerken....

Baptism, however, is commanded to us all as a sign of obedience by Christ, by which, when received, one declares that one believes the word of the Lord, that one regrets and repents of one’s former life, and that one desires to associate with Christ; stand to new life, and is assured of forgiveness of guilt through Jesus Christ, but not that baptism can accomplish it...

Ziet, dat is de eenige en rechte grond van den doop, die volgens de Schrift bewezen kan worden. Dit leern en gebruiken wij – want wij weten, dat het des Heeren uitdrukkelijk woord in bevel is, aan hetwelk wij niets toedoen of afnemen mogen, opdat wij van God (die alleen een God en Heer van ons geweten is) niet ongehoorzaam en leugenachtig bevonden worden. “Want Gods woord is gelouterd,” Psalm 12:7, “en een schild voor al degenen, die daarop vertrouwen,” Psalm 25:7. 

Behold, that is the only and just ground of baptism which can be proved according to the Scripture. This we learn and use—for we know that the Lord’s express word is a command, from which we may neither add nor take away, lest we disobey and lie to God (who alone is God and Lord of our conscience), and not be found disobedient and lying. “For God’s word has been refined,” Psalm 12:7, and “is a shield for all those who trust in it,” Psalm 25:7.

Ach, God! wat doen toch de geleerden en meesters dezer wereld, die zoo ijverig Gods woord en wijsheid zoeken te verkleinen, en zoo heftig op hun eigen ver nuft en inzicht aandringen; het zal hun toch niet gelukken, want God wil zijn eer aan geen anderen geven. Hij is de Heere, dat is zijn Naam. En buiten Hem is er geen. Jesaja 42:8.

Ah, God! what do the learned and masters of this world, who so diligently seek to diminish God’s word and wisdom, and so vehemently press upon their own ingenuity and understanding; they will not succeed anyway, for God will not give his glory to others. He is the Lord, that is his name. And besides Him there is none. Isaiah 42:8.

Tractaten over den doop, het avondmaal, enz. voorafgegaandoor een kort levensbericht en M.S’. “uitgang van het Pausdom” (Treatises on Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, etc. preceded by a short life story and M.S.’s “exit of the Papacy”), Menno Simons (1496-1561), Amsterdam: Johannes Müller, 1892, pp. 36-37

More work on Bible versions classification

Or taxonomy[i]…both mine and others.

There is a need to categorize or classify Bible views in a way that is accurate, clear, concise, consistent, complete, and equitable. There are so many barnacles stuck to the hull of this categorical ship, we need a fresh start. In the past, we have accepted and used models that are biased, inaccurate, and polemic. On my blog, I have explored some new possibilities, and proposed a model based on analyzing one’s approach to either translation or text. In my opinion, I have some experience in “Baptist Group” taxonomy that I believe helps point in the direction of a good “Bible Views” model. I have no illusions that I have the name recognition, promotional skills, reach, or support to press my ideas into service. Perhaps there are others who are working on this who can benefit from my thoughts and suggestions.

Timothy Berg has done some good work on Bible versions classification. He has proposed and is working toward a useful model. The concept is to chart the broad views on the reliability of the New Testament text, then subdivide within those broad views. I think that it has a good deal of overlap with my work. In the Textus Receptus Academy group/forum on Facebook, Tim suggested that broadly we should see three views:

1. TEXTUAL ABSOLUTISM - we have a final authority in one form/edition/translation of the text which is above revision. (Usually this also accompanies hesitation or distrust of other forms/editions/translations, but perhaps not always).
2. TEXTUAL CONFIDENCE (referring to general confidence) - we don’t have the exact words of the original in any text/edition/translation, but any good text/edition/translation is still the word of God, which is still a preserved authority.
3. TEXTUAL SKEPTICISM - textual corruption is so severe that we have no real Bible and no authority.

He further wrote, “I think this gets at the core *categorical* distinctions between views. And it helps respect each view’s core claim with language they would adopt...So these broad views help distinguish the basic categorical differences with a single word that gets at the core claim of each in a fair manner.”[ii] However, I see a few slight problems with Tim’s categories. First, “absolutism” and “skepticism” have some negative connotations that will likely make them distasteful to those categorized under these labels. I’m not sure whether the “skeptics” care, but the “absolutists” do. This is demonstrably true from the pushback against the term “textual absolutism” by KJV and TR defenders. Second, unveiling these on the “Textual Confidence Collective” had its own negative ramifications, since many see the series as a polemic against “Textual Absolutism.” Finally, on the “Textual Confidence Collective” the discussion made it clear that “Textual Confidence” is the right position.[iii] This again has negative effects on proposing this as an equitable model.

I further notice the Absolutism-Confidence-Skepticism model:

• has not thus far attempted to subcategorize the Textual Skepticism and Textual Confidence views, suggesting this classification focuses only on Textual Absolutism rather than equally on all three views. This is not to say it will never, but this is nevertheless is a negative aspect for the time being as people consider the classifications.
• puts Textual Absolutism side by side and sets Textual Confidence apart as the right view. Placed on an equitable spectrum, however, the Textual Confidence view falls somewhere in between Textual Absolutism and Textual Skepticism. This is not to say it will not be corrected in the future, but this is nevertheless is a negative aspect for the time being as people consider these classifications.
• emphasizes the similarities of Textual Absolutism and Textual Skepticism, but seems to disregard any similarities between Textual Absolutism and Textual Confidence, or between Textual Confidence and Textual Skepticism. Again, this is not to say it will not be corrected in the future. A Venn Diagam might accurately illustrate something like this:

The overlap might not be exactly symmetrical;

I used the Basic Venn format in MS Word and took what was the default image.

We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.[iv] We should take the good, tweak the inadequate, look for wider input, and produce something that could be widely agreed on and used by serious taxonomists. There will always be naysayers. That will never be solved.[v]

I hope this model or some other might be used to sort out various views about the Bible, at various levels. On a spectrum it will demonstrate both concordance and discordance. If one believes that a particular translation or text of the Bible is definitively the word of God, that person shares in common an idea – in a broad way – with everyone else who believes a particular translation or text of the Bible is definitively the word of God. Then we narrow the parameters. Do both believe that the same translation or text of the Bible is definitively the word of God? If not, then they are separated into different categories at that point. If so, then we again narrow the parameters. Do they both believe that the same translation or text of the Bible is definitively the word of God in the same way? If not, then they are separated into different categories at that point. If so, we must again narrow the parameters. And so on, until the questions and classifications are satisfied. So, for example, I broadly agree with Peter Ruckman that the King James Bible is the word of God. But as we narrow the parameters, we will demonstrate that he and I do not hold the same view about the King James Bible. We could be classified under the same broad category, but must be sifted into different specific categories. Below is an example of how I visualized charting this work might begin. Further, I have tried to illustrate how my original model and the work of Tim Berg overlap.

(Click image to enlarge)

I believe that (1) Timothy Berg is making a sincere attempt to increase the light and decrease the heat, and (2) some people will never be satisfied with any model that is not their own, and especially one that comes from someone they view as on the other side of the aisle. Nevertheless, I hope Tim and the TCC might reassess this vision and continue to work on the model to rid it of any unfavorable elements. I think they might have the reach to promote a good classification for general use. I do not think they have achieved a good final form. Over the course of several months, I have given some thought to how Tim’s model might be tweaked. I have gone back and forth on words that might be acceptable or unacceptable to various “stakeholders.” This is my latest and tentative proposal for possible broad categories:

1. Textual privilege – holding one text or translation as the right choice, to the exclusion of all others.
2. Textual preference – holding one text or translation as a better choice, but not to the exclusion of all others.
3. Textual precaution – holding no particular text or translation as a right choice, with ongoing uncertainties concerning the correct reading(s).

This schema is not without its difficulties, but, in my opinion, moves things a little further in the right direction,[vi] and posits something else with which to work. I would love to see more diverse and impartial interest concentrated on this useful goal.

Endnotes

---

[i] A taxonomy is a system of classification organizing facts or things into groups or types. The purpose of a taxonomy is to organize and index information or knowledge so that can more easily find and understand the data and relationship(s). Taxonomies may use hierarchies (a system of classification of persons or things ranked one above another) or spectrums (a system of classification positioning on a scale between two extreme or opposite points) to present the information. I see Bible views classification as a spectrum.
[ii] The broad views help distinguish the basic categorical differences, while other differences may be distinguished within the basic categories. For example, within “Textual Absolutism,” Tim suggested five possible views on a spectrum. (This is from Facebook; I do not recall if he tweaked these on the TCC video.) 1. Ruckmanism (the views promoted by Peter Ruckman); 2. KJV Only (the views promoted by Gail Riplinger); 3. King James Bible Defenders (e.g., the views of Laurence Vance); 4. King James/ Textus Receptus Defenders (equal or near equal focus on defending both the KJB and the TR); and 5. Textus Receptus Defenders (defense of the traditional original language texts). I think these categories need some work. For example, find a designation for category one other than “Ruckmanism,” while continuing to use Peter Ruckman as an example of this view. Do those who hold Ruckman’s view call themselves “Ruckmanites”? I do not know the answer to that. A group’s core claim, as well as how they identify themselves, should have a strong impact on how a group is classified. I can perceive any number of churches, preachers, and/or theologians who might readily identify themselves as “King James Only” while rejecting any identification with Gail Riplinger. Additionally, I think “Traditional Text Defenders” is a more accurate description than “TR (Textus Receptus) Defenders.” Textus Receptus most commonly only refers to the Greek text. Those who are familiar with the original languages hold a position of both a certain Greek Text and a certain Hebrew text as the acceptable form of the text. Classification is not perfect. There will always be some views on the edges of one classification that might fit just as easily in another classification. However, it should be careful and consistent in its presentation, and fair (in the sense of representing a view accurately) to all concerned.
[iii] For example, in a talk at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Mark Ward quipped, “As we all know that the first two views in a list of three are never right, it is always the third that is right. And, so it is in this case, my brothers. The orthodox view is ‘Textual Confidence.’” In terms of classification, the model’s aim should be accuracy, not proving the right position. That is polemic, which has its place elsewhere. Classification at its basic level should not be polemic.
[iv] On the other hand, I am all for throwing out James White’s classifications – the baby, the bathwater, and the tub they are both in!
[v] Obviously, in this article I may appear to be one of the naysayers. That is not my point. I am offering constructive criticism to hopefully move something good toward something better. I do not even offer my Textual privilege, Textual preference, and Textual precaution categories as something that must be used because I suggest it. Rather they are something that should bump up against Textual absolutism, Textual confidence, and Textual skepticism and, like the mash up of peanut butter and chocolate, perhaps create something better together than what one is alone.
[vi] Of the three categories, I am currently most dissatisfied with my description of the third category.

In other words, Wardisms and such

• academician, noun. A member of an association or institution for the advancement of arts, sciences, or letters; an academic or intellectual.
• amerce, verb (used with object). Punish with a fine.
• apropos, adjective. Very appropriate to a particular situation.
• archaic, adjective. Very old or old-fashioned; from an earlier period.
• bibliopoly, noun. The profession of selling of books, especially rare, decorative, or secondhand volumes; bookselling.
• charade, noun. An absurd pretense intended to create a pleasant or respectable appearance.
• comme il faut, adjective. Being in accord with conventions or accepted standards; proper (from the French, literally, as it should be).
• comport, verb. Conduct oneself, behave; accord with, be in agreement with.
• demolish, verb. To strip of any pretense of merit or credence; to destroy by breaking apart.
• de rigueur, adjective. Required by etiquette or current fashion.
• disingenuity, noun. The quality of being disingenuous, dishonest; an underhand dealing.
• encomium, noun. Warm, glowing praise; a formal expression of praise (from the Latin, derived from the Greek ἐγκώμιον, meaning the praise of a person or thing).
• eviscerate, verb. To deprive of vital content or force; to remove an organ from (a patient).
• exurb, noun. (North American) A district outside a city, especially a prosperous area beyond the suburbs.
• false friend, noun. A word or expression that has a similar form to one in a person's native language, but a different meaning (for example English magazine and French magasin). False friend translates the French faux ami.
• germane, adjective. Relevant to a subject under consideration.
• homonym, noun. (Phonetics) A word pronounced the same as another but differing in meaning, whether spelled the same way or not, as heir and air; a homophone.
• jargogle, verb. To confuse or bamboozle
• lexeme, noun. (Linguistics) A lexical unit in a language, as a word or base; vocabulary item.
• lexis, noun. (Linguistics). The vocabulary of a language, as distinct from its grammar; the total stock of words and idiomatic combinations of them in a language; lexicon.
• linguistic, adjective. Related to the science of language, including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics.
• mauvaise honte, noun. False shame or modesty (a borrowing from French).
• perforce, adverb. Used to express necessity or inevitability.
• picayune, adjective. Of little value or importance; paltry. trivial.
• plebe, noun. A member of the common people; (at the U.S. Military and Naval academies) a member of the freshman class.
• pronominal, adjective. Relating to or serving as a pronoun.
• sophistry, noun. A false argument; sophism.
• woofling, adjective. Of the nature of or characterized by a low snuffling, snorting, or growling sound.
• yeoman farmer, noun. A man who farms or cultivates his own land.

Old and New Books

There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books...This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity you can be almost certain that they are studying not St. Luke or St. Paul or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Hooker or Butler, but M. Berdyaev or M. Maritain or Mr. Niebuhr or Miss Sayers or even myself.

Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old.

Clive Staples Lewis, from God in the Dock

O love, how deep, how broad, how high

This hymn is attributed to Thomas à Kempis, aka Thomas of Kempen (1380-1471), a German canon and author of Imitatio Christi (The Imitation of Christ).

Benjamin Webb (1819-1885) translated the text of eight stanzas into English. Webb was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, England. He was ordained a priest in the Church of England in 1843. Webb wrote music and hymns, as well as translating the hymns of others. With William Cooke, he was editor of The Hymnary: a Book of Church Song (1872). This hymn appears there as No. 177, in eight stanzas, in Long Meter, with the heading “The love of Christ, which passeth knowledge.”

1. O love, how deep, how broad, how high,
How passing thought and phantasy,
That God, the Son of God, should take
Our mortal form for mortals’ sake!
 
2. He sent no angel to our race,
Of higher or of lower place,
But to this world himself he came,
And wore the robe of human frame.
 
3. Nor willed he only to appear;
His pleasure was to tarry here;
And God and Man with man would be
The space of thirty years and three.
 
4. For us baptized, for us he bore
His holy fast, and hungered sore;
For us temptation sharp he knew,
For us the tempter overthrew.
 
5. For us he preaches and he prays,
Would do all things, would try all ways;
By words and signs and actions, thus
Still seeking not himself, but us.
 
6. For us to wicked men betrayed,
Scourged, mocked, in crown of thorns arrayed,
For us he bore the cross’s death;
For us he gave his dying breath.
 
7. For us he rose from death again,
For us he went on high to reign;
For us he sent his Spirit here
To guide, to strengthen, and to cheer.
 
8. All honour, laud, and glory be,
O Jesu, Virgin-born, to Thee;
Whom with the Father we adore,
And Holy Ghost for evermore.

Hate speech laws themselves, and other quotes

The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources. (I try to confirm the sources that I give, but may miss on occasion; please verify if possible.)

“‘Hate speech’ laws themselves should be viewed as a form of hate speech because they are designed to silence dissent.” -- Shelton Smith

“We often times read Scripture, thinking of what [we think] it ought to say, rather than what it does say.” -- Charles H. Spurgeon

“Scripture is the enemy of the flesh: the unrepentant war against it, the saved submit to it with joy.” -- Benjamin Mabee

“God possesses infinite knowledge and the knowledge of humans is limited to their observations and their ability and capacity to reason. So, what seems superfluous and flawed to human reason may actually be true.” -- Ed Garrett

“Talk sense to the fool and he calls you foolish.” -- attributed to Euripides

“Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.”

“While nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer, nothing is more difficult than to understand him.” -- Fyodor Dostoevsky

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all.” -- 2nd London Baptist Confession, Chap. 1, Para. 7

“If we cannot trust that God has kept his word, which says he keeps our souls, how can we trust that he keeps our souls?”

“We are reminded that anger doesn’t solve anything. It builds nothing, but it can destroy everything.” -- Thomas S. Monson

“Assurance is a fruit that grows out of the root of faith.” -- Stephen Charnock

“Pray to have eyes that see the best in people, a heart that forgives the worst in them, and a mind that forgets the worst and remembers the best.” -- Unknown

“If I utter a syllable that is not justified by the Scriptures, don’t believe me. The Bible is the only rule.” -- D. L. Moody

“We must always emphasize the Christian starting point that all our thinking ought to have. If we are Christians, then we must begin our thinking not with the assertions of unbelieving scholars and their naturalistic human logic, but with Christ and the logic of faith.” -- E. F. Hills

Redemption is a fit theme, and other music quotes

The posting of quotes by human authors does not constitute agreement with either the quotes or their sources. (I try to confirm the sources that I give, but may miss on occasion; please verify if possible.)

“Redemption is a fit theme for the heartiest music.” -- Charles Haddon Spurgeon

“I have a friend who writes music about sewing machines. He’s a Singer songwriter. Or sew it seams.” -- Unknown

“When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.” -- Jimi Hendrix, American rock musician

“Political correctness has grown to become the unhappiest religion in the world.” -- Nick Cave, Australian singer and songwriter

“With what moral dimension is my favourite music associated?” -- Dan Lucarini

“If we do not sing with the spirit and with the understanding, our singing is merely mechanical, consequently Heartless, and of no value to singers or to hearers.” -- Major W. E. Penn, Baptist evangelist

“As a rule, church choirs are an abomination in the sight of the Lord. They are only efficient in the worship of God when they are used as leaders of the congregation.” -- Major W. E. Penn, Baptist evangelist

“When a church gets so low down that it has to get the Devil to do its singing, a funeral sermon and a short burial service would be in order.” -- Major W. E. Penn, Baptist evangelist

Happy birthday

Happy tomorrow birthday to my brother, 68 years of his own, and 3-1/2 years ahead of me. 

May your day be blessed.

In other words, sounds alike

• analyze (also analyse), verb (transitive). Examine methodically and in detail; discover or reveal (something) through detailed examination.
• annalize, verb (transitive). To record or commemorate (events, a person’s actions, etc.) in annals or as if in annals; to chronicle.
• bare, adjective. (of a person or part of the body) not clothed or covered; without the appropriate, usual, or natural covering.
• bear, noun. A large, heavy mammal that walks on the soles of its feet, having thick fur and a very short tail.
• bear, verb. Carry the weight of; support.
• flour, noun. A powder obtained by grinding grain, typically wheat, and used to make bread, cakes, and pastry.
• flower, noun. The seed-bearing part of a plant, consisting of reproductive organs (stamens and carpels) that are typically surrounded by a brightly colored corolla (petals) and a green calyx (sepals).
• meat, noun. The flesh of an animal (especially a mammal) as food; food of any kind.
• meet, verb. Come into the presence or company of; make the acquaintance of.
• mete, verb. Dispense or allot justice, punishment, etc.
• parity, noun. Equality, as in amount, status, or character; equivalence; correspondence; similarity; analogy. 
• parody, noun. A humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing.
• parroty, adjective. Like or of the nature of a parrot.
• penguin, noun. Any of several flightless, aquatic birds of the family Spheniscidae, of the Southern Hemisphere, having webbed feet and flipper-like wings.
• pinguid, adjective. Fat; oily.
• their, possessive pronoun. Belonging to or associated with the people or things previously mentioned or easily identified.
• there, adverb. In or at that place; at that point in an action, speech; etc.
• they’re, contraction. A contraction of the pronoun they and verb are.
• to, preposition. Expressing motion in the direction of (a particular location).
• too, adverb. To a higher degree than is desirable, permissible, or possible; also, in addition; very.
• two, cardinal number. Equivalent to the sum of one and one; one less than three.
• yogh, noun. The letter used in the writing of Middle English to represent a palatal fricative (Ȝ).
• yoke, noun. A device for joining together a pair of draft animals; a pair of draft animals fastened together by a yoke.
• yolk, noun. The yellow and principal substance of an egg, as distinguished from the white.

Christian baptism and John’s baptism

Revisiting John’s baptism and those who say it was not “Christian.”

One who says “Christian baptism is into the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ” sometimes argues that, strictly speaking, John’s baptism (and even the baptisms performed by the disciples of Jesus before Pentecost, John 3:22; John 4:1-2) should not be considered “Christian” because it did not symbolize the believer’s death, burial, and resurrection into a new life in Christ.[i]

Regardless of what we call John’s baptism, it was a baptism from God and not men – according to the Lord Jesus himself. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? (Luke 20:4). There was a man sent from God, whose name was John (John 1:6). The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee (Mark 1:1-2).

John fulfilled his calling. With John, the coming of the Christ was no longer future but fulfilled. It was a future prediction for all previous prophets until John. John was not the last prophet. Other prophets came after him (cf. Ephesians 2:20; 1 Corinthians 12:28). However, John was the prophet whose ministry terminated in the fulfillment of the anticipated coming of the Christ. Jesus came and fulfilled the preparation of John. Those who reject the baptism of John as “Christian” baptism in effect deny that John completed his mission. They deny that he made ready a people “prepared” for the Lord. Instead, many of them claim it was the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost that actually made “ready a people prepared for the Lord” – contradicting the plain statement of Scripture (Luke 1:17). See also Acts 13:25, “…John fulfilled his course…”

John’s baptism was unto repentance. Christian baptism symbolizes the believers own death, burial and resurrection to a new person (life) in Christ. Paul plainly says that John required repentance and faith in Christ (Acts 19:4). John claimed to have preached the gospel of Christ (John 3:36), and Mark says the beginning of the gospel was with John (Mark 1:1-2). Yet for some reason those who deny that his baptism was Christian baptism think John preached some other kind of repentance connected with some other kind of gospel (cf. Galatians 1:8-9).[ii]

Those who reject the baptism of John as “Christian” baptism deny his baptism was “the counsel of God” (Lk. 7:29-30).[iii] Hence, the Pharisees, in rejecting John’s baptism as it would be invalidated in less than a year and half by God and Christians, were wiser than God or Christ were.

Does any text of Scripture call any water baptism either before or after the cross as “Christian” baptism? No, not at all! Baptism before the cross is just as “Christian” as baptism after the cross as far as scripture is concerned. The soteriology or ecclesiology (or both) of those who reject the baptism of John as “Christian” force them to that conclusion – rather than their being taught it by Scripture.

The “whatsoever I have commanded you” of the Great Commission could only refer back to the baptism of John and the apostles. That is the only baptism in existence. That is the only possible baptism Christ could “have” commanded previously. John 4:1-2 and Luke 7:29-30 confirm this. The Great Commission makes no change in baptism.

Some teach that the 3000 saved and baptized on the day of Pentecost included all the folks previously baptized by John the Baptist – “rebaptized” with “Christian baptism” (which they presume began on the day of Pentecost, along with “the” church). However, no repentant believers baptized by John or the apostles were part of the 3000-something baptized on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41). These 3000-something people are identified as Jews who came from outside of Palestine. The 120-something John the Baptist kind of baptized disciples (Acts 1:21-22; 2:1) who were “all Galileans.”

One text of Scripture often arrayed against John’s baptism is Acts 19:1-7. The idea proposed is that John’s baptism was no longer valid after Pentecost, since Paul “re”baptized disciples of John in Ephesus. Such an approach is both astigmatic and unbiblical. This text bears of several explanations that do not require invalidating John’s baptism. I was taught and have always believed that John the Baptist did not baptize the disciples found in Ephesus. Rather they were merely baptized “unto John’s baptism” – that is, by someone perpetuating John’s baptism without the authority to do so. In recent years, I have come across another, and perhaps older, interpretation, which reads verse 5 of Acts 19 as part of Paul’s explanation of John’s baptism, rather than referring to the reaction of the Ephesian disciples.

Acts 19:4-5 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Both Baptists such as John Gill and Protestants such as Francis Turretin have taught this manner of understanding Acts 19:4-5.

XIV. Acts 19:4-5 does not prove that the Ephesian disciples, who had been baptized with the baptism of John, were rebaptized by Paul. For the words (verse 5) ἀκουσαντες δὲ ἐβαπτίσθησαν [“When they heard this, they were baptized,” rlv] are not the words of Luke telling what followed after Paul talked to them [the Ephesians], but rather a confirmation of Paul’s statement to those Ephesians, in which he teaches that those who had received baptism from John had been baptized in the name of Christ, and therefore had no need of a new baptism.[iv] Institutio Theologiæ Elencticæ, Tom. III (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume 3), Francisco Turrettino, New York, NY: Robert Carter, 1847, p. 343

Ver. 5. When they heard this, &c.] That is, the people to whom John preached, his hearers; when they heard of the Messiah, and that Jesus was he, and that it became them to believe in him: they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; not the disciples that Paul found at Ephesus, but the hearers of John; for these are the words of the Apostle Paul, giving an account of John’s baptism, and of the success of his ministry, shewing, that his baptism was administered in the name of the Lord Jesus; and not the words of Luke the Evangelist, recording what followed upon his account of John’s baptism; for then he would have made mention of the apostle’s name, as he does in the next verse; and have said, when they heard this account, they were baptized by Paul in the name of the Lord Jesus: the historian reports two things, first what Paul said, which lies in ver. 4, 5., then what he did, ver. 6., where he repeats his name, as was necessary; as that he laid his hands upon them, which was all that was needful to their receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, having been already baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus: which sense is the more confirmed by the particles μεν and δε, which answer to one another in ver. 4, 5, and shew the words to be a continuation of the apostle’s speech, and not the words of the historian, which begin in the next verse. An Exposition of the New Testament, Volume II, John Gill, London: Matthews and Leigh, 1809, p. 324

If interpreters such as Gill and Turretin are correct, no contemporary water baptism occurs in the Acts 19:1-7 pericope. Rather Paul laid his hands upon already believing baptized disciples who had not “received the Holy Ghost,” and “the Holy Ghost came on them.” This is consistent with the experience of the baptized believers in Samaria, and seems a very good possibility. See Acts 8:14-17.

Consider also:

• John’s authority came from heaven. Compare Matthew 21:25-27 and John 1:6.
• John the Baptist preached of the Father, the Holy Ghost, and the coming Messiah. Compare Matthew 3:11.
• John preached repentance and required evidence of it (cf. Matthew 3:8; John 3:36; Acts 19:4).
• Apollos knew “only the baptism of John” (Acts 18:25-26), but was not “re”baptized.

A normal reading of the Scriptures is that John had a successful God-ordained ministry of preparing disciples for the coming Messiah, including his baptizing of those disciples, and those disciples leaving John and following Christ. One possesses an odd and seemingly almost determined discordant dogmatism to find the baptism of John as an aberration within God’s program!

---

[i] Those who “unchristianize” John’s baptism must also look at doing so to the baptism by the disciples under the authority of Jesus (John 4:1-2). The Gospels are clear. The disciples walking with Jesus did not distinctly and thoroughly understand his ministry until after his resurrection – especially concerning his death on the cross and resurrection from the dead. Yet they were baptized. They were never rebaptized. (though a few people try to make up such a scenario). Prior to the death, burial, resurrection of Jesus, the baptism ministry of the disciples of Jesus was a transitional ministry similar to John’s baptism. It pointed to a time in the future when things would be more clearly fulfilled and understood. This in no way nullifies either the baptism of John or the baptism of the apostles. There is only one water baptism in the New Testament, whether by John or the disciples, whether before or after Pentecost.
[ii] All saints prior to the coming of Jesus the Christ were “Christians.” They were all believers in Christ (Messiah/Anointed). Peter plainly says that (Acts 4:12 with 10:43). People did not call such believers “Christians” (as far as we know until Acts 11:35 in Antioch) – but they were nevertheless believers in Christ as their Christ and Saviour.
[iii] Or, at least suggest it was inferior counsel as not only would all Christians reject it on Pentecost but God would reject it as well!
[iv] XIV. Locus Act. xix. 4, 5, non evincit rebaptizatos fuisse a Paulo discipulos Ephesios, qui baptizati fuerant baptismo Johannis. Verba enim (vers. 5) ἀκουσαντες δὲ ἐβαπτίσθησαν non sunt verba Lucæ narrantis quid sit consecutum Pauli sermonem ad ipsos, sed potius confirmatio orationis Paulinæ ad illos Ephesios, qua docet illos, qui baptismum acceperant a Johanne, fuisse baptizatos in nomine Christi, atque adeo non opus habuisse novo baptismo.

Funny quotes

“I’d like to start dieting, but there’s just too much on my plate right now.” -- Unknown

“All good things are invented in Scotland, stole by the English, then sold to the Americans.” -- Gordon Campbell

Construction advice

Q. How do you keep a concrete slab from cracking?
A. Do not pour a concrete slab!

Q. How do you keep a flat roof from leaking?
A. Replace it with a pitched roof!

Update on Rafter cutting

I ran across an old post from 2010, and thought I would update it a bit.

While wandering around the internet, I ran up on the Rafter Angle Calculator at Construction Resource.com. It looked like a nice resource. It brought back some memories. (Unfortunately, I cannot presently, July 2022, connect to that site. After 12 years, I do not remember for sure, but I assume it was an online device to calculate rafter cuts.)

Once upon a time I was a rafter man on a framing crew. I have not excelled at many things in my life, but at that I did. I was a master rafter crafter. 😀 All that seems far away now. It’s been probably 25 years or so since I did much construction work – excluding the recent “playdominium” I built for my grandchildren. There are some days when I miss both framing in general and rafter cutting in particular, but sweating profusely in the Texas summer heat building the “playdominium” was not one of them!

After finding the “Rafter Angle Calculator,” I did some further searching on rafter cutting. It appears to be a skill whose practitioners are dwindling. Pre-made trusses are one major factor in this, replacing cut rafters on many projects. Curiously, while reading about the subject online I didn’t notice anyone mentioning that rafters could be laid out with a framing square. Does anyone know how to do this anymore? [Note: I found this article on Rafter Layout with a Framing Square. I skimmed over it, and it seems to be reliable. Have not read it word for word.]

After learning to cut rafters from my Dad, I tried to add to my skill through reading and practice. One of the best was an old textbook cast off by some school – Simplified Roof Framing by John Douglas Wilson and Schurer Olaf Werner, 1927. I think I found it at a garage sale or junk sale.

Eventually, I would cut an entire roof ahead of or at the beginning of construction. In order to not have thousands of dollars of 2X6’s cut wrong, I used a three-part “safety system.” (1) I laid out the rafter with a framing square. (2) I calculated the length of the rafter with a Construction Master Calculator by Calculated Industries.1 (My boss bought one for me; their look has changed a good bit since back then). (3) I used a rafter table booklet titled Full Length Roof Framer by A. F. J. Riechers.2 If/when these three were the same, I was confident there was no mistake and the 6-1/2" worm drive Skil Saw® was ready to take its bite. If you find a house with rafters that I cut it will have a pattern rafter (or more than one, according to roof type). The pattern rafter was the one from which others were laid out, and also had notes with all the information about the rafter – cut, span, length, depth of seat cut, overhang, etc., as well as my signature of approval. (This was useful on several occasions when we went back and added to a house we had already built. I found the pattern rafter and had all the information to create a newly matching rafter.)

Those were the days.

Other info on roof framing
A Roof Cutter’s Secrets to Framing the Custom Home by Will L. Holladay
Basic Roof Framing Instructions online
Rafter Calculator
Roof Framer’s Bible: The Complete Pocket Reference to Roof Framing by Barry D. Musse
Roof Framing by Marshall Gross (Carlsbad, CA: Craftsman Book Co., 1998)

--------
1. The Construction Master Calculator can calculate in feet/inches and figure pitch, rise, run, etc.
2. The Full Length Roof Framer has been in publication over 100 years, since 1917, and is still not outdated. The author, Augustus Frederick John Riechers, was born May 31, 1889 in Pennsylvania. He died October 23, 1978 in San Mateo County, California. His daughter (J. Remmel) published a metric edition of Full Length Roof Framer in 1992.
3. A blogger gives some helpful drawings he thinks could have been included in Full Length Roof Framer and Simplified Roof Framing.

A Story of the Full Length Roof Framer

...By Augustus Frederick John Riechers.

Palo Alto Daily Times, Tuesday, October 13, 1959, p. 16

What is phishing, 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.

• Ye and You in the King James Version, by John S. Kenyon, 1914 -- “The several editors, especially those of 1762 and 1769, carried out to the full at least two things on which they had set their minds: they got rid of the quaint old moe for more...”
• What is phishing? -- “In a phishing attack, the sender imitates (or “spoofs”) someone trustworthy that the recipient would likely know.”
• The Revival We Need and the Unregenerate Church Members We Have -- “To illustrate our problem, in 2018, one beloved historic Southern Baptist Church whose name most Baptists would recognize claimed 30,000 members and an average of 6,801 attending. It was noted as the top church in baptisms among the SBC for 2018...”
• The Problem With Fancy Diplomas -- “Thomas Sowell on the problem with fancy diplomas, or why some very educated people get it all wrong.”
• The Mega List of Homophones -- “Although the entries have been double-checked for accuracy many times over the last three decades, we could have missed a few, so we do not claim that this list is error-free.”
• The Biblical Presuppositions for the Critical Text that Underlie the Modern Versions, Pt. 2 -- “God’s people believe and have believed that His Word teaches perfect preservation. It’s not an ordinary book. It is supernatural. God’s Word endures. It is in character different than man’s words.”
• The Biblical Presuppositions for the Critical Text that Underlie the Modern Versions -- “You can explore history for biblical or supernatural presuppositions for modern textual criticism. You won’t find any. They don’t start with a teaching of scripture.”
• Southwest Loses Big to Fired Pro-Life Flight Attendant -- “No American worker should have to fear termination, intimidation, or any other reprisal merely for speaking out against having their own money spent, purportedly in their name, to promote an agenda they find abhorrent.”
• Snow United Methodist Church, the oldest church in Dooly County -- “According to the church’s founding history, it was 1832 when neighbors gathered at the home of Mrs. Tilly Crumpler and decided that they wanted to establish proper religious services.”
• Photo of Mormonism founder Joseph Smith has been discovered after 180 years and I must say he didn’t look much like the famous painting -- “A descendant of Mormonism’s founder Joseph Smith found the only known photo of him in a family heirloom.”
• On Funerals, Cremation, and the Gospel -- “However, when asked, I also express a preference for burial – not a conviction, but a preference. That too is based on what I believe the Bible teaches.”
• How to Clean Up the Membership List of a Local United Methodist Church -- “It is critically important to determine who is a member of the local Methodist church, and, clean up the membership role prior to taking a vote to disaffiliate from the Annual Conference of a United Methodist Church.”
• From This Generation For Ever: A Study of God's Promise to Preserve His Word -- “This blog is designed to serve as an extension or housing for the content from the adult Sunday School class of Grace Life Bible Church in Grand Rapids, MI. The purpose of this course is to set forth our belief that the King James Bible is God's Word for English speaking people.”
• ‘Defund the Police’ Failure Has Minneapolis Residents Taking Matters into Their Own Hands Amid Crime Surge -- “With a crime rate of 59 per one thousand residents, Minneapolis has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to all communities of all sizes – from the smallest towns to the very largest cities.” 
• Brazen Error in the KJV? -- “Did I see the word ‘land’ in your NIV? Oh boy… should it say: carbons, minerals, nitrogen, hydrogen, water (H2O), etc?”
• “Archaic Mark” (MS 2427) and the Finding of a Manuscript Fake -- “‘Archaic Mark’ is the moniker given by Ernest Cadman Colwell to an unprovenanced, illuminated manuscript of the Gospel of Mark that has fascinated textual critics ever since it was acquired by the University of Chicago nearly seventy years ago from the estate of an Athenian collector.”
• An “Ancient” Text of the Gospel of Mark -- “...The scribe of the Chicago Mark had several habits to which we cannot find parallels...These actions seem entirely normal to the twentieth-century American, but were unknown in the Greek manuscript tradition.”
• A History of My Defense of the King James Version, by Edward F. Hills -- “I have been interested in the problem of New Testament textual criticism since my high school days in the 1920’s. At that time I began to read the commentaries of Charles Hodge, books that were part of my Presbyterian heritage.”

The fittest interpreter

That the Scripture is the only Authentick Record of the Mind and Will of God. For it is certain and undoubted Voice of God himself; and what that speaks, He speaks. And who so fit to Interpret the meaning of the words as himself? Ejus est Interpretari, cujus est condere, is an approved Rule in Civil Law; He that made the Law, is fittest to Interpret it. And in the present case the Reason is evident; God best knows his own Mind; and he hath no where so plainly and fully revealed his Mind as in Scripture. Certainly there can be none so sure and infallible Interpreter of these sacred Records, as the Holy Spirit that endited them; and he Interprets them, not by suggesting to us anything for their understanding which is not there already, but by speaking to us more clearly from some part of Scripture, what is delivered more darkly in others. Can any Man, or sort of Men in the World, pretend to know the Mind of God better than himself? or give us better assurance what his Mind is, than the Word which himself hath appointed to be written for this very purpose? Whatsoever sense may be put upon any Scripture-Assertion, and by whomsoever framed, it cannot challenge our undoubted reception, unless we can discern the Voice of God in it.

John Wilson, The Scriptures Genuine Interpreter Asserted: or a Discourse Concerning the Right Interpretation of Scripture (In the Savoy: Printed by T. N. for R. Boulter, 1678), pages 215-216.

O! What Mysterious Grace Is This?

Thomas Nichols wrote “O! What Mysterious Grace Is This?” This hymn adores the mystery of the grace of God for sinners. Little is known of Nichols. He published Hymns and Anthems: Composed on Divine Subjects, Agreeable to Sacred Scripture, Inspected and approved by the Rev. Isaac Backus (Albany, NY: Charles R. & George Webster, 1793). According to David Music, this Thomas Nichols was affiliated with the New-Britain Baptist Church in Rensselaer County, New York (see also The Universal Register of the Baptist denomination in North America, 1790-1794). Music further states that the book contains “206 hymns and thirty-two anthems” which “appear to be entirely original.” The book contained a recommendation by Isaac Backus.

1. The bright and shining heav’nly host,
Unitedly agree:
To Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
They all submissive be.
 
2. They constantly engaged be,
In what God doth allow;
But saints upon the highest key,
Will make the lowest bow.
 
3. They sing redeeming grace and love;
From what they feel and know,
Which angels, that high rank above,
Desire to look into.
 
Refrain:
 
O! what mysterious grace is this?
How should we it admire?
Which angels in the realms of bliss,
To view so much desire.

Georgia Guidestones

A couple of years ago, a neighbor suggested that I should research Georgia Guidestones and Agenda 21. It all sounded sort of conspiratorial, and I never got around to it. Maybe Covid-19 intervened a bit, and perhaps I was not all that interested. It came to mind recently when the news reported that on July 6 someone bombed the Georgia Guidestones. The remainder was torn down.

The Georgia Guidestones was completed in 1980, a granite structure in Elbert County, Georgia with ten guidelines inscribed in eight different languages: Arabic, Chinese, English, Hebrew, Hindi, Russian, Spanish, and Swahili. In English the guidelines were:

• Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
• Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
• Unite humanity with a living new language.
• Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
• Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
• Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
• Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
• Balance personal rights with social duties.
• Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
• Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

Sort of weird, generally, and especially when combined with the secretive nature of its origin.

Some Jokes

What do you call someone with no body and no nose? ...Nobody knows.

What do you call a factory that makes okay products? ...A satisfactory.

Why do fathers take an extra pair of socks when they go golfing? ...In case they get a hole in one! 

Knock, knock.
Q. Who’s there?
A. Cow says.
Q. Cow says who?
A. No, a cow says mooooo!

Knock, knock.
Q. Who’s there?
A. A little old lady.
Q. A little old lady who?
A. Hey, I didn’t know you could yodel!

Titus 3:14 typography

At the Textus Receptus Academy group on Facebook, Brent Riggs brought up a Titus 3:14 typography difference, by which I was quite intrigued. Some printings have the word our’s (with an apostrophe for possession, but which is not normally used in American English with pronouns) and some have ours (without the apostrophe). I checked all of my KJV Bibles that are accessible on shelves (some are boxed and stored). I made a list below of what I found. All are King James translations. Some of these Bibles do not include any copyright or publication year, and some do not have any distinguishing title. Sometimes there are details such as an item number/sku. To help narrow down the timeline for the undated Bibles, I include information about when they were gifted, purchased and such like. This will give some indication of when they would have printed – for example, a Bible gifted in 1956, had to be printed at least by that time. They are generally in chronological order.

Our’s

Titus 3:14 - And let our’s also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.

• 1769, Blayney 1st edition, Oxford, Bible Museum 2017 facsimile reprint
• 1902, The Self-Pronouncing S.S. Teachers’ Combination Bible, The Southwestern Company
• 1915 ca. Oxford (small Bible, about 4 X 6; no date, but has the name Horace Hart, who was Oxford printer and controller 1883-1915; given to my wife’s grandmother sometime between 1908-1915) 
• 1945 - Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford
• 1956 ca., World Publishing Company (no date, but my aunt gave this Bible to my grandmother in 1956) 
• 1964, Thompson Chain-Reference, B. B. Kirkbride
• 1965, The Holy Bible: Michelangelo Edition, Abradale Press
• 1970, The Crusade Analytical Edition, Crusade Bible Publishers
• 1976 ca., World Publishing Company (no date, but I gave this Bible to my mother in 1976)
• 1978, Nave’s Study Bible: King James Version, Broadman Press
• 1988, Thompson Chain-Reference, B. B. Kirkbride
• 2009, R. L. Allan & Son Publishers 

Ours

Titus 3:14 - And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.

• 1611, Robert Barker, printer to the King (facsimile reprint)
• 1833, The Holy Bible: An Exact Reprint Page for Page of the Authorized Version of 1611 in roman type, Oxford
• 1873, Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Cambridge University Press
• 1889, Franklin Publishing, Richmond, Virginia (a large family Bible)
• 1972, Wide Margin, Thomas Nelson Publishers 
• 1972, Thomas Nelson Snap Flap Pocket Bible, 344S 
• 1976 ca., Zondervan/Eyre and Spottiswoode (no date, but I was given this Bible in 1976)
• 1980, The Reese Chronological Bible: King James Version, Bethany House Publishers
• 1982 ca., Cambridge Concord 17XRL (no date, but given to my wife in 1982)
• 1983 ca., World Bible Publishers, KWM-14-5941 (no date, but purchased probably circa 1983)
• 1985, The Holy Bible, Jove Publications/Consolidated Book Publishers
• 1986 ca., Cambridge Pitt Minion 53X (no date, but I was given this Bible in 1986)
• 1988, The King James Study Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers
• 1989, Slimline-Reference, Thomas Nelson Publishers  
• 1990, 1611 Roman type reprint, Thomas Nelson Publishers
• 1990, The Companion Bible w/E. W. Bullinger notes, 1922, Kregel Publications
• 1992, The Full Life Study Bible: King James Version, Zondervan Publishing House
• 1993, The Original African Heritage Study Bible: King James Version, World Bible Publishers
• 2000, King James Large Print, Compact Edition, Holman Bible Publishers
• 2003, Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford, 2003 Edition
• 2010, PCE Cambridge University Press 
• 2014 ca., Bearing Precious Seed wide margin (no date, but purchased in 2014)
• 2014, Local Church Bible Publishers 
• 2016, KJV Study Bible for Boys, Baker Books
• 2016, Reader’s Bible, Holman Bible Publishers
• 2019, Holman Bible Publishers
• 2020, Matthew Henry Study Bible, Hendrickson Publishers

My initial reaction is that “our’s” is a typographical error introduced in the Oxford printings. Regardless, this is something of little consequence beyond the curiosity of it all.