Greetings and welcome to Word Magazine. This is Jeff Riddle. I'm the pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Louisa, Virginia. And in this episode of Word Magazine, I'm offering a response to YouTuber Mark Ward's recent offer to translate, as he put it, the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, of 1689. I've written up some notes for this podcast and I'm going to post these to my blog if you want to read this more closely and there'll also be some links to some of the references I'll make to his initial video and some other videos in which he makes some statements about his understanding of the Baptist Confession. So with that, let's go ahead and get started and I'm basically going to read through my notes and share them with you. Former self-identified recovering King James Version onlyest freelance YouTuber and critic now of the King James Version, Mark Ward, recently issued a call on his YouTube channel for a new translation, as he put it, of the 1689 Confession, as well as the Savoy Declaration and the Westminster Confession of Faith into modern English. Ward begins this call by noting, quote, in 2021, in preparation for my ordination, I translated the 1689 London Baptist Confession into modern English, end quote. Ward, somewhat unsurprisingly, notes that he found so-called dead words and false friends in the confession. Terms those familiar with his dogged attacks on the intelligibility of the King James Version will quickly recognize. Ward says he dealt with such terms in his translation of the confession using modern language as he prepared for his ordination to pastoral ministry at the now-defunct Cornerstone Baptist Church of Anacortes, if that's the proper pronunciation, Washington. We'll return to this statement later to examine Ward's Reformed Baptist ministerial credentials. Ward gives five examples of supposedly outdated words within the Confession of Faith, the Baptist Confession of Faith. Words, he says, or insists, that need to be translated, so-called. I must say, I found no merit in any of the five examples that would justify this. More importantly, I found that two of Ward's examples are theologically problematic. The first of these is a suggestion that the word circumstances in Chapter 1, paragraph 6 of the Confession should be changed. Ward says this term is obsolete in the modern context. He makes no mention of the fact, however, that circumstances has long been a technical term among Reformed theologians in discussions, especially over the regulative principle of worship. Ward does not draw attention to a classic distinction between substantial or essential and circumstantial parts or elements of worship. Michael Bushell in his book Songs of Zion explains Quote, circumstances are defined by James Henley Thornwell as those concomitants of an action without which it either cannot be done at all or cannot be done with decency and decorum. End of that quote. Bouchel continues, the time and place of worship, for instance, may be seen as a circumstance of worship because one cannot worship God without doing so at a specific time. And yet the aspect of time does not and need not be considered in a definition of what constitutes an act of worship." In Ward's so-called translation of the confession, he says he rendered the word circumstances as extraneous details. This does not, however, accurately convey what the framers of the confession meant by the term circumstances. The time when the church meets for worship is not an extraneous detail, but a part of worship which is not substantial or essential. The second example is Ward's handling of the word authentical. in chapter one, paragraph eight. According to Ward, this word has nothing to do with the contemporary word authentic, meaning genuine or matching with the originals. Despite the fact that in context, the framers refer to the text as immediately inspired and kept pure in all ages. In other words, the true text is consistent with the originals that has been kept pure. Here, Ward's bias towards the so-called reconstruction method of textual criticism shines through. Authentical, for Ward, can't mean that the text kept pure in all ages by God's singular care and providence matches the original. Because, according to Ward, the framers of the confession did not have the originals, had no access to the originals. So, it can only mean something that's much more vague, something like an approximation of the text, which is nonetheless still authoritative. New Zealand reformed theologian Garnett Howard Milne, however, in his book, Has the Bible Been Kept Pure?, a monograph dedicated to Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Paragraph 8, cites the 17th century definition of Authentical by the English divine Edward Lee, who lived from 1602 to 1671. Lee said, quote, the question betwixt us and the papists now cometh to be considered. Which of these additions is Authentical? That is, which of itself hath credit and authority, being sufficient of itself to prove and commend itself without the help of any other edition because it is the first exemplar or copy of divine truth delivered from God by the prophets and apostles," end quote. Milne concludes, quote, in other words, the authentical edition is the correct copy of the author's work, end quote. Such a definition does not fit with Ward's so-called translation. The other three examples that Ward offers, private spirits in Chapter 1, Paragraph 10, opposite to all good in Chapter 6 and Paragraph 4, and necessities in Chapter 27 and Paragraph 2, as already noted, in my humble opinion, do not warrant any adjustment in the text, but can be more than adequately understood by the mature reader. Ward's approach to the Confession recalls some of the problems evident in his approach to the Authorized Version or the King James Version, as pointed out by James Knapp Jr. in an October 29, 2024 blog post, which Ward has thus far ignored and offered no response. Snap, by the way, is hardly a proponent for either the traditional text or traditional process of translations. Snap's article is titled Mark Ward and his ridiculous claim about the King James Version and was written to respond to a now rather infamous statement made by Mark Ward that it would be sinful to give the King James Version to a child. Here in part is what Snap wrote in this online article. Quote, Mark Ward seems to have missed a fundamental point about the intelligibility of scripture. No scripture was ever written with the understanding that its readers would be in a literary and educational vacuum. Christians are instructed to worship together. Christians should consider the scriptures together. We are expected to mature. With maturity comes new understanding of what was once unintelligible. We are expected to fellowship together. We are expected to learn. The fact that children can read as children and misunderstand things does not render the King James Version full of shortcomings. The shortcomings is the individual's level of comprehension, which is constantly changing. Dr. Ward seems to think that the Bible should be translated so plainly that it is incapable of being misunderstood. Unfortunately, such a translation has never existed and never will exist on earth. And Snap concluded, I expect, I encourage rather Mark Ward, come out of your fantasy land in which children never grow up. and are incapable of learning new things." Snap here makes the valid point that Ward advocates for an impossible goal of absolute intelligibility in a Bible translation for any reader of any age or maturity. Snap's critique of Ward's views on English Bible translations is also applicable to his newly expressed views on the confession. No substantial and significant written document will ever be incapable of being misunderstood. We cannot expect absolute intelligibility of any significant or serious document. What is more, the case can be made that the historical confession in its original form, is not unintelligible to modern readers who approach it with humility in the context of Christian community, instructed by teaching elders, and informed by a tradition of classic Protestant interpretation. Oddly enough, after covering his five examples of supposedly outdated terms in the Confession, Ward proceeds to justify revision of the confession based on how the Anglican Book of Common Prayer of 1662 was updated after World War II. The Anglicans did it, Ward seems to say, so why shouldn't we? This seems to be a peculiar argument, however, because it was, in fact, the liberal mainline faction of the Episcopal denomination that embraced revision to the prayer book on their way to liberalizing church practices relating to issues like ordination of women. It has been the conservative and orthodox Anglicans who broke away from the liberal mainline that have held fast to the 1662 Clairvaux. I should tell you that if there ever comes a time in my lifetime when a group of Reformed Baptists reject the original text of the 1689 Confession, in favor of a modern so-called translation of it, I would guess that I and others would be forced to separate from them. I have no doubt that if any church were to accept even the few changes that Ward suggested in his video, they would be at risk of departing at the least from the classic confessional view of the regulative principle of worship, and from the classic confessional view of the immediately inspired and providentially preserved scriptures as authentical. Eventually, Ward proposes that a set of recognized experts should get together. They should invite a certain redheaded word nerd to join them and help them with all his vast knowledge and expertise. He adds, quote, it will take big names and institutions, end quote. Ward proceeds to say that he offers this counsel, quote, from my tiny little spot on the reform spectrum as an independent. And he adds, I've been independent since I was born, end quote. That last statement, oddly enough, does not seem very Baptistic. So Ward sees himself as a reformed independent. But what exactly does that mean? It continues, quote, I'm issuing this call. I think reform denominations should hold a sort of ecumenical council and translate the confession, not revise it, end quote. By using the word translation, Ward thinks he can head off conservative opposition to any efforts to update or revise the confession. But by translation, Ward, of course, means interpretation and change. See the examples of the changes he suggests for the words for circumstances and authentical. Ward insists that he only wants to make the confession more accessible to the ordinary reader. He adds that this would be especially fitting with the concept of the priesthood of believer, a phrase more familiar to 20th century Southern Baptist moderates than to 17th century particular Baptists. As I listened to Ward's unsolicited call to change the confession, I began to wonder about his confessional convictions, his ministerial standing, and his ecclesiastical commitments. Until recently, I did not know that he even claimed to be a Reformed Baptist of some sort. As a guest on the podcast of the Covenant Baptist Seminary, a Reformed Baptist seminary, on October the 21st of last year, 2024, Ward said around the 17 minute 56 second mark of that podcast episode, quote, I was ordained according to a lightly edited by myself edition of the 1689 confession, end quote. He adds, quote, I also took some minor exceptions, but we can get into that in another interview, end quote. The podcast host, unfortunately, did not follow up on the statement and did not ask Ward to explain in what areas he does not fully subscribe to the confession or what these so-called minor exceptions as he sees them might be. Ward was a guest again on the Covenant Baptist Seminary podcast on December the 17th of 2024. In this episode, Ward said around the 18 minute, 43 second mark, quote, I am sort of a reformed Baptist because in God's providence, I've never been near enough to a 1689 congregation for it to be a reasonable option for me, end quote. So by words on admission, he has never actually been a member of a confessional Reformed Baptist church. What is more, he gives further explanation in this episode about his inability fully to subscribe to the 1689 confession. He states, quote, I'm probably just a little different on eschatology than the standard 1689 guy, end quote. He adds, however, quote, I'm a confessional guy, end quote. Neither of the podcast hosts in this December 17, 2024 episode on the Covenant Baptist Seminary podcast expressed any curiosity about what Ward meant by this statement. What is his position on eschatology? Where does his view on eschatology depart from the 1689 confession to which he cannot fully subscribe and to which he takes what he thinks are minor exceptions? Is he a dispensationalist? If so, can he fairly be said to be a confessional guy? This conversation sparked my curiosity about Ward's ministerial and ecclesiastical standing. So I took a look at his about me page on his blog, which is by faith we understand. And I'm going to pull this up so that we can just take a look at it. Okay. This is from his blog by faith we understand. And there is, uh, him introducing himself, but I'm interested in his ecclesiastical connections. Ecclesiastical History, and that's found in this paragraph, and you can look at it with me. He starts off, I attended Mount Calvary Baptist Church for 18 years while in Greenville, South Carolina, and I, quote, pastored, end quote, an outreach congregation there Sunday mornings for the last almost six of those years. Mount Calvary Baptist Church is a well-known independent Baptist church in Greenville, South Carolina, but it's certainly not a confessional Reformed Baptist church. Notice Ward only says he attended this church, I attended Mount Calvary Baptist Church, but he doesn't explicitly say that he was ever a member of this church. Notice also his nuanced language about his service there. He says, and I, in quotation marks, pastored an outreach congregation there Sunday mornings. That's a peculiar, it seems to me, way of putting things. Notice that he doesn't say here that I was a pastor, or I was on staff, or I was a recognized intern within the ministry of the church, or I held some office in the church. It's very nuanced language. Instead he says, I pastored with that word in quotation marks, indicating his role was not officially pastoral. He continues, after moving to Washington, I was something of an assistant pastor for six years, though ordained for only the last nine months of that time at Cornerstone Baptist Church at Anacortes. I'm not sure if I pronounced that town right or not. The church voted to close toward the end of the COVID era. Presumably Cornerstone Baptist Church was also an independent Baptist church and not a professional reformed Baptist church. I may be wrong on that. The church doesn't exist anymore, so I don't have access to its website and someone connected with the church might be able to correct us on that. Ward did say that he made his translation of the 1689 for his preparation for ordination, but he also says that he doesn't fully subscribe to the confession. So I'm assuming that one would not be ordained to pastoral ministry in a Reformed Baptist church unless he fully subscribed to the confession. At any rate, Ward's language again is unclear. He does not say he served as an elder in this church, or even that he served officially, as an assistant pastor, that he was installed into one of those offices. But he says that he was, quote, something of an assistant pastor, end quote, for nearly six years and was ordained nine months before the church dissolved. And so my question is, was he ever installed as an officer in this church? And then finally, the last part, just looking into his ecclesiastical connections, he says, My family now attends Emanuel Baptist Church of Mount Vernon, Washington, where we serve in various capacities. And so he says that he's now attending, he and his family are attending Emanuel Baptist Church at Mount Vernon, Washington. This church is also apparently an independent Baptist congregation. I find it interesting again that Ward only says he attends this church and does not say he is a member of this church. The church's leadership page lists seven elders and six deacons. Ward is not listed there as a church officer. I did not locate any sermons or teachings by Ward that were posted on this church's YouTube page. But admittedly, my search was not exhaustive and maybe there are some teachings or preachings by Ward that are on the YouTube page. What are the various capacities in which he served in this church? And what is this church that he currently attends? What are its beliefs? I looked at the church's belief page where it lists 12 brief doctrinal points. Let me just go ahead and pull this up. And yeah, there we go. And let's just go back for a second and see if we can look at the leadership of the church. And there's a listing down here of the elders, names of those men and the deacons and Mark Ward is not an elder or a deacon there. And then if we look at, let's see, the beliefs. As we look at the beliefs, we will find that here on the beliefs page, there is a listing of 12 different views on various topics, including, we'll look at in just a second, the doctrine of last things. But there certainly is not on this belief page any link to any classic Christian creeds like the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed. And there's no affirmation of the Second London Baptist Confession. And so this is a an independent Baptist Church with its own confession of faith that's been composed. Now I thought in particular, since Ward says that his exceptions to the confession have to do with eschatology, what this church says about the doctrine of last things. And again, it's a very thin statement. In contrast, this was something like the Baptist confession, which is extensive, which has 32 chapters and multiple paragraphs in each chapter. This has one paragraph. We believe in the personal and visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ to earth and the establishment of his kingdom. We believe in the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, the eternal felicity of the righteous and the endless suffering of the wicked. Again, it's a quite thin statement on eschatology. But in reading through it, one might guess that there is a vague reference here to a premillennial type of view, particularly when it says that there will be at Christ's coming the establishment of his kingdom. And one wonders if that doesn't mean his so-called millennial kingdom. And so there seems to be a sort of a vague affirmation Of a dispensational premillennial type of view, and in fact I looked again on the sermons for this church on YouTube and there was one sermon in particular that was titled the rapture of the church where the lead pastor was giving a message on this topic, and it certainly seems that this church affirms some type of dispensational view of eschatology. So. I might just say at this point, I'm not really sure of Ward's confessional, ministerial, or ecclesiastical standing. Confessionally, he does not fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession. He says that, he doesn't fully subscribe. Ministerially, he was ordained to the gospel ministry Four years ago, three and a half years ago. In an independent Baptist Church and within nine months of his ordination, the church closed. But it's unclear as to whether or not he was actually installed as an elder. Perhaps he was there. Ecclesiastically. He states that he has never been. a member of a confessional reformed Baptist church. He says he's never lived close enough to actually be a member of a confessional reformed Baptist church. And he says only at this point that he attends. Perhaps he is a member and maybe attending is a euphemism for being a member, but at least on his About Me page on his blog, He only says that he attends an independent Baptist church. As we've seen, that's an independent Baptist church that apparently holds to some form of dispensationalism. I want to be clear. I'm not criticizing Mark Ward for his beliefs or for his convictions. He can hold whatever convictions he wants to about regulates of principle of worship or about eschatology, you know, Certainly, I respect anyone's convictions. They can hold the convictions that they have. So I don't mean for you to think that I'm simply being critical of him for holding his beliefs. I do not believe that the kingdom of God begins and ends with Reformed Baptists or that you have to hold to the 69 Confession to be a Christian. I have many friends who are not confessional Reformed Baptists. I am concerned, however, by the fact that Ward is suggesting not only that the 1689 Confession be translated, and what that really mean is changed, because to translate something you're offering an interpretation, and you're changing the original wording which means there can be a change of the meaning. You're reinterpreting the confession. So I am concerned about that. And I'm also concerned that Ward would offer up himself as a candidate to be on a supposed committee to do this type of work. I'm also concerned that he claims to be a confessional guy, Even though he doesn't fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession, he has never actually been a member of a confessional Reformed Baptist Church, and he has never served in the office of elder in a confessional Reformed Baptist Church. He may have served as a pastor at the church where he was ordained, perhaps, but that wasn't a confessional Reformed Baptist Church, so he's never actually served as an officer in a Reformed Baptist Church. And I'm concerned that it sounds like he may only be attending a church at present and may not hold membership in a church. And again, perhaps I'm wrong about that. Again, maybe attending is a euphemism for joining and being a member. I also wonder what word would make of chapter 26 of the Baptist Confession which talks about things related to membership and the role of officers within the church. For example, in chapter 26, paragraph 6, it says that every Christian should give up themselves to the Lord, or Christians should give up themselves to the Lord and to one another. They should do that within particular churches. In paragraph 8 of chapter 26, it says that the bishops or the elders are given the peculiar administration of ordinances, and that includes the ordinances, the ordinance of preaching and teaching. And they are given also peculiar responsibilities for what the confession calls execution of power or duty. It says in paragraph 11 of chapter 26 of the confession that it is incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches to be instant in preaching the word by way of office. Although it also says that others within the church who are also gifted might preach if they are quote approved and called by the church. sometimes we talk about gifted brothers within the church. So you don't have to be an elder to do public preaching and teaching, but you must be approved and called by the church to that task. I wonder how, in Mark Ward's translation of the confession, he dealt with these sorts of issues in chapter 26. Has any church at present approved Ward as a public preacher and teacher, or is any church presently giving oversight to his teaching, which he offers in various venues, including on his YouTube channel, and especially behind the paywall in courses, which he now offers and charges his patrons to access? And I wonder whether his teaching there adheres to any confession that might be honestly examined. I also wonder why at least one Reformed Baptist seminary has welcomed Ward as a lecturer and lists him on its faculty page. And I wonder even at seminaries that would welcome him as a podcast guest to speak to areas of interest to confessional Baptists. In the end, I wanna give my answer to Mark Ward's call or invitation to translate the confession and his offer of himself to serve on a committee, an ecumenical council that would take up such a work. My response quite simply to this is no, no. The better option, in my humble opinion, for one who considers himself to be confessional, a Baptist, would be to join a confessional reformed Baptist church and to sit under the teaching and the instruction of that church in order to grow in one's knowledge of scripture, as well as to grow in his understanding of corresponding confessional reform Baptist beliefs and practices. If one aspires to teach publicly and to interpret doctrine, including that found in the confession, he should express these desires to the elders of his church so that he might be examined as a candidate to become an elder or sanctioned as a gifted brother. And only then should he exercise his ministry, not independently, but under the authority of a particular church. Well, with that, this will bring this episode to an end. I hope that these reflections and this answer to this offer to translate The confession will be helpful to those who receive it and will listen to it. I'll look forward to speaking to you in the next episode of Word Magazine. Till then, take care and may the Lord richly bless you.