"New Age Bible Versions" - Chapter 14

Chapter 14: Initiated or ‘In Christ’?   

1.  Riplinger spends the first seven pages of this chapter ranting about what occultic groups, the Free Masons, and other such groups do for initiation rites.  She claims “Lucifer” is the “One Initiator,” and cites various New Age and occultic writings to “prove” her case.  Then we finally get to her point when she shows how “New Versions” have people “initiated” into the faith rather than being “in” the faith.  What she has as her proof, on pages 243 and 244, are the following examples of KJV vs “New Versions”, which she says equal the “church of Cain”:

a.  Mark 16:16  “is baptized” vs. “has been baptized”
b.  Eph. 2:8  “are saved” vs “have been saved”
c.  1 Cor. 1:2  “are sanctified” vs “have been sanctified”
d.  Col. 3:1  “be risen” vs “have been raised”
e.  1 John 2:3  “know him” vs “have come to know him”
f.  1 Pet. 1:23  “being born again” vs “have been born again”
g.  Col. 2:10  “are complete” vs “have been made complete”
h.  Col 2:20, 3:3  “be dead” or “are dead” vs “have died”
i.  2 Tim. 2:11  “be dead” vs “died”
j.  1 Tim. 6:12  “art also called” vs “were called”
k.  1 Cor. 6:11  “are washed” vs “were washed,”  “are sanctified” vs “were sanctified,”  “are justified” vs “were justified”
l.  1 Cor. 1:5  “are enriched” vs “were enriched”

Is there really any difference between the two sides?  Absolutely not!  If I am currently saved, then I was saved.  If I am called, I was called.  This is really a very, very petty complaint, without any merit! 

2.  Next, on p.245, Riplinger complains about KJV “are saved” (etc) vs new versions “are being saved,” and makes the statement that while the KJV “clearly describes the once-and-for-all event,” new versions may be “Catholic” doctrine, again with the same issues of KJV vs new versions, and still under the “church of Cain” heading:

a.  Luke 13:23  “be saved” vs “are there few that are being saved?”  
b.  2 Cor. 2:15  “are saved” vs “are being saved?”
c.  1 Cor.1:18 “are saved” vs “us who are being saved”
d.  1 John 2:8  “the darkness is past” vs “the darkness is passing away”
e.  Acts 15:19  “turned to God” vs “are turning to God”
f.  Luke 15:32  “is alive” vs “has begun to live”
g.  Col. 3:10  “is renewed” vs “is being renewed”
h.  Acts 2:47  “should be saved” vs “were being saved”
i.  2 Cor. 4:3  “are lost” vs “are perishing”

I find this complaint to be very much like the previous.  Lots of worry over nothing, and none alter the essential understanding of the text.

3.  Continuing with the “church of Cain,” on page 246 we have the following examples of “initiation,” with a “progressive, tentative salvation”:

a.  2 Cor 7:10 &  Acts 11:18  “repentance to salvation” vs “repentance...leading to salvation.”  I didn’t check the other versions, since I’m sticking with using the parallel Bible with KJV, AMP, NAS and NIV.  But NIV doesn’t say “leading to,” and the NAS says, “that leads to.”  Riplinger makes an issue of “leading to” not being in the Greek.  But both the version she used, and the NAS, italicized the word so you KNOW it is added by the translators to help with clarity.  All have the same general meaning.  

b.  Acts 11:21  “a great number believed and turned to the Lord” vs “and a large number who believed turned to the Lord.”  I really, really fail to see the difference here.

c.  Acts 28:27, 3:19  “be converted [for the first time]” vs “return [to your baptismal faith]”
One of the things which is irritating about Riplinger’s claims is that she doesn’t always say which “new version” she is using, which means we can’t check up on her without some really time-consuming search.  What I find interesting is her bracketed explanation of what the passage is saying in the “new versions.”  SHE is practicing eisegesis, because every one I looked at says “turn to God” or similar at Acts 3:19, which tells me that “return” is probably in context “return to God.” However, in 28:27, the passage is citing Isaiah 6:9-10, and in THAT passage when it just says “return,” it is saying, in context, “return [to God].”  Riplinger is very, very dishonest. 

d.  Eph. 2:12  “without Christ [period]” vs “you were at that time separated from Christ [like the prodigal son]”  Notice again how Riplinger puts her explanation in brackets - perhaps hoping no one will check them out.  So let’s put the passage into context and see if they really say what Riplinger says they say, and we’ll start with vs. 11.

KJV:  “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.”

NAS:  “Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called ‘Uncircumcision’ by the so-called ‘Circumcised,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands - remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.”

I don’t know where Riplinger got “separated” instead of “separate,” but the truth is that both versions say exactly the same thing.  Riplinger’s bracketed comments are nothing but eisegesis.

e.  2 Cor. 5:17  KJV “all things are become new” vs “new things have come.”  Well, this certainly is a difference in understanding.  BUT, the charge is that this demonstrates “progressive, tentative salvation.”  I found this in the NAS, but if you look at the context, it says that “old things have passed away,” so it is saying that the old person is gone and the new person in Christ has come.  How does it then say that salvation is “progressive, tentative”?!  It doesn’t.

f.  Eph. 2:1 KJV “and you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins” vs “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins.”  The point here, of course, is that with the KJV Paul says that the receptors of this letter were “quickened” - saved - while the new ones don’t.  This is very dishonest of Riplinger.  While the new versions do indeed leave out that phrase, vs 5 virtually repeats this, making the phrase in vs 1 redundant.  This passage does not support her claim.

g.  Eph. 1:6  KJV “he hath made us accepted in the beloved” vs “he freely bestowed upon us in the Beloved.”  

Let’s look at this in context of the rest of vs 6:
KJV:  “To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.”
NAS:  “to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed upon us in the Beloved.”

In both versions, the subject is the grace of God.  One says in that grace he made us accepted in Christ, while the other one says God freely bestowed that grace upon us in Christ.  With BOTH ways, we are IN CHRIST at that time; there is no “progressive, tentative salvation.”

4.  Next, Riplinger begins the section about the “Cults of Cain” as she goes on about Herbert Armstrong’s claim that salvation is a “process” vs instantaneous, then about Scientology’s “process for breaking through the engram,” followed by pointing out Est with its “Truth Process/Danger Process,”and the Rosicrucians with their process of “becoming a Son of God.”  But that’s not enough; she continues by pointing out the Unity Church teaching that the individual is “a wonderful being in process,” and that England and Canada host the “Process Church where Jehovah, Satan and Lucifer are the three gods worshipped.”  (Wait a minute - I thought Satan IS Lucifer!?!)  Then she gives this citation from the KJV to show Cain’s involvement with a “process”:

Genesis 4:3, 5:  “And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground and offering unto the Lord... But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.”

This is immediately followed by saying that Norman Geisler calls “Process Theology” “the major movement in contemporary theology,” and citing a paragraph from Elliot Miller condemning such theology as having affinities with New Age.

When looking at Wikipedia’s definition of “Process Theology”, we find this:  “it is an essential attribute of God to be fully involved in and affected by temporal processes.”  NOTE  THIS:  Process theology is about processes, not a process of time.  Of course that doesn’t matter when Riplinger has an agenda to “prove.”  After all, the word “process” is in the same passage as the story of Cain’s unacceptable offering, which, I suppose, makes the word in reference to Cain’s spiritual condition.

Finally, Riplinger gets to her point with citations from 1 Peter 2:2
KJV: “ye may grow thereby”
NAS:  “You may grow in respect to salvation”

Then she says, “Of course we ‘grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’ (II Peter 3:18) and grow in ‘faith’ (II Thessalonians 1:3); but Christians do not grow ‘to salvation’”

I have to wonder if Riplinger understands English or if she is intentionally being deceitful.  The passage in the NAS does NOT say that we grow “to salvation,” rather it says we grow in respect to salvation; i.e., we grow in our spiritual maturity.   The full, IN CONTEXT, passage says:

KJV:  “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby”
NAS:  “like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation.”
NIV:  “Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation”

Again, we see Riplinger’s claim to be nothing but nonsense.  But she continues to the finish of the chapter discussing Process Theology, implying that is what the new versions are talking about in 1 Peter 2:2.

5.  Chapter summary:  More complaints about grammatical structure even though “new versions” say the same thing as the KJV in context, apparent deceit by taking passages out of context, and equivocation of the meaning of the word “process.”  No evidence to support Riplinger’s charges of new versions making salvation a “progressive, tentative” event.