"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.

Your Message Must Drive Your Method

[Paul] is careful to demonstrate that his methods match his message.  This text [1 Cor. 9:19-27] is especially instructive to those who struggle, as most of us do in our churches, to discern the relationship between the two.  We often hear it simplistically stated: The message must remain the same, but methods must change.  Often this rationale is used to justify methods that are considered avante garde.  However, it is naive to consider that there is no relation between the two.  Paul’s methodology was driven by his message.  And this should be true in our ministries today.  While we remain in the world, we are not of it.  It is this principle throughout that offers the most practical and sustaining value of this text for our own situation.

Dan Mitchell, The Book of First Corinthians: Christianity In A Hostile Culture, p.134

Did They Really Say That?!?

Certain erroneous postulates should be here considered in order that the spiritual facts may be better apprehended.

The first erroneous postulate of belief is, that substance, life, and intelligence are something apart from God.

The second erroneous postulate is, that man is both mental and material.

The third erroneous postulate is, that mind is both evil and good; whereas the real Mind cannot be evil nor the medium of evil, for Mind is God.

The fourth erroneous postulate is, that matter is intelligent, and that man has a material body which is part of himself.

The fifth erroneous postulate is, that matter holds in itself the issues of life and death, - that matter is not only capable of experiencing pleasure and pain, but also capable of imparting these sensations.  From the illusion implied in this last postulate arises the decomposition of mortal bodies in what is termed death.

Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, p.91-92

WOW!  How about looking at these one at a time:

1.  Eddy says it is “erroneous” to believe that “substance, life, and intelligence are something apart from God.”  Well, life is what we receive from God, substance is normally a reference to some physical thing we can touch, and intelligence is is what every human being has - and in fact every sentient being (animals, insects, etc) has intelligence!  If we say these are NOT apart from God, then we end up with God being a part of His creation - i.e. panentheism.

2.  So it is “erroneous” to believe that “man is both mental and material”?  Well, we can’t see or touch the mind, since it is intangible - and perhaps we could say our mind is our soul because our mind really is who we are.  We also see scientifically that the human body is made up of material things - chemicals, water, etc.

3.  What about that it is “erroneous” to believe that the “mind is both evil and good”?  I don’t know if anyone really believes it this way.  I’d say our mind can think evil or good, but the mind itself isn’t evil or good.  And is God really “Mind”?  Scripture says God is Spirit.

4.  Again, is it really “erroneous” to say “matter is intelligent?”  I really don’t know anyone who does, nor have I ever read such a claim.  Matter has no intelligence - it’s just matter. So I don’t understand why this would even be an “erroneous” belief.  But what about the second part of the postulate - that it is “erroneous” to believe that “man has a material body which is part of himself”?  UM, my body is certainly material - it isn’t some ghostly plasma!  And is that body part of me?  Well, it certainly isn’t part of my next-door neighbor!  I’d be in a heck of a fix if I didn’t have my body while in my earthly existence.

5.  Eddy’s last “erroneous” postulate is quite confusing in that, again, it appears to be straw men - claims I have never heard.  How about you - have you heard that “matter holds in itself the issues of life and death”?  Matter is matter and has no issues in itself about life or death.  Have you ever heard a claim that “matter is not only capable of experiencing pleasure and pain, but also capable of imparting these sensations”?  I’ve never in my life heard a claim that matter is capable, in and of itself, of giving and receiving pleasure and pain.  AH, but my guess is that when Eddy is speaking of “matter,” here, she is speaking of a person’s body.  Now, since the body includes the brain, and the brain is what interprets sensations, I’d say the body is indeed capable of experiencing these sensations.  I would also suggest a body is capable of imparting sensations; for example, if a young man and young woman put their bodies together, there are some definite sensations imparted and experienced! 

Finally, with that last “erroneous postulate” she says an “illusion” is implied, from which
“arises the decomposition of mortal bodies in what is termed death.”  There certainly is no illusion about one’s body experiencing sensations of all sorts, and death is certainly no illusion.

Again I have to say, that there is no Christian teaching in these claims of Eddy’s, nor do these teachings have anything to do with science.  “Christian Science” is a fraud on both counts.

Miracles and Healings Have Ceased

“If you take a careful look, you will find that in the Bible, miracles did not lead to conversions. Yet a modern church that promotes itself as a miracles church will usually have a far greater following, temporary as that might be, than a church that focuses on the teaching and preaching of the gospel. ... The miracles and healings have ceased to be given as a gift.  The reason is because they have served their purpose.  They authenticated the claims of the gospel.  They authenticated the deity of Jesus.  They authenticated the apostolic office.  When the need for the sign ceased, the gift was no longer given.”

Richard L. Ganz, “Controversies That Almost Killed a Church: Paul’s Counsel to the Corinthians and the Church Today,” p.176, 180

Contemporary “Worship” Songs

Too many songs pass into worship services which should have been looked at with discernment first.  I have previously examined some of these songs, but because the assembly where I worship chose to include some of these songs today, I think the need is there for an alert.

The songs which were part of our service today were:
Only You Satisfy, by Jami Smith
Close to Thee, by Fanny Crosby
Our Great God, by Fernando Ortega
Revelation Song, by Kari Jobe
All Who Are Thirsty, by Kutless

Let’s look at the lyrics of the first one, which get repeated over and over ad nauseam:

Living water, bread of life
Satisfy us, satisfy us
Living water, bread of life
Satisfy us, satisfy us
(repeat)

Jesus, open up my heart
Jesus, open up my mind
Jesus, open up my life, Jesus
Because only you satisfy

You are the Christ
You are the blood
You are the Holy Spirit living in us
You are the truth
You are the life
You are the bread
Only you satisfy

Aside from the annoying repetition while singing this, do you notice theological problems?  

Is Christ the blood?  Um, no.  He is not the fluid that ran in His veins, nor is He the fluid that runs in our veins. Even in communion we say the wine (or grape juice) represents His blood.

Okay, even worse is the stanza saying that Jesus is “the Holy Spirit living in us.”  Um, no He isn’t.  The Holy Spirit is a separate person, who does indeed indwell us.  If you say Jesus IS the Holy Spirit, then you have the heresy of modalism.

Okay, let’s look at the second song, Close to Thee

Thou my everlasting portion,
More than friend or life to me,
All along my pilgrim journey,
Savior, let me walk with Thee.

Refrain 1:
Close to Thee, close to Thee,
Close to Thee, close to Thee;
All along my pilgrim journey,
Savior, let me walk with Thee.

Not for ease or worldly pleasure,
Nor for fame my prayer shall be;
Gladly will I toil and suffer,
Only let me walk with Thee.

Refrain 2:
Close to Thee, close to Thee,
Close to Thee, close to Thee,
Gladly will I toil and suffer,
Only let me walk with Thee.

Lead me through the vale of shadows,
Bear me o’er life’s fitful sea;
Then the gate of life eternal
May I enter, Lord, with Thee.

Refrain 3:
Close to Thee, close to Thee,
Close to Thee, close to Thee,
Then the gate of life eternal
May I enter, Lord, with Thee.

This is an excellent song, and I have yet to find one by Fanny Crosby which has questionable theology.  But, these songs are considered boring to the new generation, so we seem to drop them from our service very often nowadays so as to sing tripe like Only You Satisfy.

Next up is another contemporary song, Our Great God

Eternal God, unchanging
Mysterious and unknown
Your boundless love unfailing
In grace and mercy shown
Bright seraphim in ceaseless flight
Around your glorious throne
Their voices raised both day and night
In praise to you alone

Hallelujah!
Glory be to our great God
Hallelujah!
Glory be to our great God!

Lord, we are weak and frail,
Helpless in the storm
Surround us with your angels
Hold us in your arms
Our cold and ruthless enemy
His pleasure is our harm 

Rise up, oh Lord, and he will flee
Before our Sovereign God

Hallelujah!
Glory be to our great God!
Hallelujah!
Glory be to our great God!

Let every creature in the sea
And every flying bird
Let all the mountains, all the fields
And valleys of the earth
Let all the moons and all the stars
Throughout the universe
Sing praises to the Living God
Who rules them by His word

Hallelujah!
Glory be to our great God
Hallelujah!
Glory be to our great God!

See, this is a contemporary song by an author who gets it - he understands that what we sing must be consistent with God’s Word.  Keith Getty and Stuart Townend have developed some outstanding hymns and praise songs (some of which I’ve posted) because they also “get it.”

Okay, moving on now to Revelation Song, which also has a lot of repetition while singing it:

Worthy is the, Lamb who was slain
Holy, Holy, is He
Sing a new song, to him who sits on
Heaven's mercy seat
[2X]

Holy, Holy, Holy
Is the Lord God Almighty
Who was, and is, and is to come
With all creation I sing
Praise to the King of Kings
You are my everything
And I will adore You

Clothed in rainbows, of living color
Flashes of lightning, rolls of thunder
Blessing and honor, strength and glory and power be
to You the only wise King

Holy, Holy, Holy
Is the Lord God Almighty
Who was, and is, and is to come
With all creation I sing
Praise to the King of Kings
You are my everything
And I will adore You

Filled with wonder, awestruck wonder
At the mention of your name
Jesus your name is power
Breath, and living water
Such a marvelous mystery
Yeah...

Holy, Holy, Holy
Is the Lord God Almighty
Who was, and is, and is to come, yeah
With all creation I sing
Praise to the King of Kings
You are my everything
And I will adore You
[3X]

Is God really “clothed in rainbows, of living color”?  Where do we find that in Scripture?!?  I’m not even sure I understand the context of “Flashes of lightning, rolls of thunder” - should there not be some sort of explanation as to what that means?  Then there is “Filled with wonder, awestruck wonder” - who is?  What is?  This is one of the problems with so many of these new songs - they lack a cohesive grammatical structure so that one is left to wonder what they are talking about!  Oh, and since the church assembled is not performing, do we really need to have “yeah” as part of the lyrics?!?

The last one from our list above is All Who Are Thirsty.   The fact that this is from the Vineyard should alert anyone to possible problems, and singing such songs only gives tacit approval of Vineyard to the congregation.  (And if you aren’t familiar with the Vineyard movement, just e-mail me and I’ll fill you in).

All who are thirsty
All who are weak
Come to the fountain
Dip your heart in the stream of life
Let the pain and the sorrow
Be washed away
In the waves of his mercy
As deep cries out to deep (we sing)

Come Lord Jesus come
[repeat 3 times]

Holy Spirit come
[repeat 3 times]

As deep cries out to deep
[repeat 2 times]

This is another one of those songs with lots of repetition so as to work up emotions and get the congregation swinging to and fro before they start speaking in “tongues” or other such emotional nonsense.

So, just how does one “dip” their “heart in the stream of life”?  What is the “stream of life”?  Is this supposed to be Jesus?  And just what does it mean for “deep” to cry out to “deep”?  Why are we asking for the Holy Spirit to “come” when He dwells inside each believer? I can answer that one - all one has to do is look at the false revivals as they yell for the Holy Spirit to come and bring more “fire.”  

Let’s use some discernment in the songs we select for corporate worship!  Ensure the theology is correct first and foremost.  And make sure they are understandable.

Some Recommended Reading

It’s time again for me to steer my readers to some good articles on other sites.

First up, should wives submit to their husbands?  Is this really a biblical idea?  And what does it mean?  Check out the article, Should wives submit?

One of the big lies of our culture is fashion - that women, especially young women and teens (and even pre-teen!) should dress provocatively - that its great to be “sexy,” as well as being great to attract members of the opposite sex!  The culture of provocative fashion even includes young men!  Marie Notcheva has a good article discussing the problem with this mindset, and how we can reclaim the modesty our Lord desires.

One of the controversies in the modern church is about the gift of tongues; is it a real language or just some “heavenly” or “angelic” language?  And are tongues for today?  The Cripplegate has a good discussion about this subject.

Have you ever tried explaining the Trinity?  It is a difficult concept to wrap one’s head around.  I can prove it by logic (as I have done on this blog), but describing how it works with analogies can get very difficult, especially when trying to avoid heresy.  I think Doug Beaumont has the best analogy yet.

Finally, the Christmas season is upon us and that means many Christians will be giving a multitude of reasons why Christians shouldn’t be celebrating it.  Aside from two article I’ve previously written on the subject, Jon Gleason has a selection of articles covering just about every angle.  I think you’ll find his articles thought-provoking.

Sexual Relations Are Spiritual

“Sex isn’t primarily biological.  Sex is primarily spiritual.  It is by definition a union, and that’s what Paul said here [1 Cor. 6] when he spoke of sex as a union that takes place, using the language of marriage even with a prostitute.  He referred to Genesis 2, with the language of marriage, to show how serious this is.  In a marriage, the two become one flesh.  If we seriously stopped to consider this, there would be less sexual immorality.  What Paul is referring to here is the utter inappropriateness of such immoral behavior.  SInce this is the act of union between a husband and wife, it makes no sense whatsoever to apply it outside of marriage.  He wants participants in such sinful behavior to know that their sin has draconian consequences, be it upon themselves, their families, their community, or in some instances even their nation.  Marriage, with its physical expression, is a mystical union.  It is the picture of the union of Christ and his Church, who are one.  This is why the temptations surrounding it are so severe.  Even those who we think are the best of God’s men and women are not exempt from danger here.”

Richard L. Ganz, “Controversies That Almost Killed a Church: Paul’s Counsel to the Corinthians and the Church Today,” p.95

"New Age Bible Versions" - Chapter 13

Chapter 13: Another Gospel.  The premise of this chapter is that the editors of the “new version” Bibles “Reject Scriptural Salvation.”  Riplinger says, “Ignoring the word of God, which shows us the way, and following some New Age atlas, many turn down these blind alleys looking for avenues of spiritual advancement.  The street signs leading to salvation have been switched in recent Bibles.  They now map out a migration away from the New Jerusalem.”  This rhetoric is followed by a chart showing “When, How, What, Who, Where”  with columns for “New Versions,” “New Age” and “KJV.”  Riplinger doesn’t state which Bible versions she is specifically citing, nor does she say where she gets her “New Age” citations from, nor does she cite any specific passages so people can look them up in context!  But for demonstration purposes, here is the text from the chart - showing no context, etc.  How can we check her without excessive time-wasting?  

1.  When: 
a.   KJV says “are saved”, New Age says “have been (baptized/initiated)” and “New Versions” say “have been (baptized/initiated).”  I don’t know of any version which says anyone has been “initiated” into salvation, etc, so this has to be a misrepresentation.  However, “have been baptized” is not a problem if the context is the fact that they are saved.
b.  KJV says “are saved” while New Age and New Versions both say, “are being saved.”  

2.  How:
a.  KJV says “believe,” while New Age and New Versions say “obey.”  
b.  KJV says “faith” while the other two say, “faithfulness.”

3.  What:
a.  KJV says, “the gospel,” while the others say, “a gospel.”
b.  KJV says “his word,” while the others say, “a message.”

4.  Who:
a.  KJV “the God” vs “a God.”
b.  KJV “the Son” vs “a son”
c.  KJV “the Saviour” vs “a Savior”  (is it New Age to spell Savior vs Saviour?)
d.  KJV “the Spirit” vs “a spirit”  (my guess is that the caps in KJV are not warranted)

5.  Where:  KJV “the world” vs “an age.”

Knowing that there are language problems with KJV vs current English, and knowing that in all previous claims we see Riplinger’s lack of context making the text appear to be saying something different when it isn’t, I would assume that her complaints are without warrant.  But, I am not going to sit down with a concordance to try to figure out which passages she is referring to - it just isn’t a proper use of time.

Riplinger then says, “New Version Editors Reject Scriptural Salvation,” and spends the rest of the chapter supporting this claim against the following:

6.  “Edwin Palmer: NIV”.  Riplinger cites a statement by Palmer, which is standard Calvinist theology, which says one must be regenerated before they have faith in Christ.  While I agree that Calvinist theology isn’t correct, it does not “reject Scriptural Salvation,” rather it just has a different understanding as to the sequence.  Her whole argument then continues by attacking Palmer’s Calvinism, as if that has anything to do with what the Bible actually says.   But she does give an example from the NIV which supposedly proves her point, and she also gives an example from the NAS, which Palmer isn’t accused of editing!

a.  Lk. 21:19
KJV: “In your patience possess ye your souls”
NIV:  “By standing firm you will save your souls.”

I’d say that “in your patience” and “by standing firm” one is doing pretty much the same thing, whether you want to call it “save” your souls or “possess” your souls.

b.  Heb. 8:9
KJV:  “Because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not” 
NAS:  “For they did not continue in my covenant and I did not care for them.”

Riplinger bolded “because” to make a point that isn’t there.  The two say the very same thing.  “For” is very often used synonymously with “because.”   She claims the NAS version presents “a cruel and fickle God.”  

As Riplinger continues in her diatribe, she said we have to “watch out for the letter ‘s’” - because it is of Satan, which is why, she says, Saul “had to be changed to Paul.”   Sigh.

7.  “J.B. Phillips: NASB-Greek-English Interlinear Preface, J.B. Phillips Translation, et. al.”  Riplinger cites  a statement from Phillips without any context so it is impossible, without reading the book she footnotes, to know if she is misrepresenting him.  However just looking at the citation she gives says she reads beyond what is stated:

“Those who give themselves in love to others did in fact ‘know God,’ however loudly they might protest their agnosticism.”

I see nothing in this statement by itself which supports Riplinger’s claim.

8.  The other two editors, B.F. Wescott and F.J.A. Hort, are attacked for promoting a “social interpretation of the Gospel,” and she cites a couple quotations.  My guess is that these citations are out of context because there are many false charges leveled at these men by the KJV Only crowd.  Since I do not want to get into this discussion here, I will point my readers to the following two links defending these gentlemen.

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/were-bf-westcott-and-fja-hort-apostate-heretics/

http://hipandthigh.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/f-j-a-hort-and-seances/

9.  Chapter Summary:  Nothing but false charges and misrepresentations.  

Right Thinking and Right Action

“There is a mistaken notion in modern Western thinking that ‘theory’ and ‘practice’ have little or nothing to do with each other.  Some - even in evangelical churches - take pride in their disdain for theology in favor of giving people ‘practical’ instruction on how to deal with issues in their lives, families, and churches.  A visit to the average Christian bookstore will easily demonstrate the popularity of such fare.  Paul shows us that he would reject such compartmentalized methodology.  Right thinking and right action are two sides of the same coin.  Without doctrine we are left to drift with the tides of modernity - victims of every ‘wind of doctrine.’  Without the faithful appropriation of truth in action, we are locked in an ivory tower far removed from the realities of the world into which we are called to serve Christ.  Paul’s writings give us the perfect balance of doctrine/theology and practical instruction.  Never does he place a wall of separation between these.”

Dan Mitchell, The Book of First Corinthians: Christianity In A Hostile Culture, p.10-11.