church picnic

There were many highlights on Sunday last during our all-church picnic at the Polk County Fairgrounds.

It was such a great time. The weather was perfect. The children were happy with all kinds of foods, cotton candy and icees. I got to spend a little time hanging out with mommies of babies that normally I don't get to anymore. It just feels so safe, having my children run to so many adults, known to them as their sunday school teachers.

I spent some time listening to my mentor, Helen. I decided to visit a little with Dr. Radmacher. I said that I wanted to introduce him to my three children while they were around. I asked him about his health, and he says he is slowly gaining some endurance back, which was very good to hear. I could see his mind working and he asked me if I had made any determination over what it is I believe I am meant to do. I told him that I was still a little unsure what use a woman can be when it comes to speaking about the Word of God. He said that there was a woman student who now is a teacher of seminary classes, to other women students.

He said that he had investigated my blog (as I had sort of asked him to review it in July to make sure I was not causing harm of any kind), and he said that I am on to some good ideas. The first class I should take is hermeneutics, he said. Without having a framework of how to study the bible, I might come up with a great idea one time and then the next, come up with a piece of junk. How am I supposed to know for sure whether what I've got is any good? After that I should take elementary greek, secondary greek and then hebrew.

How smart. For sure what I think about might be good, or bad, but there should be a method for others to interact with me and help correct and challenge me.

He talked for some time about the term "repentance." That it means a change of mind in the greek, not all the things it has come to mean in reformed doctrine about forsaking sin. He pointed out that some say that the reason why it is not mentioned once in the whole gospel of John, a book written for the purpose of evangelism, is because perhaps John did not have the term available. But that theory is overruled by the book of Revelation where John uses it in chapters two and three, in the context of speaking to the churches. Repentance, to the churches, and no repentance, to the lost. Hmm. Fascinating.

Then he asked me "Do you know how many times the word 'sovereign' is translated into the Old Testament, in the NIV?" Two-hundred and something-another times. How many times in the New Testament in the NIV? I think he said six times. Then he asked, "How many times is the word 'sovereign' translated into the NKJV?"

Zero, in the New Testament. And only once in the Old, where David is praying for Solomon.

"Where in the hebrew are they translating the word 'sovereign' from?" he asked. I was afraid of the answer. He said "it is translated out of the word 'LORD.' Do you know what LORD means? It is the name of God, YHWH. And what is the name 'YHWH'? It's meaning is found in exodus when Moses speaks to God about his name and God answers, 'Tell them that 'I AM' has sent me to you.' So, where is this term 'sovereign' coming from? And you see with that one word they can insert their entire construct about God and free will. As if God is some bully in the skies who controls everything."

Wow, exactly, one of the reasons why I was captivated to keep taking classes at the seminary. I needed to hear this. I replied, "It's so interesting that we are conscious of the damage of the errors found in for instance the New World Translation but you give an example of the same magnitude of error, and what's more I wonder if it is intentional, right underneath our noses that no one talks about."

He said "My personal belief for why the gospel of John was written without the word 'repentance' has to do with the fact that God in His foreknowledge could see how, down the line, there would be a time where a word would have gone so much farther than it should have in what it was supposed to mean. I wonder if it was not in His wisdom to intentionally leave that word entirely out of the evangelistic gospel."

I replied, "You know I was just thinking about that same thing this week, I was thinking about how God must have known what He was doing when he foresaw the use of the passage in mark 16:16, which says 'whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe is already condemned,' and He saw all the error that resulted out of that one assertion about baptism. Just imagine if Paul had listed baptism as one of the 'first things' of the gospel in 1 cor. 15? How much more reasoning for error would there be about that one command?"

Dr. Radmacher then discussed briefly as I enthusiastically nodded along that adding sanctificational additions to the formula doesn't change the reality that it is by faith alone. I mentioned how I had been doing a word study on "gospel," using as he said a method of looking at every instance and how it is used in context to build my understanding. I found it surprising to see that the gospel has two meanings, one a message of good news, and two the entire narrative of the life and sayings of Jesus. And it makes me wonder if people are aware that when they quote the gospel for the lost out of 1 cor 15 are they really meaning to assert the whole story of Jesus Christ as the first things to be shared?

I believe there was a twinkle in his eye when I said this, but, perhaps I imagined it for I certainly was looking for one. Maybe the twinkle, if real, was only for my devotion to word-studies. Perhaps I will never know.

It was very neat and I pray for blessings to his wife who sat patiently listening to things she has already heard perhaps many times. The benefit was all one-way, from them to myself.