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.

Encounters

It's always amazing to think how God can enable a housewife to share his love. There isn't a lot of wiggle-room. I'm a woman and I've got three young kids so the momentum to even get out of the house is rare... and still I pray for opportunities.

It's funny how you get going and forget about your prayers until you're in the midst of realizing them.

My daughter Liz had an appointment last Tuesday and as my children and I were doing a follow up drop-in for lab work an elderly man and his wife waited patiently for me so that they could get into their pickup. The man came by and smiled at the baby, and said while admiring his baby-feet "Aren't these little ones so amazing? It's a tragedy we live in an age where it's become so easy to get an abortion." I acknowledged his sentiments, and he said "It is apparent to me that the return of the LORD is very near. I think you know what I am talking about." He was wearing a baseball cap that said "Are you going to heaven?" with a fish and "Jesus" written in it. I told him how much I appreciated his discussion and especially his example of sharing the good news. I mentioned that I had nearly run out of tracts, and he said, "Here, you can have some of mine."

He opened up the driver side and in the pocket of the door was a whole variety of tracts he kept on hand. "Wow!" I said, "That's such a good idea. And I can see you've got tracts in your shirt pocket. I recently was told by a man at my church that to get serving God in sharing the gospel I needed to get a 'tract rack,' meaning a pocket-protector device for holding them in a shirt pocket. But since I don't wear those kinds of shirts, I don't have a spot for a 'tract rack.' That's such a great substitution!"

We parted ways and when I got home I Iooked through all the stuff he gave me. There was a decent tract that shared the gospel, a tract on warfare prayer, on lust, another something in Spanish and two others in Chinese, a gospel tract for satan worshipers, and most interestingly two tracts on the hidden alliance between newer versions of the bible and the New Age movement.

"New Age Bible Versions," by Gail Riplinger

According to these, only the King James Version has not been tainted by error. One tract was a verse-by-verse comparison of the King James to the New King James. I found that some of the quotes of the NKJV in the chart were not even accurately presented because they were cut short. All the rest were changes because those passages were quotes in parables and therefore the deity or holiness of God does not apply. I thought the NKJV came out on top, instead of falling short, as these tracts were claiming.

That's okay. I don't need to prove this man wrong or change his mind about anything. He gave me his card with his number and address and invited my husband and I to come to his house for dinner anytime. I would love, the LORD willing, to confirm his good faith toward me when he put his own opinions secondary to what is truly important.

On Friday that same child of mine turned out to have a UTI. It was a holiday as you know so our usual pharmacy was closed and I went to another. There was a young man who took about twenty minutes to do the data entry at the register. I noticed he wore a "CTR" ring, which stands for "Choose The Right." I don't know a whole lot about those who wear it but I knew he was LDS (Mormon) and guessed he probably recently went on a mission.

I asked, "Did you go on a mission?"
"Yeah," he was a bit surprised.
"Where did you go to?"
He smiled, and admitted, "Utah." I smiled too.

I ran out of things to say, and of course with my newly walking baby boy I had plenty of reasons for my thoughts to be elsewhere. I sat for awhile. I thought to myself how frustrated I was. Here I am, so interested in getting to know LDS and have a meaningful, productive encounter with them and now... I don't even know what to say to this person? Come on! I prayed for a minute.

He was nice and said, "Boy, that little guy just wants to get up and go." I said yeah. Sat for a couple more minutes and thought. I stood up again and said "You know some people are natural missionaries. They just have a gift. You seem like you're one of those kinds, I bet you gave as much into it as you got back out of it."

He didn't know what to say to that except to acknowledge it. He seemed a little confused but interested and started again asking, "So... where are you from, have you been to Utah?"

"I lived there," I answered, "I grew up there. My mom became LDS and then later on she became inactive." I didn't say anything for another minute or two, building my courage, and then said, "Actually, I'm evangelical, but, I don't want to scare you by mentioning it. I've learned the hard way how horrible it can be to 'bible bash.'"

"Ohh, yeah!" he said, "That just makes everything worse."

"I agree. I mean, people from my kind of church travel down to Utah to picket during Hinkley's funeral. There's a better way to express yourself than that. I regret that sort of stuff."

My order was done and I was almost afraid of looking at him again because I had taken him into this sticky conversation but I thought I'd try to catch an expression in the last moment before I left. He looked directly at me with appreciation, like he was touched. It would have been great if I could have left him a tract saying that it briefly explains what I believe, admitting to him that I am sure he has studied how salvation happens but he could review for himself what I believe and see if it is very different after all. Maybe leave a phone number on it for follow up. But, I didn't get that far.

I love meeting new people and seeing God at work. I just take awe in God that my life has gone forth in procession before, and met by my own personal passion of, what some call "the cults."

Simple and plain truths

Formerly while reading the Word, I had liquified all distinguishment between the faith that makes me spared from hell and the faith I can choose to operate with as His child. I rarely read any passages in scripture speaking to my faith post-reception of Christ, because I had absorbed the "irresistible grace" thought. And that was a huge loss.

I want to share with you my former presuppositions. I want to share with you what I think I know, without bothering to research it till after it's out there in the open.

What I thought I knew about the New International Version (NIV) of the bible, I had heard in my own church and also from many churches at various points; that it translated the original documents comprising the bible by phrase-units, not by words, as units. For that reason I had been taught that the NIV was a good version for gaining comprehension but not for fomulating doctrines.

Now: what I heard in the last two weeks of class, about the NIV is that the council of Christians who did the translating were Calvinists, more specifically "Lordship Theologists," who obfuscate the righteousness that comes by the faith that saves and the righteousness that comes by the faith of walking with the Spirit.

If these new insights into free will from Romans 8 are correct, it'd blow the roof off of some traditionally difficult passages. For me one of the worst books in scripture to make cohesive with the gospel is 1 John. 1 John reminds me a lot of my own personality... at least the kinds of mistakes I try not to make. It thinks of reality as black and white, right and wrong, without any room for gray, without any grace or practicality.

Now as I pop the top what will I find? Let's read a characteristic black/white passage from 1 John (3:4-6 ) in the NIV and then again in the NKJV (which I was recently told, distinguishes the faiths of justification/sanctification):

NIV:

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

NKJV:

Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

I see a huge difference... do you? The first makes it sound, and, this is the only way I could understand it, as if those who are saved by Christ do not sin. It makes me have to assume, therefore, that he means this as a generality, in comparison to those without God, because it can't be absolutely true... obviously.

I see this now, and can you too? The NIV reads scripture as if we're distinguishing the saved from the unsaved, and the NKJV reads it as a matter of who, among the saved, is growing to be like Christ. What a difference.

I now suspect that the "study notes" accompanying my NIV bible are also written by the same group of Christians, those who by the power of a Calvinist mindset, meld justification with sanctification as if by the power of irresistible grace, the Holy Spirit is ever intervening in us to make us obey despite our choice to resist.

Let me read to you the "study notes" footed in the two versions:

NIV:

John is not asserting sinless perfection, but explaining that the believer's life is characterized not by sin but by doing what is right.

NKJV:

If Christ is sinless and the purpose of His coming was to remove sin, then whoever abides in Him does not sin. Habitually sinful conduct indicates an absence of fellowship with Christ.

Wow, pretty dead-on.

Well, which one is it?

Is it possible to be a carnal-Christian, or is it not? Is it possible to be sin-free at times, or is it not? Which concept of Christian rules do you believe John meant to communicate?

And if I think that's an important question (for perhaps both study notes make true interpretations), here's one that is even more important: which filter of the Word does the least gymnastics? I praise God that His Word can be read in a superiorly simple manner.