[this Article written in 1994]
by "G.A." Ms. Gail Riplinger		A book first published in March of 1993 [and reprinted several times since then] denies that "the only begotten Son of God" refers to the Deity of Jesus Christ. The popularity of this book among those who hold to the "King James Only" view (in the "Bible versions controversy") again emphasizes the importance and need for my book, THE TRINITY AND THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST [PILGRIM PUBLICATIONS - $13] and George Zeller/Renald Showers' recent, THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST [LOIZEAUX Publishers].

Not only is the Sonship of Christ under attack from the older cults, the Pentecostal "Oneites," Adam Clarke's Commentary, the Dake Bible, and the "incarnational sonship" theorists, but it is now being undermined by the well-known "KJV-only" leaders Peter Ruckman, Jack Chick, Texe Marrs, and authoress Gail Riplinger. Riplinger's book is the latest "fad" in the world of "TR-KJV Onlyism." It is entitled: NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS.

This woman, a member of Bethel Baptist Church of Ravenna, Ohio, may simply be a 'victim' of the pseudo-Baptist, PETER RUCKMAN, whose "line" she follows on the "manuscripts-and-versions controversy."

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he "ghost-wrote" the book, as it parrots the same doctrinal views (pro and con) that are found in Ruckman. For example, Ruckman has branded the views of Baptists on the Sovereignty of God as "Satanic" (his "BAPTIST BIBLICAL BALONEY" cassette), and this book by Riplinger alleges in like manner that Baptist views are "a Satanic pentagram" (pg. 231).

Peter Ruckman Self-described "Restorer" of the "Missing Link" of KJV "Final Authority"

Like Ruckman, Riplinger rips the Bible doctrines of Election and Predestination as held by Baptists (pgs. 232, 563) and warns against words which begin with an "s," saying that 's' is "the hiss of the serpent."

This opinion by Ms. Riplinger, if of any significance, would condemn the words: Scriptures, Sovereignty, Saviour, and Salvation! Such "gems" as this are typical "Ruckmanisms" for which Ruckman prides himself in playing "word games" with his duped disciples.

Since we have previously thoroughly documented Ruckman's obvious Council of Trent theology and his "back-door" Romanism regarding manuscripts and translations, it may be he has a new scheme for pumping-out his "convoluted" pro-Romanist propaganda — using "G.A. Riplinger" as a "front." Anything Ruckman writes under his own name is no longer of any consequence except to his own disciples, so it would not at all be surprising to discover that he has adopted a "ghost writing" scheme to present his "Jesuit" convolution.

Ruckman has been an outright enemy of Christianity on Christ's Sonship for years. He scorns and mocks "the historic Baptist position," and Confessions of Faith.

In his THEOLOGICAL STUDIES booklet (pg. 15), Ruckman asserts that "begotten Son" refers to Jesus' physical birth, and he teaches that "begotten" means "created" (also in THE LAST GRENADE, pg. 71, and BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP, pg. 198). Ruckman alleges that John 1:18 means "created Son" in his opposition to "begotten God" of some other Bible versions (NIV, NASB). He distorts the word "begotten" like Russellites (Jehovah's Witness cult).

This reduces "the only begotten Son" of John 1:18, 3:16, 18, and I John 4:9 to "the only CREATED Son," and leads to the obvious conclusion that "Son of God" is not a term of Deity but of humanity. This is the same as Russellism and "Oneness" Pentecostalism.

Riplinger, in chapter 23 of her 690-page book, says — "From this [John 1:14] we gather that "begotten" is used in reference to the body of "flesh" "beheld" by mankind" (pg. 337). Also, on page 562 she equates "begotten" to mean "created." So she follows the Ruckman and Russellite perversion.

In my "TRINITY" book, the discussion of "begotten" shows that it does not mean "created," but rather signifies sameness of essence and thus implies the Deity and the eternality of the Son of God. This is how the Jews understood the words of Christ in John 10:30-36 where Jesus said, "I am the Son of God." The Jews understood that Jesus was saying He is "God" (Deity).

Also, in John 5:18, they similarly objected to the Son's saying "God was his Father, making himself equal with God" (John 19:7).

>> Here is an excerpt from page 100 of my [Bob L. Ross] book The Trinity and Eternal Sonship of Christ —

Monogenes  —  "Only Begotten" or "Unique" ?

Some writers have explained the Greek "monogenes," translated in the King James Version as "only begotten," by the term "unique." But unique Son does not indicate the sense that monogenes (only begotten) Son expresses. Wherein is the Son unique? The words only begotten indicate that the Son is of the same essence and nature as the Father, that is, Deity. As a son begotten of a father is of the same attributes of that "kind" (generation), so the Son of God is of His Father's "kind" (generation).

W. E. Vine: We can only understand the term "the only begotten" when used of the Son, in the sense of unoriginated relationship. "The begetting is not an event of time, however remote, but a fact irrespective of time. The Christ did not become, but necessarily and eternally is the Son. He, a Person, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood. This necessitates eternity; in this respect He is not 'after' the Father" [Moule] (quoted in Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol 3, pg. 140).

Only begotten strongly expresses the like nature of the Son to the Father's nature. In this respect, the word unique falls short of the mark. I do not deny that He is certainly the unique Son, but I do not understand "unique" to imply like nature.

Abraham's "only begotten" son was Isaac (Hebrews 11:17), although Abraham was also the father of Ishmael (Genesis 16). Isaac had the same nature as his father — a spiritual nature, which was an attribute of the "faith covenant" God made with Abraham (Genesis 15:1-6; Romans 4:13, 9:7-8). Isaac was the son who shared the full attributes of Abraham, as Christ shares the attributes of His Father. << [END OF QUOTE]

All the confessions and statements of faith of "orthodox" Christianity affirm that "Son of God" refers to the Deity of Christ. Dr. Charles Hodge, the well-known Presbyterian theologian of the 1800's, put it rightly when he said —

Hodge: "EVERY TIME the Scriptures call Jesus the Son of God, they assert His true and proper Divinity... Christ is called the Son of God as to his Divine Nature" (SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, Vol. 1, pg. 471).

With this agree all the well-known Christian scholars who are known as "theologians." The Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc.), the English Puritans, the translators of the King James Bible, the Pilgrims who settled in New England, the Baptists of old England (Bunyan, Kiffin, Keach, Fuller, Gill, Spurgeon, etc.) and Baptists of the American continent — all affirmed that "Son of God" affirmed the Deity of Christ.

Now, an alleged anti-New Age writer and her book (above) pull the convoluted chicanery of denying the Son of God, which is in reality promoting one of the cardinal elements of "New Ageism" — denying that "Son of God" means Deity! Yet she claims to be a "fundamental, Bible-believing Baptist."

Riplinger also errs when she interprets the "glory" of John 1:14 as referring to the "flesh" of Christ. The "glory" of the Son of God has to do with the "glory" He had with the Father before the world was (John 17:5). The Son is "the brightness of his [Father's] glory" (Hebrews 1:3).

In His humanity, as "Son of Man," Jesus was "made a little lower than the angels" (Hebrews 2:9), and this is not the nature of the Son for which He is called "the Lord of glory" (I Corinthians 2:8).

Ms. Riplinger Denies Christ Is "The Beginning"

On page 338, Riplinger presents the following convoluted material which denies that Jesus Christ is "The Beginning" (as taught in Revelation 21:6: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end"). In criticizing the New American Standard Bible for capitalizing "Beginning" in Revelation 3:14, she dispenses with the Person of Christ as the Source of creation by making "beginning" refer to the "event" of creation rather than to the Son as "source" —

Riplinger: "The KJV states that Jesus Christ is the source of the creation. The NASB, however, by capitalizing the word 'Beginning,' changes it from an event to a person with a proper name" (pg. 338).

This is typical Ruckman convolution — "re-defining" so as to pull a "sleight-of-hand" piece of deception. By first stating an obvious truth (as in the first sentence of the foregoing quote), the reader naturally is led to think this is what the writer is defending. However, the very next statement quickly "switches" the word "source" to mean "event," and then condemns what the KJV is said to teach. This "shell game" is disguised under the delusion that the NASB is doing the "changing" when in reality it is Ruck... oops! — rather, "Riplinger" — she changes "source" to "event," thus denying that the Son is "the Beginning" (source) of creation.

And all the while the writer (whoever it is) condemns the NASB for making Christ the "Beginning," — yet there is no reference to the fact that the KJV itself makes Christ the "Beginning" in Revelation 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13! By "zeroing-in" on the passage in Revelation 3:14 where the same truth is taught by the KJV, but in slightly different wording, the writer disguises her own attack on Christ as "the Beginning" by using the delusive diversion regarding the capitalization of "Beginning" in the NASB! Sleight-of-hand Jesuit convolution!

Ms. Riplinger Denies Christ Is "Wisdom"

Another "stab" at the Deity of the Son is taken by Riplinger on pg. 341 where she denies that "Wisdom" of Proverbs chapter eight refers to Christ. She says — "Wisdom is not a divine being, except to Gnostics, who include Sophia (wisdom) among the begotten Gods" (pg. 341).

In this, the authoress joins hands with the Sabellians, Muslims, "Oneite" Pentecostals, and others who reject the Son of God as being God's "Wisdom." In my "Trinity" book, I demonstrate that the Son is both the "WORD" and "WISDOM" of God (Chapter 8).

Jesus Himself appropriated the term "Wisdom of God" as one of His titles in Luke 11:49-52: "Therefore also said the WISDOM of God, I WILL send them prophets and apostles..." etc. He also used the term "Wisdom" as a reference to Himself in Matthew 11:19, "But WISDOM is justified of her children."

Furthermore, He is called "Wisdom" in I Corinthians 1:24, 30; Colossians 2:3; and Ephesians 3:10, 11. The Lord by "Wisdom" founded the earth (Proverbs 3:19) parallels Hebrews 1:2, Ephesians 3:9, and Colossians 1:16, which affirm Christ as Creator. The Son said, "I am the Truth" [Wisdom], John 14:6.

If, the begotten "Son of God" is not Deity in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 18 and I John 4:9, but is only the "flesh," this is the same "son" of Arianism, Sabellianism, Socinianism, New Ageism, Oneitism, Swendenborgism, and Romanism of the anti-Athanasian variety. But in another act of distortion, the writer refers to Athanasius in a manner that some might think would mean that the authoress "sides with" Athanasius. Nothing could be further from the truth! Athanasius taught the very truth that Riplinger is attacking — namely, the "begotten Son of God" refers to His Deity.

Riplinger says that those "who have discharged 'the Son' from John 1:18 are arch-antichrists" (pg. 337), and this is true of Riplinger when she reduces the Son of John 1:18 to the "body of flesh." The "body of flesh" is the Son's "tabernacle" in which He dwelt (John 1:14), but the Son is the Divine Person who was "with" the Father and "was" God (John 1:1, 17:5) eternally before the body of flesh was prepared for Him (Hebrews 10:5). Thus, Riplinger 'discharges' the Son as Deity by alleging that "the Son" refers to "the flesh."

"Endorsements" No Recommendation!

I notice that Riplinger's book, which also promotes Arminianism as held by Ruckman, has the high endorsement of Ruckman, mythologist Jack Chick, also the Houdini of "New Age" spookery, Texe Marrs (BATTLE CRY, Chick Publications, Sept./Oct. '93, pg. 4). With "friends" such as these "Three Horsemen of the Abracadabra," Riplinger didn't really need to further denigrate her book by attacking the Christian doctrine of the Sonship of Christ, the Foundation of the Faith (Matthew 16:16, I John 4:15; Hebrews 7:3).

I have spoken by phone to Riplinger's pastor who affirmed (as I understood him) that he holds to the orthodox position that "Son of Man" refers to Christ's humanity and "Son of God" refers to His Deity. We hope he may prevail upon the authoress to eliminate the attack upon the Son of God in future publications. We hate to see another "Baptist" source being responsible for contributing to the denial of our Faith, as expressed in our "Confessions of Faith" thru history, all in the guise of exposing the "New Age Movement" which itself is devoted to the view that Christ is not the Eternal Son of God!

In one edition of Riplinger's book, a "general" endorsement of the book by Dr. Henry Morris was quoted. However, we also phoned Dr. Morris about this statement and learned that Morris had subsequently asked that his name and comment be deleted from future printings. He said he made the initial remarks before he had carefully examined the book, and now sees that he was premature in his commendation.

Dave Hunt has also requested that his name stop being used to promote Riplinger's book. Hunt says he had not even read the book, yet its publisher patched together pieces from a telephone conversation with Hunt and used it to help sell the book ($$$!) [see Hunt's BEREAN CALL Newsletter, February 1994].

Texe Marrs' "NEW AGE" Phobia

While Peter Ruckman sells his "KJV Onlyism" merchandise ($$$) — "Big Texe" Marrs peddles his "New Age" Phobia ($$$). For Marrs, the more "New Ageism" that is publicized, the more $$$ for Marrs. Their interest is the $$$ they can make off of suckers who like to have their ears "tickled" (II Timothy 4:3, KJV).

In his letter of February 14, 1994, Marrs branded me as a "New Ager" because I believe the historic Christian doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ! According to Marrs, this is "New Ageism!" He claims this makes the Eternal Son "a lesser deity!" So this would mean that the KJV translators and the Church of England, were "New Agers," for they also believed Eternal Sonship! (See THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES OF RELIGION of the Church of England, Art. II, quoted in my TRINITY book, pg. 237).

As for the recommendations by Chick, Ruckman, and Marrs, if they ever commend anything we write, we'll probably want to re-examine our own writings to see where we blundered! We tend to agree with Roy Livesey of England who has pegged Chick and Ruckman as "agent provocateurs" for Romanism, using "convolution" to disgrace the image of "Bible-believers" in the eyes of Islam, Catholicism, and the world.

Author: Bob L. Ross

—————————————————

. PILGRIM PUBLICATIONS INTERNET PILGRIM PUBLICATIONS MAGAZINE PILGRIM PUBLICATIONS HOME PAGE PILGRIM SPURGEON BIOGRAPHY PAGE   E-Mail:  CATALOG REQUEST or FEEDBACK