Schottey has left a new comment on your post "Run--Do Not Walk--To View the Latest WELS Typo":
A few things Pastor
1) I have Lenski's full set in print and I like them as well but my biggest problem with him is that he treats matters of exegetical work as matters of doctrine (as if people are going to hell if they translate a participle as means instead of manner)
2) Having the WLQ translated was a great help. It is not nearly as "synod line" as you make it out to be.
3) The people's bible is a "non-professional" commentary it is for the common lay person so of course it is based on the common lay-persons (sic) Bible.
4) Your comment on the sermon studies was funny but not to the point, I highly doubt Parlow's heisted sermons are on the CD.
Finally, the price is so high because they are also selling licenses to Logos software with each copy. Logos is an expensive piece of programming that WELS pastors have been blessed to have access to but ANYTHING on Logos costs a pretty penny--I bought the Concordia last year and would get the Triglott but I already have it in print.
***
GJ - Among Upper Midwest Lutherans, WLQ is valuable as a theological journal. I would find it handy for quoting some of the more outrageous errors of WELS. One is Brug's pronouncement about nothing in the New Testament opposing women's ordination (a frequent theme in their conference papers). Another is Valleskey's ghastly essay endorsing the Church Shrinkage Movement. Valleskey even claimed that the Deformed "downplay the Means of Grace." Then, using the same doctrinal discernment, we could say, Luther downplayed salvation through works. When I asked Sparky Brenner (professor, Sausage Factory) about this grotesque essay, Brenner told me "Write WLQ a letter" and "Gawrisch has not been healthy" and is behind in his editorial work. I wondered whether the theological faculty had any role in disseminating false doctrine and invented church history. As Reu noted, hiding doctrinal differences is the mark of a unionist. Brenner and his wife were in shock that I questioned Holy Mother WELS. Apparently they were not bothered that the path to teaching at Mequon was smoothed by study at Fuller Seminary.
WLQ is great, but Lenski is...?
To be True Blue WELS, one must respond to Lenski's name with a gratuitous comment or two. The normal one is "He is not good on justification." That is because Lenski taught correctly about justification by faith, but WELS is utterly and consistently wrong on justification. Lenski was firm about his scholarly findings, but I would not accept the hyperbolic Straw Man fallacy offered by young Schottey. All the conservative seminaries had great respect for him and honored him. His work continues to be in demand today, everywhere except in his original synodical home (now ELCA).
Lenski knew the doctrinal history behind each passage of the New Testament, so he discussed that in light of his exegesis. Lenski knew that the efficacy of the Word was the sole (or soul) foundation for all pastoral work, a Biblical insight lost today among the management gurus and snake-oil salesmen of synodical fame.
My Lenski set is behind me in my working office. I use Lenski, Luther, or the Book of Concord for sermon ideas.
I disagree with Lenski's opinions about the New Testament manuscripts. All the professors of that era were bewitched by three con artists: Wescott, Hort, and Tischendorf. Wescott and Hort's so-called rules for the text are best explained by the effects of alcohol or drugs. They are hilariously wrong. Tischendorf just happened to find two manuscripts that suddenly became the best NT ones. And yet, we know more about Obama's hidden background than we do about the birth of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. According to the genius types who gave us the NIV, all the manuscripts from the 1100 year-old Byzantine Empire, which was Christian and Greek, are bad because...because...there are so many of them and they agree with each other. And we know where they came from. No fun there.
I appreciate Schottey's willingness to post comments in his own name.
---
Brian P Westgate has left a new comment on your post "Gratuitious Lenski Comments":
What were Lenski's opinions on the New Testament manuscripts? Basically in line with Wescott, Hort, and Tischendorf? I've never heard that discussed before.
***
GJ - If you read plenty of Lenski, you will find sections where he decided what should be in the text or excluded from the original. He got carried away at times. He seemed very much in line with the three frauds listed above. Why not have everyone play around with the text? That is how the current version is put together now. Three out of five votes will get a verse excluded from the NT - just like blackballing in a fraternity. I use BibleWorks software: KJV, and Byzantine NT. Twenty years ago I was soft on the NIV, until a student began pointing out how many blatant translation errors were there.
I enjoy Lenski's literal translation in his commentaries. They affected how we talked around our home after reading certain passages. "Be thou continually brushing thy teeth" was one Lenski-ism. I like Lenksi for discussing the meaning of the grammatical distinctions, not just showboating about grammatical rules. When I heard a discussion in class--at the Sausage Factory--about whether a genitive was objective or subjective, I said to another person, "Did Paul ask himself which one he was using or did he just write?"
Lenski's daughter, Lois Lenski, became famous for children's books. We buy them when we can find them.
