bored has left a new comment on your post "Still Clueless":
Of course my comment was purposefully inflicted with spelling and grammar errors. I thought I'd been sufficiently thorough to avoid an explanation. Good night KFax! Your first clue should've been that I referenced spell-check's 'little red line' underneath misspelled words. To wit, if I possessed the wit to write that, wouldn't it seem obvious that I purposefully ignored those 'little red lines' in my own comment? Please don't apply your own standard to me. But hey, I'm not looking for a fight.
The WELS deficiency in spelling and grammar is a symptom of a larger overarching problem in that synod. For a long time, their Modus Operandi has seemed to be to willfully minimize the importance of the 'little things'. At least, I think so. They change the pronouns in the Creeds. We can guess it was done to be less paternalistic. "Oh, it's no big deal", they say. "It doesn't detract, and it might make those with a modern mindset more comfortable". Likewise, it's not unimaginable that the WELS began to use the NIV because it's problems were "only minor", or that the NIV's so-called benefits overshadowed its problems. There's a long list of very important little things that are commonly ignored or purposefully ejected. Maybe that could be the Ichabod-reader contest? To compile a list of "little things" that the WELS has gone soft on?
Of course there's the big problem with Universal Justification, but could it be that all the loss of the important little things allowed the nastiness of Universal Objective Justification to express itself? That's just a hypothesis, of course. I've been trying to make sense of the fact that a good number of Confessional Pastors claim to believe UOJ. The Confessional Pastors to whom I'm referring pay a lot of attention to the little things, and maybe this keeps them on line with a true teaching of Justification. I suppose I'm saying something pretty obvious, but my curiosity for causation (of this hip trend towards apostasy) leads me to pose the question anyway. In any event, if the fastidious translation of ancient sacred texts is unimportant, it's probably too rediculous to require accurate spelling. (Yes KFax, I misspelled rediculous on porpoise)
Another question: what is the best way to approach my pastor, who claims to believe UOJ (in private, when I inquire), even though he continues to correctly teach Justification?
***
GJ - Ask him how often he reads Ichabod. That is a good conversation-starter.
