-
Pastor Spencersaid...
-
I recommend we save ourselves a whole bunch of key-strokes in the future
when talking about this pathetic convention. From now on I'm going to
refer to it simply as "WELS PPK," or just plain "ppk." That stands, of
course, for "Punk, Pass, and Kick." They punted on all difficult
decisions, passed just about everything else, and kicked the
confessionals who signed the first Time of Grace Memorial in the teeth.
In my humble opinion.
Pastor Spencer
----
Hey Mister Lindee,
I guess I wasn't even thinking about a corporate act. I wrote "we" meaning individuals. I think that is where the real power lies because it's in the hearts of individuals where the Holy Spirit works. I think we each need to be talking to our grannies and our 8th graders, although in the process certainly referring them to Intrepid any anyone else with viable and honest analysis of the NNIV.
I think an incorporation and wonton advertisement of IL is a very good idea, but if we each rely on the internet and use it as an excuse not to have hard conversations with our own people nothing will change.
I for one am not looking forward to having this conversation with some of my family because they are the sort that will go along with the WELS regardless of anything. They will be uncomfortable with the idea of a rift between WELS people and the conversation will get turned aside a dozen times to avoid the necessity of making a judgement call that will invariably alienate them from someone in our family.
How many other deeply-rooted WELS folks will be forced to make judgement calls--picking sides and perhaps, (as it will in my family) cause BIG TIME family division? I suppose that quite a number of families are in that same position.
You see why I might not post my name with comments like this? Christian discernment is already going to cause familial problems and it won't help reading about it on the internet. I hope IL admin will post this unsigned comment--and I promise to sign my name in the future.
But I'm sure everybody here can sympathize. The WELS is close-knit and we 're all going to have to make difficult calls. A great battle to fight is one against the NIV 2011, but it's got to start with our own families.
--Bored
-
The NNIV is a great rallying point...however that is not the root cause.
The problem is a willingness to compromise for the sake of union and
mission...but soon enough all will be compromised away and WELS will be
standing on sand... because after all...all this discussing of doctrine
gets in the way of saving souls.
Joe
---
-
I'm just going to first say the obvious thing here: If the translation
WELS adopts needs a disclaimer insert (an entire booklet!) warning
readers of the various false teachings or errors it promotes then
maybe--just maybe--we ought not to adopt it in the first place.
Honestly, how many people are even going to buy the NIV 2011 if the
first thing they need to do is read about how full of errors it is!
I just heard Professor Wendland say during this morning's discussion that the committee believes that there is no better translation option than the NIV 2011. How can they possibly have come to this conclusion when the thing needs a booklet (not a sheet of paper but a booklet) to explain its shortcomings?
It at least appears that this decision is going to be put off for a while. In any case, the most powerful way to make one's voice heard on the matter is by voting with your dollars. A major drop in NPH sales will get someone's attention. Before anyone gets the wrong idea here, I am not calling for a 1765-like organized boycott. I am, again, just stating the obvious I think.
Dr. Aaron Palmer
---
Dr. Palmer
Touché.
Let us ask ourselves what Luther might think of a translation that needed an addendum to warn readers of error. Am I wrong to suppose he'd say: "Well, go fix the errors before you publish it, ya morons!"?
If the WELS (or any church) feels the need to write an 'warning of errors' for the Holy Scriptures aren't they placing upon Scripture something extra needed for proper understanding of it? The Errata booklet would be nothing less than a key to Scripture. And THAT necessitates the question: Is the NNIV safe to read without the extra pamphlet? Probably not, If the errata pamphlet-writers truly feel, in good faith, the need to write the pamphlet.
So if you can't safely read the Bible without also knowing and studying the pamphlet, how is the pamphlet any less than Scripture? If the Bible and its list of warnings are inseparable, how is that not disregarding the warning in Rev 22:18?
Fair question, I think. I'd be curious to know what someone in favor of the pamphlet idea would say.
David Kreuter
-
I'm just going to first say the obvious thing here: If the translation
WELS adopts needs a disclaimer insert (an entire booklet!) warning
readers of the various false teachings or errors it promotes then
maybe--just maybe--we ought not to adopt it in the first place.
Honestly, how many people are even going to buy the NIV 2011 if the
first thing they need to do is read about how full of errors it is!
