Ichabod, The Glory Has Departed: Three Comments from Sola Fide

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Three Comments from Sola Fide

WELS gave Dr. Moo (Wheaton College) a helping hand.
They are used to udder disasters.

solafide (http://solafide.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Hilarious WELS NNIV Comments. Should Be Called the...":

"The five weakest passages in this section of the NIV11
D 1) Ro 3:27 “Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith.”

With the 2011 edition the NIV no longer uses “principle” as its translation of νόμος in this verse. The reader instead is allowed to appreciate how Paul is playing on that word νόμος. Due to our usual understanding of “law,” however, one wonders how many readers will discern the point the apostle is making. In addition, rendering νόμος πίστεως as “the law that requires faith” implies that believing the Gospel is the one deed that God demands. “All you have to do is believe” is not a Scriptural doctrine, however.

Romans 3:24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
By repeating “all” from the previous clause, the NIV11 makes universal / objective justification more clear in this context than the ESV which does not restate the subject for the second verb and the HCSB which opts for “They are justified….” Here the NIV11 has the simplest exegetical-doctrinal solution."

SF: Someone is letting their real agenda slip out! Here is the relevant section of the former post I made, containing a quote directly from a WELS Professor:

This is from a WELS Professor, who will remain nameless for his own protection:
"the "all" in Ro 3:23 is not all people, believers and unbelievers alike, but all the believers who were just mentioned in verse 22."

Here is an expansion on the quote, again from unnamed Professor:

"I would offer the following expanded translation, in which I add the parenthetical phrases that seem to me to bring out the continuity in the line of thought: "But now apart from law a righteousness from God has been revealed, (a righteousness) attested by the Law and the prophets, but (it is) a righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ (that pertains) to all the believers (not just the Gentile believers). For there is no difference (between Jewish believers and Gentile believers), for they all (i.e., all the believers) sinned and come short of the glory of God, (and thus they, the believers, all are) being justified as a gift (i.e., they don't merit a pronouncement of righteous status by their own good behavior), by his grace..." Paul quickly proceeds to highlight faith again in the very next verse. Some pastors will not like this exegesis because it robs them of an explicit assertion that all human beings have sinned and gives them instead an assertion that all believers have sinned. I would reply 1) exegesis should pay more attention to the line of thought in context and not put into Paul's mouth the kind of statements we would like him to make. and 2) on my reading of the passage (and Stoeckhardt's) we still have an implication that all people have sinned, since it would be hard to explain how there would be some sinless unbelievers if all believers have sinned."

So, who is wrong, this WELS professor or the anonymous Romans 3:24 translator (NNIV pusher)?

No word from The Love Shack.

---

solafide (http://solafide.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "WELS NNIV Promotion Continues. Brett Meyer Answers...":

I've never seen such a stacked deck in my life. Only 74% in Group 2 chose the NNIV? Guess that's where the WELS will be looking next to see who gets the jackboots of fellowship.

---

The previous DP eviscerated the NNIV at the convention.
I listened, knowing he was retiring soon.
Does Kudu Don Patterson support the NNIV?
He is a Church and Change leader.

solafide (http://solafide.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Ye Watchers and Ye Unholy Ones. Gibbs: "Always Wat...":

Group #1 – Synod workers (aka Holy Professors that thou shall not question) - pushed the NNIV almost unanimously (over 9/10)

Group # 2 – Translation workshop participants - Had only a 3/4 majority for the NNIV

Group #3 – Younger pastors - 4/5 majority for the NNIV

[GJ - Original vote at the conventions - only 16% for the NNIV]

So, we see where the push for this NNIV is coming from.

I can probably pick out the names from Group 1 that didn't like the NNIV. You can count them on 1 hand.