Too Bad WELS Will Not Listen to the Southern Baptists about How Bad the NIV Is

Brett Brauer, Thomas Nass, & Geoff Kieta from Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod visiting 2 talk Bible translation. pic.twitter.com/C75f2g2jMF

https://twitter.com/j_royal_howard/status/469248632492134400/photo/1

WELS DP Buchholz Will Consecrate the NNIV Version of the Seminary Cornerstone

Grace alone,
Scriptures alone,
Without faith.
WELS - Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary.

Two people were kind enough to send me a cornerstone photo from Mequon. I did not notice the new motto until today. I bow to their Photoshop abilities.

The Mequon faculty must be nervous about people asking difficult questions regarding forgiveness without faith (UOJ).

Justification by faith is too well documented in the Scriptures, Confessions, Luther, and the Concordists to dismiss.

If we had a Hunnius or P. Leyser, caught with a tract promoting UOJ, there would be reason to doubt the dominance of justification by faith. However, we have just the opposite - Samuel Huber teaching a position (based on his previous Calvinism) very close to WELS-ELCA-LCMS-ELS today. The response from the Concordists was volcanic. Huber was carefully unmasked as false teacher and removed from the Wittenberg faculty, as all the Mequon, St. Louis, Ft. Wayne, and Mankato professors should be today.

Instead, the Jar-Jar Binks of WELS, DP Jon Buchholz, will visit the dormitory basement to unleash his doctrinal ignorance on the poor, suffering students.

The more they make a show of their support for UOJ, the more students will suspect their insecurities.

Didn't Buchholz deliver the same nonsense to the Anything Goes District of WELS, where Ski is patiently waiting to get his job back from Engelbrecht?

Didn't Buchholz lie to the New Mexico congregation, promising to continue the discussion about justification at the upcoming conference, only to drive out their pastor and the congregation itself?

Didn't Buchholz brag at that same conference that he was foreclosing the loan on the New Mexico congregation, licking his chops?

Buchholz, like the rest of the WELS District Popes, has shown himself to be a man without faith, without principles, without integrity, but not without guile.

Meet the real Board of Governors of WELS -
John Parlow, Mark/Avoid Jeske, Paul Kelm, and Kudu Don Patterson.

UOJ Defense of UOJ: Hissy-Fit

That is money going to Murduch
and the dogma of devils.

WELS Resolution on Bible Translations

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/08/wels-resolution-on-bible-translations.html?m=1#comment-form

As requested by one of our Intrepid subscribers, we are posting below the resolution regarding Bible translations that was adopted at the 2013 convention of the WELS.  The original document can be found here.  The original resolution instructed NPH to choose from among the NIV2011, the ESV, or the HCSB.  That resolution (b) was amended to remove the limitation to those three translations, allowing NPH literally to choose from any and every translation, as "it deems best."

Floor Committee 21: Translation Evaluation Committee (TEC)

Subject: Option 2

Reference: Book of Reports and Memorials, pp. 69-78; 211-215 (memorials 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 29, 30)

Resolution No. 1

WHEREAS 1) we strive to follow the direction found in Ephesians 4:2-3, "Be completely humble and gentle; be patient bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" and in Philippians 1:27, "Stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel”; and

WHEREAS 2) the TEC evaluation of the "Review of the 102" noted that each of the three translations (NIV2011, ESV, HCSB) "has some generally recognized strengths" but also "some generally recognized weaknesses" (BORAM, p. 73); and

WHEREAS 3) the TEC concluded that “As a committee we are convinced that all the precious truths of our faith are clearly taught in all the translations we have considered” (BORAM, p. 77); and

WHEREAS 4) the TEC has produced a four-part Bible study for congregational use to help lay people become more familiar with translational issues; and

WHEREAS 5) it is apparent that no consensus has developed in the synod for the use of a single translation, as is evident from the memorials submitted to the synod from a broad sampling of the districts that dealt with the translation issue; and

WHEREAS 6) Northwestern Publishing House (NPH) will be able to use NIV84 for current published products and may be able to continue to use it for some future products; therefore be it

Resolved, a) that the synod in convention adopt the second option of the TEC report, that WELS does not adopt a single Bible translation for use in its publications at this time but use an eclectic approach; and be it further

Resolved, b) that we encourage NPH to choose whichever translation it deems best for a particular publication; and be it further

Resolved, c) that all the congregations in the WELS be encouraged to use the four-part Bible study that the TEC produced; and be it finally

Resolved, d) that we, as members of the WELS standing firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel, fix our hearts on this one unshakable truth: the Word of our God endures forever.

Pastor Joel Gaertner, chairman

Pastor Mark Gabb, secretary

ADOPTED

The Fix Was Already In for the New NIV, But Now WELS Has Approved ALL Translations.Take Advantage, WELSians!

As I understand it, the WELS convention blessed all translations and did not condemn any of them. That would make it easy for President Schroeder to apologize to those who were kicked out of WELS for favoring the KJV.

WELS is rapidly coming around to my position. They are advocating online worship services, and some are actually opening up the Book of Concord.

Some may return to the KJV now, which is what I have used with advantages for decades.

Several people asked me why WELS never had any use for the New KJV, which is favored in the Little Sect on the Prairie. The old NIV was ideal for burying the Means of Grace, and for preparing everyone for the New NIV. Using the New KJV would have implied the original was worth reading.

Silent Voices is one of many feminist projects. Readings from that version during the flag ceremony would have been appropriate.

The fix was in long ago for the New NIV, and Schroeder faded even more as a leader. He supposedly did not like the NNIV, but his public remarks were as mealy-mouthed as they come.

But the final vote has something for the WELSians to use with advantages. Of course the Changer organization will heavily promote the New NIV in the name of "choosing the best one to use," but no one has to buy it. All the boosterism from NPH will not sell a single copy of anything if congregations refuse to buy the material.

Moreover, they can flaunt their use of other translations. Glende and the rest of the Changers are not obliged to use the wretched hymnal or even their own sermons, so why should congregations buy NPH materials that are NIV and NNIV?

But I am making sense again, which is a sin.

Loyal WELS Member - On the NNIV.Diaprax Says, "When Do You Want To Approve the NNIV? Now or Next Convention?"

Moo, the NNIV salesman from Wheaton College,
is the WELS expert on the NNIV's superiority.

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2013/02/wels-your-diaprax-is-showing.html


Yup. NIV2011 or <b>else!</b>

Even if they do vote for option 2, do we really expect to see anyone who gets published in official synod propaganda to admit that the NIV2011 is inferior to the ESV or HCSB by using either of those translations? 

Why limit it to just those 3 options? Why not add the KJV in? We used it for decades, or is the KJV now heresy, since it is clear on justification by faith alone?

So yeah, the translation of this report from WELS-speak to normal
English is:

"Vote for the NIV2011 now, or vote for option 2 and we'll continue complaining about how bad the ESV and HCSB are compared to the NIV2011 until the next synod convention, where, since all articles and materials will have been published with the NIV2011, we'll bring this vote thing up again. And don't you dare think about using something other than these three!"

WELS - Your Diaprax Is Showing. Translation Evaluation Committee report | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)

Translation Evaluation Committee report | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS):

WELS' Translation Evaluation Committee has completed its report for delegates to the 2013 synod convention. In the report, the committee outlines two options that it sees for deciding which Bible translation to use in WELS publications going forward.

In "Option 1," WELS adopts NIV 2011 for use in materials produced by Northwestern Publishing House (NPH). In "Option 2," WELS does not adopt a single Bible version for use in its publications at this time, and NPH uses whichever version of these three (ESV, HCSB, NIV 2011) seems best for the passage cited and the publication in which the biblical text will appear ("eclectic approach").

WELS' Translation Evaluation Committee was created in 2010 when news was received that the NIV 84, the official translation currently used in WELS publications, was being phased out and replaced with what is often referred to as NIV 2011. The committee consists of Rev. Paul Wendland, president of Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary; Rev. John Braun, vice president of publishing at Northwestern Publishing House; Rev. Kenneth Cherney Jr., professor at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary; Rev. Thomas Nass, professor at Martin Luther College; and Rev. Joel Petermann, president of Michigan Lutheran Seminary.

Over the past three years, the Translation Evaluation Committee has thoroughly researched the NIV 2011 along with other versions, notably the English Standard Version (ESV) and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). In 2012, the committee coordinated a review of these three translations in which the entire Bible was divided into 34 sections. Three WELS pastors were assigned to review each section in each translation, totaling 102 reviewers. Each reviewer noted the strongest and weakest passages in each translation, along with each translation’s appropriateness of English style and its overall acceptability for WELS as a publication translation.

The results of the review confirmed the committee’s conclusions that each translation has strengths and weaknesses. The majority of reviewers preferred the NIV 2011, with 86 percent of the reviewers rating the NIV 2011 higher than the ESV in overall acceptability for their section and 70 percent rating the NIV 2011 higher than the HCSB. In all of the 34 sections, at least one reviewer rated NIV 2011 the best.

As the Translation Evaluation Committee notes in its report to the 2013 synod in convention, “From the ‘Review of the 102,’ our own findings, and literally hundreds of conversations in which we have participated in various forums around our synod, two options have emerged, given as Option 1 and Option 2. Each has advantages and disadvantages, but the Translation Evaluation Committee sees either as entirely defensible and viable. Our recommendation is that the synod would discuss the matter thoroughly in the coming months, and then choose either Option 1 or Option 2 at the synod convention.”

The committee outlines advantages and disadvantages to each option in its convention report. Paul Wendland, chairman of the committee, emphasizes, “As a committee we are convinced that all the precious truths of our faith are clearly taught in all the translations we have considered. They have all been translated by people who have a high view of Scripture and who see the Bible’s message centering in Christ.”

Examples to support the committee’s conclusions—as well as many other documents created by the Translation Evaluation Committee to keep WELS members informed on the translation discussion—can be found at www.wels.net/translation.

The committee’s work is isolated to choosing a translation for use in WELS publications. The synod does not mandate which translation congregations or members should use.

View an optimized online version of the report to the 2013 synod in convention.

Why not?

'via Blog this'

***

GJ - See ChurchMouse and RogueLutheran posts on diaprax.

Moo, the NNIV salesman from Wheaton College,
is the WELS expert on the NNIV's superiority.

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2013/02/wels-your-diaprax-is-showing.html


Yup. NIV2011 or else!

Even if they do vote for option 2, do we really expect to see anyone who gets published in official synod propaganda to admit that the NIV2011 is inferior to the ESV or HCSB by using either of those translations? 

Why limit it to just those 3 options? Why not add the KJV in? We used it for decades, or is the KJV now heresy, since it is clear on justification by faith alone?

So yeah, the translation of this report from WELS-speak to normal
English is:

"Vote for the NIV2011 now, or vote for option 2 and we'll continue complaining about how bad the ESV and HCSB are compared to the NIV2011 until the next synod convention, where, since all articles and materials will have been published with the NIV2011, we'll bring this vote thing up again. And don't you dare think about using something other than these three!"

Do the Intrepids Recognize the Chief Article of the Christian Faith?Where Were the Intrepids When Jon-Boy Was Removing Pastor Rydecki?

One of these dogs is guilty.

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "WELS Divided over NNIV. Martin Luther (sic) Colleg...":

Douglas Lindee states in the post, "...is to invite a rift with nearly all other confessional Lutherans in America."

And in his comments, "the issue isn't at all a minor one. It is a matter of fundamental Christian doctrine."

What is it with these so-called Intrepid Lutherans where they refer to the Lutheran Synods as Confessional after they recently excommunicated faithful Pastor Paul Rydecki (himself a founder of the Intrepid Lutherans) for teaching and defending one Justification solely by the gracious gift of Faith in Christ alone?!!

Then he has the gall to refer to the NNIV's perversion of Scripture as a matter of fundamental Christian doctrine. Where's the Intrepid (Douglas Lindee, Father Spencer etc) disgust and public action against the excommunication of a faithful pastor for teaching and defending the CHIEF AND CENTRAL ARTICLE OF CHRISTIAN FAITH?

It's all such a joke. 

***

GJ - I understand Buchholz is on thin ice, now that he has emulated Pope John the Malefactor in the Little Sect on the Prairie.

The laity have to step up because the clergy are spineless. 

"If only I had some power." 

Mark Schroeder does - and he has been silent for years. Plush salary and benefits - no leadership.

WELS Divided over NNIV. Martin Luther (sic) College and Mequon Against Mark "The Helpless" Schroeder

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2013

LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) recommends against NIV 2011

More Sharing ServicesShare|Share on facebookShare on myspaceShare on googleShare on twitter

In December of 2011, a similar headline appeared on Intrepid Lutherans: ELS doctrine committee recommends against NIV 2011. In that post, we reported that the Doctrine Committee of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS), “based on preliminary study of the NIV 2011” upon which they found “significant changes to the text of the NIV (1984)... diminish[ing] the accuracy of the NIV,” proceeded to publicly “recommend against the use of the NIV (2011).”

In August of 2012 – coincidentally, shortly following the last of the WELS 2012 District Conventions – the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS) issued a similar, though more lengthy, statement expressing their opinion on the strength of the NIV 2011 as a suitable translation for use in the congregation, specifically with reference to its rendering of the Biblical texts in gender inclusive language. The statement was issued at the request of LCMS Synod President Rev. Matt Harrison. The name of this document is CTCR Staff Opinion on Inclusive Language in the New International Version (2011). They conclude on page four:

...[W]e find the NIV's Committee on Bible Translation [CBT] decision to substitute plural nouns and pronouns for masculine singular nouns and pronouns to be a serious theological weakness and a misguided attempt to make the truth of God's Word more easily understood. The use of inclusive language in NIV 2011 creates thepotential for minimizing the particularity of biblical revelation and, more seriously, at times undermines the saving revelation of Christ as the promised Savior of humankind. Pastors and congregations of the LCMS should be aware of this serious weakness. In our judgment this makes it inappropriate for NIV 2011 to be used as a lectionary Bible or as a Bible to be generally recommended to the laity of our church. This is not a judgment on the entirety of NIV 2011 as a translation – a task that would require a much more extensive study of NIV 2011 – but an opinion as to a specific editorial decision which has serious theological implications.

(NOTE: in all quotes from this Statement, emphasis is mine)

Leading up to this conclusion, the August 2012 CTCR Statement makes plain that the issue of Gender Neutrality is not one that hasn't already been thoroughly investigated by the LCMS. Unlike WELS, they are not just beginning to discuss it as a Synod, but took the issue of gender neutral Bible translation seriously when it first emerged in the 1990's. Responding to gender neutral editorializing of the Bible, such as that taken up by the translators of the New Revised Standard Version, the CTCR examined the issue closely and at length, issuing in 1998 a document entitled, Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Language (BRIL). The August 2012 CTCR Statement on the issue of inclusive language in the NIV 2011 quotes at length from this 1998 document. It states that, while BRIL “recognizes that 'language evolves' and so takes no position with regard to the propriety of inclusive language in everyday life,”

[t]he concern that led to [BRIL] had to do with the removal of gender specific language from translations of the Holy Scriptures... and the substitution of gender inclusive language that is not present in the original languages and texts of Scripture. In this regard [BRIL] takes a clear position grounded in the understanding of revelation itself that is held by us as Lutheran Christians:

This raises a different set of difficulties, for the Scriptures are not merely the rendering of a culturally based understanding of God. They are to be regarded as revelation whose author is finally God himself. Moreover, not only the concepts of Scripture but the very words of Scripture have been given to the biblical authors to write (1 Cor. 2:9-13; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; Jer. 30:2). While the church will certainly wish to accommodate modern sensibilities and translate anew where the language of the Scriptures allows, the church is not free to alter the language of revelation.

Quoting from BRIL, the August 2012 Statement of the CTCR goes on to say,

It is in the Word made flesh (John 1:14) that God has fulfilled “his purpose for humankind's eternal destiny.” This purpose, in one particular Person born of Mary at a particular time and place, is revealed in the particularity of Holy Scripture and most specifically “in the written testimony of the evangelical and apostolic writings of the New Testament.” The specificity and particularity of the Word made flesh and the sacred Scriptures compel the church to “resist demands to change the words of Scripture or to replace them with words derived from common human experience, cultural predilections, or the ideas of philosophers and lawgivers.”

Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Language considers two aspects of the debate about masculine language in the Scriptures: the language that is used to refer to God and the language that is used to refer to humanity (both Christians and humanity in general). With regard to biblical language about God, the CTCR concludes: “If one wishes to translate accurately the words of the Scriptures, the language of both the Old Testament and the New Testament is clear enough concerning the terminology about God. God and his Spirit are consistently referred to in masculine terminology.” With regard to language about people, BRIL asserts that whenever the Scriptures speak about people, the texts should be translated in a way that is consistent with “the language which the biblical authors in fact use.”

While merely interpreting concepts and rendering them “with words derived from common human experience, cultural predilections, or the ideas of philosophers and lawgivers” (the way that NIV 2011 does), instead of translating the actual words and grammar “which the biblical authors in fact use,” doesn't adversely affect the meaning of a translation in every case, the August 2012 CTCR Statement stresses that this ideology of translation itself violates our understanding of Biblical revelation in principle, and that this is sufficient grounds for rejecting it, and thus also the NIV 2011. Nevertheless, this brief statement goes on to give two “very significant” examples where the meaning of Scripture is, in fact, adversely affected by the gender inclusive principles espoused by the translators of the NIV 2011. Rather than reproduce the entire Statement here, I leave it to the reader to download and digest its contents. Again, those documents are as follows:

CTCR Staff Opinion on Inclusive Language in the New International Version (2011)
Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Language (BRIL)

It should not escape the readers notice that, based on the CTCR's appeal to the Lutheran understanding of the very nature of Biblical revelation, for WELS to continue embracing the NIV 2011 as a viable translation that is not only suitable but recommended for use in our pulpits and in the homes of our laymen for private study, and which will serve as the Standard translation in all WELS publications – from devotions to hymnals, catechisms and commentaries, and even theological works published by Northwestern Publishing House (NPH) – is to invite a rift with nearly all other confessional Lutherans in America over the nature of Biblical revelation itself, including the doctrines of inspiration, inerrancy and perspicuity.