Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Favoring KJV on Rom 3:25

In the KJV of this passage, we read Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.

Most modern translations do not have this reading, they leave off in his blood away from faith even though in the original Greek word order, KJV is the most accurate.

For example in the ESV, we get this whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

Notice, how the ESV moved his blood closer to propitiation, technically differing from the KJV. What is the reason for this? Well, the ESV translators following others do not want the readers to put their faith in the material blood of Jesus, that red liquid part of the human body.

IMHO, the KJV is quite accurate here which brings me why I posted the picture of the late Aussie NT Scholar Dr. Leon Morris. Many years ago, I went to converse with Dr. Morris in his Donvale home, a suburb of Melbourne. I got to discuss this thing about the "blood" of Jesus with him when he agreed to be interviewed. He said to me, that whenever you read "blood" in the NT, it does not suggest per se the material blood the flows from the body. He said, each time you read it, equate it with "death". The KJV is not suggesting the material blood per se that is the object of faith, but the death of Jesus as faith's object. Hence, properly understood the KJV does a very good service of pointing the reader to the death of Jesus.

In my readings, when people speak of believing in Jesus, faith in Jesus etc., what is exactly neglected is what is it in Jesus one should believe? This is the reason why in my last interaction here, I asked what exactly is the object of faith? In Romans 3:25, the object is the death of Jesus, that his death is payment for our sins. That is the object of faith as taught by Romans 3:25.


J. K. Jones said...

I find myself going back to the King James alot lately.

The gospel summary, in its simplest form, is 1 Corinthians 15:3:

"...Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures..."

Gregory L. Jackson said...

The KJV is directly linked to Luther's work via Tyndale. The other translations are so superior that they need revision every few months and a complete change every few years.

L P said...


I used the KJV when I first became a Prot and I used it for 7 years. It is a very useful translation, in fact it a good literal translation.

I believe young people when used to it can deal with it. It requires some work but the reader means he is not dumbed down.

All the verses I memorized or got stuck in my psyche are KJV so when I can not locate the passage quickly I go back also to my KJV or use it in my search engine.


L P said...

Pr Greg,

Thanks for this insight, no wonder when you take your KJV and read Luther, everything makes sense!

Indeed, Tyndale has been dubbed (at least by wikipaedia) by some historians as being Lutheran.

There is just too much translation out there that it has become crazy. There was a time I was buying every new one out in the market, finally I stopped buying new Bibles. Luckily someone gave me a leather KJV and I have kept -- it specially for emergencies.


Augustinian Successor said...

Dear Kuya,

You met the late Dr Leon Morris? Very interesting! He's popular amongst the evangelical Anglicans as well as Anglican evangelicals (like me!). He's an excellent and faithful biblical scholar in the tradition of the English Reformers!

Your fellow Lutheran,

L P said...


Yes I went to his home to have a chat with him. This was way long ago before he passed away, when I was a Charismaniac pastoring an ethnic church. He and his wife were very hospitable people.

He was a vanguard of evangelical orthodox scholarship.


Augustinian Successor said...

My comments about the pope and papacy being the Antichrist on Blogia has been censored! Oh my, what has confessional Lutheranism come to in the LCMS ... instead you have a principal of the Lutheran seminary in Cambridge, UK (borrowed from LCMS) talking about his feel good feelings about B16 and how he's a paragon of moral uprightness in a world of relativism.

It's really, really amusing when these so-called confessional Lutherans attempt to sound ecumenically-correct ...

1. They confuse Law with Gospel. Not a word on the Gospel in that article.

2. Our common confession in the Trinity and Incarnation must not be confused with post-Reformation present-day reality. Historical legacy is not the same with contemporary reality.

3. Our common stance on moral issues under the Law does not mean that we have a common confession in the Gospel. Commonality in the Law extends to everyone, including pagans.

4. Which brings me to this point? If people like John Stephenson is so keen on the pope and the Roman Church, I ask why the bloody hell, why for the life of you, why don't you agitate that the teaching concerning divorce and remarriage prevalent in Lutherans circles be abolished and replaced by the western catholic understanding found in the Roman Church???

Why there is no similar conviction on contraception and birth control methods which remained the official teaching of the Magisterium notwithstanding its regular flouting by the common folks???

So when you are supposed to uphold the Law, you break the Law by departing from what the Roman Church teaches on morals. And when you are supposed to uphold the Gospel, you don't by talking malarkey about our commonness in confession with the Roman Church.

How hypocritical and ridiculous can one get?!

This of course applies to folks like Weedon, Beane, and so on. You want to be Catholic. The first thing you do when you face your congregation on a Sunday morning is that you tell them that remarriage when one spouse is still alive is adultery. You tell them in no uncertain terms, you shall not practice birth control as contrary to the will of God in procreation.

It's a double-edged sword to them ... caught as they are by their own self-indictment. By way of the Law, they deceitful to the Roman Church. By way of the Gospel, they are exposed as false professors of the Lutheran faith.

L P said...


These people ban you when they cannot stand up to the truth of your arguments. I remember how I was banned by Fr. Bollywood.

To say that the RCC is the epitome and bulwark of morality is to be naive if not down right thick. AMazingly the sleeper cells in Lutheranism are quick to raise their heads and applaud anyone who defends B16.

I can almost predict that all of these pastors who love to kiss the Pope's feet are UOJers. There is a connection, for in their minds, the Pope is already saved he just has not believed it yet. In their thinking the Pope is saved even though his faith is in works along with Christian doctrines.

JBFA is not what matters to such pastors who will lead people astray in their constant refrain - and repetition - Amen B16, Amen.

Imagine what the folk in the pew are thinking,=== the Pope is not a bad anti-christ after all since pastor so and so continues to admire him.


Augustinian Successor said...

Dear Kuya,

It's clear to all and sundry that time after time JPII and B16 deliberately covered up paedophile cases in the Church. Yet these people try to defend the INdefensible!

Are they not Lutherans? If they claim they are, then why don't they see thing as LUTHERANS??? Paedophilia widespread ... psychological and physical torture, sexual harrassment and abuse, rape, lesbianism, etc. widespread in convents, Satanism, Black Mass in the highest hierarchy, B16 has been pictured displaying the horned sign symbol, not once but a few times, he was pictured shaking hands with Tony Blair using the typical Freemason style, syncretism, idolatry, inlcuding pope-worship(!) since after all he is a demi-god isn't he?? Mary worship, superstitions which you and I well aware of (Ireland, Philippines, Malaysia, etc.) ...........

Weedon and Co. probably spends half of the time on a Sunday morning facing away from the congregation ... this directly contradicts Luther's sacramental reversal! We are beggars, receivers ..... ALWAYS in the sight of God! What's wrong with these people?? They don't Luther???

It's funny these people say they want to be Catholic Christians. But as we have exposed them ... they like to be cherry-picking Christians, rather. They pick and choose which Catholic moral teaching they like to adhere.

And, and ... they like to cherry-pick which Lutheran doctrine they like to adhere ...

The Person and Work of Christ cannot be separated anymore than the Holy Trinity can be separated. In fact, this is not only a Lutheran but an authentic Catholic teaching too!

Augustinian Successor said...

So, how can one separate the joyous exchange or justification by faith alone from the orthodox confession of the Person of Christ by saying or implying with the actions that the former is not so important compared to the latter??

Christ alone?? but without sola fide???!!!

Augustinian Successor said...

Dear Kuya,

I forgot to mention that your analysis above is absolutely spot on!

These so-called pastors don't like spiritual conflict, spiritual battle! That's because they are on the wrong side!

L P said...


Most of these people came from Evangelicalism. So they get burned by its pietism and as the pendulum swings, since they hate what burned them, they swing to anti-Evangelicalism which in their interpretation is being Catholic, so they want to redefine Lutheranism in their mindset, but wait. They are like to cross the Tiber but too much of a coward to swim.

Catholic? They want to be Catholic? And yet praise the Pope? How can you be catholic and yet have a pope? Authentic catholicism does not have a Pope. They do not really like to be Catholic, this is just plain dishonest. They really want to be Roman, if truth be told.


Augustinian Successor said...

If they really want to be Catholic, then they should do this: Despite the Lutheran tradition, I cannot in good conscience allow you Mr X anywhere near the Altar for I am bound to place under ex-communication until you repent and leave the woman you're living in adultery with and return to your wife.

If they really want to be Catholic, if I know that you and your wife are practicing so-called family planning, I'm going to have
to pay a visit to your home and try to talk you out of it. It's against the will of God and a gross act of unbelief.

But no, they are not Catholic. They just like to pretend that they are Catholics. Catholic? Catholic my arse!

Brigitte said...

My Luther Bible (since no body seems to be coming from the Greek here and I don't know it either) has:

"welchen Gott hat vorgestellt zu einem Gnadenstuhl durch den Glauben in seinem Blut, damit er die Gerchtigkeit, die vor ihm gilt, darbiete in dem, dass er Suende vergibt..."

"in his blood" here has a different preposition than if it were "faith IN his blood". If it were "faith IN his blood" it would say: "Glaube AN sein Blut", not "IN seinem Blut". But here it is that the grace is through faith, all of which is VIA his blood (death).

If that makes any sense any more.

L P said...


I do know Koine and Classical Greek.

As far as KJV is in English, the KJV is correct to the original. KJV is correct when the word order and the preposition is translated literally from dia pistews en toi autou himati. That preposition "en" is properly and as KJV did use "in" in English.

In the KJV it is very precise and suggests where the object of faith is supposed to be pointed at - Jesus' blood, and should be taken, Jesus' death.

So what does "in seinem Blut" signify? I just did a Google translate and that phrase is equivalent to "in his blood" coinciding with the English. So I am in doubt as to the point you are making. Luther's Bible and the KJV seems to agree, so I am at a loss why you said the preposition should be "an". Can you explain further?

Also when you say "But here it is that the grace is through faith," yes but faith in what?


Brigitte said...

Of course "in seinem Blut" is "in his blood". But to "believe in", the verb to believe takes a different preposition, which is "an". Glauben an. And the same thing using the noun der Glaube an, not in. So "in" is something different, it speaks more to the whole thing rather than as an object to glauben. Glauben takes "an" not "in".

How that relates to the Greek, I can't help with.

L P said...


Can you explain then why in your Luther Bible, it is Glauben in seinem Blut
Here it uses Glauben, which violates your suggestion and it does not seem to work. Why are you thinking it is saying what it is not saying? I do not know how "an" works in German, but I do know

The dia pistews is "through faith", so faith where? KJV translates the Greek very literally, even the word order in the Greek is followed "in his blood".

Based on what I know of NT Greek and English, I am satisfied with KJVs translation as correct. I cannot say for sure with Luther's Bible, you seem to say it disagrees with KJV,despite the former using "In his blood"


Brigitte said...

I'm saying the English cannot show something that the German shows, because "in" works both ways in English. You can take the whole sentence and have it "in", or you can have just faith "in" something, in English. You cannot make the distinction in English. (like "you", is it singular or plural)

In German, if you were saying you have faith "in" you would use "an", but since it is "in", it speaks to the whole thought expressed.

Sorry, I can't say it any better.

L P said...


I accept the English inaccuracies as you mentioned.

For this case though, that is not where it falters, the Greek is more precise and KJV translated it word for word.

If as you say "in" is the whole, then "in his blood" is to be taken as the whole of what?

If UOJ is in view here, it does not work, as the Greek is quite specific which KJV captures. The Greek wording is against it.

The object of faith is the death of Jesus in that verse, there may be secondary thoughts that go along with "faith in his blood", but his death as the object (i.e. the payment, propitiation for our sins) is the one in view.


Brigitte said...

1. I took out the interlinear and see that it is so, indeed, word for word, as you say.

2. If this has UOJ in view by anyone here, I have no idea. That whole alphabet soup (I'm sorry I don't want to diminish that this is some really big point for some, I still don't get it...) is nothing I'm interested in here, but perhaps you are?

3. How the prepositions, verbs and nouns go together in the Greek sentence, I can't elucidate on, however, there is the concept of the propitiation, which we know requires blood. So that's the whole idea that we are talking about: Christ's blood as propitiation makes eminent sense.

And this is in line with the Luther translations. I explained the previous one. That one was a version from 1968. My confirmation version has the same idea but different words, even more clearly lining up the blood with the propitiation, not the faith.

"Den hat Gott fuer den Glauben hingestellt in seinem Blut als Suehnopfer, damit Gott erweise seine Gerechtigkeit.

"Whom God put forth for faith--in his blood as propitiation..."

Again "in" does not go with faith because Glauben does not take "in". Same thing as before.

4. ERGO. The ESV is more in line with the Luther translation.

5. The new Lutheran Study Bible, which you may not like because it's not the KJV, has some notes.

"Propitiation. Gk hilasterion, in the LXX, the ark of the covenant's cover, where the high priest sprinkled the blood of the sacrifices.
See note, Ex 25:17. As the propitiation covered the ark of the covenant, Christ's righteousness covers the sinner. He is the sacrifice for sin. by faith. Faith does not earn anything; it receives God's gift."

6. The propitiation then involves the blood, which brings about the forgiveness. No blood, no forgiveness.

L P said...


All good. I do not dislike LSB, I look at its merit on a passage. ESV is fairly literal too but not as literal as KJV.

But I am now getting to the point too when you said 6. The propitiation then involves the blood, which brings about the forgiveness. No blood, no forgiveness.

Correct but the verse says no faith no justification either, that is why the Greek passage is telling us to trust that death as payment, the hilasterion to God. This is my point, no one gets justification without faith in that blood.

God does not let his Son die and pay for our sins, and then allows anyone to be indifferent about it.


Augustinian Successor said...

The KJV is the still the best translation around. It *remains* the Reformation Bible for the English-speaking churches.

L P said...

If one wants a literal translation, KJV is at the top. ASV is also a literal translation too but I have not examined this in most places (this is the base of the NASV). So if one wants a reliable literal translation in English, you can depend on the KJV.


Augustinian Successor said...

They say that they're Catholic. Then what's their stand on Charismaticism, modern-day successors of the Montanist heresy??? Did these jokers know that Montanism has actually triumphed within the Roman Church and that Vatican 2 is very open to Charismaticism (the so-called the third force in Protestant Christianity)?? The nuns and monks speaking in tongues, claiming visions and dreams and so on and so forth which sits perfectly well with the mystical tradition of the Roman Church.

If they are Catholic, they should maintain that Charismaticism is a work of Satan. This is why Charismaticism is clear proof that the Roman Church is the synagogue of Satan!

We Lutherans maintain that the Bible alone is the Word of God, the divine revelation.

Augustinian Successor said...

So, why the bloody hell on earth would these jokers want to associate with the world's largest Enthusiast Church??? Holy Spirit? The pope, and the Roman Magisterium (most of it) hate the Holy Spirit! They despise Him! They dare to take His place and blaspheme against the Most High. These jokers would sooner psit on Luther's grave than agree with him that the pope is the world's most popular religious enthusiast!

Augustinian Successor said...

To be a Catholic is precisely to be against Enthusiasm. Why can't these jesters understand that? To be a Catholic is to quote Revelation 22, even if he's a Reformed or Lutheran Charismatic that thou shalt add to nor take away from the Word of God.

L P said...


True, these crypto-Papists are so anti-Evangelicalism (anti-revivalism) that they are so Romanistic. Hence, they are just jumping from one enthusiasm to another.


Brigitte said...

Do have to keep calling people names?

The pope is anti-Christ, as the confessions confess and Walther, by the way, always stressed. And with Walther we are supposed to have quia confession, hence the pope is anti-
Christ, and when we see how they still treat the word of God, we know why. But as a person, Ratzinger may have things to say that matter and are good. We can deal with that and listen to that. He even told people to read Luther. What can be more open-minded? Read, read, read. That's great. Luther will beat it in. It can't be missed.

About Faith and the "alphabet soup" here. I just read this analogy in Klement Preus' "The Fire and the Staff". What do you think of it? Beginning p. 71.

Trick or Treat

Faith is like trick-or treating. "Trick or treat!" Those were great words. they still are. they are words of kids either greedy or full of trust. The words conjure memories both painful and pleasant. i suppose that a literal interpretation would be that if you do not give the kids some candy, they will push over your outhouse or throw eggs at your car. but that's not what the words mean. They simply mean; "We think that you are going to give us some candy."

When I went trick-or-treating for the first time, around the age of 7, I was green, a novice. My family had just moved to the big city of St. Louis from the country. Knowing nothing of the rules of Halloween, my ignorance showed. My costume was cumbersome. It was cold outside, so I had to wear a jacket over the skeleton outfit. The string on my mask broke after the fourth house, and I somehow felt obligated not to appear at the doorsteps of any erstwhile donors without a covering, so I held my mask in place with one hand. At the same time I had tyo go to the bathroom, a condition that worsened as the evening dragged on. My outfit was all one piece and I could not relieve myself without stripping down to my underwear, a process that modesty precluded. So, as little boys are wont to do, I used my second hand to hold something else. but hands occupied, I could not offer my bag to the nice people at the doors who wanted to shower the coveted confections upon all the kids of the neighborhood. Desperate, I begged my friend, Mark, to get candy for the both of us, and he graciously complied. Unfortunately, his bag had previously been used by his mother to haul meat from the grocery store and had sprung a particularly insidious leak. The evening's efforts were largely lost.

I come from a large family and practiced "survival of the fittest" where any food not in the five main groups was concerned. So my sibling shared only enough goodies to forestall the creeping guilt often associated with enjoying themselves too much in the presence of another's pain. The evening was not at all what it was cracked up to be. The only happy note was when Mrs. Franzmann, who lived down the street, came by out of sheer pity and gave me a couple of leftover popcorn balls. I learned a very valuable lesson that night. The bag is the most important instrument in the trick-or-treater's arsenal. Without it you are dead. With it you have everything.

The next year I used a pillowcase and had enough candy to last until Thanksgiving. I stuffed my face with sweets until my belly swelled and my teeth rotted. I was the happiest guy on earth and never gave the bag a second thought.

Faith is like a trick-or-treater's bag. When you don't have it, you are lost. When you do have it, all you think about is what's in it. When a person does not have faith, we say, "They are lost. You can't get to heaven without faith. Faith is necessary." but when a person believes, you stop talking about faith and talk only about Jesus. The way to get a person to believe is not to discuss the importance of faith. Instead, you have to talk about Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

Augustinian Successor said...

Ratzinger is a damn fool for getting himself trapped into whatever he's in. His looks is exactly the same as the Evil Emperor of Star Wars. He may be an admried theologian; that's not the point. He's still a reprobate destined eternal damnation, and that's all that matters ultimately.

Fear not little flock ... now you see the remnant Church is weak, despised and hated by the demonic forces and this world. But soon we'll see the dawn of the New Creation. In fact, it is already here, but veiled from us ready to be unveiled when the time comes.

Never fear ......

Brigitte said...

Don't pick on his looks. He can't help it, though he spends too much time dressing up. Much too vain.

Also don't call people reprobate and damned. My mother taught me never to say things like that and you will hardly find a precedent in scripture.

(I haven't handed out so many don't's in a long time. No more kids at home.)

L P said...


The word anti in greek does not always mean "to be opposed". The Pope being anti-Christ means that though he lauds Christ behind the scenes he is chopping off Christ from the people.

There are many anti-Christs some of them are Lutheran pastors too. They laud Lutheranism and the Confessions but behind the scenes, they sway people away from faith in Christ alone.

I was an RC kid. I was never taught faith alone in Christ alone. I was told about faith, but faith in the church, the saints, the work I do in penance etc etc, not in faith in Christ alone. Never.

re: Pr. Klemet quote.

I agree that faith should never be our idol. However, not mentioning faith when the time needs it, can be detrimental. Case in point, my case.

Another case. I have sat down with life long Lutherans but when you ask them how they are saved - they point not to faith, but they point to them being good people and the fact they go to church every sunday.

This style of not mentioning faith is an over statement of Walther. He overstated his case. Wanting to counter the stuff happening amongst his revivalist non-Lutheran contemporaries, he swung the other way.

When faith is mentioned it is to show us to release our dependence of works of any kind or faith in anyone else.

When faith in Christ is mentioned, it is to amplify Grace and none of Works. If I follow Walther's methods as an RC, people will never be converted there. Why? Because RCs laud faith in Christ + lauds works they do.

If I never mention faith alone to RCs, I will never be sure that they are hanging on to Christ alone, because they affirm that Jesus died for them too, yet, they look at works to save them.

That is why Waltherian style Lutheranism eventually misses the mark.


Augustinian Successor said...

Listen, Ratzinger is a reprobate, predestined to eternal damnation. He is Antichrist, therefore he is a reprobate. And yes, he looks devilish, if I must say so myself. There's something of the dark about him, if you care to admit. I dont care if you are older than me, but if you get it wrong on justification by faith alone, you are WRONG. Period.

Augustinian Successor said...

It's no bloody point saying that the pope tells people to read Luther.

Listen carefully, HE HASN'T LIFTED LUTHER'S EXCOMMUNICATION. So what if he tells people to read Luther. Does he agree with Luther on the bondage of the will, on justification???

Augustinian Successor said...

What some so-called Lutherans don't realise is the fact that Ratzinger as a theologian doesn't mean we overlook the fact that he IS Antichrist. At the end of the day, people should not confuse Law and Gospel. This confusion happens ALL the time. Time and again, confused or deceitful folks say what a wonderful theologian Ratzinger is.

So what? It's all bloody nice words, pure and simple. Let me say this again: So what? Does that mean you now hold that remarriage when one spouse is still living is adultery irregardless of the circumstances, that birth control is a sin and so on and so forth?

Does that mean that Ratzinger teaches the Gospel of justification by faith alone which is the power of God unto salvation??? Souls are elected or reprobated on the basus of the proclamation of the Gospel, the true Gospel. Make no mistake about this.

I tell you, we sure got to recover the spirit of Luther because all I'm seeing these days in so-called confessional *mainstream* Lutheran circles, most of it, is wishy-washy wool over the eye candy-coated malarkey.

L P said...


Please consider, I was an ex-RC.

Those pastors who tell their listeners, readers, congregation to take at look at B16 because he looks like a nice guy even telling people to read Luther do not know what the real RC system is. They have a romantic view of RC. The Pope is a spiritual politician.

When Ratzinger signs the BoC, I will rethink and apologize to him and to all the nice blogging Lutheran pastors (who I believe are crypto-Papist).

Until then, we have more important things to think about.
Take hold of Eph 4:14.


Brigitte said...

The "Trick-or-treat" story did not deal with Works at all. We did not talk about that the kid actually had to dress up and walk door to door, etc. We are not talking works vs. faith or faith plus a little bit of works. We are strictly talking about the relationship between faith and the content of the faith--Christ crucified for us. Is it a good story for that? Is the conclusion right for just that?

Now, for an ex-RC, (I attended Catholic school, too. The pope is my landsman, a fellow Bavarian. But my family was strictly anti-Catholic; they saw nothing but idolatry in it.), the story might have to be a different story, a different analogy. You could maybe write it yourself?

I understand the concern, though, and in that circumstance you would talk differently about faith. You would definitely stress faith. You are now talking faith vs. works for righteousness, which is however a different topic. We are no longer talking about trick-or-treating because you are not going to get things just for free.

The fact that some Lutherans trust falsely in their Sunday attendance, does not really fit here either. We are talking faith vs. works, again.

The "nice blogging pastors", I don't know terribly well myself. What exactly makes them "crypto-papist"?

B16 and Luther. You make good points. But encouraging the reading is a good step.

L P said...


I do agree the content of faith is what we should be preoccupied with. My argument with Rev McCain was that he did not like to call that looking to Jesus as faith. The analogy breaks down somewhere of course. The reason is that the bag and the candy are physical things we can see, that is not the case with faith, for faith is oppose to sight. We walk by faith and not by sight - St Paul says.

You do not need faith if you can see it already.

What exactly makes them "crypto-papist"?

I find them suspicious when they speak highly of RC and the Pope. When they are concern more for bells and smells and are traditionalistic for its own sake.

Mind you most of these Lutheran pastors were former Evangelicals themselves so they are swinging too far. They got bitten by Evangelicalism but RC is too much of a big pill to swallow at once, they are hovering for a while in Lutheranism.

They are of course people but we are not talking about them doing some good things from time to time. Cult leaders do that too. It is what they confess, and right now, the Pope does not believe in Christ alone.

B16 may encourage the reading of Luther but, we should take it as a political gesture. He does not believe the things that Luther re-discovered.

You see, RC is big, they will allow you to do anything and believe anything within Mother Church so long as you do not buck the Pope.

It is an expert in being a chameleon. I have seen it in my home country how they compromised themselves. They embrace the meaning of "universal" literally. Is it not what catholicism means originally?


Augustinian Successor said...

Encouraging people to read Luther is just talk. The pope says one thing outwardly but does another behind your back ...... This guy is a Satanist for crying out loud!

Read Alexander Hislop's Two Babylons. Don't believe that Romanism is actually the mystery religions of ancient times? Go and google modern-day expose on youtube and so on.

You see Rome's "genius" is in fusing or syncretising Christianity with paganism so that the outward symbols which supposedly represents the essentials of the Faith are actually mystery religion to the core. This is why the sun symbol is so prominent in Roman mass worship.

The so-called Eye of Providence found in your one dollar note is exactly the same as the all-seeing eye found in medieval churches which is based on the Carolingian shield of the Filiquoist Trinity which in turn is based on a perverted understanding of the Trinity. So, you have the pyramid, the symbol of the mystery religion and the all-seeing eye of the medieval church hand-in-hand.

Augustinian Successor said...

These jokers do not want to suffer reproach for the sake of the Gospel by callig the pope for who he is. Says a lot about them really.

Brigitte said...

I don't know, you guys sound a lot like Walther. :) Do read the "At Home in the House of my Fathers" sometime.

However, even more so, in the "Der Lutheraner". I read of bunch of stuff by him in there. Anti-pope-catholic stuff in every issue that I read: the nuns cursing the Bible distributor... on and on, a real window on the times. You would love it. Maybe I'll translate it for you, if you beg me. :)

I do wonder about the smells and bells. Please, no incense where I worship. But you are judging them on intentions that you are projecting, not that they have expressed. What has someone actually said?

Some people think the church can gain greater unity by unity in liturgy and historic worship. I've lately applied myself to memorizing the Te Deum, after someone mentioned that after the creed and the Lord's Prayer, it really is the thing to recite. I'm finding it hard because nothing rhymes, etc. but fruitful. It would give us a lot of good stuff to talk about. Just an example.

About the trick-or-treat analogy, I think you have dismissed it too quickly. We know that analogies break down somewhere, but we need not say that where it has Not broken down. Is there something in this analogy that works?

L P said...


I do realize that I would sound like Walther in the are of anti-Popesting. I do not think I sound like him in the area of UOJ.

He said also good things but he also said some things off the fence.

re:Trick of trick, yes I agree we get pre-occupied with the candy not the bag, in that the candy is Jesus, we do get pre-occupied with him. That part works.

We have not seen him yet we believe in him. To us he is real.

I doubt if liturgy will unite us, because behind the scene is the theology that supports that practice. From the Lutheran stand point it is JBFA. We got Anglicans here who are liturgists yet liberal in their theology. I know of a an Anglican priest, very Anglo-Catholic and traditional, who is a Bultmannian, he believes Jesus did not literally rise from the dead.

I have read of these Lutherans rationalizing why they like to device prayer beads like the rosary. These I have read. One of them is no longer Lutheran but has become Roman. He was one of the proponents of Lutheran rosary.

Did you know that Romanism has some interesting parallels with Budhism when it comes to paraphernalia?

Brigitte, when JBFA is no longer the issue in Lutheran theology, Lutherans become bored and where do they get themselves pre-occupied? In tradition, the bells and smells.


Augustinian Successor said...

It's in the attitude, conviction or rather the lack of conviction, outlook, and so on.

I use a crucifix, I keep a rosary in my car, I cross myself, I have visited the Jesuit-run General College which is one of the premier seminaries in the region, made friends with librarian, borrowed books on doctrine, liturgy and morals, visited the resource centre of the RC archdiocese and bookshop named after the Jesuit superior-general Arrupe, all these Jesuit-run, I'm friends with the researcher there, a RC priest is a friend, I discuss theology and liturgy with RC people ... but NEVER, NEVER do I attempt any ecumenical rapprochment or gloss over justification by faith alone.

Fact is one of the things I'd mention is the divorce and remarriage issue which I praise the apostate Roman Church for its stance, birth control, the liturgy, its theological training with strong emphasis on philosophy, and so on. This is the RIGHT way, not the way which John Stephenson, Weedon, Beane, and others do. NO.

What they do is confuse Law and Gospel. What they do is just words, sentiments, nice feelings, nice vibes, that's all. It's deceit. It's wrong. It's hypocritical. Some of these jokers are indeed crypto-papists but even so, it's a joke.

A common cause not on mission, not on the Gospel, but on the Law! On the Law ... other than that it's war. This is why I have no problems sympathising with the sede vacantists, traditionalists to a certain *extent*. I was also in touch with a modern-day Jansenists who were purists in their time, opponents of the Jesuits and Augustinians who believed in ways very similar with the Five Points of Calvinism.

I'm a Catholic, they are not. I'm a Catholic and I'm opposed to the common errors of the Catholic Church ... pilgrimages to shrines, Mary-worship, pope worship, exposition and procession of the Sacrament ...

I'm a Catholic and I have no problems with icons are cultural expressions of the essentials of the Faith; I have problems with 3-D representation unless its a crucifix. As for incense and bells, I've no problem but these are at the lower end of things, so to speak. What is important is the SACRAMENTAL REVERSAL.

Does the elevation take place in the sight of the congregation or the reverse? If you're Lutheran, it's facing the people. Jesus literally handed over to the powers that be visible and invisible as well as the crowd to be killed in which you and I are also implicated.

Brigitte said...

LP, thanks, I can see you are trying to answer me properly, but I seems to me you are throwing a lot of things into one heap, which strikes me as not fair.

Regarding Walther and UOJ, I gather Universal Objective Justification, which supposedly means that everyone is saved regardless of having faith, it must be wrong to attribute that to him.

It is the Gospel that saves, via the means, and it existed before you. It is the salvation of the entire world. The Holy Spirit calls via the Gospel, which is from before you. The saving news comes first. Is that not all that's being said or trying to be said or meant?

Does this sound like everyone is saved without faith?:

"First of all, let each of us 'work out salvation with fear and trembling' (Philippians 2:12) and with diligence and seriousness, through faithful use of the Means of Grace. We should first be concerned for our own souls, paying attention to ourselves, lest while preaching to others, we ouselves become reprehensible. Let us stand fast. Through prayer, petitions, brotherly counsel, admonition, and comfort in mutual love let us strengthen the unity in the 'spirit through the bond of peace'... Let us, who are messengers of the Lord of hosts, co-workers of the Holy Spirit and messengers of the Gospel of Christ, and the mouth and hand of God to men in delivering the holy Gospel and the Holy Sacraments--let us, who bear such a glorious office, full of absolute clarity that God makes of sinners those justified, of cursed the blessed, out of rejected and banned, citizens with he saints and God's family, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ..."

That's just 14 pages into the House of My Fathers.

Does this not read ok to you? Is it a problem because the word "Faith" is not being used here? Or maybe it does not say clearly enough that we are saved by faith alone? Maybe that's it. That's what would bother you, because the RC might be able to say the same. Would that be it?

But he would say that in another spot. He would not advocate works for salvation.

But I don't think he is saying that everyone is automatically justified and automatically eternally saved.

He would just say avail yourself of the means of grace to have your faith strengthened and persevere in it to the end.

L P said...


Regarding Walther and UOJ, I gather Universal Objective Justification, which supposedly means that everyone is saved regardless of having faith, it must be wrong to attribute that to him.

Not entirely to him but Walther wrote essays and sermons, one of which was his Easter Sermon that pronounced the whole world forgiven/absolved. Also some of UOJ trickled in his Law/Gospel book.

Did you follow my discussion with Pr Jay Webber in one of the past blog posts? In one sense, UOJ teachers say that Atonement is equivalent to Justification and in another way it is not. However, Atonement is never the same nor equivalent to Justification.

That quote is well and good. That is OK. What is not ok is also what other things Walther did say. Though UOJ did not come from Walther, he did promote it.

The saving news comes first. Is that not all that's being said or trying to be said or meant?

Brigitte it is the content of the Gospel. The Gospel is the death of Jesus as payment for your sins. Not that at the death of Jesus every one has been automatically been forgiven. ST Paul does not speak that way. Yet UOJ says you have to believe this otherwise you cannot have basis for justification. Thus believe that you are forgiven and so you are. This is the reason why when I was "debating" with Pr Jay I asked him about the object of faith.

re: RC.

Yes, the RC can say and I have heard them say and confess that Jesus died on the Cross for them. It is what they do not say that is a problem, and that is they do not say but yet believe that they are saved by their works. For the RC, Jesus death purchased for them the grace of God to eventually get the work done.

This situation is still the same as it has been during Luther.

That is why faith was talked about.
RCs do not make the connection that since Jesus died for them, then that is sufficient for their sins. They do not make that conclusion, rather they still hang on to the works they may do to avail.


Brigitte said...

A.S., you rant. How is someone supposed to get something out of that. Honestly, I just keep having to complain. Can you write something coherently?

L.P. I did not read that thread entirely to completion. I was getting frustrated with it. I should go back. It just does not seem fair to accuse Walther of teaching something that goes by three letters and then making it sound like the sky is falling (I think it was Brett Meyer, the way to perdition.)

Everybody knows that Christ's blood was shed for the forgiveness of all sins, the entire world, that's what it is for, but it only comes to me as an individual by faith in that he also did this for me. So we teach: yes, also for you. Done, all done. Quit fretting. That's what faith is. Quit doubting and believe.

Anyhow, I think I'll drop it here.

L P said...


I am not being unfair with Walther. I have read the essays he wrote there are in the WWW. I also have devoured his book - Law and Gospel.

The record shows that Walther did teach such a thing based on his Easter Sermon. I can find it for you - it is in the internet.

Rev McCain complains why sanctification is not seen in Lutheran circles, but how can it be seen if some are functioning universalists?

Re:Finish. It is finished for me too. And though faith is required, it is God who creates that faith in us by the means of grace.

Quit doubting and believe.

I am not arguing, I am just illustrating the point. Are you sure you want to mention **believe** in that sentence?

We should treat Walther like we treat Luther. Unfortunately some have elevated Walther to a much more sanctimonious level treating him as infallible. He was not.


Augustinian Successor said...

Brigitte, you rant. Argue your persuasively instead of assuming this or that. Listen, stop your denial syndrome on what is true about the pope and the Roman Church, alright?

Augustinian Successor said...

The fools in clerical collar ahve the truth as contained in the Lutheran tradition but do NOT love the truth of the Word of God. They despise the truth, they hate the truth. They look down on the remnant church, the little flock which Our Lord has promised the Kingdom of Heaven.

Fear not, for now you suffer reproach for the sake of the Gospel. When He comes, you will be vindicated. Amen.

Brigitte said...

Have I ever given an inkling of unwillingness to use the word believe? It fits perfectly where it fits.

I have never met anyone who thinks Walther is perfect. The more "confessional", the more they say he was too pietistic and not sacramental enough.

Brigitte said...

LP, I made a post today, that mentions you and relates to this discussion a bit.

L P said...

OK I will go over and have a look.