Interesting how Martin Luther would have probably been horrified to learn that a secessionist line was named after him. His goal was to reform the Church, not split it.
How otherwise will you seperste yourself from the church from indocrinating a seperate religeon i beleive he would have had the knowledge to discuss this and understand it
Every schism is like "pope, I don't want to leave the Church... but I don't agree with doctrine, so... ohhh, I have been excomunicated, because I've gone too far with theology, so I will just build a new Church"
@@yakotako717I agree. If the Church is being guided by Holy Spirit and was founded by Christ, then submitting to the church is submitting to God. That's why schism is so dangerous
These 2 minute videos are awesome! Looking forward to the series; and brother, you are doing great work to objectively depict the varying beliefs within Christianity. Thank you!
@@ReadyToHarvest just came across your channel and I’m thinking of subbing, i see you ask for donations also ? Do you have a statement of faith of your beliefs ?
"Ty jesteś Piotr [czyli Skała], i na tej Skale zbuduję Kościół mój." Nie na Marcinie czy też na kimś innym. Stolica Piotrowa to Watykan i bardzo to przykre ale ówczesny uzurpator papieża papieżem nie jest ponieważ Benedykt był wybitnym znawcą języka Łacińskiego i słowa, których użył aby przekazać władzę to błąd który popełniają studenci Łaciny na pierwszym półroczu. Reasumując żyjemy bez papieża ponieważ władza nie została mu przekazana. Benedykt wiedział co robi a uzurpator przyjmuje Drac Queen na audiencji i popiera związki homoseksualne mówiąc, że to miłość? W Piśmie Świętym jest napisane, że to grzech śmiertelny a uzurpator zmienia wolę Bożą tylko, że Bóg jest niezmienny! Tuus Totus Ego Sum, Et Omnia Mea Tua Sunt! Ave Maria!
I was raised as a Lutheran but not too religious today. One of the best things I can say about it is that in all my life going to church, I never once felt there was any judgement of others by anyone. It was a place where we were taught to just be kind to everyone and treat others as you would like to be treated, with love and compassion . Never any judgement of people based on their choices in life. If you were lgbtq, a mean person, a racist person, our church would welcome you with love
I had this same experience in my church and it was some of the best memories growing up in my youth group . We even visited a mosque when 911 happened to learn about Islam beliefs and how they are so similar to ours and to love people and not judge .
Why is judgement a issue? Yea I get that ppl going to church services want to feel all cozy and warm with arms opened wide, but you do realize which you may not judging by the comment you made of not “ not being too religious “ anymore that the Bible/ Paul states along with Christ in Matt 18 to do the very same thing your glad they didn’t. It’s actually the church’s role to cast judgement especially when things in the church or church body isn’t following God. Not sure if you have children, but it’s kinda like them doing something they shouldn’t and u would discipline them.
Probably why you are not too religious today - AKA secular. You were not given a proper understanding of Law and gospel, sin, or salvation, the depravity of man, and the need for a savior. You were taught humanism. Probably ELCA. I pray the Good Shepherd will search you out and bring you home.
Thanks for the video! Can you do a video on the difference between High Church and Low Church in Anglicanism ( and other Protestant denominations )? Thank you!
Yes, I agree that a focus on the "worship wars" between highly liturgical [e.g., Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical-Catholics] and "low church" within the Anglican/ Episcopal and Lutheran churches could be explored. The difference between these Anglican parishes is quite apparent, for example: Church of the Advent Episcopal - Boston, MA ruclips.net/video/kGk-SqPWAPQ/видео.html&ab_channel=ChurchoftheAdvent Trinity Anglican - Lago Vista, Texas. ruclips.net/video/Y4EFB8Pr-i8/видео.html&ab_channel=TrinityAnglican Two Lutheran parishes named Zion but quite different worship Zion - Detroit, Michigan ruclips.net/video/gmym3lFOonQ/видео.html&ab_channel=ZionEvangelical-LutheranChurchofDetroit Zion - Ann Arbor Michigan ruclips.net/video/r0BmB4FNJiw/видео.html&ab_channel=ZionLutheranAnnArbor
Hello Joshua, I've watched many of your videos and I highly admire your diligence and manner of teaching, with that being said I would love to see you make a video of your testimony and your proclamation of faith.
More feedback. You tend to focus your discussion on North American Christianity. In the case of Lutheranism, the U.S. synods tend to be more Protestant-like than European and African Lutherans. For example, the Church of Sweden is practically a carbon copy of the Church of England, thus the Porvoo Communion. One gets an accurate assessment of American Lutheranism in this video, but most Lutherans live elsewhere. Perhaps another series could spotlight Europe, where Lutheranism began and where Lutheran World Federation is centralized.
Hey Joshua! You do a very good job even on your short videos I am very impressed with your work! I’m surprised you’re able to get two videos done in just two days! That’s very impressive!
Thanks Jordan! I plan my videos out well in advance, so I worked on this series over several weeks and am now releasing them faster than I can would be able to make them. Working this way allows me to sometimes work faster, sometimes slower, but keep a good release schedule.
@@SuperSpieth Honestly, I read about and watch videos on the topic of people getting burnout on youtube and I think the way I do it is the way to go. I have videos scheduled for a month in the future. It's tempting to release everything once I finish it, but this is much better for mental health. I am never rushing to get a video ready for the next weekend.
Hi bro, could you do a video comparing the denominations that make up national churches, specifically these 5: 1. Catholic Church (Roman Catholic) 2. Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern Orthodox) 3. Anglican Communion 4. Lutheran World Federation 5. Oriental Orthodox Communion
Interesting Video! Quick note: In Germany there are "state churches" or Landeskirchen, who are either Unionist (Union of Lutherans and Reformed) or Lutheran. So the "Evangelische Landeskirche in Hessen/Nassau" for example is Unionst whereas the "Evangelisch-Lutherische Landeskirche Sachsens" is a "pure" Lutheran state Church.
Good comment! For anyone who wants to learn more about that (And hear of American denominations that were affected by this Reformed-Lutheran marriage,) see my video "Some Times Denominations mixed" ruclips.net/video/PVnsYMzBJ0g/видео.html
I think you raise a good point in your comment about "the Book of Concord counts confession as a sacrament but not all Lutheran denominations practice it" (presumably the Pietistic low church branches?) Lutheranism isn't defined by what the sum total of all self-described "Lutherans" claim to believe and practice, synthesized and repackaged as a systematic theology. The Book of Concord would still be the final and exclusive description of authentic Lutheran even if all "Lutheran" denominations in the world held to other positions. That's a good thing to bring out. How do we define a denomination/tradition: sociologically, or confessionally?
My local parish is high church Lutheran that practices confession and absolution. It’s in every liturgy and done privately. It’s all I’ve ever known as a Lutheran. The other 2 Lutheran churches in my area are high church as well. It would be strange to worship at a pietistic heavy low church Lutheran church as I can’t imagine it. I agree also, Lutheranism is defined by our confessions full stop. If you throw out or minimize the BOC too much you’ve left the Augsburg Church.
I found it strange too that the video said that "not all Lutherans practice confession". I've never heard of a Lutheran church that didn't. Even Pietistic Lutherans, such as Laestadian Lutherans, practice confession.
Agree that Holy Absolution is certainly the practice but alas, many Lutherans no longer go to private confession since absolution is provided at the start of Mass. I was raised in the LCMS where private confession was held 30 minutes before the Eucharist. We were expected to make our first confession before being confirmed.
@@someoneveryclever It would be more accurate to say, "not all Lutherans practice PRIVATE confession" Lutheran liturgies contain confession and absolution, usually at the very beginning of the service.
Jordan Cooper has a great way of summarizing it by saying that, at a bare minimum, to be a Lutheran is to affirm the Augsburg Confession and Luther’s Small Catechism.
At my LCMS church, we do public confession and absolution. Private confession can requested. Not all LCMS churches are the same, mine is more high church than others. So it's a challenge to find one like my home church when on vacation.
Just a short information: The ,,Evangelische Landeskirche Anhalts" shown at 1:29 is not lutheran. It is ,,uniert", which means that it combines elements from lutheran as well as reformed theology. The ,,Kirchenunion" or the Church Union of some German churches, was caused by a former prussian king who forced a union between the lutheran and reformed churches in his kingdom with the intend of lowering tensions between his subjects.
We first and foremost stick to the Words of Christ: “This is my body”, “this is my blood”. “Is” means “is”. In comparison to Presbyterians, we believe Christ’s true, physical, real presence is there in, with, and under the bread and wine. We have also called this the “sacramental union”; whereby Christ’s 2 natures are really present in Communion. In comparison to the Roman Church, we don’t deny the bread and wine are still present. In comparison to the East, we reject the term and human philosophy of “consubstantiation”.
What Lutheran's teach about the Eucharist is 100% FALSE and is "another gospel" (2 Cor 11:4) As I said elsewhere in reply to this video... It is BEYOND RIDICULOUS to assert that infant baptism "brings salvation". NO IT DOES NOT. That is a satanic trick that Satan sneaks into the church to nullify and eclipse the glorious person and work of Christ alone. Furthermore, Mr. Luther demanded that a belief in Christ's ***BODILY*** presence at communion was necessary for salvation. THAT, sir, is not in the Bible and is AGAIN, another trick to add something to the impeccable credentials of Christ alone! In the book of Galatians, Paul curses those who would seek to add even one thing to the gospel; namely, any aspect of the ceremonial law. Now Mr. Luther said to Zwingli, "We hold the belief of Christ's bodily presence in the Lord's Supper to be essential to salvation, and we cannot in conscience regard you as in the communion of the church....we acknowledge you as friends; we do not consider you as brothers" (Page 563). books.google.com/books?id=kFU-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA560&lpg=PA560&dq=is+the+body+of+jesus+in+one+place+at+a+time&source=bl&ots=f4kku7dDu3&sig=WdD-l_KLKxzPNeXAo2EDe3PX81g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm7o7UwuXRAhUJ5WMKHeQrAzgQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=is%20the%20body%20of%20jesus%20in%20one%20place%20at%20a%20time&f=false While I do agree with Luther that we are saved by the merits of Christ alone, there is no escaping the fact that his addendum to the gospel (namely, Christ's BODILY presence at communion) is on the same level as the cursed requirement the Galatians were proposing. He unequivocally nullifies his own "faith alone" theology by adding the BODILY presence of Christ at communion or it's off to hell you go. Certainly all Christians will get to heaven with an imperfect theology; however, in light of 2 Cor 11:4, there certainly is such a thing as crossing over into, "another jesus and another gospel", and I fear Mr. Luther clearly crossed that line, essentially contradicting his own "faith alone" theology for salvation. So get it straight: Jesus said his BODILY presence was "GOING AWAY" about 10 times in the New Testament (John 13:1, 14:2, 14:19, 14:28, 16:5-7, 16:29, 16:10, 7:34, 17:11). Thus, the Lutheran belief that Christ is BODILY present... "in some way" (as they vaguely like to say in their literature)... via a piece of bread is no more necessary for salvation than there is a man in the moon. Considering that God sees EVERYTHING and is thus EVERYWHERE anyway (Psalm 139:8, Jer 23:23, Zech 4:10, Matt 18:20, Acts 17:27), makes the Lutheran demand that we believe he is "somehow" present, a deadly and unnecessary addendum to the gospel which Paul would surely reject if he were alive today.
I don't know if Joshua has disclosed it, but other commenters on these videos claim he is a Baptist and a professor at a Baptist college. I would've guessed he is an Independent Baptist because he compares and contrasts so many denominations with the Independent Baptists.
For about a year there's all these things about Lutherans. It's never caused any curiosity whatsoever. This morning I decided to hear what they have to say.
Great job! I'm a reformed Christian, so I don't agree with Lutherans on everything, but have a great respect for them. My biggest issue with Lutheranism is that I can never get a straight answer from them regarding what they believe baptism means/does. In this video, you mentioned that they believe it brings salvation, but I've heard it explained other ways too. It's confusing.
I think it might depend on the branch of Lutheran that the pastor or person comes from. I am pretty sure my communion within the Church of Lutheran Bretheren never mentioned baptism as Salvation bringing as they had a bit of a decision based theology. Now the Lutheran church I go to part of the LCMS, Baptism is when the Holy Spirit enters the individual and is necessary for Salvation. I'm not sure if I'm on board with that.
@@erichardzz Your Church per Wikipedia: "In addition to the denominational statement of faith, the church adheres to the following historic confessions: the Apostles' Creed, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, the Augsburg Confession, and Luther's Small Catechism. Its strong emphasis on missions and evangelism and its stand for non-liturgical worship and a church composed only of confessing Christians differentiate it from most Lutherans in America. The CLBA considers itself to be "Lutheran in theological tradition and evangelical in practice". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Lutheran_Brethren_of_America
That makes sense because the article doesn't mention that they adopt the Book of Concord which from what the video said is where you would find the info about Baptism.
As a fellow Reformed Christian, I think of what Westminster Confession 27.2 says of the sacraments: "There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other." The way I see it is that most Reformed Christians prefer to speak in terms of the thing signified (e.g. regeneration, repentance), whereas Lutherans tend to speak in terms of the sign (baptism). Both are correct, but we mustn't confuse Lutheran Baptism with being about the mere water ceremony, but about what God is doing in the sacramental union of the sacrament. I happen to really like how Luther put it in the Large Catechism as found on the Book of Concord website, Holy Baptism section 22: "Therefore I exhort again that these two, the water and the Word, by no means be separated from one another and parted. *For if the Word is separated from it, the water is the same as that with which the servant cooks, and may indeed be called a bath-keeper’s baptism.* But when it is added, as God has ordained, it is a Sacrament, and is called Christ-baptism." And sections 74-75: "And here you see that Baptism, both in its power and signification, comprehends also the third Sacrament, *which has been called repentance, as it is really nothing else than Baptism.* For what else is repentance but an earnest attack upon the old man [that his lusts be restrained] and entering upon a new life? *Therefore, if you live in repentance, you walk in Baptism,* which not only signifies such a new life, but also produces, begins, and exercises it." So there is a distinction made between the mere water ceremony and one properly performed, and a difference between someone who got wet at some point in their life, and someone living in repentance. So baptism saves, not because a priest did some ceremony on a person, but because of what God does, and not because the mere water caused salvation, but because the person is walking in a repentant lifestyle, restraining his lusts and entering upon the new life, the same sort of fruits we Reformed look to know God's handiwork on a person.
So for Lutherans baptism is NORMATIVELY necessary for Salvation. Yes, we confess that Baptismal regeneration does, indeed, save, but we do not limit God in that He can only save those who are baptized, such as the (tiresomely mentioned) thief on the Cross. Those who are not baptized but have faith may be saved, because the mercy of God knows no bounds. However, if you are a Christian, and you have the opportunity to get baptized but refuse to… why? Im not saying you won’t be saved, but there’s literally no reason not to do it unless you’re, like, allergic to water lmao This video explains it better: ruclips.net/video/6p7a-kTcSZo/видео.html
There are different Synods, but the only real division is between the conservative confessional Lutherans, and the liberals. Even though there are different Synods, as long as they hold to the confessions, there is very little difference. The beliefs are the same, and pastors from different Synods can preach in otheres so long as they hold to the confessions.
Unless the denomination in question is fairly new, they all have undergone splits. Thus there are different denominations of Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, etc. etc. etc.
@@bigscarysteve I knew there were different denominations of Presbyterians, Baptists, Unitarians, Evangelicals, Pentecostals among others. I am also aware that there were groups who broke away from the Catholic Church after the 2nd Vatican Council which still have the Mass in Latin!
Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John “We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]-that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”
Pretty sure Luther taught salvation by faith alone and once saved always saved. He did change positions on things in his life, but it's pretty well known that Luther and Lutherans are distinct groups.
@@CameronKiesser He didn’t aim to reconcile the two sides of free will and predestination. You’re definitely secure if you have faith, but he definitely taught you can lose faith and the Spirit.
@@zarnoffa Yes he did teach faith alone, but he nullified it by ADDING something to faith! As I said elsewhere in reply to the video... It is BEYOND RIDICULOUS to assert that infant baptism "brings salvation". NO IT DOES NOT. That is a satanic trick that Satan sneaks into the church to nullify and eclipse the glorious person and work of Christ alone. Furthermore, Mr. Luther demanded that a belief in Christ's ***BODILY*** presence at communion was necessary for salvation. THAT, sir, is not in the Bible and is AGAIN, another trick to add something to the impeccable credentials of Christ alone! In the book of Galatians, Paul curses those who would seek to add even one thing to the gospel; namely, any aspect of the ceremonial law. Now Mr. Luther said to Zwingli, "We hold the belief of Christ's bodily presence in the Lord's Supper to be essential to salvation, and we cannot in conscience regard you as in the communion of the church....we acknowledge you as friends; we do not consider you as brothers" (Page 563). books.google.com/books?id=kFU-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA560&lpg=PA560&dq=is+the+body+of+jesus+in+one+place+at+a+time&source=bl&ots=f4kku7dDu3&sig=WdD-l_KLKxzPNeXAo2EDe3PX81g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm7o7UwuXRAhUJ5WMKHeQrAzgQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=is%20the%20body%20of%20jesus%20in%20one%20place%20at%20a%20time&f=false While I do agree with Luther that we are saved by the merits of Christ alone, there is no escaping the fact that his addendum to the gospel (namely, Christ's BODILY presence at communion) is on the same level as the cursed requirement the Galatians were proposing. He unequivocally nullifies his own "faith alone" theology by adding the BODILY presence of Christ at communion or it's off to hell you go. Certainly all Christians will get to heaven with an imperfect theology; however, in light of 2 Cor 11:4, there certainly is such a thing as crossing over into, "another jesus and another gospel", and I fear Mr. Luther clearly crossed that line, essentially contradicting his own "faith alone" theology for salvation. So get it straight: Jesus said his BODILY presence was "GOING AWAY" about 10 times in the New Testament (John 13:1, 14:2, 14:19, 14:28, 16:5-7, 16:29, 16:10, 7:34, 17:11). Thus, the Lutheran belief that Christ is BODILY present... "in some way" (as they vaguely like to say in their literature)... via a piece of bread is no more necessary for salvation than there is a man in the moon. Considering that God sees EVERYTHING and is thus EVERYWHERE anyway (Psalm 139:8, Jer 23:23, Zech 4:10, Matt 18:20, Acts 17:27), makes the Lutheran demand that we believe he is "somehow" present, a deadly and unnecessary addendum to the gospel which Paul would surely reject if he were alive today.
Austria here (not Australia). I once was Protestant, which is the same as Lutheran (right?) or evangelisch as it is called in German, which is a clear minority in my country. Up to my early teenage years, decades ago *sigh*, I was in church at least once a year at the beginning of every school year. I can not recall to ever have had communion, expect - maybe - at the First Communion mess, when I was about 13 y old, which is a one time thing and should last for life, if I understand correctly. In elementary school I was at a summer camp for 3 weeks. It wasn't religious at all, but those days they still dragged us kids to church on Sundays. We few "Evangelische" had to go with all the others to a Catholic mess (Muslims weren't on the radar back in the day), but we were exempt from getting communion. And if memory serves we had a one size fits all confession and repentance during the First Communion ceremony, but never a personal one. Overall the "evangelische" church is a kind of "katholische" church light in my experience.
It gets silly pretty quickly. Apparently, Luther would have rather be thought of an evangelist. However words like Evangelist and Protestant became associated with non-Lutheran churches. It is just words at this point with no meaning. For example the word "orthodox" too. People have hijacked that word too. Now they claim there is an "orthodox" church. Failing to understand that for example, a Lutheran can also be orthodox. So Lutherans should be considered orthodox and could be known as evangelists/evangelical. However all these words are hijacked and laid claim to. Much the same as how Roman Catholicism ruined the word "catholic" which used to mean universal but now means a cult with idols that prays to dead people same as eastern orthodox are a cult that have idolatry, Mary worship and praying to dead people. So I could say I am an orthodox Lutheran evangelist Christian but everyone would laugh at me and say that is impossible. Words are meaningless anymore. Have you seen the Lutheran Satire reformation piggybackers?
@@br.m I have now :). I think it's different in different countries. Here we had nearly only Catholics with a few Protestants in the mix. They are always only called "Evangelische" or "Protestanten", which both means the same. If there's a difference, as good as nobody knows about it. I feel it became more diverse, because of immigration from the ex-Yugoslavia states. I was surprised that Orthodox Christians, as defined groups within the Christian umbrella, actually slightly overtook the Protestants according to Wikipedia. But the diversity is nothing compared to the US, were religions are more like a business model. I was even more surprised though, how much the Churches declined in the last decades. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Austria
"don't see the Bible as INerrant." Double negatives confuses things. I don't believe this was intentional, but as an English scholar I take words (especially, The Word ) seriously to the letter.
It’s not a cult in the pejorative sense you’re using, but if you want to go by the dictionary then all of Christianity and most other faith systems are cults as well
@@LHJlives I call it a cult as they deviate from the core doctrine required for any Christian. They are secretive not allowing non LDS people (Christian or not) to enter their temples for marriage ceremonies, or regular church services. What Christian denomination bars non-members from entering their church?
What, according to Lutherans, happens to people after they die? Do they 1) stay dead until the judgment day when Jesus wakes them up, or continue living in the afterlife immediately after they have died? 2) live on earth in a material body in the afterlife, or exist in some immaterial form in a "heaven"? Also, what does the Roman Catholic Church think about these same issues?
I think the Lutheran's in Germany are still known as the Evangelicals , I've have known Germans who told me that when they moved here, many years ago, the Lutheran church name surprised them
The bread and wine of Holy Communion are “not transformed” in the sense that they don’t ever stop being bread and wine, but they ARE transformed in the sense that during the mass they DO become the body and blood of Christ, which we then receive on our lips (not spiritually, but sacramentally).
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a Lutheran statement of faith that agrees with you. Lutheran statements do not say the bread and wine become anything, rather, that the body and blood are received "in, with and under" the form of bread and wine. Bread is still there, wine is still there, and Jesus body and blood are also there. Jesus body and blood are present in the bread and wine. Nothing has become anything else.
@@ReadyToHarvest As indicated previously, you are technically correct. We do not recognize Christ's presence in the Supper in a way that makes the bread and wine absent. But we do recognize that the bread IS Christ's body, and the wine IS Christ's blood. This is found in the Small Catechism, a Lutheran confession, in Article VI, the first question: "What is the Sacrament of the Altar?" Answer: "It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ..." In the Words of Institution (also incorporated into the Confessions), "This," in "This is my body," refers to the bread. Bread is not naturally Christ's body. It becomes Christ's body in the celebration of the Sacrament. This "becoming" or "transformation" is therefore a necessary inference. My point is not to force you to recognize a transformation. My point is to avoid any watering down of the emphatic Lutheran insistence that what a person receives from the altar (whether he receives with sincere faith or as a hypocrite) IS nothing less than Christ's body and blood.
@@ReadyToHarvest In affirming the presence of the Lord's body and blood in the Supper, Article X of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (Book of Concord, a.k.a. the Lutheran Confessions) approvingly site authorities from the Western and Eastern churches stating: "Their canon of the Mass testifies to this. In the canon the priest clearly prays that the bread may be CHANGED and BECOME Christ's very body. Vulgarius, who does not seem to be an unimportant writer to us, says clearly that 'bread is not a mere figure, but is truly CHANGED into flesh.'" (emphasis added) In the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Article VII, there is a lengthy discussion of Consecration and Administration. In this section the Reformers are at pains to explain: "The word or work of any man does not PRODUCE the true presence of Christ's body and blood in the Supper. This is true whether we consider the merit or recitation of the minister or the eating, drinking, or faith of the communicants." (emphasis added) So, again, the Reformers are not dwelling on the transformation of bread and wine into something more than bread and wine. They don't want us to get sidetracked into any fascination with the "magic" moment. But they are acknowledging that this is much more than mere bread and wine, and this isn't the natural state of bread and wine, but it is a change PRODUCED by the will and work of God.
I agree with most of what you have written, Eric. For example, we agree on your quotes here: 1. " We do not recognize Christ's presence in the Supper in a way that makes the bread and wine absent." 2. "But we do recognize that the bread IS Christ's body, and the wine IS Christ's blood." 3. "My point is to avoid any watering down of the emphatic Lutheran insistence that what a person receives from the altar (whether he receives with sincere faith or as a hypocrite) IS nothing less than Christ's body and blood." The quote in the Apology to the Augsburg confession is simply a quote to recognize that Catholics and Orthodox affirm real presence. It mentions that THEY believe "that bread is not a mere figure, but is truly changed into flesh." to show that those groups affirm real presence, not to say that their view is correct, because Lutherans disagree with their views. I also agree with the terminology of "changed" in your second comment, which is softer and in many contexts is an acceptable Lutheran view. There is a "change" from Christ's body and blood not being present, to it being present. And likewise the quote you give mentioning "produced" is certainly fine too, as "produced" essentially denies a transformation. Bread and Wine did not transform into Jesus Body and Blood, rather, the body and blood were produced. I am still unconvinced that the view of the bread and wine "becom[ing]" the body and Blood of Christ, or that of a "transformation" are ways that Lutherans have traditionally affirmed the understanding of the Lord's supper, but it's also not something I'm too concerned about. I just wanted you to know the logic behind the wording I used in this video. Thanks for the discussion!
@@ReadyToHarvest A great response. I think we can leave it there. Thank you for the discussion. "Transform" is not a word I would want to pick up and use, because it carries connotations that might imply transubstantiation. Lutherans reject transubstantiation on two points: 1) It says more than Scripture says about what is happening in the Supper, and 2) It is wrong to bind consciences to a doctrine that Scripture does not clearly teach. Lutherans can tolerate (not embrace) transubstantiation as a theory. It's only truly offensive as a dogma. If a Catholic says, "Lutherans reject the idea that bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ," I would say, "Yeah, sort of." But when a Protestant says the same thing, it requires a different response; because, as a group, they need to understand that there is a real and substantial change happening to the elements in the Supper. Thanks, again. It was a very good video.
In the chronology of events, which comes first ? (1) Mat.28.1 ¶In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. 2And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. (2) Jhn.20.1 ¶The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. 2Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. Let's zoom in (1) Mat.28.1...as it began to dawn... (2) Jhn.20.1...when it was yet dark... I'am confident that a 10y.o knows that "when it was yet dark ", comes before "as it began to dawn." Jhn.20.1-2 Paraphrased. Mary Magdalene arrives at the tomb when it is dark, and the tomb is empty, she hasn't seen any angels or a resurrected Measiah. Iam positive that you need a body in the tomb at sunrise to have a Easter Sunday Sunrise Resurrection. Mat.12.40For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Mat.16.21¶From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Three days, three nights, raised on the third day. Very specific, only works one way. Jhn.12.1¶Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. 2There they made him a supper; Exo.12.1¶And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, 2This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. 3Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: 6And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. When it is dark, begins the 15th, Passover. The first meal of the Feast of Unleavened Bread is the Passover meal (sedar) The 10th-14th are "preparation days" The 10th-15th is six days. Let's subtract six days from the 15th day of the month. Brings us to the 9th day of the month. He travels from Bethpage to Bethany (other three Gospels) and they prepare for him a supper. He travels, they prepare supper. This is not a Sabbath day, this is Friday the 9th, that evening begins the weekly Sabbath the 10th, they have a Sabbath night supper. Because Saturday is the Sabbath, the 10th, he rides into town on Sunday the 11th. Wednesday is the 14th, the day Israel sacrificed the Passover Lamb of God, Saturday is the 17th, He comes out of the tomb just before sundown on the weekly Sabbath, the third day. Mat.27.52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53And came out of the graves AFTER HIS RESURRECTION, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. (Aka 24 elders) These are the (G536first fruits) can be the offering or the one presenting the offering. The reader has to decide. Lev.23.9¶And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 10Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: 11And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. In this scenario Messiah is the High Priest. Messiah was resurrected just before sundown on the weekly Sabbath the 17th, the First Born from the dead. The first fruits were resurrected by the Messiah after sundown "the morrow after the sabbath", Sunday the 18th. This is the Gospel Truth, I would die for it. Second Witness Luke.24.21 b 21But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and (b) beside all this, to day is the third day SINCE these things were done. G575 SINCE, transliterated apo, to separate, especially in composition. Literally separate the first day of the week from the day of crucifixion with three days , makes Sunday the fourth day and Wednesday the day of crucifixion Good Works Eph.2.10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. What are these "good works" that God had before ordained, that we should walk in them? Let's do a quick word study on the word "WALK" Exodus 18:20 KJV - And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must WALK, and the work that they must do. Leviticus 18:3 KJV - After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye WALK in their ordinances. Leviticus 18:4 KJV - Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to WALK therein: I am the LORD your God. Deuteronomy 5:33 KJV - Ye shall WALK in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess. Deuteronomy 8:6 KJV - Therefore thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, to WALK in his ways, and to fear him. Leviticus 20:23 KJV - And ye shall not WALK in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. Deuteronomy 13:4 KJV - Ye shall WALK after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. Deuteronomy 19:9 KJV - If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the LORD thy God, and to WALK ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three: Deuteronomy 10:12 KJV - And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to WALK in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, Deuteronomy 26:17 KJV - Thou hast avouched the LORD this day to be thy God, and to WALK in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice: Deuteronomy 29:19 KJV - And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I WALK in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst: Deuteronomy 28:9 KJV - The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and WALK in his ways. Deuteronomy 30.16In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to WALK in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. This is only a partial list. Again, I believe a 10y.o could pick up on this , not rocket science. Do you know what's going on ? A Strong Delusion, brought on by the teaching of the traditions of men, as if they were the Word of God, and prefering the lie to the Truth. Also, anti Commandments of God, anti-christ. The Lie, the Council of Nicaea. The Truth, the Counsel of God, Gen-Rev. Serious times are here. Time for God's people to get serious. The same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, He who was, who is, and who is to come. Walk in His ways , you will be blessed when you come in, blessed when you go out.
I do find it interesting that some Lutherans do confessions. Nothing that I heard about until I encountered your videos. I was surprised when a girl friend whose family was methodist, and she commented on how "fancy" my Lutheran Church was, with stained glass windows, etc. While I had thought the church pretty plain compared to Catholic churches.
I'll help you out. I'm against suicide. I was depressed also to suicidal. I almost did suicide as a 5-Point Calvinist. And these scriptures got me more hope. I became more Arminian now from these scriptures I posted on here. I believe people can fail salvation. I finished this video. And I'm like Arminian and believe people can fail salvation from this scripture I found Galatians 5:19-21 that when sinning that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians was Paul's teachings, proves it can fail eternal salvation. Grandpa believed he couldn't go to Hell, and Arminians believe he could. Loving God is wanting to be useful for him much. What if a person could do that much of his time? And I enjoy working from this. People who enjoy working. When it's more likely to be boring to non-Christians. New American Standard Bible (NASB) Mark 9:33 (V)They came to Capernaum; and when He was in (W)the house, He began to question them, "What were you discussing on the way?" . Mark 9:34 But they kept silent, for on the way (X)they had discussed with one another which of them was the greatest. . Mark 9:35 Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, "(Y)If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all." . This is for Christian world domination. Why to raise kids Christians. God Son Jesus said similarly to whoever is useful the most is the best merited of the apostles. Useful merit for eternal rewards and competition with other Christians. With God Son Lord Jesus Christ faith teaching, people will want to be useful for the kingdom of Heaven, which usefulness happens on Earth and if any other place. We need to help this world as much as we can! This text could motivate, supposed to be Christian people, to do all types of usefulness. Chores, volunteering, grade school, high school, college, and work. Good people, this world needs them.
Im not sure if the Bible says anything about women not being able to be pastors. If anything women are allowed to preach if they cover their heads/hair.
Hi Monica! Speaking from experience, basing the church you go to on faith and reason is a lot more important, rather than deciding based on how nice the people are. People will always let you down eventually as we are all human...
I agree with you. However I'm only expressing my experience and not focusing on the pessimistic side of people. The Lutheran Church theological views are dear to me. And has given me inner peace and a closer relationship with my maker.
I'm puzzled by Lutheranism. The textbooks say that Luther preached salvation by faith apart from works, but a lot of Lutherans I've heard seem to teach salvation by baptism--which is also what seems to be said in this video.
No. They are not in contrast to each other. Baptism saves is simply a Bible quote (1. Peter 3, 21). We say that Baptism does save, but is not necessary for salvation in an absolute sense. So for example someone who can't be baptised anymore but converted will still be in heaven.
@@MilitantOldLady The binding document for Lutherans is the Book of Concord (Konkordienbuch) and doesn't include the 95 articles. Even though of course Lutherans agree with it.
Thank you for the video. I'm an ELCA pastor in Minnesota, and I wanted to give a little push back. In your video you say that Baptism is viewed as bringing salvation. This both is and isn't true. Like a typical Lutheran view, it's a both and. Baptism is central to our salvation, but it isn't a one time moment. We renew our baptismal promises every day. And, communion also brings salvation and the forgiveness of sins. More of this is explained in The Use of the Means of Grace document. Thanks again for your work. 2 minutes isn't a lot of time for nuance, so I understand not including a lot of nuance. :)
We are justified, sanctified and glorified through the blood of Christ. Believers do not loose their salvation. Jesus said that no one comes to the Father but by him and no one comes to him unless the Father draws him and in no way will he be cast out.
*Lutheranism* Emphasis on the authority of the Bible as the inspired and inerrant Word of God The belief in salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone, apart from works *False beliefs of Lutherans:* [1] Catholic Romanism, aka Constantine-Theodosius Romanism, aka Trinitarianism.. The use of creeds, such as the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, to express the core beliefs of the faith And hence polytheism, or three gods in three people. [2] Man-made Ritualism The celebration of the sacraments, including Holy Communion and Baptism none of which can save anyone.
As a Lutheran, I would like to point out some errors in your under informed statement. First of all, we believe that God is three individual persons in one God, not three Gods in three people. And about communion, Jesus says in the Bible “For this is my blood and flesh, take it and eat.” And so we eat. And no we are not taking it and turning it into a ritual, if anything, nowadays we water it down too much. And to point on your baptism “point” which you included no information on. Baptism is what Jesus did in his lifetime. Jesus tells us to baptize people in his name, and so we do. I hope you can understand that we only do these things because the Bible tells us to, not because we made it up or it’s a “ritual.”
@@Anxietysucks126 You: "As a Lutheran, I would like to point out some errors in.." What you would like to do is to argue against words you did not like to read because those words are causing you to have a bout of cognitive dissonance. You are challenged to read this to the end. You: " First of all, we believe that God is three individual persons in one God, not three Gods in three people" One god in three persons is that wacky false doctrine called modalism. So your god is a shape shifter? You: "And about communion, Jesus says in the Bible “For this is my blood and flesh, take it and eat." Jesus said this to you or to those whom were with him? To whom was he speaking? Your ritualism is weird, man-made, not of Jesus. Here is what happened though. You believe the words of men rather than the words of Jesus: Luke 22:14 And when the hour came, he reclined at the table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you that I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And he took in hand a cup, and after giving thanks he said, “Take this and share it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you, from now on I will not drink of the product of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and after giving thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” > Jesus is not talking about the bread. He is talking about himself, his own body. > This he says to the apostles reclining with him, break bread with each other. Do it out of love in remembrance of him. 20 And in the same way the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is poured out for you. > Again, this cup is himself. It is his blood. You: "Baptism is what Jesus did in his lifetime. Jesus tells us to baptize people in his name, and so we do. " No did not. First off, Jews engaged in ritual washing. John the Baptiser ritual washed Jews. He did so to prepare t hem with his words for the coming of the Lord of the True Sabbath, Jesus of Nazareth, a man, not a god, but the Son of God. Secondly Jesus never ritual washed anyone. The gospels are explicit on this matter (John 4:2). Thirdly, the true baptism is soul-washing, when one gets born-again at one's earthy death. It happens only upon earthly death and only if one believes Jesus is the Son of God. Since you are confused as Nicodemus was, read John 3:3-8 as many times needed, the rest of your earthly life if need be until you understand it aright. Matthew 28: 19 Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, > In the name of means by the authority of > So in the Great Commission, Jesus tells the disciples to go and give the word of God to all and do so by the authority of God and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the age.” > And here he says, teach those of the nations who become disciples of the Son, meaning himself and of the Holy Breath of God, i.e., the word of God, teaching them to observe all that Jesus command because Jesus had the Word of God inside of him without measure. You churchianity people with your religiosity have such dull hearts. Apparently, you have not listened to what you have read and those teaching you have been terrible, evil-hearted because they taught rather than merely preached. *You have the spirit of the antichrist in you.* 1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, > What does John say? Jesus COMES FROM GOD. Jesus is NOT GOD. Since you confess not this but profess Jesus is God, you are antichrist. And again only a few verses later John drives home the point: 1 John 4:9 By this the love of God is revealed in us: that God sent his one and only Son into the world in order that we may live through him. > God did what? He sent His Son. Did God send God? No. 10 In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. > And again. God sent whom? Himself? 1 John 4:12a No one has seen God at any time. > And not but two verses later, what did the CONSTANT COMPANION of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, say? > NO ONE HAS SEE GOD AT ANY TIME. > If John saw Jesus and he did and John says no one has seen God then Jesus can not be God and hence God can not be Jesus. 1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. > And yet again, John sayys GOD sent Jesus. God did not send himself. And here is why you are going to be among the goats on Doom's Day. 1 John 4:15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God resides in him and he in God. > You confess that Jesus is God and not the Son. You try to make Jesus a god, and thus believe in polytheism. Yet, when called on it, you fall back on modalism. >It is filthy what you do. Sinful. 1 John 5:5 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been fathered by God, and everyone who loves the father also loves the child fathered by him. > God FATHERED Jesus. Jesus is the CHILD FATHERED BY GOD. In what way can a father father himself or a child father himself? You Tritarianians believe in man-made inference born of polluted, sinful minds. You believe in state-sanctioned religion of Constantine-Theodosius. 1 John 5:5 Now who is the one who conquers the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? > If you believe anything but Jesus being the Son, you are not conquering the world. You are believing as some of the world have taught you. 6 This is the one who came by water and blood-Jesus Christ, not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. > Jesus, born of a woman, declared son by God at Jesus' ritual washing done by John, murdered by Jews and executed by Romans, bled to death as a man. 7 For there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement. > The Breath of God witnessed: "This is my Son in whom I am well-pleased." 1 John 5:9 If we receive the testimony of people, the testimony of God is greater, because this is the testimony of God that he has testified concerning his Son. > You receive the testimony of men: the false testimony of Trinitarianism 10 (The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. The one who does not believe God has made him, a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has testified concerning his Son.) > You do not believe that Jesus is the Son. You believe Jesus a mode of God and when you will deny that, you will claim he is "God the Son", a phrase found not on the lips of Jesus nor the apostles. > God made Jesus. He breathed into Mary Jesus. > Denying that Jesus was a man and was made makes you a liar, so says John the Beloved. > You reject the witness of God Almighty about what God has done, that God created Jesus, His Son. 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 The one who has the Son has the life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. > Since you do not have the Son but have Catholic Romanism, the weird belief of men, you are liable to doom, to be cast into the Lake of Fire, not having the promise everlasting life. In your oh-so-filthy doctrine, your god faked suffering on a cross and faked a death. What you believe is shameful blasphemy, the word of Satan. The God of the universe can not die. The Father of Jesus of Nazareth, the creator in Genesis 1 can not die and does not fake anything. Good luck!
God chooses who will be saved, but doesn’t choose anyone to be damned. Well, aren’t those he doesn’t choose to be saved damned? If he doesn’t choose you, you’re outta luck!
The west is not vastly different from the east the reason we have a karl marx is because lack of religious freedom but I don’t want to be told what to do
It is so interesting that the number of books in protestant Bible is 66 = incomplete. And also, that there are so many differences between protestant denominations. And almost no attacks of media and satanists against protestant churches.
The Lord Jesus Christ paid for the sins of the world 2000 years ago, but you must receive him as your personal Saviour (John 1:12-13) for that payment to apply to you. This happens at the same moment you are "born again" (John 3:3). This happens at the same moment you are baptized and sealed with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:12-13, 1 Corinthians 12:13). You must be born again! Sacraments do not save anyone. The ordinances of water baptism and communion are physical pictures of spiritual truths, nothing more. In John 6, the Lord Jesus Christ is contrasting physical bread with spiritual bread. He says “Your fathers did eat manna (physical bread) in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven (spiritual bread), that a man may eat thereof, and not die.” Eating the Eucharist (physical bread) does not save you. Only receiving Jesus Christ (spiritual bread) by faith as your Saviour saves you (John 1:12-13). Jesus goes on to say “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). Jesus says he is speaking about the spiritual words, not about some fleshy piece of bread that you have to keep eating repeatedly. This is the same concept we find in John 4 when Jesus talks about living water. Jesus tells the woman at the well “Whosoever drinketh of this water (physical water) shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him (spiritual water) shall never thirst” (John 4:13-14). I speak the truth to you in love. If your salvation rests upon a piece of bread you get every Sunday and some water that your parents had sprinkled on you as an infant, then you are headed for Hell. You must be born again and receive the Lord Jesus Christ as your own personal Savior. Salvation comes through faith in the shed blood on Calvary of Jesus Christ alone. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” - Romans 3:23-28 KJV
Lutheran is man made. The bible does not say it is a 66 book Canon, sola scriptura can not even determine the number of books. None of the 66 books talk about scripture alone being a final authority. The Apostles spoke as their authority to teach, and decide decisions in the Church. They decided to eliminate circumcision, while the scripture of their time (OT) required circumcision.
No brother you are wrong only elca churches advocates lgbtq lifestyle.Most moderate and conservative churces still hold the view that homosexuality is a sin and cannot be blessed in church.
Which Jesus are you following? Within 10 years after Jesus Crucifixion we find many false teachers preaching. For St. Paul had warned the church in Corinthians . "For you gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit and a gospel completely different from the Spirit and the gospel you received from us!" *2 Corinthians 11:4* False teachers, were masters in creating confusion in the minds of innocent sheep. They used ancestry to create it. Si. Paul says "I want you to stay in Ephesus, just as I urged you when I was on my way to Macedonia. Some people there are teaching false doctrines, and you must order them to stop. Tell them to give up those legends and "*those long lists of ancestors*," which only produce arguments; they do not serve God's plan, which is known by faith." 1 Timothy 1:4 The false teachers were Jews well conversed in OT and they are the ones who created the Masoretic Hebrew text to prove that Jesus is not the Messiah ! The Septuagint Bible, from which Jesus quoted the OT verses pointed towards him as the Messiah. Thats the reason why the Jews created Masoretic Hebrew text, by making a few changes in the genealogy and deleting 7 books from the Septuagint Bible. The corrupt priest, Martin Luther, called Vatican corrupt and recommended deletion of 7 books and adopting the Masoretic Hebrew text as the OT !! If Vatican was corrupt during reformation period the CHURCH OF ENGLAND would not have been formed by King Henry VIII and his successor King James would not have come out with KJV Bible. As KJV Bible has incorporated Masoretic Hebrew text as OT, its the wrong Bible for any christian who follows Jesus Christ ; who died on the cross for us sinners. Matthew 27:17-26 says So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: *Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah* ?” For he knew it was out of self-interest that they had handed Jesus over to him. So which Jesus do you follow ? If you read KJV, you follow Barrabas If you read a Catholic Bible / Bible which has the Septuagint Bible as OT ,you follow Christ !!! So which Jesus do you follow ?
Interesting how Martin Luther would have probably been horrified to learn that a secessionist line was named after him. His goal was to reform the Church, not split it.
How otherwise will you seperste yourself from the church from indocrinating a seperate religeon i beleive he would have had the knowledge to discuss this and understand it
Too much idolatry in the Catholic Church
Every schism is like "pope, I don't want to leave the Church... but I don't agree with doctrine, so... ohhh, I have been excomunicated, because I've gone too far with theology, so I will just build a new Church"
@@yakotako717I agree. If the Church is being guided by Holy Spirit and was founded by Christ, then submitting to the church is submitting to God. That's why schism is so dangerous
@@Tunafish262and yet if what’s being taught is not found in scripture or even goes against it, it needs to be reformed
Good work professor! A fair portrayal of Lutherans
These 2 minute videos are awesome! Looking forward to the series; and brother, you are doing great work to objectively depict the varying beliefs within Christianity. Thank you!
Glad to hear it, Dave!
@@ReadyToHarvest just came across your channel and I’m thinking of subbing, i see you ask for donations also ? Do you have a statement of faith of your beliefs ?
@@ReadyToHarvest Did you have a talk with your goddy recently?Any footage? Thank you.
"Ty jesteś Piotr [czyli Skała], i na tej Skale zbuduję Kościół mój."
Nie na Marcinie czy też na kimś innym. Stolica Piotrowa to Watykan i bardzo to przykre ale ówczesny uzurpator papieża papieżem nie jest ponieważ Benedykt był wybitnym znawcą języka Łacińskiego i słowa, których użył aby przekazać władzę to błąd który popełniają studenci Łaciny na pierwszym półroczu. Reasumując żyjemy bez papieża ponieważ władza nie została mu przekazana. Benedykt wiedział co robi a uzurpator przyjmuje Drac Queen na audiencji i popiera związki homoseksualne mówiąc, że to miłość? W Piśmie Świętym jest napisane, że to grzech śmiertelny a uzurpator zmienia wolę Bożą tylko, że Bóg jest niezmienny! Tuus Totus Ego Sum, Et Omnia Mea Tua Sunt! Ave Maria!
I was raised as a Lutheran but not too religious today. One of the best things I can say about it is that in all my life going to church, I never once felt there was any judgement of others by anyone. It was a place where we were taught to just be kind to everyone and treat others as you would like to be treated, with love and compassion . Never any judgement of people based on their choices in life. If you were lgbtq, a mean person, a racist person, our church would welcome you with love
I had this same experience in my church and it was some of the best memories growing up in my youth group . We even visited a mosque when 911 happened to learn about Islam beliefs and how they are so similar to ours and to love people and not judge .
@@Lelababie yikes
Why is judgement a issue? Yea I get that ppl going to church services want to feel all cozy and warm with arms opened wide, but you do realize which you may not judging by the comment you made of not “ not being too religious “ anymore that the Bible/ Paul states along with Christ in Matt 18 to do the very same thing your glad they didn’t. It’s actually the church’s role to cast judgement especially when things in the church or church body isn’t following God. Not sure if you have children, but it’s kinda like them doing something they shouldn’t and u would discipline them.
Being Lutheran is probably one of the easiest sects to follow
Probably why you are not too religious today - AKA secular. You were not given a proper understanding of Law and gospel, sin, or salvation, the depravity of man, and the need for a savior. You were taught humanism. Probably ELCA. I pray the Good Shepherd will search you out and bring you home.
I would say this 2 min explanation videos are pretty good 👍🏻
Good to hear, because I have a lot more coming very soon!
Great job of summing it up. As an LCMS member I doubt I could have done any better given the time limitations. 👍
Thanks for the video! Can you do a video on the difference between High Church and Low Church in Anglicanism ( and other Protestant denominations )? Thank you!
Yes, please!
Yes please
Yes, I agree that a focus on the "worship wars" between highly liturgical [e.g., Anglo-Catholics and Evangelical-Catholics] and "low church" within the Anglican/ Episcopal and Lutheran churches could be explored.
The difference between these Anglican parishes is quite apparent, for example:
Church of the Advent Episcopal - Boston, MA
ruclips.net/video/kGk-SqPWAPQ/видео.html&ab_channel=ChurchoftheAdvent
Trinity Anglican - Lago Vista, Texas.
ruclips.net/video/Y4EFB8Pr-i8/видео.html&ab_channel=TrinityAnglican
Two Lutheran parishes named Zion but quite different worship
Zion - Detroit, Michigan
ruclips.net/video/gmym3lFOonQ/видео.html&ab_channel=ZionEvangelical-LutheranChurchofDetroit
Zion - Ann Arbor Michigan
ruclips.net/video/r0BmB4FNJiw/видео.html&ab_channel=ZionLutheranAnnArbor
Yes, I fourth that ask✝️
In Catholicism there is High Mass or low mass. I think the High ones have incense and use organ for music. With more priests
These two-minute explanation videos are great! Thank you for making them!
These 2 minute videos are great for the basics!! Thank you.
These little bite sized over viewos are pretty awesome!
Thanks!
Hello Joshua, I've watched many of your videos and I highly admire your diligence and manner of teaching, with that being said I would love to see you make a video of your testimony and your proclamation of faith.
More feedback. You tend to focus your discussion on North American Christianity. In the case of Lutheranism, the U.S. synods tend to be more Protestant-like than European and African Lutherans. For example, the Church of Sweden is practically a carbon copy of the Church of England, thus the Porvoo Communion. One gets an accurate assessment of American Lutheranism in this video, but most Lutherans live elsewhere. Perhaps another series could spotlight Europe, where Lutheranism began and where Lutheran World Federation is centralized.
Hey Joshua! You do a very good job even on your short videos I am very impressed with your work! I’m surprised you’re able to get two videos done in just two days! That’s very impressive!
Thanks Jordan! I plan my videos out well in advance, so I worked on this series over several weeks and am now releasing them faster than I can would be able to make them. Working this way allows me to sometimes work faster, sometimes slower, but keep a good release schedule.
@@ReadyToHarvest Sounds like you got a good system!
@@SuperSpieth Honestly, I read about and watch videos on the topic of people getting burnout on youtube and I think the way I do it is the way to go. I have videos scheduled for a month in the future. It's tempting to release everything once I finish it, but this is much better for mental health. I am never rushing to get a video ready for the next weekend.
@@ReadyToHarvest Good plan! 👍
Hi bro, could you do a video comparing the denominations that make up national churches, specifically these 5:
1. Catholic Church (Roman Catholic)
2. Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern Orthodox)
3. Anglican Communion
4. Lutheran World Federation
5. Oriental Orthodox Communion
Love your videos and how you give just the facts
A good quick summary. The point about the state churches at 1:28 is a good one and could be expanded as you note
Interesting Video! Quick note: In Germany there are "state churches" or Landeskirchen, who are either Unionist (Union of Lutherans and Reformed) or Lutheran. So the "Evangelische Landeskirche in Hessen/Nassau" for example is Unionst whereas the "Evangelisch-Lutherische Landeskirche Sachsens" is a "pure" Lutheran state Church.
Good comment! For anyone who wants to learn more about that (And hear of American denominations that were affected by this Reformed-Lutheran marriage,) see my video "Some Times Denominations mixed" ruclips.net/video/PVnsYMzBJ0g/видео.html
Please do your research correctly. The Evangelische Landeskirche in Württemberg isn't Unionist it is purely Lutheran. It's even on Wikipedia.
Korrekt
I think you raise a good point in your comment about "the Book of Concord counts confession as a sacrament but not all Lutheran denominations practice it" (presumably the Pietistic low church branches?)
Lutheranism isn't defined by what the sum total of all self-described "Lutherans" claim to believe and practice, synthesized and repackaged as a systematic theology. The Book of Concord would still be the final and exclusive description of authentic Lutheran even if all "Lutheran" denominations in the world held to other positions.
That's a good thing to bring out. How do we define a denomination/tradition: sociologically, or confessionally?
My local parish is high church Lutheran that practices confession and absolution. It’s in every liturgy and done privately. It’s all I’ve ever known as a Lutheran. The other 2 Lutheran churches in my area are high church as well. It would be strange to worship at a pietistic heavy low church Lutheran church as I can’t imagine it. I agree also, Lutheranism is defined by our confessions full stop. If you throw out or minimize the BOC too much you’ve left the Augsburg Church.
I found it strange too that the video said that "not all Lutherans practice confession". I've never heard of a Lutheran church that didn't. Even Pietistic Lutherans, such as Laestadian Lutherans, practice confession.
Agree that Holy Absolution is certainly the practice but alas, many Lutherans no longer go to private confession since absolution is provided at the start of Mass. I was raised in the LCMS where private confession was held 30 minutes before the Eucharist. We were expected to make our first confession before being confirmed.
@@someoneveryclever It would be more accurate to say, "not all Lutherans practice PRIVATE confession" Lutheran liturgies contain confession and absolution, usually at the very beginning of the service.
Would have liked it more of you‘d have explained more with what Luther had problem. But nice video.
God bless you.
Concise and accurate summary. I would have added ecclesiastical differences from episcopacy to congregational.
I knew I should have shoved something in that leftover 10 seconds. :-)
It varies based on the denomination.
A very fine informative video, cheers !
Once again - great job!
Hooray Lutherans! I’m part of the original Augsburg denomination in Europe.
Jordan Cooper has a great way of summarizing it by saying that, at a bare minimum, to be a Lutheran is to affirm the Augsburg Confession and Luther’s Small Catechism.
Very organized and easily understandable!!!!!
It's amazing how much can be said in only 2 minutes !
Nice overview!
do this for all the major denominations please
Thank you for educating me.
At my LCMS church, we do public confession and absolution. Private confession can requested. Not all LCMS churches are the same, mine is more high church than others. So it's a challenge to find one like my home church when on vacation.
I'd be interested in the topic of Swedish Lutherans in particular. Do they hold any perhaps "unique" beliefs or traditions?
These are great videos
As a Lutheran I thank you for representing us accurately in a short time span
Thanx, Joshua 🌹🌹🌹🌹
Maybe do some on what Synods are, and the various one's in existence.
Just a short information:
The ,,Evangelische Landeskirche Anhalts" shown at 1:29 is not lutheran. It is ,,uniert", which means that it combines elements from lutheran as well as reformed theology. The ,,Kirchenunion" or the Church Union of some German churches, was caused by a former prussian king who forced a union between the lutheran and reformed churches in his kingdom with the intend of lowering tensions between his subjects.
Can you please do one on Free Methodists?
Any Huguenot videos yet?
Question: To the Communion: Do Lutherans believe plainly said in a spiritual presence of Christ/Body&Blood? In comparison to Presbyterians.
We first and foremost stick to the Words of Christ: “This is my body”, “this is my blood”. “Is” means “is”. In comparison to Presbyterians, we believe Christ’s true, physical, real presence is there in, with, and under the bread and wine. We have also called this the “sacramental union”; whereby Christ’s 2 natures are really present in Communion. In comparison to the Roman Church, we don’t deny the bread and wine are still present. In comparison to the East, we reject the term and human philosophy of “consubstantiation”.
Only thing missing from this is the main doctrine: Justification by Faith only. This isn’t a minor add-on, but the primary doctrine.
LCMS here...good job in the time frame. For those interested, Just & Sinner RUclips channel ,is doing a series on the Eucharist.
What Lutheran's teach about the Eucharist is 100% FALSE and is "another gospel" (2 Cor 11:4)
As I said elsewhere in reply to this video...
It is BEYOND RIDICULOUS to assert that infant baptism "brings salvation".
NO IT DOES NOT. That is a satanic trick that Satan sneaks into the church to nullify and eclipse the glorious person and work of Christ alone.
Furthermore, Mr. Luther demanded that a belief in Christ's ***BODILY*** presence at communion was necessary for salvation. THAT, sir, is not in the Bible and is AGAIN, another trick to add something to the impeccable credentials of Christ alone!
In the book of Galatians, Paul curses those who would seek to add even one thing to the gospel; namely, any aspect of the ceremonial law. Now Mr. Luther said to Zwingli, "We hold the belief of Christ's bodily presence in the Lord's Supper to be essential to salvation, and we cannot in conscience regard you as in the communion of the church....we acknowledge you as friends; we do not consider you as brothers" (Page 563).
books.google.com/books?id=kFU-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA560&lpg=PA560&dq=is+the+body+of+jesus+in+one+place+at+a+time&source=bl&ots=f4kku7dDu3&sig=WdD-l_KLKxzPNeXAo2EDe3PX81g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm7o7UwuXRAhUJ5WMKHeQrAzgQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=is%20the%20body%20of%20jesus%20in%20one%20place%20at%20a%20time&f=false
While I do agree with Luther that we are saved by the merits of Christ alone, there is no escaping the fact that his addendum to the gospel (namely, Christ's BODILY presence at communion) is on the same level as the cursed requirement the Galatians were proposing. He unequivocally nullifies his own "faith alone" theology by adding the BODILY presence of Christ at communion or it's off to hell you go.
Certainly all Christians will get to heaven with an imperfect theology; however, in light of 2 Cor 11:4, there certainly is such a thing as crossing over into, "another jesus and another gospel", and I fear Mr. Luther clearly crossed that line, essentially contradicting his own "faith alone" theology for salvation.
So get it straight: Jesus said his BODILY presence was "GOING AWAY" about 10 times in the New Testament (John 13:1, 14:2, 14:19, 14:28, 16:5-7, 16:29, 16:10, 7:34, 17:11).
Thus, the Lutheran belief that Christ is BODILY present... "in some way" (as they vaguely like to say in their literature)... via a piece of bread is no more necessary for salvation than there is a man in the moon. Considering that God sees EVERYTHING and is thus EVERYWHERE anyway (Psalm 139:8, Jer 23:23, Zech 4:10, Matt 18:20, Acts 17:27), makes the Lutheran demand that we believe he is "somehow" present, a deadly and unnecessary addendum to the gospel which Paul would surely reject if he were alive today.
I’m curious, has Ready to Harvest ever disclosed which denomination he personally belongs to?
I don't know if Joshua has disclosed it, but other commenters on these videos claim he is a Baptist and a professor at a Baptist college. I would've guessed he is an Independent Baptist because he compares and contrasts so many denominations with the Independent Baptists.
For about a year there's all these things about Lutherans. It's never caused any curiosity whatsoever. This morning I decided to hear what they have to say.
Luther also introduced congregational singing
Great job! I'm a reformed Christian, so I don't agree with Lutherans on everything, but have a great respect for them. My biggest issue with Lutheranism is that I can never get a straight answer from them regarding what they believe baptism means/does. In this video, you mentioned that they believe it brings salvation, but I've heard it explained other ways too. It's confusing.
I think it might depend on the branch of Lutheran that the pastor or person comes from. I am pretty sure my communion within the Church of Lutheran Bretheren never mentioned baptism as Salvation bringing as they had a bit of a decision based theology. Now the Lutheran church I go to part of the LCMS, Baptism is when the Holy Spirit enters the individual and is necessary for Salvation. I'm not sure if I'm on board with that.
@@erichardzz Your Church per Wikipedia:
"In addition to the denominational statement of faith, the church adheres to the following historic confessions: the Apostles' Creed, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, the Augsburg Confession, and Luther's Small Catechism. Its strong emphasis on missions and evangelism and its stand for non-liturgical worship and a church composed only of confessing Christians differentiate it from most Lutherans in America. The CLBA considers itself to be "Lutheran in theological tradition and evangelical in practice".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Lutheran_Brethren_of_America
That makes sense because the article doesn't mention that they adopt the Book of Concord which from what the video said is where you would find the info about Baptism.
As a fellow Reformed Christian, I think of what Westminster Confession 27.2 says of the sacraments:
"There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other."
The way I see it is that most Reformed Christians prefer to speak in terms of the thing signified (e.g. regeneration, repentance), whereas Lutherans tend to speak in terms of the sign (baptism). Both are correct, but we mustn't confuse Lutheran Baptism with being about the mere water ceremony, but about what God is doing in the sacramental union of the sacrament.
I happen to really like how Luther put it in the Large Catechism as found on the Book of Concord website, Holy Baptism section 22:
"Therefore I exhort again that these two, the water and the Word, by no means be separated from one another and parted. *For if the Word is separated from it, the water is the same as that with which the servant cooks, and may indeed be called a bath-keeper’s baptism.* But when it is added, as God has ordained, it is a Sacrament, and is called Christ-baptism."
And sections 74-75:
"And here you see that Baptism, both in its power and signification, comprehends also the third Sacrament, *which has been called repentance, as it is really nothing else than Baptism.* For what else is repentance but an earnest attack upon the old man [that his lusts be restrained] and entering upon a new life? *Therefore, if you live in repentance, you walk in Baptism,* which not only signifies such a new life, but also produces, begins, and exercises it."
So there is a distinction made between the mere water ceremony and one properly performed, and a difference between someone who got wet at some point in their life, and someone living in repentance. So baptism saves, not because a priest did some ceremony on a person, but because of what God does, and not because the mere water caused salvation, but because the person is walking in a repentant lifestyle, restraining his lusts and entering upon the new life, the same sort of fruits we Reformed look to know God's handiwork on a person.
So for Lutherans baptism is NORMATIVELY necessary for Salvation. Yes, we confess that Baptismal regeneration does, indeed, save, but we do not limit God in that He can only save those who are baptized, such as the (tiresomely mentioned) thief on the Cross. Those who are not baptized but have faith may be saved, because the mercy of God knows no bounds.
However, if you are a Christian, and you have the opportunity to get baptized but refuse to… why? Im not saying you won’t be saved, but there’s literally no reason not to do it unless you’re, like, allergic to water lmao
This video explains it better: ruclips.net/video/6p7a-kTcSZo/видео.html
I did not realise there were different denominations of Lutherans however I guess that would make sense!
There are different Synods, but the only real division is between the conservative confessional Lutherans, and the liberals. Even though there are different Synods, as long as they hold to the confessions, there is very little difference. The beliefs are the same, and pastors from different Synods can preach in otheres so long as they hold to the confessions.
Unless the denomination in question is fairly new, they all have undergone splits. Thus there are different denominations of Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, etc. etc. etc.
@@bigscarysteve I knew there were different denominations of Presbyterians, Baptists, Unitarians, Evangelicals, Pentecostals among others. I am also aware that there were groups who broke away from the Catholic Church after the 2nd Vatican Council which still have the Mass in Latin!
Not every denomination that has Lutheran in their name is truly Lutheran. Only those who hold to the Book of Concord.
Martin Luther makes a pertinent observation in the sixteenth chapter of his Commentary on St. John “We are obliged to yield many things to the papists [Catholics]-that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”
So are Lutherans considered “reformed” today? Or is there a difference?
I am conservative Lutheran. I converted back again this year.
Pretty sure Luther taught salvation by faith alone and once saved always saved. He did change positions on things in his life, but it's pretty well known that Luther and Lutherans are distinct groups.
He didn’t teach “once saved always saved” doctrine. He did teach justification by faith alone, though… which is correct doctrine. ;)
@@zarnoffa Luther was very much a determinist who believed in eternal security from the various quotes I read.
@@CameronKiesser
He didn’t aim to reconcile the two sides of free will and predestination. You’re definitely secure if you have faith, but he definitely taught you can lose faith and the Spirit.
@@zarnoffa Yes he did teach faith alone, but he nullified it by ADDING something to faith!
As I said elsewhere in reply to the video...
It is BEYOND RIDICULOUS to assert that infant baptism "brings salvation".
NO IT DOES NOT. That is a satanic trick that Satan sneaks into the church to nullify and eclipse the glorious person and work of Christ alone.
Furthermore, Mr. Luther demanded that a belief in Christ's ***BODILY*** presence at communion was necessary for salvation. THAT, sir, is not in the Bible and is AGAIN, another trick to add something to the impeccable credentials of Christ alone!
In the book of Galatians, Paul curses those who would seek to add even one thing to the gospel; namely, any aspect of the ceremonial law. Now Mr. Luther said to Zwingli, "We hold the belief of Christ's bodily presence in the Lord's Supper to be essential to salvation, and we cannot in conscience regard you as in the communion of the church....we acknowledge you as friends; we do not consider you as brothers" (Page 563).
books.google.com/books?id=kFU-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA560&lpg=PA560&dq=is+the+body+of+jesus+in+one+place+at+a+time&source=bl&ots=f4kku7dDu3&sig=WdD-l_KLKxzPNeXAo2EDe3PX81g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm7o7UwuXRAhUJ5WMKHeQrAzgQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=is%20the%20body%20of%20jesus%20in%20one%20place%20at%20a%20time&f=false
While I do agree with Luther that we are saved by the merits of Christ alone, there is no escaping the fact that his addendum to the gospel (namely, Christ's BODILY presence at communion) is on the same level as the cursed requirement the Galatians were proposing. He unequivocally nullifies his own "faith alone" theology by adding the BODILY presence of Christ at communion or it's off to hell you go.
Certainly all Christians will get to heaven with an imperfect theology; however, in light of 2 Cor 11:4, there certainly is such a thing as crossing over into, "another jesus and another gospel", and I fear Mr. Luther clearly crossed that line, essentially contradicting his own "faith alone" theology for salvation.
So get it straight: Jesus said his BODILY presence was "GOING AWAY" about 10 times in the New Testament (John 13:1, 14:2, 14:19, 14:28, 16:5-7, 16:29, 16:10, 7:34, 17:11).
Thus, the Lutheran belief that Christ is BODILY present... "in some way" (as they vaguely like to say in their literature)... via a piece of bread is no more necessary for salvation than there is a man in the moon. Considering that God sees EVERYTHING and is thus EVERYWHERE anyway (Psalm 139:8, Jer 23:23, Zech 4:10, Matt 18:20, Acts 17:27), makes the Lutheran demand that we believe he is "somehow" present, a deadly and unnecessary addendum to the gospel which Paul would surely reject if he were alive today.
@@CameronKiesser You've read them wrong.
I was a Catholic priest for 29 years, and now I am a happy and blessed pastor at ELCA.
Love
Austria here (not Australia). I once was Protestant, which is the same as Lutheran (right?) or evangelisch as it is called in German, which is a clear minority in my country. Up to my early teenage years, decades ago *sigh*, I was in church at least once a year at the beginning of every school year. I can not recall to ever have had communion, expect - maybe - at the First Communion mess, when I was about 13 y old, which is a one time thing and should last for life, if I understand correctly. In elementary school I was at a summer camp for 3 weeks. It wasn't religious at all, but those days they still dragged us kids to church on Sundays. We few "Evangelische" had to go with all the others to a Catholic mess (Muslims weren't on the radar back in the day), but we were exempt from getting communion. And if memory serves we had a one size fits all confession and repentance during the First Communion ceremony, but never a personal one. Overall the "evangelische" church is a kind of "katholische" church light in my experience.
It gets silly pretty quickly. Apparently, Luther would have rather be thought of an evangelist. However words like Evangelist and Protestant became associated with non-Lutheran churches. It is just words at this point with no meaning.
For example the word "orthodox" too. People have hijacked that word too. Now they claim there is an "orthodox" church. Failing to understand that for example, a Lutheran can also be orthodox. So Lutherans should be considered orthodox and could be known as evangelists/evangelical. However all these words are hijacked and laid claim to.
Much the same as how Roman Catholicism ruined the word "catholic" which used to mean universal but now means a cult with idols that prays to dead people same as eastern orthodox are a cult that have idolatry, Mary worship and praying to dead people.
So I could say I am an orthodox Lutheran evangelist Christian but everyone would laugh at me and say that is impossible. Words are meaningless anymore.
Have you seen the Lutheran Satire reformation piggybackers?
@@br.m I have now :).
I think it's different in different countries. Here we had nearly only Catholics with a few Protestants in the mix. They are always only called "Evangelische" or "Protestanten", which both means the same. If there's a difference, as good as nobody knows about it. I feel it became more diverse, because of immigration from the ex-Yugoslavia states. I was surprised that Orthodox Christians, as defined groups within the Christian umbrella, actually slightly overtook the Protestants according to Wikipedia. But the diversity is nothing compared to the US, were religions are more like a business model. I was even more surprised though, how much the Churches declined in the last decades. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Austria
"don't see the Bible as INerrant." Double negatives confuses things. I don't believe this was intentional, but as an English scholar I take words (especially, The Word ) seriously to the letter.
Can you do a video on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?
He does cults also?
It’s not a cult in the pejorative sense you’re using, but if you want to go by the dictionary then all of Christianity and most other faith systems are cults as well
@@LHJlives I call it a cult as they deviate from the core doctrine required for any Christian. They are secretive not allowing non LDS people (Christian or not) to enter their temples for marriage ceremonies, or regular church services. What Christian denomination bars non-members from entering their church?
I feel cheated. Only got 1:48. J/K, I love them.
You can fill in the twelve seconds with the extra time from a few upcoming videos that overflow the two minute barrier. :-)
All good stuff, except ALL Lutherans practice confession, at least publicly. Private confession is what’s hard to find.
You shall know them by their fruits. Schism, more division, more schism. Perpetual changing of what the truth claim is.
What, according to Lutherans, happens to people after they die? Do they 1) stay dead until the judgment day when Jesus wakes them up, or continue living in the afterlife immediately after they have died? 2) live on earth in a material body in the afterlife, or exist in some immaterial form in a "heaven"?
Also, what does the Roman Catholic Church think about these same issues?
Will you plan making a TikTok account for your 2 min videos?
Some of these videos are already on tiktok, in vertical format. Check it out www.tiktok.com/@readytoharvest
I think the Lutheran's in Germany are still known as the Evangelicals , I've have known Germans who told me that when they moved here, many years ago, the Lutheran church name surprised them
The bread and wine of Holy Communion are “not transformed” in the sense that they don’t ever stop being bread and wine, but they ARE transformed in the sense that during the mass they DO become the body and blood of Christ, which we then receive on our lips (not spiritually, but sacramentally).
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a Lutheran statement of faith that agrees with you. Lutheran statements do not say the bread and wine become anything, rather, that the body and blood are received "in, with and under" the form of bread and wine. Bread is still there, wine is still there, and Jesus body and blood are also there. Jesus body and blood are present in the bread and wine. Nothing has become anything else.
@@ReadyToHarvest As indicated previously, you are technically correct. We do not recognize Christ's presence in the Supper in a way that makes the bread and wine absent. But we do recognize that the bread IS Christ's body, and the wine IS Christ's blood. This is found in the Small Catechism, a Lutheran confession, in Article VI, the first question: "What is the Sacrament of the Altar?" Answer: "It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ..." In the Words of Institution (also incorporated into the Confessions), "This," in "This is my body," refers to the bread. Bread is not naturally Christ's body. It becomes Christ's body in the celebration of the Sacrament. This "becoming" or "transformation" is therefore a necessary inference.
My point is not to force you to recognize a transformation. My point is to avoid any watering down of the emphatic Lutheran insistence that what a person receives from the altar (whether he receives with sincere faith or as a hypocrite) IS nothing less than Christ's body and blood.
@@ReadyToHarvest In affirming the presence of the Lord's body and blood in the Supper, Article X of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (Book of Concord, a.k.a. the Lutheran Confessions) approvingly site authorities from the Western and Eastern churches stating: "Their canon of the Mass testifies to this. In the canon the priest clearly prays that the bread may be CHANGED and BECOME Christ's very body. Vulgarius, who does not seem to be an unimportant writer to us, says clearly that 'bread is not a mere figure, but is truly CHANGED into flesh.'" (emphasis added)
In the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Article VII, there is a lengthy discussion of Consecration and Administration. In this section the Reformers are at pains to explain: "The word or work of any man does not PRODUCE the true presence of Christ's body and blood in the Supper. This is true whether we consider the merit or recitation of the minister or the eating, drinking, or faith of the communicants." (emphasis added)
So, again, the Reformers are not dwelling on the transformation of bread and wine into something more than bread and wine. They don't want us to get sidetracked into any fascination with the "magic" moment. But they are acknowledging that this is much more than mere bread and wine, and this isn't the natural state of bread and wine, but it is a change PRODUCED by the will and work of God.
I agree with most of what you have written, Eric.
For example, we agree on your quotes here:
1. " We do not recognize Christ's presence in the Supper in a way that makes the bread and wine absent."
2. "But we do recognize that the bread IS Christ's body, and the wine IS Christ's blood."
3. "My point is to avoid any watering down of the emphatic Lutheran insistence that what a person receives from the altar (whether he receives with sincere faith or as a hypocrite) IS nothing less than Christ's body and blood."
The quote in the Apology to the Augsburg confession is simply a quote to recognize that Catholics and Orthodox affirm real presence. It mentions that THEY believe "that bread is not a mere figure, but is truly changed into flesh." to show that those groups affirm real presence, not to say that their view is correct, because Lutherans disagree with their views.
I also agree with the terminology of "changed" in your second comment, which is softer and in many contexts is an acceptable Lutheran view. There is a "change" from Christ's body and blood not being present, to it being present. And likewise the quote you give mentioning "produced" is certainly fine too, as "produced" essentially denies a transformation. Bread and Wine did not transform into Jesus Body and Blood, rather, the body and blood were produced.
I am still unconvinced that the view of the bread and wine "becom[ing]" the body and Blood of Christ, or that of a "transformation" are ways that Lutherans have traditionally affirmed the understanding of the Lord's supper, but it's also not something I'm too concerned about. I just wanted you to know the logic behind the wording I used in this video. Thanks for the discussion!
@@ReadyToHarvest A great response. I think we can leave it there. Thank you for the discussion.
"Transform" is not a word I would want to pick up and use, because it carries connotations that might imply transubstantiation. Lutherans reject transubstantiation on two points: 1) It says more than Scripture says about what is happening in the Supper, and 2) It is wrong to bind consciences to a doctrine that Scripture does not clearly teach.
Lutherans can tolerate (not embrace) transubstantiation as a theory. It's only truly offensive as a dogma. If a Catholic says, "Lutherans reject the idea that bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ," I would say, "Yeah, sort of." But when a Protestant says the same thing, it requires a different response; because, as a group, they need to understand that there is a real and substantial change happening to the elements in the Supper.
Thanks, again. It was a very good video.
Believe in this because of the spiritual power that comes with it but know that it doesn’t work for everyone
Does it really matter?
In the chronology of events, which comes first ?
(1)
Mat.28.1 ¶In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
2And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
(2)
Jhn.20.1 ¶The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
Let's zoom in
(1) Mat.28.1...as it began to dawn...
(2) Jhn.20.1...when it was yet dark...
I'am confident that a 10y.o knows that "when it was yet dark ", comes before "as it began to dawn."
Jhn.20.1-2 Paraphrased. Mary Magdalene arrives at the tomb when it is dark, and the tomb is empty, she hasn't seen any angels or a resurrected Measiah.
Iam positive that you need a body in the tomb at sunrise to have a Easter Sunday Sunrise Resurrection.
Mat.12.40For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Mat.16.21¶From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Three days, three nights, raised on the third day.
Very specific, only works one way.
Jhn.12.1¶Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.
2There they made him a supper;
Exo.12.1¶And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying,
2This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.
3Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:
6And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.
When it is dark, begins the 15th, Passover. The first meal of the Feast of Unleavened Bread is the Passover meal (sedar)
The 10th-14th are "preparation days"
The 10th-15th is six days.
Let's subtract six days from the 15th day of the month. Brings us to the 9th day of the month.
He travels from Bethpage to Bethany (other three Gospels) and they prepare for him a supper. He travels, they prepare supper. This is not a Sabbath day, this is Friday the 9th, that evening begins the weekly Sabbath the 10th, they have a Sabbath night supper. Because Saturday is the Sabbath, the 10th, he rides into town on Sunday the 11th.
Wednesday is the 14th, the day Israel sacrificed the Passover Lamb of God, Saturday is the 17th, He comes out of the tomb just before sundown on the weekly Sabbath, the third day.
Mat.27.52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53And came out of the graves AFTER HIS RESURRECTION, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. (Aka 24 elders)
These are the (G536first fruits) can be the offering or the one presenting the offering. The reader has to decide.
Lev.23.9¶And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
10Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest:
11And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.
In this scenario Messiah is the High Priest.
Messiah was resurrected just before sundown on the weekly Sabbath the 17th, the First Born from the dead. The first fruits were resurrected by the Messiah after sundown "the morrow after the sabbath", Sunday the 18th.
This is the Gospel Truth, I would die for it.
Second Witness
Luke.24.21 b
21But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and (b) beside all this, to day is the third day SINCE these things were done.
G575 SINCE, transliterated apo, to separate, especially in composition. Literally separate the first day of the week from the day of crucifixion with three days , makes Sunday the fourth day and Wednesday the day of crucifixion
Good Works
Eph.2.10
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
What are these "good works" that God had before ordained, that we should walk in them?
Let's do a quick word study on the word "WALK"
Exodus 18:20 KJV - And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must WALK, and the work that they must do.
Leviticus 18:3 KJV - After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye WALK in their ordinances.
Leviticus 18:4 KJV - Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to WALK therein: I am the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 5:33 KJV - Ye shall WALK in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.
Deuteronomy 8:6 KJV - Therefore thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, to WALK in his ways, and to fear him.
Leviticus 20:23 KJV - And ye shall not WALK in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
Deuteronomy 13:4 KJV - Ye shall WALK after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
Deuteronomy 19:9 KJV - If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the LORD thy God, and to WALK ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three:
Deuteronomy 10:12 KJV - And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to WALK in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,
Deuteronomy 26:17 KJV - Thou hast avouched the LORD this day to be thy God, and to WALK in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice:
Deuteronomy 29:19 KJV - And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I WALK in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst:
Deuteronomy 28:9 KJV - The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and WALK in his ways.
Deuteronomy 30.16In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to WALK in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
This is only a partial list.
Again, I believe a 10y.o could pick up on this , not rocket science.
Do you know what's going on ?
A Strong Delusion, brought on by the teaching of the traditions of men, as if they were the Word of God, and prefering the lie to the Truth.
Also, anti Commandments of God,
anti-christ.
The Lie, the Council of Nicaea.
The Truth, the Counsel of God, Gen-Rev.
Serious times are here. Time for God's people to get serious.
The same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, He who was, who is, and who is to come.
Walk in His ways , you will be blessed when you come in, blessed when you go out.
You forgot about the ketchup. :-D
I do find it interesting that some Lutherans do confessions. Nothing that I heard about until I encountered your videos. I was surprised when a girl friend whose family was methodist, and she commented on how "fancy" my Lutheran Church was, with stained glass windows, etc. While I had thought the church pretty plain compared to Catholic churches.
I'll help you out.
I'm against suicide. I was depressed also to suicidal. I almost did suicide as a 5-Point Calvinist. And these scriptures got me more hope.
I became more Arminian now from these scriptures I posted on here. I believe people can fail salvation.
I finished this video. And I'm like Arminian and believe people can fail salvation from this scripture I found Galatians 5:19-21 that when sinning that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians was Paul's teachings, proves it can fail eternal salvation. Grandpa believed he couldn't go to Hell, and Arminians believe he could.
Loving God is wanting to be useful for him much. What if a person could do that much of his time? And I enjoy working from this. People who enjoy working. When it's more likely to be boring to non-Christians.
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Mark 9:33 (V)They came to Capernaum; and when He was in (W)the house, He began to question them, "What were you discussing on the way?"
.
Mark 9:34 But they kept silent, for on the way (X)they had discussed with one another which of them was the greatest.
.
Mark 9:35 Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, "(Y)If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all."
.
This is for Christian world domination. Why to raise kids Christians. God Son Jesus said similarly to whoever is useful the most is the best merited of the apostles. Useful merit for eternal rewards and competition with other Christians. With God Son Lord Jesus Christ faith teaching, people will want to be useful for the kingdom of Heaven, which usefulness happens on Earth and if any other place. We need to help this world as much as we can!
This text could motivate, supposed to be Christian people, to do all types of usefulness. Chores, volunteering, grade school, high school, college, and work. Good people, this world needs them.
As a Calvinist, Lutheranism makes a ton of sense, but I have a bit if a gripe with the whole young earth creationism stuff.
😂
The former Swedish State church, Svenska kyrkan, has women pastors and HBTQ-marriges
Sounds like the Lutheran Church (LCMS) have their act together. Sounds like if it's in the Bible they believe, if it's not they don't write it in.
Im not sure if the Bible says anything about women not being able to be pastors. If anything women are allowed to preach if they cover their heads/hair.
Hello beautiful people. Can I make your day? It's gonna be okay.
If God chooses who is saved, doesn't that mean he also indirectly chose who will not be saved AKA damned? That doesn't make sense to me
I joined a Lutheran Church they are the kindest most accepting environment I've entered. So peaceful
Hi Monica! Speaking from experience, basing the church you go to on faith and reason is a lot more important, rather than deciding based on how nice the people are. People will always let you down eventually as we are all human...
I agree with you. However I'm only expressing my experience and not focusing on the pessimistic side of people. The Lutheran Church theological views are dear to me. And has given me inner peace and a closer relationship with my maker.
A very big problem is, they are involved in the 501c3 incorporation.
I don’t understand how god chooses who’s saved but not who’s damned ?
Makes Me A Vedanta
I'm puzzled by Lutheranism. The textbooks say that Luther preached salvation by faith apart from works, but a lot of Lutherans I've heard seem to teach salvation by baptism--which is also what seems to be said in this video.
I would only go by the 95 thesis, not what people say.
No. They are not in contrast to each other. Baptism saves is simply a Bible quote (1. Peter 3, 21). We say that Baptism does save, but is not necessary for salvation in an absolute sense. So for example someone who can't be baptised anymore but converted will still be in heaven.
Indeed, because Baptism is not a work of man, but a work of God to us. We call it a "means of Grace," because it's a way God's grace is given to us.
@@MilitantOldLady The binding document for Lutherans is the Book of Concord (Konkordienbuch) and doesn't include the 95 articles. Even though of course Lutherans agree with it.
You misunderstand the subject and object of baptism and its purpose.
Don't forget that liberal sects recognize female and gay pastors. I was raised in an ELCA church, and the first two pastors I knew were female.
Thank you for the video. I'm an ELCA pastor in Minnesota, and I wanted to give a little push back. In your video you say that Baptism is viewed as bringing salvation. This both is and isn't true. Like a typical Lutheran view, it's a both and. Baptism is central to our salvation, but it isn't a one time moment. We renew our baptismal promises every day. And, communion also brings salvation and the forgiveness of sins. More of this is explained in The Use of the Means of Grace document.
Thanks again for your work. 2 minutes isn't a lot of time for nuance, so I understand not including a lot of nuance. :)
Why must every denomination have a gay marriage spin-off now
Because too many people within them love the world rather than God.
Because gay people exist. Pretty simple.
Lust
We are justified, sanctified and glorified through the blood of Christ. Believers do not loose their salvation. Jesus said that no one comes to the Father but by him and no one comes to him unless the Father draws him and in no way will he be cast out.
Hope it's okay to ask but are you a follower of christ?
Yes I am!
I’m confused my last 2 Lutheran pastors have been women
😂
*Lutheranism*
Emphasis on the authority of the Bible as the inspired and inerrant Word of God
The belief in salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone, apart from works
*False beliefs of Lutherans:*
[1] Catholic Romanism, aka Constantine-Theodosius Romanism, aka Trinitarianism..
The use of creeds, such as the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, to express the core beliefs of the faith
And hence polytheism, or three gods in three people.
[2] Man-made Ritualism
The celebration of the sacraments, including Holy Communion and Baptism
none of which can save anyone.
As a Lutheran, I would like to point out some errors in your under informed statement. First of all, we believe that God is three individual persons in one God, not three Gods in three people. And about communion, Jesus says in the Bible “For this is my blood and flesh, take it and eat.” And so we eat. And no we are not taking it and turning it into a ritual, if anything, nowadays we water it down too much. And to point on your baptism “point” which you included no information on. Baptism is what Jesus did in his lifetime. Jesus tells us to baptize people in his name, and so we do. I hope you can understand that we only do these things because the Bible tells us to, not because we made it up or it’s a “ritual.”
@@Anxietysucks126 You: "As a Lutheran, I would like to point out some errors in.."
What you would like to do is to argue against words you did not like to read because those words are causing you to have a bout of cognitive dissonance.
You are challenged to read this to the end.
You: " First of all, we believe that God is three individual persons in one God, not three Gods in three people"
One god in three persons is that wacky false doctrine called modalism.
So your god is a shape shifter?
You: "And about communion, Jesus says in the Bible “For this is my blood and flesh, take it and eat."
Jesus said this to you or to those whom were with him? To whom was he speaking?
Your ritualism is weird, man-made, not of Jesus.
Here is what happened though. You believe the words of men rather than the words of Jesus:
Luke 22:14 And when the hour came, he reclined at the table, and the apostles with him. 15 And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you that I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And he took in hand a cup, and after giving thanks he said, “Take this and share it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you, from now on I will not drink of the product of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19 And he took bread, and after giving thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
> Jesus is not talking about the bread. He is talking about himself, his own body.
> This he says to the apostles reclining with him, break bread with each other. Do it out of love in remembrance of him.
20 And in the same way the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is poured out for you.
> Again, this cup is himself. It is his blood.
You: "Baptism is what Jesus did in his lifetime. Jesus tells us to baptize people in his name, and so we do. "
No did not.
First off, Jews engaged in ritual washing. John the Baptiser ritual washed Jews. He did so to prepare t hem with his words for the coming of the Lord of the True Sabbath, Jesus of Nazareth, a man, not a god, but the Son of God.
Secondly Jesus never ritual washed anyone. The gospels are explicit on this matter (John 4:2).
Thirdly, the true baptism is soul-washing, when one gets born-again at one's earthy death. It happens only upon earthly death and only if one believes Jesus is the Son of God. Since you are confused as Nicodemus was, read John 3:3-8 as many times needed, the rest of your earthly life if need be until you understand it aright.
Matthew 28: 19 Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
> In the name of means by the authority of
> So in the Great Commission, Jesus tells the disciples to go and give the word of God to all and do so by the authority of God
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the age.”
> And here he says, teach those of the nations who become disciples of the Son, meaning himself and of the Holy Breath of God, i.e., the word of God, teaching them to observe all that Jesus command because Jesus had the Word of God inside of him without measure.
You churchianity people with your religiosity have such dull hearts.
Apparently, you have not listened to what you have read and those teaching you have been terrible, evil-hearted because they taught rather than merely preached.
*You have the spirit of the antichrist in you.*
1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist,
> What does John say? Jesus COMES FROM GOD. Jesus is NOT GOD.
Since you confess not this but profess Jesus is God, you are antichrist.
And again only a few verses later John drives home the point:
1 John 4:9 By this the love of God is revealed in us: that God sent his one and only Son into the world in order that we may live through him.
> God did what? He sent His Son. Did God send God? No.
10 In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
> And again. God sent whom? Himself?
1 John 4:12a No one has seen God at any time.
> And not but two verses later, what did the CONSTANT COMPANION of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, say?
> NO ONE HAS SEE GOD AT ANY TIME.
> If John saw Jesus and he did and John says no one has seen God then Jesus can not be God and hence God can not be Jesus.
1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
> And yet again, John sayys GOD sent Jesus. God did not send himself.
And here is why you are going to be among the goats on Doom's Day.
1 John 4:15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God resides in him and he in God.
> You confess that Jesus is God and not the Son. You try to make Jesus a god, and thus believe in polytheism. Yet, when called on it, you fall back on modalism.
>It is filthy what you do. Sinful.
1 John 5:5 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been fathered by God, and everyone who loves the father also loves the child fathered by him.
> God FATHERED Jesus. Jesus is the CHILD FATHERED BY GOD. In what way can a father father himself or a child father himself?
You Tritarianians believe in man-made inference born of polluted, sinful minds. You believe in state-sanctioned religion of Constantine-Theodosius.
1 John 5:5 Now who is the one who conquers the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
> If you believe anything but Jesus being the Son, you are not conquering the world. You are believing as some of the world have taught you.
6 This is the one who came by water and blood-Jesus Christ, not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
> Jesus, born of a woman, declared son by God at Jesus' ritual washing done by John, murdered by Jews and executed by Romans, bled to death as a man.
7 For there are three that testify, 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement.
> The Breath of God witnessed: "This is my Son in whom I am well-pleased."
1 John 5:9 If we receive the testimony of people, the testimony of God is greater, because this is the testimony of God that he has testified concerning his Son.
> You receive the testimony of men: the false testimony of Trinitarianism
10 (The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. The one who does not believe God has made him, a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has testified concerning his Son.)
> You do not believe that Jesus is the Son. You believe Jesus a mode of God and when you will deny that, you will claim he is "God the Son", a phrase found not on the lips of Jesus nor the apostles.
> God made Jesus. He breathed into Mary Jesus.
> Denying that Jesus was a man and was made makes you a liar, so says John the Beloved.
> You reject the witness of God Almighty about what God has done, that God created Jesus, His Son.
11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 The one who has the Son has the life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.
> Since you do not have the Son but have Catholic Romanism, the weird belief of men, you are liable to doom, to be cast into the Lake of Fire, not having the promise everlasting life.
In your oh-so-filthy doctrine, your god faked suffering on a cross and faked a death. What you believe is shameful blasphemy, the word of Satan.
The God of the universe can not die. The Father of Jesus of Nazareth, the creator in Genesis 1 can not die and does not fake anything.
Good luck!
God chooses who will be saved, but doesn’t choose anyone to be damned.
Well, aren’t those he doesn’t choose to be saved damned? If he doesn’t choose you, you’re outta luck!
Are Lutherans, protestant?!
Their priests can marry.
Hera
The Goddess of Marriage
The west is not vastly different from the east the reason we have a karl marx is because lack of religious freedom but I don’t want to be told what to do
Lutherans believe all men can communicate with God equally.
I am Lutheran Protestant
I've never heard of Lutheran Protestant before. Lutherans aren't protestants, but reformed are protestants. Is your church a combination of the two?
@@aguest4408 bro Lutherans are Protestants lmao I’m from Denmark and we are Protestants Lutheranism are a branch of Protestantism
@@aguest4408 I can ensure you Lutheranism are Protestantism
@@aguest4408 both Reformed Lutherans are Protestantism Protestantism have many branches the largest of them are Lutheran Anglican and Calvinist
@@aguest4408 too be completely exact we’re: Evangelical-Lutheran Protestant Christian
It is so interesting that the number of books in protestant Bible is 66 = incomplete. And also, that there are so many differences between protestant denominations. And almost no attacks of media and satanists against protestant churches.
The Lord Jesus Christ paid for the sins of the world 2000 years ago, but you must receive him as your personal Saviour (John 1:12-13) for that payment to apply to you. This happens at the same moment you are "born again" (John 3:3). This happens at the same moment you are baptized and sealed with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:12-13, 1 Corinthians 12:13).
You must be born again! Sacraments do not save anyone. The ordinances of water baptism and communion are physical pictures of spiritual truths, nothing more.
In John 6, the Lord Jesus Christ is contrasting physical bread with spiritual bread. He says “Your fathers did eat manna (physical bread) in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven (spiritual bread), that a man may eat thereof, and not die.” Eating the Eucharist (physical bread) does not save you. Only receiving Jesus Christ (spiritual bread) by faith as your Saviour saves you (John 1:12-13). Jesus goes on to say “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). Jesus says he is speaking about the spiritual words, not about some fleshy piece of bread that you have to keep eating repeatedly.
This is the same concept we find in John 4 when Jesus talks about living water. Jesus tells the woman at the well “Whosoever drinketh of this water (physical water) shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him (spiritual water) shall never thirst” (John 4:13-14).
I speak the truth to you in love. If your salvation rests upon a piece of bread you get every Sunday and some water that your parents had sprinkled on you as an infant, then you are headed for Hell. You must be born again and receive the Lord Jesus Christ as your own personal Savior. Salvation comes through faith in the shed blood on Calvary of Jesus Christ alone.
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” - Romans 3:23-28 KJV
Lutheran is man made. The bible does not say it is a 66 book Canon, sola scriptura can not even determine the number of books. None of the 66 books talk about scripture alone being a final authority. The Apostles spoke as their authority to teach, and decide decisions in the Church. They decided to eliminate circumcision, while the scripture of their time (OT) required circumcision.
John Carmack lookin
Lutherans are called Evangelicals in the country of origin.
Luther was a nut case
How come most Lutheran churches support lgbtq lifestyle
No brother you are wrong only elca churches advocates lgbtq lifestyle.Most moderate and conservative churces still hold the view that homosexuality is a sin and cannot be blessed in church.
My Lutheran church is of the Missouri synod. We don't support the gay lifestyle.
Which Jesus are you following?
Within 10 years after Jesus Crucifixion we find many false teachers preaching.
For St. Paul had warned the church in Corinthians .
"For you gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit and a gospel completely different from the Spirit and the gospel you received from us!"
*2 Corinthians 11:4*
False teachers, were masters in creating confusion in the minds of innocent sheep. They used ancestry to create it.
Si. Paul says
"I want you to stay in Ephesus, just as I urged you when I was on my way to Macedonia. Some people there are teaching false doctrines, and you must order them to stop. Tell them to give up those legends and "*those long lists of ancestors*," which only produce arguments; they do not serve God's plan, which is known by faith."
1 Timothy 1:4
The false teachers were Jews well conversed in OT and they are the ones who created the Masoretic Hebrew text to prove that Jesus is not the Messiah !
The Septuagint Bible, from which Jesus quoted the OT verses pointed towards him as the Messiah.
Thats the reason why the Jews created Masoretic Hebrew text, by making a few changes in the genealogy and deleting 7 books from the Septuagint Bible.
The corrupt priest, Martin Luther, called Vatican corrupt and recommended deletion of 7 books and adopting the Masoretic Hebrew text as the OT !!
If Vatican was corrupt during reformation period the CHURCH OF ENGLAND would not have been formed by King Henry VIII and his successor King James would not have come out with KJV Bible.
As KJV Bible has incorporated Masoretic Hebrew text as OT, its the wrong Bible for any christian who follows Jesus Christ ; who died on the cross for us sinners.
Matthew 27:17-26 says
So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: *Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah* ?” For he knew it was out of self-interest that they had handed Jesus over to him.
So which Jesus do you follow ?
If you read KJV, you follow Barrabas
If you read a Catholic Bible / Bible which has the Septuagint Bible as OT ,you follow Christ !!!
So which Jesus do you follow ?
Please make Lutheranism grow again in the United States 🇺🇸✝️
It’s disgusting along with the rest of the Christian cults in America!