Any Lutherans here?

...

Orthodox here!

What, are you Mormon or something? Nicene Christian is still Nicene Christian.

The problem with Lutheranism is that Luther was so clearly a deranged lunatic who struggled with demonic possession. Some of the stuff he wrote is outright heretical like people needing to guard against doing good works more than sin.

...

I'm a recovering Gnostic and I'm deeply considering– as it's called here 'White Islam'.

Attached: smugsad orwan.jpg (1200x675, 90.11K)

But there were popes who had children, slept with prostitutes etc

Attached: Thinking_Face_Emoji.png (640x640, 111.14K)

And if one of those Popes was the person who decided what Catholic dogma was I would reject it. If one of them decided to make their own Christianity with beer and hookers I would not join them because it would clearly be dumb to subscribe to a brand of Christianity with doctrine that was determined by someone corrupt.

I think you mean third reformation.

Attached: bb8a4233b60d58189378a2a1e9fcc52a5e3656778232efb835bd788cb3abf04e.jpg (540x720, 36.34K)

What is "white islam" ?

Mormon

thats calvinism, I think

Ye, another LCMS Lutheran here too.

Attached: f31457634850192908c7ce8f88b90858e5395e583ad66973e4b3704e73b5f81d.jpg (936x673, 70.81K)

Can any other LCMS Christanons comment on pic related? It is what I use for most of my reading, and what is read in my church. I like the cross-references in the middle of the pages. But I am considering KJV for my next reading.

Attached: esv.jpg (347x499, 27.33K)

Calvinists don't believe 2 or 3

Fellow LCMS bro, converted from the Catholicism of my ancestors a year ago, after many years of studying and discernment.
Sad to see lutherans not as vocal on thi board and the internet in general.

Ye. ESV is my go-to translation but the KJV is my 2nd go-to, it's similar in that its more word for word translation instead of thought for thought.

I'm not a huge fan of gender neutral language in it, I personally prefer the NASB, but the ESV is better than the NIV.

To be fair, I think we might represent nearly 100% of this boards Lutheran population.

I found this:

covenantoflove.net/theology/the-esv-is-gender-neutral-too/

There are numerous examples in the ESV where its translators opted for a gender neutral rendering of a gender specific Hebrew or Greek phrase. Here are some examples. The literal Hebrew or Greek are in brackets (examples borrowed from One Bible, Many Versions, p.176):

From the ESV:

Ex. 2:11: “Moses… saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his people (lit. brothers)”

Num. 1:16: “the chiefs of their ancestral (lit. fathers) tribes.”

Num. 31:30: “one drawn out of every fifty, of the people (lit. men).”

Matt. 12:31: “every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people (lit. men).”

Jas. 3:8: “no human being (lit. man) can tame the tongue.”

Thanks for the heads up, not sure how ESV can claim to be an essentially literal translation with verses like this.

Doesn't make much sense considering that the two don't textually agree. For instance, is John 1:18 supposed to say "only begotten Son" or it say "only God" like in the ESV? It can only be one or the other. One of them has to be based on a corrupted source that has the wrong word.

Alright for the NASB, which version of Mark 9:42 is correct. Does Jesus say "one of these little ones that believe in me," or does He only say "one of these little ones who believe" and leave out the "in me"? It seems to me that the NASB removed the words "believe in me" and made it just them that "believe."

Also the NASB added the word "merely" to 1 Peter 3:3 changing the meaning. What's up with that?

Hmm

Hmm

We can do better than that. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the actual truth; also, saints are found in scripture, they are the elect.

Revelation 1:5-6
Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

I don't know what bit of writing you're referring to, but it sounds like in the original text Luther was warning about prelest, a very insidious threat to salvation. I think Catholics don't take prelest seriously enough.

The ESV actually explains this in an introduction (at least in the Archaeology Study Bible), they used a term like in your examples where the text was referencing to "humankind" ie all people. In many cases they keep the gender-specific term where it matters, unlike the NIV and others.

Raised LCMS but now basically ortho here. Used to post pretty actively on here as a Lutheran.

I wonder what the (((archaeologists))) will dig up next in Israel, to update our bibles. Sorry, I mean (((update))) our current ((ESV critical text))).

Maybe what they find will remove more references to Christ, who knows? They already took out a lot from the KJV with their previous "find." They already took out the word "Christ" from the ESV in Acts 2:30, 1 Corinthians 16:22 and 1 John 4:3. Who knows what scripture could still be removed! It's anyone's guess…

Yeah

He's just illustrating the law and gospel. From Luther's perspective, when we do good works there is a risk that we will become conceited and start thinking of ourselves as good people, whereas when we sin it puts us in our place by forcing us to remember what we really are, filthy sinners entirely dependent on God's grace.

I was raised Lutheran but I'm converting to Orthodoxy.

Blessings.

Attached: 27038994faa48be06a630bc4c382f9053d100b23333ae2d55475e70b7bc40e8e.jpg (2080x1300, 559.38K)

Thinking about begoming. I'm Swedish so pretty much my entire upbringing and our whole culture is built on Lutheranism.

Attached: H9DA86b.jpg (1920x1200, 706.39K)

Har du discord? Om du vill bli Lutheran föreslår jqg Missionprovinsen :)

All scripture is God-breathed. Can the same really be said about papacy/tradition?

Attached: 5bb32c35d569e1b269a290cd868d0b7f791f69349d230346b0ecd1d0d366acda.jpg (249x255, 21.64K)

That is a tautology. Because scripture is never explicitly defined the verse takes the form of: 'all god breathed scripture is god breathed.'
Of course. But likewise we apostolics can say "all oral traditions given to us by god are godly"
So when Paul tells timothy to hold to written OR spoken traditions there is no problem. God doesn't need parchments to transmit and preserve teachings.

Catholic innovations not included.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

If it's not the word of God then it hasn't been given by God. That is a basic tautology.

That was in Thessalonians and Paul wasn't saying in that verse there is one tradition that is only written and one that is only oral and cannot be written down. This is nonsense. Rather the word of God is equally valid whether read with the eye or heard with the ear, not that there were secret teachings that were not allowed to be written down and this is the only place in all of scripture where they are mentioned.

Also the fact you felt the need to use scripture to justify yourself here only further proves the innate primacy of scripture over anything else. The only problem is you misread it to imply that Paul was referring to secret teachings that are not allowed to be written. Even though in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, all works includes but is not limited to all doctrine.

And right before that verse, Paul told him to "continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;" I know the authorship of the scriptures, as 2 Peter 1:21 applies to them. If you cite something other than scripture, I don't know who came up with it but it certainly wasn't an apostle or inspired. I don't know them. And like it said in Galatians 1:9, "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." That's what the "oral traditions" which strangers have delivered amount to. They're just some other man's gospel and he wickedly lied and claimed it came from them. Paul warned about them "night and day with tears" saying they would come later and claim succession. Now they're here, with their "oral traditions." See Acts 20:29-32. Also see Mark 13:7-13.

Acts 20:29-32
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

Attached: Luther.png (852x732, 39.91K)

He reminded Timothy to hold to the traditions he was taught by spoken tradition or by written scripture. So there is a place for both, oral and written tradition. Oral can help us understand how to interpret scripture or how to perform certain ceremonies and so forth. And if Christianity is a living, breathing religion then it's possible for God to preserve not only the written word but also spoken word, through his Church.

There is nothing secret about an oral tradition that is available to all people, anymore than having a "scripture" is a secret. There is no place in scripture that teaches pure "sola scriptura" alone, yet there is a place that says we should hold to both scripture and spoken tradition. Of course if they come from God, what is there to worry about? Nothing.

Scripture never places innate primacy on itself, in fact it equalizes both the written and the spoken traditions we've received. If you read it fairly you'd admit this, and then you'd wonder where this tradition exists, and where this Church Christ started can be found? Because Timothy and Peter and the early Christians were definitely not part of a Lutheran or IFB "denomination"….

good luck, keep searching