The absolute state of the Lutheran Churches

The absolute state of the Lutheran Churches
Should I just give up and convert to and actual church? Would hate to leave but its becoming a joke.

Attached: Lutheran priest.jpeg (720x540, 103.58K)

Other urls found in this thread:

britannica.com/topic/myth
dictionary.com/browse/myth
firstthings.com/article/2018/10/elca-hits-bottom
lhpk.fi/en/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Return to your Mother Church user, we will be happy to have you.

Attached: IMG_20180723_115912.jpg (800x1006, 46.67K)

In the end, it’s not denoms that get you to Heaven, it’s your relationship with God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and The Holy Spirit. If your congregation isn’t based on sound doctrine, then find one that is.

tbh it’s a shame that the Lutherans and Methodists have been overrun by sexual immorality.

Attached: 74E2C228-BA7C-4611-855B-54480D13B8C1.jpeg (255x225, 23.78K)

Yes obviously
It's been that way for decades. Where have you been?
Research WELS, LCMS, ELDONA

This.

I'm from Europe (Finland), so there really is no Lutheran alternative for the degenerated state church.

I would have to join some independent church, but they are all evangelical and I not really into it.

Why aren't you Evangelical?

Modernists have infiltrated the Catholic Church too. I honestly don't know if we have enough traditionalist priests to hold the line against the social pressure being put on the Church to adopt these same heresies.

Attached: 43064230_249986579024098_37599236016851492_n.jpg (480x480, 20.6K)

Lack of tradition to be honest. Also childish interpretations of bible like born-again experience, spiritual gifts and creationism.

Fr Ripperger disapproves

Depending on exactly what you mean, that's heresy.

What's childish about any of those? The Bible plainly teaches each of them.
"Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' (Jn. 3:7 NAS)
4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.
6 And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.
7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. (1 Cor. 12:4-7 NAS)
In the beginning God created (Gen. 1:1 NAS)

begome orthodogz

Attached: orthodoggz.jpg (480x340, 12.35K)

Because they are jewlovers.

Thats just about interpretation. The BIGGEST problem with evangelicals is the complete ignorance of christian tradition and replacing it with modern tradition, both in doctrine and liturgy.

But I guess that still beats trad protestants sodomy.

What possible interpretation of "God created" allows you to deny creationism?

The meaning of the creation myth is to illustrate that God is the Creator, not give literal scientific explanation on how did it happen.

Also literalism is a problem mainly with evangelicals, which forces them to reject science and make the entire christendom look idiots.

God created the world in exactly the way described in the Bible

You've contradicted yourself. Is it your belief that God is the creator? Creationism means exactly that.

Creationism means that the creation happened according with the creation myth. Or at least that is what I meant.

Those are good denoms but depending on where you live they are on their death bed. I became lutheran (lcms) a year ago and slowly watched the trad churches close.
Now the only lcms churches are far away and dont seem any different than an evangelical church.

its like all the bad parts of evangelicalism with none of the good parts.

You're still contradicting yourself with "myth", which means "the creation didn't happen".

I presume you mean that the creation story is allegorical.

Its not allegorical but a myth. Creation of universe happened by God but not according how it was laid out in the Bible.

Myth means untrue in English

No it doesn't.
britannica.com/topic/myth

Always wondered why is it orthodogs instead of ordodogs or orfodogs.

yes it does
dictionary.com/browse/myth
English is my mother tongue, not yours

Either way we're concluding that you're a creationist because you affirm God created

Plenty of homoseuxual clergy in the RCC.

What "English" speaking country do you hail from?

The US
I'm aware of your use and you're mistaken

Well that explains everything
No, you are wrong
t.bong

If only there were an authority to settle linguistic disputes on the definitions of words, maybe printed in a big book.

orfo/ordo doesn't sound as close to ortho as gz/gs does to x

Have fun

Blessed

In all seriousness, don they realize it's keeping people away from church instead of getting them there?
I mean you could ask the same about the catholic church but it's pretty obvious there with the modernist gay mafia just wanting to stay in their power equilibrium.
What's in it for the Lutherans? What's their end game?

LCMS here.

If anyone cares, ELCA has fractured.

firstthings.com/article/2018/10/elca-hits-bottom

You're attending a church with women pastors and fag acceptance?? Get the frick outta there man!

...

There's something called confessionalism you turdard, look it up >: (

To crash it with no survivors maybe.
Lots of major churches probably saw the push toward liberalism as a means to secure the future membership of adherents in recent decades but it appears to be backfiring somewhat.

See if there are any High Church Lutheran Parishes in your area. To my knowledge, they're not common in Finland, but they do exist there.

That's the thing, it's all state run so they would just lose their job.
The catholic church gay mafia now lives in a corrupt power stalemate keeping them at the top with lots of freedom and shekels.

Yeah looked it all up and you're pretty much screwed. There's not much else.
Either stick with whatcha got or else you gotta leave Lutheranism for another denomination.

Do not despair user, that's what Satan wants.

Former is hard to read and I dont thing finnish has soft F sounds in it

Yes, our Churches are messed up, but how about you let God be the jugde. And our Churches are by no means monotone, we are not all pro-lgbthqxyz, pro-abortion, pro-degeneracy, what we stand for is salvation by the sole means of faith. Salvation is given by God, not by human merit, and Jesus died for all our sins, for the sins of homosexuals,killers, abortionists and others, without any discrimination - we are all sinners after all.

The ELCA, chirch of Sweden etc are not Lutheran. Luther was firm on the NO FAGGOTS teaching.

I can only speak for America, but the LCMS seems to be the only pure Lutheran congregation (along with some independent churchrs)

True Lutheran Christianity conserves the best of 1st millennia Catholicism

move to america and begome baptist :)
my grandmother stopped the family from going to degenerate churches like the lutherans.

What about WELS?

Come Home to Rome, OP! Remember, if it wasn't for Luther and his Prot Devolution, there would be no sodomite tolerance and abortions.

Attached: download (1).jpg (230x219, 6.75K)

dont you guys have the OC, that's minor, but pretty respected?

Yes.
/Thread

The Missouri Synod is still conservative, holding out against the liberals.

Protestants have been a mess from the start. Nothing new here. And an absolutely crapshow since at least the mid 19th century. They produced all of the rationalism and modernism that infects what goes for scholarship to this day – which, unfortunately, Catholic and Orthodox scholars adopted too in some circles.

Mainliners aren't protestant or even christian

Attached: machen-gresham-3.jpg (400x434, 29.7K)

Inshallah, Achmed

You should check out the Evangelical Lutheran Mission Diocese of Finland.
lhpk.fi/en/

But not baptists.

Attached: 46569273f.jpeg (359x214 86.87 KB, 214.96K)

kek
I ironically love how it shows the worst aspects of the contrary faiths, catholicism as an "idolatrous" religion adored by third worlders, protestantism as an cucked church that supports gay marriage,modern catholicism as also an "anti-white" cucked religion, and finally, the glorious baptists, with a patriacal white family with lots of kids. Gotta love independent 🅱aptists

btw my post is ironic, i think that image is retarded in many levels

Attached: f9b7e770d.jpg (945x666 47.86 KB, 104.75K)

The various early heresies with individual facets similar to Baptism had no connection to each other.

Attached: Anime - [Extremely Incomprehensible] - Reaction Excited.jpg (843x687, 189.81K)

kek

Wew prot

So the Church just materialised out of nowhere and a Roman invented it? What about the Christians being persecuted under Nero before 312 and even before that? Ever heard of the Early Fathers user?

The Baptist tradition began with the Reformation it threw out all early Christianity. St. Paul was not a Baptist.

BEGOME ORTHODOX

Attached: AA770F70-DFD9-4EE2-A73E-386034A6C4A6.jpeg (480x340, 18.93K)

You seem to have a bad definition of what the word church means, user. It means congregation, which is a specific kind of assembly. Many times the apostles in Scripture addressed multiple churches. I guess that kind of settles who's right on this then.

What about this then?

The reformation by definition is the continuation of early Christianity

Attached: 1507796020204.jpg (885x996, 132.14K)

Early Christianity never taught justification by faith alone. Early Christianity told you that Jesus would send his Spirit to guide the church into all truth. But the Reformation stands on the blasphemous premise that the world soon slipped into darkness after the 1st century and the Holy Spirit went AWOL, guiding no one, letting the church get corrupted by imperial conspiracy and paganism, and one man (Luther) saved the human race.. because God the Holy Spirit himself can't do his job right… for a thousand years.

Repent already. The Reformation was nothing more than a looting operation, of various royals draining the church's property.. and peasants getting deluded that it was some religious movement.

Baptist successionists have, at times, pointed to 16th-century Anabaptists as part of an apostolic succession of churches ("church perpetuity") from the time of Christ.[20] This view is held by some Baptists, some Mennonites, and a number of "true church" movements.[c]

The opponents of the Baptist successionism theory emphasize that these non-Catholic groups clearly differed from each other, that they held some heretical views,[d] or that the groups had no connection with one another and had origins that were separate both in time and in place.

A different strain of successionism is the theory that the Anabaptists are of Waldensian origin. Some hold the idea that the Waldensians are part of the apostolic succession, while others simply believe they were an independent group out of whom the Anabaptists arose. Ludwig Keller, Thomas M. Lindsay, H. C. Vedder, Delbert Grätz, John T. Christian and Thieleman J. van Braght (author of Martyrs Mirror) all held, in varying degrees, the position that the Anabaptists were of Waldensian origin.

Anabaptists believed in pacifisim and that christians should not hold any political office. Modern day baptists don't hold the same views.

But there is only one truth and one church. Someone had to be right, because according to Christ he would maintain and never the abandon the church. Either the apostolic churches are correct, or there were some hidden obscure christians that held the truth all along, but i find this view to be very gnostic in nature.

Yes, it did, and so does the Bible. Justification by faith alone is the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls.

Also you're arguing against a Pentecostal premise called "restorationism", decidedly non-protestant

Because they were an offshoot. I'm not a mennonite.
"The anabaptists" refers either to mennonites who literally call themselves "rebaptizers" or else it's a derogatory term for actual baptists.

There were various political offshoots and movements that "took inspiration" of baptists, for instance the Southern Baptist Convention, confessional baptists, mennonites, petrobrusians, donatists and other more bizarre movements/heretics like the sacerdotalists and various other judaizers and gnostics from an early time. Those are all offshoots of the real institution of the church.

Many of those offshoots took inspiration from one another as much as from scripture, for instance many of them don't use the scriptual definition of church. But that commonality, or of being the more popular interpretation of the time doesn't make them right.

Like I said, there are many places where multiple churches are addressed simultaneously.
Right.
Right. And his words will never pass away, and the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, and we are not as many which corrupt the word of God.
I wouldn't call them obscure if the Romans keep passing laws to try to execute them. For instance in codex Imperatoris Theodosii, Book 16: 16.6.6 made it a death sentence to baptize a believer if someone from the state church had infant baptized them already. This law was passed in 413 A.D. when the state church really started coming into worldly power with the reign of Honorius. The law was also specifically restated again in 529 A.D. when Justinian II invaded Italy. It was the only death sentence for a profession of belief, aside from arianism at the time. The believers were numbered with the transgressors.

If the pope is for removing pronouns etc., then the catholics churches will have no pronouns etc.
If the state is for removing pronouns etc., the the state churches will have no pronouns etc.
If you live in a Lutheran Area, there will be plenty of free churches, devoid of any of that, with people that still care.

This is i'm what talking about. Gnostic persecution complex

That is textbook persecution
Blaming the victim

A complex is when the oppression is fabricated

Read Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6, Law 2 for yourself. The only other law under that title condemns Arians.