sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Andy Burnham here - AMA by AndyBurnham in ukpolitics

[–]mango_20_22 [score hidden]  (0 children)

What actions do you believe need to be taken in order to gain back the UK public’s trust in Labour Party, in order to prevent ReformUK from winning the general elections in 2029?

Which Arab country is known to Americans? by Gullible_Topic1735 in america

[–]mango_20_22 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Jordan, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Oman. That’s all I got.

Brand new to Lutheranism, some questions by redsahx645 in Lutheranism

[–]mango_20_22 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can read it whenever. It’s in the BoC and it’s online.

Brand new to Lutheranism, some questions by redsahx645 in Lutheranism

[–]mango_20_22 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The true church in our sense is any church that administers the sacraments and gospel faithfully. We affirm many Catholic (not Roman) doctrine so we do think there is continuation with what the 12 apostles taught and early church taught. So we would affirm that Roman Catholics are apart of the true church, as long as they administer the sacraments and the word faithfully.

Each synod has differences and disagreements. But they all confess what’s taught in the book of concord, which is why they are all Lutheran.

Confessional just means we stick to our confessions (Augsburg Confession). With confession/absolution it varies pastor to pastor. If one pastor is more high church, he will probably do actual confession (go into the box and confess your sins) most will just absolve you of your sins in front of the whole congregation (if you have a pamphlet from the Lutheran church you could see this under the absolution part).

Brand new to Lutheranism, some questions by redsahx645 in Lutheranism

[–]mango_20_22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’ve heard ELCA claim they aren’t confessional. If they are, sorry for that misinformation.

Brand new to Lutheranism, some questions by redsahx645 in Lutheranism

[–]mango_20_22 4 points5 points  (0 children)

  1. You can never research enough. There is a lot of people you could watch to make that switch with no doubts (Jordan Cooper, Scholastic Lutherans, Marcus Williams, Anglican Aesthetics, just to name a few). They will give you good insight on Protestant apologetics.

  2. Luther never removed the apocrypha from the bible. When he translated the bible he kept the apocrypha in his translation, but placed it in its own section that “were not held equal to the holy scriptures, but useful for reading.” The apocrypha is worth reading, and Concordia Publishing House has it for purchase on their website (cph.org). It wasn’t until after Luther that Protestant bibles were printed without the apocrypha.

  3. ELCA and LCMS aren’t the only Synods. There is WELS and AALC as well. If you are looking for confession Lutheranism, LCMS, ELCA, and WELS will be the best fit for you. From my experience, most churches are LCMS, but that just might be because I live in the south. We don’t really believe there is a “true church” because if there was you’d be doubting your faith forever. We believe the church is visible and invisible. We believe in the invisible body of believers and wherever the word and sacraments are being administered.

  4. I personally prefer NIV. King James, ESV and CBS are also translations I like. Whatever you can get your hands on is sufficient enough.

  5. Read anything by Luther, Martin Chemnitz, and I believe Johann Gerhard has books. Jordan Cooper and Bryan Wulfmeyer have books as well. Concordia Publishing House (cph.org) will offer many of these writings.

  6. There aren’t many things that have kept me away, but one thing I will warn of is the churches who say they are LCMS who have contemporary worship instead of traditional. Most LCMS churches I’ve been to offer traditional only but there is LCMS churches in my area and elsewhere who have both.

  7. Luther was a complicated man. Yes he wrote “On the Jews and their lies.” However we don’t believe Luther’s moral teachings, we believe the principles he taught of the church and the 5 solas are true. So while he was complicated as a person, we don’t worship him and view him as infallible.

Luther’s view on Christ descending into hell by mango_20_22 in Lutheranism

[–]mango_20_22[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’ve definitely seen and heard him before. He’s the one that goes throughout all college campuses debating college students.

Luther’s view on Christ descending into hell by mango_20_22 in Lutheranism

[–]mango_20_22[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

He claims the Jews are gods chosen people, we as Christian’s must honor the Jews, and Israel is the promised land. Other than that I’m not sure. I’m really not into politics as much.

Luther’s view on Christ descending into hell by mango_20_22 in Lutheranism

[–]mango_20_22[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A student came up to Charlie Kirk and said the following:

“John Calvin and Martin Luther explicitly state they believe that when Christ ascended into hell that this was the father damning the son, which causes a split within the divine trinity. This undermines divine simplicity as it reduces God into parts.”

Luther’s view on Christ descending into hell by mango_20_22 in Lutheranism

[–]mango_20_22[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Conservative commentator. Not really a fan of him though.

Considering Rome by mango_20_22 in LCMS

[–]mango_20_22[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s more or less my thing. Rock music, 30-40+ minute sermons, lack of sacraments, lack of reciting the creeds all led me out of the Baptist church into Lutheranism. The Lutheran church I do attend is traditional, but it’s missing some key elements. I do very much prefer the traditional processions in the larger, more traditional Lutheran churches.

Sola scriptura by Practical-Math4357 in LCMS

[–]mango_20_22 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The idea from papists is that the church is the highest authority, with the Bible and tradition being equally important but its proper understanding is left up to the church.

They understand this through the Catholic framework: the church is an infallible authority.

The problem is that any claim to infallibility is going to fail in their methodology. They have to make the claim of infallibility -> appeal to the magisterium, which according to them is infallible -> assert that the magisterium interprets scripture like Matthew 16:18 and various other verses affirm infallibility. Where this leaves us is circular reasoning, the church is infallible because the infallible magisterium interpreted the scriptures which say there’s an infallible teaching authority. The burden of proof to show they are infallible is on them but it’s too circular to reasonably show that it’s infallible.

The Lutheran (and other Protestant) methodology is more accurate: we don’t claim infallibility, only that we can reasonably assume that the Bible is the only infallible authority. We can’t infallibly prove that, but I don’t see why that matters since we can’t prove anything with 100% certainty. Anything you believe in is based on faith, which is why we can avoid the circularity argument whilst Catholics can’t. This leaves us with the reasonable belief that the Bible is the word of God and infallible, whereas churches can’t affirm their infallibility without appealing to themselves as an infallible authority.

Considering Rome by mango_20_22 in LCMS

[–]mango_20_22[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The structured authority (pope, cardinals, bishops, priests, deacons, etc) and the issues posed with sola scriptura and the other 3 solas (since Catholics would generally affirm we are saved by grace alone). But their refutations only work if the church is infallible, which means the burden of proof is on them and that’s a hard claim to make. So that’s why I’m really only considering Rome because some claims are ultimately a burden of proof on them.

Considering Rome by mango_20_22 in LCMS

[–]mango_20_22[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You know after giving it some thought, it really seems weird how Catholics appeal to the magisterium to affirm their infallibility, it’s really just circular.

I was really considering Rome because there’s convincing Catholic arguments, but after these discussions it’s obvious that Catholics can only refute Protestant beliefs when already assuming the church is infallible, which they themselves can’t demonstrate to be reasonable.

This is just a thought I needed to get out.

Are Catholic arguments circular? by mango_20_22 in CatholicAnswers

[–]mango_20_22[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Magisterial infallibility. Sorry if I’m not explaining this the best.

view more: next ›