9276e3 No.773290
The absolute state of the Lutheran Churches
>women clergy
>openly homoseuxual clergy
>homosexual marriage
>pro refugees
>removal of masculine pronouns in liturgy and hymns
>churches empty
Should I just give up and convert to and actual church? Would hate to leave but its becoming a joke.
1bd8b2 No.773292
Return to your Mother Church anon, we will be happy to have you.
b29e07 No.773293
>>773290
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.
a80775 No.773294
Yes obviously
It's been that way for decades. Where have you been?
Research WELS, LCMS, ELDONA
8faaa2 No.773296
9276e3 No.773298
>>773294
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.
a80775 No.773300
>>773298
Why aren't you Evangelical?
4f35da No.773302
>>773292
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.
9276e3 No.773305
>>773300
Lack of tradition to be honest. Also childish interpretations of bible like born-again experience, spiritual gifts and creationism.
4f35da No.773306
>>773305
>Not being a Catholic creationist
Fr Ripperger disapproves
abb0e9 No.773307
>>773306
>catholic creationism
Depending on exactly what you mean, that's heresy.
efa315 No.773310
>>773305
What's childish about any of those? The Bible plainly teaches each of them.
>born-again experience
"Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' (Jn. 3:7 NAS)
>spiritual gifts
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)
>creationism
In the beginning God created (Gen. 1:1 NAS)
e86723 No.773313
>>773300
Because they are jewlovers.
9276e3 No.773314
>>773310
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.
efa315 No.773316
>>773314
What possible interpretation of "God created" allows you to deny creationism?
9276e3 No.773320
>>773316
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.
4f35da No.773322
>>773307
God created the world in exactly the way described in the Bible
efa315 No.773323
>>773320
You've contradicted yourself. Is it your belief that God is the creator? Creationism means exactly that.
9276e3 No.773324
>>773323
Creationism means that the creation happened according with the creation myth. Or at least that is what I meant.
52c690 No.773326
>>773294
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.
>cowo
>not having communion every week
>everyone is cradle and apathetic
>no proselytizing
its like all the bad parts of evangelicalism with none of the good parts.
efa315 No.773327
>>773324
You're still contradicting yourself with "myth", which means "the creation didn't happen".
I presume you mean that the creation story is allegorical.
9276e3 No.773330
>>773327
Its not allegorical but a myth. Creation of universe happened by God but not according how it was laid out in the Bible.
efa315 No.773331
>>773330
Myth means untrue in English
9276e3 No.773333
abb0e9 No.773335
>>773311
Always wondered why is it orthodogs instead of ordodogs or orfodogs.
efa315 No.773337
>>773333
yes it does
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/myth
>invented
>fictitious
>false
English is my mother tongue, not yours
Either way we're concluding that you're a creationist because you affirm God created
2d9328 No.773339
>>773304
>>773292
Plenty of homoseuxual clergy in the RCC.
7e3794 No.773340
>>773337
>English is my mother tongue
>Is unaware of the several uses of Myth
What "English" speaking country do you hail from?
efa315 No.773341
>>773340
The US
I'm aware of your use and you're mistaken
7e3794 No.773342
>>773341
Well that explains everything
No, you are wrong
t.bong
efa315 No.773343
>>773342
If only there were an authority to settle linguistic disputes on the definitions of words, maybe printed in a big book.
91a4ac No.773345
>>773335
orfo/ordo doesn't sound as close to ortho as gz/gs does to x
4cbe75 No.773354
>going from one pozzed denom to another
Have fun
bfc233 No.773356
3dc45a No.773395
>>773290
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?
190fa6 No.773405
487c8e No.773435
>>773290
>Should I just give up and convert to and actual church?
You're attending a church with women pastors and fag acceptance?? Get the frick outta there man!
487c8e No.773437
>>773342
>bongs can't even speak English anymore
3ac33c No.773486
>>773290
There's something called confessionalism you turdard, look it up >: (
9eede1 No.773488
>>773395
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.
df8fed No.773519
>>773298
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.
3dc45a No.773528
>>773488
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.
a384a9 No.773532
>>773290
>>773298
>Finland
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.
c30f0e No.773664
>>773302
>implying the gates of hell will prevail against the true Church
Do not despair anon, that's what Satan wants.
3112b1 No.773841
>>773335
Former is hard to read and I dont thing finnish has soft F sounds in it
8d81d1 No.773857
>>773290
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.
5df6bb No.774091
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
9d9879 No.774161
>>773298
>finland
move to america and begome baptist :)
my grandmother stopped the family from going to degenerate churches like the lutherans.
df69d1 No.779371
a01216 No.779374
>>773290
Come Home to Rome, OP! Remember, if it wasn't for Luther and his Prot Devolution, there would be no sodomite tolerance and abortions.
4efce3 No.779402
>>773298
dont you guys have the OC, that's minor, but pretty respected?
d425e6 No.779406
df1a3d No.779416
>>773290
The Missouri Synod is still conservative, holding out against the liberals.
c575c9 No.779419
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.
ead5ca No.779425
>>779419
Mainliners aren't protestant or even christian
75d3d7 No.780083
>>773342
Inshallah, Achmed
55b726 No.785788
>>773298
You should check out the Evangelical Lutheran Mission Diocese of Finland.
http://www.lhpk.fi/en/
457a80 No.785825
>>779419
But not baptists.
57da0b No.785835
>>785825
>that second image
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
57da0b No.785836
>>785835
btw my post is ironic, i think that image is retarded in many levels
198fb8 No.785851
>>785836
>he thinks I'm memeing
25f3e9 No.785857
>>785851
>early Baptists
The various early heresies with individual facets similar to Baptism had no connection to each other.
>Constantine
>mfw
57da0b No.785858
a01216 No.785862
>>785851
>being this much of a historical revisionist
Wew prot
658747 No.785879
>>785851
>312 AD
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 anon?
The Baptist tradition began with the Reformation it threw out all early Christianity. St. Paul was not a Baptist.
fd4f2f No.786092
>>785879
>So the Church just materialised out of nowhere and a Roman invented it?
You seem to have a bad definition of what the word church means, anon. 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.
>The Baptist tradition began with the Reformation
What about this then?
>The Edinburgh Encyclopedia, Vol 3, p.251 (1830)
>It must have already occurred to our readers, that the baptists are the same sect of Christians which we formerly described under the appellation of ANABAPTISTS. Indeed, this seems to have been their great leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present day.
b1a283 No.786095
>>785879
The reformation by definition is the continuation of early Christianity
2c5dd6 No.786098
>>786095
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.
57da0b No.786100
>>786092
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.
>You seem to have a bad definition of what the word church means, anon. 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.
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.
ce6a0a No.786102
>>786098
Yes, it did, and so does the Bible. Justification by faith alone is the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls.
ce6a0a No.786104
>>786098
Also you're arguing against a Pentecostal premise called "restorationism", decidedly non-protestant
198fb8 No.786110
>>786100
>Anabaptists believed in pacifisim and that christians should not hold any political office.
Because they were an offshoot. I'm not a mennonite.
>all held, in varying degrees, the position that the Anabaptists were of Waldensian origin.
"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.
>But there is only one church.
Like I said, there are many places where multiple churches are addressed simultaneously.
>But there is only one truth
Right.
>Someone had to be right, because according to Christ he would maintain and never the abandon the church.
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.
>there were some hidden obscure christians that held the truth all along,
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.
dc0ca1 No.786112
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.
57da0b No.786113
>>786110
>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.
This is i'm what talking about. Gnostic persecution complex
ce6a0a No.786114
>>786113
That is textbook persecution
Blaming the victim
A complex is when the oppression is fabricated
413c74 No.786116
>>786113
Read Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6, Law 2 for yourself. The only other law under that title condemns Arians.
57da0b No.786123
>>786114
>>786116
What i meant is that this view of "true christians were opressed by evil romans" is the same used by gnostics when they try to justify their teachings as true, saying that they've held secret knowledge and the true teachings of Christ and were persecuted and so on..i personally don't buy this narrative, even though these laws really existed, doesn't mean that you, or the adventists, or the gnostic fags hold true knowledge..
TLDR: Gnostics and arians were persecuted too, doesn't mean jackshit and i don't think those "secret christians" ever existed.
57da0b No.786124
>>786123
Personally i believe that christianity won over paganism and the roman empire with divine intervention with Constantine. Thinking that after 300 years of persecution the "true christians" would be continually persecuted after they thought they had won is just sad lmao
ce6a0a No.786125
>>786123
Moving the goalposts
f9f075 No.786126
>>786123
>What i meant is that this view of "true christians were opressed by evil romans" is the same used by gnostics when they try to justify their teachings as true,
This statement doesn't really matter though does it? Just because Hitler believed in gravity doesn't therefore make it false. Also, gnostics have "their teachings" but I'm pointing to the prophecies of the word of God here./
>saying that they've held secret knowledge
I'm only pointing to the Bible. Also, I don't believe in hidden gnostic "oral tradition" that the pharisees and the sacerdotalists both teach. It's funny because I keep seeing the same "traditions of men" arguments coming from all three categories, pharisees/rabbis, sacerdotal catholics and all other judaizers. They have some unwritten traditions as they keep claiming.
>and the true teachings of Christ
Yeah that's the whole point. Mark 7:7-13 friend.
>even though these laws really existed, doesn't mean that you, or the adventists, or the gnostic fags hold true knowledge..
It means that baptists have always been here, right along with scripture. Keeping the real scriptural canon. It doesn't take a genius to see what this means. It means the state church failed to wipe out the truth despite passing laws specifically aimed at it.
Like I said at the beginning, NO rationalism or modernism here. We're still here friend.
57da0b No.786131
>>786126
>It means that baptists have always been here, right along with scripture. Keeping the real scriptural canon. It doesn't take a genius to see what this means.
When i say ''hidden knowledge" i don't mean occultism or any thing like it, i say simply i say that these supposed "biblical truths" were in effect secret. Most people didn't know about them, only a special secret club of believers. It's the same shit. Hidden ocult knowlegde that nobody knew about except for a small group of believers. Why would God deliberately let people away from knowledge for so long? Why weren't the baptists the state church? I personally cant believe this narrative.
>failed to wipe out the truth despite passing laws specifically aimed at it.
They definetively did wipe the "truth" from public knowledge.
e20cb2 No.786135
>>786131
>They definetively did wipe the "truth" from public knowledge.
If that were true then why is it possible to still find and read the correct Scripture and not only some corrupted catholic variant that was decreed correct. Seems to me that ended up being an utter failure. So yeah that definitely didn't happen. Especially since God's word is so powerful and it boldly condemns all these things the state churches do. But I can understand pretty easily why they would try to destroy it.
>i say simply i say that these supposed "biblical truths" were in effect secret.
Luke 11:9-13
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
57da0b No.786140
>>786135
>If that were true then why is it possible to still find and read the correct Scripture and not only some corrupted catholic variant that was decreed correct. Seems to me that ended up being an utter failure. So yeah that definitely didn't happen. Especially since God's word is so powerful and it boldly condemns all these things the state churches do. But I can understand pretty easily why they would try to destroy it.
Most people didn't know how to read tigga
Therefore most people didn't know the "truth". And it's stupid to claim that everyone that could read ( like say, the clergy ) came to the same conclusions and were trying to "decieve" people or somethin