An Explanation of Theological Differences among Lutherans 

Please don't encourage him. The beard makes him look a Christian jihadist. I predict that in another five years all these millennials who grew these unsightly, bushy beards will see pictures of themselves with those beards and exclaim: "WHAT WAS I THINKING???" Seriously. The beard looks trashy.

@@steppenwolf584 Not at all, it suits him. He is keeping it tidy, and he has a nice haircut that goes with it. Also, the difference in colour between his hair and beard make for a cleaner look.

Steppen Wolf Just because you have a baby face that doesn't grow any hair. His beard looks nice.

The beard is awesome.

Find a recommended classical barber, multivitamin, beard oil and exfoliation. That's all you need to groom to a perfect beard

Hi Shannon, I grew up in the LB, attending an AFLC church due to location. What congregation are you a part of?

@@suklapaksa8643 Just imagine Luther, in corpse paint, delivering the Heidelberg theses.

Exactly, probably all of them except ELDONA and other independent Lutherans reject UOJ. I am an independent Lutheran and I have thrown C F W Walther under the bus. These folks just practically idolizes the man.

BTW you will notice as it commonly happens, ex-Calvinists warm very well with Walther.

Mikael Nyman thanks for explaining.

Yes, the LCMS flatly rejects any form of dispensational theology, holding the the traditional understanding of Revelation and Ezekiel as being symbolic books.

He has a video on conparing Calvin's and Zwingli's doctrines of the Lord's Supper. On that issue, he just boils it down to Luther confessing the bread and wine as literally the body and blood, while Calvin and Zwingli do not. Details between them not really addressed in depth (such as the fact Zwingli was in the "it's purely a symbol" camp and Calvin was in the "they're a tool for participating in the body and blood" camp.)

Lutherans just seem to focus on what they do not have in common with those two rather than what they share in common

Where on Earth did you get the idea that we don't need to be saved???

It's an international political terminology since the French Revolution very diffused in the bibliography. ''Right'' means conservative. ''Left'' means progressive, radical.

Hi Gunner, I am a member of Our Saviour's in Thief River Falls. What congregation are you a part of? I grew up Lutheran Brethren, which leans pre-mil, but have moved over to the amil position.

This is like saying that when the Bible says we are saved by faith, if it doesn’t explicitly say that it’s through Christ’s death and resurrection; then we are saved by faith regardless of the atonement 😂. The Bible isn’t a theological textbook full of proof verses, the entirety of the narrative speaks to us and we then aim to understand the entire message of salvation

Thanks for your feedback: Your observation, "We are saved by faith regardless of the atonement" is fascinating, as you did not "define the term atonement in your reply." Were you saved before you even knew the meaning of the term? For example: G2643 - katallagē From: καταλλάσσω (G2644) In the King James Version of the Bible, the word atonement is only used once in the New Testament - in Romans 5:11. However, most other versions have translated the word “atonement” to “reconciliation” because that is the literal interpretation of the word. Kattallage means reconciliation, restoration, or favor. It’s when two parties come together to the same position. It also appears in Romans 11:15, and 2 Corinthians 5:18-19. Rom 3:25 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; 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. G2435 - hilastērion From: ἱλάσκομαι (G2433) I know that the text, 1 John 2:2 is often referenced to indicate that "atonement is for sins" universally. Is that how you understand it? P.S. I'm glad for your humorous emoji, so that I might be aware that you are not one who is "emoting" irrationally, nor with any "axe to grind." I look forward to your future replies, but, personally, I was already a believer from the time I was a child and had not studied the term "atonement," nor the multivariate terms associated with it. It's like I was a believer, and only knew that Jesus died for my sins.

@@LandmarkBaptists you seem to have severe issues with reading comprehension. I meant to say that a biblical text need not say the word baptism explicitly for the passage to be about baptism, if that passage itself implies baptism through similar language. So verses like John 3:5, Titus 3:5, are good examples. Also Ephesians references the “washing of the water with the word” It’s asinine to think otherwise. I was jesting, saying that by your logic, if those passages that speak of salvation through faith don’t explicitly mention “faith in the death of Christ for my sins”, then we can conclude that we don’t need Christ to die for us but simply need faith. That was my point, i am not arguing for a false point, but pointing out inconsistencies in your reasoning of the biblical text

@@joseortegabeede8233 Thanks for the clarification: Your remark, "You seem to have severe issues with reading comprehension" does not correlate with my awareness of the specificity of the Koine Greek text. The Koine is highly inflected, very-wordy. So, if the New Testament Greek (Koine) text wishes to speak of baptism, then it does so very clearly and "specifically:" As in the texts: 1. I indeed baptize you with water... 2. He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost... 3. ...and, [He shall baptize you] with fire... 4. ...baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? So, in just a short-synopsis, I have easily demonstrated the precision of the Koine text, that is, it's specificity. If you, however, are able to "assume" that "water baptism" is that about which a text speaks when no such indication is found in the text, then that is simply called, "eisegesis." You can research all the Koine texts that include the term "baptize, or baptism." The Koine Greek NT is a very concise (brief) document. Also, the doctrine of "regenerative baptism," which does not exist in any known New Testament Greek text, is simply erroneous hermeneutics. When you posit-outwardly from the text, then it's easier to notice the inclusion, or the absence of "water, fire, Holy Ghost, baptism" etc. Again, thanks for your judgment concerning my ""severe issues with reading comprehension:" It afforded me a much needed moment of levity to start my day. P.S. Thanks for your feedback.

@@LandmarkBaptists Are you autistic?

That sounds great, but I'm not sure I have the time.

Dr. Jordan B Cooper I know it would be longer than usual.

@@villarrealmarta6103 If I could do this full time, I'd be able to provide studies like that. Maybe someday.

Dr. Jordan B Cooper haha that would be nice wouldn’t it?

Where in the city are you?

@@DrJordanBCooper New York City the Bronx borough.

Lewis took the words of the Lord's Supper entirely literally, which is why it is hard to understand. If it's merely a remembrance, then there's nothing to challenge us. Fortunately, the Bible does not only say that the Supper is done in remembrance. Matthew 26:28 Jesus calls it the blood of the covenant. Hebrews 9:20 The author quotes Moses saying the exact same words about real blood. There is no precedent here for saying "is" means "represents." 1 Corinthians 10:16 The bread and the cup are a koinonia (co-union/intimacy/participation/contribution/distribution) of the body and blood of Christ. 1 Cor 11:20 There is an objectively true Lord's Supper. Unreconciled schism within the congregation make it objectively not the Lord's Supper. 1 Cor 10:21-22 The Lord, whose name is Jealous, is jealous of his cup and his table. 1 Cor 11:23 The Lord specifically and personally revealed the Supper to Paul. 1 Cor 11:27 Misuse of the Lord's Supper is not just a bad reenactment. It makes you guilty of sin against the very body and blood of the Lord. 1 Cor 11:28-30 Mere reenactments do not require earnest soul searching on pain of punishment and death. Therefore true Christian faith in these words: "This is my body which is for you, … This is my blood of the new covenant," must take all into account. 1 Cor 5:11 We are not to eat even secular food with christians who do not accept correction. Guests, whose lives are unknown to the pastor, should be catechized first. "Revilers" (who insult our face value belief) are rightly excluded.

@@Mygoalwogel I cannot say who's right. You may be called and given a particular insight. All I wanted to say is that, so far, God has called me only so far as to obey the command by my action.

@@michaelwoods4495 No. God has called you to believe all of Scripture, not only "take and eat." Matthew 26:28 Jesus calls it the blood of the covenant. Hebrews 9:20 The author quotes Moses saying the exact same words about real blood. There is no precedent here for saying "is" means "represents." 1 Corinthians 10:16 The bread and the cup are a koinonia (co-union/intimacy/participation/contribution/distribution) of the body and blood of Christ. 1 Cor 11:20 There is an objectively true Lord's Supper. Unreconciled schism within the congregation make it objectively not the Lord's Supper. 1 Cor 10:21-22 The Lord, whose name is Jealous, is jealous of his cup and his table. 1 Cor 11:23 The Lord specifically and personally revealed the Supper to Paul. 1 Cor 11:27 Misuse of the Lord's Supper is not just a bad reenactment. It makes you guilty of sin against the very body and blood of the Lord. 1 Cor 11:28-30 Mere reenactments do not require earnest soul searching on pain of punishment and death. Therefore true Christian faith in these words: "This is my body which is for you, … This is my blood of the new covenant," must take all into account. 1 Cor 5:11 We are not to eat even secular food with christians who do not accept correction. Guests, whose lives are unknown to the pastor, should be catechised first. "Revilers" (who insult our face value belief) are rightly excluded.

@@Mygoalwogel You're probably right. I only wanted to suggest that my own calling doesn't go as far as figuring out all of it, mostly just to obeying the commands. I leave analysis to my spiritual and intellectual betters.

@@Mygoalwogel that's such a good answer. He took the words literally which is why it was hard to understand. That's exactly where I landed. The Lutheran church is the only one that keeps it a mystery. In, with, and under -- clear enough to say what it is, but vague enough to keep the sacrament a mystery.

Except Roman Catholics disagree as much as Lutherans about declarations made by the Papacy and the Magisterium. I've seen division among Catholics even on the issue of abortion. You have liberal Catholics and conservative Catholics.

You can say that with a straight face with Francis on the chair? The next Pope will only be worse.

Rome is just as divided as Classical Protestantism.

@@kyleolson436 how so ? There is One, Holy, Catholic Church - and as demonstrated by this video there are dozens of classical sects of Lutheranism

Moses King Where I live most of the catholic churches are very liberal and there is only one traditional mass once a month in a hospital chapel.

My wife is a former nun (SND) and two of our children attended RC schools (we are Lutherans). It is true that Roman Catholicism has massive differences between parishes in just what they believe and practice. The one unalterable is the primacy of the Pope. It is indeed the Pope's church.

@@eliasg.2427 Define liberal