Useful charts, though not a religious channel, has some really good information on religious topics. I found their Biblical figures chart also to be very useful in placing when/where certain prophets wrote and what the order of Jewish kings was. That really helps me with 1-2 Kings and such.
You and Matt (UsefulCharts) could have been collabing with Religion for Breakfast! Here's a video from it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-O10KvgIggus.html
I know for sure that Lutherans and Episcopalians use the Lamb of God symbol a lot, almost guaranteed to be seen somewhere in any of their traditional churches. Lutherans are obviously associated with Luther's Rose. I don't know about the others.
Unitarian Church of Transylvania has the best logo IMO, a dove with a serpent, I always wondered why no one uses that image from the gospels as a visual.
Ok so, I considered myself as knowledgeable in this field until like 5 minutes into this video. Thank You very much for this condensed but really indepth overview.
The scream I scrumpt when you mentioned the peppermints. I grew up Reformed/Christian Reformed depending on which side of the family I was attending church with and mom/grandma/great grandma always had a bag of peppermints. Queen Wilhelmina or nothing.
As a member of the Canadian reformed church, I can confirm that king peppermints in church are very common 😆 although in my church we did not have a set time, we would just get a few throughout the service. If we got Wilhelmina peppermints that was extra special! Thanks for the shout out on that funny tradition!
Just to clarify: Reformed teaching is that Baptism does save, WITH a few qualifications: - it only saves for those who have faith - its efficacy isn't tied to what it's administered
Same! Very confusing but interesting. Not gunna lie from what I heard of the Lutherans and Anglicans I just thought they were like the Catholic church but not in communion with Rome and with fake priests.
Same! Very confusing but interesting. Not gunna lie from what I heard of the Lutherans and Anglicans I just thought they were like the Catholic church but not in communion with Rome and with fake priests.
One very important area in which these historic Protestant denominations differ from what is typically referred to as "Evangelicalism" is the doctrine of justification, the doctrine by which, according to Luther, the church stands or falls. These historic Protestant denominations regard justification as monergistic -- everything involved in justification (or "getting saved") is a gift from God, including faith. Evangelicals typically regard justification as synergistic -- God provided the Saviour, we provide the faith. This is why these historical denominations don't have altar calls, ask people to make a decision for Christ, etc.
Man, I just read your comment, and immediately had to jump from my chair and get the catechism, because even tough I'm a lifelong catholic, I realized I didn't know the catholic church's position on this. Turns out that it seems to agree with the historic protestants rather than the more modern evangelicals, even tough the statement is a bit ambiguous, sth like "faith is a divine grace (Mt 16:17), but it's a human decision to be faithful or not"
@@felipelomar5388 That seems close to the Lutheran understanding, which is that faith is a gift, but we can decide to reject the gift. The Calvinist position is more like faith is a gift given to the elect only, and if you are among the elect, you can't reject the gift.
Useful charts, though not a religious channel, has some really good information on religious topics. I found their Biblical figures chart to be very useful in placing when/where certain prophets wrote and what the order of Jewish kings was.
I'm from Allentown Pa. which is next to Bethlehem Pa. Which was founded by the Moravians on Christmas Day 1741. It is know as "The Christmas City". It was the first City to have a decorated Christmas tree and the Moravian Book Store is America's oldest.For over 25 years i had a job inspecting all the Moravian buildings in the Lehigh Valley. The old Colonial buildings in Bethlehem are really beautiful and well preserved.
Thank you! I hadn't even heard of Moravians until I moved to North Carolina, US, a few decades ago. The Easter sunrise service in Old Salem even even draws non-Christians I know, including a late friend who was Wiccan. I have in my head that there are more congregations around here than anywhere else in the US, but I'm not sure about that. I have a lot of respect for them, and they don't "vibe" very different than what I grew up with (mostly PCUSA and whatever the predecessor was in my area).
Raised in the Dutch reformed tradition, I didn't realize that our mint practice was well known. The joke was is that the liberals used Wilhelmina mints and conservatives King. Sadly most of them are no longer reformed and barely even Christian. However, Christ is still building His church, even with less then perfect stones. Thank you for what you do!
I have strong ties to the Dutch Reformed church in Southern California but my family moved to SW Washington there was none. But that didn’t stop my mother from handing out mints in service.
As an atheist raised Dutch person that part about the mints made me giggle. Those mints are so typically Dutch. My grandparents used to always have a roll with them and share. I prefer the Wilhelmina mints though, their taste is more subtle.
I really enjoy your content! I´m an atheist and for a long time I just assumed that christianity is a homogenous religion with few different architecture and closing styles here and there. Turns out its far more complex and interesting
Ivan, it is mind-boggling how many humongous differences there are among all the Christian churches. The most important message is that God loves each one of us and wants us each to live our lives to celebrate Him :). I hope you will keep investigating!
Thanks for the deep look -- could you do a comparison of the multiple Lutheran groups, including the LCMC (Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ) and the NALC (North American Lutheran Church), ELCA, LCMS, Lutheran Brethren, Lutheran Free Church, and WELS. Thanks
Really enjoy seeing these breakdowns including Anglicans. I grew up baptist and have been attending a couple different Anglican churches getting a feel for them. I’ve grown quite fond of the REC flavor of Anglicanism. Would love to see a full breakdown of all the different groups within the ACNA some day
Note that the Porvoo Communion was named after the city of Porvoo in Finland, so it should be pronounced as a Finnish word. The double O is the same sound as the single O, but drawn out, not the same as the English double O in food.
Someone told that there is a world of difference between the original Moravian church or Hussites and the Moravian church of today, either in the USA, Germany or Czechia. Is this true? What were the beliefs and liturgies of the original Moravian church before their move to Saxony? Thanks for the show.
On one hand, I struggle with recognizing LGBTQ rights as a sin, on the other hand some liberal denominations are bat crap wild to me. You don’t have to believe basically any of their doctrine? Isn’t that sort of the whole point of that denominations existence? Also, please allow me some grace if I’m totally off my rocker here. Was born into a certain religion and just was okay with it until I faced my mortality in a cancer clinic and realized I don’t believe any of its doctrine. I’m learning as much as possible about what is out there, where I can get closer to God before meeting him. Edit: I’m okay, we removed the tumor and I appear clear but will have to go in quarterly for the next several years and will just have to be prepared for if it comes back.
Historically, Anglicanism developed as a "middle way" that sought to reconcile hard-core (and often violent) antagonism between Catholics and Calvinists. It retained a lot of the Catholic infrastructure and governance (cathedrals, bishops, canons, etc.). But it developed a less-doctrinal approach to theology that would encompass different approaches. Anglican tradition describes a "stool with three legs": (1) Biblical scripture, (2) church history and authority, and (3) lived experience and rational thought. Calvinists emphasized the first, Catholics emphasized the second, and Anglicans treat all three as valid.
@@johnalden5821 It more developed as a "middle way" between Calvinism and Lutheranism. It then reformed into a via media between Protestantism and Catholicism as a result of the Oxford movement.
Close and closed mean two different things. Closed communion requires membership in the church, close communion requires agreement with a specific understanding of communion, but not church membership. Happily many LCMS churches are now close communion, which is closer to a Biblical observation of the Lord’s supper than is closed communion, which places far too much authority into the hands of individual men.
Thank you, brother. This is a timely breakdown as I've just found a local Anglican church which seems to be a nice fit for me. God bless you and your educational mission!
@@Uthwita I will check the Orthodox churches out, as well, but my main goal has been to find a church I'm comfortable with getting baptized by, so I'm planning to do that later this month
@@briansonof God be with you, and please don't get discharged if you happen to encounter one of those parishes that care more about their ethnicity than Orthodoxy.
Gosh is this complicated. Thank you for explaining. I might have to watch this twice. I grew up Mormon so the vocabulary is new to me. I think what Mormons call ordinances, everyone else calls sacraments. I'm still not clear on the hierarchy of congregational groupings. It seems like it could have some similarities to stakes and regions.
“Melissa, Melissa, my bubbles you are worried and troubled about many things. But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her.”
I was baptized and grew up Moravian, later attended a Presbyterian church and am now a devoted Episcopalian. All of these denominations have rich cultural and theological traditions -- and a lot to give to the world today. As inheritors of these centuries-old traditions, the challenge for many congregations is to preserve the best of their history, while also being creative in getting out into their communities and making an impact. It is often too easy to get wrapped up in internal church practices and policies; meanwhile, the world is evolving around them. Many of the traditional mainline churches need to realize that God is outside the church just as much as inside it.
That's true. But if only they could start realizing it in such a way where they don't abandon the Gospel. Seems like a hard task for mainliners to pull off for some reason.
@@Uthwita Yes, because all "true" Christians support invading and conquering neighboring countries, murdering and raping civilians and kidnapping children. Just ask the apostate patriarch in Moscow. No thanks. Any branch of Christianity that would support that is clearly way off the path.
Just a minor correction: The German EKD is not a Lutheran church. Infact it is a coalition of churches some of which are Lutheran some reformed and some united (a combination of Lutheran and reformed 'created' by the Prussians) :)
The Bible never said to be orthodox-catholic-protestant. But to be the body of Christ, the Church and the messianic community and to be his disciples. All denominations do is cause more and more division in the church. BE THE CHURCH OF GOD NOT A DENOMINATION.
I’m to understand that Martin Luther didn’t set out to start a church or anything, it just happened that those who agreed with him asked or encouraged him to lead them while they waited for the Church to address their issues!! The wait took longer than expected thus the Protestants was born!!
What gave these men the right to change or decide what is right in Christianity? How far away from what Jesus established have these earthly men strayed? Who gave any man walking this earth the right to make their own versions of Christianity? I don’t see it anywhere in the Bible. Most of what is viewed as Christianity today is a perversion of Christianity. Not to get on the individuals, but those in charge over the years who have made their own “rules” to govern the Christian faithful. That’s where all the different denominations have come from over time. I don’t like what you are doing so I’ll start my own church the way I see it. Christ never said any man could change anything in his name to fit their beliefs or views or values. But, this is what has been going on for hundreds of years, decided by men, as if approved by Christ. Read the Bible! READ THE BIBLE! Study the Bible. Decipher the Bible for yourself. It’s all in the Bible. Be baptized into Christ and follow Christ.
10:27 - on the issue of Baptismal Regeneration, I don't think it is simple enough to list Reformed as a flat "No." I'd want to see Baptism and Baptismal Regeneration carefully defined first. I'm speaking from a Westminster Confession position, but I'm not sure the Three Forms of Unity would contradict this. They don't affirm that the mere water ceremony imputes regeneration on the recipient apart from any sort of sacramental union. But neither do Lutherans, which was given a flat "yes". (In his Large Cathechism, Luther rather vividly calls it a "bath-keepers baptism" and that "the water is the same as that with which the servant cooks".) Westminster Confession 27.2 says: There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or _sacramental union,_ between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that *the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.* In describing the effects of the sacrament of Baptism, it says (28.1): Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, *of regeneration,* of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His church until the end of the world. But this isn't a claim that the mere waters that man apply are the thing that is being referred to, but a work of the Holy Spirit. And that work isn't tied to man's action of giving or receiving baptism. And yet, that is different from saying that the sacrament of Baptism is a mere symbol or doesn't do anything. From 28.6: The efficacy of baptism *is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;* yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, *but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost,* to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, _in His appointed time._ Of course, they aren't saying that being Baptized is a guarantee of salvation, nor that salvation requires it. 28.5: Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, *yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.* I think it would be right to say this is affirming "baptismal regeneration" in some sense. It certainly isn't the sense Rome uses. It might be different from the Lutheran view, though that isn't clear to me from my reading of the Large Catechism, and yet it is distinct from a Zwingli and Baptists, even Reformed Baptists. Flatly answering "yes" or "no" probably requires a lot of unpacking that wouldn't fit in this video. It would be interesting to see you do a video deep dive unpacking the various competing views of Baptism. You probably already have on, I'll have to look. I think you do a great job in this videos.
As someone that comes from a church that uses the Three Forms of Unity (Dutch Reformed), I can confirm that it says almost exactly the same as the Westminster standards in BC Art. 34 and HC-LD 26. However, how it is explained in catechism/pre-confession is that it is not that baptism saves, but rather it is the sign and seal of the covenant of grace; it is not the same thing as regeneration, but rather it imparts upon us God's promise of grace, in which the elect will respond; it is the "convoking" to grace, not the effectual calling. I agree, that it is not as clear as "No", but it definitely leans closest to "No" (on a scale of Catholics being "absolutely yes", Lutherans being "somewhat yes", and Zwingli being "absolutely no", we are a "somewhat no").
Just had putt 3 king King peppermints in my mouth, when the habit of taking this peppermints during service came up. I don’t go to church anymore, but King peppermint stayed. 😀 Nice video, learned a thing of two.
The Porvoo map on wikipedia is a little outdated, the Lutheran Church in GB is now full member. This is why in can take services for Anglicans in Belgium.
Your videos are great. Very informative and accurate -- except for persisting in repeating the false claim that Lutherans administer baptism by sprinkling. We don't. Lutherans generally baptize by pouring, as our liturgical documents specify and as we inherited from the ancient tradition of the church. (Note that pouring is permitted in the Didache, but sprinking is not). There may be a few small exceptions out there, but I have yet to experience or hear about them. What source do you have for making the claim that Lutherans commonly baptize by sprinkling? Im genuinely curious where you got that information. It certainly would be a valid baptism, but it doesn't represent the practice of the vast majority of Lutherans.
Some Reformed denominations call their local ruling body a Consistory rather than a Session and these Consistories really have very little power. The Classis and the Synod dictate everything and Heaven help you if you disagree.
Impressive video. Your use of the term charismatic is a bit loose for this type of video, I think. I agree that there is a loose version of the term reserved for those who have a big focus on spiritual gifts, that is not the what is meant by it in theology terms.
King Henry VIII very nearly made the Church of England Lutheran - but Luther could not persuade him to sign up to the Augsburg Confession. To this day, many Anglicans firmly assert themselves to be good Catholics - while others are equally firmly Reformed. Incidentally, Bishops do not have the final word on most matter in the Church of England. Synods have a strong role, as does Parliament.
Jesus said 1. Love God, 2. love your neighbor. All these different denominations are spin offs from the Catholic Church. What happened is that political influence has corrupted many of these denominations. I respect all Christian belief traditions. But I find disgust in the politics.
16:22 Interesting the Justin Welby, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, has said that he prays in tongues every day and had a one-time salvation experience; he is usually identified with the evangelical wing of Anglicanism.
ELCA requires its candidates for ministry to swear to hold and teach the Lutheran confessions (Ie, the Book of Concord). It is inaccurate to say that the denomination allows ministers to hold to only part or none. Of course, if you ask LCMS, LCMC, or WELS Lutherans about how well the ELCA holds to the confessions then you will get a different answer. *shrug*
Wow! I was just asking this question and decided to look it up after finding an album of Moravian Music I sang on for our local Bach Festival Society. Their music was my favorite choral music as their lyrics (at least the ones we sang) were not only theologically sound but absolutely beautiful, and so fun to sing as a first soprano. Thank you for the quick lesson!
Your channel is very interesting. It is interesting to see how the theology and traditions of different groups has formed my beliefs today. I can see though I grew up in two different denominations and I thought they were a bit different, I have really learned how close they really are.
I attend an LCMS church. Most that I've been to don't have fully closed communion anymore. The churches just generally have an attendance card with a note on the bottom that communion is available for anyone who agrees with the belief statement listed. Sometimes it's up on the screen. Often the pastor at least once every few months will mention before communion that if anyone has any questions regarding baptism, communion, or membership, they can talk to him or any elders later. Occasionally, a pastor may say that communion is for anyone who's been baptized for a more generic explanation. In general, any church would probably prefer a new attendee discuss their desire to take communion before taking it, because the Apostle Paul is clear that no one should be taking it in vain.
I think it depends greatly on where you are and what type of worship style the church has. I find that most that have the traditional divine service are also pretty strict on closed communion
@@wendyleeconnelly2939 The LCMS is moving to a more conservative position from the troubled days of Seminex, which caused a lot of trouble and division in the Synod. There are still more liberal hold outs however. As time goes on, the synod is returning to a conservative position similar, if not identical to WELS and ELS.
Have you done a video on the different splits in Orthodoxy, such as ROCOR, RTOC, Matt-C, etc? I’ve wanted to attend an Orthodox mass for a while, but I wasn’t sure what the different groups would allow for a non-orthodox believer.
@@bigscarysteve oh I don’t have lots of those options available. The only Orthodox Church in my area is of the ROCOR persuasion. I just figured I would list them, to help add content to a video.
@@Dank-gb6jn So ROCOR is your only choice then. There's no ROCOR church in my area, but from what I know of them, I'd say they're the least accommodating to outsiders of all the Orthodox in the USA. They'll probably keep you out of the nave and make you stand in the narthex--and they'll probably make you leave at the end of the Liturgy of the Word, rather than letting you witness the Liturgy of the Sacrament.
@@bigscarysteve at this current juncture, yeah, ROCOR seems to be my only opportunity to directly experience the Orthodox Church. I’ve heard the opposite, as far as how welcoming the group can be, especially since my town is quite small (in the grand scheme of things), so the parish itself seems to be quite small as a result. From my cursory examinations, it seems the Church Father is quite the welcoming to those outside the parish. Of course, attitudes can vary wildly from parish to parish
You have forgotten the Finnish church wich became after the Russian conquest of Finland 1809, before 1809 it was the eastern dioceses of the church of Sweden.
In his recent Christian Denomination Quiz video, he mentions being hesitant about doing a CREC video because of trying to explain the Federal Vision issue. It's towards the end, when the chat AI throws him a bombshell question about Federal Vision. Not to say he won't do it eventually though.
@Johnny Rep Your comment reminded me of that verse in Romans 1, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Though I am not saying this about those churches.
There seem to be a lot of disagreements in the comments..... Hmmm why would we Christians "attack" eachother instead of learning from each other and accepting that not everyone thinks the same. I call myself just Christian, not Catholic, not Protestant, not whatever.... Ah well, maybe i'm the odd one here. Nevertheless, i liked your video and i enjoy your whole channel. i hope you continue to make interesting content like this.
That is an easy one. If you begin to accept that people are people, then you have to throw out Objective Truth. 80% of Christianity is dead at that point. Yes you are the odd one.
I think people are fairly well reasoned and accepting in the comment sections of this channel, a good few people with hardline stances, but not hostile, most religious debates tend to be a lot more heated lol
Yes, the Saxon incarnation of the Moravian Church was highly influenced by Lutheran Pietism, with a distinctively evangelical, mystical and utopian flare. By the middle of the 18th Century, Moravians had left Germany and were all over the world -- they were some of the first missionaries in North America, for example.
I grew up with PC(USA) though I’m now attending Episcopal services. It’s nice they’re both in full communion with some Lutheran and Moravian churches, but it’d be nice if they could be in full communion with each other soon. That would make life a little easier!
Honestly, mainline Christian denominations should just be in communion with one another, especially if they are high church like Episcopalians, Moravians, and Lutherans.
It's a pretty small denomination in the U.S. -- much attention and energy was given to founding churches in the Caribbean, Latin America and Africa. There may be more Moravians in the Global South than in the U.S. or Europe.
@@matijavrscak6461 Oh, I see we're making random, baseless, personal guesses? Cool, I'll go with... if he lived today, Luther would probably be an astronaut. What do I win?
@@Mic1904 well based on the guess that at the beginning where there were just few protestant churches, he saw it was going out of hand. And for the reason that he called other denominations heretics at the time. When he would have known that because of his ideas 400000 different denominations would have been made which is a total mess of christianity and total mess in interpretation of Gods Word, he would have kept his thesis in the bookshelf. Especially when today everyone can willy nilly create his own church based on sola scriptura. Not to mention that the todays believes is actualy strived for like translated Bible, Bible for the simple folk and salvation by grace is lived by Catholics. He strived for reformation and not separation. If he held a little longer and was a bit more patient (until the priority againts the Ottoman invasion of middle Europe has been dealt with), maybe the mess called protestantism would have never happened. This is a what if based on historical and theological theory.
As a Dutch Reformed, I'm very suprised that the practice at 12:00, which I'm familiar with, has blown over to America as well. That's hilarious. Great vid.
Long after I gave up belief and attending church, for a period I would go to cathedrals and attend Evensong. It's not long, it's small and intimate; it is a most beautiful service. There are set readings from the bible which are sung by the choir, often composed by well known English classical composers.
I actually find Useful Charts to be unuseful. Unlike this channel, UC tends to leave out information or lean heavily toward a particular bias and going through great lengths to seem neutral when in actually, it is a bit of a ruse. I had to stop watching him several year back because I found this tendency so distasteful.
Question to Protestants from a Roman Catholic: when you affirm that you believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church, is that your individual denomination? And if so, how do you reconcile that it only came into existence recently, millennia after Christ died?
Good question. All confessional Protestants affirm one holy catholic and apostolic church, but no, this is not an exclusive reference to their particular denomination or regional administration (I'm sure, of course, you will find the occasional cult who believe only the five people in their barn are the Church, but I'm not talking about cults here). So no, since the first of your questions is in the negative, the second question (re: 'coming into existence recently', as you say) doesn't therefore follow. Hope that helps!
In the LCMS we say holy Christian Church. We are talking from my understanding about the elected those who are saved through Christ not just those in the LCMS.
There is only one church, consisting of all Christians, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Baptists, Anglican, Amish, etc.. A Baptist is no less part of the church than a Catholic. Just as a man is no less a member of the his family than his father or his cousins. Sure the different denominations may be in dispute, but family members often quarrel.
originally catholic meant universal, so when we say "one holy catholic church," we mean "one holy universal church," which does not mean all variety of churches, but it means there is an underlying church led by Christ regardless of race, nation, language or denomination.
I often feel for Anglicans, whose theological basis for existing as a unique church was entirely defined by Henry VIII's marital whims. Since then they often seemed to have drifted without any theological anchor, adapting or discarding theological points as the times change.
I think Anglicanism as a Reformed/Lutheran hybrid umbrella under Elizabeth I gave it a unique identity, it had some ambiguity but allowed a variety of viewpoints within reason. But tbh at this point it just seems like at this point since the 39 Articles and even the BCP entirely in some cases have been disregarded, there are no Anglican doctrines giving it an identity. It seems the only distinctives of Anglicanism are episcopal polity, three fold order, and the Creeds, but doctrinally it can range from evangelical charismatics to Tridentine Anglo-Catholica
As a Lutheran ELCA it always sticks in my craw that I can’t go to a Lutheran Missouri synod and be denied communion! That’s not sharing the love of God in my book.
Sharing our love can mean protecting you from harm. The Bible tells us those who take communion without the proper understanding condemn themselves. Since you're no longer confessional, we believe you no longer have the proper understanding. Does a parent not allowing their child to play in a busy street not act out of love?
John what a typical LMS answer. Don’t tell that I’m wrong and that in harms way. Don’t feel bad for me because I know that I always have love and caring in my heart. ELCA would Never turn someone away or try to “recruit” them. What would Jesus think? Respect for others beliefs is what love is.
@@susanmolnar9606 _"I expect faith and reason intertwined to be the basis of understanding."_ Doesn't that go both ways? Where's the respect for their view of communion? As a confessionally Reformed Christian, I'm a bit surprised that a confessionally sound Lutheran church would not let me commune there, but I respect their decision to fence the table in whatever way they please. I don't agree with it given how close we are doctrinally on those things, but if spiritual real presence vs physical real presence is a big enough concern for them, so be it.
@@susanmolnar9606 "what a typical LMS answer" This does not help your counterargument. "Don’t tell that I’m wrong and that in harms way." This is exactly what St. Paul tells the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians. "Don’t feel bad for me because I know that I always have love and caring in my heart." We don't. We feel bad that you deny God's Word for the sake of "being loving." "ELCA would Never turn someone away or try to “recruit” them. What would Jesus think?" Jesus turned many people away (cf. the young rich man). He'd rather have one true follower than millions of nominal followers that do not belief His teachings. If you don't believe me, read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. Read it carefully. Read it twice if you still disagree. Jesus condemns more than He "loves." (But, here's the thing: Him condemning is Him loving, because by condemning He wants to arouse a repentant heart in each and every one of us.). "Respect for others beliefs is what love is." Find one verse in the Gospels where Jesus "respects" the belief of another who disagrees with Him. I don't think there is an example. Thus, by your definition, Jesus is not loving. But, of course He is! How does He love us? He dies on the cross for our sins and points out our sins so that we might turn from them and follow Him. He loves us so much, and because He loves us He does not respect our sinful beliefs but rather tries to correct them. Again, read the Sermon on the Mount. I hope you give a thoughtful response rather than "SMH what an LCMS-er." God bless!
Joshua the only real confessions required are in Romans; to be dead to sin; belief God raised his Son; belief in God's righteousness; belief that Jesus is Lord and Judge of all baptised.
What i dont enjoy from prostestantism is that their theology becomes too rational and logical, that it becomes so shallow and superficial when it comes to the understanding of the divine and the nature of humanity.
