It’s helpful to study the development of the theology of the GnesioLutherans within Lutheranism. They broke Lutheranism away from Melanchthon. Melanchthon and Calvin followed Luther substantially. I sometimes call myself a pre-Gnesio Lutheran.

Debunking catholicism I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen _________________________ CHRIST alone John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus _________________________ Work of God = John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” _________________________ 1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul. Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop _________________________ Jesus said Matthew 23:9 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father. Sad _________________________ Whenever a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God Use this to defeat the argument. Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Matthew 12:46-50 46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”. Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” John 19:26-27 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards). By the way sarah is the mother of all proof=Galatians 4:21-26. _________________________ We should not pray to apostles Romans 1:25 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Acts 10:25-26 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” Acts 14:15 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, Revelation 19:10 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 22:8-9 8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." Colossians 2:18 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26 26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Hebrews 7:25 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles _________________________ There is only one Mediator between God and men LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. _________________________ Apostles are allowed to marry, 1 Corinthians 9:1-5 1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry? _________________________ The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic). 1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple 2)He sank down while walking on water 3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan 4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times 5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven 6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear 7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles. 8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land), 9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit), 10)King Soloman messed up, 11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11). Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up) 12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up. 13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20 14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9 If these great people could mess up, why do you think the catholic church wouldn't mess up. ____________________________________ Galatians 4:21-26 21 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. Sarah is mother of all, Not mary. _________________________ Also the Church has many name like Christians, Evangelists, Children of God, Believers, servents of God, bride of Christ, but not once the Church is called catholics. _________________________ Also, if the apostles didn't wrote it, I don't want it.✝️✝️

@@mynameis......23 my boy typed up a whole essay in a reply. I’m R. Catholic too. I hope your work is fruitful and valuable, regardless of weather or not it is read by the people you intended too.

Same dude 👏

@@mynameis......23I’m not Catholic, but: I AINT EVEN READING ALLAT🗣️💯

@@mynameis......23 You must be fun at parties lol

similar situation in Sweden and Denmark too. Slightly different in Norway.

@@sonye-jin6737 in what sense is it different in Norway?

@@mmusic8558 the Norwegian Lutheran state Church is much more influenced by internal evangelicals. Instead of becoming free churches they stayed in the national Church.

@@sonye-jin6737 Yes, I see.. There are many revival movements in the Finnish Lutheran church, but all of them, with the exception of one or two, hold strictly to the Lutheran confession. Movements not accepting the Lutheran doctrine are what we call free churches, and completely outside the Lutheran church. But this is not so in Norway if I understood you right.

@@mmusic8558 in Sweden the confessionals split off from Church in modern times to create Missionsprovinsen (claiming to be in the tradition of Church of Sweden) but there are holdouts of different conservatives in Church of Sweden despite liberalism

Hey, u mind if I ask you a question? I think I recall your former username being Lambeth Anglican if I’m not mistaken, and while I love the Book of Concord (which I finally got around to finishing, minus some boring sections of the Apology lol) I can’t help but feel discouraged by the mark Pietism has left on contemporary Lutheranism, with the exception of maybe some Nordic countries and even they have large swaths of Pietism besides Sweden and Finland. Lutheranism, as established, is I think the closest thing we have to a continuity with the Patristic church. But it’s just not what it used to be anymore, especially in America. It’s really hard to find Evangelical Catholic parishes in my experience. Whereas Anglicanism, although perhaps very Reformed in its origins, had the opposite trajectory with a more Catholic bent emerging from the Oxford Movement. I think some of them go too far with novel doctrines like transubstantiation and invocation of the saints, but I find a very convincing continuity with the Prayer Book Catholic/English Use tradition. It seems to have all of the appreciated good changes of the Oxford Movement while also not going too far with Romanist innovations, and to me there’s a surprisingly convincing blend of elements of the Caroline Divines and Non-Jurors of the Old High Church tradition and their quasi-Lutheran perspectives on soteriology and anti-Calvinism, the sacramental emphases of the Tractarians with things like the weekly Eucharist, corporeal Real Presence and the renewed emphasis on confession and absolution, all topped off with the liturgical outer trappings of the Medieval church which, despite its theological abuses, is still a part of the Church catholic’s history. As a liturgist, the trajectory of Anglicanism is exactly what I desire, and while I find myself very theologically Lutheran as per the Confessions, the Gnesio-Lutheran emphasis of the Augsburg Confession seems to be completely different than contemporary Lutheranism. I know my place belongs in either of these two camps, but I’m having trouble deciding and I’d really appreciate your thoughts. Apologies for the word vomit, just thought you’d be a good person to ask :)

@@DeFyYing just my 2 cents. 3 of the 4 LCMS churches near me are book of concord heavy, confessional, high church evangelical catholic. I think a lot of this is going to depend on what churches you have around locally. I’ve been blessed to have 3 highly traditional Lutheran churches near me to pick from when I made the jump. I would have gone ACNA if Otherwise. My brother is ACNA high church Anglican and there is very little difference between his churches liturgy, practice, etc…and my Lutheran church. We visit each other’s churches often and both enjoy sharing our traditions with each other. It all depends on what’s available in your area.

@@DeFyYing Yes, you've raised good points. I wouldn't say the Augsburg Confession is particularly "Gnesio" as it was written by Melancthon. In fact, in many ways, the Philipist party won out even in many of the pronouncements of the Fomula of Concord (rejection of the capernaitic localist eating, rejection of Matthias Flacius on sin-nature, affirmation of the usus clause, etc.) I would call myself a Philipist for the most part, seeing as how I hold much affinity for the Anglican tradition of Cranmer and Bucer (both of which learned under the Melancthonian school)... I for one, am not a big fan of Hermann Sasse due to the trajectory he set in the 20th century of driving a wedge between Luther and Melancthon/Chemnitz/Gerhard on the Supper. (The Formula is clear that Melancthon rather than Luther is correct on the Supper, the Augustinian view is correct, and thus there is general agreement among Jesuits, Calvinists and Lutherans -- Christ is not locally/bodily/physically present in the Supper, but he is present sacramentally/substantially/spiritually). So, in some sense, I see myself as a "Reformed-Catholic" Lutheran, which is why I see more overlap with Anglicanism than dissimilarity. In terms of non-confessional externals, I do think Anglicanism has SO MUCH to offer the Lutheran tradition in terms of how to _live out_ "Reformation Catholicism" rather than simply what to believe. Particularly, in ecclesiology and worship: 1. No Church claiming the identity of "Catholic" has any excuse practicing Congregationalism (or at least being anti-episcopal); such is contrary to the confessions and the church Catholic. 2. Anglican liturgy is better. It just is. Luther was a musician more than a liturgical scholar, meanwhile Cranmer had devoted his life to liturgiology prior to the Reformation. This is obvious in the difference between the BCP and the Luther Masses; one was a careful revision of the Western Rite to fit the new context of Reformed faith (including a beautiful tradition of evangelical Eucharistic Prayers, sorely absent in Lutheran history and consciousness -- at least in Germany and America)... the other establishing the precedent of musical paraphrases of historical canticles and creeds, and the scandalizing innovation of a canon-less eucharistic rite never before used in Christendom. Again, Lutheranism is cleaner theologically, but in practice... I lean Anglican. That's why I hold one foot in each camp. As for Pietism, I would describe myself as having Pietist leanings, even quasi-charismatic leanings... but that doesn't mean low church. In Sweden, Pietism was simply a renewal movement that emphasized Mysticism and the internals to balance out the dangers of dry, intellectual, institutionalism inherent in establishment religion. Often Pietism went along with the renewal of monastic communities in Sweden, so again, not to be confused with low church German Pietism. (E.g. Bishop Bo Giertz was a High Church Pietist)

Seriously- former RC and was shocked to find out how wrong I was about the Lutheran Church.

@@vngelicath1580 Good point, I like Melanchthon’s more diplomatic and calm nature compared to Luther lol. I didn’t know Philippism was still a thing, would you say it still had a decent following in contemporary Lutheranism? I appreciate that Melanchthon was trying to make peace with the Reformed, but I’m not too sure I agree he should’ve compromised on Eucharistic theology

The reformed don’t actually believe that either. I would refer to you the Puritan work, “The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification”.

Oops. You know what I meant...

@@DrJordanBCooper , yes I do. Just thought you might confuse some others at that point.

No, that's Episcopalians (of whom I am one). 😊

A presbyterian started the collar thing, and Anglicans made it popular.

@@MortenBendiksen Ha, well that's interesting!

Most historical Protestant traditions have pastors in robes and liturgy! Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Congregationalist, Methodists, etc. It’s the Baptists that are the outliers here. 😊

@@fighterofthenightman1057 Hmmm, true, maybe they were outliers for going back to being obedient to what special clothing the Bible says pastors should wear. I heard someone say that where the Bible is silent, so should we be. IMHO, the special pastor clothing is a tradition of men. I have no problem with it, and it probably does good in some ways. Shrug. Thanks for the comment though. I really liked talking with a Christian right now. I don't get much of that. :-)

Do you have any specific misconceptions in mind?

@@maximosmagyar9653 Oh, I’m working from memory of over a decade ago, but it seems they would say Luther taught the sinner’s prayer, once saved always saved, licentiousness, lumping with anabaptists, memorial view of the Eucharist, spiritual view of the Eucharist, and a few other things that made me chuckle because of how wrong they were. Luther was a major historical figure, so they ought to at least learn the basics of his views before trying to criticize him.

I have heard it leveled by Reformed folks towards Lutheranism as well.

As someone raised evangelical, I can tell you that it is no mere caricature in those circles, even if it isn't true of Lutherans. I've known so many people who believed it "didn't matter what they did" after the moment they were "saved" because they had their get out of hell free card. One man said he could be cheating on his wife at the moment Christ returned and he would still be taken up to heaven.

@@unit2394 I've only heard it made by Romanists against "protestants" (whatever that means to them), never by a Reformed Christian against a Lutheran. Unless the Lutheran was unconfessional and did seem to hold to a form of antinomianism (but then we have people like that in our ranks who also need correcting). Reformed understand that Lutherans also hold to the five solas.

@@oracleoftroy many Reformed I have encountered have never really learned about or interacted with the Lutheran confessions and have a very caricatured view of Lutheranism, which includes it being antinomian.

@@unit2394 Hmm, in my experience, most Reformed assume Lutherans are more like them than Lutherans believe, as they both came out of the reformation and on key doctrines are in lock step. Especially because Lutherans hold to the same three use of the law as the Reformed do. I've been in Reformed denominations on both the contanental and Presbyterian side for ~30 years and never heard anything about Lutherans being antinomian. I agree that both sides hold to some caricatures. For example, I was taught that Lutherans hold to consubstantiation, and most Lutherans think we deny the real presence in the Lord's supper or are Zwinglists in general on the sacraments.

What is an evangelical catholic?

That’s what I was taught in an evangelical , non-denominational Christian school. Catholics had transubstantiation while Lutherans had consubstantiation.

@@apologiaromana4123 fancy word for Lutheran (with subtle implications toward the high church side)

@@vngelicath1580 Thank you for the response! Which of the confessional lutheran churches in the U.S. would be "evangelical catholics"? S.D.G.

@@apologiaromana4123 in theory the LCMS is Evangelical Catholic, however there are like in any denominations internal problems.

Then they have not Read Luther. Luther rejected that View And Refuted it ij his work against the antinomians

Yes, as He says by Scripture and plain reason.

The words of Christ are the power that produces the presence, and it occurs through the words of Christ. It is not the person or work of the minister. We do not speculate on what happens if lay people usurp the Office of the Ministry, but simply insist that the called and ordained servant of the word must preach the gospel and administer sacraments. Formula of Concord, Epitome, VII, AFFIRMATIVE THESES, "3. Now, as to the consecration, we believe, teach, and confess that no work of man or recitation _of the minister_ [of the church] produces this presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but that this is to be ascribed only and alone to the almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ. "4. But at the same time we also believe, teach, and confess unanimously that in the use of the Holy Supper the words of the institution of Christ should in no way be omitted, but should be publicly recited, as it is written 1 Cor. 10:16: The cup of blessing which we bless, etc. *This blessing occurs **_THROUGH THE RECITATION_** of the words of Christ."* Augsburg Confession, Article V, "That we may obtain this faith, the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted."

Election onto faith is the Lutheran standpoint, right?

Exactly, and as a Lutheran I feel the same

Where could we get a true understanding of reformed theology ?

@@davidthenewtheologian7757 Good question. Reformed theology in Europe now is pretty much “gone to seed” as the American Midwestern farmers would say. But a rich blend of historically Reformed Theology is having somewhat of a resurgence in the US and maybe a few other places. From a layman’s perspective, the video, print and public conference work of Ligonier Ministries is a good start. Then there is the published work of faculties at 8 or 10 primary Reformed seminaries in the US. The Biblical, systematic, dogmatic and historical theology of Berkof, Bavinck and more recent Sproul, Ferguson, and quite a few others on the scene today. And, of course there are the magnificent Reformed Confessions; Westminster, Heidelberg, Canons of Dort, Belgic, 1st and 2nd Helvetic, etc.

@@justintillett but even Calvin didn’t believe in limited atonement and wasn’t amyrault affirmed at the synod of Dort ?

@@davidthenewtheologian7757 It is not correct to say Calvin didn’t teach particular atonement. Limited atonement is a pejorative phrasing of the concept of definite, particular atonement for the sin of those elected, predestined, called to eternal salvation. Jacob Amyrault held that the the atonement was made by Christ for all but the Spirit did not apply the finished atoning work of Christ to all. His position was not accepted as mainstream Calvinism progressed. Which brings up an interesting difference in Lutheranism and Calvinism; Unlike, in Calvinism, theological development or progress in American Lutheran theology is not widely appreciated. It’s about exegeting the words of one man, albeit a great man. In Calvinism you have substantial welcomed contributions from a number of Reformation countries. I mentioned English Puritanism particularly in the area of Christology ; Scottish Presbyterianism in the area of church and national government; and Dutch Calvinism in the area of cultural application of Biblical theology and theology of creation. And there is much more to say here.

@@justintillett so where do you attend? Are you Presbyterian, Anglican ?

Do you consider not sinning to be a species of good work? I once heard a Catholic argue that repenting was a good work.

Beautiful response. I too am Dutch Reformed (URCNA).

@@jcpg9592 Thank you. I’m also in the URCNA (at Covenant URCNA, Fresno, California.)

@@sierragrey7910 that's wonderful! I attend Pocono Reformed Bible Church (Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania)

I've heard one of the issues is one people tried to talk to luther about it he would scream the body and blood of christ in German over and over again. Seems like alot of Christans just have no interest in listening to each other and think they are right there for everyone else is crazy. I belive we need to pray about where are hearts are in certain issues and really listen to other people.

@@jcpg9592 I’ve never been north of Bethlehem but I have seen pictures. Why a beautiful area to live in. May God bless your congregation, consistory, and pastor.

Don't you mean a critique of LCMS? There is still time for you to return to the ELCA.

The variata of Melanchthon is not something confessional Lutherans are fond of. You may notice a large number of old churches with U.A.C. inscribed on the cornerstone or displayed on the sign. It means Unaltered Augsburg Confession.

@@jasonharris2291 Yes, I knew that but I have not ever seen it. I am the opposite of Dr Cooper. I was baptized Lutheran, but became Presbyterian in my college years.

I'm trying to think of who you could mean. RC Sproul could not be on your mind, surely.

(Melanchthon varied the AC for his Elector not for Calvin)

@@lilacDaisy111 No, I really have come to like the late Sproul. I was thinking of more Baptisty folk such as MacAthur or James White.

Agreed. I'm pretty sure Dr. Cooper agrees. That combination of verses 8-9 and then verse 10, exactly sets in contra-distinction the two types of righteousness that Dr. Cooper explained.

What about James saying that salvation is "not by faith alone"?

@@josephbirch3635 James said that faith without works is dead and that works show faith. James is hard to understand but He did NOT say that works are necessary for salvation.

@@markhorton3994 "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." - James 2:24. This is also the only time the phrase "faith alone" appears in the Bible that I know of.

Read John 6 carefully. Jesus repeatedly tells his disciples they must eat (lit. gnaw upon) his flesh in order to have life. They feel shocked and scandalized, begin arguing with each other, and many of them abandon him afterward. They understood what a metaphor is. The early Church was not with Zwingli on the Eucharist. They affirmed Real Presence.

@@norala-gx9ld Thank you for this response, I really appreciate it. I'll check this out

There's a line that I'm not exactly sure where it originates, but it is variously credited to Luther and Calvin and sometimes other Reformers that goes like: "We are justified by faith alone, but faith is never alone" Meaning that true living faith is accompanied by works, but those works are not the cause or instrument of our justification. Lutherans and the Reformed should be in full agreement as both hold to the five Solas. I assume it is a Romanist making the objection (or maybe one from the eastern church) and that Cooper's introduction makes it misleadingly sound like it comes from the Reformed side. I hope that isn't his intention, but there were a few points where he seems to not get the Reformed position, like our affirmation of the Real Presence and rejection of Zwingli's symbolic view of the supper.

It depends on the synod. ELCA has departed from biblical truth and now allows gay clergy and same sex marriage. LCMS, does not. There are other Lutheran synods with which I am not as familiar, but I believe them to be more conservative than ELCA. The Bible condemns homosexuality, so therefore any church that departs from biblical truth should be avoided.

Though I do think there is some importance to being able to affirm it is still bread. Just like the devine does not have to displace the substance of a human to be fully present, neither does the breadness have to yield in order to make room for the divine. It makes no worldly sense, but in light of the gospel, it makes a lot of sense.

As a Reformed guy, I hear that about us from Lutherans as well. I assume it's a similar argument "Catholic -> Lutheran" or "Lutheran -> Reformed": You don't have _my_ understanding of the real presence, therefore you don't believe in real presence at all! Sadly Cooper did something similar in this video when he falsely lumped the Reformed view with Zwingli.

A Mighty Fortress by MartinLuther.

@@walterhelm8186 Thank you!

"The Holocaust in Italy was the persecution, deportation, and murder of Jews between 1943 and 1945" -- Wikipedia

@@Mygoalwogel Did Italy start this? Or was it another way that they were influenced by Hitler's "Final Solution"? Either way it started in Germany first.

@@losely451 Regardless of where it started, what "contribute[d] to the [Papist] Church in [Italy] turning a blind eye to how the [Italian fascists and German] nazis treated the Jews"?

@@Mygoalwogel No. I don't think Italy would've initiated if Germany hadn't done it first. The timeline says as much.

@@losely451 I think you missed the point. You claimed: _"Luther's Two Kingdom Theology helped to contribute to the Lutheran Church in Germany turning a blind eye to how the nazis treated the Jews."_ I agree roughly *20 million Papists* and 40 million Protestants turned a blind eye. It is a fact the Holocaust began in Germany first, 1939. No argument from me. My question is: [What] helped to contribute to the [Papist] Church in [Italy] turning a blind eye to how the [Italian fascists and German] nazis treated the Jews"? Do you agree roughly *43 million Papists* turned a blind eye? It is a fact the Holocaust began *later* in Italy, 1943.

At least in the ELCA, most all of us acknowledge that this was one of Luther's grave sins.

By referring to us ELCA Lutherans as super duper liberals, you are suggesting that we are not right. To the contrary, I believe that ELCA Lutherans are just more correct than LCMS Lutherans.

@@stevekohl5351ELCA are so far from Luther’s teaching I would not even consider them to be Lutheran! Homosexual Pastors is pure evil! Jesus said where homosexuality will end up.

@@stevekohl5351ELCA are not Lutheran as they don’t keep Luther doctrine. They have fallen away from scripture.

Erm no still a caricature. Sola Fide is receiving God's righteousness, Passive righteousness solely by faith. All accomplished by Christ work on the Cross. The initial reception of Salvation and justification is by faith. However Salvation is conditioned by Faith. U don't loose ur salvation cause u do evil works. U loose your salvation cause u departed from the faith. Paul tells us quote plainly in Romans 14:23 and anything that is sin DOES NOT COME FROM FAITH. The Faith that saves and justifies us before God would produce works.

@@jenex5608 Except that this man within the video clearly said that evil works forfeit salvation, this is a total contradiction, you’re making a separate argument. Also, if the evil works are merely a demonstration of losing faith, like how you think good works are a demonstration of faith, it’s the same contradiction anyway.

@@lyricalmike7162 His correct evil works forfeit your salvation. Cause Paul teaches anything that isn't from faith is sin. So when u sin u don't do it from faith. Ur faith becomes dead. Therfore the very requirement for salvation th is ur faith. Become Dead

@@jenex5608 KZfaq keeps deleting my response, figures, but I refute this exact argument in my latest video on another app for content makers, my account name is “santo floridano” without the space.

A committee

All as have been sanctified are by definition “saints!” with a lower case. Hence the CHURCH UNIVERSAL as the COMMUNION of SAINTS. The third article of the Apostles’ Creed must be properly understood as referring to, I believe in the Holy Ghost. in I believe in the holy Christian Church “which is THE Communion of SAINTS”, i.e., the gathering in fellowship of all believers as have been sanctified through the blood, meaning the atoning death AND resurrection of Christ as Victor…. Remembering that the definition of the church is “where two or more of you are gathered in my NAME,” see here: “Where the Holy Spirit is, there the church is whom He has sanctified in Christ. The phrase in the Creed, communio sanctorum, can be translated in one of two ways. It can mean “communion of the saints” as a further explanation of “the holy Christian Church” or it can mean “the communion in the holy things,” also a fair translation of the Latin…. (See also an excellent article on the subject by Pastor Jason D. Lane). Remember that Paul, in his epistles, usually start with the salutation, “To the Saints in (X)…”. The proper reading of the Creed, written in Latin, is key to a correct understanding that the word “saints” is in reference to ALL CHRISTIANS! The Roman Catholic notion of saints as referring to those only as formally canonized is simply incorrect. This also should be understood in conjunction with Luther’s point in Universal Priesthood. As saints, we all are part of the Ministry of God, whether as laymen or as ordained clergy. There is no distinction between “person vs. parson,” other than the fact that some undergo professional training as preachers/teachers of the Word…! God bless!

I find it’s very disrespectful to the whole meaning of the Vestment to call them robes or dresses! Same with calling it the cup instead of the Challas!

If that's a Lutheran quick explanation, why are they so quick to dismiss the Reformed view? Lutherans _do_ say more. A Lutheran could probably agree with most of Westminster Confession 29.7 for example, but there is a glaring piece that all Lutherans in my experience do take issue with, the physical presence: Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, *really and indeed,* yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, *receive and feed upon Christ crucified,* and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as *really,* but spiritually, *present to the faith of believers in that ordinance,* as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

@@oracleoftroy The reformed view that the body and blood of Christ are not physically present is precisely what we Lutherans reject. It is not quickly. The rejection is long decided. When Luther met Zwingli to try to resolve differences Luther removed the tablecloth either to reveal or to write the words "THIS IS MY BODY " ( in German or Latin) pounding on the table to emphasize each word as he pronounced it, Emphatically. This solidified the separation of Lutheran and Reformed. I was tought in confirmation class many many years ago to classify ( NOT judge) Christian denominations by this difference. Catholics believe that only Christ's body and blood are actually present by transsubstantiation. Reformed believe that Christ's body and blood are present only spiritual as Zwingli said or only symbolically as many say. Lutherans believe that both the bread and wine and Christ's body and blood have real present. We have believed that since before Melancthan, who first formalized Lutheran theology in writing, was forced to leave for changing his mind.

@@markhorton3994 Not sure why you are talking about Zwingli. I know Lutherans get confused by this, but Zwingli and Calvin are actually two different people and don't share the same view of the sacraments. Calvin's view was much closer to Luther save as I already noted, that he did held to a real presence that was spiritual not physical. He didn't hold to a mere memorialism or mere symbolism. I find it strange how sectarian Lutherans are, such that even when there is agreement they have to find ways to disagree and cast off everyone else. On this issue there are important differences, but we don't need to exaggerate them or lie about them.

@@oracleoftroy It was Zwingli who Luther met with and disagreed with about real presence. The followers of Zwingli were the start of the Reformed movement and used that name. Luther never met Calvin but did read his work. He agreed with Calvin about the bondage of the Will but absolutely not about double predestination. Today "Reformed " and "evangelical" seem to be blanket terms covering a wide range of theology. All seem to agree on the infallibility of Scripture but disagree on what that means. The range seems to be that only the KJV is the Word of God and not one letter or punctuation mark is not exactly as God sent it to my viewpoint that every word as originally inspired is what God intended it to be but not all of it is literal and not all of it is command eg "the four corners of the Earth " does not mean that the Earth is flat and rectangular " and David and Bathsheeba is not a command to commit murder and adultery All translations and all manuscripts contain human errors in transmission but God has preserved His message. Some "Reformed " or "evengelicals" are Calvinist others are closer to Arian, some (like Luther) are neither. All are Trinitarian. Views on the Sacraments vary also. Almost all believe in "believer Baptism ". Some believe that Christ's body and blood are spiritually but not physically present others that the Lord's Supper is only symbolic. Many make a distinction between "Protestant", "Reformed ", and "evangelical" but their definitions vary greatly, when they have definitions.

@@oracleoftroy Yes Lutherans are sectarian. We do not fellowship with those who disagree with our beliefs. Our pastors do not preach in other churches or offer prayer at public gatherings to avoid pressure to compromise. We do not allow clergy of other denominations to preach from our pulpits. We practice closed communion, members only, and do not take communion in other churches. But ANYONE is welcome to worship with us and I at least will attend any Christian church on occasion. We do not judge anyone. God will judge when it is time. We acknowledge Christians we disagree with as our brothers in Christ. We will know who is correct on non Salvation issues soon enough, if they actually matter. We will not budge on the things that matter such as the Bible being the Word o fGod, the Trinity, the Death and Resurrection of Christ, and Jesus being the ONLY way to the Father.

To be honest, I've heard it said more often about Martin Chemnitz than Melanchthon. In my reading, Bucer and Melanchthon seemed very keen to seek unity among the reformers, and while Luther and Calvin were a bit hotheaded at times, they mostly seemed on board. But Chemnitz and others in his time seemed much more sectarian and unwilling to seek unity.