Are you born again?

I've felt grateful countless times for the very same!❤

God Save The King

R u born again?

make sure it is a confessional Luthern Church. ELCA is no longer Christian

@@octaviosalcedo9239 yes absolutely....not even NALC or LCMC....make sure it's real Lutheran like LCMS or WELS or ELS or ELDONA or AALC

Well you all got perfect and judgmental real quick.

@@theodosios2615 judge not lest you be judged.

​@m.v.5425 to point out anti-Biblical and anti-Christian behavior which has been consistently occurring, in order to warn someone who may be innocent/unaware of it, is not judgemental in a negative sense. It is precisely the judgement which God commands.

I was where you were. Becoming a confesional Lutheran has been a blessing for my family and I. May the Lord continue to guide you.

The is no lutheran faith. Martin Luther said you are not allowed to call you self lutheran since it's not his belive. We are are only allowed to call us Christian. It's the very fist sentence of the catechesis.

So agree!! The music was annoying!!

I searched for a church that wasn't corrupted and found out about Lutheranism online, I feel so blessed to also find a Lutheran church near where I lived at the time!

@@AnnabelleJARankinr u born again?

@@himynameisjohnwumsh7631 That was why I sought a church that teaches sound doctrine!

@@AnnabelleJARankin is that a yes or no?

@@himynameisjohnwumsh7631 Is English not your first language ('that' is a relative pronoun...)? Why the interrogation? Please desist.

No need for a rebaptism if you were baptized in a church that believes in the Trinity. One baptism is sufficient.

@@pete3397 "One faith, one baptism..."

Hope you've found a good Lutheran church now, Dennis.

Can you elaborate on how you think the Catholic Church has been ruined by hierarchy? I’m a lifelong Lutheran (non-practicing most of it) and I’m current feeling quite drawn to Catholicism however I’m very skeptical of it. God bless you and thank in advance for reading this

@@Trivico it’s too long for a response. But, it’s disgusting what the leaders have done, continue to do, and cover up. Makes me want to vomit. Stay away

@@rickdockery8390 Thank you, I will look into it.

sedevacantists are the real catholic church.

Can you answer a question for me please, do Lutherans believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Thank you

All churches pick and choose. They discard the old testament. Create their own traditions

How "One church" is Catholicism, really, unless you say that Catholic-like sects like the one to which Mel Gibson belongs, aren't? The Pope might say that they are not, but we Lutherans don't necessarily agree with everything he says, do we?

No. Please don't lie. There is no true church. Eastern orthodoxy is not Christian and it is not orthodox. It is a cult. They worship idols and pray to dead people. How am I going to draw a picture of you and bow to it, and ask you to intercede for me. Grow up. Get real

Hi, I'm the pastor being interviewed in the video. I'm not part of the ELCA. I'm a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Synod

Also NALC and LCMC. I’m sure the “sticking point” for those who say only WELS and LCMS are Biblical is the issue of women preaching and teaching in the church.

??

Not at all a sinking ship! A great explanation about a truly faithful church.

@@AnnabelleJARankin you and I both know you are in denial

@@neilanadams5173 Of what??

Mostly with the heresies of the Roman Church and the corrupt papacy and local German criminal bishops he had to deal with.

He was human and flawed like all of us, but the point is he fought for a pure church that was faithful to the Bible. Lutherans do not worship Luther!

You need to watch Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller who was ELCA then Evangelical and finally LCMS.

The Talmud was verbally inspired by Satan. Luther hated the devil's religion and prayed for the conversion of the Jews who were taught to hate Christ. You have neither actually read his little book on their lies nor bothered to understand the context. And his name is Jesus, not Yeshua. You don't see anyone going around insisting on Iésous. What a pompous way to feign deeper acquaintance of Christ than those who taught you not to blaspheme.

​@@johnchristianpreusyou've made one of the most concise points on Luther which I've ever read. Absolutely perfectly stated.

I suggest that you do some independent research on this subject. You may be shocked and humbled over your ignorance on the subject.

If you think the Bible is outdated please leave and choose your own religion. Accept the Bible or choose a different religion

Many are actually leaving Calvinism for the historic biblical truths of Lutheranism. I was one of them.

True Christians are unconcerned with a lack of 'trendy' behavior. We are far more concerned with serving God.

Scriptural theology is never 'outdated'. Read the Bible - not one dot or tittle will pass away from the law, according to Jesus!

Read: Paul McCain "Refuting Calvinist Claims that Luther Taught Double Predestination"

Also, in the analogy from 2 Timothy, I don't see anywhere it stating that the potter created the tools for noble/ignoble use. In fact, in the context it states that we should be sure that we live in order to be useful and of noble use to the master. not that he has predetermined whether we will or will not be of use to him. So it's actually kind of saying the opposite it seems.

@@dave1370 2 Timothy 2:19-20 ESV But God's firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.” [20] Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. I agree with Luther when he wrote in The Bondage of the Will that the above verses show that it is God who prepares the vessels for their intended use. See pages 204-205 Vol. 33, Luther's Works.

@@dave1370 McCain doesn't in any way disprove that Luther endorsed double predestination. Luther didn't deny that God has predestined some to be damned in his commentary on Genesis. In fact he affirmed it when he said he had written in The Bondage of the Will that everything is absolute and unavoidable.

@@dave1370 I previously wrote out what follows with the intention of using it sometime in the future but I might as well post it here now: According to confessional Lutherans God by His revealed will wills that everyone should be saved and that this isn't in conflict with His hidden will which elects to save only some people and not everyone. According to them although God doesn't elect to save everyone this isn't because He's unwilling to save them, but it involves a mystery which is impossible to understand. So according to this there's something which isn't an unwillingness to save everyone which accounts for why God doesn't elect to save everyone. However this doesn't make sense. There can't be any other reason why God doesn't do something other than He wills not to do it. He's all-powerful and has perfect freedom to do as He wills. If He doesn't elect to save everyone that's because He doesn't will to save everyone. There's nothing mysterious as to why He doesn't elect to save everyone. He simply doesn't elect to save everyone because He wills to save only those He chooses to save. So although in His revealed will in Christ He desires to save everyone, at the same time according to His hidden will, which determines what happens, He doesn't will to save everyone. So it follows that the Holy Spirit is only efficacious in the Word to those whom God has elected to save. The promise of salvation is made to everyone on condition that they believe in Christ as their Saviour but only the elect are enabled to have true saving faith in Christ. This is what Christ taught when he said in John 6:44 that no one could come to Him unless the Father drew them to Him. It follows therefore that the reason why people aren't saved is because the Father isn’t willing to draw them to Christ, which is indeed what Christ taught in John 6:64-65: [64] But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) [65] And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." (ESV) Christ obviously meant by this that the reason why some were unbelieving was because the Father hadn't draw them to Him and that therefore they hadn't been granted the ability to believe in Him. So the idea that people are unbelievers because they've resisted the Holy Spirit's attempt to convert them as taught in confessional Lutheranism isn't why people are unbelievers according to Christ. The reason Christ gives is that it's due to the Father who in their case hasn't willed to give them the Holy Spirit through the Word so that they can be converted. So the confessional Lutheran teaching of the universal operation of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace isn't true. That's a false conclusion reached by making the wrong assumption that the Father wills to draw everyone to Christ and grant everyone the ability to believe which simply isn't taught in Scripture. One can't legitimately conclude from Christ's desire to save everyone that therefore the Father attempts to convert everyone through the Word and that people are to blame if they don't believe. That's not actually what is being taught even though from some passages it appears that everyone has the ability to believe and that blame is being attached to them for their failure to do so. Blame is being attached to their unbelief but that's not because they have the ability to believe if they refrain from resisting. As Luther pointed out in The Bondage of the Will we don't have free will to decide whether to believe or not because the decision as to who become believers is down to God who has elected and predestined only certain people to become believers and be saved. The rest can't become believers and be saved, and are predestined to be damned, and Luther based this on John 6:44 and Romans 9 and other similar passages. In Romans 9 Paul refers to the complaint that some would make (in opposition to the teaching that God has decided to have mercy only on some people and not all and that some are hardened by God in their unbelief) that it is unfair that they should be held responsible for their unbelief when God has willed that they be unbelievers (i.e. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” Romans 9:19 ESV). So that in itself disproves the confessional Lutheran teaching that God has mercy on everyone and wills to save everyone. If that was true it would be pointless for anyone to raise the objection that God's will can't be thwarted and that God is being unreasonable in blaming people for their unbelief. If people were unbelievers because they resisted the Holy Spirit and rejected God's mercy then there would be no basis for anyone to complain that God's will can't be resisted. It only makes sense to make this complaint if God is blaming people for their unbelief when at the same time He has willed that they remain unbelievers. Paul answers why it is legitimate for God to blame people for their unbelief when He has willed that they remain unbelievers by saying that God can do as He wishes because He's like a potter who makes both vases and chamber pots. In other words Paul is teaching that God decides the fate of individuals by assigning them to either heaven or hell. Romans 9 thoroughly disproves the confessional Lutheran teaching that God has mercy on everyone and hardens in unbelief those who have rejected His mercy and resisted the Holy Spirit. That isn't taught in Scripture and makes a nonsense of Romans 9. Paul doesn’t say that God has mercy on everyone, but that God has mercy only on some people (i.e [15] For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” ... [18] So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.). The Confessional Lutheran teaching that God has mercy on everyone and tries to convert everyone by the Holy Spirit through the Word and hardens only those who resist the Holy Spirit and reject His mercy is directly contradicted by Romans 9. Paul clearly teaches that God hardens in unbelief those whom He doesn’t have mercy upon. (When in Romans 11:32 Paul says “For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.” Paul is only referring to the elect both Jew and Gentile not to everyone in general) So Scripture is on the side of those like myself who reject the teaching on predestination found in the Formula of Concord, and who believe that it doesn’t represent authentic Lutheran teaching as taught by Luther and the early Lutherans. This latter is corroborated by one of the authors of the Formula - David Chytraeus - who said to the theological faculty of the university of Wittenberg with reference to some of the things Luther had written in The Bondage of the Will the following: "These and many similar exceedingly terrible utterances, which at that time were taught in your school as divine revelations, are now nowhere retained except in the schools of the Calvinists. Philippus (Melanchthon) our common teacher, has gradually softened and removed them … and this already while Luther was living.” (quoted on page 23 in Walther and the Predestination Controversy: The Error of Modern Missouri) So from this one can see that the teaching on predestination in the Formula of Concord owes its origin not principally to Luther but rather to Melanchthon who rejected Luther’s exposition of absolute predestination in The Bondage of the Will. Luther’s explanation of predestination in The Bondage of the Will is simply what Scripture teaches on the subject so for Chytraeus to get upset about what Luther had written and call it terrible shows how lacking in understanding he was. This was also true of the principal author of the Formula Martin Chemnitz who also totally rejected that Scripture teaches double predestination. His explanation of various Scripture passages in the Formula concerning predestination I simply can’t accept. His interpretation of Romans 9 for instance is basically wrong. It doesn’t agree with what Paul was meaning. Chemnitz argued for instance from verse 22 that God wouldn’t need to be long suffering towards those who are heading for damnation if He’d actually predestined them to be damned. But to say this is to ignore what Paul had previously argued and to take verse 22 out of context. Also it doesn’t follow that God won’t need to show patience towards those who are destined to be damned if He has declined to have mercy upon them and has willed that they be damned in their sins. The reason why they’re damned isn’t simply because God has withheld the Holy Spirit from them but is also because they’re sinners who wish to continue sinning, so in that case God does need to be long suffering towards those who are predestined to be damned. I can only subscribe to the Formula of Concord in so far as its teaching agrees with Scripture which means I can’t give it my complete approval. Also it's clear to me that Luther and the early Lutherans wouldn't have subscribed to it with their signatures. The single predestination doctrine taught in the Formula represents a departure from the teaching of Scripture and authentic Lutheranism, and to my mind those who give it their approval aren’t really Lutherans. They should in reality be named after Martin Chemnitz not Martin Luther.