Thread 520749776

In a world where white people are converting to catholicism and orthodoxy, I am a catholic drawn to lutheranism.
>no pope to tell you to kiss the feet of africans
>no Mary worship
>soulful hymns in ancient evropean melodies and not little boys singing in latin
>traditional church architecture reflects germanic architecture

>>520749776 (OP)
I am not a believer.
I have no problem with people that do.
If anything I would fall under the category of "christian atheist" which I only somewhat recently learned was a real term.
All that being said, I have no idea why Catholicism isn't considered heresy and Catholics aren't considered heretics.
it seems like a worse christianity with extra steps that lean towards being fucking retards.

Religion makes sense in the lens of 2000+ years ago, it seems preposterous in 2025.

>>520749776 (OP)
LCMS is actually pretty great. they really preach the Law and Gospel. see if there it one near you and go have a chat with the pastor. ive had really good experiences with going to those churches.

>>520749776 (OP)
You aren't drawn to God, you are drawn to traditions.

>>520749776 (OP)
I wonder when whites abandon abrahamism

>>520749776 (OP)
i hate ai slop so much

>>520750742
it's not ai you dolt

>>520750703
Do not fall for glownigger divide & conquer tactics.

Christianity is the definition of "right wing" political ideology:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum#Origins_in_the_French_Revolution

Christianity has always been a racist religion:
>"Oh, race of Franks, race from across the mountains, race chosen and beloved [...]"
>"the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God [...]"
- https://www2.cbn.com/article/church/pope-urban-iis-speech-calling-first-crusade

The racist and anti-semitic Confederates have always been Christian.
The National Socialists used the Celtic cross and gave out iron cross medals for bravery. The white term for "swastika" is hakenkreuz, meaning hooked cross.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakenkreuzbanner

Here's a growing list of Christian political commentators who are racist and anti-semitic:
- https://rentry.org/Deus_Vult
Feel free to reply to this post with others.

Educate boomers irl. If you don't preach to them, the anti-Christian kikes will:
- https://news.antiwar.com/2025/10/06/israel-to-spend-up-to-4-1-million-in-propaganda-campaign-targeting-american-christians/
israeli nationalism ("zionism") is a heresy:
- https://youtu.be/GKlT-hhZXoM&t=658s
- https://youtu.be/odNoExd8a5U
- https://youtu.be/rp92-3aBL-A
The "holocaust" (burnt offering) is a lie made up by kikes, both soviet and freemason:
- https://rumble.com/c/ScriptureandTraditionFrJM/videos
Boycott israeli products:
- https://bdsmovement.net

Common glownigger talking points:
>"jesus is a kike"
The word "kike" comes from "kikel", which means circle. The kikes hate the cross so much, they would sign documents with a circle, hence the nickname.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plus_and_minus_signs#Alternative_plus_sign
>"off topic"
Reminder the pope is the monarch of a country. In fact in many white nations there is no separation between church and state.

>>520750793
then you're both blind and retarded

>>520750742
you should really try image search before making your clever declarations

>>520750863
>pews facing random directions
>random balconies
nah just kys

>>520750833
>>520750912
it's called the Peace Church in Jawor, Poland, it's a unesco heritage site you absolute idiot holy shit lol

>>520749776 (OP)
>Zero mention of the cornerstone of Christianity
You are not interested in becoming Christian.
This is why you want to larp as a Papist, but have too much shame for the cuckholdry. So, you dodge to the closest things like Lutheranism (Papism lite) and Orthodoxy (Papism with a double dose of faggotry).
If you were interested, you would be asking about the nature of Christ and salvation. Not how to larp with pretty pictures and faggy outfits.

>>520750912
ok champ, keep winning.

>>520749776 (OP)
I’m a Catholic but my Father is from a Methodist and Reformed-Anglican background so I appreciate the protestant side if things a lot.

Theologically I agree more with traditional calvinists and lutherans, but I also appreciate the long standing tradition and intellectual weight that the Catholic Church brings.
I’m also not an iconoclast and see the value in Iconography in making the spiritual and intellectual more “real”

>>520751196
>Lutheranism (Papism lite)
lol. what an ignorant thing to say.

>>520751038
>>520751210
>polish intelligence
>not artificial
anons...

>>520749776 (OP)
You should join a church only when you believe it's the objective truth.
Not for personal aesthetics. Seek God.

>>520751257
Anglicanism is Catholic-lite lmao
Some are literally just catholics minus the pope.

>>520751228
>Theologically I agree more with traditional calvinists and lutherans,
>long standing tradition and intellectual weight of rome
but if you think they are wrong on basic points of doctrine, how much weight do they really have?

>>520751364
Aesthetics are important I’d argue, not just pure spiritualism in a vacuum.
THE CHURCH is an institution, it’s a worldly structure by Men and for Men, this has always been the cornerstone of Christianity and traditional Protestants agree on this.

>>520751394
high anglicanism can be like that for sure, at least in appearance if not doctrine, but thats why the lutherans are lutherans and not anglicans.

>>520749776 (OP)
Actually Protestantism is still winning especially in USA has seen the most growth

>>520751257
>No proper baptism
>Pictures (b-but no statues!)
>Works-based """salvation"""
>Sacramental larping
>Muh dude said x
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

>>520749776 (OP)
You're a faggot and everyone in this thread should repent for being faggots.

>>520751421
Catholic doctrine is not wrong and the arguments for the basis of that doctrine in gospel is valid.
Arguably the doctrine of the reformed churches is the exact same as that of the Catholics but far more direct in the language.
Catholics historically had a bad habit of talking in circles and making their theological concepts sound more esoteric than they really are. A lot of what the reformers did was just clean up what was already there.

The fundamental difference between traditional protestants and catholics is the position of the Church as an organizational body as well as the political structure of that body.

Protestants deemphasize it while Catholics do the opposite. I think both are arguably valid in terms of biblical tradition and early-church precedent, but I think the Catholic approach is obviously more robust considering it’s track record over the millennia

Likewise mainstream protestantism has suffered greatly from Modernism while the Catholic Church has managed to navigate it more or less intact.

>>520751590
I don’t see the point in arguing with Christians, friendly debate is one thing but the time for overt competition is honestly not now.

I have more in common with a white protestant than I do with some random leftist athiest or muslim

>>520751683
>>No proper baptism
in your opinion
>>Pictures (b-but no statues!)
so?
>>Works-based """salvation"""
entirely 100% wrong
>>Sacramental larping
they have them as they believe they are outlined in Scripture
>>Muh dude said x
what?

try explaining a bit more in detail if you want to have a reasonable discussion about it

>>520751851
>Catholic doctrine is not wrong and the arguments for the basis of that doctrine in gospel is valid.
no, in numerous cases it definitely is not correct. that was kind of the reason that Catholics started a reform movement.
>Arguably the doctrine of the reformed churches is the exact same as that of the Catholics but far more direct in the language.
in some cases sure. you'd have to be more specific.

>>520749776 (OP)
Become Gallican

>>520752113
The Church is an institution by Men and for Men so I don’t expect it to always be perfect, that’s not the point and not realistic.
Many protestant churches are a complete mess, and even the original reformers had bad ideas (John Calvin notably opened up Usury, financing protestant Lords in their wars but dooming us all since)

>>520749776 (OP)
>still espouse slave morality ethics
>still worship dead jew on a stick

>>520752327
You don’t even understand the master-slave dialectic so why bring it up?

>>520749776 (OP)
Christianity was the I AM doctrine veiled for the piscean age, a judeo-masonic concoction, specifically Jupiter and the Sun in Pisces. Islam was Venus in Pisces. For the aquarian age the I AM doctrine will be veiled under the guise of AI and other technological creations.

Jesus = Je suis = Jeshua = Yah Weh = Jove = Jupiter = Zeus = Deus = I AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZftML6pAv7E

>>520752326
>that’s not the point and not realistic.
no one said anything about perfection. But it is completely reasonable to reject beliefs and practices that you believe to be in error. thats all. lots of people think that in some important areas the roman church is in error.
nobody claims to be perfect. the whole idea of the reformation was expressed in the motto of 'Ecclesia semper reformanda est" or just 'Semper Reformanda' - that we must always be checking what we believe to make sure that we are as close to what Scripture teaches as possible in everything, always checking that we are not just going along with some tradition for the sake of tradition alone.

i propose the de-chism. all christians should unite under one banner and de-jewify their religion too.

>>520752113
>in your opinion
βαπτίζω - to dip, sink
Which is why the Greek churches at least do that part correctly.
>so?
"Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image"
Not to mention the blasphemy of saying that Christ would dishonour himself with long hair.
>entirely 100% wrong
Yes the singularly most important doctrine without any question they are dead wrong on. Ergo they have no worth.
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?"
>they have them as they believe they are outlined in Scripture
No, they tie their sacramental works into salvation.
>what?
Too much "muh dude said x" rather than "the Bible says x" which is why most of their doctrines are derived directly from Papist ones.

>>520752387
Because it's the fact of the matter. Why does it bother you? Are you proud of it? That's a sin, you know?

>>520753027
>βαπτίζω - to dip, sink
>Which is why the Greek churches at least do that part correctly.
through the NT t just means to wash, and its not a salvation issue if you do it 'wrong'.
>images
never noticed any in the worship area where ive been, or do you extend it to printing pictures in magazine etc?
>Yes the singularly most important doctrine without any question they are dead wrong on
and i say that you are simply wrong. totally wrong. ive gone to an LCMS church for years and can tell you've never even read what they believe.
>No, they tie their sacramental works into salvation.
kind of, though their position on Baptism isn't absolute. they do say that physical baptism works as a means of grace to create or increase Gods working of faith in a person. but they dont say that baptism is necessary for faith. its just like how they say that taking communion actually works something inside a person and is not just a mere symbol. ive talked to a pastor quite a bit on these subjects and i find that in the end its quite biblical and acceptable because they dont say that any of it is necessary for salvation...because they dont teach that you are saved by works.
>most of their doctrines are derived directly from Papist ones.
like what? youd have to be specific so we could check if those papist doctrines were actually OK. not everything from Rome is wrong just because Rome teaches it.

>>520749776 (OP)
You're full of shit, for so many reasons.

>>520753698
>through the NT t just means to wash
No, water baptism is always described by immersion. That's why they always need a body of water.
"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:"
>and its not a salvation issue if you do it 'wrong'.
True, but that is not what Lutherans teach.
>never noticed any in the worship area where ive been, or do you extend it to printing pictures in magazine etc?
I always see pictures and/or crucifixes from them.
Pictures for historical reasons are fine, but have no place in locations of worship.
>and i say that you are simply wrong. totally wrong. ive gone to an LCMS church for years and can tell you've never even read what they believe.
Is picrel not true? Every Lutheran I have heard gives lip service to "Sola Fide", but then promptly deny it by declaring that you must be baptised to be saved. Many high-churchy type Cavinists do the same.
And if it is true then no, you cannot define baptism as "God's work" because that is completely farcical and a concession by attempting to redefine words.
>like what?
Like the ones here (images, sprinkling, etc). They're just generally toned down and less egregious.

>>520754949
>That's why they always need a body of water.
there is no such 'need', unless now you want to say that ';correct' baptism is necessary for salvation. the early church allowed for all kinds of baptismal practice, immersion pouring or sprinkling, as does the current LCMS.
>True, but that is not what Lutherans teach.
no, they do teach that
i have no idea who wrote your random pic but try going to a more reliable and central source for info
https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/doctrine
>pictures and/or crucifixes from them.
i didn't. a cross, sure but ive no problem with that at all. its not an idol and its not a sin in my opinion. if it is wrong then Christ died for that sin also.
>Is picrel not true?
not in my experience, as supported by the site i gave you above.
>declaring that you must be baptised to be saved
i ever heard that but IF some memebers are saying that then they may not be accurately representing their churches doctrine, or their particualr church may be in error.
>And if it is true then no, you cannot define baptism as "God's work" because that is completely farcical and a concession by attempting to redefine words.
how so? dont you think that God may just have caused it to be that all His elect will be baptized? that would make it Gods work.

>>520755726
>no, they do teach that
do NOT, obviously

>>520755726
>there is no such 'need', unless now you want to say that ';correct' baptism is necessary for salvation. the early church allowed for all kinds of baptismal practice, immersion pouring or sprinkling, as does the current LCMS.
It certainly is a matter of following God's commandments. The Didache is not scripture and it doesn't matter what poeple may or may not have done when we have the written commandments and descriptions.
>i have no idea who wrote your random pic but try going to a more reliable and central source for info
It's from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. Is this not a Lutheran-approved document?
"The Ninth Article has been approved, in which we confess that Baptism is necessary to salvation, and that children are to be baptized, and that the baptism of children is not in vain, but is necessary and effectual to salvation."
This is always what I have heard from Lutherans.
>if it is wrong then Christ died for that sin also.
But I know that you understand why this is irrelevant and simply trying to sidestep the issue.
>how so? dont you think that God may just have caused it to be that all His elect will be baptized? that would make it Gods work.
Because it leads to the ability to slip in whatever you wish under the guise of "it's God's work". This nullifies any meaning of "work".
Works are what you do; faith is what you believe. You have to physically go and be baptised which means you are doing a good work by obeying a commandment.

>>520753961
explain yourself

>>520756993
>It certainly is a matter of following God's commandments.
of course, but there is no explicit command to baptize by total and perfect immersion, nor any indication that baptism is necessary for salvation. Do you believe that it is?
>which we confess that Baptism is necessary to salvation
you have to understand how they were using the word 'necessary'. they made a distinction between 'necessary' and 'absolutely necessary', which is why on the page i gave you they said 'we dont believe its ABSOLUTELY necessary.
>But I know that you understand why this is irrelevant and simply trying to sidestep the issue.
im not at all. ive said that i believe its not a sin to have a cross in your church because its not an idol.
>You have to physically go and be baptised which means you are doing a good work by obeying a commandment.
i dont think there is such an explicit commandement. its definitely normative of course, and it is definitely a bad sign if someone refuses to be baptized, but there is no 'thou shalt' to obey or not obey, because its not a sin to not be baptized.

Do you believe that absolutely correct baptism and required for salvation? is it OK if someone is baptized in a way that you think is incorrect...or not at all?

>>520757062
Nobody finds mainline, liberal Protestantism appealing. Other than Israelis. Go fuck yourself.

>>520749776 (OP)
The most failed, jewish attempt at pretending to be Catholic that I have ever seen on this website

>>520757658
>of course, but there is no explicit command to baptize by total and perfect immersion, nor any indication that baptism is necessary for salvation. Do you believe that it is?
No, of course not, but can't you see from every story containing baptism and the word itself that the obvious conclusion is immersion? How could you possibly square sprinkling with "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."? The entire symbol of baptism is lacking, no?
>you have to understand how they were using the word 'necessary'. they made a distinction between 'necessary' and 'absolutely necessary', which is why on the page i gave you they said 'we dont believe its ABSOLUTELY necessary.
I've heard of this stuff before, but it seems like a cop-out. "It's not really necessary, but if you don't do it you're not saved :)". I see it as holding onto the false doctrine whilst filling in the obvious issue with a technicality.
>im not at all. ive said that i believe its not a sin to have a cross in your church because its not an idol.
But I'm not specifying the cross as that's nothing more than a symbol and I don't think plain crosses are necessarily bad. It's about images and crucifixes that contain the object of worship which God forbids. I don't think anyone has every worshipped the cross itself because that is meaningless.
A picture of a calf is not an issue, but everyone knows where and the graven image of it originates and leads to.
>i dont think there is such an explicit commandement
Not explicitely, but the apostles command it many times because it is the symbol of repentance.

>>520757658
>Do you believe that absolutely correct baptism and required for salvation? is it OK if someone is baptized in a way that you think is incorrect...or not at all?
No, I don't. To be saved you must believe that God in the flesh died as a propitiation for your sins by taking the punishment for you.
The issue comes in when those waters are muddied with baptism, communion, repentance from sins, etc to where many might openly profess that, but do not actually believe it. The easiest example is a typical Roman Catholic. Unless he has learned from apologetics on what not to say, he invariably declare upon being asked "how do you know you are saved?" that "I was baptised"/"I'm a good person"/"I go to church" which demonstrates that he does not simply have faith and trusts in works which he has done/is doing.
This is the exact same feeling I've always had with Lutherans where the might give lip to faith, but always pull in works. It's all well and good when someone is trained to work around the obvious "surface" issues, but I think is very obvious that many average people in these groups does not believe that these things are not necessary.
In my experience, the only ones that profess a belief without baggage are 95%+ Baptist, Reformed or occasionally refuse denominational groups.

>>520759893
>The entire symbol of baptism is lacking, no?
oh i agree anon, immersion does seem to be the obvious practice. i just dont think that it's damaging to salvation if you dont.
> see it as holding onto the false doctrine whilst filling in the obvious issue with a technicality.
but its not really, since they clearly say you can be saved without being baptized. If the LCMS are saying this (they are) then you can be sure its a mainline lutheran position since they are the conservative and traditionalist version of lutheranism.
> I don't think plain crosses are necessarily bad.
oh ok, glad you clarified.
>Not explicitely, but the apostles command it many times because it is the symbol of repentance.
sure. its definitely a good thing to be baptized if you possibly can, even if that means the symbol suffers a little due to not having the chance to be immersed.

>>520760029
>which demonstrates that he does not simply have faith and trusts in works which he has done/is doing.
sure, this is all to common. it just shows a lack of proper teaching and/or actual regeneration though the latter is not for sure.
>but always pull in works.
yep, thats very natural. its the natural fleshy concept of earning salvation by following Law. its easy for preachers to preach it too. that actually why i went to LCMS - they make an absolute focus of rightly preaching both Law (what you HAVE to do) and Gospel (what has been done FOR you that you couldn't do). Its so important to do that because otherwise the Gospel doesn't seem valuable.

>>520760664
You see, I've seem this before where a Lutheran seems to generally agree with me on most things. That's cool and I'm glad that Lutherans don't seem to be tied to the false beliefs.
But don't you see the issue I have with it whereby this conversation started? If I come across an average Lutheran, they would almost certainly give the confused answers that I've presented to you.
The entire "necessary" vs "absolutely necessary" is honestly just abysmal wording that will always sow confusion because you are literally saying that necessary isn't really necessary.
The Bible gives a straightforward dichotomy of faith for salvation and obedience/works being the demonstration of your love for God. You cannot love God while calling Him a liar and not believing the witness He has given and I don't think that Lutheranism makes this clear at all.

>>520761676
>they would almost certainly give the confused answers that I've presented to you.
its often the case that a majority are simply not that well taught and dont spend much time getting into things. personally the LCMS church i went to, i didn't find that to be the case. perhaps it was a more well taught group that usual.
>will always sow confusion because you are literally saying that necessary isn't really necessary.
its technical language written long ago. you have to allow it some leeway.
>I don't think that Lutheranism makes this clear at all.
i dont agree, but fair enough if thats what you think. a quick read through the FAQ i posted to you would clear up most confusions pretty easily. i mean its right there on the denominational web site.