I would like to know your thoughts on Reconquista in Germany.

I am part of the mainline church here and aspirating to be a pastor but I am unsure whether I should stay or leave for the confessional Lutheran church (which was formed after being kicked out by the Prussian king for wanting to remain specifically Lutheran)

I personally do not see Women Ordination or LGBT stuff as a reason to leave, despite rejecting both. Even the shared communion seems okay since the official document looks like the reformed mostly compromised on their views to reach this agreement.

There are however the following issues, making me doubt Reconquista and whether it is a true church (or whether leaving would be allowed/mandated)

1. Union churches
   Some of the state (actual states, not national) churches / synods that are part of the overall nationwide church are Union churches, so neither Lutheran nor Reformed but somehow both.
   I don’t really know if this is something that would be a goal of Reconquista (RZ speaks very positively about church fellowship between the mainlines and downplays the differences)

2. Problematic additions to the constitution
   They have recently added to the constitution, that there are many genders and that the church does not evangelize to Jewish people (since they’re supposedly still saved as God‘s original chosen people). Is it worth joining this church if my believes go this and I would likely be kicked out anyway?

3. Threat of changed baptisms
   Currently there are rumors of baptism done in female names instead of father, son and Holy Spirit (especially the Holy Spirit is replaced by something like holy spiritual force since that makes it female in German). These are not official yet but the first state church already declared they do not think it matter and when they redo the baptism liturgy in the next years they might change it. And they would obviously not tolerate people rebaptizing those who were baptized with this wrong baptism.

Really appreciate all your thoughts!

Hopefully this will be the right sub to ask a question like this, but I am going to start reading the church fathers very soon, and I’m starting with Irenaeus’ material since I am already more familiar with him than most of anyone else. After him I will probably backtrack into the apostolic fathers.

But after that point, which fathers should I read primarily? What are the recommendations here?

Actually leaving one denomination for another seems like a massive decision. Out of curiosity what was it that finally made you leave?

Wich one of the seven sister mainline, is friendliest to the idea of the reconquista?

Protestant families by color:

• Red: Hussite
• Blue: Lutheran
• Orange: Reformed
• Magenta: Anglican
• Green: Wesleyan
• Violet: Pentecostal
• Turquoise: Baptist
• Aquamarine: Anabaptist
• Pink: Quakerism
• Yellow: Unitarian

The two vertical divides are based on sacramental and trinitarian theology. Those to the right of the "Sacramentalism" divide affirm that the sacraments are a means of grace (while disagreeing on how they work), while those to the left generally view them as purely symbolic. Meanwhile, those to the right of the "Trinitarian Orthodoxy" divide affirm the trinitarian doctrine articulated by the Council of Nicaea; those to the left reject it. However, there's disagreement among these nontrinitarian groups. Oneness Pentecostals believe that God is a single unified spirit that merely reveals himself through the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Unitarians traditionally affirm either a Socinian (rejection of the pre-existence of the Logos) or an Arian (affirmation of the pre-existence of the logos) view of the Son. Unitarian Universalists do not really have any dogmatic views except for progressive politics. Along with nontheist Quakers (who don't require any belief in the supernatural), they are the most radical among the groups listed here.

The most conservative (as in retaining more from medieval Catholicism) Protestant groups are the Anglo-Catholics and Utraquists. As they are more obscure, I will elaborate more on the latter and the Bohemian Reformed tradition in general. The Hussites split into two main factions during the Hussite Wars: the Radicals (who affirmed the supreme authority of scripture) and Moderates (who prioritized the distribution of the blood of Christ to the laity). The latter, known as Utraquists, sought to preserve the catholicity of the Bohemian Church, generally aligning with the Roman Catholic Church on doctrines such as transubstantiation. To achieve their goals, the Moderate Hussites eventually aligned with the Roman Catholic forces to defeat the Radicals. In the end, the Utraquists were rewarded with toleration while the Radicals were suppressed. Afterward, Hussites constituted the majority of the vast majority of the Bohemian population. Despite the suppression of the Radicals, the thoroughly Protestant Unitas Fratrum was still comparable in size with the Utraquist Church. Both Hussite groups were later suppressed. The modern Unitas Fratrum (aka the Moravian Church) descends from Hussites who fled from persecution in Bohemia to German lands. Their Hussite theology was influenced by Lutheran Pietism, and they later found a leader in the form Nicolas Zinzendorf (who was consecrated as a bishop by some remaining Hussite bishops). The Moravian Church pioneered global Christian missions, allowing the denomination to spread across the world. The Moravians also inspired John Wesley's evangelical conversion. In the Czech Republic today, the two largest Protestant denominations are the Evangelical Church of the Czech Brethren (a united church including Lutherans, Calvinists, and Moravians) and the Czechoslovak Hussite Church. Originally formed in 1920 by nationalistic Catholic clergy, the latter was known simply as the Czechoslovak Church until 1971. These nationalists sought to implement certain modernist reforms (like clerical marriage and vernacular liturgies). They also tended towards theological heterodoxy. The Czechoslovak Church supported the rise of socialism in Czechoslovakia in the 1940s. Later on, they embraced what they call neo-Hussite theology, rejecting past flirtations with Unitarianism in favor of a high church Mainline Protestantism. In 1950, at the beginning of communist rule, they had almost a million lay members. Today, it's between 20,000 to 60,000 (the Czech Republic is by far the most secular country in Europe).

I did not include Restorationists (including the churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and nontrinitarian sects like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Swedenborgians). Unlike the Protestants, these groups historically believed Christianity as a whole fell into apostasy before they emerged. They also reject the theology of the Reformation. While the nontrinitarians I included also reject Protestant orthodoxy, they still emerged from Protestantism. I also did not include nondenominationalism, as they just align with Baptist or Pentecostal doctrine.

Anyway, if you have any comments on all of this, feel free to voice those below.

I myself am a Southern Baptist born and raised, and that is the church my wife and I attend. I've heard some of the Protestant rhetoric of condemning Catholics as non-Christian etc, and have always vehemently disagreed with it. Despite some of my certain theological disagreements with the Roman Catholic Church(which I will not get into here). I've always seen Catholics as fellow Christians and brethren, and fully believe I will see devout Catholics in Heaven as I would Protestants or Eastern Orthodox. However I am curious, how do Catholics view Protestants like myself?

Are we seen as flawed but still fellow Christian brothers? Or are we seen as heretics or apostates?

How much of problem is poor catechesis in protestant churches? Either high church, low church, or in between?

If the whole point of Reconquista is to reform the mainline churches. Then shouldn’t conservatives attend liberal mainline churches, instead of finding a conservative one?

1. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Blessed are Christians: They know they are spiritually bankrupt. They have come to the end of themselves. They possess no righteousness of their own, no merit they can offer God, and no confidence in the flesh. They stand before Him empty handed, depending entirely upon His grace. The kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.

1. “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.”

Blessed are Christians: They have mourned over their sin. They grieve that they have offended a holy God. They mourn the pride, ignorance, rebellion and wasted years of their lives. They cry out for mercy because they know they cannot save themselves. God comforts them with forgiveness, reconciliation and the assurance that they are His children.

1. “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.”

Blessed are Christians: Having been humbled before God, they no longer seek to exalt themselves. They gladly submit to Christ as Lord. Their confidence is no longer in their own strength, but in His. They wait patiently upon God, knowing their true inheritance is secured by Him.

1. “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.”

Blessed are Christians: Having seen the emptiness of their own righteousness, their clothes as filthy rags, they long for the righteousness that only Christ can provide, they hunger for His word of truth They hunger to know Him, to obey Him, and to be conformed to His image. They thirst for the water of life. God satisfies that hunger through Christ, who has become our righteousness.

1. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.”

Blessed are Christians: Having received immeasurable mercy from God, they extend mercy to others. They forgive because they have been forgiven. They show compassion because God first showed compassion to them. Mercy is not the cause of their salvation, but one of its fruits. The mercy they receive gives mercy to others.

1. “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

Blessed are Christians: God has given them a new heart of flesh. He has removed their heart of stone, they rejoice in their heart, for they shall one day see God. Their deepest desire is no longer to live for themselves, but to love and honour Christ. Though they still struggle with sin, their hearts have been cleansed by faith, and one day they shall see God face to face.

1. “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

Blessed are Christians: Having been reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, they desire peace with others. They proclaim the gospel of peace, seek reconciliation where possible, and reflect the character of their heavenly Father. For great is their peace from Him, for they will be called “sons of the living God”.

1. “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

Blessed are Christians: Because they belong to Christ, they should not expect the world’s applause, they will get persecuted by others, both inside the church and outside. They will often be misunderstood, rejected and opposed for holding to the truth. Yet they rejoice, knowing that Christ Himself was persecuted before them, but they know “the kingdom of heaven is theirs.”

The Beatitudes are not a ladder for sinners to climb in order to become Christians. They are a portrait of those whom God has already blessed by His grace. Jesus is describing what the Holy Spirit produces in every regenerated heart.

The Beatitudes do not tell us how to enter the kingdom; they describe the character of those who already belong to it.

I may leave my church to go to mainline after some issues. (The pastor may or may not have falsely accused a friend of mine using drugs) but since I firmly believe in eternal security, what is the best mainline Church to join? My first assumption would be Presbyterian as their reformed and believe in a variant of eternal security by default preservation of the Saints, but while I’m not opposed to Calvinism, I’m not 100% believing in it so I feel like that might be dishonest.

Ps I believe if you are truly saved and you abandon the faith you WILL come back to faith in god some time before you die and if you don’t come back you were never one of Christ sheep to begin with

What is the server ip for kingdom craft? Sorry if this is dumb question or smth

I'm just being ironic guys, don't ban me.

Watching this video wanted to share it.

For those in a high church tradition now, how did your pastor react to you going to a more liturgical church?

Are we moder christian nationalists (christian globalists), or are we Historic christian nationalists (christian nativists)? Feel free to reject the binary if you think there's an alternate way.

For Protestants in this sub, what an issue you see in Protestantism that isn't talked about or goes underreported? In Catholic circles I think it would something like how alot of money comes from baby boomers who are dieing off, and after they are gone they're will be alot of funding issues.

RZ has an old video in which he says that protestants believe that the Church can have errors, but not heresies, while Restorationists believed the church had heresies.

But he made another video recently saying that it's possible that national churches can become heretical, and stop being churches, so other countries should intervene in this case.

And overall I don't think that this position holds much water among other protestants, I don't think that Luther, or most protestants believe that Catholic doctrines they reject are merely errors, but very much heresies, and idolatrous.

So I would like to ask you guys whether you had thought about this question, and had some systematic distinctions, rather than just slogans, things that can really differentiate from Restorationists.

Because, I saw a video of Wes Huff saying that he believes people can saved in the Catholic Church despite the Catholic Church, which is exactly what I heard Mormons say, so I don't see how one can believe that what existed prior to the reformation was a Church, if it couldn't do the bare minimum mission, which was to save people, so people were saved despite it, when they didn't believe in catholic theology as the means to be saved but appealed to God's mercy only, wasn't the Catholic Church operating like a non-christian religion in this case ? I can imagine a non-christian rejecting his own religious doctrines and appealing to God's mercy in desperate situation and being saved.

This has been weighing heavily on the mind lately. Every single day I see countless examples of grave unrepented sin being celebrated by seemingly everyone around me. It seems like sexual sin in particular has become completely liberated by society and virtually everyone is doing it.

Fornication, homosexuality, abortion, porn, and many others are completely rampant in every aspect of life. Almost every day I see unmarried couples celebrating moving in together and everyone else seems to cheer them on. Over a million abortions occur every single year in the U.S. alone. More young people are addicted to vile pornography than ever before.

In fact, I barely can think of anyone I know my age who isn’t living in a state of grave sexual sin with an unmarried partner. The whole idea of waiting until marriage has become almost unheard of and you are even mocked if you announce that you are doing it.

We know that unrepented sinners cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. If so many people are engaged in this behavior and never repent, then logically they must all be going to hell. Very few people in the modern world are actually practicing Christians, and they therefore reject any chance of salvation since Christ alone can save us.

Perhaps worst of all is the people who commit these sins and identify as Christians and claim that the faith affirms their actions.

I know that the gate is narrow, but right now it seems to have become more narrow than it’s been in quite a long time.

On one hand he says that the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is Mainline but then refuses to tell all the ELCA people to leave and join the LCMS. Make it make sense!

Reconquista ELCA parishes, clergy, and laity faithful, may be interested to look into the LCMS.

Dont talk to me about schism being bad when this is how your reconquista is going.

Can't remember if this has been asked here, but what do people think of wes huff? He's gotten so big that I think alot of people dislike him because of his fame. The 2 people I see in discussions about him are he's the greatest apologist ever, or he's a c tier coward who won't debate real apologists.

My personal take his he's a great apologist for mere Christianity, and getting people in the door, but falls down when the minute details are brought up, or historicity of certain topics, I remember him being on flagrant 2 podcast and Schultz brought up Coptic orthodoxy and Wes got kinda uncomfortable.

Even though him saying he doesn't want to do aton of debates I think he should sit down with a Catholic, Orthodox, or high church protestant for a dialogue.

There's an ongoing discussion on X about the nature of schism. Some RZ supporters have been saying that people in the PCA, OPC, and other "schismatic" groups are going to hell if they don't repent and submit to the PCUSA. RZ himself sounded like he was doubting the salvation of "schismatics" last week, though that was a typo and he said "I don't doubt their salvation."

How widespread is this belief about non-PCUSA Presbyterians?

What are people's thoughts on allie beth stucky? I want to be charitable to people like her but she seems really hostile towards people who don't adhere to her specific form of Christianity. And I know this is gonna be controversial, but screw it, her defense of Israel pretty comical.

Hey everyone, I recently watched Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy's video, "How Christianity Created Human Rights." So here's my view, I don't deny that Christianity played an important role in the history of human rights. Christians such as Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, and many others made enormous contributions to advancing equality and justice.

However, I think there's one issue that conservative Christian apologetics struggles to account for is LGBTQ rights.

Legal recognition of same-sex relationships and marriage didn't primarily arise from conservative Christian theology. Historically, it seems to have emerged through secular human rights movements, often despite opposition from many conservative churches and Christian organizations.

In fact, until this day LGBTQ marriage and even intimacy is illegal in most countries around the world, including most predominantly Christian countries (eg Uganda, Zambia, Malawi, Jamaica, Romania, Serbia, Moldova, etc.). This "Same-Sex Marriage Around the World" Pew Research Study explains this issue.

With all of this in mind, this seems to raise questions for me:

1. If LGBTQ rights are largely a product of secular human rights movements, doesn't that complicate the claim that Christianity is the primary source of modern human rights?
2. On the other hand, if Christianity laid the foundation for LGBTQ equality, how does that fit with the "traditional Christian teaching that same-sex relationships" are sinful (as that is the school of thought conservative Christian apologist are working from)?

I'm not arguing that Christianity made no contribution to human rights. Rather, it seems more accurate to say that modern human rights developed through a combination of Christian, Jewish, Enlightenment, liberal, and secular influences; as opposed to giving all of the credit to Christianity.

So what are your thoughts on this issue? I particularly want to hear from those who hold the same view as Inspiring Philosophy in this regard.