Something that has always put me off protestant churches was the problem of legitimacy. Protestant theology sounds more correct to me than the Apostolic one, but at the same time I can see in the Bible the ground for an established church "and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her", so how can I turn my back to that church?
Please, prots (Baptists, Presbyterian. Lutheran, Anglican, whatever) explain me why your church is legitimate. I don't want to spark a debate or anything, it's a genuine question by a person drawn towards Lutheranism but can't see it as legitimate.
Don't. Seriously. Do not. Traditions may be overwhelming, there were good popes and there were bad popes, there were good times of the church, there were times that the church was rotten. But it was us who are not perfect who was at fault, not that insignificant little rock which the church is founded on, the one that Christ has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Joseph Nguyen
We actually follow the teachings if the apostles instead of traditions of the elders like what Jesus rebukes the pharisees for in Mark 7
Faith alone. Acts 16 30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
No baby sprinkling. Acts 8 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
No worshipping man. Acts 10 25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
Jesus went to hell for 3 days. Acts 2 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
I'm a Prot by default, not by will. My questions to the Apostolic Church have never been answered, so these are essentially my objections/evidence needed:
The only evidence that I will ever accept is between 33 AD and 325 AD, anything later than that is too late to even matter to me for obvious reasons, so within that time frame, do the Church Fathers believe in the following
1) That Rome is prime 2) That they understand apostolic succession as we do now and not apostolic tradition instead 3) That they believe churches can not fall 4) That improvements and deviations from what the Apostles taught is an ability given to someone 5) Show me a line of sure Pope succession that thought of itself as the Pope and exercised ability as the Pope does now, and that it is not a later development past 325 AD
Excluded from evidence to me: Any pre-suppositions on what you think the Church should be based on your modern experience, no references past 325 AD and no organizational assumptions brought back into the era
I've been reading the pre-Nicene Church Fathers for a bit now, still gonna continue until I find all of this (though I am slow going through all of them).
Anthony Morgan
I'm not asking things from a doctrinal view. I know about that debate etc. What I'm saying is: even if I hold that all baptists beliefs are true, how can I become baptist when the Catholic/Orthodox church can trace its legitimacy to the apostles?
Nathaniel Reyes
Well if they teach completely the opposite of what Jesus and the apostles taught then the gates if hell clearly prevailed against that church so it isn't the one in Matthew 16:18
Gabriel Baker
You seem to be honest minded. You will find your questions answered.
(not by me btw :D)
Liam Hill
They argue well what they teach is right, and who am I to think what I believe in is true, against hordes of theologians, far more learned than me, that claim otherwise and also trace back directly to the apostles?
Protestant theologians also have their reasoning (with which I often agree) but they don't have the apostolic succession
Brody Sanders
There is a standardized Protestant theology now? Color me surprised.
Robert Foster
Which it is not It's called knowing how to read strait is the gate Ha, no they can't Okay And neither do catholics
