A
asteroid
Guest
When discussing the Church with LDS/JW/7th Day Adventist/etc/etc/ people, of course we know that we can quote from Mt16 - “the gates of Hell will not prevail…”
The response I usually get is that the passage doesn’t say that the church wouldn’t be lost and then refound or reestablished later on.
They usually say that the church was lost after the apostles died and then refound through Joseph Smith/Charles Russell/Ellen White & Co/whoever else.
Now, this seems very daft to me (and to most Christians) but what responses to them would you suggest? Bearing in mind that history and other early church documents have no relevance for them.
The LDS even go so far as to claim that the lost apostolic succession restarted when Peter visited Joseph Smith. Is there a solid argument against that beyond “I don’t believe it to be the case and can demonstrate the continuing succession from the time of the apostles to the present day”, as they won’t accept history.
What’s the best thing to say if they say “Why didn’t the succession fall from Peter to John like it should have done?” (big assumption there but they seem pretty unshakeable in their assumptions)
And so my one question became three.
The response I usually get is that the passage doesn’t say that the church wouldn’t be lost and then refound or reestablished later on.
They usually say that the church was lost after the apostles died and then refound through Joseph Smith/Charles Russell/Ellen White & Co/whoever else.
Now, this seems very daft to me (and to most Christians) but what responses to them would you suggest? Bearing in mind that history and other early church documents have no relevance for them.
The LDS even go so far as to claim that the lost apostolic succession restarted when Peter visited Joseph Smith. Is there a solid argument against that beyond “I don’t believe it to be the case and can demonstrate the continuing succession from the time of the apostles to the present day”, as they won’t accept history.
What’s the best thing to say if they say “Why didn’t the succession fall from Peter to John like it should have done?” (big assumption there but they seem pretty unshakeable in their assumptions)
And so my one question became three.