Soon after he became a Christian he asked, " what does this new life actually look like? " Great question.. though I'm not sure it was sufficiently answered to his satisfaction.. people need covenants and ordinances that bind on earth and in heaven, we need families to be sealed together for time and eternity, we need work to do, to help the Lord in the gathering of Israel for both the living and the dead, callings in the church to teach and minister and strengthen one another, we need the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, we need the priesthood to act and officiate on behalf of God to bless his children, we need Prophets and Apostles to follow, we need continuing revelation, we need to prepare a people for the return of Christ..
@@TheJason909 a complete Canon like today? No. But that's a non-sequitor. We don't need to reject the full scripture because they didn't have it to fundamentally start and operate the same way. Meaning congregationally.
@@SailingTheologicalSeas You mean a Red Herring? A Non-Sequitur is when the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. And, no, it's not at all a Red Herring. I'm sorry, but it's a brute historical fact that when Acts was written, not all 27 books were as yet written. So, the only sense I can allow that Protestants are operating like the early churches in the Book of Acts is that you're both operating with an incomplete canon. Beyond all that, it is an incontrovertible fact that the early church was sacramental and synergistic; there is no early Christian document which indicates otherwise. Period. And, the only reason the early church operated on a "home church" style was because they were still being persecuted when Acts was written. After the Edict of Milan, when Christianity was decriminalized in the Roman Empire, then we saw the emergence of public church, which was how literally all of Christendom operated until after the Protestant Revolt. I know you think you're on the right side of history, but a careful and humble examination of the facts betrays just how anachronistic a system you're advancing.
You're right, we should use catholicism as our historical model. My fav parts are the inquisiton, use of indulgences, and refusing to let the laity read the scripture for themselves.
It’s very helpful for Christians to know about the early church and the Reformation at least
Soon after he became a Christian he asked, " what does this new life actually look like? "
Great question.. though I'm not sure it was sufficiently answered to his satisfaction.. people need covenants and ordinances that bind on earth and in heaven, we need families to be sealed together for time and eternity, we need work to do, to help the Lord in the gathering of Israel for both the living and the dead, callings in the church to teach and minister and strengthen one another, we need the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, we need the priesthood to act and officiate on behalf of God to bless his children, we need Prophets and Apostles to follow, we need continuing revelation, we need to prepare a people for the return of Christ..
What happened to the "n"?
Ahistoricism = Protestantism
Protestantism, for the most part, is about modeling the churches of Acts and immediately following. That is not ahistoric.
@@SailingTheologicalSeas
Tell me, did the churches in Acts have Bibles?
@@TheJason909 a complete Canon like today? No. But that's a non-sequitor. We don't need to reject the full scripture because they didn't have it to fundamentally start and operate the same way. Meaning congregationally.
@@SailingTheologicalSeas
You mean a Red Herring? A Non-Sequitur is when the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
And, no, it's not at all a Red Herring. I'm sorry, but it's a brute historical fact that when Acts was written, not all 27 books were as yet written.
So, the only sense I can allow that Protestants are operating like the early churches in the Book of Acts is that you're both operating with an incomplete canon.
Beyond all that, it is an incontrovertible fact that the early church was sacramental and synergistic; there is no early Christian document which indicates otherwise. Period.
And, the only reason the early church operated on a "home church" style was because they were still being persecuted when Acts was written. After the Edict of Milan, when Christianity was decriminalized in the Roman Empire, then we saw the emergence of public church, which was how literally all of Christendom operated until after the Protestant Revolt.
I know you think you're on the right side of history, but a careful and humble examination of the facts betrays just how anachronistic a system you're advancing.
You're right, we should use catholicism as our historical model. My fav parts are the inquisiton, use of indulgences, and refusing to let the laity read the scripture for themselves.