I became a member of an Anabaptist church in January. I pulled out the book “Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up” given to me by years ago. After I started attending last year. So thankful to be where God has led me.
This book is so anti Christ. Beware. David a "former" JW Elder, now a self ordained "Anabaptist Elder" btw it's not a term Anabaptist people use. Teaches that Christ is not God, that the Bible as original is not accurate, that the added books of the Orthodox Bible are more accurate. That it is required of works to be saved. Do not be deceived. He is a Wolfe in sheep's clothing. He is not of the true historic faith.
I appreciate all your work, Reagan. Thanks for this episode with David Bercot! I think it would be interesting if you'd do an interview with one of those who has left Anabaptism to join another church whether Catholic or evangelical, to give another perspective.
Thanks for this idea, Gideon. We can't promise future episodes, but it's an idea that we'll keep in mind. If you think of ideas for a guest, feel free to send the name our way.
I feel like I'm retracing some of David's steps myself. I'm trying to find my church fit as well, but it gets tough when you have come to certain convictions that would keep you disfellowshipped from the churches available nearby. We're in that stage of doing church at home as a family, but hoping we can be part of a fellowship at some point.
Flee from anyone calling themselves Pastor. Jesus commanded against such titles among the brethren. Matt. 23: 8-12. You may not be able to find a faithful gathering and have to be content with being faithful to Jesus. If you gather, is it to stir one another to love and good works and encourage one another? Or is it to gather to passively listen to Pastor lecture?
Are you not kind of doing what was warned against in this podcast by taking one scripture without context and leaving others where it talks about leaders and their roles?
I also visited several churches but never felt at home. My background is Pentecostalism with Scandinavian Baptist roots which originates from Radical Pietism. I was amazed to know after reading about Radical Pietism that I have some theological affinities with Anabaptists. I will take the time to visit an Anabaptist Church in the future to check whether I will be at home. By the way, I love the podcast. I will listen to more episode.
To Mr Bercot: “What are the 2 doctrines that we as Anabaptists differ from the early church on?” To the host: “It would have been good to explain the controversy regarding’Common Sense’ the first time it was brought up. I am unfamiliar with it so it felt like you had an inside joke and I was lost.” Very informative video. Thanks.
To be sure, David is from a group that calls themselves anabaptist s but they are not of the anabaptist doctrines. Please do your research on his background and the differences in the real Anabaptist teachings.
David's church isn't your typical Anabaptist church;they believe you're born again in the waters of baptism which is the historic faith. John 3:5, Col.2:11 and 12 and Acts 2:38 are all describing that event in a different way...
Fascinating interview. Glad to learn more about Bercot. I'm wondering what are the few doctrines that Bercot believes the early church held to that contemporary Anabaptists don't get right? I read his Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs in grad school and benefited from the plentous quotes on 1 Cor 11:2-16. But I found his scathing critique of theologians in Will the Theologians Please Sit Down overdone and factually mistaken, especially the way he inconsistently uses the words 'theology' and 'theologian' throughout the volume to try to fit with his illogical thesis, key terms given the subject matter of the book. The fact is that Bercot himself is a theologian, and thus he never should have published a single book since that's the type of work that theologians do. Since that time I haven't read anything else he has written. This interview helped me remember that he's (to quote a famous contemporary Anabaptist saying) "only human," and has many good points even though he comes across as a radical apologist that has moved away from the research-based approach that made his Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs great.
It would be nice if Reagan would ask him those type of questions but he just does softball interviews and says "wow" "amazing" to every answer his friends give in these interviews.
@@Benjamin-jo4rfIt isn't easy to be in Reagan's position. Imagine that you or I would start a channel that puts tough questions at conservative Anabaptists. How many would be game? Probably only a handful. The channel would fold up after a few posts. And yet I agree with you, Benjamin, that there should be a way to critically engage guests.
@@MD-ef9fl your right. That's why it's time to pack it up. Let the Anabaptist idolatry end. You either want to follow Jesus or not. Forget about all the extra baggage. The whole premise of this channel is wrong. It's to appear as if their is a sincere desire to engage with difficult topics amongst theses folks. There is not. They simply want to live happily ever after in their little safe space with all their comforts and not get pushed into actually engaging in the hard work that the world needs followers of Jesus to do.
I'm quite confident that it is baptism and Communion. He holds to baptism being salvific and real presence if I'm not mistaken. Not typical within Anabaptism.
@@MD-ef9fl Yeah its hard to know how to do these interviews sometimes. There were a few times that I wanted to push back a little more on David, but since this episode is about his personal story I decided to let him share and leave it as is. Its a very delicate thing to run this podcast in a way that respects all parties. :) Thanks for the feedback.
Dear Dr David. I am glad for your lectures, and for the fact that you wanted to get as close as possible to the early church in searching for a church. Just want to know what you think of gifts of the Spirit (as in 1 Cor 12 etc ) have they ceased (as in cessationalism taught by some) with no contemporary relevance?
The Apostle's Creed we have today comes from the 5th century, with a form of it in the 4th century. According to online articles. Was there a version of it in the first and second century?
There were various baptismal creeds that evolved after 'Jesus is Lord' noted in the NT. What we call the Apostles Creed, was a development of the creeds specifically used in the early Church of Rome. While the Nicene Creed was not created as a baptismal creed, it definitely pulled inspiration from the baptismal creeds
Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition from the early 200's notes the baptismal creeds used in the church of Rome at the time, which is very similar to the later developed Apostles' Creed
The helpful thing about David's research for me ...and I was open to finding otherwise, is that the churches of Christ were very nearly lock step with the early Christians on every topic that passed his criteria. What I found somewhat disappointing (reading Heretics) was that David acknowledged the churches of Christ as more of an anomaly. We focus on sound doctrine, and still tend to produce the faithful life as individual Christians ...and that seemed curious to David. But Paul gave Timothy the remedy for the coming apostasy(ies), which was to give himself to the preaching of the apostolic doctrine. He stressed similar urgency in Gal 1 and 2 Thes 2. It seems that when the seed planted and taking firm root is the Word of God, the crop is faithful Christians. Denominational division is certainly not a fruit of the Gospel.
I think churches of Christ are following the Bible closer than most although a lot of them lost pacifism and head coverings.James Watkins(church of Christ) Preaching the Gospel sermons helped me understand baptism;especially Man's Wisdom vs God's Foolishness; At the Ryman
@@w35655 Yes, the number of pacifists have declined over the past 30 years, and head coverings have gone from common to rare. That is sad. Worse IMO is that the original principle of ~being churches of Christ ... meaning following the New Testament pattern of local oversight, answering directly to the "Chief Shepherd" (cf 1 Pet 5 ...the only "Sr. Pastor" named in scripture) seems to have given way in the minds ...or at least speech of some to the notion of being in the right denomination. Jesus is the Lord of His Church, so we are either added by Him to it and walk in the relationship or we don't ...seems to me. And of course believer immersion in His name for the remission of sins ...part of the rebirth Jesus said was necessary to enter - that doctrine and practice certainly remains. David's research confirmed that this was the earliest common belief, and interpretation of Jn 3:3-5 also. It would seem that entering the Kingdom would be of first priority before working out whatever else might be lacking. We can do nothing without Him.
@@demcdoug I only understand that viewpoint if it is in defense of the Church of Christ. The CoC has changed a great deal over the last 150 years, but the Bible hasn't. So how is that possible if it's only based on the Bible? (It is part of my background from childhood and I see only a few correlations with the apostolic Church. The early leaders acknowledged them more, but that is gone.) The CoC is actually founded on Martin Luther in his invention of "sola scriptura" in 1518, one of the pillars of the Reformation.
@@ReluctantPost The Church or Body of Christ is not one of many denominations. If one approaches it as such, then he has already missed the point. Jesus said that He would build His Church, not Peter's, Paul's or Luther's. Consider the seven churches of the Revelation. They were local congregations, five of which had some things to correct, and only two of which were blameless in His judgement. While Jesus was clearly threatening to remove the "lamp stands" of those that should refuse to repent, He never instructed those who had "not soiled their garments" to run off and join the Smyrna denomination or the Philadelphia denomination. And as many problems as Paul was addressing in Corinth, he was particularly aggrieved that they were dividing over their association with or baptism by one prominent man or another. The Body of Christ is not divided. Getting back to Luther, he was adamant that those who appreciated him stop calling themselves Lutherans. He referred back to 1 Cor 1 in supporting his admonition. That and the ~claim of sola scriptura may be among the few things he got right, even if he then proceeded in attempting to remove or diminish the authority of those books that challenged his Augustinian doctrines (and Calvin's et. al.). But we either pursue the revelation of God in the New Testament, or we're making stuff up. Shouldn't anyone claiming Christ at least endeavor, however poorly to seek the truth in His word and honor His commandment to ~follow Him? And what fellowship should one covet but that which is "of Christ" ...??
@@demcdoug Except that the New Testament itself teaches against _sola scriptura,_ and so, not surprisingly, Luther's invention hasn't worked and today's myriad Protestant-Evangelical denominations, including the CoC (only one sub-definition of "denomination" involves a headquarters, not just an identifiable division), are the Lord's illustration in fruits. A CoC near me has been about one mile from another CoC because they haven't been able to agree for about 50 years. As one person put it about Luther's discovery that he couldn't even get his fellow Reformer, Zwingli, to agree on scriptural interpretation, the doctrine of "Scriptures alone" turned out to be "the means by which each man could go to hell in his own way." It was never the plan or teaching until the 16th century. 1 Tim. 3:15; 2 Thess. 2:15; etc.
Be not deceived David's interpretations are of a arianist interpretation. David is a lawyer, a quote" former Jehovah's witness but teaches that the mazoramic texts are not accurate and that one should use the Orthodox versions with the added books. He features that you are not saved until after you are baptized. That a confession of Faith and a repentance from sin does not equal salvation.
From where did you receive the apostles creed and your canon of scripture? And do you believe that the church had an identity crisis until the 16th century over its ecclesiology and core dogmas like the true presence of the Eucharist? (even the early reformers like Luther held to that perennial belief of the church). Also, can you cite where Tertullian writes that Mary has sinned? There are a lot of misleading claims here… I would encourage people to go to early church sources for themselves..
These are fair questions. You'd have to ask David directly, if you want to know how he would respond to these questions. However, we do appreciate and endorse your recommendation that we spend time with the writings from the early church.
It is the ante-Nicene writings themselves that frustrate the Nicene and post-Nicene paths and their defenders because they espouse quite changed views, from their view of worldly kingdoms and war to their view of wealth. You are certainly correct about the Presence of Christ in His sacrifice at the Table, though not as transsubstantiation, as Rome would have it; but as John 6:63-64 and 1 Cor. 11:27 would have it. David does not take the unhistorical Protestant-Evangelical view of it. As for Tertullian, his perspective is expressed both in “Against Praxeas” and “Against Marcion.” He affirms the Virgin Birth, of course, but most of the additions to that doctrine came over centuries of development. The very name Theotokos for Mary does not appear until nearly 200 years after Christ. The early “fathers” as a whole believed that change to doctrine and practice was error, as the Scripture warns.
Thank you for the replies- my comment was meant sincerely, not as a polemical attack, so I appreciate that it was received in the intended spirit. And that's interesting. I will have to reread Against Praxeas and Against Marcion, I don't remember Tertullian espousing anything like that. And while I don't deny that there was plenty of development in the early church, I would only say that reformation theology is categorically novel. How could the church for so long have misunderstood what it means to be a church, Eucharistic theology (agreed- not necessarily under the transubstantiation formulation, but real presence eucharist being central) , what scripture is (divorcing it from liturgy with the advent of the printing press and plugging it into the 'fundamentalism gap' left by abandoning the authority of the pope, which leads to an epistemologically confusing 'solo scriptura' where one is to trust both an ecumenical council under Pope Damasus with defining scripture, but then also Luther's later revisions a millennium later?), etc.
3 fold office of Bishop/priest/deacon, holy altars, “all holy, ever virgin Theotokos”, painted icons of Christ on the chalice and drinking his blood from the icon, zero pushback on infant baptism with many proponents of it, Eucharist spiritually and physically Christ is present in the bread and cup, “we fight with you”, “we occupy your military fortresses”, intercession of the Theotokos and the saints, sacrament of ordination, sacrament of confession, "One orthodox Catholic Church", "One episcopate", sacramental baptism, "only bishops can ordain clergy", schism to create "rival churches" with "illegal meetings" condemned, the divine energies, veneration of relics and crosses, multiple different Christian military legions mentioned that defended innocent women and children and elderly but refused to fight offensive battles, oil lamps with icons of christ crucified/jonah/fish/crosses/etc on them, intentional services to commemorate the martyrs and saints, hundreds of intercessory prayers in the roman catacomb epitaphs that phillip schaff (calvinist translator of ante nicene fathers) himself admits many of them are before constantine's lifetime. ^ all found in the ante-nicene church history, but you wont hear that from any "church historian" that cherry picks the holy orthodox fathers, and claims their prooftexts for their protestant sect.
The only Anabaptist churches in Mexico that we know of are listed here: churchindex.org/ It doesn't appear that any are in Veracruz. Whether or not God gives you an Anabaptist church, we hope that you continue to pursue a relationship with Jesus of loving discipleship in a community of believers.
@@KMar-dj5gh hello there, 3 anabaptist Christians came this last weekend to My Town, they came to explore the area speciallly the native area in the Mountains , am so glad with God to meet their children and to had some blesed time with them .... God bless You all
Unfortunately its a shame that we put so much emphasis on denominations than on Christ, this creates so much division amongst the body of Christ the Church, now its caused so much confusion and doubt of what to believe, my advice to people is read the Bible without the influence of any group or denomination, remembering its the gospel that saves not a certain denomination or Church. God bless
I appreciate your desire for true faith, but denominationalism is inevitable without a normative body that God can use to preserve the faith. Everyone reading the Bible on their own will come to their own conclusions about what the Bible says, they will place greater emphases on certain things and less on others, and inevitably create their own version of the faith which ironically becomes another denomination, even if it is of just one person. So the real question is what body of believers has existed since the time of the apostles and has preserved the true faith.
I have to honestly ask whether anyone who read all of the writings of Christians in the first three centuries with a totally blank slate, no church background but just with great faith in Jesus and wanting to follow the example of the Church that He established, would think and practice and pray and relate to a lost world just like an Anabaptist does. I don't believe so. There are many ways that the great majority of Anabaptists are at fundamental odds with the earliest Christian doctrines and practices. Many other churches are further away in different respects, I don't doubt, such as modest appearance or nonresistance, but there is no church in existence today that represents the same theology, values, and lifestyle as the whole of the early Christians. So I have no choice but to disagree right from the opening. If you choose old Anglican or Orthodox or old Anabaptist, etc., you're just choosing which set of departures from the ancient Faith that you prefer or are willing to tolerate. Either God is going to save a remnant from among the nations or, as Jesus Himself questioned, the ancient Faith will no longer be found when He returns.
If this is what you believe, then you ironically have to tolerate another departure of the faith of the early Church, which is that the Church is not the "pillar and ground of the truth," the faith exists outside of the purview of the bishops, and the Church as a visible body and the Holy Spirit failed to preserve the true faith in perpetuity.
There was no apostolic succession. The power to act in God's name was lost during the Great Apostasy. Peter, James and John returned to the earth as glorified beings to restore the priesthood power on May 15, 1829.
@@pigetstuck yes because it's such a common misleading statement, easily refuted. And was said in a scoffing sounding manner. It lowered a good discussion .
With regard to infant baptism, change to apostolic teachings and practice was widely accepted by the early third century, then, and quite possibly the second? (Irenaeus, and Tertullian, who argues for carefulness in what he would otherwise forcefully deny as apostolic or show as being heretical if he thought that was true.) I don't think so. We are not given biblical guidance regarding believers' children and there is no indication that either approach was universal, as the Catholic or Anabaptist views would so strongly prefer. Anabaptists were certainly right to reject the distorted "infant baptism" that was a political device of citizenship on earth, though.
Bercot gives an objectively misleading and cherry picked portrayal of the early church. Do yourself a favor, and read the early fathers and the earliest councils (eg - council of Carthage in 200s) for yourselves. His dictionary is cherry picked, his CD’s are cherry picked, and his lectures like this are too. His glaring omissions spanning a wide range of doctrine are simply the product of curated scholarship.
Although your guest referenced looking to the early church as an example to follow. He then says he resisted the liberal leaning churches and was drawn toward the more conservative ones. Fare enough. But this tells me he glossed over the early church in Acts and how they governed themselves. In short, they developed an early form of socialism, if not communism. Christ himself was the target of the conservative religious establishment of his day, namely the Pharisise. Fast forward to today. Christian conservatives, on a political level, have become bedfellows of the radical right up to and including christo-fascists. This has manifested itself in an almost cult like devotion to certain divisive political figures by most evangelicals. The warnings in the bible of this have been ignored and l believe the end times deception has begun with stocking success. They have turned their backs on the teachings of a poor, homeless, radical Jew, in favor of a billionaire bigot.
We can't speak for David, but I'm doubtful that he had right wing American politics in mind when he said that he was drawn toward conservative churches. The episode that he did with us a few years ago about America's founding may be of interest to you and address some of your concerns. ua-cam.com/video/rmWXqv0kSW8/v-deo.html
I think you're mixing up politically conservative with theologically conservative. When David says he's drawn toward the conservative churches, he's referring to things like male leadership in the church, marriage defined as one man and one woman for life, divorce treated as adultery, etc. It seems to me that he's contrasting those beliefs with anabaptist denominations in the US, particularly, the Mennonite Church USA. Both these two are apolitical; I don't believe either of them will be voting for any presidential candidate based on their understanding of the Kingdom of God. I think David is well aware of the early church practices expressed in Acts. You should check out some of his teachings on the Scroll Publishing channel, especially "The Gospel of Jesus About the Poor". www.youtube.com/@ScrollPublishing/featured
@@AnabaptistPerspectivesbut I've heard David preface any criticism of the USA with the statement "I'm a social conservative" which is the mennonite code for if I voted I'd vote Republican.
I became a member of an Anabaptist church in January. I pulled out the book “Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up” given to me by years ago. After I started attending last year. So thankful to be where God has led me.
Thank you for sharing this, Ron. As you continue on your journey as a disciple, keep Jesus central in your focus.
Love that book.
This book is so anti Christ. Beware. David a "former" JW Elder, now a self ordained "Anabaptist Elder" btw it's not a term Anabaptist people use. Teaches that Christ is not God, that the Bible as original is not accurate, that the added books of the Orthodox Bible are more accurate. That it is required of works to be saved. Do not be deceived. He is a Wolfe in sheep's clothing. He is not of the true historic faith.
I appreciate all your work, Reagan. Thanks for this episode with David Bercot! I think it would be interesting if you'd do an interview with one of those who has left Anabaptism to join another church whether Catholic or evangelical, to give another perspective.
That's a good idea. Do you have anyone in particular in mind that we should consider having on the podcast?
@@ReaganSchrock I don't have anyone specific in mind but would suggest it's an ethnic Anabaptist.
Thanks for this idea, Gideon. We can't promise future episodes, but it's an idea that we'll keep in mind. If you think of ideas for a guest, feel free to send the name our way.
I feel like I'm retracing some of David's steps myself. I'm trying to find my church fit as well, but it gets tough when you have come to certain convictions that would keep you disfellowshipped from the churches available nearby. We're in that stage of doing church at home as a family, but hoping we can be part of a fellowship at some point.
Be careful with the impact of that path on children. They need the wider Body of Christ for many reasons.
Flee from anyone calling themselves Pastor. Jesus commanded against such titles among the brethren. Matt. 23: 8-12. You may not be able to find a faithful gathering and have to be content with being faithful to Jesus. If you gather, is it to stir one another to love and good works and encourage one another? Or is it to gather to passively listen to Pastor lecture?
Are you not kind of doing what was warned against in this podcast by taking one scripture without context and leaving others where it talks about leaders and their roles?
I also visited several churches but never felt at home. My background is Pentecostalism with Scandinavian Baptist roots which originates from Radical Pietism. I was amazed to know after reading about Radical Pietism that I have some theological affinities with Anabaptists. I will take the time to visit an Anabaptist Church in the future to check whether I will be at home. By the way, I love the podcast. I will listen to more episode.
To Mr Bercot: “What are the 2 doctrines that we as Anabaptists differ from the early church on?”
To the host: “It would have been good to explain the controversy regarding’Common Sense’ the first time it was brought up. I am unfamiliar with it so it felt like you had an inside joke and I was lost.”
Very informative video. Thanks.
Thank you for the feedback, Byron. If we have David back for more episodes, we hope to have him respond to your question.
To be sure, David is from a group that calls themselves anabaptist s but they are not of the anabaptist doctrines. Please do your research on his background and the differences in the real Anabaptist teachings.
David's church isn't your typical Anabaptist church;they believe you're born again in the waters of baptism which is the historic faith. John 3:5, Col.2:11 and 12 and Acts 2:38 are all describing that event in a different way...
Fascinating interview. Glad to learn more about Bercot. I'm wondering what are the few doctrines that Bercot believes the early church held to that contemporary Anabaptists don't get right?
I read his Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs in grad school and benefited from the plentous quotes on 1 Cor 11:2-16.
But I found his scathing critique of theologians in Will the Theologians Please Sit Down overdone and factually mistaken, especially the way he inconsistently uses the words 'theology' and 'theologian' throughout the volume to try to fit with his illogical thesis, key terms given the subject matter of the book.
The fact is that Bercot himself is a theologian, and thus he never should have published a single book since that's the type of work that theologians do.
Since that time I haven't read anything else he has written. This interview helped me remember that he's (to quote a famous contemporary Anabaptist saying) "only human," and has many good points even though he comes across as a radical apologist that has moved away from the research-based approach that made his Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs great.
It would be nice if Reagan would ask him those type of questions but he just does softball interviews and says "wow" "amazing" to every answer his friends give in these interviews.
@@Benjamin-jo4rfIt isn't easy to be in Reagan's position. Imagine that you or I would start a channel that puts tough questions at conservative Anabaptists. How many would be game? Probably only a handful. The channel would fold up after a few posts. And yet I agree with you, Benjamin, that there should be a way to critically engage guests.
@@MD-ef9fl your right. That's why it's time to pack it up. Let the Anabaptist idolatry end. You either want to follow Jesus or not. Forget about all the extra baggage. The whole premise of this channel is wrong. It's to appear as if their is a sincere desire to engage with difficult topics amongst theses folks. There is not. They simply want to live happily ever after in their little safe space with all their comforts and not get pushed into actually engaging in the hard work that the world needs followers of Jesus to do.
I'm quite confident that it is baptism and Communion. He holds to baptism being salvific and real presence if I'm not mistaken. Not typical within Anabaptism.
@@MD-ef9fl Yeah its hard to know how to do these interviews sometimes. There were a few times that I wanted to push back a little more on David, but since this episode is about his personal story I decided to let him share and leave it as is. Its a very delicate thing to run this podcast in a way that respects all parties. :) Thanks for the feedback.
Dear Dr David. I am glad for your lectures, and for the fact that you wanted to get as close as possible to the early church in searching for a church. Just want to know what you think of gifts of the Spirit (as in 1 Cor 12 etc ) have they ceased (as in cessationalism taught by some) with no contemporary relevance?
Consider checking the resources on Scroll Publishing Company's website and UA-cam channel.
The Apostle's Creed we have today comes from the 5th century, with a form of it in the 4th century. According to online articles. Was there a version of it in the first and second century?
Good question. This is worth researching.
There were various baptismal creeds that evolved after 'Jesus is Lord' noted in the NT. What we call the Apostles Creed, was a development of the creeds specifically used in the early Church of Rome.
While the Nicene Creed was not created as a baptismal creed, it definitely pulled inspiration from the baptismal creeds
Sorry, normally I like to reference sources, but I've read so much over the years and this is just off the cuff.
Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition from the early 200's notes the baptismal creeds used in the church of Rome at the time, which is very similar to the later developed Apostles' Creed
Could anyone here help me to contact Mr. Bercot? I am hoping to send him a book I just wrote to review.
Your best course of action is probably through the Scroll Publishing website: scrollpublishing.com/contact-us/
Please help me get ahold of brother David Bercot.
He's hard to contact. Your best shot is probably through Scroll Publishing.
The helpful thing about David's research for me ...and I was open to finding otherwise, is that the churches of Christ were very nearly lock step with the early Christians on every topic that passed his criteria.
What I found somewhat disappointing (reading Heretics) was that David acknowledged the churches of Christ as more of an anomaly. We focus on sound doctrine, and still tend to produce the faithful life as individual Christians ...and that seemed curious to David.
But Paul gave Timothy the remedy for the coming apostasy(ies), which was to give himself to the preaching of the apostolic doctrine. He stressed similar urgency in Gal 1 and 2 Thes 2.
It seems that when the seed planted and taking firm root is the Word of God, the crop is faithful Christians. Denominational division is certainly not a fruit of the Gospel.
I think churches of Christ are following the Bible closer than most although a lot of them lost pacifism and head coverings.James Watkins(church of Christ) Preaching the Gospel sermons helped me understand baptism;especially Man's Wisdom vs God's Foolishness; At the Ryman
@@w35655 Yes, the number of pacifists have declined over the past 30 years, and head coverings have gone from common to rare. That is sad.
Worse IMO is that the original principle of ~being churches of Christ ... meaning following the New Testament pattern of local oversight, answering directly to the "Chief Shepherd" (cf 1 Pet 5 ...the only "Sr. Pastor" named in scripture) seems to have given way in the minds ...or at least speech of some to the notion of being in the right denomination. Jesus is the Lord of His Church, so we are either added by Him to it and walk in the relationship or we don't ...seems to me.
And of course believer immersion in His name for the remission of sins ...part of the rebirth Jesus said was necessary to enter - that doctrine and practice certainly remains. David's research confirmed that this was the earliest common belief, and interpretation of Jn 3:3-5 also.
It would seem that entering the Kingdom would be of first priority before working out whatever else might be lacking. We can do nothing without Him.
@@demcdoug I only understand that viewpoint if it is in defense of the Church of Christ. The CoC has changed a great deal over the last 150 years, but the Bible hasn't. So how is that possible if it's only based on the Bible? (It is part of my background from childhood and I see only a few correlations with the apostolic Church. The early leaders acknowledged them more, but that is gone.) The CoC is actually founded on Martin Luther in his invention of "sola scriptura" in 1518, one of the pillars of the Reformation.
@@ReluctantPost The Church or Body of Christ is not one of many denominations. If one approaches it as such, then he has already missed the point. Jesus said that He would build His Church, not Peter's, Paul's or Luther's.
Consider the seven churches of the Revelation. They were local congregations, five of which had some things to correct, and only two of which were blameless in His judgement.
While Jesus was clearly threatening to remove the "lamp stands" of those that should refuse to repent, He never instructed those who had "not soiled their garments" to run off and join the Smyrna denomination or the Philadelphia denomination.
And as many problems as Paul was addressing in Corinth, he was particularly aggrieved that they were dividing over their association with or baptism by one prominent man or another. The Body of Christ is not divided.
Getting back to Luther, he was adamant that those who appreciated him stop calling themselves Lutherans. He referred back to 1 Cor 1 in supporting his admonition. That and the ~claim of sola scriptura may be among the few things he got right, even if he then proceeded in attempting to remove or diminish the authority of those books that challenged his Augustinian doctrines (and Calvin's et. al.).
But we either pursue the revelation of God in the New Testament, or we're making stuff up. Shouldn't anyone claiming Christ at least endeavor, however poorly to seek the truth in His word and honor His commandment to ~follow Him? And what fellowship should one covet but that which is "of Christ" ...??
@@demcdoug Except that the New Testament itself teaches against _sola scriptura,_ and so, not surprisingly, Luther's invention hasn't worked and today's myriad Protestant-Evangelical denominations, including the CoC (only one sub-definition of "denomination" involves a headquarters, not just an identifiable division), are the Lord's illustration in fruits. A CoC near me has been about one mile from another CoC because they haven't been able to agree for about 50 years. As one person put it about Luther's discovery that he couldn't even get his fellow Reformer, Zwingli, to agree on scriptural interpretation, the doctrine of "Scriptures alone" turned out to be "the means by which each man could go to hell in his own way." It was never the plan or teaching until the 16th century. 1 Tim. 3:15; 2 Thess. 2:15; etc.
Thanks for sharing, always appreciate Bercots insight in the historical faith 🙏🏻
And we're always happy to have him join us for conversations.
Be not deceived David's interpretations are of a arianist interpretation. David is a lawyer, a quote" former Jehovah's witness but teaches that the mazoramic texts are not accurate and that one should use the Orthodox versions with the added books. He features that you are not saved until after you are baptized. That a confession of Faith and a repentance from sin does not equal salvation.
I became an Anabapst and eventually joined Amidh Mennonnite ( Beachy) church because i was led to the book of Bercot ( in God we do not trust)
That books is indeed worth reading.
From where did you receive the apostles creed and your canon of scripture? And do you believe that the church had an identity crisis until the 16th century over its ecclesiology and core dogmas like the true presence of the Eucharist? (even the early reformers like Luther held to that perennial belief of the church).
Also, can you cite where Tertullian writes that Mary has sinned?
There are a lot of misleading claims here… I would encourage people to go to early church sources for themselves..
These are fair questions. You'd have to ask David directly, if you want to know how he would respond to these questions.
However, we do appreciate and endorse your recommendation that we spend time with the writings from the early church.
It is the ante-Nicene writings themselves that frustrate the Nicene and post-Nicene paths and their defenders because they espouse quite changed views, from their view of worldly kingdoms and war to their view of wealth. You are certainly correct about the Presence of Christ in His sacrifice at the Table, though not as transsubstantiation, as Rome would have it; but as John 6:63-64 and 1 Cor. 11:27 would have it. David does not take the unhistorical Protestant-Evangelical view of it. As for Tertullian, his perspective is expressed both in “Against Praxeas” and “Against Marcion.” He affirms the Virgin Birth, of course, but most of the additions to that doctrine came over centuries of development. The very name Theotokos for Mary does not appear until nearly 200 years after Christ. The early “fathers” as a whole believed that change to doctrine and practice was error, as the Scripture warns.
Thank you for the replies- my comment was meant sincerely, not as a polemical attack, so I appreciate that it was received in the intended spirit. And that's interesting. I will have to reread Against Praxeas and Against Marcion, I don't remember Tertullian espousing anything like that.
And while I don't deny that there was plenty of development in the early church, I would only say that reformation theology is categorically novel. How could the church for so long have misunderstood what it means to be a church, Eucharistic theology (agreed- not necessarily under the transubstantiation formulation, but real presence eucharist being central) , what scripture is (divorcing it from liturgy with the advent of the printing press and plugging it into the 'fundamentalism gap' left by abandoning the authority of the pope, which leads to an epistemologically confusing 'solo scriptura' where one is to trust both an ecumenical council under Pope Damasus with defining scripture, but then also Luther's later revisions a millennium later?), etc.
@@tadhg841 the dictionary of early Christian beliefs by Bercot is a quick way to get into over 700 topics
3 fold office of Bishop/priest/deacon, holy altars, “all holy, ever virgin Theotokos”, painted icons of Christ on the chalice and drinking his blood from the icon, zero pushback on infant baptism with many proponents of it, Eucharist spiritually and physically Christ is present in the bread and cup, “we fight with you”, “we occupy your military fortresses”, intercession of the Theotokos and the saints, sacrament of ordination, sacrament of confession, "One orthodox Catholic Church", "One episcopate", sacramental baptism, "only bishops can ordain clergy", schism to create "rival churches" with "illegal meetings" condemned, the divine energies, veneration of relics and crosses, multiple different Christian military legions mentioned that defended innocent women and children and elderly but refused to fight offensive battles, oil lamps with icons of christ crucified/jonah/fish/crosses/etc on them, intentional services to commemorate the martyrs and saints, hundreds of intercessory prayers in the roman catacomb epitaphs that phillip schaff (calvinist translator of ante nicene fathers) himself admits many of them are before constantine's lifetime.
^ all found in the ante-nicene church history, but you wont hear that from any "church historian" that cherry picks the holy orthodox fathers, and claims their prooftexts for their protestant sect.
Any missionary work in México, i wish i could join an anabaptista church please help i stay in Veracruz México, i have a wife and 3 kids
The only Anabaptist churches in Mexico that we know of are listed here: churchindex.org/
It doesn't appear that any are in Veracruz. Whether or not God gives you an Anabaptist church, we hope that you continue to pursue a relationship with Jesus of loving discipleship in a community of believers.
I believe there is a group looking at starting an Anabaptist church in that area in the next few years!
@@KMar-dj5gh hello there, 3 anabaptist Christians came this last weekend to My Town, they came to explore the area speciallly the native area in the Mountains , am so glad with God to meet their children and to had some blesed time with them .... God bless You all
Unfortunately its a shame that we put so much emphasis on denominations than on Christ, this creates so much division amongst the body of Christ the Church, now its caused so much confusion and doubt of what to believe, my advice to people is read the Bible without the influence of any group or denomination, remembering its the gospel that saves not a certain denomination or Church. God bless
I appreciate your desire for true faith, but denominationalism is inevitable without a normative body that God can use to preserve the faith. Everyone reading the Bible on their own will come to their own conclusions about what the Bible says, they will place greater emphases on certain things and less on others, and inevitably create their own version of the faith which ironically becomes another denomination, even if it is of just one person.
So the real question is what body of believers has existed since the time of the apostles and has preserved the true faith.
I have to honestly ask whether anyone who read all of the writings of Christians in the first three centuries with a totally blank slate, no church background but just with great faith in Jesus and wanting to follow the example of the Church that He established, would think and practice and pray and relate to a lost world just like an Anabaptist does. I don't believe so. There are many ways that the great majority of Anabaptists are at fundamental odds with the earliest Christian doctrines and practices. Many other churches are further away in different respects, I don't doubt, such as modest appearance or nonresistance, but there is no church in existence today that represents the same theology, values, and lifestyle as the whole of the early Christians. So I have no choice but to disagree right from the opening. If you choose old Anglican or Orthodox or old Anabaptist, etc., you're just choosing which set of departures from the ancient Faith that you prefer or are willing to tolerate. Either God is going to save a remnant from among the nations or, as Jesus Himself questioned, the ancient Faith will no longer be found when He returns.
Thank you for this thoughtful feedback, Dale. You raise a fair critique.
If this is what you believe, then you ironically have to tolerate another departure of the faith of the early Church, which is that the Church is not the "pillar and ground of the truth," the faith exists outside of the purview of the bishops, and the Church as a visible body and the Holy Spirit failed to preserve the true faith in perpetuity.
There was no apostolic succession. The power to act in God's name was lost during the Great Apostasy. Peter, James and John returned to the earth as glorified beings to restore the priesthood power on May 15, 1829.
You're referring to the story about Joseph Smith?
Im sorry, but this man seems very judgemental about other churches. After boasting about his humility. Very abrasive.
quote that was abrasive?
56:36 "praying to icons". They don't.
@@mores5780 that is “very abrasive”?
@@pigetstuck yes because it's such a common misleading statement, easily refuted. And was said in a scoffing sounding manner. It lowered a good discussion .
@@mores5780 would it be more accurate to say "pray with icons"?
was the scoffing manner in relation to the apologetics rather than the practice?
With regard to infant baptism, change to apostolic teachings and practice was widely accepted by the early third century, then, and quite possibly the second? (Irenaeus, and Tertullian, who argues for carefulness in what he would otherwise forcefully deny as apostolic or show as being heretical if he thought that was true.) I don't think so. We are not given biblical guidance regarding believers' children and there is no indication that either approach was universal, as the Catholic or Anabaptist views would so strongly prefer. Anabaptists were certainly right to reject the distorted "infant baptism" that was a political device of citizenship on earth, though.
This man is also misrepresenting the Orthodox Church when it comes to divorce and remarriage
Yep. Taking a page out of the Roman Catholic playbook on that one.
To be clear, Anglicans and Evangelicals are not the same.
Thank you. This is an important clarification.
@@AnabaptistPerspectives how are they different?
There is actually a branch of evangelical Anglican. Ji packer seems to have been one.
Bercot gives an objectively misleading and cherry picked portrayal of the early church. Do yourself a favor, and read the early fathers and the earliest councils (eg - council of Carthage in 200s) for yourselves. His dictionary is cherry picked, his CD’s are cherry picked, and his lectures like this are too.
His glaring omissions spanning a wide range of doctrine are simply the product of curated scholarship.
Yeah....no.
Although your guest referenced looking to the early church as an example to follow. He then says he resisted the liberal leaning churches and was drawn toward the more conservative ones. Fare enough. But this tells me he glossed over the early church in Acts and how they governed themselves. In short, they developed an early form of socialism, if not communism.
Christ himself was the target of the conservative religious establishment of his day, namely the Pharisise.
Fast forward to today. Christian conservatives, on a political level, have become bedfellows of the radical right up to and including christo-fascists. This has manifested itself in an almost cult like devotion to certain divisive political figures by most evangelicals.
The warnings in the bible of this have been ignored and l believe the end times deception has begun with stocking success. They have turned their backs on the teachings of a poor, homeless, radical Jew, in favor of a billionaire bigot.
We can't speak for David, but I'm doubtful that he had right wing American politics in mind when he said that he was drawn toward conservative churches.
The episode that he did with us a few years ago about America's founding may be of interest to you and address some of your concerns. ua-cam.com/video/rmWXqv0kSW8/v-deo.html
I think you're mixing up politically conservative with theologically conservative. When David says he's drawn toward the conservative churches, he's referring to things like male leadership in the church, marriage defined as one man and one woman for life, divorce treated as adultery, etc. It seems to me that he's contrasting those beliefs with anabaptist denominations in the US, particularly, the Mennonite Church USA.
Both these two are apolitical; I don't believe either of them will be voting for any presidential candidate based on their understanding of the Kingdom of God. I think David is well aware of the early church practices expressed in Acts. You should check out some of his teachings on the Scroll Publishing channel, especially "The Gospel of Jesus About the Poor". www.youtube.com/@ScrollPublishing/featured
@@AnabaptistPerspectivesbut I've heard David preface any criticism of the USA with the statement "I'm a social conservative" which is the mennonite code for if I voted I'd vote Republican.
@@Thoreseus_no, no he is not. I went to Kingdom fellowship weekend two years ago. I saw many proud trump supporters and voters there.
@@Thoreseus_ you are correct that they are both apolitical and do not vote in elections.