The word “church” as we’ve been given in the English language is the pivot point of this entire discussion-Christian leaders rarely start with deep-diving into the term we use to describe what we’re doing to reconsider why we’re doing it…It immediately institutionalizes the faith😉 #keepupthegoodwork
Church and "ecclesia" conveys the idea of an assembly of people. It doesn't say anything about how or where they assemble. But "Church" today is used as a sort-of Verb pertaining to an "activity", as in "go to church". The word 'Church' takes on a religious tone; a "place" we go to for engaging in an activity--whether that activity is worship, bible study, youth group or choir. It's a central focus for those who care the most...kind of like the tabernacle or temple of OT times. But as our pastors constantly remind us...we don't "GO" to church...we ARE the church!"
Good stuff. This topic has become my main focus for a few years. People should pray the night before assembling, of how Jesus wants to use them the next day. Church needs to be a place of participation and not just sitting and watching a few people run “a show”.
Great video and discussion! Its interesting to me in Peter's 1st epistle where Peter seems to be addressing concern about the churches' lack of having neither a priest nor a holy gathering place. I presume these because He makes such a clear point to call them all out as a "royal priesthood". And encourages them that they themselves are being built up as a "temple". He was also trying to protect/warm them of many scoffers and false teachers in that same context! It seems the shift back to those familiar traditions/styles of Judiasm was SIGNIFICANT during the 1st and 2nd century. [Additional thought: today we see the same fleshly desire to simply (1) "pay a professional" to do messy or sacrificial ministry and evangelism rather than lay down my own life in following Christ. We prefer to love hard to love groups of people vicariously through a "functional priest" who is willing to take my money to go do the work Christ gave His royal priesthood of believers to do. And (2) collect significant funds to build large visible architectures for worship gatherings. This is probably fine to a degree ... as long we don't start emphasizing building up buildings and institutional capital over and above the real Church, His Bride. (This is a difficult priority to keep in focus - but the Lord knows our frame - so thankful for His Spirit keeping His true Bride hidden in Christ)
Again, at minute 17: 28, Dr Wadsworth states that the Roman Catholic Church sees Jesus Christ as the only sacrifice for sin. But in reality, they see the Eucharist as a continuation of the actual sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ for our sins performed daily. This is not a scriptural doctrine.
Amen. I caught it. It causes harm as these men others listen too talk as if Roman Catholics dovtrine is just fine they add self works to eph 2:8-10. The chg life is from eph 2:10 in those of eph 2:8-9. Yes obedient life. See Roman’s 6 but it is from Eze 36:24-30. See 2 pet 1:3-4. Etc. therefore acts 20:18-21 with 26:18-22. Catholics also have the very bad thing of at mass the bloodless kill of Jesus over n over. Hi Ck it out. A cult says gal 1:6-9
@@tommycolkeen He may just be trying to be 'sensitive' and not offend. I heard him state in a similar video that there are indeed Catholics who are true Christians, even though they may still attend Mass. (which i True!) He probably didn't want to be overly judgmental. It's hard to part with Catholicism if it's all you've ever known, but there is just so much false doctrine, it's hard to learn Truth when you're still sitting under that system.
Jeremy Pryor made a very insightful comment that the reformers we're simply trying to reform the Catholic Church itself, which is why they were all banished and became apostates in the end. But when they came out of the church they never tried to reform the church structure itself. Was that simply neglect or on purpose?
They say Satan is Jesus equal Brother. Yes. They say Jesus is only one ofv12 sons. Mormons are cult. Please read John 1:1-18 in a KJV or protestant bible. Your Bible of Mormon John 1:1 is example of lies. Please leave Mormon. It is a real cult. They say Adam is the god of us etc lies You say oh no we don’t teach it. Yes go dig. They just dropped it to not run you off. All this is out there if only you would. LDS is satanic in doctrine. Sweet people but deceived. Sincerely deceived.
@ go Ck out the Lds doctrine. It’s very bad. Mormon god is a man Adam and you will be one too if a good Mormon. That’s sick and against Bible. You are afraid to dig in this. Go see. Or do you believe it ?
At minute 53:30 Tom went so far as to say that the popularity of his UA-cam channel is drawing comments from all of "Christendom", and he included the Roman Catholic Church as part of authentic biblical christendom. Why do you think he did that?
I have yet to encounter an elegant interpretation of I Corinthians 11 that accounts for all details. Keep in mind that a couple of translation astonishments are present in many versions. The woman doesn’t have a symbol of authority; she has authority - and, there is no *such* custom, not no *other* custom in the churches. Here so many make a big deal about the head covering for the woman, but how is Paul making shame of a man remaining uncovered - when God commanded the priests to cover their heads? What do the angels care about any of this? Does head mean authority, so that God is authority over Christ who is God? Or does head mean source or at least beginning point, as in Genesis 2’s splitting of the one river into four heads, and Daniel 2’s head of the successive human governments? Did God send Christ? Did Christ create the man? Did the woman come out of the man? Source, source, source - emphasizing oneness? Then the man now coming out of the woman is not a random mitigation of authority but support of the overall point of oneness…. To answer the speculation in this video about taking the silence of women with equal seriousness as the head covering, or vice versa - I Corinthians 11 as clearly as it says anything, says women may prophesy. Which is not silence. Sin is lawlessness, but there is no law of Moses that silences women in the assembly, or for that matter which commands the unilateral submission of women to men in any configuration. So why do verses 34-35 of chapter 14 appeal to laws that cannot be found? This is a significant conflict if we think it’s referring to God’s ethics. But if ekklesia referred to male-only civic assemblies for the Greeks, long before Jesus said he’d build his - mightn’t the quotation theory of these verses be more reasonable than the idea that Paul meant women to be silent in contradiction to his own self a mere three chapters earlier? I commented this on Tom’s copy as well.
At minute 1930 when Dr Wadsworth says that the church started calling their ministers priests, is he talking about the Roman Catholic Church? Did the Christian churches call their ministers priests?
God bless. 🙏🏻 "Where the Bishop appears there let the people be.. just as where JESUS CHRIST IS there is THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. St.Ignatius of Antioch 107 AD. 🔑⛪️🍷🍞🔥📖🕊🕊 Before the bible was composed in 367 AD. It was the early Church. 🙏🏻
I don't understand the false dichotomy between the New Testament and the witness of people like Ignatius, Clement, Justin Martyr, the author of the Didache, etc, as if they didn't know the New Testament. All of these people part of the early church that affirmed the New Testament we have now.
And then he said that all these different groups are "all finding something to talk about." Meaning inclusion, or in my view he's talking about ecumenicism.
In Matthew 23:8-12, Jesus explicitly warns His followers against adopting titles like “Rabbi” or “Teacher” . He tells them, “You are all brothers,” emphasizing equality among believers and urging humility in service. The title of “Pastor,” as it’s commonly used today as a title that distinguishes one person as a leader over others, directly contradicts Jesus' teaching here. By taking on the title of "Pastor" and positioning themselves as spiritual authorities, these people violate Jesus command. Jesus' words remind us that no one among us is to be elevated by title. “The greatest among you shall be your servant,” He says (Matthew 23:11), pointing us toward humble service rather than hierarchy. A title like “Pastor” that conveys authority and sets one apart runs counter to this command, creating divisions where Jesus taught equality and a shared commitment to follow Him together. In light of Matthew 23, the very existence of the title “Pastor” shows contempt for Jesus. Rather than setting anyone above others, true biblical leadership should involve humility, shared fellowship, and mutual submission under the one Teacher and one Father who unites us all. All Pastors are wolves in sheep's clothing and grifters because in the New Testament model, gatherings of believers centered on Christ, not on a single individual as an authoritative figure. Jesus emphasized that all His followers are brothers and sisters, equal in standing before God, with only Christ as the ultimate Shepherd and Teacher (1 Peter 5:4). The early church functioned as a body, each member contributing as led by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4-27). Nowhere in Scripture is one man exalted as the focal point of worship or the singular authority over the assembly. In fact, when Paul and Peter refer to leaders, they emphasize their role as humble servants, overseers who lead by example, not by domineering authority (1 Peter 5:2-3; Acts 20:28). When pastors today elevate themselves as the primary voice or authority over a congregation, they violate this model. They often draw attention to themselves rather than pointing others to Christ as the true Head of the church (Colossians 1:18). By doing so, they risk becoming the very "wolves in sheep's clothing" Jesus warned against in Matthew 7:15. Pastors who place themselves as the focal point of worship or exert exclusive authority in the church obscure the simplicity of Christ-centered gatherings and undermine the model of humble, servant leadership laid out in the New Testament.
And He gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, some as pastors and teachers, (Ephesians 4:11 NASB) I don't think God will give us wolves in sheep's clothing. Just saying.
Best interviewer by far asked deep questions.
The word “church” as we’ve been given in the English language is the pivot point of this entire discussion-Christian leaders rarely start with deep-diving into the term we use to describe what we’re doing to reconsider why we’re doing it…It immediately institutionalizes the faith😉 #keepupthegoodwork
Church and "ecclesia" conveys the idea of an assembly of people. It doesn't say anything about how or where they assemble. But "Church" today is used as a sort-of Verb pertaining to an "activity", as in "go to church". The word 'Church' takes on a religious tone; a "place" we go to for engaging in an activity--whether that activity is worship, bible study, youth group or choir. It's a central focus for those who care the most...kind of like the tabernacle or temple of OT times. But as our pastors constantly remind us...we don't "GO" to church...we ARE the church!"
I enjoy Dr. Wadsworth teaching very much.
Excellent questions and answers. Incredible how far the modern institutional churches have strayed away from the original ekklesia model.
I NEVER GOT ANYTHING FROM A CHURCH BUILDING BUT I DID WHEN I LEFT AND NEVER WENT BACK BEST THING EVER
Same!
the Power of ‘The Way’ is not in the building. It’s in the person of Christ, the Way Himself.
Agree
So great! Thanks for a wonderful conversation. Very thought-provoking!
Good stuff. This topic has become my main focus for a few years. People should pray the night before assembling, of how Jesus wants to use them the next day. Church needs to be a place of participation and not just sitting and watching a few people run “a show”.
SPOT ON LOVED IT
Great video and discussion! Its interesting to me in Peter's 1st epistle where Peter seems to be addressing concern about the churches' lack of having neither a priest nor a holy gathering place. I presume these because He makes such a clear point to call them all out as a "royal priesthood". And encourages them that they themselves are being built up as a "temple". He was also trying to protect/warm them of many scoffers and false teachers in that same context! It seems the shift back to those familiar traditions/styles of Judiasm was SIGNIFICANT during the 1st and 2nd century. [Additional thought: today we see the same fleshly desire to simply (1) "pay a professional" to do messy or sacrificial ministry and evangelism rather than lay down my own life in following Christ. We prefer to love hard to love groups of people vicariously through a "functional priest" who is willing to take my money to go do the work Christ gave His royal priesthood of believers to do. And (2) collect significant funds to build large visible architectures for worship gatherings. This is probably fine to a degree ... as long we don't start emphasizing building up buildings and institutional capital over and above the real Church, His Bride. (This is a difficult priority to keep in focus - but the Lord knows our frame - so thankful for His Spirit keeping His true Bride hidden in Christ)
Again, at minute 17: 28, Dr Wadsworth states that the Roman Catholic Church sees Jesus Christ as the only sacrifice for sin. But in reality, they see the Eucharist as a continuation of the actual sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ for our sins performed daily. This is not a scriptural doctrine.
Amen. I caught it. It causes harm as these men others listen too talk as if Roman Catholics dovtrine is just fine they add self works to eph 2:8-10. The chg life is from eph 2:10 in those of eph 2:8-9. Yes obedient life. See Roman’s 6 but it is from Eze 36:24-30. See 2 pet 1:3-4. Etc. therefore acts 20:18-21 with 26:18-22. Catholics also have the very bad thing of at mass the bloodless kill of Jesus over n over. Hi Ck it out. A cult says gal 1:6-9
@@tommycolkeen He may just be trying to be 'sensitive' and not offend. I heard him state in a similar video that there are indeed Catholics who are true Christians, even though they may still attend Mass. (which i True!) He probably didn't want to be overly judgmental. It's hard to part with Catholicism if it's all you've ever known, but there is just so much false doctrine, it's hard to learn Truth when you're still sitting under that system.
If one elder is problematic, the so is one or a preacher that becomes the nexus of learning and authority.
Jeremy Pryor made a very insightful comment that the reformers we're simply trying to reform the Catholic Church itself, which is why they were all banished and became apostates in the end. But when they came out of the church they never tried to reform the church structure itself. Was that simply neglect or on purpose?
I'm LDS and have been loving Dr. Wadsworths teachings on the subject. He describes our structure very well 😉
Joseph Smith is not included in the New Testament - just in case you don't know! He is a very FALSE teacher.
They say Satan is Jesus equal Brother. Yes. They say Jesus is only one ofv12 sons. Mormons are cult. Please read John 1:1-18 in a KJV or protestant bible. Your Bible of Mormon John 1:1 is example of lies. Please leave Mormon. It is a real cult. They say Adam is the god of us etc lies You say oh no we don’t teach it. Yes go dig. They just dropped it to not run you off. All this is out there if only you would. LDS is satanic in doctrine. Sweet people but deceived. Sincerely deceived.
You best Ck out the doctrine. Woe. False Jesus.
@tommycolkeen your comment alone shows who's in the wrong.
Pretty disgraceful if you ask me.
@ go Ck out the Lds doctrine. It’s very bad. Mormon god is a man Adam and you will be one too if a good Mormon. That’s sick and against Bible. You are afraid to dig in this. Go see. Or do you believe it ?
In the coC there is descriptive and prescriptive, but much of the descriptive is prescriptive and vice versa.
At minute 53:30 Tom went so far as to say that the popularity of his UA-cam channel is drawing comments from all of "Christendom", and he included the Roman Catholic Church as part of authentic biblical christendom. Why do you think he did that?
I have yet to encounter an elegant interpretation of I Corinthians 11 that accounts for all details. Keep in mind that a couple of translation astonishments are present in many versions. The woman doesn’t have a symbol of authority; she has authority - and, there is no *such* custom, not no *other* custom in the churches. Here so many make a big deal about the head covering for the woman, but how is Paul making shame of a man remaining uncovered - when God commanded the priests to cover their heads? What do the angels care about any of this? Does head mean authority, so that God is authority over Christ who is God? Or does head mean source or at least beginning point, as in Genesis 2’s splitting of the one river into four heads, and Daniel 2’s head of the successive human governments? Did God send Christ? Did Christ create the man? Did the woman come out of the man? Source, source, source - emphasizing oneness? Then the man now coming out of the woman is not a random mitigation of authority but support of the overall point of oneness….
To answer the speculation in this video about taking the silence of women with equal seriousness as the head covering, or vice versa - I Corinthians 11 as clearly as it says anything, says women may prophesy. Which is not silence. Sin is lawlessness, but there is no law of Moses that silences women in the assembly, or for that matter which commands the unilateral submission of women to men in any configuration. So why do verses 34-35 of chapter 14 appeal to laws that cannot be found? This is a significant conflict if we think it’s referring to God’s ethics. But if ekklesia referred to male-only civic assemblies for the Greeks, long before Jesus said he’d build his - mightn’t the quotation theory of these verses be more reasonable than the idea that Paul meant women to be silent in contradiction to his own self a mere three chapters earlier?
I commented this on Tom’s copy as well.
At minute 1930 when Dr Wadsworth says that the church started calling their ministers priests, is he talking about the Roman Catholic Church? Did the Christian churches call their ministers priests?
And why does Dr Wadsworth have a bust of the Greek god Hermes on his bookshelf?
It looks cool. I like it. Why do you have a TV in your house?
What’s your point? That he is any less of a Christian because it’s there?
Please, Jeremy let the man talk.
God bless. 🙏🏻 "Where the Bishop appears there let the people be.. just as where JESUS CHRIST IS there is THE CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. St.Ignatius of Antioch 107 AD. 🔑⛪️🍷🍞🔥📖🕊🕊 Before the bible was composed in 367 AD. It was the early Church. 🙏🏻
I don't understand the false dichotomy between the New Testament and the witness of people like Ignatius, Clement, Justin Martyr, the author of the Didache, etc, as if they didn't know the New Testament. All of these people part of the early church that affirmed the New Testament we have now.
And then he said that all these different groups are "all finding something to talk about." Meaning inclusion, or in my view he's talking about ecumenicism.
In Matthew 23:8-12, Jesus explicitly warns His followers against adopting titles like “Rabbi” or “Teacher” . He tells them, “You are all brothers,” emphasizing equality among believers and urging humility in service. The title of “Pastor,” as it’s commonly used today as a title that distinguishes one person as a leader over others, directly contradicts Jesus' teaching here. By taking on the title of "Pastor" and positioning themselves as spiritual authorities, these people violate Jesus command.
Jesus' words remind us that no one among us is to be elevated by title. “The greatest among you shall be your servant,” He says (Matthew 23:11), pointing us toward humble service rather than hierarchy. A title like “Pastor” that conveys authority and sets one apart runs counter to this command, creating divisions where Jesus taught equality and a shared commitment to follow Him together.
In light of Matthew 23, the very existence of the title “Pastor” shows contempt for Jesus. Rather than setting anyone above others, true biblical leadership should involve humility, shared fellowship, and mutual submission under the one Teacher and one Father who unites us all.
All Pastors are wolves in sheep's clothing and grifters because in the New Testament model, gatherings of believers centered on Christ, not on a single individual as an authoritative figure. Jesus emphasized that all His followers are brothers and sisters, equal in standing before God, with only Christ as the ultimate Shepherd and Teacher (1 Peter 5:4). The early church functioned as a body, each member contributing as led by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4-27). Nowhere in Scripture is one man exalted as the focal point of worship or the singular authority over the assembly. In fact, when Paul and Peter refer to leaders, they emphasize their role as humble servants, overseers who lead by example, not by domineering authority (1 Peter 5:2-3; Acts 20:28).
When pastors today elevate themselves as the primary voice or authority over a congregation, they violate this model. They often draw attention to themselves rather than pointing others to Christ as the true Head of the church (Colossians 1:18). By doing so, they risk becoming the very "wolves in sheep's clothing" Jesus warned against in Matthew 7:15. Pastors who place themselves as the focal point of worship or exert exclusive authority in the church obscure the simplicity of Christ-centered gatherings and undermine the model of humble, servant leadership laid out in the New Testament.
And He gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, some as pastors and teachers, (Ephesians 4:11 NASB)
I don't think God will give us wolves in sheep's clothing. Just saying.
@NicholasWongCQ Why does the Bible warn us about wolves in sheep's clothing if God didn’t give them to us?
Weak.