Thank you David.  Outstanding!

I was blessed to have stumbled upon Brother David Bercot.  One the first things I did as a brand new born again Christian was get ahold of the JWs, and the Mormons.  I went to Church after reading the scriptures and thinking on them for about a month so from the scriptures I had this idea what Church would be like.  I go to Church finally, let’s just say I had questions lol.  Not a bad thing I was new and was not seeing what I saw in scripture.  I asked the Bible teacher if he thought the Church is where it should be.  He just looked down didn’t say anything.  But I just wanted to know why there were so many sects in the Church.  Got tossed to and fro in every wind of doctrine for many years.  Nothing more embarrassing than basically debating with what some trusted theologian said while in it with an atheist and find out the things your believing have some pseudo history involved like legitimately.  I would move to other theological explanations finally stumbled upon brother Jesse Morrell and he was really good, he actually turned my attention to the Ante Nicene Christians then finally by the grace of God I’m here learning from brother David Bercot and trying to embrace the Ante Nicene Church as much as is in my strength right now to do so.  Thank You all for the Historic Faith and God Bless!

I remember reading Jesus Christ our Lord telling me I must be baptized.  I kinda already had an idea what that was, my uncle got baptized in the Saint Francis River when I was maybe 10 years old.  But after reading and just believing I was like I need to be baptized!  Then what do I get from nearly every Christian but one that actually contacted me… you don’t have to be baptized that’s like saying you have to be circumcised 😆.  But I posted my testimony on the facebook and a long time Christian that knew me from school text me and said hey we can baptize you 😆.  But man as a new Christian it is the easiest thing to get pulled into all kinds of dogmatic doctrines.  The craziest thing is when I read the early Christians they explain things pretty much how I first understood the scriptures before I started trusting in these big time preachers.  I’ve wiped my slate clean and with my experience it wasn’t hard to make that decision after learning from the first Christians.

How would an Anabaptist handle a case of severe medical or dental malpractice by multiple providers?

Greetings Brother and exbrother!

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

David. I was surprised to hear that you went to school for a brief time in Wellsboro Pa. I grew up just west of there and was recruited and joined the Air Force out of Wellsboro. Its a small world and I appreciate what I have learned from you over the years but most importantly, the love you show to our fellow brothers and sisters and our King.

I do have a question on when to know when to let it go. I have a hard time letting convictions on doctrine that I believe to be salvation issues like baptism, OSAS, Faith only etc. I know you briefly addressed it here but its hard to watch a brother believe he can live a life of sin because "nobody can pluck you out of my hand". Do I just plant the seeds and let God do the work? Its so hard and I appreciate any advice. God bless!

I’m glad you guys made the website free. You don’t need donations to keep a website going you just have to be led by the spirit. God bless I love these videos!

I was born in 1970 and it was drastically different then

The Early Church has suffered the same cultural infiltration as we are dealing with cultural Marxism today, in-fact the antichrist spirit that John spoke of was prominently from the Gnostics. A lot Christians are not aware that the First physical Resurrection has been aggressively attacked from the time of Jesus’s ministry and exploded at the time Paul addressed this issue in 2 Timothy 2:18; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 and 1 Corinthians 15. We that this issue was still being addressed by Tertullian, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus each verified that the passages mentioned was the starting point of spiritualising the First Resurrection and naming many of the Gnostics for corrupting many of the doctrines to suit the spiritual resurrection.
Clement of Alexandria is responsible for bending to a cultural Gnosticism and spreading this line of thinking in his theological schools, a number of the Church Fathers above have called out this corruption within the church.
In fact A-Millennialism is a product of Gnosticism and unfortunately many of the main eschatological views are a bi-product derived from Augustinian/ Calvinism.
Historic Millennialism is based on the authority of the Old Testament prophecies, endorsing by  Christ, his Apostles and their disciples who faithfully taught the original understanding of Scripture.
Galatians 1:6-9 ESV
[6] I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel- [7] not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. [8] But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. [9] As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Romans 11:18-21 ESV
[18] do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. [19] Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." [20] That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. [21] For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.

I Remember walking in 1958 and man drove by me and flashed himself. I went to school authorities and it happened to ther kids too. It was in Erie pa. It want safe then either.

Something far worse happened.

The predominant religion in the Roman Empire during the time of Messiah, and following His resurrection, was Mithraism. It originated in Babel.

The early “church leaders” began to mix Mithraism with the worship of YHWH 'Elohiym, adopting beliefs and practices which came to be known as "christianity", under the leadership of the RCC and, later, Constantine. Mithraism gave emphasis to the worship of the sun god.

For example, the birthday of the sun god, in Mithraism, was December 25.
The day of worship to the sun god, in Mithraism, was Sunday (Sun Day).

When the Roman Empire no longer practiced Mithraism alone, the practices and beliefs of Mithraism were adopted into "christianity", through the RCC. The Roman calendar included the day of the Sun for worship of Sol Invictus. In 321 AD, Constantine I, Rome's first tolerant Emperor, decreed Sunday (dies Solis) would be observed as the ROMAN DAY OF REST:

"On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed."

Consequently, during that time, the true worship of YHWH 'Elohiym of Yisra'el, and Yeshua as Messiah, became mingled with the beliefs and practices of Mithraism.

In doing so, christianity committed the same idolatry as the children of Yisra'el, when Mosheh delayed coming down from Har-Ciynay, encouraging 'Aharown to help them build a golden calf system of worship. What happened when the people saw Mosheh didn't come down from the mountain in the time frame they expected?

EX 32:4
He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, Yisra'el, who brought you up out of Mitsrayim." When 'Aharown saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, "Tomorrow there will be a festival to YHWH." So, the next day the people rose early and sacrificed `owlah offerings and presented shalam offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink, and got up to indulge in debauchery.

In these verses, we can see the golden calf system of worship the people made was NOT to worship any god in Mitsrayim. Instead, the golden calf is CALLED the worship of YHWH 'Elohiym of Yisra'el.

'Aharown and the children of Yisra'el built the golden calf and proclaimed they would make a "feast to YHWH" and offer "burnt offerings and peace offerings." A "Chag to YHWH, `owlowt and shlamiym" is how YHWH 'Elohiym of Yisra'el instructed His people to worship Him.

Therefore, the idolatry of the people was mixing the worship of YHWH 'Elohiym of Yisra'el with the ways of the world and paganism, and then calling this system of worship the true worship of YHWH 'Elohiym of Yisra'el.

Your evil religion accepted the birthday of the sungod of Mithraism of Babel (Dec 25) as a celebration of its birth.

Your evil religion accepted the day of the week set aside for the worship of the sungod of Rome and Babel (sunday) as the day of worship for it.

Your evil religion even accepted a pagan sex festival (easter) as a celebration of its death.

So, "christianity" has committed this same great sin of worshiping a pagan idol, as they did.

Antichrist jesus is the image of the beast.

I'm from Guadalajara and I'd like to get in touch with a church like yours. Does anyone know how I can do that?

The very reason we don’t completely understand the Mysteries of the Trinity is because the Bible doesn’t completely got the Trinity in a neat little box.  People read that and they still have questions unless you have accepted the little box that’s been handed to you.

Latter Day Saint here. I enjoy all of David’s content and he sounds exactly like a Mormon. Like not just what he says but how he sounds. I suppose it’s the trial by fire of being called a heretic your whole life and focusing on the actual words of Jesus.

Whole we do believe in a “great apostasy” this is in no way a LDS or JWA specific concept. It goes back at least to 18th century reformers. And I can accept most of what David is saying- the church leadership became corrupt but Christianity didn’t disappear and there were many good and faithful Christians all the way thru. And I do take seriously the beliefs and practices of anti nicene fathers tho given how decentralized the church was with poor communication and literacy I don’t assume they got everything right.

Lds view of apostasy is just that priesthood authority is essential and leadership lost its Mandate of Heaven. Even creedal Christians readily admit the revelation and miracles kind of dried up and they became cessationist out of necessity (like the Jews a couple hundred years earlier) - not because the apostles taught it. So unless you have a restoration of these gifts to point to like we do what other choice do you have but to say there wasn’t truly an apostasy and then try to make a case for priesthood of all believers and symbolic sacraments.

And LDS don’t claim that everywhere we differ from primitive church it’s because of apostasy. We are in a totally new dispensation of the fullness of times- it’s not meant to look just like the first century church. But also our data of the first century is pretty bad so no one can say exactly what it looked like. Basically we have one guy- Luke (who seems to clean some messiness up) and smidgen of Paul and then handful of later writers.

Church history is super messy and why would the heavens be closed? It’s not easy to believe this is really how Christ intended Christianity to look 2000 years later.

David- read the Book of Mormon and come participate in the miracle of the restoration and the gathering of Israel!

David makes several excellent observations here, but he also overstates, oversimplifies, and occasionally rewrites history to fit his thesis. The biggest weakness is that he creates a false choice: either embrace the simplicity of the pre-Nicene church or embrace a post-Nicene world of theological police, coercion, and state violence.

Those are not the only two options.

First, David is absolutely right to condemn Christians killing Christians. He is also right to condemn the fusion of church and state that developed after the fourth century. Using civil power, imprisonment, torture, or execution to enforce theology is completely contrary to Jesus' teachings. On this point, his rebuke is warranted.

However, he repeatedly blames Nicaea itself for problems that were largely political and imperial. The Council of Nicaea did not create mob violence, armies, persecution, or ecclesiastical corruption. Those problems developed over time as Christianity became intertwined with imperial power. Nicaea was a theological council, not the birth certificate of every later abuse.

Questions for David:

If Nicaea was the problem, why did many of the same bishops who attended Nicaea spend decades disagreeing with one another afterward? Doesn't that suggest the problem was imperial politics rather than the council itself?

If Constantine corrupted the church, why blame theology rather than political power?

Can you point to a specific decree from Nicaea that authorized persecuting, imprisoning, or killing Christians?

David also says, "The early church was not dogmatic."

That is only partially true.

The early Christians were extremely dogmatic about many things. They fiercely opposed Gnosticism, Marcionism, Docetism, and various Christological errors.  They excommunicated false teachers. They wrote extensive refutations. Men like Irenaeus and Tertullian certainly did not say, "Believe whatever you want."

The question was never whether doctrine mattered. The question was which doctrines mattered most.

David also appeals to the Apostles' Creed as the essential boundary of faith. That raises another question.

If the Apostles' Creed is sufficient, why appeal to the early church at all? The Apostles' Creed itself is an extra-biblical summary. Why is one creed acceptable while later creeds are dismissed?

Another problem is his statement that Jesus "didn't worry about precise theology."

That is difficult to defend.

Jesus repeatedly corrected theological errors.

He corrected misunderstandings about divorce, resurrection, Sabbath observance, the kingdom, tradition, and the identity of the Messiah. He even said people erred because they "knew neither the Scriptures nor the power of God."

Jesus was not a theological minimalist. He simply refused to elevate speculative arguments above love, mercy, and obedience.

David also romanticizes the pre-Nicene church.

Questions for David:

Which pre-Nicene church are we talking about?

The church of Alexandria?

The church of Antioch?

The church of Rome?

The church of Carthage?

These churches already had disagreements over baptism, Easter dating, church authority, repentance after serious sin, and Christological language long before Nicaea.

The pre-Nicene church was not one giant harmonious family that only later became corrupted.

His criticism of Trinity discussions also needs balance. He is right that many Christians cannot explain the Trinity well. He is right that poor analogies create confusion. But bad explanations do not mean the doctrine itself is wrong.

Rejecting poor teaching is not the same as rejecting theological precision.

He also says Scripture does not define the Trinity with precision. In one sense that is true; the word "Trinity" is not in Scripture. But the church developed precise language because Scripture presents truths that had to be held together simultaneously:

There is one God.

The Father is God.

The Son is God.

The Spirit is God.

The Father is not the Son.

The Son is not the Spirit.

The Spirit is not the Father.

Precise language arose because people were trying to preserve all of Scripture, not replace it.

David's strongest point may actually be his weakest warning. He repeatedly says Christians should be known for love, holiness, enemy-love, and kingdom living. That is an important corrective.

But why must we choose between loving our enemies and having sound doctrine?

The New Testament repeatedly calls believers to both.

A final question for David:

Is it possible that modern Christianity has two equal dangers?

One danger is becoming theological policemen who obsess over every doctrinal detail.

The other danger is becoming so suspicious of doctrine that we downplay theological precision altogether.

The New Testament seems to avoid both extremes. It calls believers to hold firmly to truth while being marked by love, humility, patience, and gentleness.

That's a much harder balance to maintain than simply blaming everything on Nicaea.

Sorta. Things are better today in many ways: "The end of a matter is better than its beginning." Anabaptist are recovering their faith too. No one liked them initially because, well its a long story, but they were far from a unified lobby.  And the Zwickau prophets and the like caused big problems when things were already set to explode. Even baptism was used as an us vs them initiation. I mean everyone was already a Christian.

I partially agree with David.  

“though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.”
(1 Corinthians 13:2)

Truth without love is worthless.  But love without truth isn’t love.

“Love…Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;”  (1 Corinthians 13:6)

He doesn’t go into details, but it worries me when I hear things like, the early church was only worried about love and that what is in an early apostles creed is basically all they needed to know.  Paul and Peter were teaching more than just the apostles creed.  Things they would not allow to be disobeyed but that a lot of people now consider “secondary.”  Anything clearly taught in scripture isn’t just something we can agree to disagree on.  While we should not persecute or harm those who believe differently, we can’t just say it’s not important and focus on love and the sermon on the mount.  If a church allows women to preach and refuse correction, they are no longer a Christian.  Is that secondary?  Or if a church teaches members not to pay their taxes and they refuse correction, once again we do not persecute them, but they are no longer Christian.  Anyone who knowingly disobeys God’s commands cannot call themselves Christian.

“If ye love me, keep my commandments”  (John 14:15)

The truth is just as important as love one without the other is worthless.  While we will get things wrong we must always pursue ALL truth and not neglect it.

I ‘m also on the fence of whether Christians can go to war.”  I think it may depend on what the war is for and the orders they carry out.  I’m not sure a Christian soldier defending his home country from invaders who intend to murder and destroy is sinful.  Two scriptures I can think of are:

“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.”  (Luke 3:14)

John the Baptist was instructing different people of different professions to repentance.  If it was wrong to be a soldier, he would have told them to leave their profession.  Next there is Romans 13:3

“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.”
(Romans 13:3)

If a king orders Christians or Christian soldiers to fight and defend with the sword, evil doers who wish to harm their nation, how is that sinful?

I strive for the truth and always want to change if I’m wrong.  I’d be interested to hear any thoughts or feed back on what I wrote.

The church fallen because the anointing is not there anymore and everybody is sick and disobedient to God

One Gospel:
Gospel (GOOD ANGEL) of Reconciliation.

Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.

Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods).

REPENT FALLEN ANGELS.