There’s a couple churches on this list that would certainly not say that everyone else has the spirit. One gentleman I spoke to was very clear in his stance that “ this is all nonsense, it’s us and nobody else”
The video only clarified that there are differences and distinct disagreements within Christianity. I have an issue with those who say, "you are not Christian if you don't believe...."
Very useful summary. I'm an Eastern Orthodox subdeacon, and I always wanted someone to explain all the protestant sects. I agree the historical perspective is the best way to start, but then we always need to look back at what joins us, not what separates us. I look back at the Great Schism with horror. Right now there is a different 'flavor' to the Roman church and mine, but very very few real dogmatic differences (yes some, but they have arrived historically). A good investment of time. Thank you Brother.
Another good book and podcast on this is Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick. I’m a convert from Protestant and Catholic and O&H explained all the differences quite nicely for me.
Friends, in truth and love, please understand that biblically there is NO protestant church for there is only ONE GOSPEL, and in it is the ONLY church, body, bride and kingdom of Christ. All sincere believers must submit to it, that which the doctrine of Christ reveals. Christ built it, through His death, that we might abide in His teaching and not the doctrines & commandments of men. Faith comes by hearing the words of Christ - any who go beyond that have not God.
oldfellow is easy to understand all of them. Most of them come from the heresies of the Popes. In an attempt to fix those they tried to understand themselves the dogmas and correct them instead of going back to the orthodox roots. Every interpretation gave rise to a new church with slightly different heresies
I was raised Lutheran for 13 years before my family became Old Order Mennonite and I became a Baptist, which I remain as an adult. My mother's family is Dutch Reformed and my brother-in-law is Eastern Orthodox. There were many points in this video where SO MANY THINGS that I've experienced, conversations that I've had, or beliefs I've been around suddenly make sense. Thank you for connecting all these dots in such a clear and concise way!
@@worldview730 All Western and Eastern Churches believe same God Jesus Christ who walked on the Earth and died for our sins differences are more philosophical and methodical, traditional differences E
@@worldview730why wouldn't he be? None of these magisterial or even radical reformationists disagree about Jesus. Heck, they agree with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox about Jesus too for that matter. All of these groups agree on fundamental nicene theology.
Friends, in truth and love, please understand that biblically there is NO protestant church for there is only ONE GOSPEL, and in it is the ONLY church, body, bride and kingdom of Christ. All sincere believers must submit to it, that which the doctrine of Christ reveals. Christ built it, through His death, that we might abide in His teaching and not the doctrines & commandments of men. Faith comes by hearing the words of Christ - any who go beyond that have not God.
@@flameguy3416so true. I lived in south Iowa for a time and maybe it was just that…. Tribe? Idk what to call it. But they were very but not adhering to the known Amish doctrine. Kids a cell phones, they had bank accounts, they would Jew you at every turn, they would use power tools and machines as long as it was for money, that kind of thing
I wanted to say that you are an incredible creator. There is no cut in this video, so you did this in one take without a break. I wanted to compliment your work and your ability to create a comprehensive talk on religion. I would love to hear about what you had read up on to make this video? I was also trying to get into church history.
Honestly, your description of the holiness movement mirrors my walk, from becoming a professing Christian at 4, then being baptised at 12 (attended a Baptist Church from birth to highschool), then more recently (about 2 years ago), actually learning to hear God's voice and humble myself before him and surrender to His will.
Well done!! As a Roman Catholic, I’m extremely interested in how other denominations relate to each other. It’s enriching to realize that a word added or a line inserted in the Nicene creed can change the direction or split the church. Thanks for the thoughtful layout of the graph. You put a lot of work into this. I would also like to suggest to others, if they enjoyed your presentation, a book by Bruce L. Shelly, Church History in Plain Language.
I feel it was a but of a pretext to split, and it was a lot more politically fueled than theologically. The eastern church and the Western didn’t agree on where the power of the church should be situated (Constantinople or Rome), hense the split on the pretext of this, but it was more about Political influence than anything else
I disagree. The branch of the Catholic Church stands on equal ground with Orthodox church. Also the Branch of the Catholic Church comes BEFORE the Baptist & Amish/Mennonites. The (radical-) Reformation(-s) is per definition a movement away from the Catholic Church.... And also.... most original books and handwritings (and relics such as The Shroud of Turin) are in the Vatican Library (and Turin). For that reason alone this tree is in no way historically correct in regard of the placement of the Catholic Church.
When I was in law school, I joined a Sunday morning study at the local Baptist church that served the university community, where we made our way through Shelly's work over the course of the academic year. One of the more interesting studies I have done yet. (Our class leader was one of the engineering professors at the university!)
As a Baptist I will say no, we don't just disregard church history, but we should learn from it, I also think that you are wrong when you say that we "aren't institutional" God chose the church, the church isn't an institution made by man, the church is the Bride of Christ, God chooses the church, not men.
Yeah Zoomy has Baptist Derangement Syndrome. He sees baptists as everything that is opposed to his main values (pretty buildings, reformed sacramentology, institutional), so he doesn't tend to be very nuanced about us. He also tends to treat reformed and general baptists as one denomination which is an issue for his critiques of baptist sacramentology.
@@TheRoark Yeah, heard today that is cool with the American Baptist Association more than any of the others so I hope he realizes he is siding with the most liberal Baptist group out there 😂
Protestants invented the notion of the church not being an institution. Until the Reformation, it was seen as an institution, and among the Orthodox and the Catholics, it still is. So yes, in saying this, you are both rejecting institutionalism and church history.
@@TheRoark I notice this a lot, and it's funny as he just recently released a breakdown of Baptist belief, and He has to stop himself from dissing baptists for 10 minutes. Great video
I am not a Christian person but I love researching religions and how interestingly interconnected they all are thank you for making such an informative video!
It's a good start but flawed too. The branch of the Catholic Church stands on equal ground with Orthodox church. Also the Branch of the Catholic Church comes BEFORE the Baptist & Amish/Mennonites. The (radical-) Reformation(-s) is per definition a movement away from the Catholic Church.... And also.... most original books and handwritings (and relics such as The Shroud of Turin) are in the Vatican Library (and Turin). For that reason alone this tree is in no way historically correct in regard of the placement of the Catholic Church.
Instead of Aquinas you should say Augustine: Luther, Calvin, Aquinas (a Dominican who it could probably be said defined Dominican beliefs) and Franciscans all have differing beliefs but base much of their theology on the writings of Augustine, while in orthodox christianity, it is chrysostom who begins the divergence from the augustinian west and palamas increased those differences, so for the orthodox church you should probably put Chrysostom-Palamas
I go to a Foursquare Church (Pentecostal) and this has been super helpful for me! I wish we had more of an intellectual focus like this at my church. The focus is so much more on a personal relationship, then partnering with each other while empowered by God’s Spirit to be the hands and feet of Jesus to the world. Love this content so much!!
Like the city Rev 21:16. From the four sides of the gospel: Jesus is the Savior, the Healer, the Baptizer with the Holy Spirit, and the Soon-coming King (former Foursquare here; took the leap to Eastern Orthodox years ago.)@@mkv2718
I thoroughly enjoy all your content on Christianity! Thank you so much for this! It helps me understand some (a lot 😂) things better. God bless you all
To be fair to the Amish, I wouldn't agree that they separate themselves from the world as much as people think. I live in an area where there are many Amish communities and I've had the pleasure of meeting many of them and even having friendships with some. I know many non-Amish people who actually work with Amish in blue collar jobs, and the Amish workers tend to interact with the non-Amish workers a lot. Some Amish even hire non-Amish workers as helpers or co-workers, or even work FOR non-Amish people as employees. So they don't entirely remove themselves from the world as many people think. You can approach them and have a conversation with them about their faith, and to be honest, many of the Amish will likely do more evangelism in that one conversation than many non-Amish will in their entire lives. I don't believe that the Amish are theologically correct on many things, but they certainly interact with the world and have a great influence on their surrounding communities.
As a Lutheran I have to disagree. I see myself much closer to Catholics, due to the belief in sacrements like the Eucharist and Baptism. Also they way Lutheran churches look and how the sermons are being done is way more like the Catholic Mass. Calvinist does not believe in the real precence of Christ in the Eucharist and I think it's silly to think that they are closer to Catholics than Lutherans.
It’s interesting to note that in Germany there is no “Lutheran Church”. What we call “Lutheran” in Germany is just called “evangelische” or evangelical.
Hey Redeemed Zoomer! I don't know if you've already done a video about this or not but, it'd be interesting to see a video about your top ~10 favorite bible translations. Keep up the great work you're doing for the kingdom!
There aren't that many mainstream good ones. You would be best off with KJV and ESV in my opinion. Both are literal translations known for accuracy to the original text. Additionally the translators notes that come with the NET Bible are insightful for a layman to understand each verse's translation difficulties.
KJV is great I think - I own a KJV and a Geneva Bible - the latter of which is far more difficult to read due to the lettering used back then. The KJV was a gift and I highly recommend it. I challenge you, present to me a passage of the KJV that seems inaccurate to you or differs greatly from the ESV. @@OliverGCowan
@@OliverGCowan 1. I think you have forgotten the whole LXX tradition of manuscripts. 2. The Church - East and West meeting in an Ecumenical Council - has never defined the Canon of Scripture. 3. For the 1500 or so years all Christians read the deuterocanonical books as a subsection of the Old Testament. 4. The Deuterocanonical books, titled the "Apocrypha", were printed in their own section in the original Authorised Version of 1611 (the KJV) and was only later omitted to save printing costs when more Bibles were printed when more people could actually read English.
I VERY MUCH ADMIRE you giving your background under your description, I ALWAYS seek to find out the influences of media producers & authors thus understanding potential bias that me be woven into ones production, I find the REASON WHY someone believes a certain way as interesting as the WHAT, my experience is that MOST only believe & accept what they have been told without really sorting and studying themselves, keep up the good work !
Whew, an enormous amount of work packed into less than one hour. I congratulate you sir in getting so much history, faith, and understanding in place for us. New to me is the important distinction you made regarding SDA, JW, and LDS which are inventions that do not claim any connection to the root of the Church. Some minor observations: The Eastern Orthodox presumably include the Greek and Russian Churches, all very similar but with unique cultural impacts, also communion is common (usually open) among most protestants but not so Lutherans who sometimes will not allow sharing communion even with neighboring parishes (irrespective of synods). Thank you for a task well done and the honoring of our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus.
Hey RZ, I was wondering if you could cover why the Catholic Bible has books that the Protestant Bible doesn’t have in it. Thanks for all the great content!
I can explain. Protestants use a canon decided upon by Jews who had no authority to set any Bible canon. The Church was already establishing and using its own canon. Luther just wanted to go with the council of Jamnia because that version didn't contain books which rejected his views on purgatory
@@dman7668 The bishop of Rome commissioned Jerome to produce a Latin version of the bible (the Vulgate). Jerome included only the agreed upon 22 books of the Hebrew scriptures which included the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. 22 because they consolidated some of the books we now separate. He didn't disparage the other books written between the Hebrew scriptures and the NT, but did not regard them as part of the canon. In other words, though helpful and even beneficial to read they were not to be used as the measure of true doctrine. This was a view held by many faithful Catholics all the way to and including the time of the Reformation. Granted, the churches in North Africa (Hippo and Carthage) influenced by Augustine did not make the distinction between the Hebrew scriptures and these other writings, but others did. All this is to say that it is false to suggest that Luther did something new here. He was in agreement with a long history of making a distinction between the Hebrew scriptures and these additional writings eventually known as the deuterocanonical or "apocryphal" books. He included them in his German translation of the bible but did not regard them as equal to the Hebrew scriptures and the NT. Though there were earlier local councils that served as precedent, it was not until the council of Trent (1545 to 1563) that the Roman church decided to regard the deuterocanonical books as equal to the Hebrew scriptures. Luther died in 1546.
Anti-Semitism rears it's ugly head once again. That's the major difference, Protestants embrace the fact that Jesus, his mother and the disciples were all Jewish. We do not condemn God's chosen people.
How could the Council of Nicaea have made any statement about what the Bible said when the Christian Canon of Scripture was not yet defined at that time?
Where I disagree with you on the evolution/science thing is my understanding that the book of genesis is meant to be a historical book. It’s meant to be the history of creation. So if I’m not supposed to take that book literally, then what’s stopping me from not taking the gospels as a historical account as well? I fell away from the faith when I was about 16/17 mainly due to not being able to reconcile evolution with the Bible. When I became a believer again at 23 I just understood that the Bible is true and it’s God breathed. Btw I’m a Lutheran, part of the LCMS ✝️ The official stance of the church is that Genesis is a historical book meant to be taken literally. Although, not all laypeople would agree.
Taking Genesis literally is like taking all of Jesus' parables literally, or assuming things like God setting the Earth "fixed and immovable" means the Sun revolves around the Earth despite all evidence to the contrary, especially since the text isn't being literal in the way many think. It's a history, but it's clear that the creation is condensed into what people can understand, getting it up to the point of creating mankind. Even after Adam, it's condensed to Noah, and so on. And in fact, when you look at the creation of the Earth in Genesis, it lines up with what we know scientifically when viewed through such a lense.
I think emphasizing only the doctrine of Divine Simplicity creates atheism, as not having the doctrine of the essence-energy distinction to supplant it, creates a situation where people misunderstand God as some imaginary old man in the sky, so I vehemently disagree that the assertion that Eastern Orthodox theology is anti-intellectual and only mystical, even though yeah at the time, Divine Simplicity was good in the sense that it led to science and our modern standard of living, but I think a lot of Protestantism and Catholicism is often so alienating and misunderstood that it creates atheism. That is my own personal experience though, being raised Nazerene/ Non-denominational after losing my faith into a hateful misotheist agnosticism in my teen years. Now at age 20, I find Orthodoxy a bit more satisfying intellectually with the idea of Logos Spermatikos and the energy-essence distinction, and how learned many Orthodox Christians can be.
I’m Anglican and been there ever since God changed my heart and brought me to Christ. However, being more of an Anglo-Catholic it’s very isolating within my area as I live in Sydney and the Sydney Anglican Church is extremely evangelical and pretty much theologically Baptist. To the best of my knowledge there are only two traditional Anglican parishes within my whole diocese, one of which by the grace of God is near me and I currently attend. It can be very isolating
This whole anglican Protestantism with high-church being kinda like catholic looking and low church on the other side is fascinating. I tried to understand the concept, but I still don't get it.
Greetings from Melbourne. I'm pretty sure you'll find the Sydney Anglicans especially those from Moore college are mostly reformed in their soteriology ie.Graeme Goldsworthy
i never understood how a human benig can exist and live and believing predestination, predestination is the most terrifying idea i have ever heard and probably the most evil too
Good point. Yet there are many other evil idea in Christian religion too. Like the fascination with an invisible man who sent his "son" (who was also a son of a ghost and a carpenter) as a human sacrifice to be tortured and killed, so that billions of other people later should be "forgiven" their crimes if they believed in these old folk tales. Or the idea that the "son" of the invisible man shall use his "angels" to gather people together in order to torture us in "the Furnace". Or the idea that "Thou shallst not have other gods before me" and those who believe in other gods must be stoned to death. Or the idea that the invisible man murdered millions of people in a long series of massacres in order to help his "chosen people". Or the idea of pretending to be cannibals by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the human sacrifice. And so on.
@@joshhiebert1208 the bible is fiction, literature, there is not a single word in it which is true, meaning from the text are created by people to control other people, some created ideas are tolerable some are evil, predestination or total depravity are among the lowest level ideas both intellectually and morally
The Council of Nicea is a Catholic Council. Saint Ignatius of Antioch used the term Catholic Church in his letter to the church in Smyrna in 107 ad. It has always been believed that The Didache was from 150 ad but, some are starting to speculate that The Didache was from 60 AD. The Encyclopedia Britannica has an entry about the letter of Clement being from 96 ad... the Catholic Church existed before the Council of Nicea, during the council, and after the council up to this very day. The Catholic Church at the Council of Nicea is the same Catholic Church today currently under Pope Francis.
A lot of eastern Orthodox would differ as to who is the heir to the term catholic church and several protestants are protestant/evangelical catholic plus Anglican Catholic.
My brother married a member of the Assyrian Church of the East. Her dad is like Gus from ‘My Big Fat Greek Wedding’ except about Assyrians instead of Greeks. But we talked a lot about Nestorianism. He’s super gung-ho about Nestorianism. But after going around and around the Merry-Go-Round on that subject and what his church teaches it seemed to me they really believe the same as my church (which happens to be the LCMS). All that to say, I agree with what you said about the Nestorian division perhaps being exaggerated.
As a member of the Assyrian Church; I remember my conversations with Baptists about incarnation and salvation. In the end, it turn out, we basically held the same beliefs.
I know they often get left out, because they are entirely separate in most respects from the protestant movement, but you did not include anything here about the Restoration (Stone-Campbell) movement churches. You should look into those, as they have many significant differences from popular protestant branches you have represented here.
As a Catholic, the whole thing with "protestants can believe whatever they want." I've said that many times, but that was because I've met non-denom who have said some WILD shit that has no basis in known theology.
I know that you are doing this very American centric but I just wanted to add that there isn't only the small Moravian church that originated with Hus there is also the Czechoslovak Hussite church which the third most popular in Czech Republic and also the Unity of the Brethren which is both here and in the US (Texas) it also has some ties to the Moravian church and the Evangelical Church.
One of the few things that annoys me in his videos is that he talks in a very American centered perspective as if it was the same in the rest of the world.
Unity of the Brethren, or in latin Unitas Fratrum IS the Moravian Church, that's just another name for them used in most of the world. This is a remnant of the old Unitas Fratrum, partially formed from refugees from Moravia (hence the name) who fled to Germany and took refuge in the lands of the Lutheran Pietist count Zinzendorf, but they also got support from earlier Brethren refugees who lived in Germany for several generations before that (this includes an episcopal lineage going from bishop John Comenius). The modern Czechoslovak Hussite Church was formed by dissatisfied Catholic priests in the 1920s as a national church, and was influenced by an admiration of Hus as a national figure, Catholic modernism, and originally also by Eastern Orthodoxy (most native Czech Orthodox came from the Hussite church). You also have the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren, which formally is a united Lutheran-Reformed church, due to the religious regulations of the Austro-Hungarian empire, which allowed for people to choose only between the Reformed and Lutheran confessions if they wished, forcing the Hussites to formally adhere to another confession. Nowadays, most Czech Protestants will read the works of Hus and claim some sort of lineage from the original Hussites or Unitas Fratrum.
This ties it all together. I knew about these different churches/denominations but never thought about how they started. This made a lot of sense. Thank you.
Hi, I’ve recently found you’re channel and have been enjoying it. Question: why do you call Church of Christ not part of the church? Do you consider them not Christian? Or do you not consider them part of the church? How do you define church? I would love to see a video on this.
I think he's saying not that the movements from the U.S. Great Spiritual Awakening are not necessarily Christian, but that most/many of them do not inherit their traditions from the greater historical branching. Most of the Great Awakening groups, like the Restoration Movement groups (churches of Christ, Christian Church), the Seventh Day Adventists, the Shakers, the Mormons, the other groups mostly from the 1800s...he's saying that they don't come from these historical and traditional branches, but, as someone above said, have elements of many. The Restoration Movement folks were originally Presbyterians and Methodists, but sat down to say, "What of what is being done in these different churches is based in Bible, and what is based in tradition or habits of men?" Meanwhile, the Adventists, Mormons and a few other groups that originated in that time were started by someone who believed they had a vision of some sort.
Our omission here is not necessarily a bad thing. We have always made the case that we are restoring the church back to its original pristine condition and that we are not a denomination. Not having us listed among denominations must mean that we have been successful in that endeavor.
I’m wondering if you are familiar with Renewal Ministries: Roman Catholic Charismatic Renewal. That’s where I would place myself. The Holy Spirit does consistently show up in all Christian Churches and that is precisely why there is much in common. We are one family. Thank you for your zeal and your study. Jesus bless and keep you! May the Holy Spirit give your an abundance of wisdom and discernment.
@redeemedzoomer, the Baptists actually did not stem out of the radical reformation as a wide movement but rather through the English Separatists, most notably through the Puritans. That is why Baptists are predominantly found in the United States where Puritanism also took place. Therefore, they should actually be high up the tree around Owen’s time and not with the radical reformation, although the idea is similar.
Hola, asisto a una iglesia Alianza Cristiana Misionera en Chile. Entiendo que partió como un movimiento y que en Chile se hizo iglesia aún antes que en Estados Unidos (corrígeme si me equivoco). Me gustaría que hagas un video de esa denominación por favor, por que la verdad antes de llegar ahí estuve en iglesias bautistas desde niña (llevo acá 5 años) pero las encuentro muy parecidas. Seguro tienes muchísima información. Muchas gracias! PD: mi esposo y yo amamos tus videos. Somos de la misma generación que tú. Dios te bendiga! Saludos desde el fin del mundo 🤭 (sur de Chile) Belén e Isaac
@@hopelessviolin4690 en Chile se le llama Aliancistas (de hecho la iglesia Alianza a la que asisto cumple 98 años este 2023). Pero sí, como decía, entiendo que tal vez es algo de Chile que sea denominación. Aún así me parece extraño porque igual hacen congresos de iglesias Alianzas en LATAM. Es confuso. El fundador por lo que sé era presbiteriano, pero no se bautizan bebés, y en liturgia es como la bautista, pero no en su gobierno. Entonces qué es? jaja. Pues "aliancista" supongo, pero a nivel mundial parece que no existe 😅
20:30 Reminds me of a quote from my favorite Christian Comedian. "When all else fails, make fun of the Amish. Why? Because they don't have any recording equipment to prove I said anything. Even if they did they couldn't plug it in."
Being one of your Romish viewers I have to stick up for my Amish brothers, because they can't. Their theology is in error, but they're very nice people, and if you've ever seen a horse and buggy going down a thoroughfare in a city the first word that enters your mind is *based.*
The Council of Nicaea was called to combat heresy by the Church established by Jesus the Christ in Matthew 16, where Simon Peter was instituted as it’s first Pope who’s official name is the Church of Jesus Christ or has you Protestant refer to it as the Roman Catholic Church.
@@gregmartin3984 well yes, of course the early church is the most interesting part. But that doesn’t take anything away from this explanation of the many denominations that came later. Maybe you could do a good talk on the very early church. That would be interesting!
Born and baptized in the Eastern orthodox church. It's a great church and i love it but i can't pretend that it doesn't have flaws. Especially the "we are one true church from the apostles" so i have become a non denominational christian. I still go to liturgies and do the lord's supper and all but i cannot say that i am orthodox christian because i know that it isn't the only one true church. Many churches are great.
You're not aware of what you're saying. Orthodoxy has lots of churches, there are a lot of churches in the world. This is not the same as when Orthodox Christians say "We are the one true Church." Go read Ephesians 5 and Proverbs 31. Husbands and wives are a symbol of Christ and the Church. Husbands are to mirror Christ, and wives the Church. And if marriage is an eternal bond between one Husband and one Wife, so is the marriage between Christ and the Church. There is only one God, and thus there is only one True, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. (The EO Church) Speak to your priest or Godparents about your doubts. GBWY
@@TW-fs3fj And here you go again. Exactly the reason why i don't want to choose a church now. You said it. "One true apostolic catholic church" no it's not. Are you born again of spirit and water? Have you repented kf or your sins and turned away from them? Have you received the holy spirit? Have you accepted Jesus as your lord and savior and are saved by faith alone and not of works? If your answers are yes, then you are saved. The bible says so. I'd rather trust the word of God than one of the 20 different mainstream churches. You can remain ignorant if that's what you want. It's not even a big deal, i never said Catholic church is bad or whatever, catholics are saved as well as orthodoxes and presbyterians and Baptists and whoever else. God bless.
"join none of them, for they are all wrong" Jesus Christ aa quoted by Joseph Smith Contd: "and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the precepts of men." I think you nailed it Zoomer.
I would add though that Joseph Smith, while definitive in his claims of unique truth also said: "Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc. any truth? Yes. ... We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons." I think the balance of ideas creates a clearer picture of how early Mormonism viewed other faiths. The wrongness is seemingly confined to certain aspects of the existing denominations.
@@ijn2252 Agreed. Truth is seen as binary in religion rather than degree. True or false, heaven or hell, etc. It's the wrong framework. Its another of those precepts of men.
@@TitusCastiglione1503 He doesn't seem to know much on the subject. To know more how the Holy Spirit works, the assumption that it is theological knowledge is arguable. You see, you have God's word, and in that is theology. But you also "get" the spirit. The spirit lives inside of you and should be guiding you. The difference is, that apart from this knowledge, the manifestation of the spirit works differently through different people. Yes, our Bible's let us know what gifts are given. But to know more of them means more time seeking them in prayer and practice, than it does about reading them or getting guidance online. And that takes you to a place which requires much faith. This takes place somewhere between the fascinating and the fake. The weird and out there, and the false preachers. If we are looking to know more of the Holy spirit, we need to walk in the spirit. Most youtubers don't want to enter that arena. They prefer to stay safe in theology where it's all about mind stimulation. Look closely and you will find that pride creeps in and divides the church. Take a step into the spirit world and it's a dangerous place to be. A place where you don't know what you are doing and you aren't sure. Walking by faith. That means you're probably praying for strangers on the regular in public. It means you're probably giving your stuff away. It means you are probably being persecuted. It means that you're gonna look undignified. It means you're using discernment to see if an issue is from the flesh or demonic. And not many people want to look like wackos on RU-vid. But, that's what the role of the holy spirit looks like. When Jesus healed he requested them not to tell anybody. So speaking in tongues and publicity, doesn't really go together. Prophesies and words of knowledge are going to be cut down in the comments section. These types of works are not for television. Even praise and worship, doesn't have the same effect when viewed online, as it does in our own private time with Him. Don't get me wrong, I love my theology and history. When I'm being used by the spirit with people I get tired (but filled with joy) and need time out with reading etc Anyway, wacko signing out. God bless you brother. 🙏
Zoomer takes a neo-orthodox stance on the Bible which I do not believe is the correct stance. Watch his video on the infallibility of the Bible and compare it to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I side with the Chicago Statement.
(Sigh) We're used to it. We are easy targets because we can't honestly deny we are messy and disparate enough that surely SOMEONE out there is accurately depicted, and a kernel of truth even when off the mark. Plus the loudest Baptists tend to be the wierdest and attract the most attention, whereas the nice quiet majority get ignored. But we try to be loving regardless.
About academic theology and universities: it doesn't help that the Byzantine Empire was very much in crisis since before the Great Schism all the way up to 1453. It's hard to do what-if history, but a less threatened, more prosperous Constantinople may have become a center of learning, who knows. Still, Catholics du deserve the credit for the University system
@Redeemed Zoomer, do you want to do a comparative analysis of Rastafari? Would be cool to see a mainline perspective on various types of Messianic Judaism.
Thank you for this great production! It showed me once again how close we Christians are, no matter where we belong to. There should be way more cummunication between the churches - hopefully, we can reach one day not only more communication but also more communion in our Lord Jesus Christ! All the best and please continue this very impotant work!!!
Personally believe in Baptist succession, which means there has always been one denomination that believes the same as modern-day Baptists- from the first Christians to the Montanists to the Donatists to the Paulicians to the Waldenses to the Anabaptists and finally Baptists (and maybe some I missed inbetween)
Baptist succesionism is just bad scholarship in my opinion. The Montanists were schismatic charismatic Catholics. The Paulicians did not believe in the essential eternal Diety of Christ. The Waldensians eventually joined the paedobaptist (baptism of infants) Reformed camp at the time of the Reformation. And the Anabaptists of the 16th century rejected salvation by faith, and did not insist on immersion as the mode of baptism. Many Anabaptists also had a heretical Christology (look up celestial flesh) and some even practiced polygamy (look up Munster Rebellion of 1534). Clearly none of these groups were Baptists, and most were heretical.
@@cjheideldude Most Anabaptists today, especially the Evangelical Mennonites and Brethren believe in salvation by faith, reject the belief in celestial flesh, and polygamy. Most Mennonites today are basically identical to Baptists but strictly hold to Arminian soteriology and are boarder line pacifists while Baptists are very diverse in their soteriology.
The syriac can be catholic. The maronite church is a syriac church from the east and it's a catholic church. You can find syriac catholic in the actual lebanon, syria and egypte.
As a southern Baptist I think it’s important to have a good knowledge of church history and to live differently than the world but that science should flow from a Christian world view. Just this week we had a reformation service about why the Bible alone through Jesus alone is the way
This helps explain much of the differences I was curious about. I've been in a sort of limbo of non-denominational worship because I haven't known quite where I should go. I knew that I wanted the structure of the big churches like Eastern Orthodoxy or Catholicism, but I wasn't sure on the differences between those two (aside from Latin vs. Greek). I think the question of "and the Son" vs. "and TO the Son" is little more than semantics, but I favor the Catholic view on that. God be with you!
@@johndoe8655 A basic understanding of the laws of physics proves God exists. Science is but a tool for understanding creation, and even mere science admits that something can't come from nothing, and an object at rest tends to stay at rest, unless acted on by an outside force. Our modern telescopes can easily see that at some point in the distant past, all matter was in one small point, then exploded outward to become the universe we know today. If all matter was in one point, there was an original mover who caused it to exist, then to explode outward and continue moving as it is now. Matter and energy is carefully ordered, not chaos and happenstance. Even our DNA is a readable code. It takes far more to have faith that God does not exist, especially when it's also known in science that you can't prove a negative. (can't prove that God doesn't exist.) All that is completely beside the point of my personal experiences with God in my life. I don't even need those or things like the Shroud of Turin. Basic science is all you would accept anyway, but you don't even accept that as explanation. You accept science as explanation for all else, but not for the most important thing. When it comes to God, suddenly science is broken in your mind and you won't believe that part of physics. You go into unicorns and myths and unknown as if it was facts and data. My guess is, you simply don't want God to exist, because then you might have to adhere to a code which limits your animal instincts and pleasures and may even tell you that you're wrong about some things and you need to change. That's all very uncomfortable and you don't like the idea of it.
I grew up in the churches of Christ, and my best friend's family were Seventh Day Adventists until her parents left and became Unitarians...so I was looking at your tree and wondering where our fairly cultish groups were...and to hear you mention them at the end with the, "This is not where you want to be" comment...I was SO amused. Thank you for acknowledging some of the weirder US-origin groups and how they're...certainly interesting groups. I would say that the Restoration Movement that spawned the churches of Christ, the Christian Church, etc., they were originally trying to separate out what was tradition from what was Biblical. But your assessment that they believed that all other denominations had separated from the "right" church is definitely accurate. I would have liked a mention of the Congregationalists evolving into the UCC and the Unitarians, but there is already SO much information here that I understand why you didn't follow each path farther along. This was really interesting and well-researched. Thank you.
If a church doesn't teach what is biblical then what is it teaching? What authority do we have to worship God in a way other than he has instructed us to? These are questions I ask myself regularly as a member of the Church of Christ. All I want is to follow the word of God, nothing more nothing less. We all fall short of God's glory. I am of no way deserving of heaven nor is anyone on earth today. I would love to see all my Christian brothers and sisters from all denominations in heaven. It is not my authority to judge wrong and right. The hardest part to me about being in the Church of Christ is trying to be the church that we read about in the Bible yet my brothers and sisters in Christ call us cultists and hypocrits for doing what we believe Jesus wanted his church to be. Now I know there are many hypocrits in the church and I apologize on their behalf. We should strive to speak the truth in love. If you have time I would really enjoy asking you a few questions about why you decided to leave the church and your views towards the church as a whole
@@dylanwoods979the nicest things I can say about the churches of Christ is that they mean well and that they prepared me to be an excellent analyst of text and, therefore, an excellent English literature major and teacher. You're welcome to ask other questions. I responded at length to someone who asked me on another thread and they never replied at all.
@@amyhull754 what was your reason for leaving and I can't speak for all members of the Churches of Christ, but we are not taught that we are the only ones going to heaven. The best way I can explain it is if it isn't instructed or prohibited in the Bible we refrain from it to the best of our ability. Basically trying to take any "well we thought this was ok, or we thought that was ok" out of our judgement, because humans aren't known to have good judgement. In what way would you suggest we reach out to other church not to condemn them but to all try and reach heaven together instead of separately. Because many people when you tell them you're church of Christ they don't want to have a conversation with you about the Bible
@@dylanwoods979I'm familiar with the teaching; I was...4th? generation church of Christ in my family on at least one side from each parent. I know that the churches of Christ are sola scriptura and that the closest thing to a creed is "Speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent." I left the church 30 years ago when I was 23, and I have NO idea how the churches of Christ, while still holding to their view that they are the only ones being sufficiently strictly scriptural. I mean, it's a hard sell, "We think you're doing too many things that are Of Men, and we won't worship with you because it goes against our morals, but we sure would love for you to join us in Doing Things Right based on our reading of our shared text!" I mean, "I think you're going to hell and should come and do things like us" is just...not a strong or persuasive starting point. Especially since all the references to "Well, ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" are counterbalanced by the exhortations that "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid" (so never make the same mistake twice!) and reminders that "God will never tempt us above which we are able to bear" (so if you can't cope, it's because you're not trying hard enough), and "Be ye therefore perfect, even as our Father in Heaven is perfect" (except that you can never be perfect...or, really, good enough, so you should try harder till you lose your mind).... Oh, and if you're desperate for a respite from someone being cruel, don't forget the option to remind people that prophets are never loved in their own country, of the abuses delivered to Jesus and Paul, of how persecution is PROOF that people can see you follow God and are different, and be GRATEFUL when "men hate you and spitefully use you for my sake" then remember to tell them to "turn the other cheek" and invite more abuse. And if someone makes a mistake, don't forget to remind them that every sin is them "crucifying Christ all over again," ask how they would feel if Jesus were sitting right there and could see and hear them (BECAUSE HE IS), and make sure to remind them that Jesus suffered (outline the physical repercussions and pain of crucifixion based on a medical perspective in detail in AT LEAST one sermon a year) BECAUSE of their sin. Make sure that they remember that THEY DESERVE to suffer like that, but, no, someone INNOCENT went IN THEIR PLACE. Like I said...LOTS of authentically good intentions. LOTS of well-meaning people. LOTS of people who are trying and trying and trying to do well enough. LOTS of people who are so afraid of making a mistake that they are often paralyzed into inaction.
We have never taught in the churches of Christ that we have a monopoly on salvation. We have always made a distinction between the church of Christ, universal, where each person being saved throughout the world is added to the church by Christ Himself, and then the churches of Christ, which is a fellowship of congregations or churches throughout the world, united in its efforts to return to the original Christianity as defined by Scripture. Where we run into problems is trying to persuade as a minimum, the biblical formula or procedure in becoming saved, that is, to follow the "coming to Christ" experience that the earliest Christians practiced. If groups can not unify on that basic simple element, then there is not much hope for any further unity. This is why we gave up years ago on ecumenism, as it is not a very feasible endeavor. The Bible specifically defines salvation and the process of being saved. Just examine the detailed accounts of those in the Book of Acts, and you will see that they all basically follow the same process found in Acts 18:8. Unfortunately, many or most do not see it that way.
We Lutherans are always angry because we are Germans and Germans are always angry. I mean how can you read the German language and not imagine it being yelled at you
I am Lutheran. I am not German. I am not angry but I am annoyed by people who make generalizations like this guy. Over simplification is the worst misuse of facts.
@keithpeterson5127 Well your not a German so I guess it doesn't apply to you. Lol. In all seriousness it's just a joke, not worth getting upset about. Generalization when it's serious can be negative but it's just a joke in this context. Anyways though, I do love to hear from a non German lutheran, it's a bit of a rare thing so I love to see it. God bless brother
@@Diedrich888 I am not upset. I am not angry.I am not German although many of my friends are. I am not Missouri synod. However, I am unapologetically Lutheran and above all I am a Christian. People like this makin
Excellent video. As someone raised as an Anglican in the UK, I find the American Evangelical church absolutely bonkers! They seem to place a lot of importance on the fire and brimstone aspects of the old testament - but hardly anything on the teachings of Jesus Christ! Some of the Southern Baptists (and their pastors) are the most unchristian followers I've ever seen.
Catholicism is the direct continuation of the early church: most church denominations that are earlier in the tree are the ones that differed theologically in some way from the core of the early church which had both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches within it, they would only split during the great Schism.
Depends on your viewpoint. Is the eastern view on the Holy Spirit correct? Then you would believe that the RCC split from the EOC. Is the western view on the Holy Spirit correct? Then you would believe that the EOC split from the RCC. You can make a case for either side, and then you take up a torch for a battle that has been waged for 1500 years.
You forgot to include the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. The Eastern rites are Eastern Churches that stayed under the Pope, and some of the Eastern Churches later rejoined the Catholic Church. However, they have the same liturgy and much of the culture of the Orthidox Church. Orthodox Church also believes that the Eucharist is really Body of Christ.
Bro, I really like your videos but when you speak about the all denomination churchs, you speaking specially in the USA, but in the orther country it a little difference, like in my country Brazil. E.g: The Congragational church in Brazil (and that's my church) is more traticional and speaking the love of Christ and the repentence of the sins (all the sins exposed on the Bible), and the history of that church from Brazil in the beginning they thinking the name of the church and they don't like the “Congregational Churche” name in the beginning beacause they know gona be confuse of the USA church from today, but they understand the name is from the batism, gorvenant of church and old faith confession Congragational, and that's the name church of today. Atention: Sorry, my english is really so so, or in the other words is really poor. And sorry for don't watch all things in the video.
I’ve loved watching your videos relating to church/denominational history recently. Have you ever/would you ever consider talking about the Calvin/Arminius differences, which denominations typically uphold those views, etc?
This is a very well done and well researched video. It was very informative and I appreciate how you managed to explain everything from a mostly neutral viewpoint. I was a little skeptical coming into this video just seeing the tree, but it ended up making a lot of sense. My one point of criticism would come out of how you described the protestant branches as loving the traditions of the Catholic church. I would have to disagree. I think you were mostly correct when you talked about how the protestant reformation came about due to the corruption of the Catholic Church, and in the process, a lot of church teachings were thrown out, as you stated. The issue is that most of the teachings that were thrown out - Purgatory, Prayers for the Dead and to the Saints, Mary - all stem from Tradition that the Catholic church held, even long before all the corruption that plagued it in the middle ages. With this in mind, it is not really truthful to say that Protestants "loved" the tradition of the Catholic church from which they came.
Two other points of order: The Roman Catholics conflate Faith with faithfulness. This is why they can say that they are saved by faith, but still need works to maintain their faith. There were universities before the time of Thomas Aquinas and they were usually outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Usually they were in Western Asia or North Africa, but some were in Europe and were founded by Celtic priests from Hibernia.
The Catholic church excommunicated the Reformists and their groups. They no longer have access to the priesthood and had to switch theology to believe that power and authority is not transmitted from person to person but anyone has power and authority (wrongly based on their interpretation of Acts 1:8).
