Feel free to joke about the paedophile Catholics, the intrusive Jehova's Witnesses, the polygamous Mormons, the murderous Russian Orthodox and so on too. I don't see any reason for not joking about all Christians; after all they believe in an invisible man who sent his "son" (who was also the son of a ghost and a carpenter) as a human sacrifice to be tortured and killed, described in a book with large numbers of massacres where the invisible man slaughtered millions of innocent people. A disgusting religion like this must be joked about.
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.
@@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
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.
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 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.
Though I have moved on from the Baptist way to become an Anglican, I would still not group Baptist under the Radical Reformation with Amish/Mennonites. The first Baptists had way more in common with the Reformed tradition in England than they did with Anabaptists. Also, the Anabaptists movement honestly came more out of Zwingli’s Reformation movement in Zurich, so it would be more accurate to place them as branch coming out of the Reformed tradition (there was some stuff with Karlstaut and Muntzer, but that’s another story). This tree approach may be good at looking at the distinctions from a modern perspective, but not really from a historical perspective.
This is correct and well-stated. The Anabaptists were radical not in that they broke off from Rome, but in that they broke off from Zurich. Additionally, Baptist and Anabaptist theology is very different across the board (they just happen to line up on a couple of distinctives). The Baptists came out of English Separatism, which had the same issues with Anglicanism as the Puritans. The difference in the Separatists and the Puritans is that the former split off while the latter tried to purify the Anglican Church. (Not unlike for example, the PCA vs Redeemed Zoomer in the PCUSA). Therefore, both were products of Protestant theology (both in the Particular and General Baptist streams). Moreover, John Smyth led the first General Baptists in practicing Credobaptism before he ever came in contact with the Waterlander Mennonites in Holland. Baptists are grossly misplaced on this tree and should be branching off of Anglicanism, not characterized as “Anabaptist light.”
Thanks for that clarification! I haven't watched enough of this channel's content, so I wonder if simply organizing similar beliefs within the church was more the point of the video, rather than a full out historical and chronological timeline - which would certainly be relevant and very fun to learn!
@burntmarshwigglestudio597 If you watch more of his content you'll begin to understand that this kid hates Baptists. He's got a huge ego about his preferred denomination.
Wow, learning about Jan Hus prophesying Luther - "you are going to burn a goose but in one hundred years you will have a swan that you can neither roast nor boil" - has been such a blessing to me!
Same here! After reading that Huss said that while he was about to be burned and that his burning took place on a solar eclipse is fascinating! Makes me think that God was really okay with the reformation. I read also o Frederick of Saxon's dream and it's at least worth considering as accurate.
@@heir8095 but Martin Luther tried to get rid of several books in the bible, because they don't align with his views on Sola Fide. They clearly state that faith without works is dead.
I'm sorry but the Council of Nicaea was convened by the Catholic Church because it WAS the church. Ignatius of Antioch called the Christian church `catholic' which is not a noun but a Latin adjective meaning `universal'. in about 100 AD in a letter he wrote whilst on his way to martyrdom Quote Catholic Answers The earliest document we have in which “Catholic” is used to label the Church is a letter from Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote around A.D. 107, while being taken to Rome for execution. For all we know, the term was used well before that time-which is to say, in the time of the apostles. End quote This was 200 years before the Council of Nicaea. The first schism came in 1050ish when Orthodoxy split off then in 1500's when Protestant Christianity split off The Catholic Church has remained unchanged with an unbroken Papal succession for 2023 years. Many denominations have split from it.
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.
From one random nerd on the internet to another: THANK U for sharing such cool info. Knowledge truly is power and being aware of how your specific belief fits into the larger framework of society helps to create cohesion and communication between all. Keep it up bro!!
Yes, it is useful to know more about all the Christians who accuse each other of believing in nonsense. Ironically, they all seem to be right about this.
Can you make a video about Vatican 2 bc I’m Catholic but whenever I try to find a simple explanation it’s always very biased and you are presbyterian so you would have a more unbiased perspective. Also you’re good at explaining theology
You should probably look for a Catholic source on this for the same reason it'd be better to hear about the schism in the Methodist church from a Methodist source.
@@komnennos Methodists split from United Methodist Church because of liberal theology, LGBT clergy and blessings of homosexual couple. Thus forming the newborn denomonation called Global Methodist Church. Global Methodist Church came to my country Croatia few years ago. Gotta admit that they are charming for being low church. When I saw that Pentecostals came from Methodist, I then knew why Methodists are charismatic when I met them. They share a space where they have Sunday meeting with the Calvinists. I do not know which type of Calvinists are they, but I have a reason to believe that they may be the same Calvinists from Hungary. Edit: I am Catholic, but I had been for short time half Catholic half Methodist. I have two books on John Wesley and watched an old movie about him. Pretty cool person gotta admit, but kinda wish they had bit more rich tradition like high church.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on the Messianic Judaism movement and where that fits in this "tree". Personally I consider myself under that term because I think much of the protestant and catholic faith misses something important, though I know the Messianic Judaism movement is extremely new by comparison. I grew up in a "non-denominational" church where my mentor sought out original meaning by way of exploring the Biblical Hebrew language of the Old Testament and only THEN correlating that to the Greek in the New Testament (he's actually working on an OT translation himself). That led to a perceived affiliation towards traditionalism and desire to know the Hebrew as it was written in the context of the time in which it was written. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
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.
Baptists actually arose out of nonconformist Anglicans, similar to the Puritans. There was some association with the Anabaptists among the General Baptists, but in general Baptists did not arise from Anabaptists. The Baptists I know (and Baptists historically) are very fond of church history even if they disagree at points, and none of them are retreatist or anti-institution. I appreciate that you take the time to make these, but you seem to just be taking stereotypes and going off of those.
Fascinating and well done! I grew up in an independent non-denominational church. The woman who gave the land for the building said she was visited by an angel and told to give the land and that the gospel would be preached there. We DEFINITELY had some of those baptist principles - not believing in infant baptism, etc - but the bulk of the congregation came out of the Methodist and Holiness traditions. We had a pastor for a long time who was ordained in the Lutheran church. My dad grew up in a Christian Missionary Alliance church , my mom Methodist . I attended a Wesleyan Unniversity, and became a professional visual artist - so I've by default studied a LOT of Catholic art, visited the Vatican and a good deal of the major Catholic sites in France and Italy, and been exposed to a good deal of that denomination. I also grew up around the Amish, and lived near a historic Moravian founded village. I currently attend a Global Methodist Church which is the most recent major offshoot denomination in the U.S. I say all that just to point out that there is ALWAYS a lot of cross-pollination between denominations - and I really think that's a good thing. We all hope and trust that God will unify us someday in the manner in which we should be. I am thankful that my parents went out of their way to expose me to various denominations. All I know is that when a person or congregation gets serious about what they believe - when they start doing the hard personal and corporate work to do their best to love and obey Christ - then good things start to happen and the lost become found. So few of us know the basics of what you presented, and I hope that it will help us all do just what I have witnessed when the faithful labor to be faithful, and to do it more.
자이점 중 일부는 지옥이 얼마나 심각한지에 대한 감각, 세례의 방식과 시간, 성만찬의 요소, 독점성, 도상학에 대한 다양한 해석, 성인이란 무엇입니까? 그리스도를 믿는 사람 또는 교회 내의 모범입니다. 정치나 리더십, 성령의 역할, 교부들의 역할이나 역사 등 일부는 생락했다고 확신합니다.
@@brentlunger9738Where does the Bible mention hell? It says we will be damned yes. But not in hell. Don't be deceived by churches. Catholic or otherwise. Read your Bible, study it, and pray for discernment. ❤
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
Baptist here! This is an excellent video! I do want to say that a lot of Baptists nowadays are starting to recognize the flaw of not being institutional and the flaw of not continuing the holy lowercase “c” catholic and apostolic church. Even though I’m Baptist, I still agree with some of the point you have made regarding flaws about the Baptist church.
I grew up Baptist and I felt the same way for a long time. A few years ago I decided to follow the branches back down to the trunk, and I’ve now come out as Orthodox.
God knows and sees your blasphemous expression of prideful and mocking disgust of the Church that Jesus Christ himself founded- historically proven, and succeeded from the apostles themselves. Get over yourself and pride and accept the truth with humility, or choose the path away from salvation. Have fun. ☦️
@@redeemedzoomer6053 It was pretty similar except for all the Protestant denominations. Also, if you were to put Mormonism on the chart, would you put it as it’s own separate tree, or would you put it on the same tree that has the other denominations?
@@ryanimations8049I'd say Mormons/LDS would be separate at the Nicene Creed itself, as the book has some wildly weird beliefs about God. The TL;DR is basically God was like us previously, and following the LDS Organization can enable you to become God on other planets
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 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
22:52 I want to point out that some Protestant denominations do not participate in communion with churches that differ from them theologically, such as The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Great video as always! :)
@@SlovakLutheranMonarchist LCMS doesn’t take communion with some other Protestant denominations, though. Just to clarify. Their theology of the communion is quite deep, and some believe that it won’t be the same if you don’t also believe in that specific theology.
@@alicagank I understand that LCMS does bot take communion with for example PCUSA but it does take with AALC. My point was that it does not take with other Protestant denominational families. I know that LCMS has closed communion, but it opens it sometimes for some denominations within their denominational family(aka Lutheranism).
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!)
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.
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.
Great video! I think there is some nuance to be had with the non-denominational churches. I agree that the insistance on not institutionalizing is very much aligned with Baptist tradition. However, since these churches identify themselves as non-denominational, they are very varied in their theological beliefs and practical pursuits. Many take aspects from other branches in the church and apply them to their individual practices. Of course, there are trends, non-denominational churches tend to look similar. But, kind of by necessity, they float around the tree. KInd of like a bird, that flies around the tree picking fruit, but nests in the Baptist branch.
It's very obvious that RZ does not think much of non-denominational churches and it shows in his videos. After spending 30 years in the mainline protestant merry-go-round, I went non-denominational out of desperation and it was the best move I've ever made in my faith life. When I imagine how much time was wasted in silly human political arguments (as evidenced by this video) I'm ashamed that I didn't do it years ago.
@@littlesquirtthefireengine5478 Yeah, as someone who was born into a ND church, I certainly have a bias toward them. I do understand that many ND churches are not great, Mega churches and prosperity gospel are very much tied to the ND movement. But also, the most devoted, most passionate and active people I’ve seen in Christ tend to come from ND churches, since there is no politicking between branches
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.
Be interesting if Redeemed Zoomer inadvertently created a new "Zoomer" denomination that's more unitary and intellectual and based off the things that he's taught. Not saying that's what he wants to do, or that I would want it to happen necessarily, but still I find it interesting if that were to happen somehow.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
0:51 The Council of Nicaea was NOT a meeting of the whole church, far from it; it was hastily called and poorly attended. Although 1800 were invited to participate, only somewhere between 250 and 318 (Section 120, Schaff, Philip; Schaff, David Schley (1910). History of the Christian Church. Vol. 3. New York: C Scribner's Sons.) of those invited actually attended and only 5 from the Western Church. It was mostly about dealing with the Arian heresy, what is the correct time for celebrating Easter, and rules concerning church discipline; what has become orthodox Christian belief was not firmly established by the Council.
Pentecostal here. We could technically be at two different parts of the tree. From the beginning of the movement there was diversity in theological influence because of the variety of different backgrounds people came from, and so there ended up being some more Wesleyan influenced Holiness Pentecostal denominations (for example COGIC), but also some more Baptist/Classical Protestant rooted Pentecostal denominations known as Finished Work Pentecostals (for example Assemblies of God.)
I'd agree. Like RZ said himself in the video, denominations like the Evangelical Free Church (and to a certain extent, Church of the Brethren which are a mix of Lutheran and Anabaptist, or Finished Work Pentecostals) are more a blend of two or more of the 10 main groups than the clear cut distinctions he made. I'd also disagree strongly with his assessment on putting the Churches of Christ alongside people like the Mormons or JW's. Even if they'd deny it till they're blue in the face, the only real difference between a General/Independent Baptist and a Church of Christ would be the name and that the former believes baptism is merely a sign of commitment to Christian belief, while the latter would say it's a salvific (saving) act that requires the mature Christian's belief in its effect. In everything else, the CoC affirms the Nicene Creed in practice, even if not in the letter. They affirm the Trinity and the Deity of Christ and the 66 book canon of the Protestant consensus, it's not like they're calling themselves gods or saying Jesus is just Michael the Archangel. EDIT: I should say that there are several more minor differences between Baptists and CoC, but the views on baptism would be the main one
i’ve been watching Zoomer for awhile and I always felt like there was a disconnect with his understanding of Pentecostalism and my Pentecostal denomination (Foursquare). your comment actually clears up so much for me so thank you
@@adamandsethdylantoo...yeah...I was going to say that the churches of Christ have a few more key differences with the Baptists (the biggest one other than the key one you mentioned being the musical instruments dispute), but you're entirely right that the churches of Christ do doctrinally agree with the Nicene Creed despite their insistence on the Sola Scriptura "No creed but the Bible," and while they would agree with the "doctrinal accuracy" of the Nicene Creed (if pressed...hard), would decline to recite the writings of men. I do think putting the churches of Christ and the Restoration Movement alongside the Mormons, JWs, Seventh Day Adventists, etc., is a *historically fair* grouping just because ALL of those groups grew out of movements in the U.S. in the 1800s with the Second Great Awakening (though the Restoration Movement really began in the late 1700s) as local movements that spread, and none of them grew fully or directly from any of the branches he's established. You're totally right that, as he says earlier, the churches of Christ, along with most American evangelical groups, are more closely doctrinally connected to American Baptists than other branches. I think he's tracing, in this video, the growth patterns and splits from older groups that can be traced in more of a straight line, and, in that way, the churches of Christ and the Restoration Movement spring up in KY and TN sort of on their own without branching from a specific origin point.
The Catholic Church is the Root of the Tree, not a branch as Zoomer has shown. I which people would not listen the Protestant rhetoric when producing these materials and do their own scholarly research with ALL the materials available.
@@LuzianJ Not Biblical the Church the Bride and Christ is the bridegroom the Church is ment to submit to him not the Bishop of Rome. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. - Ephesians 5:23-24 Jesus says if any Apostle shall put himself first he shall be last. There is no cheif Apostle. 34 But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who would be the greatest. 35 And He sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.” - Mark 9:34-35 The Rock is Peter's proclamation of faith, and not Peter himself. 16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” - Mathew 16:16-18 The power of binding and loosing was not given only to Peter but to all other Apostles. All apostolic successors, bishops have this same authority. 18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. - Matthew 18:18
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 .
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". .
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!
As a fundamentalist, I have long chuckled about how we are seen from the outside. Our creed is very simple, all Christians must agree on five fundamental points. 1. The inerrancy of the scripture in its original form (not translations as they are all flawed by the translation). 2. The virgin birth and God born in the flesh. 3. Doctrine of Christ atonement on the cross (salvation). 4. The bodily resurrection of Christ. 5. Bodily second coming of Christ ( when he physically sets his foot upon the earth). Beyond these fundamental points the rest are not important as to what constitutes the body of Christ.
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.
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.
The Church is The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. The remainder was selfish man starting their own gig copied off of the Catholic Church, changed to meet their selfish need. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli Wesley, Smith, Smyth, etc., etc. all showed up 1500 or more years later and people followed them like some today follows new sports teams.
The Amish can be a very oppressive, non-christ-like society, and they tend to function more like a cult from time to time. For example, people typically shouldn't go back if they decide they want to live in the outside after their rumspringa; ostracizing ex-member is straight out of the cult activity textbook. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine that they do any outreach, given that they surround themselves by a would-be "Christian ghetto" (that is, 90% of the interactions they have are with like-minded people). It is difficult to carry out Matthew 28 18-20 under most circumstances but under those circumstances, perhaps nearly impossible.
@@corporate.securityafter the WACO incident i am hesistent to call ANYONE a cult, however, if you call them a Mafia, then i agree with you, as their organizations are very Mafia like.
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
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.
On the topic of the east/ west split at ~9:50, I think I side with the East. I'm gunna go look for the verse that makes me think so and come back... Here, John 14:26 ESV [26] "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom *the Father will send* in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."
At the time of 8:10 this commentator states that the Catholic Church ‘grew’ out of the Roman Empire…? He is seriously mistaken and lacks historical knowledge. He should have started out by stating that the Holy Roman Catholic Church was the first one. Every ‘branch’ that he mentioned is an off shoot of the Catholic Church.
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 loved this video and found it very informative. Even though I am becoming a Catholic now after years of atheism, I agree with your defense of protestant churches being beautiful. My old church is one of the New England Congregational churches you mentioned, and it is lovely. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the political banners that now hang in front of it. If you ever make a new version of this video, I would find it helpful if you included dates for when these "splits" occurred.
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.
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.
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.
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.*
I think its very important to separate the term catholic (universal) church, from the Roman Catholic Church (the organization). Until the great schism, the term catholic really only meant universal church. Peter never called himself pope, the papacy (as an institution) was established long after the first century. Legitimizing the Roman Catholic Church by saying "we're the originals" is actively suggesting there are people who are worth more in the kingdom of Christ. God gave us his son and his teachings to follow, not a religious organization.
@@heva2337 I fully agree that teaching the scripture is necessary. My point is that the argument “we’re the oldest and therefore the correct one” is #1: not a valid point, being the oldest just makes you the oldest, it is not a validating factor. And #2. Extremely egocentric and apathetic to your brothers and sisters in Christ who are not Catholic.
A nice history lesson. You really put a lot of time into this. A few facts that need to be clarified is your opening statement concerning the council of Nicaea. It was not a meeting of all the churches. It was overseen by Constatine (Roman Goverment) and his purpose was to meld the Greek philosophies with the Christianity movement as a political move for power. The Greeks believed in many Gods, the Christians in one true God. Make an acceptable doctrine they can all follow and you have yourself a political coup. Those who testified at this council against this new trinitarian view were expelled from the church. It was Rome's way or the highway! It is much like today's American political modern witch hunt. We have the media pushing the agenda to look at all of these indictements regarding President Trump, yet Hunter's laptop fiasco which involves President Biden's mis-dealings is a "nothing to look at here folks" issue. Any way you slice it, if you look for the truth, from the Bible itself, you will be left with one pink elephant in the room. The trinitarian doctrine, formed and ratified at the Nicean Council, is not Biblical. Yes, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost exist and are the very foundation of Christianity. The oneness is their work for our salvation. Jesus asked us to be one with Him as He is one with the Father. How can we all be one? How can we be God? How can we be Jesus? How can we be the Holy Ghost? We can't be, of course, but we can be one with them. That oneness is in like-mindedness, we give all glory to God the Father, just as Jesus did. That is what is Biblical. The apostle Paul clearly teaches us that we are the literal, not metaphysical, not esoterically, but the literal offspring of God the Father. Jesus is His firstborn. That distiguishment means there are more children that followed. Paul tells us that we are those children. God's mission is to save all mankind, all Jews, all Muslims, all Christians, etc. This all contradicts the niceen creed. Again, you will not find this creed in the Bible. It is man made, politically made, it is not biblical. One would have to tell a great lie to say that it is Biblical, to which I would ask for one standard of proof...show it to me in the Bible. It is not there. You ought to add a root of the modern reformationists like the Jehovah Witnesses, Christadelphians, Swedenborgians, Iglesisa ni Christo, and La Luz de Mundo in the restorationism taxonomic group and an offshoot at the base of the tree (before the Council of Nicaea) to represent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This would give a more acceptable representation of the Christianity family tree. As Christians, we all praise the one true God together. The difference is in how we do it. Let's all follow Paul's council to work together as a body of Christ to spread the Gospel, support each other, and have faith and hope in Christ and His redeeming power to reunite us with His (and our) Father in Heaven. Charity never fails! God bless us all.
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 !
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 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
What church can actually save you? Which church can actually guarantee heaven? Not one. Religion cannot save. Religion blinds people and gives people false hope of heaven. Sadly, most people in all these churches will end up in hell and the Lake fire. Not one of these churches will save anyone! Only Jesus Christ saves. If you want to be in heaven, repent of your sins, and trust Jesus Christ alone for your salvation, not your church.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
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.
very good video man. I appreciate your research into the history. When I was looking into churches I was amazed at how many people were in church just because of familiarity instead of doctrine. Baptists who honored saints and Catholics who avoided confession. I pray that through ecumenism all churches will return to full communion with each other and tradition can be restored for all.
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.
That was interesting, thank you for your work and interest. Do one that includes my church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints with the offshoots of that movement and the combination of some back into the Protestant flavors.
I think it interesting that some of the latter day saint restoration groups have joined with other groups that you might consider as Nicene Christians which your are correct I don't identify as that type fortunately for many, over past 2000 years, as they follow the Spirit of Christ will eventually accept Christ as the savior of ALL mankind past present and future. @@rob5462
@@jeffs4483 After I clarified that I agreed that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is clearly not a Nicene Christian Church, like most all others on this particular list. I found this well done presentation on "History of Christianity and 50+..." th-cam.com/video/8q6FUlay-M8/w-d-xo.html I was happy to see that Matt Baker had the same view as I did on the subject.
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
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’m an Independent Fundamental Baptist. Separation from other (Liberal) Baptist. Fundamentalist meaning very conservative and old fashioned service. Mary is Mother of God, God did die on the Cross. 2 Natures in 1 person.
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
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 😅
Bless the Lord, a boring evening has been saved.
Amen!
Amen!
No evening church service??
@@cjheideldude mine is in the morning so.
Thanks be to God
I've always felt the Amish are the safest group to joke about on the internet.
I love that this comment is part of the joke as well
Feel free to joke about the paedophile Catholics, the intrusive Jehova's Witnesses, the polygamous Mormons, the murderous Russian Orthodox and so on too. I don't see any reason for not joking about all Christians; after all they believe in an invisible man who sent his "son" (who was also the son of a ghost and a carpenter) as a human sacrifice to be tortured and killed, described in a book with large numbers of massacres where the invisible man slaughtered millions of innocent people. A disgusting religion like this must be joked about.
Well yeah there is barley any of them and most of them probably don't even have Internet connection sense they live in remote areas.
@@erueda4563I have Amish as neighbors. I'm from Central PA
@@erueda4563You would be surprised about the true number of Amish
All the churches looking at each other: "He's a little confused, but he's got the _spirit"_
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”
*Spirit
I see what you did there
😂 wow 👏
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.
By putting this discourse in the form of a tree, the presentation is actually a fundamentally uniting one. IMO.
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
@@deebrown4615What if the Roman Catholic Church was corrupted?
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!
Is Jesus still the same in all your beliefs?
Bet Christmas Dinner is heated.
All red-blooded, that's a match. humans@@andersd8956
@@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.
Mennonite here, don't diss us like you did the Amish cuz we're watching😅 Loving your content
The Amish are also watching with their secret phones...
@@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 am friends with the mennonite mafia, I know Everything!!!
Also a Mennonite here, just wondering which conference your church belongs to because I want to see if we recognize each other's churches
You, sir, are one of the only people where I can sit through and listen to an entire 40 minute video. Well done brother in Christ.
as an atheist, this is still interesting to listen to.
@@heliumfireAgreed. I am also an atheist (formerly a Methodist) I also found this video very informative. This young man has really done his studies.
@@user-pq9zw5wb1z Just out of curiosity, which of those denominations are you a member of?
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.
@@deebrown4615Are you making the same reply to all of the comments?
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.
아 - 이미, ㅂㅅ - 씹혔어
@@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 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.
The Council of Nicea was a Catholic Council.
Though I have moved on from the Baptist way to become an Anglican, I would still not group Baptist under the Radical Reformation with Amish/Mennonites. The first Baptists had way more in common with the Reformed tradition in England than they did with Anabaptists. Also, the Anabaptists movement honestly came more out of Zwingli’s Reformation movement in Zurich, so it would be more accurate to place them as branch coming out of the Reformed tradition (there was some stuff with Karlstaut and Muntzer, but that’s another story). This tree approach may be good at looking at the distinctions from a modern perspective, but not really from a historical perspective.
This exactly, and I'm a Baptist. Some have pointed this out to him in the past but he hasn't changed his thinking.
This is correct and well-stated. The Anabaptists were radical not in that they broke off from Rome, but in that they broke off from Zurich. Additionally, Baptist and Anabaptist theology is very different across the board (they just happen to line up on a couple of distinctives). The Baptists came out of English Separatism, which had the same issues with Anglicanism as the Puritans. The difference in the Separatists and the Puritans is that the former split off while the latter tried to purify the Anglican Church. (Not unlike for example, the PCA vs Redeemed Zoomer in the PCUSA). Therefore, both were products of Protestant theology (both in the Particular and General Baptist streams). Moreover, John Smyth led the first General Baptists in practicing Credobaptism before he ever came in contact with the Waterlander Mennonites in Holland. Baptists are grossly misplaced on this tree and should be branching off of Anglicanism, not characterized as “Anabaptist light.”
@@waterdrinkerrrnice pfp. Haven’t seen a Living Water Bible in a long time
Thanks for that clarification! I haven't watched enough of this channel's content, so I wonder if simply organizing similar beliefs within the church was more the point of the video, rather than a full out historical and chronological timeline - which would certainly be relevant and very fun to learn!
@burntmarshwigglestudio597 If you watch more of his content you'll begin to understand that this kid hates Baptists. He's got a huge ego about his preferred denomination.
Wow, learning about Jan Hus prophesying Luther - "you are going to burn a goose but in one hundred years you will have a swan that you can neither roast nor boil" - has been such a blessing to me!
Same here! After reading that Huss said that while he was about to be burned and that his burning took place on a solar eclipse is fascinating! Makes me think that God was really okay with the reformation.
I read also o Frederick of Saxon's dream and it's at least worth considering as accurate.
@@heir8095 but Martin Luther tried to get rid of several books in the bible, because they don't align with his views on Sola Fide. They clearly state that faith without works is dead.
@@pikapi6993and that we are justified by works and not by faith alone.
@@pikapi6993 Right, he called the epistle of James the epistle of straw.
@@dansw0rkshopRight no one ever wants to mention how he even tried to take out the book of Apocalypse aka Revelations
I'm sorry but the Council of Nicaea was convened by the Catholic Church because it WAS the church. Ignatius of Antioch called the Christian church `catholic' which is not a noun but a Latin adjective meaning `universal'. in about 100 AD in a letter he wrote whilst on his way to martyrdom
Quote Catholic Answers
The earliest document we have in which “Catholic” is used to label the Church is a letter from Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote around A.D. 107, while being taken to Rome for execution. For all we know, the term was used well before that time-which is to say, in the time of the apostles.
End quote
This was 200 years before the Council of Nicaea.
The first schism came in 1050ish when Orthodoxy split off then in 1500's when Protestant Christianity split off
The Catholic Church has remained unchanged with an unbroken Papal succession for 2023 years. Many denominations have split from it.
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.
Anglicans believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it’s in the 39 articles.
@@lusivConsubstantiation versus Transubstantiation
From one random nerd on the internet to another: THANK U for sharing such cool info. Knowledge truly is power and being aware of how your specific belief fits into the larger framework of society helps to create cohesion and communication between all. Keep it up bro!!
Yes, it is useful to know more about all the Christians who accuse each other of believing in nonsense. Ironically, they all seem to be right about this.
Thanks! As a new Catholic, this video was very useful especially for helping to distinguish between the protestant branches!
yeah, I only started to understand protestantism when I started watchig Redeemed Zoomer's channel
You went the wrong path brother
@@SkankHunt-iy1ecpresbyterian is the way!
@@SkankHunt-iy1ec how so?
Don’t listen to any of this dudes takes on Catholicism or theology in general
Can you make a video about Vatican 2 bc I’m Catholic but whenever I try to find a simple explanation it’s always very biased and you are presbyterian so you would have a more unbiased perspective. Also you’re good at explaining theology
That great idea!
Yea I’m curious about that as well
You should probably look for a Catholic source on this for the same reason it'd be better to hear about the schism in the Methodist church from a Methodist source.
@@komnennos Methodists split from United Methodist Church because of liberal theology, LGBT clergy and blessings of homosexual couple. Thus forming the newborn denomonation called Global Methodist Church.
Global Methodist Church came to my country Croatia few years ago. Gotta admit that they are charming for being low church. When I saw that Pentecostals came from Methodist, I then knew why Methodists are charismatic when I met them.
They share a space where they have Sunday meeting with the Calvinists. I do not know which type of Calvinists are they, but I have a reason to believe that they may be the same Calvinists from Hungary.
Edit: I am Catholic, but I had been for short time half Catholic half Methodist. I have two books on John Wesley and watched an old movie about him. Pretty cool person gotta admit, but kinda wish they had bit more rich tradition like high church.
What do you want to know?
24:10 HEY, TAKE THAT BACK, US LUTHERANS ARE CALM AND REASONABLE.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on the Messianic Judaism movement and where that fits in this "tree". Personally I consider myself under that term because I think much of the protestant and catholic faith misses something important, though I know the Messianic Judaism movement is extremely new by comparison.
I grew up in a "non-denominational" church where my mentor sought out original meaning by way of exploring the Biblical Hebrew language of the Old Testament and only THEN correlating that to the Greek in the New Testament (he's actually working on an OT translation himself). That led to a perceived affiliation towards traditionalism and desire to know the Hebrew as it was written in the context of the time in which it was written. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
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.
Baptists actually arose out of nonconformist Anglicans, similar to the Puritans. There was some association with the Anabaptists among the General Baptists, but in general Baptists did not arise from Anabaptists. The Baptists I know (and Baptists historically) are very fond of church history even if they disagree at points, and none of them are retreatist or anti-institution. I appreciate that you take the time to make these, but you seem to just be taking stereotypes and going off of those.
Yes. Anyone interested in Baptist history should check out Dr Nettles.
Fascinating and well done!
I grew up in an independent non-denominational church. The woman who gave the land for the building said she was visited by an angel and told to give the land and that the gospel would be preached there.
We DEFINITELY had some of those baptist principles - not believing in infant baptism, etc - but the bulk of the congregation came out of the Methodist and Holiness traditions. We had a pastor for a long time who was ordained in the Lutheran church. My dad grew up in a Christian Missionary Alliance church , my mom Methodist . I attended a Wesleyan Unniversity, and became a professional visual artist - so I've by default studied a LOT of Catholic art, visited the Vatican and a good deal of the major Catholic sites in France and Italy, and been exposed to a good deal of that denomination. I also grew up around the Amish, and lived near a historic Moravian founded village.
I currently attend a Global Methodist Church which is the most recent major offshoot denomination in the U.S.
I say all that just to point out that there is ALWAYS a lot of cross-pollination between denominations - and I really think that's a good thing. We all hope and trust that God will unify us someday in the manner in which we should be. I am thankful that my parents went out of their way to expose me to various denominations. All I know is that when a person or congregation gets serious about what they believe - when they start doing the hard personal and corporate work to do their best to love and obey Christ - then good things start to happen and the lost become found.
So few of us know the basics of what you presented, and I hope that it will help us all do just what I have witnessed when the faithful labor to be faithful, and to do it more.
Well stated and amen. Super cool to watch this video, what a nice quick overview perspective of the Church!
자이점 중 일부는 지옥이 얼마나 심각한지에 대한 감각, 세례의 방식과 시간, 성만찬의 요소, 독점성, 도상학에 대한 다양한 해석, 성인이란 무엇입니까? 그리스도를 믿는 사람 또는 교회 내의 모범입니다. 정치나 리더십, 성령의 역할, 교부들의 역할이나 역사 등 일부는 생락했다고 확신합니다.
So a witch who saw a devil gave the land.... derp. Bet you don't know the gospel.
I love the term “cross-pollination”. I use it all the time.
Did
@@brentlunger9738Where does the Bible mention hell? It says we will be damned yes. But not in hell. Don't be deceived by churches. Catholic or otherwise. Read your Bible, study it, and pray for discernment. ❤
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
But Augustine and Chrysostom were before the schism and he tried to represent postschismatic Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
"Thomism vs Palamism" is "Augustine vs Crystosom" on steroids which is "Aristotle vs Plato" but with Jesus
@@kuafer3687Schism 2: Eclesiastic Boogaloo
Me who randomly fully buys that the ethiopian tewahedo church has the ark
This tree is a tad incomplete on the right side. Look into Russian Orthodox Schism of 1653.
Baptist here! This is an excellent video! I do want to say that a lot of Baptists nowadays are starting to recognize the flaw of not being institutional and the flaw of not continuing the holy lowercase “c” catholic and apostolic church. Even though I’m Baptist, I still agree with some of the point you have made regarding flaws about the Baptist church.
I grew up Baptist and I felt the same way for a long time. A few years ago I decided to follow the branches back down to the trunk, and I’ve now come out as Orthodox.
@@cadenhenry4446 🤮
@@manlymemez
Oh no, somebody doesn’t worship the same way as you. Gross!
@@manlymemezfr
God knows and sees your blasphemous expression of prideful and mocking disgust of the Church that Jesus Christ himself founded- historically proven, and succeeded from the apostles themselves. Get over yourself and pride and accept the truth with humility, or choose the path away from salvation. Have fun. ☦️
I made a tree of denominations 30 minutes ago and I come to my phone and see this.
haha that's funny. How similar was yours to mine?
Have you seen the one made by Useful Charts?
@@redeemedzoomer6053 It was pretty similar except for all the Protestant denominations. Also, if you were to put Mormonism on the chart, would you put it as it’s own separate tree, or would you put it on the same tree that has the other denominations?
@@ryanimations8049I'd say Mormons/LDS would be separate at the Nicene Creed itself, as the book has some wildly weird beliefs about God. The TL;DR is basically God was like us previously, and following the LDS Organization can enable you to become God on other planets
@@ryanimations8049separate tree considering Mormons don't follow the Nician Creede.
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.
@@michaellautermilch9185 the KJV fucking blows
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 The trouble with the ESV and the LSB is that they do not contain the deuterocanonical books, which were included in the original KJV.
@@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.
This has clarified DECADES of unspoken confusion 😂😂
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.
You can't reject it because you don't like it, if it's in the Bible (which it clearly is) you have no choice but to believe it
@@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
Day 9 Asking for a Christian College Tier List
Yes
Yes
I love this channel brother. I'm happy to see a fellow zoomer so engaged in church history and orthodoxy. Much love from New Hampshire ❤
22:52 I want to point out that some Protestant denominations do not participate in communion with churches that differ from them theologically, such as The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Great video as always! :)
He meant like LCMS and AALC both Lutheran but different denominations but still take communion.
LCMS shoutout!
He actually talked about the LCMS in his recent video on why he supports open communion
@@SlovakLutheranMonarchist LCMS doesn’t take communion with some other Protestant denominations, though. Just to clarify. Their theology of the communion is quite deep, and some believe that it won’t be the same if you don’t also believe in that specific theology.
@@alicagank I understand that LCMS does bot take communion with for example PCUSA but it does take with AALC.
My point was that it does not take with other Protestant denominational families.
I know that LCMS has closed communion, but it opens it sometimes for some denominations within their denominational family(aka Lutheranism).
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!)
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.
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.
Great video! I think there is some nuance to be had with the non-denominational churches. I agree that the insistance on not institutionalizing is very much aligned with Baptist tradition. However, since these churches identify themselves as non-denominational, they are very varied in their theological beliefs and practical pursuits. Many take aspects from other branches in the church and apply them to their individual practices. Of course, there are trends, non-denominational churches tend to look similar. But, kind of by necessity, they float around the tree. KInd of like a bird, that flies around the tree picking fruit, but nests in the Baptist branch.
It's very obvious that RZ does not think much of non-denominational churches and it shows in his videos. After spending 30 years in the mainline protestant merry-go-round, I went non-denominational out of desperation and it was the best move I've ever made in my faith life. When I imagine how much time was wasted in silly human political arguments (as evidenced by this video) I'm ashamed that I didn't do it years ago.
@@littlesquirtthefireengine5478 Yeah, as someone who was born into a ND church, I certainly have a bias toward them. I do understand that many ND churches are not great, Mega churches and prosperity gospel are very much tied to the ND movement. But also, the most devoted, most passionate and active people I’ve seen in Christ tend to come from ND churches, since there is no politicking between branches
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!
The best video on that topic is at Gavin Ortlund's Truth Unites. The title of the video is "Which Old Testament Canon is Right? With John Meade".
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.
They took stuff out
Be interesting if Redeemed Zoomer inadvertently created a new "Zoomer" denomination that's more unitary and intellectual and based off the things that he's taught.
Not saying that's what he wants to do, or that I would want it to happen necessarily, but still I find it interesting if that were to happen somehow.
Wow! You are great at explaining this! As a Roman Catholic I appreciate your honesty!
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.
Very nice video! Love from an Orthodox Catechumen ☦
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'm Dutch Reformed, but I have a lot of respect for my brothers and sisters in the LCMS.
Science is revealing that evolution is a broken idea the more we study.
Genesis is truth. No matter how difficult to comprehend
I agree that the surface and atmosphere of this planet was created in 6 literal 24 hour days as God stated in Exodus 20:8-11
“There is a bidenflation of Protestant groups”🤣🤣🤣
Catholic: every 60 seconds, 4 new Protestant Churches start.
Constantine I was baptized on his deathbed by Eusibeus, the "Arian" bishop of Nicomedia.
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?
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 love your channel, I have learned a lot about Christianity from you. It's an interesting religion
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.
There are 4500 branches of American protestant churches.
0:51 The Council of Nicaea was NOT a meeting of the whole church, far from it; it was hastily called and poorly attended. Although 1800 were invited to participate, only somewhere between 250 and 318 (Section 120, Schaff, Philip; Schaff, David Schley (1910). History of the Christian Church. Vol. 3. New York: C Scribner's Sons.) of those invited actually attended and only 5 from the Western Church. It was mostly about dealing with the Arian heresy, what is the correct time for celebrating Easter, and rules concerning church discipline; what has become orthodox Christian belief was not firmly established by the Council.
Pentecostal here. We could technically be at two different parts of the tree. From the beginning of the movement there was diversity in theological influence because of the variety of different backgrounds people came from, and so there ended up being some more Wesleyan influenced Holiness Pentecostal denominations (for example COGIC), but also some more Baptist/Classical Protestant rooted Pentecostal denominations known as Finished Work Pentecostals (for example Assemblies of God.)
I'd agree. Like RZ said himself in the video, denominations like the Evangelical Free Church (and to a certain extent, Church of the Brethren which are a mix of Lutheran and Anabaptist, or Finished Work Pentecostals) are more a blend of two or more of the 10 main groups than the clear cut distinctions he made.
I'd also disagree strongly with his assessment on putting the Churches of Christ alongside people like the Mormons or JW's. Even if they'd deny it till they're blue in the face, the only real difference between a General/Independent Baptist and a Church of Christ would be the name and that the former believes baptism is merely a sign of commitment to Christian belief, while the latter would say it's a salvific (saving) act that requires the mature Christian's belief in its effect. In everything else, the CoC affirms the Nicene Creed in practice, even if not in the letter. They affirm the Trinity and the Deity of Christ and the 66 book canon of the Protestant consensus, it's not like they're calling themselves gods or saying Jesus is just Michael the Archangel.
EDIT: I should say that there are several more minor differences between Baptists and CoC, but the views on baptism would be the main one
i’ve been watching Zoomer for awhile and I always felt like there was a disconnect with his understanding of Pentecostalism and my Pentecostal denomination (Foursquare). your comment actually clears up so much for me so thank you
That may be so, but having a circle in a family tree is a big no-no.
여호와의 증인은 아리우스주의에 더 가깝기 때문에 어떤 면에서는 이슬람교와 다소 유사합니다.
@@adamandsethdylantoo...yeah...I was going to say that the churches of Christ have a few more key differences with the Baptists (the biggest one other than the key one you mentioned being the musical instruments dispute), but you're entirely right that the churches of Christ do doctrinally agree with the Nicene Creed despite their insistence on the Sola Scriptura "No creed but the Bible," and while they would agree with the "doctrinal accuracy" of the Nicene Creed (if pressed...hard), would decline to recite the writings of men.
I do think putting the churches of Christ and the Restoration Movement alongside the Mormons, JWs, Seventh Day Adventists, etc., is a *historically fair* grouping just because ALL of those groups grew out of movements in the U.S. in the 1800s with the Second Great Awakening (though the Restoration Movement really began in the late 1700s) as local movements that spread, and none of them grew fully or directly from any of the branches he's established.
You're totally right that, as he says earlier, the churches of Christ, along with most American evangelical groups, are more closely doctrinally connected to American Baptists than other branches.
I think he's tracing, in this video, the growth patterns and splits from older groups that can be traced in more of a straight line, and, in that way, the churches of Christ and the Restoration Movement spring up in KY and TN sort of on their own without branching from a specific origin point.
The Catholic and Apostolic church is the one true church 🇻🇦💪
Catholic = Universal ≠ Roman
The Catholic Church is the Root of the Tree, not a branch as Zoomer has shown. I which people would not listen the Protestant rhetoric when producing these materials and do their own scholarly research with ALL the materials available.
@@Corpoise0974 the universal Church submits to Rome. Only one Pope. The church was built on rock, not on sand.
@@brianbrachel4871 The Roman Church split from the tree in 451. Rome is not even the Apostolic see of Peter, Antioch is. Also im not protestant.
@@LuzianJ Not Biblical the Church the Bride and Christ is the bridegroom the Church is ment to submit to him not the Bishop of Rome.
22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
- Ephesians 5:23-24
Jesus says if any Apostle shall put himself first he shall be last. There is no cheif Apostle.
34 But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who would be the greatest. 35 And He sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.”
- Mark 9:34-35
The Rock is Peter's proclamation of faith, and not Peter himself.
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
- Mathew 16:16-18
The power of binding and loosing was not given only to Peter but to all other Apostles. All apostolic successors, bishops have this same authority.
18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
- Matthew 18:18
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
.
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Roman Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
.
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!
As a fundamentalist, I have long chuckled about how we are seen from the outside.
Our creed is very simple, all Christians must agree on five fundamental points.
1. The inerrancy of the scripture in its original form (not translations as they are all flawed by the translation).
2. The virgin birth and God born in the flesh.
3. Doctrine of Christ atonement on the cross (salvation).
4. The bodily resurrection of Christ.
5. Bodily second coming of Christ ( when he physically sets his foot upon the earth).
Beyond these fundamental points the rest are not important as to what constitutes the body of Christ.
Brother, I really appreciate the call to follow Christ at the end of your videos.
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.
Doesn't it all come Catholism?
Yeah
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.
Yes (I’m Catholic)
I very much support that but I respect his views on it
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.
The Church is The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. The remainder was selfish man starting their own gig copied off of the Catholic Church, changed to meet their selfish need. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli Wesley, Smith, Smyth, etc., etc. all showed up 1500 or more years later and people followed them like some today follows new sports teams.
You really need to stop including the Amish within mainstream Christian beliefs.
Why? Are they heretics?
@@brandonneilsta.teresa3494
They're definitely on that line, yes.
@@corporate.securitycan you explain pls
The Amish can be a very oppressive, non-christ-like society, and they tend to function more like a cult from time to time. For example, people typically shouldn't go back if they decide they want to live in the outside after their rumspringa; ostracizing ex-member is straight out of the cult activity textbook. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine that they do any outreach, given that they surround themselves by a would-be "Christian ghetto" (that is, 90% of the interactions they have are with like-minded people). It is difficult to carry out Matthew 28 18-20 under most circumstances but under those circumstances, perhaps nearly impossible.
@@corporate.securityafter the WACO incident i am hesistent to call ANYONE a cult, however, if you call them a Mafia, then i agree with you, as their organizations are very Mafia like.
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
I love your Viking picture.
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.
There is a similar restorationist movement in the UK that also began in the 1850s known as the Christian Brethren.
Good stuff brother, but is not the Catholic Church the “early church”… Peter in Rome and Mark in Alexandria just two examples
On the topic of the east/ west split at ~9:50, I think I side with the East. I'm gunna go look for the verse that makes me think so and come back...
Here, John 14:26 ESV
[26] "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom *the Father will send* in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."
Hey, I would really like if you could do a video on the Greek Catholic Churches (Romanian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, etc.).
Jan Hus, Czechia mentioned!!
At the time of 8:10 this commentator states that the Catholic Church ‘grew’ out of the Roman Empire…? He is seriously mistaken and lacks historical knowledge. He should have started out by stating that the Holy Roman Catholic Church was the first one. Every ‘branch’ that he mentioned is an off shoot of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church predates the Nicene council. Saint Iranaus was using the word "Catholic" to refer to the Church in the 100's A.D in his letters.
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 loved this video and found it very informative. Even though I am becoming a Catholic now after years of atheism, I agree with your defense of protestant churches being beautiful. My old church is one of the New England Congregational churches you mentioned, and it is lovely. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for the political banners that now hang in front of it.
If you ever make a new version of this video, I would find it helpful if you included dates for when these "splits" occurred.
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.
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.
This is the coolest channel, I've been watching and learning so much about God, thank you.
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.
@@daliborbenes5025 Thanks for the read, I got some from the wiki but this is a really nice complication of information.
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.*
2000 years of church history full of disagreements about what the Bible teaches is what lead to all... this.
Christ founded one Church and it is identifiable through the four marks of the Church as outlined in the Apostles Creed.
I think its very important to separate the term catholic (universal) church, from the Roman Catholic Church (the organization). Until the great schism, the term catholic really only meant universal church. Peter never called himself pope, the papacy (as an institution) was established long after the first century. Legitimizing the Roman Catholic Church by saying "we're the originals" is actively suggesting there are people who are worth more in the kingdom of Christ. God gave us his son and his teachings to follow, not a religious organization.
How do you follow someone if you aren’t given directions to do so. Tradition and scripture go hand in hand.
The Universal Church is The Roman Catholic Church. This can be traced Historically. They are one and the same.
@@heva2337 I fully agree that teaching the scripture is necessary. My point is that the argument “we’re the oldest and therefore the correct one” is #1: not a valid point, being the oldest just makes you the oldest, it is not a validating factor. And #2. Extremely egocentric and apathetic to your brothers and sisters in Christ who are not Catholic.
Thanks, brother. I am learning a lot from your videos. God bless you.
Nice video, I would only change one thing; the word Catholic belong on the trunk. Its not on a branch, its the trunk.
A nice history lesson. You really put a lot of time into this. A few facts that need to be clarified is your opening statement concerning the council of Nicaea. It was not a meeting of all the churches. It was overseen by Constatine (Roman Goverment) and his purpose was to meld the Greek philosophies with the Christianity movement as a political move for power. The Greeks believed in many Gods, the Christians in one true God. Make an acceptable doctrine they can all follow and you have yourself a political coup. Those who testified at this council against this new trinitarian view were expelled from the church. It was Rome's way or the highway! It is much like today's American political modern witch hunt. We have the media pushing the agenda to look at all of these indictements regarding President Trump, yet Hunter's laptop fiasco which involves President Biden's mis-dealings is a "nothing to look at here folks" issue. Any way you slice it, if you look for the truth, from the Bible itself, you will be left with one pink elephant in the room. The trinitarian doctrine, formed and ratified at the Nicean Council, is not Biblical. Yes, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost exist and are the very foundation of Christianity. The oneness is their work for our salvation. Jesus asked us to be one with Him as He is one with the Father. How can we all be one? How can we be God? How can we be Jesus? How can we be the Holy Ghost? We can't be, of course, but we can be one with them. That oneness is in like-mindedness, we give all glory to God the Father, just as Jesus did. That is what is Biblical. The apostle Paul clearly teaches us that we are the literal, not metaphysical, not esoterically, but the literal offspring of God the Father. Jesus is His firstborn. That distiguishment means there are more children that followed. Paul tells us that we are those children. God's mission is to save all mankind, all Jews, all Muslims, all Christians, etc. This all contradicts the niceen creed. Again, you will not find this creed in the Bible. It is man made, politically made, it is not biblical. One would have to tell a great lie to say that it is Biblical, to which I would ask for one standard of proof...show it to me in the Bible. It is not there. You ought to add a root of the modern reformationists like the Jehovah Witnesses, Christadelphians, Swedenborgians, Iglesisa ni Christo, and La Luz de Mundo in the restorationism taxonomic group and an offshoot at the base of the tree (before the Council of Nicaea) to represent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This would give a more acceptable representation of the Christianity family tree. As Christians, we all praise the one true God together. The difference is in how we do it. Let's all follow Paul's council to work together as a body of Christ to spread the Gospel, support each other, and have faith and hope in Christ and His redeeming power to reunite us with His (and our) Father in Heaven. Charity never fails! God bless us all.
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 !
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.
I’m an Italian/Greek Catholic. I can also confirm “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” is accurate 😅
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 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!!
Foursquare?
like the game?
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
@@mkv2718 ooh did not know there is a 4 square game?
@@mkv2718it’s a Pentecostal church
Same!!
What church can actually save you? Which church can actually guarantee heaven? Not one. Religion cannot save. Religion blinds people and gives people false hope of heaven. Sadly, most people in all these churches will end up in hell and the Lake fire. Not one of these churches will save anyone! Only Jesus Christ saves. If you want to be in heaven, repent of your sins, and trust Jesus Christ alone for your salvation, not your church.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
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.
very good video man. I appreciate your research into the history. When I was looking into churches I was amazed at how many people were in church just because of familiarity instead of doctrine. Baptists who honored saints and Catholics who avoided confession. I pray that through ecumenism all churches will return to full communion with each other and tradition can be restored for all.
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.
@@jovannikolic8032 Did you read the chapters I advised you to?
Do you still believe in apostolic succession, but reject that councils after the schism are ecumenical?
@@jovannikolic8032Who preserved and determined what’s canon in your bible?
Atheist here and I’ve been watching all of your videos! Very informative!
Very informative, but it would have been nice if you had included dates.
That was interesting, thank you for your work and interest. Do one that includes my church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints with the offshoots of that movement and the combination of some back into the Protestant flavors.
He left your church out because it is not a Christian church.
I think it interesting that some of the latter day saint restoration groups have joined with other groups that you might consider as Nicene Christians which your are correct I don't identify as that type fortunately for many, over past 2000 years, as they follow the Spirit of Christ will eventually accept Christ as the savior of ALL mankind past present and future. @@rob5462
@@halsmith7642
Ex Mormon here. It's not Christian.
@@jeffs4483 After I clarified that I agreed that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is clearly not a Nicene Christian Church, like most all others on this particular list. I found this well done presentation on "History of Christianity and 50+..." th-cam.com/video/8q6FUlay-M8/w-d-xo.html I was happy to see that Matt Baker had the same view as I did on the subject.
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
@@andrewhamblinglocal there is a charismatic Catholic Church movement in Australia that is Anglican-friendly and Protestant-friendly
Great video. Thank you for explaining all that 👍
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’m an Independent Fundamental Baptist. Separation from other (Liberal) Baptist. Fundamentalist meaning very conservative and old fashioned service. Mary is Mother of God, God did die on the Cross. 2 Natures in 1 person.
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
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
Esa iglesia no tiene denominacion. Normalmente ese tipo de iglesia tiene ideologia muy parecida a los bautistas pero no son.
@@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 😅
Thank you ... God bless you ... Keep it up ... Compilations brings out the underlying harmony running all along ...
You omitted other Catholic rites, like mine, Ukrainian Greek Catholic.
Byzantine, Maronite, Melkite, Syro-Malabar, Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, etc.
Imagine a musical like Hamilton but it's called "Lutheran" and it's about the Protestant Reformation