@@slumptrid I get you might be Orthodox, so of course you'd day this. But think, if you were a presbyterian, which denomination would be closer to what you believe? Imo the choice for him would be obvious.
Eh, that view is only held in certain congregations. While we certainly aren’t very ecumenical with other denominations, the stereotype of “WE ARE THE ONLY ONES GOING TO HEAVEN, NOT ANYONE ELSE!!!!!11” isn’t very true at all. There are some who think that way, but many who don’t. And the story that RZ told about how the restorationist movement started isn’t accurate either. Stone and Campbell just didn’t like how the other denominations were straying from the Bible and weren’t focused on unity, so they broke off from Presbyterianism and started the church/disciples of Christ, and asked to be referred to simply as Christians.
One of my biggest problems with RZ is that he will say Catholics strawman Protestants and then give the most slanderous bad faith take on Baptists. Edit: to clarify, I don’t think criticizing Baptists is wrong. But RZ strawmaned the hell outa baptists in this video for the purpose of a joke. (This is what he always gets mad at Catholics doing to him)
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tyYeah, as a Catholic he goes too hard on both, especially non denoms. I think it’s perfectly fine for them to keep existing even if the greater institutions are generally stronger for most people
At least non denoms are consistent unlike "Protestants" as Zoomed describes which basically boils down to "if they have apostolic succession they are Protestant" despite the fact that the other Apostolic churches would argue Protestants forfeit that succession when they went apostate.
@@Jhd306ck yeah the unfortunate thing is that nondenominationals get a bad rap because of people like Joel Olsteen. And apparently we are “disorganized” there is a huge difference between disorganized and decentralized. In my state (NM) the non denom crowd is huge. The main church is Calvary of Abq. We have 4 locations in nm, main campus is in Abq and we have 3 locations worldwide. Not to mention that we are a part of the larger Calvary chapel assoc. I honestly think nondenominationalism is the future of American Christianity - especially when looking at how the mainline churches are acting these days.
People in the magisterial Reformation like to think they're on solid footing because they can point at other Protestants and talk about how far away from Catholicism they are but they don't seem to realize that Catholics don't care whether you're really far away from them or kind of close. if you're not in submission to the Pope you're not a Catholic and it doesn't matter if your Lutheran or Anglican or non-denomination.
Church of Christ-er here. I can confirm that in general we take the Scripture very seriously. That said, we also can fall prey to stupid arguments that really don't matter at all, such as "Can our Church have a kitchen, or is that a Sin?" I have been fortunate to be in a quite moderate congregation, and I have loved watching RedeemedZoomer explain all these other churches and finding how often my local Church is quite similar to many of these other denominations. At the end of the day, I want to be a Christ Follower, and be able to work in the Kingdom with every other Christ Follower in the world. Thanks for covering our "denomination", even if our members will claim we aren't one. 😜
@SoesbeeTX Yes! I was always taught that the name on the building doesn't matter, it is following Jesus in Faith. I know some CoC members act like they are the only faithful Christians, but that is man's error, and not a part of our tradition. God bless all my Brothers and Sisters who place their lives in Christ!
I've actually been reconsidering my stance on this, but that is a pretty common belief in CoC. Since it is not explicitly commanded, and since baptism is an appeal to God for a clean conscience (1st Peter 3:21), most I'm our faith will say that infants can't appeal to God, and choose to follow him, so an infant baptism doesn't count. In my walk, I am starting to lean more heavily on the Faith aspect. If a Christian reads the Bible and says, "my baptism doesn't line up with what I read" I would want them to rebaptize. On the flipside, the one who reads and has faith that his baptism was as Our Lord commanded, then I'm not going to condemn him. I think you can go to far in either direction, and the CoC is definitely on the very strict side of that pendulum. What do you think of infant baptism?
The Pope is evil. As far as growing up at St John’s United Church of Christ, I found that no one seemed to mention salvation or that Jesus was returning. I had to go to different churches for more information.
I go to a church of Christ. The name “church of Christ” is used because “the Church” is referred to as that in the Bible. While some people may have a “only we’re gonna be saved” view, many people do not. Churches of Christ don’t consider themselves a denomination, as there is not a stated unity in beliefs, such as a creed or confession, between the congregations. There are going to be some differences between some congregations, but they tend to agree on most things. The goal of churches of Christ is to “restore” the church to how it operated in the first century. They will typically believe that the Bible is clear, so if you have a question about how the church should operate, it’ll be clearly in the Bible. Every person I’ve met at a church of Christ believes in the Trinity. What you call the motto of churches of Christ, “no creed but Christ,” and whatever the other thing you said was is something that I have never heard in a church of Christ. I heard it on this channel and the channel Ready to Harvest first. Infant baptism is not practiced because there is no explicit example of that happening in the Bible. I have also never met someone who goes to a church of Christ that believes one is born deserving of damnation due to the sin of Adam, so there is no reason for the baptism of infants. I have also never met anyone that truly believes the church “died out.” Now I have disagreements with some doctrines that tend to be present in churches of Christ, such as the view of communion as just a symbol, but despite that and any other disagreements that I may have, I would recommend attending one. I can best justify, using the Bible, the most things that a church of Christ usually does more than I can with any other group.
Very good summary and representation of beliefs, especially on baptism and the trinity, coming from a fellow member of a Church of Christ. I have never heard any member say that the church has ever “died out”, nor that no one of denominations will be saved, but the emphasis is just on returning to scriptural authority. Book, chapter, verse for every doctrine because the scripture is what God has given us, and we have no reason to add to or take away from it.
I will add; θεοῦ, meaning God, is the Greek. In the New Testament churches were rendered "church of God", "church of the living God" or were named after their location; for instance, "church of Ephesus", "church of the Laodiceans", "church of the Thessalonians". "Church of Christ" isn't the same but, considering Jesus Christ is God incarnate and represents God fully, it is appropriate. Similar to the baptist church in the sense that they're both going for the non-denominational and biblical approach. However, Church of Christ seems more legalistic from what I've gathered. That is unbiblical if true. We need another like Paul to go around, teaching and rebuking the churches like the days of old. Bless you Paul and brothers, bless you! I love you all.
@@blissseeker4719 “churches of Christ” appears in Romans 16:16. I see it as more of a, “we know what these guys were being told is right, so let’s just stick to that,” than a legalistic thing. Or at least that’s how I approach it. I can’t speak for everyone else.
@@handsomedevil4928 the church of Christ indeed! So it does appear, marvellous, thank you! Now, as for this church do tell me - do they hold to some higher authority outside of Jesus Christ, contrary to scripture? Because I believe they get soteriology very wrong and I think if they say, for instance, you can't teach a doctrine of salvation more in line with calvinist or baptist, they are welcome to their view and for discussion but, that is all. If they hold to their own personal creed, they have already fallen away and their attempt at revival is half-hearted in my eyes. What do you think?
@@blissseeker4719 I would say that churches of Christ have the strictest form of sola scriptura, so strict they wouldn’t even call it that. So they do not hold to their own personal creed, being that they don’t have any creeds. The soteriology that you you will generally see is, hear, believe, confess that belief (Acts 8:37), repent (Acts 2:38), be baptized (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, every conversion in Acts since they all include baptism), and live faithfully. What a preacher would be allowed to preach is gonna differ from congregation to congregation. The elders at each congregation decide on a preacher, and the preacher usually isn’t an elder, but there is nothing permitting. The current preacher where I go is a deacon. I haven’t ever seen the inner workings of what I’m about to say or attended a congregation where this happened so this kind of guess work, but if the elders felt that what the preacher taught is contrary to what the Bible teaches (which is what most of them would likely think about one who teaches Calvinism or salvation as baptists teach it), then I think they’d first talk to the preacher and try to discuss it with him, and then if he opposed the church leadership, I don’t think he’d keep preaching there. They wouldn’t prevent him from attending, but he wouldn’t preach there any longer. Now the reason each congregation is usually governed by elders/overseers is because that is because that is what Acts, Philippians, 1 Timothy, and Titus lay out. Like I said in my original comment, I do not agree with everything that is you will usually see taught at a church of Christ, but I do agree with a decent portion. But the response I gave was my attempt at giving an impartial view at what you will generally see, and what most of those who go to one will generally think. I hope this was helpful.
If someone vandalized Van Gogh's starry night, we would try to restore the painting back to what it originally was. We wouldn't try to make the painting again from scratch. We would try to remove the additional paint that was sprayed on by the vandals and get back to what was originally there. It would be completely unfair to call that restorationist someone who was trying to remake starry night from scratch. Also, it would be kind of weird to try to reform the graffiti of the Vandal into something that seemed like it fit with the original painting pretty well.
Amen one minute RZ says the restoration movement tried to recreate the church from scratch, the next he says they emphasize biblical authority. That's not from scratch, that's building in the foundation of the apostles with Christ as the cornerstone.
I agree. The Reformation didn't reform the church nearly enough. The restorationists got way closer to the "original", but inevitably created some new traditions of their own, by going further than scripture does in some areas. Also, it's not enough to just look at how a movement started. Every church has a responsibility to continually check themselves and see where they have accidentally left the biblical way - and keep reforming/restoring themselves, just as a homemaker must continue to sweep floor and clean the bathroom even after spring cleaning is over, since dust keeps building up over time. How absurd would it be to cling to the new dust and call it clean and wholesome, since it's sitting on a clean surface...
That's what I noticed: "Protestants aren't responsible for non-denominationalism and church fracturing, but Churches of Christ are responsible for the heresies of Jehovah's Witnesses and early Seventh-Day Adventists." Similar to how he'll say that the poverty of Eastern Europe is due to it being Orthodox, but Calvinism has no responsibility for historic Calvinist countries (the Netherlands, Scotland, Switzerland, New England) being some of the most liberal and secularised countries in the world. Maybe I'm just being bitter, but while he criticises Orthodox for idolising their church (and as an Orthodox person, I do think some converts are more interested in Tradition than in Christ, and that's a serious problem) he seems committed to deflecting any criticism from classical Protestantism.
@@calebwheeler8143 As an evangelical, I totally agree. It seems to me that RZ is more than willing to point out every problem with every denomination except his own. He seems like the textbook example of someone who will look for the speck in another person's eye instead of noticing the log in their own eye. And I say that as someone who has enjoyed his content for a long time.
@@JDthegamer209 Must be particularly hard for you, seeing as one of his favourite ways of defending Protestantism is throwing low-church Protestantism under the bus. And I say this as a former Evangelical.
0:39 Comparing using "Christ" in the name of your church to things like "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea" had me rolling with laughter... Especially as a former member of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" LOL
This video really wasn't very good. You talked more about Catholics, Presbyterians, and Baptists individually more than you actually did the chruch of Christ (like 80% of the video isn't even about the church of Christ) and your whole argument seems to be "the church didn't die out + OTHER churches who aren't the church of Christ are heretical therefore sus". I've been to church of Christ and it seriously seems like you did no actual research on this church. They believe that the actual followers of Christ are the church, with Christ himself being the head; rather than a building or an organization. Not this whole "muh pastor Billy Bob making the church from scratch" thing you described. Also, no. They don't deny the Trinity. You say "it's not clear if they're heretical" but honestly I feel like that's moreso you just not actually looking at what they believe that anything else. Also, church of Christ doesn't believe baptism alone saves. Baptism, works, and faith saves. You have a lot of good videos but this seriously isn't one of them
I’m not Church of Christ but this is a good comment. I didn’t learn anything about the COC from this video. Plus the comment about non-denominational churches being a sin was beyond the pale.
Fr. This came off more as a prideful rant than an actual informative video. He made no effort to come to an actual understanding of what CoC or Non-denoms actually believe, and instead just harshly and unfairly judged them based on his mental stereotypes of them. He can make a good video but he can also just be an absolute snob.
@@isaacsingleton9187 I 100% agree with you here. This wasn't a well thought-out video at all and RZ didn't really explain any of his claims all that well. It came across more like a rant than an actual explanation of why he isn't CoC.
There are many modern CoC’s who don’t believe the church ever truly died out, but that the CoC is the most biblically accurate church. Besides its origins and the claim that the church entirely died out and needed to start from scratch (I grew up CoC and never met anyone who believed that), what other theological differences would you say you stand out the most to standard Christianity? (Besides baptismal regeneration, which was mentioned already)
Now that redeemed zoomer is covering more obscure denominations I can finally have my dream be fulfilled of having him acknowledging my denomination (Quakers)
@@billotron5521we don’t have any former clergy or priest instead we believe that god can enlighten all people to speak his word and until someone is compelled to speak it act by the spirit we remain in silence(this is true for most of us what I just described is un programmed worship some meetinghouses something called semi programmed worship where there is parts of a formal liturgy and parts of unprogrammed worship), we believe in the equality of all people and becuae of this we where one of the few groups in early America to have peaceful relations with the Native Americans, we helped abolish slavery and we where I think the first group to allow women to speak in church. While these are not enforced it’s common for friends(the official name of Quakers) to place personal restrictions upon themselves which often are things like not smoking or drinking alcohol, dressing plainly and pacifism.
I was really disappointed with this video. Usually when I watch RZ I’m actually able to learn something new about other Christians, but I felt like this time he wasn’t even accurate with what he was saying about church of Christs. I don’t think it’s absurd to worship and behave based on Jesus’s teachings and His teaching alone. Also I know that there are very legal institutions that take the one cup, kitchen thing, or hair length very seriously, but you have to realize that the majority of churches of Christ aren’t like that. Also I think it is insanity to call non-denominationalism a sin. Jesus didn’t want a church with such emphasis on traditions and creeds and creeds and stuff and criticized people like the Pharisees for it. ( I think the majority of churches are guilty of this including the church of Christ AND EVEN Presbyterians. Mathew 18:20: For wherever two or three gather in my name, there I am with them. Sorry if I messed anything up this comment wasn’t as organized as I would’ve liked! This is just my understanding as a sixteen year old Edit: I guess what I’m trying to say is that we can still be good people and good followers of Jesus despite all of these arguments. We worship Jesus not the traditions. I think that it is wrong to say being non denominational is a sin and I think that it is wrong to say being orthodox is a sin. And I still don’t see the problem with someone literally starting a church in their backyard. We can choose different denominations and still not be divided. I will personally be church of Christ though.
No! In fact, as he partially alluded to Presbyterians traditionally believed in the regulative principle of worship (the teaching of scripture regulates how worship should be done) but most modern presbies have watered that down, churches of Christ continue to uphold that principle with fervour.
Fine but that is not what the Reformation was about and you completely ignored that central point. Luther, Melancthon, Calvin and Cranmer are very clear in their writings that they are going back to the sources to retrieve the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith. They were not trying to ignore all of Church history and larp as people from the 1st century. You are heirs to the radicals who wanted to start the Church from Year Zero (A Year Zero that always starts again every generation) as if the Holy Spirit was sleeping on the job.
@clivejungle6999 claiming they were "going back to the sources to retrieve the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith" implies that faith had been corrupted, and they needed to go back to the authentic gospel with accretions removed. I get that this is is done and taken to different degrees, but the spirit of the reformation does have a restorationist aspect. What sources do you have in mind other than the bible? Even the creeds were written and produced primarily by bishops who taught synergism, asceticism, and other teachings that the Lutheran and Calvinistic reformers rejected to different degrees.
@clivejungle6999 Because of the cessationism of the churches of Christ we acknowledge that the 1st century church had a different dynamic as to how the churhc should operate after that period due to the presence of the Apostles and the formative years of scripture. A pentecostal might be closer to the attitude you have in mind. We would also say that there were always faithful in every age, but that what is viewed as the mainline church, in other words Roman and Eastern Christianity has been polluted with syncretism and had apostasized, the historicist polemics of Calvin and his followers certainly bare a similar view, even in ways that are more extreme than we would teach. For example churches of Christ do not typically identify Babylon with the RCC today because of a partial preteristic model of Revelation, however, historically "the magisterial protestants" did teach that.
@@mr8282humble “I am not creating new opinions. Nor do I believe that any greater crime can be committed in the church than to play games by inventing new ideas, departing from the prophetic and apostolic Scripture and the true consensus of the church of God." Melancthon, Loci Communes 1543 - You are either on board with that project or you are not. And if you are not, then you are only Protestant in a media lingo sense. That was the point he was making. Restorationism is saying the Church established by the Apostles and guided by the Holy Spirit failed and so we are going to start again as though it is one day after the death of the Apostle John. Which is why everything has to be invented again, all of the ideas are new ideas. All the NT texts show a Church led by Apostles and people who worked closely with Apostles. How are you going to get that back? If you want to start something new, then have some pride and honesty and do so. Stop pretending you are doing otherwise.
I go to a church of Christ (why cause I’m 15 and my dad is a part of it) and I’ve gotta say, the people in the church I’m in, which is a fairly larger church, is some of the best Christian’s I’ve met. Almost every church I’ve gone to in the past the youth is almost never devout about their faith, but at the church im at everyone is, it’s a breath of fresh air. I’m not saying I agree with everything they believe or have views on, but at the end of the day they have Christ in their heart. Also to my knowledge the COC’s modern day view is not saying “everyone is wrong and we started from scratch” it is more or so “we take what we see from the Bible and apply it.” Though I heavily disagree with the whole no creeds and confessions thing, at the end of the day they spread the gospel and are some of the most devout people I’ve met
As a fellow member, I fully agree with this! There are some, like with every denomination, the believe we are the "one true church." However, we are not the one true denomination, and I would also say that I don't believe in the no creeds and confessions thing, but we also are simply trying to emulate the oldest church, and I wish we would use the early Church writings more often.
Me too! I grew up CoC and nobody believed the church went to total disaster and needed to be rebooted. And everyone I meet has been incredible and kind, quite very amazing people compared to a lot of other churches. I say I also agree they just believe to be the most true to scripture in terms of belief.
The stone Campbell movement was never associated with the Mormons or Adventists. They did all occur in the Second Great Awakening, but there was no split from SC into Millerites or LDS. The Christadelphians did branch off from the CoC, however, and they are heretical.
@@Michiganman800 Both Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell saw how denominations argued and fought amongst each other and wanted to reject denominations to achieve Christian unity. That is why the groups from this movement don't see themselves as denominations
There is some overlap with the LDS and church of Christ. I cannot remember his name, but Brigham Young was chosen over him as the leader of the LDS after the death of Joseph Smith.
Dude, sorry but you completely missed the mark on this one. The Stone Campbell restoration movement has pretty much NOTHING to do with SDA, LDS, or JWs. They only happened to be started in the same time period. Sda started because someone supposedly had a vision, LDS started because Joseph Smith “found” gold plates, I’m honestly not sure how the JWs started, but I know it had nothing to do with the CoC. The restoration movement started because Stone and Campbell saw the disunity of the church, so they(former Presbyterian clergy) started their own presbytery called the Springfield presbytery. Then, realizing that they were completely contradicting their goal of unity by creating another denomination, they dissolved the Presbytery with “the Last will and testament of the Springfield Presbytery” And started calling themselves simply “Christians” and based what they did solely on the Bible, calling other Christians to do the same. They weren’t trying to start a church from scratch, they were trying to unite Christianity based on the first century church.
YES! "Not👏the👏only👏Christians👏 but Christians only." The Restoration movement is not building Christianity from scratch. I'm really disappointed with RZ's misinformation on this topic. He's just conflating the restoration movement with Mormonism.
Plot twist: Redeemed Zoomer is secretly Pentecostal but he pretends to be Reformed online to avoid getting backlash from cessationists. This line was a Freudian Slip. (Source: I made it up)
Ok dude you seriously can't just anathematize non denominationalism. The fact that you place denominations that openly affirm and teach heresy in a seat of honor while condemning churches that are faithful to the Bible and more similar to the mainline churches of yesteryear than yours is sick and revolting. You insist on institutions as much as the Pharisees and Sadducees and you place tradition in a higher place than God's word. Do you ever wonder why Jesus did not come as a human high priest or teacher of the Law ? Because God has chosen the lowly and despised things, the things that are not to shame the things that are. I hope you are able to attend a non-denominational church one day and see how much more the Spirit has sovereignly chosen to move among these ones you have ansthematized than in your own denomination
I love a lot of what you do, man! I’ve covered you on my small channel before. I do think you have some key misunderstandings about the church of Christ. Most of the discussion I’ve heard is that surely the true church doesn’t need to be perfect, and has existed in some form, however big/small. We just believe that the image in Scripture of what the church is/does has been lost on so many, and we need to get back to the Bible, while not depending on fallible creeds that might and often do slow us down from getting there. I think most of what you’d hear me or other preachers say is pretty reasonable. I am sure you’re busy and it’s a long shot, but I’d love to talk with you, or direct you to men I know who are much more capable than I who’d love to talk. Not even on my channel or anything like that. I just respect you a lot and feel honored you’ve even taken the time to address the churches of Christ!
0:00 Going to start off by saying a few things. 1. I am a member of the church of Christ. 2. I'm a gamer/game-designer, so seeing the MC in the bg is kinda cool. I play with my kids as often as I'm able. 3. Generally speaking, I saw that there were some commonalities between us, which is a good foundation to build on. 4. First watch-through, I heard a lot of misconceptions which I will correct as I move through the video again. I know of you from X and your interactions with others there, but I don't know you that well, so this next comment isn't personal, just from general experience with others on YT. I'm hoping these comments are allowed to stand. Seeing other members of the church here indicates that you will likely be the kind that does let my comments stand, and that gives me hope for future interactions. I'm also burning my candle at both ends these days so my comments will be typed as I have time to make them. They will likely not be all done in one day.
0:36 - denomination is a modern word for sect. The word sect in Greek is hairesis (αἵρεσις) which is the same word Paul uses in Acts 24v15 that is translated as "heresy". So while you may consider yourself part of a heretical group, the churches of Christ do not. 0:51 - so if a church has a Biblical name, that's sketchy, but if a church has a non-Biblical name, that's not?
1:26 here is the first major flaw in your analysis. It shows that you have a gross ignorance of what the church of Christ is and that you probably shouldn't be talking about it in the first place. The church of Christ did not begin in the 1800's in America with the Campbells and Stone. This is what the αἵρεσις like to claim because it makes them look less "sus", but it's false. The churches of Christ existed throughout history alongside first proto-Catholicism, Catholicism, and later the Protestant movement. The Campbells learned from others in England. There are people like Simon Fish and the Bow Lane church of Christ from the 1500's. Before that, the evidence exists that the churches were among those persecuted by the Catholic church for rejecting their authority, lumped in among other groups accused of all manner of heresy. The consistency found is that they had only local, autonomous congregations (rejected Rome's authority), baptized believers for the remission of sins, rejected Mariology, rejected transubstantiation and the Real Presence, and so on. For a quick reference, check out the reference charts Springhouse has made here: springhousecharts.com/the-medieval-church-of-christ/ You can also look at Traces of the Kingdom by Keith Sissman.
1:29 No. Your definitions and understanding of the churches of Christ are way off. The Restoration was not about creating a new faith from scratch. You bring up Ben Shapiro, ironically, later. It's literally in the name. We call men to restore their faith to the original NT faith, not reform a broken, corrupt one. Our goal is for men to strip away all the ugly, self-serving additions and changes man has made and just be part of what Christ originally built, bought, and cleansed with His blood. To argue that it is a new religion when the whole point of our faith is to go back to the original is to shoot with the accuracy of a Stormtrooper!
5:27 False. The Restoration Movement doesn't include 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, or anyone other than the churches of Christ, Christian Churches, and Disciples of Christ. Again, RZ is showing either a gross lack of historical knowledge here about the subject he is talking about, or he is purposefully lumping the church of Christ in with other groups that we both agree are erroneous to score points with the interwebs.
That bit about Presbyterians being the smartest was absolutely wild for me man. Maybe it was a joke, but it didn't come across that way at all. It smacks of both pride and following fallen men over Jesus. When I considered myself Baptist I never ran around saying that "Charles Spurgeon is the smartest, most Godly man who ever lived and therefore we Baptists are the best." It just never crossed my mind. And if I said something like that I would definitely get called out hard for that, and rightly so. I think there's much to be proud about with Presbyterian tradition. Many righteous men of God come from that Christian tradition, with many beautiful traditions. I particularly love the Scottish Psalter which was first utilized by the Scottish Covenanters and is still used by some Presbyterians to this day. So, I'm not asking for you or anybody else to stop glazing, but humility needs to be utilized. On the note of traditional Presbyterians why don't you join them and help them build up? If they are traditional isn't that what you want? I would think they probably also have nice buildings and they are not heterodox like many PCUSA. Revelation 18 talks about fleeing from Babylon. It's one thing to just give up a denomination in the midst of the fight for it, but were all the people in the 19th and 20th centuries cowards because they lost their fights against liberals and had to separate? Which is more traditional Traditional Psalm singing in a run down church, or gay pride flags in beautiful cathedrals?
As a Catholic, I will never become protestant, but I still can respect that high church protestants have so degree of historical traditions, but man, I don't think I can take any more baptist preachers spouting heresy condemned 1,500 years ago. It's tiring.
When I was in Boy Scouts, my troop was chartered with the local Church of Christ. In practice, they seemed to essentially be Baptists who didn't use instruments during worship. Nice people.
Look I am not a general fan of non denominational but you need to show more kindness and humility there and avoid nasty blanket generalizations. You hit 99% of the time, but the 1% misses stick with people and gives people license to dismiss you. Kind of like how some of JMac's comments get him rightly dragged like in your video here.
I totally agree and I think this is one of RZ's major blind spots. It really undermines his credibility when his understanding of CoC, Non-Denominationals, Baptists, etc. are mostly informed by stereotypes about them and not on what the average person from those groups is like. He really needs to do his research on those groups more before continuing to give his public opinions on them.
Zoomer, can you please do different denominations portrayed by their music? Like go over the type of music each denomination offers and play a little bit of a song that represents said denomination? As a Catholic, I would like to have the national anthem of Vatican City there. Here’s the song, btw. th-cam.com/video/519Xtbs_4Ys/w-d-xo.htmlsi=OjOEkJrKeJ-KhSN9
Unfortunately, a lot of Non-Denom Christians think about Protestantism as a whole as a restorationist movement. When I was young, my family was in the ICOC for a bit.
what if i were to say that the early church fathers didn't use instruments because they didn't have access to them? in early judaism they would have instrumental songs in worship directly to God, played by harp or whatever other instruments the hebrews used, as a fairly advanced nation at the time. on the other hand, early christianity started at a time where they were under oppression and didn't have direct access to all these fancy instruments and stuff. modern instruments didn't come until years later, when they began to have more access among people.
A lot of it had to do with contemporary context. Early fathers condemned the organ as unsuitable because of its use at pagan games (including those that martyred Christians) and festivals. Fast forward a millennium, and without that background the Church sees the organ as especially appropriate for worship music.
Yes. And it seemed to me that the churches in America, that didn't want instruments in church, were started on the frontiers where there wasn't easy access to musical instruments, and no money for them either.
Thank you for making this video. Each Church of Christ (not church of Christ) are autonomous congregations with varying doctrinal positions. The only common belief between them is that the Bible is infallible and everything else is fallible hence the part about the Nicene Creed. Because of this, it is difficult to describe exactly what you would get when entering a church. Generally you will find the following things: financial autonomy (although sending “the church’s money” externally is common, but only in ways seen in the Bible), weekly communion on Sunday, no instruments during worship service (not observed in the Bible), belief that baptism saves but is a personal choice (as depicted in the Bible) hence why babies shouldn’t be baptized by their parents, generally very conservative, open to criticism about teachings (many lessons end with a version of “please come to me after services if you have any questions or concerns”, and a very strong sense of community. Every service (typically 2-3 a week) is attended by most members and most members arrive 10-15 minutes early and stay 20-30 minutes late to socialize with members and visitors. It is also very common to have multiple visitors each session as it is a common belief that traveling does not excuse you from worshipping and you should find a church to attend. Love the videos, keep them coming.
My mother in law is a church of christ member and my wife grew up in that church. My wife converted to the Catholic Church, and my mother in-law treats us both terribly.
People can tend to be more loyal to a denomination that they person the pretend to follow. Or they get blind and have loyalty to the denomination because of their devotion to the beliefs they hold. My great grandmother Sue on my Father's side had been a member of the Slovic Cathlic church all her life, as was the custom of many Slavic countries for year and still is. She had left the Catholic persuasion when her and her daughters were left to fend for themselves and the Catholic church did not help. But the local Baptists missionaries came to help when she and her three daughters, had to live in a one room house while the Baptists came along. She then decided that the Baptists persuasion could do no wrong, but that's not healthy. My grandmother form Ukrainian decent married my grandfather of polish decent, both raised Catholic, but he chose to be Baptists for his own personal beliefs, I think to own his faith and not his parents. So then my dad was raised Baptist as well, but at the time the Catholic church was still speaking in Latin during services. For Polish and Uraikian imagrants, living in America during thr 30s 40s 50s and 60s, that is not helpful. It was easier to go to an English speaking Baptist church to learn the new language and speak the chosen home language of polish at home, than it was to keep track of Latin, when it was only used in services. My Father did not retain as much Polish as it was probably hoped, but he still chose to be Baptist. That became a funny situation, when my Old man as I call him when to visit extended family in Poland, Grandfather's siblings children, and was asked by an elderly family member what kind of chirtian he was, and she decided to half scowel when he told her he was Baptist, but smile warmly when she heard he was also Catholic. Sometimes when. My dad tells the story, it seems like my grandfather left the Catholic church after he married my grandmother, or there were some Catholic beliefs and practices thar he never stopped having though he was a Baptist. My dad has a small Pic of the First and Only Polish Pope, but he is still Baptist at heart, even though we attend a Non denomination. Zoomer used to say Non denoms and Baptists were just the same except for the few differences. I personally have that experience. But I choose to view things like my Aunt Barb, who has been to every major denomination church theoufh her life partly because she wanted to remarry at one point and it never worked out and partly because she said there is something of value each denomination has to offer, when it come to the differences of beliefs and worship, as long as they hold to christ the smaller differences can be refreshing and humbling. Plus it's good to have less personal ignorance to due ones own experiences, rather than soley relying on second hand information. So I see your nother in laws behavior as an attitude issue that's too common but, it should not get in the way of the choices you and your wife make along the way.
That’s any denomination leaving another denomination. A devout Catholic who thinks the Catholics teach the most accurately would be disappointed with their offspring going to another denomination. A devout Reformed Baptist who thinks the Reformed teach the most accurately would be disappointed with their offspring going to another denomination. A devout Eastern Othpdox who thinks the Orthodox teach the most accurately would be disappointed with their offspring going to another denomination.
"it's sick to not pursue unity with the Body of Christ" I think he doesn't understand the entire point of non-denominationalism. You are the ones deciding to split yourselves off from other bodies of Christ, we are saying, denomination doesn't matter. Only Christ matters. You focus on trying to be right, we focus on just everyone getting together and worshipping God.
As a Trad Catholic who was formerly in a Dutch Reformed church, I understand why RZ wants to differentiate between technical Protestants (coming from the Reformation) and non-Reformation "Protestants" (the "I'll just start my own church" crowd). There truly are substantive differences in these denominations. It is also true that some Catholics do strawman the Protestant position by generalizing all Protestants as if they were as bad as the most fringe denominations, and that is unhelpful at best and more probably needlessly divisive, in addition to being factually incorrect. However, because Catholics see legitimacy through the lens of right authority, in a very real sense there is an understanding among Catholics that there is "Catholic" and then there is "everyone else," since Catholics believe that only the Catholic Church has substantive claims of real episcopal authority. From a technical standpoint, according to the standards that had long been in existence prior to the Reformation, any church in schism is outside of the Church in some way. It is only by loosening the standards (Who needs bishops? Elder is good enough for me), or by fabricating a novel means of deriving authority (Sola Scriptura, personal revelation, etc) that one can claim to be in the Church yet not be in communion with Rome. So for a Catholic to say that all non-Catholic churches have just about the same level of authority (which is to say, no authority) is not necessarily a strawman, since generally speaking you are either in good standing with the Catholic Church or you aren't, from a technical standpoint. Catholics also agree that words have meaning, which is why it is always interesting for us to see a Sola Scriptura Protestant using the terms heresy, schism, and excommunication to indict another Protestant as it relates to their church's "authority structure" when these words from the beginning had been used to refer to union or disunion with the only Church, and both the accused and accusing parties in this scenario were and are still in active disunion regardless of their denomination. Heresy as a term has particularly been watered down so as to essentially be meaningless, since there is little agreement amongst the Protestant denominations regarding what constitutes it outside of perhaps the Reformed churches, which do have a close consensus on things doctrinally speaking (and which I would definitely agree are in their own class of Protestantism). So while it would be wrong to ignore the substantive differences between denominations, the Catholic "strawman" is not necessarily a strawman when understood rightly; scholastic and honest disagreement about the merits of competing authority claims aside. A strawman is only a strawman if it is a mischaracterization, and mere differences of opinion are not strawmen.
Good points, but some break away from the original Reformation churches because of their change in fundamental teaching, such as on the definition of marriage. For example, many Anglican churches in Africa are moving to break away from the Church of England for their stance on same-sex marriage. Although the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, God judges the heart and those that die in friendship with Him will live forever.
@@Shawn-nq7du I agree, and I want friendship with God both for myself and for my Protestant brothers and sisters. I think it is the teaching of the Church that perfect contrition is acceptable even without the Church, and of course the Church makes no comment on whether someone is definitively saved or not, since the sovereignty and knowledge of God combined make His prerogative in this matter unsearchable. As it has also been my experience that, as Bp. Fulton Sheen once remarked, that "there are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be," I have a great hope that many who reject the Church will not be held accountable for their ignorance, although I have no way of knowing this for sure, of course. I do trust that God will be perfectly fair and righteous in whatever His judgment is for all people, including me. It is a strange thing indeed to see groups break away from larger religious entities who seem to have lost their way in order to become *more* orthodox (lower case o - meaning traditional and doctrinally sound), but it is a heartening thing perhaps, since people are waking up to the fact that something is wrong. As a Catholic I am biased and I hope for their sake and for the sake of the Church that in their searching they rediscover the beauty, goodness and truth of Catholicism.
@@Matthew_Prescott I think and pray many will be saved. As one of the early church father’s said, there are those on the roles of the Church that are really not in the Church and those that are outside of the Church that are really in the Church (paraphrasing). There are so many people throughout the world who are serving God the best they can as they know how. I, too, trust God’s judgement when he separates the wheat from the chaff. His mercy is greater than his justice. As the psalmist says, give thanks to the Lord, for he is good for his mercy endures forever.
@@Procopius464 That may be (I don't actually know, and definitely need to do a lot more research regarding the OO), but right teaching authority is about more than just living in the same actual place, and while Apostolic succession is absolutely major and completely necessary, it's also about more than that too. It's also about institutional structure and function, and compliance with, submission to, and legitimacy of the same. Christ speaks a lot about the Church He founds in Scripture, and it's overwhelmingly about the structure, function, and purpose of the Church, as opposed to where the Church will physically be. The guarantees we get are not geographical (if this is what is meant by contiguous). That said, I imagine that the cultural closeness afforded by geographical closeness must have both produced and preserved an incredible liturgy and rich tradition. Ultimately though, rejection of the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon is a rejection of the work explicitly given to the Church by Christ, even if the doctrinal differences which led to and resulted from the schism between the CC and OO are almost mere trifles by the standards of the modern absurdities we have witnessed in ultra-liberal Protestantism.
As someone who is non-denominational, this isn't us. We are not heretical and are clearly more descended from protestant denominations. Granted, by the nature of being ND, we are not all the same. I can just speak from experience.
so if i’m understanding you right, the only way to have authority to start a new denomination/tradition is to be kicked out by a pre-existing one? genuinely trying to wrap my mind around all of this
So splitting from a church is bad but he won't openly condemn people who kick others out of their churches. Not saying you shouldn't kick people out of churches for fundamentally disagreeing with you, but I will point out the hypocrisy and incoherency of that argument...
@@ScottRidesHonda I also thought that Luther was the main one excommunicated from the Catholic church whereas the other reformers who went on to head up new denominations (Presbys, etc.) were just unreconcilable differences in doctrine between Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin and then for Anglicans that was just the King of England not wanting to submit to Rome and starting his own church, apparently that’s OK? I realize there’s a lot I still don’t know but the conclusions i’ve heard from what I do know just don’t add up to me.
@inthefurnace just seems like huge cope argument in which all he says is that he's right because he says he is right and he is either incapable or not willing to actually make an argument. It's intellectually dishonest to say the least.
You're saying that Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, 7th Day Adventists, (along with the CoC) are true to scripture?!?!?!? That is as far from reality as anyone can get!!!!
Apostolic succession doesn't work that way. You have to not only be part of an unbroken line from the Apostles, you have to receive the same sort of office and ministry from that line. All Protestants fail at the latter.
Your comparison to the Judah/Israel split is accidentally apt. Almost immediately after splitting from Judah, Israel set up their own temple and started worshipping an idol. (1 Kings 12:25ff)
@@jvoges I am agreeing with @jdotoz Northern Israel was punished for it's sin, from this point referred to as "the sin of Jehoshaphat" the prophets go into hiding (see Obadiah, and the prophets in the Elijah narrative), and Elijah is told that a remnant of 8000 exist. The people of God fell out of power and resisted the institutional split in Israel. God would punish both Judah and Israel eventually for its sin.
The notion that it’s “sus” or indicative of something wrong for us to simply call ourselves a name that the church is called in the Bible in Romans 16:16 confuses me. Calling yourself a Bible name is a far cry from calling yourselves the “Supreme Ultimate Mega Holy 5000 Church” or something like that 😂
@@redeemedzoomer6053 yes everything that isn't perfect is sin but you recommend ppl go to Lutheran and Anglican churches (i go to a LCMS one) but even though you don't completely agree with these traditions, you dont call out people that are going to these as behaving sinfully. are people that go to non-denom churches that much more incorrect that they should be called out as behaving sinfully? even they are it seems like you would have to do the same for other traditions but dont which is inconsistent.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 I just ask you be careful with the way you call other denominations out. There are many who would claim you would be sinning for staying in the PCUSA because of how liberal it has gone, and I can’t imagine you would like that. If you want to change peoples mind, hostility will not change their mind. So I say this as someone who would love to see your channel grow more, please watch how you phrase certain things.
I grew up in the church of christ and we absolutely do believe in the trinity. As for the nicene creed, the only line that we might contest would be the line about the single catholic church but only because most of us don't know what the word "catholic" actually means.The "no instruments" rule, is part of the reason why I no longer consider myself CoC. I prefer a cappella, and I hate "worship concerts", but the assertion that God rejects musical instruments is blatantly rejected in multiple passages. As for the claim that "the original church died out and was recreated by campbell", that was never something that I was taught. If anything, we believed (to our own detriment) that the church of christ existed in its current state since jesus' death. Personally, I understand that christians as humans are affected by the culture we live and so our traditions are not exact, but yes, the christian church has existed since it was just called "the way" and has been reformed, not reestablished.
Agreed. I’m an non institutional Church of Christ member. We’d object to the Nicene creed on the basis that it is a creed, but wouldn’t disagree with the actual content.
Majority of churches throughout church history through the 1700s were non instrumental. Many of the early Church Fathers wrote against instrumental music in the assembly… When it was first introduced into the Catholic Church, there was much controversy for biblical reasonings - A large majority of prominent reformers during the Protestant reformation all agreed that instruments didn’t belong in the church. Many of so called great baptist preachers of the past have been staunchly against instruments in the church. Just saying - the coC aren’t alone in how they interpret the scripture regarding instruments- it was interpreted that way for the majority of church history.
Saying nondenominational churches came from the Restorationist Movement is wild. Also, slandering nondenominational churches while being from one of the most liberal, crazy churches out there (PSUSA) is incredibly arrogant.
I've been considering joining my traditional family church in Episcopal or I might try becoming Lutheran or Catholic, but I just don't have the courage to get out while I can... My family is strict CoC, and our community does shame people who leave. It is a cult in many ways, and I can't help but feel more and more like we are going down hill fast. Whether it's the lack of leadership or straight up weird behavior that comes from each congregation making up its own rules. I love Jesus, but I don't think it's respectful enough to all sing Jesus loves me during the Euchrist/Lord's Supper, or give long rambling speeches to prepare for the Lord's supper that has nothing to do with Christ's sacrifice or body and blood, but about you, me, or I... Try to leave or go against what you think is "unbiblical" and you will have people showing up to your house, calling you, mailing you, messaging you, all hours of the day wishing you'd come back or see reason, which is fine. But it's not in a matter of disagreement, it's a matter of heaven or hell for these people... My brother leads singing sometimes at our church, and one time he let a buddy join him (he was not a Baptized in the CoC) our leadership came to our house to sit my brother down to tell him how wrong he was for doing this... Anytime I tell my family my disagreements or explain why this or that is wrong with biblical evidence, they only say "well let's see what the preacher has to say about that." I don't follow the preacher, I follow Christ... And I'm starting to feel like the two aren't going to work out much longer.
Just like the early churches, each church of Christ varies by their current spirit maturity. It sounds like that one is overall extremely spiritually immature. Recommend worshipping at other churches of Christ.
My parents just left the DoC Church yesterday. I left when I went to Mass for the first time on Christmas. And while I respect the historic Protestants, because of that first experience I felt at Mass, I can’t be anything but Catholic
Unfortunately unlike previous videos, I am thoroughly disappointed with the quality and accuracy of this recent denominational video, especially as someone from the Church of Christ tradition. There were several oversimplifications that painted a misleading picture of the denomination as a whole. The triumphalist attitude was particularly disheartening, and I expected better from someone who I know is a fan of Dr. Gavin Ortlund or Dr. Jordan Cooper. The Stone-Campbell Movement, also known as the Restoration Movement, began in the early 19th century with leaders like Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone. Its primary aim was to unify Christians by returning to what they saw as the original principles and practices of the New Testament church, emphasizing a non-creedal Christianity while engaging with the church fathers. Alexander Campbell did not claim that his movement was the only true church. Instead, he saw it as an effort to restore the church to its New Testament roots, prioritizing unity among Christians by removing denominational barriers and creeds. Campbell and his followers sought to promote a more inclusive and united Christianity based on the Bible, often working closely with other denominations like the Baptists. However, over time, particularly in the southern United States, some groups within the Church of Christ began to adopt a more exclusive and sectarian stance. This shift involved specific theological arguments and practices that set them apart from other Christian groups, leading to a belief in being the true or restored church. It's important to note that this exclusivist attitude DOES NOT represent the entire denomination and needs to be understood in the context of the polemical and heated historical backdrop of the American Civil War, where the South sought to differentiate themselves and took extreme theological stances. It's worth noting that many Churches of Christ incorporate both acappella and instrumental worship. I personally attend one of them. The original goal of the Stone-Campbell Movement was Christian unity and a return to New Testament principles as a means for unity. However, over time, certain factions developed more sectarian views. Understanding this history helps clarify the diverse perspectives within the Church of Christ today rather than creating caricatures of whole denominations.
RZ, we keep getting inundated with people who want you and I to have a discussion on Seventh-Day Adventism. I don’t know where else or how to get in contact with you so I’m dropping this here in case you would be interested.
Stone and Campbell (founders of the CoC) broke off from Presbyterianism. That’s where they got the “no instruments” thing and a lot of their views on the sacraments. My man acts like they just spawned ex nihilo. Edit: I know he said they “defected from Presbyterianism,” but as he also pointed out, that’s similar to how Luther “defected from Catholicism” (before contradicting his statement later in the video). It’s odd to me that RZ acts like the CoC is uniquely disconnected from other denominations of the Church.
He comes across as someone who has a bone to pick with the COC. Maybe someone was rude/mean to him? Maybe he got his heart broken by a COC girl? I dunno, he does seem to have a strong (seemingly unwarranted) beef with the COC...
I really like your work RZ but I feel like you have an extremely uncharitable view of nondenominational Christianity. The idea that a person founding a new church that isn’t connected to a mainline denomination is committing a sin is absurd to me
Non-denominational churches aren't a sin. They can make it to heaven. They just aren't biblical. 1 Corinthians 1:10 we are to be of unified mind. We are not to divide the church. How can we be of a unified mind if we don't even accept the same doctrines? All non-denominational churches are, are baptists in sheep's clothing with a mish mash of doctrine. It's completely unbiblical...
@@legacyandlegendCouldn’t you say that about ANY denomination? Presbyterians, Lutherans and Anglicans don’t agree on doctrine and are not unified any more than non-denominational churches.
@@legacyandlegend If they were truly unified then they would all be under one church name. There are even Lutheran branches and Presbyterian churches that practice closed communion. If an Anglican went to one of those churches they would not be allowed to take communion. That doesn’t sound unified to me.
Just in case any Baptists are watching, a little past the 15 minute mark he says he would encourage people to join a Baptist church. He doesn't hate y'all
Could you have a conversation with Gavin Ortland with why he is a Baptist? He is so historically knowledgable does he just have huge blind spots in your view?
The Restoration Movement was not a movement to start a church. Rather, it was an effort to follow the original church described in Acts. Your research into Campbell tells you Thomas and Alexander Campbell disagreed with so many divisions present in the Presbyterian church. Hence, the No creed but Christ effort. Christian Churches use all kinds of instrumentation in worship, etc. You might want to increase your research.
@@WordsAndMusic. That's not the question. Did the early church continue to exist in some form or not? If so, where was it? If not, then anyone claiming to "go back to" the early church had to have started a new one.
I was born into a Church of Christ background and was raised in a non-denominational church. And although I am now a practicing Catholic I completely agree with everything you have said about those churches starting from scratch. I believe that that is wrong.
Worth mentioning that for most nondenominationals, the use of the term “nondenominational” is used as an attempt to *promote* ecumenism. The concern is that fractured denominational titles often prevent ecumenism. It would be far more ecumenical to not call an entire branch of the Church “sinful.”
I think the Church of Christ has a lot of potential. They could be an ecumenical gathering for all Christians, unifying believers regardless of their beliefs on soteriology. The main issue for me is their legalistic doctrine and emphasis on the role of works in salvation mainly baptism. I think it’s possible for us to disagree on soteriology and still gather/worship together. I like the idea of worship without instruments but not for the same legalistic reasons as CoC. I think removing instruments can remove any entertainment aspect of worship and any instrumental preferences. It can unify the body and stop people from dividing on where to worship based on the type of music that makes them feel the best.
That's funny that when I talked to one girl from the local Church of Christ (I'm a member of the local First Baptist Church), and my point was that the most important is your personal relationship with Jesus, so you can start your own church in the backyard if you want (I was not familiar with RZ on any platform at that moment), but since I found that wonderful church with the conservative pastor, I didn't need it. Her point was exact the opposite - you must be a part of the church as an institution that succeeds from the early church; also, she claimed that their church is valid because it has the name of Christ, and the other churches don't have, so they worship something different. It was a date lol. Anyway, according to that girl, RZ should prefer CoC over Baptists. However, I'm not sure how representative was her opinion.
I was born and raised COC, went to a COC University, and even preached at a couple different small Churches of Christ too. I have no resentment toward it and met some holy people in it but after going down the theology rabbit hole it’s a hard denomination to feel at home in and see a lot of the problems you mention about it. It may not be as heretical as later movements since COC is still trinitarian but still the anti-creedal thing is a problem
Why is anti creed a problem? There have literally been thousands of creeds throughout history- I’d suggest Zoomer here would suggest a good deal of them are heretical. How many times had the Westminster Confessiom been revised and had addendums? How many of the popular confessions from the American 1800s aren’t even mentioned or ascribed to any longer? Creeds are fallible - as history has clearly shown
Don't just believe what Zoomer says. Do your own research. Some of what Zoomer says is true, but he exaggerates much to get that "New Yorker edgy" effect for clicks. There had been some "theologians" who worked on the original KJV who believed that it was Divinely inspired. So... it would be Anglicans who began this, not Baptists. Most of KJV Baptists aren't even historically Baptists at all. They are off-shoot of Pentecostal movements who adopted Baptist mentality.
As someone who is in the Bible Belt and in a city that has a SBC Seminary, there is not a single church I have visited or have friends in that uses the KJV
That SBC seminary would be why. They really seem to dislike the KJV. I think Sola KJV is more common in independent Baptists, especially the ones not affiliated with FBFI but more in the landmarkist camp. Personally I'm Prima KJV and would have a hard time using anything else, but it's more or less a quaternary issue for me.
And you are completely right to be suspicious of them. I live in a Southeastern European country where these churches are prevalent in my city. In fact, they are the only Protestant churches around, apart from a couple of small Baptist congregations in rural towns with no more than ten attendees, and the occasional Mormon or Jehovah's Witness group. They are undeniably a cult and have frequently appeared in the news. I know a few people who got involved with them and had their lives ruined as a result. One particularly notable case involved a well-known woman and her daughter who disappeared for several months. An acquaintance spotted the woman in a restaurant and approached her to ask where she had been and what had happened. The woman appeared destitute, with no money for clothes or food, and started talking about being saved from earthly pleasures, urging her acquaintance to do the same by donating all her possessions to the church. The acquaintance quickly ended the conversation and went to the police. Cults like these give all Protestants a bad reputation. Even atheists in Orthodox countries tend to view Protestants with suspicion. I do wish there were normal denominations like Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Anglican around so I can check them out. I'm curious how different their services would feel compared to an Orthodox liturgy
I think that's something common in non-protestant countries in Europe. In my country (Poland) all these (let say) nontraditional protestant denominations are seen as cults sponsored from the States
Exccept dispensationalism begin with Jesuit priests in the counter-reformation and was developed later by Darby, etc., while the churches of Christ are partial preterist amillenials who reject dispensationalism.
@@mr8282humblethat's also true, and another reason why I'm not dispensationalist. However Darby was involved with the restorationist movement. I'm not saying that the Church of Christ is responsible for dispensationalism or anything like that, I'm just saying that RZ's reasoning for being sus of the denomination is part of why I'm sus of dispensationalism.
@geothepoly yeah, he certainly was, that's true. The churches of Christ were actually already in Scotland before the 2nd great awakening, the Campbell's were influenced by other former Presbyterian separatists, who began establishing congregations that bore the designation church of Christ. The first churches of Christ in America appeared around 1765 and were actually planted by Robert Sandeman, 25 years before the earliest date for the 2nd great awakening. They suffered in numbers due to being associated with Britain around the time of the revolution. The 2nd great awakening was largely a reaction to the areligious deism that existed at the time. Many peculiar groups such as the Adventists, and proto-charismatic movements popped up around this time to fill the spiritual gap unfrotunately, but the churches of Christ also began to grow as a response to these movements. The church of Christ does believe in a restoration of a new testament pattern of worship but also believed strongly in cessassionism, supercession of the church over Israel, amillenialism, the importance of orderly and proper worship, and a denial of extra-biblical revelation of any kind. Churches of Christ are very vocal about their opposition to dispensationalism, pentecostalism, adventism, and sabbatarianism.
"John MacArthurites believe KJV brought back the bible"? You intentionally violated the Eighth Commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" to elevate yourself while "attempting" to explain Christianity. Does it feel good to be "edgy"?
So that would mean Protestants are falling away Catholics. The problem I have with this is, as a Jehovah witness I would knock on doors as a teen and read Matthew 28:19-20. The words that scream to me as an adult is that Jesus said, “I will be with you until the end of times.“ This could not be true if Jesus jumped ship. God never abandoned the Israelites, in spite of all their misgivings. He reformed them as Israelites. Could Jesus not have reformed the Catholic Church without jumping ship and starting many denominations?
@@intelligencecube6752 Did they? There are over one billion Catholics which makes it the largest religion in the world. Yes you are right, some did, but this could be said for every religion
@@Shawn-nq7du Not on a whole, no. Not every Catholic left the Catholic Church, I was just saying that some did and became the Protestants. I was agreeing with you 😅
@@intelligencecube6752 I’m sorry. I see what you are saying now. Read it too fast. I was using “jumped ship” in a facetious way as God could never be unfaithful to himself. The gates of hell will not prevail…Amen.
RZ: Catholics aren't responsible for lutherans just because of Luther used to be a Catholic and Presbyterians aren't responsible for restorationists just because stone and Campbell used to be Presbyterians. Also RZ: restorationists are responsible for seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's witnesses because they had a vaguely similar philosophy about going back to the Bible and existed at around the same time even if they had no contact with each other.
I was actually looking into the DOC and looking to see if you had that video yet, so good timing. I enjoy your content even though I'm a more liberal Methodist.
I've watched your videos for a while now, and I wandered if you would do a video on why you're not “Church of Christ.” As a member of the Church I thought I would clarify our beliefs in case there are any people who are willing to listen. First, we're not a denomination, and the Church wasn't started by Campbell or Stone. I never even heard these names until I heard them from people like yourself in the denominational world. These men (and there were others) had a unoriginal idea of trying to follow only what the Bible says. As Luke says in Acts 2:42 “And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching.” If we believe what the first Christians believed and do what they did then we are part of the same Church in the first century. We don't believe the Church was ever destroyed and had to be restored. The only restoration we do is the continues restoration Jesus warned the church in Ephesus about: “But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first.” Revelation 2:4-5 Second, we're not non-denominational, but you might could say no-denominational. The Church isn't divided, but there is only one body; the Church, Ephesians 1:22-23, 4:4. And Jesus prayed to the Father that we would be one as they we're one: John 17:20-21 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” And Paul warned the Corinthians about such division: 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 “What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” Lastly, we're not “Nicene-Christians” We're just Christians; no hyphen required. We believe in The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, but not because the Nicene Creed says so, but because that's what the Word of God says.
"Why I'm not Three-Self Patriotic" next
Hey squidward! I bet old man Zoomers gonna make "why im not three-self Patriotic movement" any day! Nyeh squidward
Old man Zoomer is an oxymoron lol @@rynun7620
He already did so in his newest Q and A
"Not Chinese."
@@jdotoz Real
RZ try not to slander Baptists challenge
Level: impossible
Hi
He seems to have warmed up to them recently imo
even worse with Eastern Orthodoxy. he’d recommend a Baptist church over an Eastern Orthodox one.
@@slumptrid I get you might be Orthodox, so of course you'd day this. But think, if you were a presbyterian, which denomination would be closer to what you believe?
Imo the choice for him would be obvious.
@@slumptrid Actually in an Old video he recommends Eastern Orthodoxy over Baptist.
Any Church which claims the original Church died out 2000 years ago and they are the ones to revive it is instantly a cult to me.
Some COC think that but a lot don’t
Not just to you, its objective Truth
That's not what CoC believes
Eh, that view is only held in certain congregations. While we certainly aren’t very ecumenical with other denominations, the stereotype of “WE ARE THE ONLY ONES GOING TO HEAVEN, NOT ANYONE ELSE!!!!!11” isn’t very true at all. There are some who think that way, but many who don’t. And the story that RZ told about how the restorationist movement started isn’t accurate either. Stone and Campbell just didn’t like how the other denominations were straying from the Bible and weren’t focused on unity, so they broke off from Presbyterianism and started the church/disciples of Christ, and asked to be referred to simply as Christians.
Oneness Pentecostals
I think we have a new Sola. ‘Sola Churches that came out of the Reformation.’
The true Reformation is follow is the Counter Reformation of the Council of Trent
Sola Magisterial Reformation!
@@ltadv Sola Counter-Reformation
Amen
Sola traditio. What could go wrong?
One of my biggest problems with RZ is that he will say Catholics strawman Protestants and then give the most slanderous bad faith take on Baptists.
Edit: to clarify, I don’t think criticizing Baptists is wrong. But RZ strawmaned the hell outa baptists in this video for the purpose of a joke. (This is what he always gets mad at Catholics doing to him)
@@The_Proud_Texan yep also he really dislikes non denoms (thats me lol)
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tyYeah, as a Catholic he goes too hard on both, especially non denoms. I think it’s perfectly fine for them to keep existing even if the greater institutions are generally stronger for most people
At least non denoms are consistent unlike "Protestants" as Zoomed describes which basically boils down to "if they have apostolic succession they are Protestant" despite the fact that the other Apostolic churches would argue Protestants forfeit that succession when they went apostate.
@@Jhd306ck yeah the unfortunate thing is that nondenominationals get a bad rap because of people like Joel Olsteen. And apparently we are “disorganized” there is a huge difference between disorganized and decentralized. In my state (NM) the non denom crowd is huge. The main church is Calvary of Abq. We have 4 locations in nm, main campus is in Abq and we have 3 locations worldwide. Not to mention that we are a part of the larger Calvary chapel assoc. I honestly think nondenominationalism is the future of American Christianity - especially when looking at how the mainline churches are acting these days.
People in the magisterial Reformation like to think they're on solid footing because they can point at other Protestants and talk about how far away from Catholicism they are but they don't seem to realize that Catholics don't care whether you're really far away from them or kind of close. if you're not in submission to the Pope you're not a Catholic and it doesn't matter if your Lutheran or Anglican or non-denomination.
"I really liked the 1.9 update" Singlehandedly the hottest take zoomer has ever had
I used to hate 1.9 combat but now I'm a little more accepting to it, I just wish the sword cooldown was shorter
Church of Christ-er here. I can confirm that in general we take the Scripture very seriously. That said, we also can fall prey to stupid arguments that really don't matter at all, such as "Can our Church have a kitchen, or is that a Sin?" I have been fortunate to be in a quite moderate congregation, and I have loved watching RedeemedZoomer explain all these other churches and finding how often my local Church is quite similar to many of these other denominations. At the end of the day, I want to be a Christ Follower, and be able to work in the Kingdom with every other Christ Follower in the world. Thanks for covering our "denomination", even if our members will claim we aren't one. 😜
What do you think about people in other denominations? Are they saved?
@SoesbeeTX Yes! I was always taught that the name on the building doesn't matter, it is following Jesus in Faith. I know some CoC members act like they are the only faithful Christians, but that is man's error, and not a part of our tradition. God bless all my Brothers and Sisters who place their lives in Christ!
@@danielcarpenter1489 Do you think people who are baptized as infants need to get rebaptized?
I've actually been reconsidering my stance on this, but that is a pretty common belief in CoC. Since it is not explicitly commanded, and since baptism is an appeal to God for a clean conscience (1st Peter 3:21), most I'm our faith will say that infants can't appeal to God, and choose to follow him, so an infant baptism doesn't count.
In my walk, I am starting to lean more heavily on the Faith aspect. If a Christian reads the Bible and says, "my baptism doesn't line up with what I read" I would want them to rebaptize. On the flipside, the one who reads and has faith that his baptism was as Our Lord commanded, then I'm not going to condemn him. I think you can go to far in either direction, and the CoC is definitely on the very strict side of that pendulum. What do you think of infant baptism?
The Pope is evil. As far as growing up at St John’s United Church of Christ, I found that no one seemed to mention salvation or that Jesus was returning. I had to go to different churches for more information.
I go to a church of Christ.
The name “church of Christ” is used because “the Church” is referred to as that in the Bible. While some people may have a “only we’re gonna be saved” view, many people do not. Churches of Christ don’t consider themselves a denomination, as there is not a stated unity in beliefs, such as a creed or confession, between the congregations. There are going to be some differences between some congregations, but they tend to agree on most things. The goal of churches of Christ is to “restore” the church to how it operated in the first century. They will typically believe that the Bible is clear, so if you have a question about how the church should operate, it’ll be clearly in the Bible. Every person I’ve met at a church of Christ believes in the Trinity. What you call the motto of churches of Christ, “no creed but Christ,” and whatever the other thing you said was is something that I have never heard in a church of Christ. I heard it on this channel and the channel Ready to Harvest first. Infant baptism is not practiced because there is no explicit example of that happening in the Bible. I have also never met someone who goes to a church of Christ that believes one is born deserving of damnation due to the sin of Adam, so there is no reason for the baptism of infants. I have also never met anyone that truly believes the church “died out.”
Now I have disagreements with some doctrines that tend to be present in churches of Christ, such as the view of communion as just a symbol, but despite that and any other disagreements that I may have, I would recommend attending one. I can best justify, using the Bible, the most things that a church of Christ usually does more than I can with any other group.
Very good summary and representation of beliefs, especially on baptism and the trinity, coming from a fellow member of a Church of Christ. I have never heard any member say that the church has ever “died out”, nor that no one of denominations will be saved, but the emphasis is just on returning to scriptural authority. Book, chapter, verse for every doctrine because the scripture is what God has given us, and we have no reason to add to or take away from it.
I will add; θεοῦ, meaning God, is the Greek. In the New Testament churches were rendered "church of God", "church of the living God" or were named after their location; for instance, "church of Ephesus", "church of the Laodiceans", "church of the Thessalonians". "Church of Christ" isn't the same but, considering Jesus Christ is God incarnate and represents God fully, it is appropriate.
Similar to the baptist church in the sense that they're both going for the non-denominational and biblical approach. However, Church of Christ seems more legalistic from what I've gathered. That is unbiblical if true.
We need another like Paul to go around, teaching and rebuking the churches like the days of old. Bless you Paul and brothers, bless you! I love you all.
@@blissseeker4719 “churches of Christ” appears in Romans 16:16.
I see it as more of a, “we know what these guys were being told is right, so let’s just stick to that,” than a legalistic thing. Or at least that’s how I approach it. I can’t speak for everyone else.
@@handsomedevil4928 the church of Christ indeed! So it does appear, marvellous, thank you!
Now, as for this church do tell me - do they hold to some higher authority outside of Jesus Christ, contrary to scripture? Because I believe they get soteriology very wrong and I think if they say, for instance, you can't teach a doctrine of salvation more in line with calvinist or baptist, they are welcome to their view and for discussion but, that is all. If they hold to their own personal creed, they have already fallen away and their attempt at revival is half-hearted in my eyes. What do you think?
@@blissseeker4719 I would say that churches of Christ have the strictest form of sola scriptura, so strict they wouldn’t even call it that. So they do not hold to their own personal creed, being that they don’t have any creeds. The soteriology that you you will generally see is, hear, believe, confess that belief (Acts 8:37), repent (Acts 2:38), be baptized (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, every conversion in Acts since they all include baptism), and live faithfully. What a preacher would be allowed to preach is gonna differ from congregation to congregation. The elders at each congregation decide on a preacher, and the preacher usually isn’t an elder, but there is nothing permitting. The current preacher where I go is a deacon. I haven’t ever seen the inner workings of what I’m about to say or attended a congregation where this happened so this kind of guess work, but if the elders felt that what the preacher taught is contrary to what the Bible teaches (which is what most of them would likely think about one who teaches Calvinism or salvation as baptists teach it), then I think they’d first talk to the preacher and try to discuss it with him, and then if he opposed the church leadership, I don’t think he’d keep preaching there. They wouldn’t prevent him from attending, but he wouldn’t preach there any longer.
Now the reason each congregation is usually governed by elders/overseers is because that is because that is what Acts, Philippians, 1 Timothy, and Titus lay out.
Like I said in my original comment, I do not agree with everything that is you will usually see taught at a church of Christ, but I do agree with a decent portion. But the response I gave was my attempt at giving an impartial view at what you will generally see, and what most of those who go to one will generally think. I hope this was helpful.
If someone vandalized Van Gogh's starry night, we would try to restore the painting back to what it originally was. We wouldn't try to make the painting again from scratch. We would try to remove the additional paint that was sprayed on by the vandals and get back to what was originally there. It would be completely unfair to call that restorationist someone who was trying to remake starry night from scratch. Also, it would be kind of weird to try to reform the graffiti of the Vandal into something that seemed like it fit with the original painting pretty well.
Amen one minute RZ says the restoration movement tried to recreate the church from scratch, the next he says they emphasize biblical authority. That's not from scratch, that's building in the foundation of the apostles with Christ as the cornerstone.
I agree. The Reformation didn't reform the church nearly enough. The restorationists got way closer to the "original", but inevitably created some new traditions of their own, by going further than scripture does in some areas. Also, it's not enough to just look at how a movement started. Every church has a responsibility to continually check themselves and see where they have accidentally left the biblical way - and keep reforming/restoring themselves, just as a homemaker must continue to sweep floor and clean the bathroom even after spring cleaning is over, since dust keeps building up over time. How absurd would it be to cling to the new dust and call it clean and wholesome, since it's sitting on a clean surface...
@@erikabutterfly well said
"Words need to have meaning, and you can't lump things together."
Zoomer 2 seconds later. "So anyway, let's lump all these different things together"
That's what I noticed: "Protestants aren't responsible for non-denominationalism and church fracturing, but Churches of Christ are responsible for the heresies of Jehovah's Witnesses and early Seventh-Day Adventists."
Similar to how he'll say that the poverty of Eastern Europe is due to it being Orthodox, but Calvinism has no responsibility for historic Calvinist countries (the Netherlands, Scotland, Switzerland, New England) being some of the most liberal and secularised countries in the world.
Maybe I'm just being bitter, but while he criticises Orthodox for idolising their church (and as an Orthodox person, I do think some converts are more interested in Tradition than in Christ, and that's a serious problem) he seems committed to deflecting any criticism from classical Protestantism.
@@calebwheeler8143 As an evangelical, I totally agree. It seems to me that RZ is more than willing to point out every problem with every denomination except his own. He seems like the textbook example of someone who will look for the speck in another person's eye instead of noticing the log in their own eye. And I say that as someone who has enjoyed his content for a long time.
@@JDthegamer209 Must be particularly hard for you, seeing as one of his favourite ways of defending Protestantism is throwing low-church Protestantism under the bus. And I say this as a former Evangelical.
0:39 Comparing using "Christ" in the name of your church to things like "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea" had me rolling with laughter...
Especially as a former member of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" LOL
Some day I'll create my own church called "The Only Real True Church of The One Actually Living God" and the marquee sign will read "Fight me."
This video really wasn't very good. You talked more about Catholics, Presbyterians, and Baptists individually more than you actually did the chruch of Christ (like 80% of the video isn't even about the church of Christ) and your whole argument seems to be "the church didn't die out + OTHER churches who aren't the church of Christ are heretical therefore sus".
I've been to church of Christ and it seriously seems like you did no actual research on this church. They believe that the actual followers of Christ are the church, with Christ himself being the head; rather than a building or an organization. Not this whole "muh pastor Billy Bob making the church from scratch" thing you described. Also, no. They don't deny the Trinity. You say "it's not clear if they're heretical" but honestly I feel like that's moreso you just not actually looking at what they believe that anything else. Also, church of Christ doesn't believe baptism alone saves. Baptism, works, and faith saves.
You have a lot of good videos but this seriously isn't one of them
This needs more attention! Sadly, the only comments he will see are the ones calling the coc a cult.
I’m not Church of Christ but this is a good comment. I didn’t learn anything about the COC from this video. Plus the comment about non-denominational churches being a sin was beyond the pale.
so they're legalistic? baptist church seems best of them all, simply because it's the closest to non denominaitonal i've seen and isn't legalistic
Fr. This came off more as a prideful rant than an actual informative video. He made no effort to come to an actual understanding of what CoC or Non-denoms actually believe, and instead just harshly and unfairly judged them based on his mental stereotypes of them. He can make a good video but he can also just be an absolute snob.
@@isaacsingleton9187 I 100% agree with you here. This wasn't a well thought-out video at all and RZ didn't really explain any of his claims all that well. It came across more like a rant than an actual explanation of why he isn't CoC.
There are many modern CoC’s who don’t believe the church ever truly died out, but that the CoC is the most biblically accurate church.
Besides its origins and the claim that the church entirely died out and needed to start from scratch (I grew up CoC and never met anyone who believed that), what other theological differences would you say you stand out the most to standard Christianity? (Besides baptismal regeneration, which was mentioned already)
Now that redeemed zoomer is covering more obscure denominations I can finally have my dream be fulfilled of having him acknowledging my denomination (Quakers)
Quakers are mysterious
I don't know much about Quakers. What is church like for Quaker?
@@billotron5521I would like to know too, Quakers intrigue me. Much love and God bless!
@@billotron5521we don’t have any former clergy or priest instead we believe that god can enlighten all people to speak his word and until someone is compelled to speak it act by the spirit we remain in silence(this is true for most of us what I just described is un programmed worship some meetinghouses something called semi programmed worship where there is parts of a formal liturgy and parts of unprogrammed worship), we believe in the equality of all people and becuae of this we where one of the few groups in early America to have peaceful relations with the Native Americans, we helped abolish slavery and we where I think the first group to allow women to speak in church. While these are not enforced it’s common for friends(the official name of Quakers) to place personal restrictions upon themselves which often are things like not smoking or drinking alcohol, dressing plainly and pacifism.
Did you make the oatmeal everyone loves?
I was really disappointed with this video. Usually when I watch RZ I’m actually able to learn something new about other Christians, but I felt like this time he wasn’t even accurate with what he was saying about church of Christs. I don’t think it’s absurd to worship and behave based on Jesus’s teachings and His teaching alone. Also I know that there are very legal institutions that take the one cup, kitchen thing, or hair length very seriously, but you have to realize that the majority of churches of Christ aren’t like that. Also I think it is insanity to call non-denominationalism a sin. Jesus didn’t want a church with such emphasis on traditions and creeds and creeds and stuff and criticized people like the Pharisees for it. ( I think the majority of churches are guilty of this including the church of Christ AND EVEN Presbyterians. Mathew 18:20: For wherever two or three gather in my name, there I am with them.
Sorry if I messed anything up this comment wasn’t as organized as I would’ve liked! This is just my understanding as a sixteen year old
Edit: I guess what I’m trying to say is that we can still be good people and good followers of Jesus despite all of these arguments. We worship Jesus not the traditions. I think that it is wrong to say being non denominational is a sin and I think that it is wrong to say being orthodox is a sin. And I still don’t see the problem with someone literally starting a church in their backyard. We can choose different denominations and still not be divided. I will personally be church of Christ though.
No! In fact, as he partially alluded to Presbyterians traditionally believed in the regulative principle of worship (the teaching of scripture regulates how worship should be done) but most modern presbies have watered that down, churches of Christ continue to uphold that principle with fervour.
Fine but that is not what the Reformation was about and you completely ignored that central point. Luther, Melancthon, Calvin and Cranmer are very clear in their writings that they are going back to the sources to retrieve the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith. They were not trying to ignore all of Church history and larp as people from the 1st century. You are heirs to the radicals who wanted to start the Church from Year Zero (A Year Zero that always starts again every generation) as if the Holy Spirit was sleeping on the job.
@clivejungle6999 claiming they were "going back to the sources to retrieve the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith" implies that faith had been corrupted, and they needed to go back to the authentic gospel with accretions removed. I get that this is is done and taken to different degrees, but the spirit of the reformation does have a restorationist aspect. What sources do you have in mind other than the bible? Even the creeds were written and produced primarily by bishops who taught synergism, asceticism, and other teachings that the Lutheran and Calvinistic reformers rejected to different degrees.
@clivejungle6999 Because of the cessationism of the churches of Christ we acknowledge that the 1st century church had a different dynamic as to how the churhc should operate after that period due to the presence of the Apostles and the formative years of scripture. A pentecostal might be closer to the attitude you have in mind. We would also say that there were always faithful in every age, but that what is viewed as the mainline church, in other words Roman and Eastern Christianity has been polluted with syncretism and had apostasized, the historicist polemics of Calvin and his followers certainly bare a similar view, even in ways that are more extreme than we would teach. For example churches of Christ do not typically identify Babylon with the RCC today because of a partial preteristic model of Revelation, however, historically "the magisterial protestants" did teach that.
@@mr8282humble “I am not creating new opinions. Nor do I believe that any greater crime can be committed in the church than to play games by inventing new ideas, departing from the prophetic and apostolic Scripture and the true consensus of the church of God." Melancthon, Loci Communes 1543 - You are either on board with that project or you are not. And if you are not, then you are only Protestant in a media lingo sense. That was the point he was making.
Restorationism is saying the Church established by the Apostles and guided by the Holy Spirit failed and so we are going to start again as though it is one day after the death of the Apostle John. Which is why everything has to be invented again, all of the ideas are new ideas.
All the NT texts show a Church led by Apostles and people who worked closely with Apostles. How are you going to get that back?
If you want to start something new, then have some pride and honesty and do so. Stop pretending you are doing otherwise.
I go to a church of Christ (why cause I’m 15 and my dad is a part of it) and I’ve gotta say, the people in the church I’m in, which is a fairly larger church, is some of the best Christian’s I’ve met. Almost every church I’ve gone to in the past the youth is almost never devout about their faith, but at the church im at everyone is, it’s a breath of fresh air. I’m not saying I agree with everything they believe or have views on, but at the end of the day they have Christ in their heart. Also to my knowledge the COC’s modern day view is not saying “everyone is wrong and we started from scratch” it is more or so “we take what we see from the Bible and apply it.” Though I heavily disagree with the whole no creeds and confessions thing, at the end of the day they spread the gospel and are some of the most devout people I’ve met
As a fellow member, I fully agree with this! There are some, like with every denomination, the believe we are the "one true church." However, we are not the one true denomination, and I would also say that I don't believe in the no creeds and confessions thing, but we also are simply trying to emulate the oldest church, and I wish we would use the early Church writings more often.
I went to a CoC and I agree. They aren't going "We're starting from 0" so much as "we're attempting to bring people back to the Bible".
Me too! I grew up CoC and nobody believed the church went to total disaster and needed to be rebooted. And everyone I meet has been incredible and kind, quite very amazing people compared to a lot of other churches. I say I also agree they just believe to be the most true to scripture in terms of belief.
Just like me but im from the sda and zoomer also dislikes us
@@mandiocatostada3859 I know some SDA people but I’m not too familiar with the denomination
"Pastor Billy Bob" 😂😂😂😂
Nah pastor Jim is like 1000x better
I had to hold in my laugh on the bus when he said this 😭😭😭
The stone Campbell movement was never associated with the Mormons or Adventists. They did all occur in the Second Great Awakening, but there was no split from SC into Millerites or LDS. The Christadelphians did branch off from the CoC, however, and they are heretical.
Yeah, he kinda lumped a wide group of diverse beliefs together. Kinda like Catholics do when talking about Protestants.
And he gave a completely wrong reason for why the Stone-Campbell restoration happened too.
@@9DB7Bassman
What's the right reason?
@@Michiganman800 Both Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell saw how denominations argued and fought amongst each other and wanted to reject denominations to achieve Christian unity. That is why the groups from this movement don't see themselves as denominations
There is some overlap with the LDS and church of Christ. I cannot remember his name, but Brigham Young was chosen over him as the leader of the LDS after the death of Joseph Smith.
Dude, sorry but you completely missed the mark on this one. The Stone Campbell restoration movement has pretty much NOTHING to do with SDA, LDS, or JWs. They only happened to be started in the same time period. Sda started because someone supposedly had a vision, LDS started because Joseph Smith “found” gold plates, I’m honestly not sure how the JWs started, but I know it had nothing to do with the CoC. The restoration movement started because Stone and Campbell saw the disunity of the church, so they(former Presbyterian clergy) started their own presbytery called the Springfield presbytery. Then, realizing that they were completely contradicting their goal of unity by creating another denomination, they dissolved the Presbytery with “the Last will and testament of the Springfield Presbytery” And started calling themselves simply “Christians” and based what they did solely on the Bible, calling other Christians to do the same. They weren’t trying to start a church from scratch, they were trying to unite Christianity based on the first century church.
YES! "Not👏the👏only👏Christians👏 but Christians only." The Restoration movement is not building Christianity from scratch. I'm really disappointed with RZ's misinformation on this topic. He's just conflating the restoration movement with Mormonism.
"It was revealed to me"
RZ continuationist confirmed
Plot twist: Redeemed Zoomer is secretly Pentecostal but he pretends to be Reformed online to avoid getting backlash from cessationists. This line was a Freudian Slip.
(Source: I made it up)
Ok dude you seriously can't just anathematize non denominationalism. The fact that you place denominations that openly affirm and teach heresy in a seat of honor while condemning churches that are faithful to the Bible and more similar to the mainline churches of yesteryear than yours is sick and revolting. You insist on institutions as much as the Pharisees and Sadducees and you place tradition in a higher place than God's word. Do you ever wonder why Jesus did not come as a human high priest or teacher of the Law ? Because God has chosen the lowly and despised things, the things that are not to shame the things that are. I hope you are able to attend a non-denominational church one day and see how much more the Spirit has sovereignly chosen to move among these ones you have ansthematized than in your own denomination
Well said
I love a lot of what you do, man! I’ve covered you on my small channel before. I do think you have some key misunderstandings about the church of Christ. Most of the discussion I’ve heard is that surely the true church doesn’t need to be perfect, and has existed in some form, however big/small. We just believe that the image in Scripture of what the church is/does has been lost on so many, and we need to get back to the Bible, while not depending on fallible creeds that might and often do slow us down from getting there. I think most of what you’d hear me or other preachers say is pretty reasonable.
I am sure you’re busy and it’s a long shot, but I’d love to talk with you, or direct you to men I know who are much more capable than I who’d love to talk. Not even on my channel or anything like that. I just respect you a lot and feel honored you’ve even taken the time to address the churches of Christ!
God bless you Jesus loves you may the Holy Spirit guide you.
Thanks for this video! Was helpful to me and will help me find out the truth. God's blessing on you and praying for you RZ
0:00 Going to start off by saying a few things.
1. I am a member of the church of Christ.
2. I'm a gamer/game-designer, so seeing the MC in the bg is kinda cool. I play with my kids as often as I'm able.
3. Generally speaking, I saw that there were some commonalities between us, which is a good foundation to build on.
4. First watch-through, I heard a lot of misconceptions which I will correct as I move through the video again.
I know of you from X and your interactions with others there, but I don't know you that well, so this next comment isn't personal, just from general experience with others on YT. I'm hoping these comments are allowed to stand. Seeing other members of the church here indicates that you will likely be the kind that does let my comments stand, and that gives me hope for future interactions.
I'm also burning my candle at both ends these days so my comments will be typed as I have time to make them. They will likely not be all done in one day.
0:36 - denomination is a modern word for sect. The word sect in Greek is hairesis (αἵρεσις) which is the same word Paul uses in Acts 24v15 that is translated as "heresy". So while you may consider yourself part of a heretical group, the churches of Christ do not.
0:51 - so if a church has a Biblical name, that's sketchy, but if a church has a non-Biblical name, that's not?
1:26 here is the first major flaw in your analysis. It shows that you have a gross ignorance of what the church of Christ is and that you probably shouldn't be talking about it in the first place. The church of Christ did not begin in the 1800's in America with the Campbells and Stone. This is what the αἵρεσις like to claim because it makes them look less "sus", but it's false. The churches of Christ existed throughout history alongside first proto-Catholicism, Catholicism, and later the Protestant movement.
The Campbells learned from others in England. There are people like Simon Fish and the Bow Lane church of Christ from the 1500's. Before that, the evidence exists that the churches were among those persecuted by the Catholic church for rejecting their authority, lumped in among other groups accused of all manner of heresy. The consistency found is that they had only local, autonomous congregations (rejected Rome's authority), baptized believers for the remission of sins, rejected Mariology, rejected transubstantiation and the Real Presence, and so on. For a quick reference, check out the reference charts Springhouse has made here:
springhousecharts.com/the-medieval-church-of-christ/
You can also look at Traces of the Kingdom by Keith Sissman.
1:29 No. Your definitions and understanding of the churches of Christ are way off. The Restoration was not about creating a new faith from scratch. You bring up Ben Shapiro, ironically, later. It's literally in the name. We call men to restore their faith to the original NT faith, not reform a broken, corrupt one. Our goal is for men to strip away all the ugly, self-serving additions and changes man has made and just be part of what Christ originally built, bought, and cleansed with His blood.
To argue that it is a new religion when the whole point of our faith is to go back to the original is to shoot with the accuracy of a Stormtrooper!
4:53 I agree. We are not Protestants or part of the Reformation.
We existed 1500 years earlier.
5:27 False. The Restoration Movement doesn't include 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, or anyone other than the churches of Christ, Christian Churches, and Disciples of Christ.
Again, RZ is showing either a gross lack of historical knowledge here about the subject he is talking about, or he is purposefully lumping the church of Christ in with other groups that we both agree are erroneous to score points with the interwebs.
Presbyterians: Super "intellectual" but can't win a single argument against a Baptist when it comes to exegeting Scripture.
That bit about Presbyterians being the smartest was absolutely wild for me man. Maybe it was a joke, but it didn't come across that way at all. It smacks of both pride and following fallen men over Jesus. When I considered myself Baptist I never ran around saying that "Charles Spurgeon is the smartest, most Godly man who ever lived and therefore we Baptists are the best." It just never crossed my mind. And if I said something like that I would definitely get called out hard for that, and rightly so.
I think there's much to be proud about with Presbyterian tradition. Many righteous men of God come from that Christian tradition, with many beautiful traditions. I particularly love the Scottish Psalter which was first utilized by the Scottish Covenanters and is still used by some Presbyterians to this day. So, I'm not asking for you or anybody else to stop glazing, but humility needs to be utilized.
On the note of traditional Presbyterians why don't you join them and help them build up? If they are traditional isn't that what you want? I would think they probably also have nice buildings and they are not heterodox like many PCUSA. Revelation 18 talks about fleeing from Babylon. It's one thing to just give up a denomination in the midst of the fight for it, but were all the people in the 19th and 20th centuries cowards because they lost their fights against liberals and had to separate? Which is more traditional Traditional Psalm singing in a run down church, or gay pride flags in beautiful cathedrals?
As a Catholic, I will never become protestant, but I still can respect that high church protestants have so degree of historical traditions, but man, I don't think I can take any more baptist preachers spouting heresy condemned 1,500 years ago. It's tiring.
whens "Why I'm not Three Self Patriotic Movement - Kingdomcraft" gonna drop
He already answered it in Q & A
When I was in Boy Scouts, my troop was chartered with the local Church of Christ. In practice, they seemed to essentially be Baptists who didn't use instruments during worship. Nice people.
Look I am not a general fan of non denominational but you need to show more kindness and humility there and avoid nasty blanket generalizations.
You hit 99% of the time, but the 1% misses stick with people and gives people license to dismiss you. Kind of like how some of JMac's comments get him rightly dragged like in your video here.
I totally agree and I think this is one of RZ's major blind spots. It really undermines his credibility when his understanding of CoC, Non-Denominationals, Baptists, etc. are mostly informed by stereotypes about them and not on what the average person from those groups is like. He really needs to do his research on those groups more before continuing to give his public opinions on them.
Zoomer, can you please do different denominations portrayed by their music? Like go over the type of music each denomination offers and play a little bit of a song that represents said denomination? As a Catholic, I would like to have the national anthem of Vatican City there. Here’s the song, btw.
th-cam.com/video/519Xtbs_4Ys/w-d-xo.htmlsi=OjOEkJrKeJ-KhSN9
Unfortunately, a lot of Non-Denom Christians think about Protestantism as a whole as a restorationist movement. When I was young, my family was in the ICOC for a bit.
But protestants wanted to reform.. right? "Semper reformanda"?
The 19th century is just a weird sola scripture consequence.
It’s so cringey. They don’t realize they come from the same movement as Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses.
That's if and when the Non denominational churches awkowlage the other branches at all, and without saying "so and so belive this, but we belive this"
Tell me you’ve never been to a nondenominational church without telling me lol
@@Thatoneguy-pu8ty bro, I attend a Calvary Chapel
i’m a filthy church of christer😞😞
Don't worry. We are all filthy sinners. It is the sick who need a doctor. Now you need to go to a real church.
My friend, do not feel down. You have a relationship with Christ. Your Faith and your will can enable you to grow in that environment. Stay strong!
@@bradlygray1974ik im joking lol
@@bradlygray1974i actually like my church
Me too 🙌🏻
what if i were to say that the early church fathers didn't use instruments because they didn't have access to them? in early judaism they would have instrumental songs in worship directly to God, played by harp or whatever other instruments the hebrews used, as a fairly advanced nation at the time. on the other hand, early christianity started at a time where they were under oppression and didn't have direct access to all these fancy instruments and stuff. modern instruments didn't come until years later, when they began to have more access among people.
A lot of it had to do with contemporary context. Early fathers condemned the organ as unsuitable because of its use at pagan games (including those that martyred Christians) and festivals. Fast forward a millennium, and without that background the Church sees the organ as especially appropriate for worship music.
Yes. And it seemed to me that the churches in America, that didn't want instruments in church, were started on the frontiers where there wasn't easy access to musical instruments, and no money for them either.
Thank you for making this video. Each Church of Christ (not church of Christ) are autonomous congregations with varying doctrinal positions. The only common belief between them is that the Bible is infallible and everything else is fallible hence the part about the Nicene Creed. Because of this, it is difficult to describe exactly what you would get when entering a church. Generally you will find the following things: financial autonomy (although sending “the church’s money” externally is common, but only in ways seen in the Bible), weekly communion on Sunday, no instruments during worship service (not observed in the Bible), belief that baptism saves but is a personal choice (as depicted in the Bible) hence why babies shouldn’t be baptized by their parents, generally very conservative, open to criticism about teachings (many lessons end with a version of “please come to me after services if you have any questions or concerns”, and a very strong sense of community. Every service (typically 2-3 a week) is attended by most members and most members arrive 10-15 minutes early and stay 20-30 minutes late to socialize with members and visitors. It is also very common to have multiple visitors each session as it is a common belief that traveling does not excuse you from worshipping and you should find a church to attend. Love the videos, keep them coming.
My mother in law is a church of christ member and my wife grew up in that church. My wife converted to the Catholic Church, and my mother in-law treats us both terribly.
People can tend to be more loyal to a denomination that they person the pretend to follow. Or they get blind and have loyalty to the denomination because of their devotion to the beliefs they hold.
My great grandmother Sue on my Father's side had been a member of the Slovic Cathlic church all her life, as was the custom of many Slavic countries for year and still is. She had left the Catholic persuasion when her and her daughters were left to fend for themselves and the Catholic church did not help. But the local Baptists missionaries came to help when she and her three daughters, had to live in a one room house while the Baptists came along. She then decided that the Baptists persuasion could do no wrong, but that's not healthy. My grandmother form Ukrainian decent married my grandfather of polish decent, both raised Catholic, but he chose to be Baptists for his own personal beliefs, I think to own his faith and not his parents. So then my dad was raised Baptist as well, but at the time the Catholic church was still speaking in Latin during services. For Polish and Uraikian imagrants, living in America during thr 30s 40s 50s and 60s, that is not helpful. It was easier to go to an English speaking Baptist church to learn the new language and speak the chosen home language of polish at home, than it was to keep track of Latin, when it was only used in services. My Father did not retain as much Polish as it was probably hoped, but he still chose to be Baptist. That became a funny situation, when my Old man as I call him when to visit extended family in Poland, Grandfather's siblings children, and was asked by an elderly family member what kind of chirtian he was, and she decided to half scowel when he told her he was Baptist, but smile warmly when she heard he was also Catholic. Sometimes when. My dad tells the story, it seems like my grandfather left the Catholic church after he married my grandmother, or there were some Catholic beliefs and practices thar he never stopped having though he was a Baptist. My dad has a small Pic of the First and Only Polish Pope, but he is still Baptist at heart, even though we attend a Non denomination.
Zoomer used to say Non denoms and Baptists were just the same except for the few differences. I personally have that experience. But I choose to view things like my Aunt Barb, who has been to every major denomination church theoufh her life partly because she wanted to remarry at one point and it never worked out and partly because she said there is something of value each denomination has to offer, when it come to the differences of beliefs and worship, as long as they hold to christ the smaller differences can be refreshing and humbling. Plus it's good to have less personal ignorance to due ones own experiences, rather than soley relying on second hand information. So I see your nother in laws behavior as an attitude issue that's too common but, it should not get in the way of the choices you and your wife make along the way.
That’s the issue with more legalistic churches of Christ. I know some people like that, but they tend to be a minority in the church.
That’s any denomination leaving another denomination.
A devout Catholic who thinks the Catholics teach the most accurately would be disappointed with their offspring going to another denomination.
A devout Reformed Baptist who thinks the Reformed teach the most accurately would be disappointed with their offspring going to another denomination.
A devout Eastern Othpdox who thinks the Orthodox teach the most accurately would be disappointed with their offspring going to another denomination.
@TheHolyOnes33 I have the same situation as yourself being a Catholic with a CoC mother-in-law, but I get on very well with my mother in-law. 😅
"it's sick to not pursue unity with the Body of Christ" I think he doesn't understand the entire point of non-denominationalism. You are the ones deciding to split yourselves off from other bodies of Christ, we are saying, denomination doesn't matter. Only Christ matters. You focus on trying to be right, we focus on just everyone getting together and worshipping God.
As a Trad Catholic who was formerly in a Dutch Reformed church, I understand why RZ wants to differentiate between technical Protestants (coming from the Reformation) and non-Reformation "Protestants" (the "I'll just start my own church" crowd). There truly are substantive differences in these denominations. It is also true that some Catholics do strawman the Protestant position by generalizing all Protestants as if they were as bad as the most fringe denominations, and that is unhelpful at best and more probably needlessly divisive, in addition to being factually incorrect.
However, because Catholics see legitimacy through the lens of right authority, in a very real sense there is an understanding among Catholics that there is "Catholic" and then there is "everyone else," since Catholics believe that only the Catholic Church has substantive claims of real episcopal authority. From a technical standpoint, according to the standards that had long been in existence prior to the Reformation, any church in schism is outside of the Church in some way. It is only by loosening the standards (Who needs bishops? Elder is good enough for me), or by fabricating a novel means of deriving authority (Sola Scriptura, personal revelation, etc) that one can claim to be in the Church yet not be in communion with Rome. So for a Catholic to say that all non-Catholic churches have just about the same level of authority (which is to say, no authority) is not necessarily a strawman, since generally speaking you are either in good standing with the Catholic Church or you aren't, from a technical standpoint.
Catholics also agree that words have meaning, which is why it is always interesting for us to see a Sola Scriptura Protestant using the terms heresy, schism, and excommunication to indict another Protestant as it relates to their church's "authority structure" when these words from the beginning had been used to refer to union or disunion with the only Church, and both the accused and accusing parties in this scenario were and are still in active disunion regardless of their denomination. Heresy as a term has particularly been watered down so as to essentially be meaningless, since there is little agreement amongst the Protestant denominations regarding what constitutes it outside of perhaps the Reformed churches, which do have a close consensus on things doctrinally speaking (and which I would definitely agree are in their own class of Protestantism).
So while it would be wrong to ignore the substantive differences between denominations, the Catholic "strawman" is not necessarily a strawman when understood rightly; scholastic and honest disagreement about the merits of competing authority claims aside. A strawman is only a strawman if it is a mischaracterization, and mere differences of opinion are not strawmen.
Good points, but some break away from the original Reformation churches because of their change in fundamental teaching, such as on the definition of marriage. For example, many Anglican churches in Africa are moving to break away from the Church of England for their stance on same-sex marriage. Although the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, God judges the heart and those that die in friendship with Him will live forever.
@@Shawn-nq7du I agree, and I want friendship with God both for myself and for my Protestant brothers and sisters. I think it is the teaching of the Church that perfect contrition is acceptable even without the Church, and of course the Church makes no comment on whether someone is definitively saved or not, since the sovereignty and knowledge of God combined make His prerogative in this matter unsearchable. As it has also been my experience that, as Bp. Fulton Sheen once remarked, that "there are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be," I have a great hope that many who reject the Church will not be held accountable for their ignorance, although I have no way of knowing this for sure, of course. I do trust that God will be perfectly fair and righteous in whatever His judgment is for all people, including me.
It is a strange thing indeed to see groups break away from larger religious entities who seem to have lost their way in order to become *more* orthodox (lower case o - meaning traditional and doctrinally sound), but it is a heartening thing perhaps, since people are waking up to the fact that something is wrong. As a Catholic I am biased and I hope for their sake and for the sake of the Church that in their searching they rediscover the beauty, goodness and truth of Catholicism.
@@Matthew_Prescott I think and pray many will be saved. As one of the early church father’s said, there are those on the roles of the Church that are really not in the Church and those that are outside of the Church that are really in the Church (paraphrasing). There are so many people throughout the world who are serving God the best they can as they know how. I, too, trust God’s judgement when he separates the wheat from the chaff. His mercy is greater than his justice. As the psalmist says, give thanks to the Lord, for he is good for his mercy endures forever.
The Oriental Orthodox has the best case for being the direct contiguous descendants of the early church.
@@Procopius464 That may be (I don't actually know, and definitely need to do a lot more research regarding the OO), but right teaching authority is about more than just living in the same actual place, and while Apostolic succession is absolutely major and completely necessary, it's also about more than that too. It's also about institutional structure and function, and compliance with, submission to, and legitimacy of the same. Christ speaks a lot about the Church He founds in Scripture, and it's overwhelmingly about the structure, function, and purpose of the Church, as opposed to where the Church will physically be. The guarantees we get are not geographical (if this is what is meant by contiguous). That said, I imagine that the cultural closeness afforded by geographical closeness must have both produced and preserved an incredible liturgy and rich tradition.
Ultimately though, rejection of the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon is a rejection of the work explicitly given to the Church by Christ, even if the doctrinal differences which led to and resulted from the schism between the CC and OO are almost mere trifles by the standards of the modern absurdities we have witnessed in ultra-liberal Protestantism.
As someone who is non-denominational, this isn't us. We are not heretical and are clearly more descended from protestant denominations. Granted, by the nature of being ND, we are not all the same. I can just speak from experience.
so if i’m understanding you right, the only way to have authority to start a new denomination/tradition is to be kicked out by a pre-existing one? genuinely trying to wrap my mind around all of this
So splitting from a church is bad but he won't openly condemn people who kick others out of their churches.
Not saying you shouldn't kick people out of churches for fundamentally disagreeing with you, but I will point out the hypocrisy and incoherency of that argument...
@@ScottRidesHonda I also thought that Luther was the main one excommunicated from the Catholic church whereas the other reformers who went on to head up new denominations (Presbys, etc.) were just unreconcilable differences in doctrine between Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin
and then for Anglicans that was just the King of England not wanting to submit to Rome and starting his own church, apparently that’s OK?
I realize there’s a lot I still don’t know but the conclusions i’ve heard from what I do know just don’t add up to me.
Which is amusing, given that the CoC originally broke off of RZ’s denomination (Presbyterianism).
@inthefurnace just seems like huge cope argument in which all he says is that he's right because he says he is right and he is either incapable or not willing to actually make an argument. It's intellectually dishonest to say the least.
One strong point of restorationist denominations is a greater attempt to be true to Scripture
You're saying that Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, 7th Day Adventists, (along with the CoC) are true to scripture?!?!?!?
That is as far from reality as anyone can get!!!!
Can somebody please tell me what arguments he made? I didn't hear why he didn't wanted to be part of the CoC, only that he disliked their origins...
Apostolic succession doesn't work that way. You have to not only be part of an unbroken line from the Apostles, you have to receive the same sort of office and ministry from that line. All Protestants fail at the latter.
Your comparison to the Judah/Israel split is accidentally apt. Almost immediately after splitting from Judah, Israel set up their own temple and started worshipping an idol. (1 Kings 12:25ff)
That may be the worst argument I have ever heard
@@mr8282humble how
@@jvoges I am agreeing with @jdotoz Northern Israel was punished for it's sin, from this point referred to as "the sin of Jehoshaphat" the prophets go into hiding (see Obadiah, and the prophets in the Elijah narrative), and Elijah is told that a remnant of 8000 exist. The people of God fell out of power and resisted the institutional split in Israel. God would punish both Judah and Israel eventually for its sin.
Anglicans claim Apostolic succession.
The notion that it’s “sus” or indicative of something wrong for us to simply call ourselves a name that the church is called in the Bible in Romans 16:16 confuses me.
Calling yourself a Bible name is a far cry from calling yourselves the “Supreme Ultimate Mega Holy 5000 Church” or something like that 😂
No way redeemed Zoomer said being non-denominational is a sin 17:20
Anything short of perfection is sin, so that doesn’t mean much
Bros got beef anyone who goes against tradition 😬
@@redeemedzoomer6053 sin doesn’t mean much?
@@redeemedzoomer6053 yes everything that isn't perfect is sin but you recommend ppl go to Lutheran and Anglican churches (i go to a LCMS one) but even though you don't completely agree with these traditions, you dont call out people that are going to these as behaving sinfully. are people that go to non-denom churches that much more incorrect that they should be called out as behaving sinfully? even they are it seems like you would have to do the same for other traditions but dont which is inconsistent.
@@redeemedzoomer6053 I just ask you be careful with the way you call other denominations out. There are many who would claim you would be sinning for staying in the PCUSA because of how liberal it has gone, and I can’t imagine you would like that. If you want to change peoples mind, hostility will not change their mind. So I say this as someone who would love to see your channel grow more, please watch how you phrase certain things.
#1 Rule for videos about Churches of Christ: do not abbreviate it
I break that rule all the time lol
I grew up in the church of christ and we absolutely do believe in the trinity.
As for the nicene creed, the only line that we might contest would be the line about the single catholic church but only because most of us don't know what the word "catholic" actually means.The "no instruments" rule, is part of the reason why I no longer consider myself CoC. I prefer a cappella, and I hate "worship concerts", but the assertion that God rejects musical instruments is blatantly rejected in multiple passages.
As for the claim that "the original church died out and was recreated by campbell", that was never something that I was taught. If anything, we believed (to our own detriment) that the church of christ existed in its current state since jesus' death. Personally, I understand that christians as humans are affected by the culture we live and so our traditions are not exact, but yes, the christian church has existed since it was just called "the way" and has been reformed, not reestablished.
Agreed. I’m an non institutional Church of Christ member. We’d object to the Nicene creed on the basis that it is a creed, but wouldn’t disagree with the actual content.
Majority of churches throughout church history through the 1700s were non instrumental.
Many of the early Church Fathers wrote against instrumental music in the assembly…
When it was first introduced into the Catholic Church, there was much controversy for biblical reasonings -
A large majority of prominent reformers during the Protestant reformation all agreed that instruments didn’t belong in the church.
Many of so called great baptist preachers of the past have been staunchly against instruments in the church.
Just saying - the coC aren’t alone in how they interpret the scripture regarding instruments- it was interpreted that way for the majority of church history.
Saying nondenominational churches came from the Restorationist Movement is wild. Also, slandering nondenominational churches while being from one of the most liberal, crazy churches out there (PSUSA) is incredibly arrogant.
Zoomer when is why I’m not a part of the Three self patriotic movement dropping?
I've been considering joining my traditional family church in Episcopal or I might try becoming Lutheran or Catholic, but I just don't have the courage to get out while I can... My family is strict CoC, and our community does shame people who leave. It is a cult in many ways, and I can't help but feel more and more like we are going down hill fast. Whether it's the lack of leadership or straight up weird behavior that comes from each congregation making up its own rules. I love Jesus, but I don't think it's respectful enough to all sing Jesus loves me during the Euchrist/Lord's Supper, or give long rambling speeches to prepare for the Lord's supper that has nothing to do with Christ's sacrifice or body and blood, but about you, me, or I...
Try to leave or go against what you think is "unbiblical" and you will have people showing up to your house, calling you, mailing you, messaging you, all hours of the day wishing you'd come back or see reason, which is fine. But it's not in a matter of disagreement, it's a matter of heaven or hell for these people...
My brother leads singing sometimes at our church, and one time he let a buddy join him (he was not a Baptized in the CoC) our leadership came to our house to sit my brother down to tell him how wrong he was for doing this...
Anytime I tell my family my disagreements or explain why this or that is wrong with biblical evidence, they only say "well let's see what the preacher has to say about that." I don't follow the preacher, I follow Christ... And I'm starting to feel like the two aren't going to work out much longer.
Just like the early churches, each church of Christ varies by their current spirit maturity. It sounds like that one is overall extremely spiritually immature.
Recommend worshipping at other churches of Christ.
My parents just left the DoC Church yesterday. I left when I went to Mass for the first time on Christmas. And while I respect the historic Protestants, because of that first experience I felt at Mass, I can’t be anything but Catholic
“Because of my experience”
- every Evangelical to Catholic convert
@@redeemedzoomer6053 ouch
Can you participate in mass as a non Catholic?
@@Thatoneguy-pu8tyAnyone can attend mass. You just can't take communion.
@@redeemedzoomer6053bro revealed his dark side
Hey Zoomer, can you do a piece on 119 Ministries and the Hebrew Roots movement? They reject Sunday Sabbath, holidays, eating pork, etc
Given your fondness for Dr. Ortlund, I think you oughta consider his perspective on people looking down on low church denominations.
Will we get “why I’m not” for Quaker?
Unfortunately unlike previous videos, I am thoroughly disappointed with the quality and accuracy of this recent denominational video, especially as someone from the Church of Christ tradition. There were several oversimplifications that painted a misleading picture of the denomination as a whole. The triumphalist attitude was particularly disheartening, and I expected better from someone who I know is a fan of Dr. Gavin Ortlund or Dr. Jordan Cooper.
The Stone-Campbell Movement, also known as the Restoration Movement, began in the early 19th century with leaders like Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone. Its primary aim was to unify Christians by returning to what they saw as the original principles and practices of the New Testament church, emphasizing a non-creedal Christianity while engaging with the church fathers.
Alexander Campbell did not claim that his movement was the only true church. Instead, he saw it as an effort to restore the church to its New Testament roots, prioritizing unity among Christians by removing denominational barriers and creeds. Campbell and his followers sought to promote a more inclusive and united Christianity based on the Bible, often working closely with other denominations like the Baptists.
However, over time, particularly in the southern United States, some groups within the Church of Christ began to adopt a more exclusive and sectarian stance. This shift involved specific theological arguments and practices that set them apart from other Christian groups, leading to a belief in being the true or restored church. It's important to note that this exclusivist attitude DOES NOT represent the entire denomination and needs to be understood in the context of the polemical and heated historical backdrop of the American Civil War, where the South sought to differentiate themselves and took extreme theological stances.
It's worth noting that many Churches of Christ incorporate both acappella and instrumental worship. I personally attend one of them.
The original goal of the Stone-Campbell Movement was Christian unity and a return to New Testament principles as a means for unity. However, over time, certain factions developed more sectarian views. Understanding this history helps clarify the diverse perspectives within the Church of Christ today rather than creating caricatures of whole denominations.
RZ, we keep getting inundated with people who want you and I to have a discussion on Seventh-Day Adventism. I don’t know where else or how to get in contact with you so I’m dropping this here in case you would be interested.
Rz is so obsessed with john McArthur that he can't help but bring him up constantly in a coc video
Stone and Campbell (founders of the CoC) broke off from Presbyterianism. That’s where they got the “no instruments” thing and a lot of their views on the sacraments. My man acts like they just spawned ex nihilo.
Edit: I know he said they “defected from Presbyterianism,” but as he also pointed out, that’s similar to how Luther “defected from Catholicism” (before contradicting his statement later in the video). It’s odd to me that RZ acts like the CoC is uniquely disconnected from other denominations of the Church.
He comes across as someone who has a bone to pick with the COC. Maybe someone was rude/mean to him? Maybe he got his heart broken by a COC girl? I dunno, he does seem to have a strong (seemingly unwarranted) beef with the COC...
Why do you not recommend Catholicism?
Idolatry
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Could you please elaborate.
@@Kasserole1 He's an iconoclast and rejects Second Nicaea.
@@redeemedzoomer6053Then I guess all of early church and the whole Church for that matter for the first 1500 years were idolaters.
@@redeemedzoomer6053Most elaborate iconoclast argument.
I really like your work RZ but I feel like you have an extremely uncharitable view of nondenominational Christianity. The idea that a person founding a new church that isn’t connected to a mainline denomination is committing a sin is absurd to me
100% agree. How is that sin? You can still have Christian unity with others but your church government is independent of other churches.
Non-denominational churches aren't a sin. They can make it to heaven. They just aren't biblical. 1 Corinthians 1:10 we are to be of unified mind. We are not to divide the church. How can we be of a unified mind if we don't even accept the same doctrines? All non-denominational churches are, are baptists in sheep's clothing with a mish mash of doctrine. It's completely unbiblical...
@@legacyandlegendCouldn’t you say that about ANY denomination? Presbyterians, Lutherans and Anglicans don’t agree on doctrine and are not unified any more than non-denominational churches.
@@springray2323 No. True lutherans, anglicans, and presbyterians are unified. Especially lutherans. The ones that aren't are mainline and literal.
@@legacyandlegend If they were truly unified then they would all be under one church name. There are even Lutheran branches and Presbyterian churches that practice closed communion. If an Anglican went to one of those churches they would not be allowed to take communion. That doesn’t sound unified to me.
Just in case any Baptists are watching, a little past the 15 minute mark he says he would encourage people to join a Baptist church. He doesn't hate y'all
Next he's gonna do "Why I'm not Nazerene" lol
Members of the uppercase C Church of Christ unite
lowercase c >
@@zacjohnson314 based
Can you do in-depth videos about each heretical group like Mormons, JW, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.?
Could you have a conversation with Gavin Ortland with why he is a Baptist? He is so historically knowledgable does he just have huge blind spots in your view?
The Restoration Movement was not a movement to start a church. Rather, it was an effort to follow the original church described in Acts.
Your research into Campbell tells you Thomas and Alexander Campbell disagreed with so many divisions present in the Presbyterian church. Hence, the No creed but Christ effort.
Christian Churches use all kinds of instrumentation in worship, etc.
You might want to increase your research.
If "the original church" did not exist, they would have had to start it anew. If it did, they should have just joined it.
@@jdotoz That is what they did. They went back to the original church.
@@WordsAndMusic. Where was it?
@@jdotoz read the book of Acts
@@WordsAndMusic. That's not the question. Did the early church continue to exist in some form or not? If so, where was it? If not, then anyone claiming to "go back to" the early church had to have started a new one.
I was born into a Church of Christ background and was raised in a non-denominational church. And although I am now a practicing Catholic I completely agree with everything you have said about those churches starting from scratch. I believe that that is wrong.
It is wrong and completely unbiblical. No where in scripture does it say to throw out the church and start from scratch. That's not unity.
Alexander Campbell and Thomas Campbell themselves strongly state that they did NOT start a new church - certainly deny starting from scratch.
Pray this channel grows further out, thanks for the content.
Worth mentioning that for most nondenominationals, the use of the term “nondenominational” is used as an attempt to *promote* ecumenism. The concern is that fractured denominational titles often prevent ecumenism. It would be far more ecumenical to not call an entire branch of the Church “sinful.”
How on earth is it a sin to to set up a trinity believing non denominational church? This kid is a joke.
I think the Church of Christ has a lot of potential. They could be an ecumenical gathering for all Christians, unifying believers regardless of their beliefs on soteriology. The main issue for me is their legalistic doctrine and emphasis on the role of works in salvation mainly baptism. I think it’s possible for us to disagree on soteriology and still gather/worship together.
I like the idea of worship without instruments but not for the same legalistic reasons as CoC. I think removing instruments can remove any entertainment aspect of worship and any instrumental preferences. It can unify the body and stop people from dividing on where to worship based on the type of music that makes them feel the best.
The anti confessionalism is one of the reasons why full Preterism (denying the future resurrection) runs rampant among them
I’m Catholic, and I view denominations that believe in sola scriptura and faith alone as Protestant
Because they are...
The Stone-Campbell movement most certainly does not believe in faith alone, at least not traditionally.
@@MAMoreno Regardless, having a 66 book canon and believing in sola scriptura is protestant.
CoC are solo scriptura and vehemently deny sola fide
Sola Fide isn’t a modern teaching. Been taught since the time of the apostles, but brought to the forefront by Luther.
Would be interested to hear an addendum to this on the "Church of Christ Scientist" and/or Christian Scientists
That's funny that when I talked to one girl from the local Church of Christ (I'm a member of the local First Baptist Church), and my point was that the most important is your personal relationship with Jesus, so you can start your own church in the backyard if you want (I was not familiar with RZ on any platform at that moment), but since I found that wonderful church with the conservative pastor, I didn't need it. Her point was exact the opposite - you must be a part of the church as an institution that succeeds from the early church; also, she claimed that their church is valid because it has the name of Christ, and the other churches don't have, so they worship something different. It was a date lol. Anyway, according to that girl, RZ should prefer CoC over Baptists. However, I'm not sure how representative was her opinion.
1:50 Lol that Ben Shapiro impersonation was spot on
Having Baptists on the same level of Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Church of Christ which all deny that you are saved by faith is INSANE.
I was born and raised COC, went to a COC University, and even preached at a couple different small Churches of Christ too. I have no resentment toward it and met some holy people in it but after going down the theology rabbit hole it’s a hard denomination to feel at home in and see a lot of the problems you mention about it. It may not be as heretical as later movements since COC is still trinitarian but still the anti-creedal thing is a problem
Why is anti creed a problem?
There have literally been thousands of creeds throughout history- I’d suggest Zoomer here would suggest a good deal of them are heretical.
How many times had the Westminster Confessiom been revised and had addendums?
How many of the popular confessions from the American 1800s aren’t even mentioned or ascribed to any longer?
Creeds are fallible - as history has clearly shown
Liking 1.9 should be a excommunicatable offense
"No creed but Christ" is a creed 😂
Can you do a video on understanding oriental orthodox church
The fact i basically agreed with everything except the 1.9 minecraft update which is completely off topic xD
For clarification, there are "Church of Christ" and "church of Christ" which are not affiliated with each other.
Baptist really trying to add “Sola King James” bible to the reformation.
Don't just believe what Zoomer says. Do your own research. Some of what Zoomer says is true, but he exaggerates much to get that "New Yorker edgy" effect for clicks.
There had been some "theologians" who worked on the original KJV who believed that it was Divinely inspired. So... it would be Anglicans who began this, not Baptists.
Most of KJV Baptists aren't even historically Baptists at all. They are off-shoot of Pentecostal movements who adopted Baptist mentality.
Evangelical's worship of the KJV is really baffling considering it has a literal mistranslation which Muslims abuse as a contradiction.
@@olekcholewa8171 What Evangelicals worship KJV?
As someone who is in the Bible Belt and in a city that has a SBC Seminary, there is not a single church I have visited or have friends in that uses the KJV
That SBC seminary would be why. They really seem to dislike the KJV.
I think Sola KJV is more common in independent Baptists, especially the ones not affiliated with FBFI but more in the landmarkist camp. Personally I'm Prima KJV and would have a hard time using anything else, but it's more or less a quaternary issue for me.
Thanks for the slander bro!
Why I'm not Assyrian Church of the East next?
And you are completely right to be suspicious of them. I live in a Southeastern European country where these churches are prevalent in my city. In fact, they are the only Protestant churches around, apart from a couple of small Baptist congregations in rural towns with no more than ten attendees, and the occasional Mormon or Jehovah's Witness group. They are undeniably a cult and have frequently appeared in the news. I know a few people who got involved with them and had their lives ruined as a result. One particularly notable case involved a well-known woman and her daughter who disappeared for several months. An acquaintance spotted the woman in a restaurant and approached her to ask where she had been and what had happened. The woman appeared destitute, with no money for clothes or food, and started talking about being saved from earthly pleasures, urging her acquaintance to do the same by donating all her possessions to the church. The acquaintance quickly ended the conversation and went to the police.
Cults like these give all Protestants a bad reputation. Even atheists in Orthodox countries tend to view Protestants with suspicion. I do wish there were normal denominations like Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Anglican around so I can check them out. I'm curious how different their services would feel compared to an Orthodox liturgy
I think that's something common in non-protestant countries in Europe. In my country (Poland) all these (let say) nontraditional protestant denominations are seen as cults sponsored from the States
@@jakubkosz1009 yeah
This line of reasoning is part of why I'm no longer a dispensationalist, because a lot of that theology comes from restorationist type movements.
Exccept dispensationalism begin with Jesuit priests in the counter-reformation and was developed later by Darby, etc., while the churches of Christ are partial preterist amillenials who reject dispensationalism.
@@mr8282humblethat's also true, and another reason why I'm not dispensationalist. However Darby was involved with the restorationist movement.
I'm not saying that the Church of Christ is responsible for dispensationalism or anything like that, I'm just saying that RZ's reasoning for being sus of the denomination is part of why I'm sus of dispensationalism.
@geothepoly yeah, he certainly was, that's true. The churches of Christ were actually already in Scotland before the 2nd great awakening, the Campbell's were influenced by other former Presbyterian separatists, who began establishing congregations that bore the designation church of Christ. The first churches of Christ in America appeared around 1765 and were actually planted by Robert Sandeman, 25 years before the earliest date for the 2nd great awakening. They suffered in numbers due to being associated with Britain around the time of the revolution. The 2nd great awakening was largely a reaction to the areligious deism that existed at the time. Many peculiar groups such as the Adventists, and proto-charismatic movements popped up around this time to fill the spiritual gap unfrotunately, but the churches of Christ also began to grow as a response to these movements. The church of Christ does believe in a restoration of a new testament pattern of worship but also believed strongly in cessassionism, supercession of the church over Israel, amillenialism, the importance of orderly and proper worship, and a denial of extra-biblical revelation of any kind. Churches of Christ are very vocal about their opposition to dispensationalism, pentecostalism, adventism, and sabbatarianism.
Brother won’t even admit that you tell a tree by the fruit it bears
"John MacArthurites believe KJV brought back the bible"? You intentionally violated the Eighth Commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" to elevate yourself while "attempting" to explain Christianity. Does it feel good to be "edgy"?
Someone likes the bagpipes too much to be a Church of Christ
The CoC definitely believes in the trinity
It is simply not true that Catholicism descended from Eastern Orthodoxy. The Church split in 1054 - the East-West schism
In a lot of ways CoC is very similar to the Baptist church
I love instruments in worship time!
As a drummer in the church band, "Praise Him with Cymbals!" is one of my favorite verses.
So that would mean Protestants are falling away Catholics. The problem I have with this is, as a Jehovah witness I would knock on doors as a teen and read Matthew 28:19-20. The words that scream to me as an adult is that Jesus said, “I will be with you until the end of times.“ This could not be true if Jesus jumped ship. God never abandoned the Israelites, in spite of all their misgivings. He reformed them as Israelites. Could Jesus not have reformed the Catholic Church without jumping ship and starting many denominations?
Wouldn't that same logic just make Catholics falling away Orthodox?
In the case of the Catholics, I wouldn’t say that Jesus “jumped ship” so to say, as people inside the church did.
@@intelligencecube6752 Did they? There are over one billion Catholics which makes it the largest religion in the world. Yes you are right, some did, but this could be said for every religion
@@Shawn-nq7du Not on a whole, no. Not every Catholic left the Catholic Church, I was just saying that some did and became the Protestants.
I was agreeing with you 😅
@@intelligencecube6752 I’m sorry. I see what you are saying now. Read it too fast. I was using “jumped ship” in a facetious way as God could never be unfaithful to himself. The gates of hell will not prevail…Amen.
RZ: Catholics aren't responsible for lutherans just because of Luther used to be a Catholic and Presbyterians aren't responsible for restorationists just because stone and Campbell used to be Presbyterians.
Also RZ: restorationists are responsible for seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's witnesses because they had a vaguely similar philosophy about going back to the Bible and existed at around the same time even if they had no contact with each other.
I'm pretty sure he isn't saying restorationists causes JW and SDA, but saying that they ARE restorationist because they (atleast JW and Mormos) are.
@@billotron5521 that makes more sense. Thanks. I didn't realize he was using the term restorationist so broadly.
@@joshuas1834 I get it, I appreciate the humility in that comment. I'm sorry if I came off more aggressive
@@billotron5521 no sweat, I didn't take it that way.
I was actually looking into the DOC and looking to see if you had that video yet, so good timing.
I enjoy your content even though I'm a more liberal Methodist.
I've watched your videos for a while now, and I wandered if you would do a video on why you're not “Church of Christ.” As a member of the Church I thought I would clarify our beliefs in case there are any people who are willing to listen. First, we're not a denomination, and the Church wasn't started by Campbell or Stone. I never even heard these names until I heard them from people like yourself in the denominational world. These men (and there were others) had a unoriginal idea of trying to follow only what the Bible says. As Luke says in Acts 2:42 “And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching.” If we believe what the first Christians believed and do what they did then we are part of the same Church in the first century.
We don't believe the Church was ever destroyed and had to be restored. The only restoration we do is the continues restoration Jesus warned the church in Ephesus about: “But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first.” Revelation 2:4-5
Second, we're not non-denominational, but you might could say no-denominational. The Church isn't divided, but there is only one body; the Church, Ephesians 1:22-23, 4:4. And Jesus prayed to the Father that we would be one as they we're one: John 17:20-21 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” And Paul warned the Corinthians about such division: 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 “What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
Lastly, we're not “Nicene-Christians” We're just Christians; no hyphen required. We believe in The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, but not because the Nicene Creed says so, but because that's what the Word of God says.