Chronological Snobbery Part 2 - David Bercot

Lesson Transcript

With what judgment you judge, you will be judged. And with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. So, in other words, he's saying, "Hey, you get to choose how you're going to be judged on Judgment Day. If you want to be judged harshly, okay. Just go around judging everyone else harshly." Going to be talking about chronological snobbery again.

And, well, I guess the definition would be just thinking that because you are later in time than somebody else, that you see things more correctly than they do, which is how, I guess, it's human nature. You always feel like you've got everything right. And people who lived in an earlier age, yeah, they didn't understand things as well. So this is part two. We did a part one. And I guess the subtitle might be, "Or have we all gone mad?" And we'll be explaining that a little bit as we go forward.

But it does seem to me kind of like insanity. What do you think of this proposition? It's not a trick question or anything. The further in time we are removed from the days of the apostles, the better we understand their teachings. Does that make sense to you? I mean, it seems absurd. I mean, why would we understand them better than people who live close to them? And nobody says that outwardly. I mean, no one proclaims that in their church bulletin or something like that.

But that is the position of nearly everyone. I mean, if you're honest about it. Looking at these stacks of bricks, so imagine the bottom layer is the apostolic age, the days of the apostles. Okay? I think we would assume that people who lived and knew the apostles understood what they said better than we would 2,000 years later. And what about the next generation? Maybe not as well. But I mean, they got it firsthand from either the apostles or people who were taught by the apostles.

But see, the prevailing view is that the further you get, picture each of those bricks being a century. And I don't think there's 21 centuries there. But just imagine that, "Oh, we understand that better than the people who lived back then." They were mixed up. They didn't quite see things. I mean, does that make any sense? I mean, to me, that's just insanity. It's crazy. I mean, you wouldn't do that with secular literature.

You wouldn't say, "Well, yeah, the Roman pagan writings from the year, say, 50 AD, well, we understand those better than the people who lived back there in the days of ancient Rome." I mean, it just makes no sense. But that's what chronological snobbery is. It's this idea that the further in time you get, that somehow you understand it a whole lot better. I think I shared this with you maybe last time or in another message.

When I was first coming into the Anabaptist world, I remember talking to a Beachy Amish bishop. And I had read Martyr's Mirror, Menno Simons, a lot of the early Anabaptist writings. So I saw that, wow, they're very similar to the early Christians whom I had studied. And so I don't remember what the point was, but I was sharing with him what the early Christians believed on, again, I don't remember what it was, free will, whatever. This bishop seemed to be leaning towards Calvinism.

I mean, his bookshelf, he had all these Calvinistic books. And I said, "The early Christians believe so and so." And his response was, "Well, we're not following the early Christians." I said, "Well, yeah, I know that, but that's also what our Anabaptist forefathers taught.

We're not following them." "Well, so who are you following?" "Oh, we just go by the Bible." "Well, yeah, everybody just goes by the Bible." In other words, you're saying that 1,500 years after the apostles, the Anabaptists understood things better than the people who lived in the days of the apostles. And then go another 500 years, and we understand things better than the first Anabaptists. And it's like, and that's a little bit upside down. Wouldn't it seem to be the other way? But it's just that snobbery.

People don't think of it as snobbery, but it is. It's just like, "Okay, we know better than everyone else. If the early Anabaptists did this or that, we know better what we should believe." A lot of people totally misunderstand what we are saying as a congregation when we talk about the early Christian writings.

I was on a podcast this week, and before we went on the air, he asked me, "Now, you don't view these writings as inspired, that we all have to believe everything that they said?" And it's like, "No, I don't view them as inspired." I don't even know where people get that notion. I'm glad he got it clarified before we were on the air. But yeah, that's the way people seem to think that we're saying as a church. It's one thing to view them as inspired, which I don't know of anybody who does.

Catholic, Orthodox, I certainly don't. There's a big difference between that and just viewing them as our best commentary on scripture. Hey, these guys, many of them got it straight from one of the apostles or from a disciple of the apostles. They were reading the New Testament in the same language it was written, which was the language that they spoke. That's all. Hey, they were in a better position than we are. It doesn't mean they're right on everything.

I have no problem if someone says, "Yeah, they said that, but I think maybe they're mistaken on that." Sure, that's very possible. But what I generally see, and I saw this from the beginning when I kind of came into the Anabaptist world, is most people want to take the position, "Well, I'm going to quote the early Christians. If it fits what we believe, man, they're great. I mean, those early Christians are great.

Look what they said on this, as long as it agrees with our church." But as soon as they say something different than what our church believes, it's always, "Well, they fell into heresy there." Yeah, be real careful. I remember this goes back to what, about 1994, something like that. And I was listening to an Anabaptist pastor preaching, and it was a very interesting sermon. I mean, he was a very good speaker, illustrations, but he was talking about people who go too far. They don't know when to stop.

And he had these fantastic illustrations. I was sitting there. He held my attention through the whole sermon. I didn't quite know what he was talking about. Okay, what do you mean? But okay, it was an interesting sermon. Well, it was about a year later I found out he was preaching about me. I mean, he didn't mention my name, so I was like, and so my problem apparently was I was suggesting maybe we should give some weight to what the early Christians say when they differ than what we believe.

And that was my problem. I didn't know where to stop. You stop as soon as they say something different than what we believe. That's where you're supposed to stop. And I didn't know better. And so I was saying, "Hey, maybe they're right on these points." It's been a long journey, I will say that. I got rebuffed so many times just for suggesting, "Hey, maybe these guys had it right. I'm not saying everyone has to believe like they do." I've kind of probably jumped ahead here.

We'll stay with the stack of bricks for right now. I'm going to just give you an example. This is from an Anabaptist magazine. I don't even remember the name of the magazine. I certainly don't remember who wrote it. And it's nothing personal about the magazine or the person. It's just so illustrative of what I have seen a thousand times over. It's always the same thing. So I'm going to read to you what this person wrote, and it's obviously directed towards me, maybe towards our congregation.

He wrote, "Some people feel that it is important to study the writings of the Anti-Nicene Fathers in order to understand the Bible. Several reasons are usually given to support this. First, the Anti-Nicene Fathers were much closer in time to the writing of the New Testament than we are, and therefore they must have had a better understanding of the New Testament setting than what we can have.

Secondly, the earliest of the Anti-Nicene Fathers either were students of the apostles themselves or heard the apostles preach, or at least were students of the men who had these advantages. This gave them access to the oral teachings and traditions of the apostles." It's like, "Okay, yeah, this is exactly what I'm saying. I mean, good point. Presumably, this too would have made it easier for them to understand the New Testament." Well, probably there were a few advantages of being close to the New Testament era.

However, as we study the writings of these men, it becomes obvious that the advantages were not so great as we might suppose. So he says next, "False doctrines such as sacramentalism crept into the church very early in its history. Apostasy arose early in the church, and it is impossible for us to know how far-reaching that apostasy was.

However, already in AD 150, about 50 years after the death of the last of the apostles, there are indications in the writings of Irenaeus that he believed in the saving merits of the sacraments of baptism and communion. This belief became more common as time went on until by AD 200, Tertullian took baptismal regeneration for granted." And again, not knocking this article because I have heard that over and over and over and over again. Now, apostasy, he says that they fell into apostasy.

I just grabbed a dictionary definition. Apostasy, a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, political party, etc. I mean, it's not a light charge to make against someone. He's saying, "Oh, they've totally abandoned the true Christian religion." Wow, that's a pretty heavy judgment. Now, I want to give you an example of the opposite of snobbery. And it's actually, to me, one of the most remarkable quotes from the early Christians. When I was first reading them, I still remember the evening.

This is in Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew. And it's an apologetic work written to the Jews, and it's written in the form of a dialogue with a Jew. It may have been based on a real conversation he had. I don't know. And I'm reading along, and I suddenly come across this quote. Trypho the Jew asked Justin, "Tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt? It had been largely destroyed by the Romans." I mean, it still existed, but it was different.

"And do you expect your people to be gathered together and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs and the prophets?" In other words, he's asking, "Is there going to be a literal millennium and Jerusalem is going to be restored and we'll live here on the earth for a thousand years with the patriarchs?" This is Justin's answer. I'm reading this, and I'm more curious about what he had to say about the millennium. And this was his answer. "I told you previously that I and many others are of this opinion.

We believe that this will take place, as you surely are aware." Now, notice this. "On the other hand, I told you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith and are true Christians think otherwise." I've just never seen that kind of generosity. I mean, I just see all this condemning all my life. I mean, if you didn't believe in the millennium, you were a heretic, or if you did believe in it, you were a heretic. I mean, just everybody had these opinions, and we're throwing out all this condemnation.

And here's this man saying, "Hey, yeah, I believe there's going to be a literal millennium, but there are others who are true and fine Christians, and they think otherwise." I mean, it'd be so nice if we could all have that attitude towards so many things that Christians fight over.

I think we should earnestly contend for the faith, but that doesn't mean we have to condemn everybody else, nor should we imagine that we understand everything that's in the scriptures correctly, even with the help of the early Christians, because they didn't pretend to understand everything. So I'll go back to my question. Have we all gone mad? This whole spirit of just judging people and being so quick to call people heretics or, boy, they fell into apostasy and that.

It's so judgmental, and it's also very snobbish. Now, I want to show you what Jesus said. Sorry, I've got a dry mouth here. Matthew 7:1-2, "Judge not that you be not judged." Now, we know from the rest of the New Testament, he did not say we cannot condemn sin because he got on the churches in Revelation because they were allowing sin in their churches, some of them anyway. "For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged.

And with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you." So in other words, he's saying, "Hey, you get to choose how you're going to be judged on Judgment Day. If you want to be judged harshly, okay. Just go around judging everyone else harshly." I was thinking as I was reading this, the surveys that we get on our WhatsApp, like a questionnaire. Are you going to be at the fellowship? Are you going to be at the fellowship meeting? Are you going to be at the church picnic?

And then you answer, "Yes, I'll be there." I mean, we're all used to getting those polls. So imagine having your phone and you get this poll from Jesus. He says, "How do you want to be judged? A, mercifully and compassionately, or B, harshly and severely?" Because basically, he's done that, okay? Yeah, we get to choose. I want to be judged mercifully and compassionately. But it's not a poll on our phone. It's what we do with our own life. Yeah, I want to vote to be judged mercifully and compassionately.

And the only way you're going to be judged that way is if that's how you judge other people. But if you want to be judged harshly, yeah, just go around condemning everybody else. And that's what I'm saying is they wouldn't get mad. I mean, I can't believe that you would just call somebody a heretic who lived right after the apostles because they believe different than you when they've got strong scriptural support.

I mean, maybe they're misinterpreting the scriptures, but I mean, can we be charitable towards people? I got several compliments this week from people. I was on a podcast on Tuesday night, and several people commented on they felt I was very generous to other people who had different views. And I felt a little guilty because what they didn't realize, I wasn't being so much generous to those people. I mean, perhaps I was, but I was being generous to David Bercell because, hey, I want to get judged leniently.

So I'm going to judge everyone else leniently too. I mean, like I say, are people crazy? I mean, Jesus has told us, "You get to pick how you're going to be judged on Judgment Day." I mean, you think it'd be an obvious thing that poll comes out, "I want to be judged leniently." But no, most people, I mean, when Jesus reads that poll, it's going to be, "Oh, let's say there's 100 people, 10 want to be judged leniently and 90 want to be judged harshly." I mean, yeah, just go around condemning everyone else.

And guess what? On Judgment Day, he's going to look at you and, boy, you better have everything, every doctrine right, everything else right because you are going to be judged harshly. Like I say, it seems like insanity to me, but that's what people do. And again, I get asked this so many times, "Do you view the early Christians as infallible?" Of course not. I don't know of anyone on earth who does. They were fallible people. I think they carry a lot of weight when they speak in unison.

And on so many topics, they do. If it's just one early Christian who says something or other, hey, yeah, I give some weight to his idea, but I don't like that's not necessarily correct if they're not all saying it. But Tertullian made the point. He said, "If we have strayed from the apostolic faith, how did we all stray away from it and end up in the same place?" I mean, because we've seen this with the Reformation.

I mean, when you don't have a state church forcing you to do something and you're just on your own to read the Bible, we have not Christians have not all come to the same place. Well, you go in a jillion different directions. So how is it the early Christians, if they had aired, all of them came to the same place?

I mean, this writer in the magazine, whoever he was, says, "Oh, this crept in, this view of baptism." But when you go back and read the early Christians, it starts in the beginning with Ignatius, with the very earliest writings. And they all say it. I mean, there is not one single person who says has a different view of baptism except the Gnostics.

They were the ones saying, "No, baptism doesn't do anything for you." And the early Christians were all saying, "Yes, it does." Now, again, I don't want to the point of this sermon isn't arguing about that. It's like, "So you're going to condemn people when they all came to this conclusion? Have you looked at why they view it that way?

And can you be charitable and say, 'Well, yeah, they all saw that, saw it that way, and they have scriptures to back it up,' but I think they're mistaken nevertheless?" I mean, to me, that would be an appropriate Christian response, particularly if you want to be judged charitably on Judgment Day.

I mean, like I say, you just go around condemning people, which I've seen so much of that in the 30 years, I guess 35 years now, or 40 probably, since I first read the early Christians and tried to share it with the rest of the Christian world. And I've got people who are very honest-hearted and want to seek, and then so many, it's like, if the early Christians say anything that's different from what they believe, it's always the early Christians are wrong. "No, they're heretics.

No, they strayed into apostasy there." Wow. I mean, that is so uncharitable. So I want to just take a minute. I mean, we know these things, I think, as a congregation. But just as a reminder, and again, the sermon, the topic is chronological snobbery. It's not about baptism, but that's usually where people condemn the early Christians.

And they're at the top of that stack of bricks, and they're so sure they have everything right and that the ones at the bottom right next to the apostles, they didn't know what the scriptures taught. So as I was mentioning, this view of baptism that is something more than a symbol, it didn't grow something that just kind of came in and it kept growing as that writer presented it. No, they taught it in the beginning. There's no change in their view on what baptism means. They all, as I said, expressed the same view.

Secondly, and I get so tired of hearing this term, baptismal regeneration. I've got the Enni-Nyseen Fathers on my computer in PDF. So I did a search for that term. None of the early Christians ever used that term. It's what everyone I'm always being accused of that. "Oh, David believes in baptismal regeneration." Even though I have never used that term in any message I've given, I don't believe in it, whatever it's supposed to mean.

And like I say, the early Christians never used that term, but somehow that label is always stuck on there. So to just get it straight, the early Christians believe that baptism is a channel of God's grace. It's not merely something that's symbolic or something that's a step of obedience. It may be a step of obedience, and there may be symbolism associated, but they felt it was more than that. From the reading of the scriptures, that it's a channel of God's grace. Let me give you an illustration here.

Now, when I hug one of my grandchildren, you can say, "Well, that's symbolic. It means that you love him or love her." But I would look at it a little bit different than that. I would look at when I give my grandchildren, my wife, a hug, I'm expressing my love to them. I am imparting my love. It's not just a symbol. You can't see love. It's something inside of us, but you can see a hug. You can feel a hug. And so, yeah, to me, it's not a symbol. It is something I'm actually expressing love when I do that.

And it's like that in baptism, that at least how the early Christians saw it, it's not just a symbol. It's God imparting his love and his grace. He's giving us gifts that we'll be talking about, but we can't see any of those things. You can't look, "There's his love. Oh, there's his grace. There's his forgiveness." You can't see any of those things, but you can see the baptism. So he gives us an outer thing that we can see like a hug, but it's imparting his love and his gifts to us.

That's how the early Christians saw it. Now, if you want to think it's a symbol, I don't think it's going to keep you out of heaven and eternity. Okay, I mean, we don't have to be enemies if you view it differently. But I think the early Christians got it right. It's not what I grew up with. I mean, when I first came across their writings, my response was just like everyone else. Like, "What? I've never heard that." But, well, I have heard it from the Church of Christ, and I always thought they were wrong.

And it's like, I was so surprised. When I first saw it, I thought, "Well, hopefully it's just that one. He was a little bit off." And then, oh, the next one says it, next one, next one. I realized, okay, they all have this same view. So let's just look at the scriptures on why they believed what they did. Again, you don't have to view it that way, but I think it's a good idea to at least understand why they would teach what they did.

Now, what is interesting is that as Anabaptists, our normal hermeneutic is to read the scriptures, to take them at face value. If it says, "Do not swear," it means, "Do not swear." If it says, "Don't take your brother to court," that means, "Don't take your brother to court." If it says, "Turn the other cheek," you turn the other cheek. I mean, that's how we interpret the scriptures. Now, hermeneutic, I'm not using a big word just to use one.

It's a good word if you're not familiar with it to add that to your vocabulary. It's simply a system or basis for interpreting the scriptures. Every church has one, but not everyone is familiar with that word. I remember when I first heard it, it was like I didn't know what it meant. I was an adult, and I had never heard the word before, and so I had to go and figure it out. But yeah, so when I say that's our hermeneutic, I mean, that's our system for interpreting scripture.

You take it at face value unless it's an apocalyptic book like Revelation or something like that. So that's the strange thing is we take the scriptures at face value until we come to what the scriptures say about baptism or communion, and then suddenly, "Oh, well, it's figurative." Okay, fine if you want to take it that way, but you should recognize we're not being consistent. We take everything else at face value, and we really take a strong stance on it.

And then these scriptures, yeah, somehow it means something different. So let's just look at them, but I want to look at them through the eyes. Let's just assume the early Christians were wrong, okay? That Zwingli, because the Swiss brethren got this view from Zwingli, okay? So he had it right that it's all symbolic. But can we at least be charitable and try to understand why the early Christians understood baptism the way they did? So we're just going to go through. There's about six verses here, okay?

"He who believes and is baptized will be saved." Okay, so I'm going to play the role of a typical Anabaptist. This is all symbolic, okay? So we know that we are saved if we believe. We don't have to be baptized. But can you understand that one of the early Christians reading this might think this verse is saying, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved"? I mean, does that make sense that they might think it's saying that? I mean, we know it's not saying that.

It's saying, "If you believe, you will be saved." But can you see where they might mistake it and think it's saying, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved"? I mean, can we be charitable that, yeah, they might read that into it, but of course, it doesn't mean that. Okay. "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Okay, Jesus does not explain what he means.

But in his ministry, he talks about water baptism, and he talks about baptism of the Holy Spirit. And we see that when we go through Acts, water baptism, baptism of the Holy Spirit. Now, is it unreasonable that someone would interpret this to be talking about water baptism and Spirit baptism? I realize you could put other interpretations, but I mean, is that like, "Wow, that's twisting the scriptures"? I mean, I remember when I was a little kid and no one had indoctrinated me. I read that verse.

I was in a Bible study with an adult, and so I was asked, "What does that mean?" And I'm just an innocent 11-year-old or whatever. I said, "Oh, it's talking about water baptism and Spirit baptism." "Nope, it doesn't mean that." "Oh, okay." And so that's what I was indoctrinated. No, it's not talking about water baptism there. I forget what symbolic explanation that was given, but yeah, I was corrected until I read the early Christian writings.

It's like, "Hey, I was right as a little kid all along, just reading it innocently." What about this one? "Then Peter said to them, 'Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.'" Remission means forgiveness. "And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Okay. Now, we, again, as Anabaptists, we understand that when we are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, we do not receive remission of sins. Okay? We receive that before baptism. Okay?

I think we all got that down, okay? But can you see that an early Christian reading this might think Peter is saying, "Let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"? I mean, we know that's not what Peter is saying. But I mean, can you see that someone might read that and mistake it to think Peter is saying, "Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"?

I mean, can we be charitable with the early Christians that, yeah, we understand it better, of course, but these guys didn't have the education we do. What about this? This is Ananias talking to Paul. "Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Now, we know your sins are not washed away in baptism. You can't get baptized and wash away your sins, okay? We have a clear understanding of scriptures. But these guys, again, they're early in Christian history.

They didn't get the kind of education we do. They didn't have all the books that we have to help us, okay? So they're reading this, and they're thinking Ananias is saying, "Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins." He's not saying that. I think we realize he's not saying that. But can you see that one of the early Christians might read that and think he's saying, "Be baptized and wash away your sins"?

Yeah, it's a little strange, but I mean, can we be charitable with the early Christians that, yeah, they're reading that and they just don't know any better? What about this? "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Okay, now we understand when you believe you have put on Christ, okay? Baptism comes later and it's just a symbol. But the early Christians, again, they didn't have the books and everything that we have.

They're reading this and they think Paul is saying, "As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." We know Paul isn't saying that. You don't put on Christ when you're baptized. But yeah, can we be charitable with the early Christians that, yeah, okay, they're reading that and they're thinking it means that?

"We were buried with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Now, we are buried with Christ when we say the sinner's prayer and invite him into our heart. That is when we are buried with Christ, okay? It is not through baptism. We understand that.

But see, they're reading this and they think Paul is saying, "We were buried with him through baptism into death." I mean, can you see where they would mistakenly read the scripture to be saying that, that we're buried with him in baptism, that that's when we die and we rise again to a new man? Again, an ignorant understanding or misunderstanding. Can we at least be generous to them that, okay, we see where they're misunderstanding things? What about this?

"According to his mercy, he saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." Aha, here we have a little bit of wiggle room, okay? What is the washing of regeneration? Well, the early Christians mistakenly thought that was baptism, water baptism. And then renewing of the Holy Spirit was baptism of the Holy Spirit, okay? It's a stretch. We know washing of regeneration refers to something symbolic. It's not baptism.

But can we see where they would maybe mistakenly read that into that verse? Okay. I think we've got maybe one last one here. Yeah, this is our last one. "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you.

Not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Now, this one is a real stretch because the early Christians read this verse, they thought it's saying, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." I mean, can you see where they would read that into there and think it's saying, "Baptism now saves you"? Because we know baptism does not save us.

That was apostasy when they began thinking that we are saved through baptism, or at least it's part of the salvation process. But can we be generous to the early Christians, even though we know better that they would read this and think it's saying, "Baptism now saves you"? Okay? So I mean, can we just learn to be generous or we have to be condemning, particularly when, yeah, they just didn't know better and they were reading the scriptures and taking them literally?

And even though we normally take all of the scriptures literally as Anabaptists, when it comes to baptism, we understand that you don't take those verses literally. You take all the other verses literally, but when it's baptism, it's figurative every time. Every one of those is figurative. It doesn't mean what it seems to say on the face of it. Okay, I'm being a little bit facetious here, but yeah, I honestly do not understand. I was shocked at the response.

I have no problem if someone says, "Yeah, the early Christians were reading that literally, and I think those verses should be taken figuratively," but I see where they're coming from. But see, that's not the response I've been seeing for 30 years. It's always, "Yeah, they fell into heresy." I mean, I was at a conference listening to the speaker, and he was trying to do me a favor. He had the dictionary of early Christian beliefs. He was holding it up and saying, "I really recommend this. I keep this on my desk.

I refer to it all the time. And yeah, I really recommend you get a copy." And I'm sitting there, "Wow, this is kind of nice." He said, "But now you got to be careful.

They fell into heresy right away and started teaching baptismal regeneration, and it's like, oh boy, it's just 30 years of it or more." But if the Anabaptists want to take those figuratively, okay, I don't go around attacking them and saying, "You're heretics and this or that." It would be so nice if we could all be charitable to one another, particularly when someone's relying on the verses, and particularly when they're taking those verses literally.

I don't understand how people can imagine that they can do that, going around condemning people so strongly, and then read what Jesus said, "You're going to be judged the same way you judge others." That's going to be your measuring rod. You get to choose. You can have an easy judgment or you can have a harsh one. And it's like everyone checks off, "I want to be judged harshly and strictly." No, I don't want a charitable. I don't get it. To me, it is really insane.

I mean, is it just possible that the early Christians received their understanding from the apostles and that we, 2,000 years later, could be wrong? I mean, could we at least acknowledge that maybe we're wrong, that we at the top of the stack of bricks, maybe over those centuries, we've lost the original teaching, and maybe at the beginning, they had it? Now, the irony of the Anabaptists is that it surprised me 30 years ago. It surprises me today. And it's this.

The testimony of the early Christians is the strongest evidence that as Anabaptists, we are interpreting the scriptures correctly. They are our best evidence. I mean, we can go there on just about every single thing that we believe is Anabaptist, and you can see that that is what they taught in the beginning. The people right after the apostles, that's what they taught, whether it's non-resistance, non-conformity to the world, free will. I mean, like I say, you name it. That's what they taught.

It's just only two things we disagree on. That's baptism and communion, both of which they saw as channels of grace, not just mere symbols. So I mean, we should be the ones as Anabaptists, boy, plugging the early church and, "Hey, you guys need to read this because we are a small group of people." I mean, there's maybe 500,000 conservative Anabaptists, and that's counting the old order Amish. Most of those would be old order Amish. If we take them out of the picture, it's about 100,000.

Other groups, they have 60 million members and all of that. I mean, so as a little group of people, we don't have much standing except we can point to the early Christians and say, "We believe just like they did. There's just two points we disagree on." Not we in our congregation, but I'm saying as Anabaptists. So I mean, we should be the ones trumpeting them, but we don't. Instead, we condemn them. And oh boy, you stay away from those early Christians. And it's like, "Have you gone mad?

Do you not realize this is our strongest evidence?" It's so funny because the Catholics and the Orthodox, yeah, they trumpet them. They say, "See, yeah, we believe like them." Well, I'd tell you as Anabaptists, we are much closer to the early Christians than are the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox. But like I say, they're very smart. I mean, they trumpet them. See, we teach what they taught in the beginning, which it should be us as Anabaptists doing that.

And we take the stance, "No, those are apostates." And they're saying, "Yeah, hey, those guys were right on. See, we believe like them." But see, doctrinally, they disagree with the early Christians. Like I say, the Anabaptists, communion and baptism. For the Catholic and Orthodox, all this stuff they teach about Mary. And you attend one of their churches or read any of their literature, it's Mary, Mary, Mary, Mary. I mean, wow. I mean, she's like the queen of heaven.

She ascended to heaven, I mean, or her assumption to heaven. And all of this stuff of Mary, not a drop of that is in the early Christians. I mean, she's mentioned just a few times here and there. The party the strongest any of them make is showing how she correlates to Eve. Kind of Eve was the first one to sin, and Mary was the first one to have Jesus open the door for Jesus to come in. There's no prayers to saints in the early Christian writings. No veneration of icons and statues. They condemn that.

The Catholic Church, the Orthodox, they do not teach the two kingdoms, which is one of the fundamental teachings of Christianity, that we are a separate kingdom from this world. They don't teach that. Indulgences aren't taught very much anymore, but that was a big thing in the Middle Ages. You don't find a drop of that in the early Christian writings. The authority for the early Christians were the apostles, what the apostles handed down. They're very clear that this cannot be expanded. It cannot be changed.

A council can't change what we've received. But the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, they both teach, and they both would say, "Our final authority are the scriptures and the church councils, what they've decreed." They put them on an equal level. They say the church councils are inspired by God. And yeah, they're trumpeting, "Hey, we believe like the early Christians." And it's like, "No, you don't.

You believe a lot of things that are similar, but you're further away than you think." And when it comes to lifestyle, they're not even close. I mean, they go to war, persecute. Even today, I mean, in Russia, religious persecution has come back into Russia from the government, but the Orthodox Church is the one behind it and is happy to have it. They all will swear oaths. They take each other to court. They both have divorce and remarriage.

The Catholics at least make it difficult, but they still open the door for it. They don't teach anything about modest dress and adornment, any of that. They don't wear the headship veiling. In fact, at Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church says, "Okay, we don't need to do that anymore." Yeah, they think they have the power to change whatever the scriptures say. And then separation from the world. I mean, when you get in a Catholic country, they are the world. Everyone's a Catholic, and there's no difference.

What's the world and what's a Catholic? I mean, they're the same thing. And same with the Orthodox countries. So they're not even close. And like I say, I don't understand this, that we have such an ally as Anabaptists, and instead we fight against it and condemn it instead of appreciating where we are. And one last point, that again, I don't understand why this is such a big issue on baptism.

Because our church and all the rest of the Anabaptists, we would all agree that the following things need to precede baptism. A person should not be baptized unless they have faith in Jesus Christ, unless they have repented of their life and have been converted. Yeah, they've turned around to follow Christ, and they've made a commitment to follow him. That yeah, they're not just getting baptized and, "Okay, I'm going to just maybe change.

Everything's going to still be the same." No, I'm giving my life to Christ, and there's going to be a complete change in my life through his power. Okay, we would agree on all of that. And we also agree on this. What does God do for us? He forgives our sins. He justifies us. That means he declares us righteous when we are first saved, even though we are not. He gives us a clean slate. He gives us that standing. He adopts us as his children. He gives us a new birth, and he adds us to his church.

Now, our congregation would believe all those things. The rest of the Anabaptists believe all of those things. So you know the only issue that there is between us is when does God do that? And see, most Anabaptist churches would say, "That's right before your baptism, when you have prayed the sinner's prayer, given your life to Christ. Okay, then you get forgiven of your sins. You're justified. You're adopted as his child and all of that." And then baptism is a symbol that all these things have happened.

And we would say, "No, it's in the water that you receive the forgiveness of sins and are adopted in that." Now, is that such a big thing that we have to fight about or condemn people? I mean, what is the difference? You think this happens the week before your baptism, and we would say, "No, it happens in the water." What is the difference that we have to divide and quibble and argue and label people, smear them and all of that? I don't understand it. It is, to me, well, it's chronological snobbery.

We'll just put it that way. I mean, we can coexist, and there's no reason, like I say, there should be any wall between us. So, well, this was going to be a 30-minute sermon. It's good I didn't go into the other part. So I don't know when this will be, probably February. Part three, and it'll be the final part. Chronological snobbery. I mean, this is what is really amazing.

So not only do modern Christians condemn and look down on the early Christians that, "Oh, we know better than the Christians of the second century believed." They feel they're superior to the Apostolic Church, that, "Yeah, our church today is superior to the church in the New Testament, and we are superior to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job, you name it, whoever." I mean, that's the typical Christian position today.

Like I say, they're superior to everyone, not just the early Christians, but the New Testament church as well. So we're going to look at some of the claims, why they say that, and do we have a basis to be feeling so proud?