Church History in 13 Minutes - Pastor Steven Anderson

preview_player
Показать описание

Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

you realize ignatius called those who didn't believe in real prescence heretics and he was trained by John

F-LightningII-vfdo
Автор

“This is a simplification”

That is the understatement of the century. This man literally got like 96% of the history wrong.

SamuelMoerbe
Автор

Could someone please buy this person a book on church history?

johncox
Автор

The Orthodox Church didn’t split with Rome over baptism; they excommunicated us for rejecting papal supremacy.

autisticmystic
Автор

This is hilarious.
I always go back to this if I need a laugh.

loweffortstolenmemes
Автор

Lol at the end "Pastor Demitriosis's Fundamentalist Baptist Church" Circa 300AD

hboig
Автор

Man...that end got me rolling on the floor

hezzy
Автор

Half of what this dude is saying is historically inaccurate.
1. You are missing multiple groups such as Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East, Moravians, Donatists, Arians, Monophysites, Nestorians
2. The main issue with the East/West schism was the filioque and the papacy, not baptism.
3. Lutherans reject the doctrine of transubstantiation, yes we believe in real presence, but we have a different view on it. (I personally am Lutheran)
4. Presbyterians come from Calvin, as well as Knox.
5. Reformed Baptists agree more with Baptist doctrine than with Calvin, as many reject the use of creeds, confessions, covenant theology, infant baptism, and spiritual presence.
6. Baptists do have connections to the Church of Rome.

TradProtCJ
Автор

His history lesson is like a Abeka textbook. Leaves out a lot of details, and throws in opinion by the truckload.

clayleissner
Автор

Pastor Steve's church is only 13 minutes old.

MrFizmath
Автор

Luther kept transubstantiation? ROTFLOL. It’s hilarious when someone who has no idea what he’s talking about attempts to teach.

williammetz
Автор

Obviously a lot of this is absolute nonsense that I cant cover in one cmment, but 7:30 really bugged me so much I cant ignore it.

First of all, African is not a nationality. Secondly, the AME has never been Exclusively for Africans and people of African descent. Go read the AME website for like two seconds. It has always been an interracial, internationality church. But back during segregation days, black people (mostly in the southern US) were often rejected from or unwelcomed in church buildings. So a black methodist minister moved to his own church building where everyone was welcome. It's literally no different than any other Methodist denomination. The only reason they put "African" in the name was to let black Methodists know they'd be welcomed there.

isaacsingleton
Автор

pasta anderson is some of the best comedy on YT

PatrickInCayman
Автор

This is one of the wildest and least accurate portrayals of denominations and church history.

solomonsvehla
Автор

I don’t think this guy has read a history book lol

ruthimegi
Автор

“Simplification” yeah, a simplification that get pretty much everything wrong, like why the Orthodox and Catholics split (it was over the papacy primarily), Lutheran believing in transubstation (they believe in sacramental union), saying the Orthodox used textus receptus (I mean come on it’s a Latin phrase think about it for two seconds), the Episcopalian Church coming out of the Anglican one (they did not “come out” of the Anglican Church they are the same denomination the American branch changed their name during the revolution but it’s still part of the Anglican Communion), AME is meant for Africans since they don’t want to be unified with other peoples (the AMA is not exclusively African, as to why it has African in the name white people largely didn’t want go to church with black people in American after slavery and during slavery they had been forced to go to slave churches rather than the same churches the white people went to. They didn’t create it to be separate they created it because they were forced to be separate), UCOC is Obama’s denomination enough said (ah yes, someone you don’t like is part of a denomination therefore that denomination is bad, I guess we shouldn’t go to any church since there’s probably someone we don’t like who is part of it UCOC is still bad but not because Obama is part of it), a separate line from this family tree is baptists (baptists come from the English separatists out of the Anglican Church along with Puritans and Quakers)

Algernir
Автор

Ah yes, the Orthodox in 1054 with their textus receptus based bibles.

iplaylespauls
Автор

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

SensiblyCatholic
Автор

There are so many things wrong with this. It would take hours to list all the errors and attempt to correct them all.

MarcusCaddock
Автор

It's funny because the Catholics split from the Orthodox. And there are Far more issues with the Western church than just sprinkling.

TheHornedOne