Customer Reviews

Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity

5 star:		(34)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Seldom has a book challenged my views as much as Mr. Bercot's work has done. David Bercot is an individual qualified to assess exactly just what the Early Christian community taught and believed. Not only is he a lawyer, but he also has a Master of Divinity degree and is an accredited member of the National Patristics Society. What impressed me most about this work was the standard that Mr. Bercot employed to determine if a teaching was truly Apostolic in origin and a valid belief of the Christian community. If a teaching was not held by several Fathers of the same time period from different geographical locations, then that teaching would not be included in the book.

What really convicted me was how different my brand of Christianity is from that of the earliest followers of the Apostles and their Spiritual descendants. For instance, Bercot notes how the Early Church believed that Jesus' teachings in the Synoptic gospels were literal. Sure, they understood that Jesus wasn't commanding us to literally pluck out our eyes, but many parts of Jesus' teaching that they understood literally, todays Christian community has watered down or spiritualized to accomodate our 21st century mentality. For example, how many believe that Jesus really wanted us to sell everything that we own and follow Him? I know of no church that teaches such a doctrine and if one were to teach this they would probably be regarded as strange, bizarre and out of their mind. Yet, this is exactly how the Early Church understood Jesus' message and this is what compelled Cyprian, the great 3rd century bishop of Carthage, to liquidate his vast fortune and follow Jesus with everything that he had. Most Christians today are victims of the materialistic message of our capitalistic culture and they don't even realize it; Virtually every church teaches that wealth and possessions are good things and that they are signs of God's blessings. Many believe that as long as they don't diligently pursue wealth and possessions that they are ok, but Jesus' message was simple, a man cannot serve two masters because he will either hate one and love the other. This is exactly what most Christians do, believing that they can pursue some things as long as they don't do it excessively. Yet, this was not the teaching of the Early Church and it was not how they understood Jesus' gospel. I am not exempting myself from such criticism because I am guilty of such practices myself, and thanks to this book I have begun to reevaluate my beliefs.

Another aspect of this book that convicted me was Bercot's explanation of the Early Christians' view of entertainment. I felt extremely uneasy when I read what Bercot had to say because I knew I was guilty of such practices. I realized I needed to exercise more caution and discretion in deciding what was acceptable to view because such material can and does have an impact on my spiritual well-being. Furthermore, Bercot's treatment of how the Early Christians viewed baptism should serve as a valuable wake up call to most of Christendom that has substituted man made inventions in place of the biblical practice of the early Christian community.

One thing about this book, it will not be liked by those of the Reformed persuasion. Bercot takes serious issue with Martin Luther and Augustine and disagrees with the Reformation doctrine of Sola Fide. Disagree with him all you like, he proves his point by showing that the Early Church insisted that obedience and a life of holiness were necessary for salvation. Moreover, Bercot disagrees with the doctrine of predestination believing that such a teaching has more in common with Gnosticism than with Apostolic Christianity. Again, disagree with him all you want, but Bercot clearly demonstrates that the Christians of the 2nd and 3rd centuries did not believe in unconditional election, but upheld the idea of free will. For those who argue that the ancient concept of fate and Augustinian predestination are different ideas, that argument will not work. Martin Luther argued in favor of predestination by illustrating how pagans believed in fate and arguing that even pagans relized the truth, showing that Luther believed predestination and fate to be one and the same. Also, Methodius writing in the 3rd century argued that those favoring fate and disavowing free will are guilty of making God the author of evils. Thus, Methodius shows that he equated fate with God and this is squarely predestinationism.

Anyways, buy this book to discover more about the beliefs of the Early Church. You may not agree with everything Mr. Bercot has to offer but I guarantee it will force you to reassess many of the teachings and principles you currently adhere to and believe in.

I read this book just as my conversion began. I was with a group who assumed that their doctrines were pure, and that the doctrines and practices of other groups were more or less corrupt. It was assumed that we were a re-establishment of the New Testament Church. I could have quoted you scriptures to defend every belief we had, and summon ones to dismiss every "error" anyone else had. Eventually I asked the obvious question - "if we've got the Truth, why aren't others coming here, and how did things get to be this bad? How did they go wrong?" I wanted a detailed answer, one that quoted texts that chronicled the supposed decline, rather than hearing someone else narrate to me with their own voice, from their own authority what they were told happened, or what they read some author claim had happened. After reading this book, I was forced to concede to the weight of the case made by Bercot, but like Bercot, I conceded happily (Matt.13:44-46) - at the time.

In the beginning section of the book, he fleshes out the vision of the Christians who were instructed by the Apostles, and those who were trained by them in turn. He quotes from their writings and gives you footnotes to follow. Their discipleship was so noble and rugged, I was immediately enthralled by them. They were filled with fire, and pursued the beauty of holiness by ascetic struggle (there was no 'easy-believism' or 'health and wealth' movements in the early Church). He details how the Church before Constantine (before A.D.325) lived out it's life of discipleship, and compares it to present-day movements.

The middle section details some central doctrines that the early Church universally believed. He doesn't do this selectively, quoting only from writings that support his portrait - he only presents a doctrine as being part of the early Church's teachings if he has found support for it from something like five different writers from five different continents across three centuries. It's hard for Bercot to misrepresent them when he's put himself under those kind of criteria. He certainly doesn't exhaust their theology and spirituality, but he doesn't actively misrepresent them on the topics he presents. Given all that, after spending years studying the 200-year period prior to the birth of the Messiah, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament and the Early Fathers from the first 4 centuries, it is painfully obvious that even under his criterion of objectivity, he still comes to the texts with a large number of common assumptions that he shares with the Evangelicals whom he seeks to correct in compassionate love, assumptions which will actively distort the biblical and patristic texts and conceal vast expanses of meaning in them. Please don't let that stop you, though - just don't take Bercot as the final word. I've provided some helpful books at the end of this review.

In the final section of the book, he traces an outline of how those teachings were "handled and mishandled," as Bercot puts it, up until and through the Protestant Reformation, and offers some suggestions to those who're wondering where the Church of the early Christians might be. Some of his suggestions in the 3rd edition of the book (not yet available) are guided by concerns that wouldn't have been familiar to the early Christians. Even in the 2nd edition, he doesn't talk about some essential beliefs about the nature of the Church that the early Christians both lived out and held firmly to, which are critical, and several other beliefs and practices that they would be grieved to be robbed of. Some of these beliefs and practices, when placed next to the ones Bercot mentions, make them look differently than the way Bercot presents them. Baptism would be one example, as well as the Eucharist (Bercot is not deceiving you, he's just not giving you the full picture, because he doesn't have it himself). Undergirding much of these inaccuracies is Bercot's rotten to non-existent grasp of the early Church's teachings about the Trinity - neither in his books, nor in his taped audio lectures does he demonstrate an understanding of their experience or understanding of their faith, but rather, re-interprets it through the lens of the presuppositions common to himself and his intended audience. Furthermore, he doesn't really touch on the subject of early Christian worship - it's order and structure, and what they thought they were doing when they gathered for worship. The centrality of worship in the early Church for the knowledge of Christ, and thus for doctrine, spirituality and a proper reading of the scriptures cannot be overstated. Read Hippolytus' "On The Apostolic Tradition," a work not found in the _Ante-Nicene Fathers_ set which Bercot and the now-defunct community he was a part of promoted (which set of books is a very worthy and economic investment). Hippolytus outlines entire liturgies of the worship from the 2nd century Church.

It was seven years ago that I first read _Heretics_, so the thicket it landed me in has since become navigatable. Understanding the thrills and frustrations that usually accompany (& follow) reading it, I thought I might offer some advice to those who are wrestling with the book's contents (I know this is presumptuous of me, but because Bercot makes so many errors that are impossible to address in the space of a review, the list of advice and suggested reading is longer than I'd like it to be, but don't be intimidated).

First, read the Ante-Nicene Fathers for yourself. If you don't have time for all of them, at least read the Apostolic Fathers, Irenaeus and Eusebius. I would strongly urge anyone who wants to understand early Christianity to read Irenaeus's "Apostolic Preaching," translated by John Behr (this work is not included in the Ante-Nicene Fathers set published by Hendrickson), as well as a book by him entitled "The Way to Nicea," which is all about Christianity during the period before the Council of Nicea. That book is slightly academic - it's not for everyone, though it's certainly rewarding (also read his pastoral reflections related to that book entitled "Life in Death"). Read a fantastic book by Olivier Clement entitled "The Roots of Christian Mysticism." Read volume 1 of Jaroslav Pelikan's History of Christian Doctrine entitled "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition" (that book is _not_ about Roman Catholicism, o frightened reader - Pelikan was a Protestant when he wrote that book).

Secondly, you must understand the world of 2nd Temple Judaism, because that's the world of Christ Jesus, His Apostles, and some of the earliest, Apostolic Fathers of the Church which Bercot writes about. Bercot does not understand this world. I very, very strongly recommend reading two simple books of N.T. Wright's, "The Challenge of Jesus" and "The Crown and the Fire." They both bear upon the culture of 1st century Judaism and show how a 1st century Jew would have interpreted the text - Wright is familiar with a vast array of historical material related to that time period that Bercot is not, material quite relevant to the text of scripture and the Apostolic Fathers. If you're more ambitious, then pick up his slightly more academic (but approachable by a non-expert) "New Testament and the People of God," which will help clarify a great many things that Bercot doesn't even touch. His portrait of Jesus fits so very well with the pre-Nicene Church's teachings and life. Read James Vanderkam's "An Introduction to Early Judaism," which covers the historical period from 516 BC to 70 AD. Furthermore, George Nickelsburg's "Ancient Judaism and Christian Origins: Diversity, Continuity, and Transformation" will illuminate much of what's going on the NT that you wouldn't be able to know without it, because it paints a picture of all the diverse forms of belief and practice amongst Jews during the 1st century, and shows how patterns of Christian belief and practices departed from or were in harmony with the various other assumptions, beliefs and practices of other Jewish groups. The Apostles and their disciples were Jews, so it's important for us who are neither ethnically Jewish not 1st century Jews to understand what's going on here. Don't assume that you understand this until you've done the time reading - you'll be amazed at how many secular assumptions stemming from the so-called "Enlightenment" have infected your thinking and blinded you to the historical situation and thus, some important aspects of the biblical text.

Third, you _must_ understand what was going on in the Jerusalem Temple, which was considered by virtually all Jews to be the center of everything in Jerusalem and Judaism. To this end, begin by reading 2 articles, both of which can be found on the webpage "The Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism," housed by Marquette University (if you type the name of the webpage into Google, you'll find it - both of the following articles are there under "THEME 14: Jewish Temple Traditions and Christan Liturgy"). The first article is by a british scholar named Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis, and it is entitled "The Cosmology of P and Theological Anthropology in the Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach." It outlines the theology of what was going on in the Jerusalem Temple, and clarifies where much of the imagery Jesus uses to describe himself comes from - the Jerusalem Temple Liturgy, the High Priest, clothed in God's Wisdom (only, clearly, with Jesus it is reversed - Wisdom clothed in Humanity). It will blow your mind, and help you to understand much about the references to Christ, the Church and the Temple that are scattered all over the New Testament and the early Church's writings. The second article is called "Atonement: the Rite of Healing," and it describes the rite of Atonement in the Jerusalem Temple, and what that action meant. The Temple Liturgy is clearly where the OT images about blood and sacrifice come from, and also where the NT images come from - but it's meaning is not what you think, and what was going on in the Temple explains the trajectory of Apostolic and Patristic theology (Luther, Calvin, the Reformers and Roman Catholicism from the 16th century onward - misunderstand Atonement in terms of punishment and merit, what was going on in the Temple was very different). Finish by reading Jon Levenson's "Sinai and Zion." The Marquette University Website is a great resource. The mysticism of Temple theology explains much (I suspect all) of the spiritual gifts mentioned by the Apostles, contra the review of this book by 'E. Martin "scalawagg."'

Fourth - if you're intellectually/academically inclined at all, I have found six great minds very helpful after reading Bercot, in ascending order of importance. Wolfhart Pannenberg's 3 volume "Systematic Theology" was incredibly helpful, though it's errors were corrected both by Avery Dulles "Models of Revelation," and especially by Robert Jenson's 2 volume "Systematic Theology," which was superior to both. Most importantly David Hart's "The Beauty of the Infinite," Vladimir Lossky's "Mystical Theology," and Dumitru Stanilaoe's "The Experience of God" are must-reads; though Stanilaoe requires patience, the payoff is more than worth it. If you're interested, feel free to contact me and I'll tell you why I found these helpful in relation to Bercot's work, particularly it's shortcomings.

Fifth, and this is critical, don't dismiss the Christians who wrote during the centuries that followed after the council of Nicea (325 A.D.). To this end, begin by reading a 2-part article on the Marquette University website by Alexander Golitzin titled "Liturgy and Mysticism," which traces patterns of worship from the Hebrew Bible through the New Testament and on into the post-apostolic Church (that _might_ be the best article I've ever read as an introduction to the unity of the Scriptures and the Fathers). Then, again, continue by reading that simply fantastic book by Olivier Clement called "The Roots of Christian Mysticism." Do not dismiss Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor (buy Andrew Louth's book on him), John of Damascus, Symeon the New Theologian (buy his "Mystical Theology" - he titled a section of one of his treatises as "Only the Dead Feel Nothing: The Need for a Conscious Experience of the Holy Spirit"), and many others. Buy the Nicene and Post-Nicene Father's set from Hendrickson. Buy the Philokalia. Some of Bercot's portraits/conclusions about the Church's history during the centuries that followed immediately after Nicea are horridly misleading. He doesn't do this intentionally, of course; I've visited with Bercot twice, and he's a wonderful man, a generous host, a sincere Christian - and from what I hear from friends who know him, he's now a Mennonite (you could see it coming, though - whether he's aware of it or not, he reads the romantic picture of the Anabaptist Christianity that he fell in love with back into the early Church...). If you do dismiss those that came after Nicea, or think that the "visible Church" became corrupted, you're essentially admitting that the Spirit of God was active for 300 years, guiding the Church, but afterwords failed to fulfill the promises made by Christ that "the gates of Hades/Death will not prevail against [my Church]." If the Church really went apostate after Nicea, then either Christ was wrong, the scriptures misrepresent Him, He is too weak to fulfill His promise, or worse, He was a liar. God Himself dwells in His Church, and He is able to guide her through her errors to fulfill her ministry until the Consummation at the End of the Ages.

I love trading thoughts on this book, and swapping experiences that have come from and with it.

Sometime soon, I hope to post a review of his other book, _Common Sense_. 3 years after first writing this review, many more things have come to my attention.

After reading all the reviews posted, I would like to clarify a few things about the Author and this book. David Bercot may not have a doctorate,but it is quite clear after over 20 years of study of the complete works of the early church fathers, Editor of "The Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" and other studies too numerous to mention, this gentleman would be deserving of one. I find it doubtfull that any of these reviewers have ever read (much less studied) all 10 volumes of the ante nicene fathers. This book is the beginning of a journey by a man who admits to being a pilgrim himself, it is a mind opening book along the lines of "The Gospel according to Jesus" (MacArthur) and "How saved are we?"(Brown) If you are looking for a non-controversial book that never makes you Question if your beliefs are truth and allows you to be a pathetic weak "Christian".DO NOT READ THIS BOOK. If however you are interested in seeing how the Christians who were taught, ordained and lived with Apostles like John and Paul, viewed and interpreted the Gospel, this book is for you. Wether you agree with it or not it will certainly make you look at your own beliefs.
As for those reviewers who think he did not go far enough, or missed certain points, His second book "Common Sense" and over 30 audio tapes, cover all of those areas and many, many others.
My Prayer is that all who proclaim to Follow Jesus, will Make him Lord (not just savior) and DO his will. "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord'and do not do what I say?" Luke 6:46

Bercot has forged a damning critique of contemporary evangelicalism, a movement which once cherished it's "separation" from the world and now apes every passing marketing fad through "christian rock music," "christian romance novels," "christian financial advise," "christian self-help" (e.g. MEN ARE FROM ISRAEL, WOMEN ARE FROM MOAB) etc.

Evangelicals who once prided themselves on being "not conformed to this world" have seemingly replaced the Episcopal Church for being "the Republican party at prayer."

In sum evangelialism is not a church, nor is it even movement anymore. Evangelicalism is now a niche market and a somewhat marginal political constituency (one to be manipulated in biennial crusades against the godless "secular humanist liberals" only to dismissed when the election is over an governing has to take place.)

It is no wonder why Bercot has stirred up such a hornet's nest in some circles.

In addition to the overdue sizing up of evangelicalism, this book is valuable in serving to stimulate interest in Patristics (the study of the church fathers). I am particularly grateful for the space he gives to Origen, the church's most brilliant intellect before Augustine.

Perhaps most importantly he reminds us that Chritian life is not a one-on-one proposition (the usual interpretation of having "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ"), but one done in Community. This cannot be emphasized enough.

This being said several notes of caution must be sounded.

First, reconstructing the church from the early fathers is a little like trying to reconstruct U.S. history with only back issues of the New York Times Op-Ed page to go on. You can derive a lot, but the picture will be distorted and tendentious and incomplete. Attention needs to be given to New Testament Apocrypha and, yes, heretical and pagan writings need to help fill out of picture (although it will still be incomplete).

Secondly, it is just plain wrong to say that the faith and the church was an unchanging affair for at least the first 3 or 4 centuries. Reading the fathers shows us considerable change, however unacknowledge. The first century church was one of spiritual gifts and prophecy. Towards the end of the first century into the early second century the office of the bishop become established (largely at the insistence of Ignatius of Antioch).During the second century, veneration of martyrs and increasing emphasis on the Mother Mary developes. By the third century, infant baptism becomes accepted practice. Along the way also presbyters become "priests," bishops in major cities become "patriarchs and the role of women become much diminished. *All* of this is very clear from the historical record (see Ronald Kydd's book on spiritual gifts in the early church and Ben Witherington's on women in the earliest churches.

Even on crucial doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, it must be admitted that these doctrines developed (or if you prefer *refined*) over the course of centuries and what would have been "orthodox" in the third century would be "heretical" in the fourth.

Thirdly, Bercot makes much of the fact that the Church Fathers were nearer in time to the apostles, but I would argue that it is entirely possible for contemporary scholarship in certain cases to have insight into New Testament teachings that were unavailable to the Church Fathers, particularly considering the fact that *all* the Fathers were gentiles and most of the New Testament writers were jews.

Fourthly, Bercot scores some points against Luther and Calvin. Concerning this, I can only say that Luther is not easily dismissed with a few stray quotes. Anyone who thinks he understands Luther on the first reading is almost certainly wrong. Further justification by faith has stronger biblical bases than Bercot might think (see Frank Thielman's PAUL AND THE LAW and Thomas Schreiner's book on the subject).

As for Calvin, the current teaching of "eternal security" of salvation as something of a "spiritual tattooing" (something done as a youthful indiscretion on wild weekend and then indelibly part of the person for the rest of their life), is a complete travesty of Calvin and Calvinist teaching on "perserverance of the saints." Calvin, the Puritans, and Jonathan Edwards, with their concentration on sanctification would be as horrified as anyone over this teaching of "once saved, always saved."

So in conclusion, keep in mind the limitations as well as the strengths of the Church Fathers. Read other books like J.N.D. Kelly and Thomas Oden on the Early Church. But with all else, "test the spirits."

Finally to those who ask "Sola *sic* Origen, Sola *sic* Tertullian, Sola *sic* Policarp *sic*..." they should ask how many are their beliefs are based "Solo Calvin, Solo Luther, Solo Lewis Sperry Chafer."

There were parts of this book I really liked. There were parts I didn’t. And there were parts I didn’t like but they were really good- I just didn’t like having to rethink my ideas.

Growing up in a Jesus People commune, the Highway Missionaries, I am a staunch primitivist- I believe that what the early church believed, we should also. The Bible is important primarily as a record of the beliefs of the early Church. Bercot’s arguments therefore struck a resonating chord with me. I appreciated Bercot’s wide use of key Patristic Fathers to demonstrate his ideas, and many of the issues he addresses are key ones for that day and ours. He takes us through a historical understanding of the beliefs of the early Christians, why they believed what they did, and why we lost our original zeal, only to become further lost in the reformation. Strong words which don’t seem supportable, until you read through the text. So we see how baptism was originally a symbol of a deeper process- not just a representation, but a true symbol that takes part in that which is symbolized. And as the church became authorized by the state, it lost it’s original purity of poverty and persecution, seeing instead the glory of God in prosperity and protection. This only increased under Luther. And again in the modern American church.

His arguments, or rather the Patristic’s arguments, for soteriology being from the action of God and humanity were very sound. I had earlier come to believe that the salvation process of Christ was not quite the same as Paul’s. Or rather, the common interpretation of Paul’s. As I read what Jesus said, and looked at early church leaders, I was impressed suddenly that it is not true that we are saved by faith alone. Nor is it true that we are saved by works. But rather, it seemed the message of Jesus was “by change alone”- not sola fideo but sola morphe. We must allow the old woman or man to die, and the new one to take it’s place. This involves a whole lot of faith and a good measure of works. Bercot does a successful job of exploring this.

I would wish his treatment of warfare were more expanded. But it is beautiful to see how the early Christians tied abortion, capitol punishment, and warfare together. They just didn’t like people dying. ...

And there were aspects I wish I hadn’t read. As a strong predestinationist, I really didn’t like reading that the early Christians supported free will. It always feels like a bit of a death when one must give up some of one’s cherished beliefs. I had to modify some of my thinking on this, and accept arminianism to a greater extent. I think now that both predestination and arminianism must be true, and that God chooses to change us when we choose to change as much as we change when God so chooses.

But there were aspects of Bercot’s work that could have been done better, I believe. In his section on free will, he doesn’t quote enough from Patristic authors actually discussing Romans and other key scriptural texts. And the texts he does quote finally lead me to understand that what the early authors were arguing against was Fate- not Predestination. Against the idea, common at the time and within Islam today, that God determined my actions, therefore I am not responsible. They were not arguing against the idea as expressed by Paul, that despite God’s election, we are still responsible. Those arguments were to occur later in history. I believe here Bercot uses the Church Fathers to prove ideas that had not yet developed.

Likewise I find fault in those issues that I have studied in more detail. On evolution, there were those in the early church who argued against the use of the Bible to prove scientific origin ideas, as it misused the text and made a mockery of believers. (see St. Augustine : The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Vol. 1 (Ancient Christian Writers, No. 41)) In general, the early church did not see the importance of interpreting certain texts literally. Indeed, the sources he cites do not actually address issues of evolution. I know from numerous sources that the early church had a wide practice of women in leadership. His sources he cites again do not deny this. In fact at one point he attempts to show that Tertullian did not support women in leadership. Yet Tertullian simply describes a heretical group (without disparagement), and Bercot then mentions the Montanists as being lead by women, yet earlier he had stated that Tertullian joined this same group! Finally I must strongly disagree with his ideas that signs and wonders weren’t widely practiced in the primitive church. Again, numerous sources show otherwise, especially in the first 2 centuries. I believe this is the largest chapter missing from Bercot’s work- something heavily practiced in the first few centuries, and in the 2/3rds world church, yet hardly at all any longer in the West.

...

But I nit-pick; these disagreements are minor within the entire work. Bercot has written a great rallying cry for the Church to return to her true roots. It is time that we again look at those saints who went before, and let them speak to us.

David Bercot is an Anglican priest and an attorney. He is good at argument and presents some interesting points from some very early Christians. However, it becomes clear toward the end of the book that this man does have a strong bias and is not really attempting to be objective in his claims of Christianity from the time of Constantine onward. Here are just a few examples:
1. He claims that icons were "a practice utterly loathsome to early Christians" on page 129. Yet, the footnote is empty (omitted, as a type-o); in cross-reference with his "Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs", most of his support comes from a now Montanistic Tertullian.
2. On page 128 seems to assert that the use of Relics did not occur until Helen "started... relic mania."
3. Chapter 14 brushes over Arianism as if the subject of Christ's divinity was more a matter of personal opinion than a serious issue that warranted a Church Council (which, incidentally, has precedence in scripture in Acts 15... another fact conveniently ignored by the author).
4. Chapters 17 and 18 simply ignore that Eastern Orthodoxy even exists; this is not an appropriate oversight!
5. Chapter 19 reveals the liberal protestant aim of the author in that we need "unity in the essentials" and "diversity in the non-essentials" since that is the way "the early Christians" were.
After reading it, I am much more skeptical about his assertions in the beginning of the book because the author has not demonstrated that he can present an objective argument. This is a great read for people looking to support an anti-Roman Catholic or anti-Orthodox bent though. If this is what you are looking for, then by all means, buy it!

I consider this book seminal in both its topics and scope. If you are a Christian, (or even if you have no interest in church history,) "Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up" will challenge you as perhaps no other can or will.

The early Christian writers, (sometimes referred to as "fathers,") left a body of writings that have been preserved to this day, (enough to fill a 10 volume set.) Though not inspired by God, (as were the Apostles who wrote the New Testament,) their writings do reflect what the early church believed and practiced for almost 300 years, (until the church was severely compromised by an unholy union with the Roman state under Emperor Constantine's overtures.)

When personally challenged to read these writings, David Bercot initially rejected them; discovering that their beliefs were so antiquated and out of step with contemporary beliefs. Yet, as he begin reading them again, he came to the overwhelming conclusion that what the church believes today is *drastically* different from the beliefs of the early Christians.

* Do you believe that a Christian is saved by faith alone, apart from good works? Then you believe a doctrine rejected as heresy by the early church.
* Do you believe a Christian has no choice in his salvation, but is saved solely by the choice of God? The early church understood every person has a free will and is held accountable by God according to the choices made from it. (The pagans of the day were predestinationalists, believing all of life was controlled by "fate.")
* Do believe a Christian can fight and kill in a war, and still go to heaven? The early Christians knew that those who lived by the sword would be killed by the sword, and therefore strove to live meek and harmless lives; preferring to suffer death at the hands of unbelievers rather than fight to save their lives, (like their Master did before them.)

Included in this book is a very simple and understandable description of exactly where and how the church came to disown these original teachings, and why it currently believes and practices something entirely different today. Bercot's style is remarkable in its persuasion and meekness; refraining from attacking or belittling those who take the opposing view. (However, his arguments are unanswerable, due to their unavoidable logic and evidentiary conclusions.)

* If you are a Calvinist, (or of that persuasion,) you will not like this book.
* If you are a modern Evangelical, and believe in "Once Saved, Always Saved," you will not like this book.
* If you are participant or supporter of any war or military action, you will be highly offended by this book.

In short, if you are a denier of the literal words and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, you are utterly out-of-fellowship with the Believers of the first and second centuries, for they strove to follow Jesus as literally and as earnestly as they could. (And you would be cast out of their churches as a first-class heretic.)

The church today simply does not believe what Jesus taught. The early church did, and we have their writings as evidence of what they believed and accomplished. Scripture decidedly foretells of an end-times apostasy, or "great falling away." When you compare the beliefs of the early church with what is believed and practiced today, you can clearly see that we are most decidedly in the very center of this prophecy. (And its only going to get worse.)

"Flee from the wrath to come!" It was preached 2,000 years ago, and it needs to be preached today. Only the target is YOU, dear Christian, and not some poor pagan unbeliever. (For it will be better for him in the day of judgment than for you, if you refuse to walk in *all* the commands of the Lord Jesus.)

Bercot does a good job of summarizing what the early church believed, and passing the information onto us. He challenges the beliefs of many Christians today whose beliefs do not match up with what the Earliest Christians believed. One only has to read the texts to know that, but Bercot saves us that trouble. Bercott not only tells us what they believed on such issues as Calvinism, but he gives scripture to back up the early Christian beliefs, to show they didn't just come up with it out of thin air. Its a very mind opening book. I must admit through my Bible reading I came up with a lot of what the early Christians did--I believe the death penalty is wrong, etc. But this book just goes to show that not going along with Conservatism doesn't mean you aren't a Christian. Bercot makes a big deal about Fundamentalist beliefs following Conservatism's tenets and not vice-versa and I tend to agree. Overall a great book.

I am a theologian, and have an interest in books that discuss Early Christianity, and Bercot's "Heretics..." though shorts, is "on the ball," so to speak.

He discusses how the doctrines of Early Christians are different to those of the modern Evangelical faith, with Early Christians believing that, contra Evangelicalism, one could lose their salvation, that baptism was necessary for salvation, and so forth.

Additionally, for the benefit of the reader, who would probably not have heard much about the Early Christians cited in the text (e.g. Justin Martyr), Bercot provides a brief introduction to such individuals, with their background and history.

Although many EVangelicals, some I have shared e-mail correspondences with disagree, this is a must-read, regardless of how "uncomfortable" (Bercot's choice of words) such a venture will be.

When we are reminded that the early Christian church operated under the inspired authority of the apostles it should give give one pause as to how far we have drifted from what the apostles taught and the early church practiced. It is interesting how "mainstream Christianity" has morphed to become almost the polar opposite as to what was originally taught and practiced by the early church under the direction of the apostles.