Thank you for sharing this, Ron. As you continue on your journey as a disciple, keep Jesus central in your focus.

Love that book.

This book is so anti Christ. Beware. David a "former" JW Elder, now a self ordained "Anabaptist Elder" btw it's not a term Anabaptist people use. Teaches that Christ is not God, that the Bible as original is not accurate, that the added books of the Orthodox Bible are more accurate. That it is required of works to be saved. Do not be deceived. He is a Wolfe in sheep's clothing. He is not of the true historic faith.

That's a good idea. Do you have anyone in particular in mind that we should consider having on the podcast?

@@ReaganSchrock I don't have anyone specific in mind but would suggest it's an ethnic Anabaptist.

Thanks for this idea, Gideon. We can't promise future episodes, but it's an idea that we'll keep in mind. If you think of ideas for a guest, feel free to send the name our way.

Be careful with the impact of that path on children. They need the wider Body of Christ for many reasons.

Flee from anyone calling themselves Pastor. Jesus commanded against such titles among the brethren. Matt. 23: 8-12. You may not be able to find a faithful gathering and have to be content with being faithful to Jesus. If you gather, is it to stir one another to love and good works and encourage one another? Or is it to gather to passively listen to Pastor lecture?

Are you not kind of doing what was warned against in this podcast by taking one scripture without context and leaving others where it talks about leaders and their roles?

Consider checking the resources on Scroll Publishing Company's website and KZfaq channel.

Thank you for the feedback, Byron. If we have David back for more episodes, we hope to have him respond to your question.

To be sure, David is from a group that calls themselves anabaptist s but they are not of the anabaptist doctrines. Please do your research on his background and the differences in the real Anabaptist teachings.

And we're always happy to have him join us for conversations.

Be not deceived David's interpretations are of a arianist interpretation. David is a lawyer, a quote" former Jehovah's witness but teaches that the mazoramic texts are not accurate and that one should use the Orthodox versions with the added books. He features that you are not saved until after you are baptized. That a confession of Faith and a repentance from sin does not equal salvation.

Good question. This is worth researching.

It would be nice if Reagan would ask him those type of questions but he just does softball interviews and says "wow" "amazing" to every answer his friends give in these interviews.

​@@Benjamin-jo4rfIt isn't easy to be in Reagan's position. Imagine that you or I would start a channel that puts tough questions at conservative Anabaptists. How many would be game? Probably only a handful. The channel would fold up after a few posts. And yet I agree with you, Benjamin, that there should be a way to critically engage guests.

@@MD-ef9fl your right. That's why it's time to pack it up. Let the Anabaptist idolatry end. You either want to follow Jesus or not. Forget about all the extra baggage. The whole premise of this channel is wrong. It's to appear as if their is a sincere desire to engage with difficult topics amongst theses folks. There is not. They simply want to live happily ever after in their little safe space with all their comforts and not get pushed into actually engaging in the hard work that the world needs followers of Jesus to do.

I'm quite confident that it is baptism and Communion. He holds to baptism being salvific and real presence if I'm not mistaken. Not typical within Anabaptism.

@@MD-ef9fl Yeah its hard to know how to do these interviews sometimes. There were a few times that I wanted to push back a little more on David, but since this episode is about his personal story I decided to let him share and leave it as is. Its a very delicate thing to run this podcast in a way that respects all parties. :) Thanks for the feedback.

Your best course of action is probably through the Scroll Publishing website: scrollpublishing.com/contact-us/

Unfortunantly we're not very well informed about the relationship between continuing Anglicans and the Anglican Church in North America. This is a worthy research project.

@@AnabaptistPerspectives I've always wanted to visit a Mennonite church -- for many years. Unfortunately, there are none in my area -- or at least any traditional-leaning Mennonite churches. I live in a progressive metropolitan area, and all the Ananbaptist-affiliated churches here are very liberal. I did a little research on various Mennonite-affiliated churches and found some that I think I could go to easily -- these would be in the "Rosedale Network of Churches." Unfortunately, the closest one is more than an hour away. However, this summer I'll be taking a trip and will be passing through an area in another state that has one of these churches, so I plan to visit. I'm really enjoying your content on KZfaq!

Thanks for sharing your experience. There are many places in North America without Mennonite churches nearby. With or without a church that matches your ideals, keep pursing a faithful relationship with Jesus in community with brothers and sisters that he has given to you.

I think churches of Christ are following the Bible closer than most although a lot of them lost pacifism and head coverings.James Watkins(church of Christ) Preaching the Gospel sermons helped me understand baptism;especially Man's Wisdom vs God's Foolishness; At the Ryman

@@w35655 Yes, the number of pacifists have declined over the past 30 years, and head coverings have gone from common to rare. That is sad. Worse IMO is that the original principle of ~being churches of Christ ... meaning following the New Testament pattern of local oversight, answering directly to the "Chief Shepherd" (cf 1 Pet 5 ...the only "Sr. Pastor" named in scripture) seems to have given way in the minds ...or at least speech of some to the notion of being in the right denomination. Jesus is the Lord of His Church, so we are either added by Him to it and walk in the relationship or we don't ...seems to me. And of course believer immersion in His name for the remission of sins ...part of the rebirth Jesus said was necessary to enter - that doctrine and practice certainly remains. David's research confirmed that this was the earliest common belief, and interpretation of Jn 3:3-5 also. It would seem that entering the Kingdom would be of first priority before working out whatever else might be lacking. We can do nothing without Him.

@@demcdoug I only understand that viewpoint if it is in defense of the Church of Christ. The CoC has changed a great deal over the last 150 years, but the Bible hasn't. So how is that possible if it's only based on the Bible? (It is part of my background from childhood and I see only a few correlations with the apostolic Church. The early leaders acknowledged them more, but that is gone.) The CoC is actually founded on Martin Luther in his invention of "sola scriptura" in 1518, one of the pillars of the Reformation.

@@ReluctantPost The Church or Body of Christ is not one of many denominations. If one approaches it as such, then he has already missed the point. Jesus said that He would build His Church, not Peter's, Paul's or Luther's. Consider the seven churches of the Revelation. They were local congregations, five of which had some things to correct, and only two of which were blameless in His judgement. While Jesus was clearly threatening to remove the "lamp stands" of those that should refuse to repent, He never instructed those who had "not soiled their garments" to run off and join the Smyrna denomination or the Philadelphia denomination. And as many problems as Paul was addressing in Corinth, he was particularly aggrieved that they were dividing over their association with or baptism by one prominent man or another. The Body of Christ is not divided. Getting back to Luther, he was adamant that those who appreciated him stop calling themselves Lutherans. He referred back to 1 Cor 1 in supporting his admonition. That and the ~claim of sola scriptura may be among the few things he got right, even if he then proceeded in attempting to remove or diminish the authority of those books that challenged his Augustinian doctrines (and Calvin's et. al.). But we either pursue the revelation of God in the New Testament, or we're making stuff up. Shouldn't anyone claiming Christ at least endeavor, however poorly to seek the truth in His word and honor His commandment to ~follow Him? And what fellowship should one covet but that which is "of Christ" ...??

@@demcdoug Except that the New Testament itself teaches against _sola scriptura,_ and so, not surprisingly, Luther's invention hasn't worked and today's myriad Protestant-Evangelical denominations, including the CoC (only one sub-definition of "denomination" involves a headquarters, not just an identifiable division), are the Lord's illustration in fruits. A CoC near me has been about one mile from another CoC because they haven't been able to agree for about 50 years. As one person put it about Luther's discovery that he couldn't even get his fellow Reformer, Zwingli, to agree on scriptural interpretation, the doctrine of "Scriptures alone" turned out to be "the means by which each man could go to hell in his own way." It was never the plan or teaching until the 16th century. 1 Tim. 3:15; 2 Thess. 2:15; etc.

That books is indeed worth reading.

The only Anabaptist churches in Mexico that we know of are listed here: churchindex.org/ It doesn't appear that any are in Veracruz. Whether or not God gives you an Anabaptist church, we hope that you continue to pursue a relationship with Jesus of loving discipleship in a community of believers.

I believe there is a group looking at starting an Anabaptist church in that area in the next few years!

@@KMar-dj5gh hello there, 3 anabaptist Christians came this last weekend to My Town, they came to explore the area speciallly the native area in the Mountains , am so glad with God to meet their children and to had some blesed time with them .... God bless You all

Thank you for this thoughtful feedback, Dale. You raise a fair critique.

These are fair questions. You'd have to ask David directly, if you want to know how he would respond to these questions. However, we do appreciate and endorse your recommendation that we spend time with the writings from the early church.

It is the ante-Nicene writings themselves that frustrate the Nicene and post-Nicene paths and their defenders because they espouse quite changed views, from their view of worldly kingdoms and war to their view of wealth. You are certainly correct about the Presence of Christ in His sacrifice at the Table, though not as transsubstantiation, as Rome would have it; but as John 6:63-64 and 1 Cor. 11:27 would have it. David does not take the unhistorical Protestant-Evangelical view of it. As for Tertullian, his perspective is expressed both in “Against Praxeas” and “Against Marcion.” He affirms the Virgin Birth, of course, but most of the additions to that doctrine came over centuries of development. The very name Theotokos for Mary does not appear until nearly 200 years after Christ. The early “fathers” as a whole believed that change to doctrine and practice was error, as the Scripture warns.

Thank you for the replies- my comment was meant sincerely, not as a polemical attack, so I appreciate that it was received in the intended spirit. And that's interesting. I will have to reread Against Praxeas and Against Marcion, I don't remember Tertullian espousing anything like that. And while I don't deny that there was plenty of development in the early church, I would only say that reformation theology is categorically novel. How could the church for so long have misunderstood what it means to be a church, Eucharistic theology (agreed- not necessarily under the transubstantiation formulation, but real presence eucharist being central) , what scripture is (divorcing it from liturgy with the advent of the printing press and plugging it into the 'fundamentalism gap' left by abandoning the authority of the pope, which leads to an epistemologically confusing 'solo scriptura' where one is to trust both an ecumenical council under Pope Damasus with defining scripture, but then also Luther's later revisions a millennium later?), etc.

@@tadhg841 the dictionary of early Christian beliefs by Bercot is a quick way to get into over 700 topics

3 fold office of Bishop/priest/deacon, holy altars, “all holy, ever virgin Theotokos”, painted icons of Christ on the chalice and drinking his blood from the icon, zero pushback on infant baptism with many proponents of it, Eucharist spiritually and physically Christ is present in the bread and cup, “we fight with you”, “we occupy your military fortresses”, intercession of the Theotokos and the saints, sacrament of ordination, sacrament of confession, "One orthodox Catholic Church", "One episcopate", sacramental baptism, "only bishops can ordain clergy", schism to create "rival churches" with "illegal meetings" condemned, the divine energies, veneration of relics and crosses, multiple different Christian military legions mentioned that defended innocent women and children and elderly but refused to fight offensive battles, oil lamps with icons of christ crucified/jonah/fish/crosses/etc on them, intentional services to commemorate the martyrs and saints, hundreds of intercessory prayers in the roman catacomb epitaphs that phillip schaff (calvinist translator of ante nicene fathers) himself admits many of them are before constantine's lifetime. ^ all found in the ante-nicene church history, but you wont hear that from any "church historian" that cherry picks the holy orthodox fathers, and claims their prooftexts for their protestant sect.

Thank you. This is an important clarification.

@@AnabaptistPerspectives how are they different?

There is actually a branch of evangelical Anglican. Ji packer seems to have been one.

quote that was abrasive?

56:36 "praying to icons". They don't.

@@merrill5780 that is “very abrasive”?

@@pigetstuck yes because it's such a common misleading statement, easily refuted. And was said in a scoffing sounding manner. It lowered a good discussion .

@@merrill5780 would it be more accurate to say "pray with icons"? was the scoffing manner in relation to the apologetics rather than the practice?

We can't speak for David, but I'm doubtful that he had right wing American politics in mind when he said that he was drawn toward conservative churches. The episode that he did with us a few years ago about America's founding may be of interest to you and address some of your concerns. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qNOHi9SnldG3h2w.html

I think you're mixing up politically conservative with theologically conservative. When David says he's drawn toward the conservative churches, he's referring to things like male leadership in the church, marriage defined as one man and one woman for life, divorce treated as adultery, etc. It seems to me that he's contrasting those beliefs with anabaptist denominations in the US, particularly, the Mennonite Church USA. Both these two are apolitical; I don't believe either of them will be voting for any presidential candidate based on their understanding of the Kingdom of God. I think David is well aware of the early church practices expressed in Acts. You should check out some of his teachings on the Scroll Publishing channel, especially "The Gospel of Jesus About the Poor". www.youtube.com/@ScrollPublishing/featured

​@@AnabaptistPerspectivesbut I've heard David preface any criticism of the USA with the statement "I'm a social conservative" which is the mennonite code for if I voted I'd vote Republican.

​@@Thoreseus_no, no he is not. I went to Kingdom fellowship weekend two years ago. I saw many proud trump supporters and voters there.

@@Thoreseus_ you are correct that they are both apolitical and do not vote in elections.