What do you think?
Rate this book
Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity
An overview of the early Christians: what they lived and what they believed. However, this is not a mere history book. The author challenges today's Christians to return to the simple faith, unconditional love, and obedience to Jesus that characterized the early church.
189 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 1, 1989
113 people are currently reading
313 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews
October 23, 2018
I'm not entirely sure that there is anything new or insightful I can add to the reviews that have already given it a less-than-stellar rating.
That said, let me first say that what I believe to be the ultimate premise of the book - that the evangelical church has strayed far from what the original church founders believed and practiced - I agree with. There were moments of this book that were absolutely convicting, and for that reason alone it goes from one star to two. However, I had real issues with the scholarship (or lack thereof, frankly) that was used to support the author's assertions and conclusions.
First of all his use of the gnostics. Let me be clear - they were absolutely heretics. Period, end of story. Unfortunately, what the author does is explain some of the gnostic beliefs that match the evangelical church of today, but then uses DIFFERENT gnostic beliefs that are actually heretical as "proof" that "see, the evangelical church is heretical too!" It was a dizzying logic.
He also employs large brush strokes against all evangelical churches, in one instance claiming that it believes baptism is an insignificant matter. I can't speak for all churches (though, again frankly, neither can the author), but I have attended many evangelical churches of all sizes, and in many geographies from East to West Coast, and not one made baptism out to be "an insignificant matter."
There was also a confusing bit when the author went on a rant about altar calls. It truly was a non sequitur that came out of nowhere, and had little if anything to do with what he was writing about in that chapter. And just because something is characteristic of the 18th and 19th century Christian church, why is that automatically suspect? The church at the time wasn't changing doctrine or theology, they were just changing outreach. It was puzzling and off-putting. Trying to change what the Bible says = yes, bad. Altar calls? I have a difficult time equating altar calls with deep theological changes - but the author didn't have that same issue.
Agreeably, the author has a strong disdain for the prosperity gospel, or "health & wealth," that is preached in many places today. I could not agree more, and applaud him for his unwavering stance on this. Unfortunately, the verses he uses as his proof, he claims all have to do with money. However, a careful reading of the Scriptures doesn't indicate money as the root of all evil, but "THE LOVE OF." Jesus was and always will be concerned with our hearts. The young rich man who went away from Jesus sad loved his earthly treasures more than Jesus. THAT is why Jesus proclaimed it was easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle. He knew the young man's heart. He didn't care about his bank account. I wonder what Abraham, Joseph, Lydia, Joseph of Arimathea, etc., etc. would say to the author's assertions.
The author also makes an almost reverse claim, that poverty somehow automatically confers piety, a belief system I personally find almost as loathsome as health and wealth. But that's a personal opinion, I admit. Again, see Abraham, Joseph, Lydia, Joseph of Arimathea and all other OT and NT leaders and please - tell them they weren't pious, honored believers.
Finally, after all this, the author comes to the conclusion that the only modern day denomination that comes close to reflecting the original church founders is the Anabaptists. And - surprise! - it turns out he is a member of that denomination. Of course, he doesn't disclose that, but at this point scholarship is out the window anyway, so what could I expect. (I'm sorry, I know I've grown more sarcastic the longer this post goes). He also doesn't disclose that while many Anabaptists were humble people, there were several of their sects (especially in Germany) that practiced multiple wives and in the Netherlands had some violent uprisings, despite allegedly believing in pacifistic views.
I would assume his response to that would be that you can't dismiss an entire church and belief system on some bad actors, and I would agree. However, his entire book is built on dismissing the modern evangelical church in a similar vein.
If you've made it thru this review this far - kudos! :-) Obviously, I can't recommend this book to people, but I also think that everyone should read and think for themselves, so if you do decide to read his book, just go in with your eyes open.
That said, let me first say that what I believe to be the ultimate premise of the book - that the evangelical church has strayed far from what the original church founders believed and practiced - I agree with. There were moments of this book that were absolutely convicting, and for that reason alone it goes from one star to two. However, I had real issues with the scholarship (or lack thereof, frankly) that was used to support the author's assertions and conclusions.
First of all his use of the gnostics. Let me be clear - they were absolutely heretics. Period, end of story. Unfortunately, what the author does is explain some of the gnostic beliefs that match the evangelical church of today, but then uses DIFFERENT gnostic beliefs that are actually heretical as "proof" that "see, the evangelical church is heretical too!" It was a dizzying logic.
He also employs large brush strokes against all evangelical churches, in one instance claiming that it believes baptism is an insignificant matter. I can't speak for all churches (though, again frankly, neither can the author), but I have attended many evangelical churches of all sizes, and in many geographies from East to West Coast, and not one made baptism out to be "an insignificant matter."
There was also a confusing bit when the author went on a rant about altar calls. It truly was a non sequitur that came out of nowhere, and had little if anything to do with what he was writing about in that chapter. And just because something is characteristic of the 18th and 19th century Christian church, why is that automatically suspect? The church at the time wasn't changing doctrine or theology, they were just changing outreach. It was puzzling and off-putting. Trying to change what the Bible says = yes, bad. Altar calls? I have a difficult time equating altar calls with deep theological changes - but the author didn't have that same issue.
Agreeably, the author has a strong disdain for the prosperity gospel, or "health & wealth," that is preached in many places today. I could not agree more, and applaud him for his unwavering stance on this. Unfortunately, the verses he uses as his proof, he claims all have to do with money. However, a careful reading of the Scriptures doesn't indicate money as the root of all evil, but "THE LOVE OF." Jesus was and always will be concerned with our hearts. The young rich man who went away from Jesus sad loved his earthly treasures more than Jesus. THAT is why Jesus proclaimed it was easier for a camel to go through an eye of a needle. He knew the young man's heart. He didn't care about his bank account. I wonder what Abraham, Joseph, Lydia, Joseph of Arimathea, etc., etc. would say to the author's assertions.
The author also makes an almost reverse claim, that poverty somehow automatically confers piety, a belief system I personally find almost as loathsome as health and wealth. But that's a personal opinion, I admit. Again, see Abraham, Joseph, Lydia, Joseph of Arimathea and all other OT and NT leaders and please - tell them they weren't pious, honored believers.
Finally, after all this, the author comes to the conclusion that the only modern day denomination that comes close to reflecting the original church founders is the Anabaptists. And - surprise! - it turns out he is a member of that denomination. Of course, he doesn't disclose that, but at this point scholarship is out the window anyway, so what could I expect. (I'm sorry, I know I've grown more sarcastic the longer this post goes). He also doesn't disclose that while many Anabaptists were humble people, there were several of their sects (especially in Germany) that practiced multiple wives and in the Netherlands had some violent uprisings, despite allegedly believing in pacifistic views.
I would assume his response to that would be that you can't dismiss an entire church and belief system on some bad actors, and I would agree. However, his entire book is built on dismissing the modern evangelical church in a similar vein.
If you've made it thru this review this far - kudos! :-) Obviously, I can't recommend this book to people, but I also think that everyone should read and think for themselves, so if you do decide to read his book, just go in with your eyes open.
May 1, 2025
Most convicting books I’ve read in a while. Covering the beliefs and lifestyle of the early church and how modern Christianity has strayed away from both gradually, but as a result of the reformation.
The early church lived by a deep trust that resulted in unwavering obedience to God. They strived to truly live as a set apart people that was unstained from the world
The early church lived by a deep trust that resulted in unwavering obedience to God. They strived to truly live as a set apart people that was unstained from the world
July 27, 2011
Following an investigation of the Patristics, Bercot noticed perceived discrepancies within the modern day church. In "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up" he seeks to critique many contemporary practices by using the early writings of the Patristics as the standard.
He argues for more discretion in all forms of entertainment, including the theater and arena. He addresses issues of dress and speech. Perhaps these are admirable issues to be addressed, but outward conformity apart from inward transformation will breed a spirit of ritualism.
Perhaps the greatest fallacy to Bercot's approach is the idea that the Patristics are more correct because of their chronological proximity to the Apostles. By this standard, there is no judicious reason to avoid the writings of the so called Mystery Religions.
I greatly appreciate his argument for a return to Anabaptist fervency, but do not think the use of the Patristics is the best footing to attach to the Radical Reformation. They would prefer the New Testament as the foundation for reformation.
All things considered, Bercot dissects some needed areas of discussion. However, the development of theology as the motivating factor of ethic always finds its root in Scripture. Anywhere else is fluid ground.
He argues for more discretion in all forms of entertainment, including the theater and arena. He addresses issues of dress and speech. Perhaps these are admirable issues to be addressed, but outward conformity apart from inward transformation will breed a spirit of ritualism.
Perhaps the greatest fallacy to Bercot's approach is the idea that the Patristics are more correct because of their chronological proximity to the Apostles. By this standard, there is no judicious reason to avoid the writings of the so called Mystery Religions.
I greatly appreciate his argument for a return to Anabaptist fervency, but do not think the use of the Patristics is the best footing to attach to the Radical Reformation. They would prefer the New Testament as the foundation for reformation.
All things considered, Bercot dissects some needed areas of discussion. However, the development of theology as the motivating factor of ethic always finds its root in Scripture. Anywhere else is fluid ground.
May 16, 2012
Important to read and know about
This book by Bercot was written in 1989 but what it has to say is important not just for evangelicals to hear but all who profess Christ. The key theme of the book is not the particular "wrongness" or "rightness" of the particular beliefs referenced, but to educate and inform those who are adamant in their own theologies and beliefs that the early church, which was closest to Christ's time and connected through the apostles of Christ and their direct disciples, had quite often different understandings and practices from what is accepted as a matter of course, today.
Bercot evidently has a passion for the writings of what are known as the "Patristics" or the Early Church Fathers. Through their voluminous writings we have a very clear picture of many elements of this early church. their beliefs, lifestyles and how they viewed things that today are considered litmus tests of sorts as to whether someone is "truly" in the faith or not.
Consider that this early church is what spread like wildfire through the civilized world of the time despite the fact that embracing Christ would result quite often in a loss of family, possessions and even the life of the believer. Consider as well that this early church is the conduit through which the faith and what eventually became the New Testament flowed regardless of what traditions and beliefs any who call themselves Christians today may hold to.
Does it mean something then, that some of those beliefs and traditions today were present in form in the days of the early church? Further would it mean something if in fact some of those beliefs and traditions were known by that early church as heresy?
Using an approach that if 5 or more patristic fathers agreed upon a certain issue in their writing, Bercot takes that as indicative of a broadly accepted belief and he proceeds then to compare these beliefs to what is commonly accepted today in the evangelical church.
The issues Bercot addresses includes a stark contrast between the embraced non-violence of the early church when contrasted against today's evangelicalism embracing and support of war as a legitimate and even desirable response to world events. The parallels between todays salvation by grace alone and total depravity is more closely paralleled by the gnostics who were declared heretics by the early believers. Baptism was not seen as an empty symbolic ritual but rather embraced and obeyed as a command while at the same time not elevated to an absolute requirement for salvation. The practice of willing submission to one another without established hierarchy within the local church (which was an organic fellowship and not an institutional entity) and the tendency of churches to reach out with questions and requests for assistance to other churches with a preference toward those church bodies that were most closely associated with the direct teaching of the apostles.
These observations are not given by Bercot (or by me) as absolutes of definitive declarations of faith. The comparison and contrast however, does serve a purpose. First, hopefully it impresses upon us a need to be careful about embracing our own traditions to the exclusion of others and to remain open to examining our beliefs. Second, it portrays the early church as a simpler and more devoted body that was not as prone to compartmentalizing their faith as we are.
There's plenty of room in this book for the reader to agree or disagree with the writer. The value for any reader however will be that they come away from this book with a better understanding and appreciation of the early church and the early church fathers, which sadly are not very well known among Christians who appear to assume that the faith started (and ends) with their own particular tradition.
4 stars.
bart breen
This book by Bercot was written in 1989 but what it has to say is important not just for evangelicals to hear but all who profess Christ. The key theme of the book is not the particular "wrongness" or "rightness" of the particular beliefs referenced, but to educate and inform those who are adamant in their own theologies and beliefs that the early church, which was closest to Christ's time and connected through the apostles of Christ and their direct disciples, had quite often different understandings and practices from what is accepted as a matter of course, today.
Bercot evidently has a passion for the writings of what are known as the "Patristics" or the Early Church Fathers. Through their voluminous writings we have a very clear picture of many elements of this early church. their beliefs, lifestyles and how they viewed things that today are considered litmus tests of sorts as to whether someone is "truly" in the faith or not.
Consider that this early church is what spread like wildfire through the civilized world of the time despite the fact that embracing Christ would result quite often in a loss of family, possessions and even the life of the believer. Consider as well that this early church is the conduit through which the faith and what eventually became the New Testament flowed regardless of what traditions and beliefs any who call themselves Christians today may hold to.
Does it mean something then, that some of those beliefs and traditions today were present in form in the days of the early church? Further would it mean something if in fact some of those beliefs and traditions were known by that early church as heresy?
Using an approach that if 5 or more patristic fathers agreed upon a certain issue in their writing, Bercot takes that as indicative of a broadly accepted belief and he proceeds then to compare these beliefs to what is commonly accepted today in the evangelical church.
The issues Bercot addresses includes a stark contrast between the embraced non-violence of the early church when contrasted against today's evangelicalism embracing and support of war as a legitimate and even desirable response to world events. The parallels between todays salvation by grace alone and total depravity is more closely paralleled by the gnostics who were declared heretics by the early believers. Baptism was not seen as an empty symbolic ritual but rather embraced and obeyed as a command while at the same time not elevated to an absolute requirement for salvation. The practice of willing submission to one another without established hierarchy within the local church (which was an organic fellowship and not an institutional entity) and the tendency of churches to reach out with questions and requests for assistance to other churches with a preference toward those church bodies that were most closely associated with the direct teaching of the apostles.
These observations are not given by Bercot (or by me) as absolutes of definitive declarations of faith. The comparison and contrast however, does serve a purpose. First, hopefully it impresses upon us a need to be careful about embracing our own traditions to the exclusion of others and to remain open to examining our beliefs. Second, it portrays the early church as a simpler and more devoted body that was not as prone to compartmentalizing their faith as we are.
There's plenty of room in this book for the reader to agree or disagree with the writer. The value for any reader however will be that they come away from this book with a better understanding and appreciation of the early church and the early church fathers, which sadly are not very well known among Christians who appear to assume that the faith started (and ends) with their own particular tradition.
4 stars.
bart breen
January 28, 2019
Straight off, this book will challenge you in your thinking and quite possibly in your practice and outworking of life as a Christian—especially if you are from an evangelical/Baptist/non-denominational background.
The book starts of taking you carefully through some of the practices and beliefs of the early church and those who knew the Apostles personally. It all feels very hopeful and like you're being led onward in a journey towards a certain goal, much of which I'm sure you'll find agreeable in what Bercot points out as discrepancies between early Christianity and today.
Then we get to a few points about the Reformation. Some of the critique I think was a little harsh and not necessarily accurate, painting a fairly negative picture of Martin Luther. Some of the points raised were a fair statement against some of the doctrine and theology that came out of the Reformation period (such as Luther being heavily influenced by Augustine's theology more than earlier church fathers). After the high of the first few chapters, these chapters came as a bit of a punch in the gut.
I would also recommend looking up all of Bercot's claims as there does sometimes seem like there is a strong bias of opinion coming through certain chapters, which takes away from the feel of the book trying to give an objective look at the topic at hand.
But that aside, Bercot leads you back on this journey, aiming to uplift you once again with hope as he takes you towards a positive look at the Anabaptists. I knew before reading the book that Bercot is an Anabaptist himself, so I was wary that this book might just end up being advertisement for that denominational group as the new modern answer for getting back to early Christian practices. Whilst there are positive points made for the early Anabaptist movement being as close as possible to the early second century church, Bercot isn't shy to criticise the group in its modern form as having lost their zeal and passion for the Gospel.
After trying to re-inspire you with the hope that it is somewhat possibly to restore early Christianity, as the Anabaptists did, before the Church “married itself to the world” as Bercot claims (and I agree with), he finishes off by asking the reader the question of “what now?” and whether we restore the Church to its former glory. Bercot seems to believe so if only the Church would return to simplicity of holiness and pick up its cross and revolutionary banners again “from where the early martyrs left them”.
This book is definitely a call to arms in the holiest sense; a call for us all to re-examine ourselves and our churches to see if what were living, believing and practicing is still in line with the New Testament church which the early Christmas bore witness to. Well worth the read for anyone who takes their faith seriously.
The book starts of taking you carefully through some of the practices and beliefs of the early church and those who knew the Apostles personally. It all feels very hopeful and like you're being led onward in a journey towards a certain goal, much of which I'm sure you'll find agreeable in what Bercot points out as discrepancies between early Christianity and today.
Then we get to a few points about the Reformation. Some of the critique I think was a little harsh and not necessarily accurate, painting a fairly negative picture of Martin Luther. Some of the points raised were a fair statement against some of the doctrine and theology that came out of the Reformation period (such as Luther being heavily influenced by Augustine's theology more than earlier church fathers). After the high of the first few chapters, these chapters came as a bit of a punch in the gut.
I would also recommend looking up all of Bercot's claims as there does sometimes seem like there is a strong bias of opinion coming through certain chapters, which takes away from the feel of the book trying to give an objective look at the topic at hand.
But that aside, Bercot leads you back on this journey, aiming to uplift you once again with hope as he takes you towards a positive look at the Anabaptists. I knew before reading the book that Bercot is an Anabaptist himself, so I was wary that this book might just end up being advertisement for that denominational group as the new modern answer for getting back to early Christian practices. Whilst there are positive points made for the early Anabaptist movement being as close as possible to the early second century church, Bercot isn't shy to criticise the group in its modern form as having lost their zeal and passion for the Gospel.
After trying to re-inspire you with the hope that it is somewhat possibly to restore early Christianity, as the Anabaptists did, before the Church “married itself to the world” as Bercot claims (and I agree with), he finishes off by asking the reader the question of “what now?” and whether we restore the Church to its former glory. Bercot seems to believe so if only the Church would return to simplicity of holiness and pick up its cross and revolutionary banners again “from where the early martyrs left them”.
This book is definitely a call to arms in the holiest sense; a call for us all to re-examine ourselves and our churches to see if what were living, believing and practicing is still in line with the New Testament church which the early Christmas bore witness to. Well worth the read for anyone who takes their faith seriously.
December 30, 2018
I'm still shocked by how much I agree with the ideas in this book. It's not simply a "yeah, yeah, I suppose that's true" sort of agreement either. I agree ACTIVELY (if that makes any sense). Very unusual for a person as disagreeable as me!
This book is basically what the title says it is: a new look at today's Evangelical Church in the light of early Christianity. You may wonder what makes early Christianity so special. This book is a good starting place if you want to learn. Fortunately, Bercot does not try to force early Christian beliefs on anyone. He simply sets them forth, saying "This is how it was then and as a result. . . . This is how it is now, and as a result. . . ." He gives the facts; you decide how to relate to them.
Since David Bercot is an Anabaptist, I was afraid this would be one of those books glorifying the marvelous Anabaptist church today as the true, original Church. When I came to the second to last chapter entitled "The Anabaptist Fire" I nearly groaned. "Here we go again," I thought. I was happily surprised! Yes, Bercot avidly supports many basic values of Anabaptism, and yes, he sincerely admires the early Anabaptist church. BUT, he is quick to admit two things about the Anabaptist church today. (1) They have "little zeal for evangelism." (2) They "have often shackled themselves by their preoccupation with externals." That's about it, folks! I'm on quite the same plane as Bercot. The Anabaptists have some admirable values, but they often fail to apply those values to everyday life. I shouldn't be saying "they," I should say "we." My own toes are certifiably sore. But as this book points out, the choice is still with every one of us. A less than ideal church situation is no excuse to not follow Truth.
I want to read more about some of the people David Bercot quoted, especially Justin Martyr, Origen, and Lactantius. I also want to take the message of this book seriously.
This book is basically what the title says it is: a new look at today's Evangelical Church in the light of early Christianity. You may wonder what makes early Christianity so special. This book is a good starting place if you want to learn. Fortunately, Bercot does not try to force early Christian beliefs on anyone. He simply sets them forth, saying "This is how it was then and as a result. . . . This is how it is now, and as a result. . . ." He gives the facts; you decide how to relate to them.
Since David Bercot is an Anabaptist, I was afraid this would be one of those books glorifying the marvelous Anabaptist church today as the true, original Church. When I came to the second to last chapter entitled "The Anabaptist Fire" I nearly groaned. "Here we go again," I thought. I was happily surprised! Yes, Bercot avidly supports many basic values of Anabaptism, and yes, he sincerely admires the early Anabaptist church. BUT, he is quick to admit two things about the Anabaptist church today. (1) They have "little zeal for evangelism." (2) They "have often shackled themselves by their preoccupation with externals." That's about it, folks! I'm on quite the same plane as Bercot. The Anabaptists have some admirable values, but they often fail to apply those values to everyday life. I shouldn't be saying "they," I should say "we." My own toes are certifiably sore. But as this book points out, the choice is still with every one of us. A less than ideal church situation is no excuse to not follow Truth.
I want to read more about some of the people David Bercot quoted, especially Justin Martyr, Origen, and Lactantius. I also want to take the message of this book seriously.
November 21, 2019
Every Christian believes his interpretation of the Bible is correct. Many people read the Bible and try to literally do what it says. So does it matter which church/denomination you are a part of? How do you know if your church’s interpretation is right?
Bercot provides a succinct argument calling Christians to consider the actions and Bible interpretation of the Christians who lived during and soon after the Apostles. He pulls directly from quotes of early Christian writers and clearly displays their brotherly love, courage, and integrity. He shows how and why the church changed its practice from the early Christians. He gives some examples some notable differences between the early church and the typical Christian today, though other books by this author, like “The Upside Down Kingdom” take more time to discuss these forgotten practices.
Bercot admits with humility that he’s struggled with knowing how to respond to the beliefs of the early Christians. He says we’re kind of like the Pharisees with John the Baptist in Matt. 21.
“We can’t say (the early Christians’) beliefs and lifestyle were correct, because then we would have to acknowledge that our lifestyles and many of our own beliefs are not.” “Furthermore, if we say they were heretics, we would have to admit that our New Testament canon was assembled by heretics.”
Bercot provides a succinct argument calling Christians to consider the actions and Bible interpretation of the Christians who lived during and soon after the Apostles. He pulls directly from quotes of early Christian writers and clearly displays their brotherly love, courage, and integrity. He shows how and why the church changed its practice from the early Christians. He gives some examples some notable differences between the early church and the typical Christian today, though other books by this author, like “The Upside Down Kingdom” take more time to discuss these forgotten practices.
Bercot admits with humility that he’s struggled with knowing how to respond to the beliefs of the early Christians. He says we’re kind of like the Pharisees with John the Baptist in Matt. 21.
“We can’t say (the early Christians’) beliefs and lifestyle were correct, because then we would have to acknowledge that our lifestyles and many of our own beliefs are not.” “Furthermore, if we say they were heretics, we would have to admit that our New Testament canon was assembled by heretics.”
November 18, 2016
Unfortunately, the worthwhile points that Bercot makes in this (very short) book get buried under selective history, over-generalized statements, and a spot-it-a-mile-away bias. Essentially, his argument is that the American Evangelical church has been lulled to sleep by a lack of true persecution, an uncritical theology of grace, and by blurred (or nonexistent) boundaries between Christian practice and American-consumer culture. Here's the thing: I basically agree with all of this, but he decides to use sloppy history to make the case, which is where he loses me...
The foundation of his argument relies on the '2nd century apostolic church,' which he portrays as a monolithic, overly-simplified experience for the first Christians. Anyone remotely familiar with that history knows that those first Christian communities were chock full of conflicts, arguments, and deep theological rifts. Bercot also "cherry picks" quotations from early theologians to support his arguments (even though many of them also supported other stances - purgatory, strange gradations of sins, Montanism, for example - that he himself would find very problematic) and then makes a way-too-simplistic overview of the Reformation and Luther, before arguing that the closest we have ever been to a true re-emergence of the apostolic church was when the Anabaptists appeared (which denomination is Bercot part of? It's not hard to guess at this point....)
So, I'm being hard on this, but perhaps I shouldn't be? This book has impacted many people, and helped them see through the veneer of shallow Evangelicalism, and also the Western prosperity gospel, which is a powerful and true critique. My problem is that he gets there with bad history, which unfortunately soils his argument overall. He profoundly misreads the Gnostics, badly distorts the gender-norms and military culture of the Roman world, and bemoans the ecumenical creeds. It's telling that this book is not endorsed by any serious historical scholars, though it's not hard to see why.
Overall, even if the conclusions of an argument are reasonable, the method of reaching those conclusions is radically important, and Bercot fails here. My pastoral concern is that he reacts too drastically, over-romanticizing a period of history that was just as nuanced as the chapter we are in now. For us to know how to move forward today in the church, we need good history, so we don't repeat it.
The foundation of his argument relies on the '2nd century apostolic church,' which he portrays as a monolithic, overly-simplified experience for the first Christians. Anyone remotely familiar with that history knows that those first Christian communities were chock full of conflicts, arguments, and deep theological rifts. Bercot also "cherry picks" quotations from early theologians to support his arguments (even though many of them also supported other stances - purgatory, strange gradations of sins, Montanism, for example - that he himself would find very problematic) and then makes a way-too-simplistic overview of the Reformation and Luther, before arguing that the closest we have ever been to a true re-emergence of the apostolic church was when the Anabaptists appeared (which denomination is Bercot part of? It's not hard to guess at this point....)
So, I'm being hard on this, but perhaps I shouldn't be? This book has impacted many people, and helped them see through the veneer of shallow Evangelicalism, and also the Western prosperity gospel, which is a powerful and true critique. My problem is that he gets there with bad history, which unfortunately soils his argument overall. He profoundly misreads the Gnostics, badly distorts the gender-norms and military culture of the Roman world, and bemoans the ecumenical creeds. It's telling that this book is not endorsed by any serious historical scholars, though it's not hard to see why.
Overall, even if the conclusions of an argument are reasonable, the method of reaching those conclusions is radically important, and Bercot fails here. My pastoral concern is that he reacts too drastically, over-romanticizing a period of history that was just as nuanced as the chapter we are in now. For us to know how to move forward today in the church, we need good history, so we don't repeat it.
December 2, 2018
Eye-opening and challenging
If you choose to read this book (and I recommend that you do), please read the entire book until the very end. You will be challenged, you will be humbled, you will learn and grow, you may get upset or angry, you will be changed.
Take the time and make the effort to examine and work through the arguments made in the book. Reflect and read and pray. Be and remain open minded. If you persevere to the end, you will gain insight.
If you choose to read this book (and I recommend that you do), please read the entire book until the very end. You will be challenged, you will be humbled, you will learn and grow, you may get upset or angry, you will be changed.
Take the time and make the effort to examine and work through the arguments made in the book. Reflect and read and pray. Be and remain open minded. If you persevere to the end, you will gain insight.
January 19, 2024
Such an excellent literary work on the exposition of hypocrisy in evangelism and doctrine. This book serves as a reminder of how the faith began to be practiced and shows how far it has turned away from scripturally-supported tradition, thinking, and behavior.
August 24, 2022
There is much ado about doctrine within the modern day evangelical Christian church. At this point, there are now thousands of denominations and sects within the faith that it would be nearly impossible to learn about all of them within one's lifetime. This leads the modern day seeker to more confusion than anything else, after all, didn’t Jesus say that people would be able to recognize the church by their love and unity? If that was the goal how exactly did we end up in the situation the Christian church finds itself in now? Who is right and who is wrong among the numerous field of doctrines and theologies?
These are the questions that most likely plagued Mr. Bercot as he began to investigate the early church. Christian history is quite an interesting topic to look into because the church has gone through so many phases. It struggled for survival under the Roman Empire, it became a state institution, it’s persecuted people outside of its orthodoxy, and it's been changed and reformed several times since its formation at Pentecost. With each of these periods, the church has had certain figures rise up to persuade people towards certain doctrines, and as a result, any given Christian church you walk into probably has different beliefs than the one down the street.
So how does the problem get fixed? How do we learn what the correct way of doing Christianity is? Mr. Bercot reasoned, and in my opinion correctly, that you would have to look at the early church leaders who lived at the end of and right after the apostolic era. Will the Real Heretics Please Stand up? contains numerous citations by leaders within this period, some who were trained by the apostles, the men who were trained by Jesus. Given that fact, I think it would be reasonable to assume that the apostles were experts in the theology and doctrine that Jesus taught. Extrapolating from there, it would seem reasonable that their contemporaries, the ones who led the churches they planted, would be an invaluable resource in determining how the apostles intended things to function.
Mr. Bercot takes the reader on a tour that covers where modern Christianity differs from the pre-Nicene church, as well as how the early leaders interpreted important doctrinal beliefs. In the end, the reader is left with a picture of two different churches: The first is an ancient church that is completely unified in its theology, its conviction, and its devotion to living a godly life. The second is modern, scattered, lackadaisical, and has no conviction to act. These symptoms in the modern era have most likely come from an epidemic of part-time belief, the early church believers were noted for their intense dedication to the teachings of Jesus and there is an excellent section in the book in which Mr. Bercot shows the reader a letter to the Roman government describing how selfless, kind, and sacrificial those Christians were.
The early believers were intensely dedicated not just to living the teachings of Jesus in their personal life, but also to activities like evangelization and preaching the gospel. It was expected that everyone in the congregation would be spending part of their day reaching out to people in their cities and towns. In the modern era, the part-time belief has generated full houses of worship but plenty of those people only show up on Christmas and Easter or out of some kind of obligation. It’s rather rare to find a church that discusses sin in detail, follows the moral law of the Bible closely, and expects its members to try and evangelize their communities.
Just about every member of the congregations during the time of the early leaders had a deep knowledge of scripture and what it meant, I’m sure that if you polled a random grouping of evangelicals today, maybe about half of them would be able to say that they’ve read the entire Bible cover to cover. In fact, while the bible is the most widely sold book of all time only about thirty percent of them actually get read in their entirety. There simply doesn’t seem to be an expectation amongst new believers that they need to learn about the system of belief that they’ve adopted, which makes one question the authenticity of their conversion. In the times of old, there was an expectation for everyone to be well learned about the gospel and know how to teach it to the uninitiated, in the modern era most believers would seem to reserve that position to their pastor.
There is also quite a bit of history that Mr. Bercot traces to explain how it is the modern church got so far of the path of their forebearers. He takes the reader through the Council of Nicea and the multiple creeds that would follow, the rise of the Catholic church, and the errors that would come from Luther's reformation. There was some absolutely fantastic information included in these segments that would probably make most Protestants concerned about some of their standard bearer’s teachings. In addition to that, there are several moments where Mr. Bercot describes different doctrines in the modern church that were practices of the Gnostics, this leads the reader to see that there’s been a lot of church doctrine that we’ve assimilated that should have remained far outside the church.
The only negative thing that I could say about the work was that there weren’t enough quotations, all of the information is good but I wish that Mr. Bercot had put in even more material from the early Christians’ writings. All of the moments in which quotations are used stand far above any of the writing that Mr. Bercot does himself, that isn’t to say that his writing is bad, it's just that the early leaders writing is much more interesting. When it does come to Mr. Bercot’s portions they are well written, easy to understand, and contain no confusing language that would keep certain people from enjoying the book.
Overall, Will the Real Heretics Please Stand up? is a book that should probably be read by every evangelical Christian across the world, there is some truly shocking information here that would most likely shock a good percentage of believers. If the Christian church to remain then vast changes have to be made to bring us back to the baselines of the bible and the doctrine that it professes, that task will be much easier if we understand where we’ve come from and how we ended up here.
These are the questions that most likely plagued Mr. Bercot as he began to investigate the early church. Christian history is quite an interesting topic to look into because the church has gone through so many phases. It struggled for survival under the Roman Empire, it became a state institution, it’s persecuted people outside of its orthodoxy, and it's been changed and reformed several times since its formation at Pentecost. With each of these periods, the church has had certain figures rise up to persuade people towards certain doctrines, and as a result, any given Christian church you walk into probably has different beliefs than the one down the street.
So how does the problem get fixed? How do we learn what the correct way of doing Christianity is? Mr. Bercot reasoned, and in my opinion correctly, that you would have to look at the early church leaders who lived at the end of and right after the apostolic era. Will the Real Heretics Please Stand up? contains numerous citations by leaders within this period, some who were trained by the apostles, the men who were trained by Jesus. Given that fact, I think it would be reasonable to assume that the apostles were experts in the theology and doctrine that Jesus taught. Extrapolating from there, it would seem reasonable that their contemporaries, the ones who led the churches they planted, would be an invaluable resource in determining how the apostles intended things to function.
Mr. Bercot takes the reader on a tour that covers where modern Christianity differs from the pre-Nicene church, as well as how the early leaders interpreted important doctrinal beliefs. In the end, the reader is left with a picture of two different churches: The first is an ancient church that is completely unified in its theology, its conviction, and its devotion to living a godly life. The second is modern, scattered, lackadaisical, and has no conviction to act. These symptoms in the modern era have most likely come from an epidemic of part-time belief, the early church believers were noted for their intense dedication to the teachings of Jesus and there is an excellent section in the book in which Mr. Bercot shows the reader a letter to the Roman government describing how selfless, kind, and sacrificial those Christians were.
The early believers were intensely dedicated not just to living the teachings of Jesus in their personal life, but also to activities like evangelization and preaching the gospel. It was expected that everyone in the congregation would be spending part of their day reaching out to people in their cities and towns. In the modern era, the part-time belief has generated full houses of worship but plenty of those people only show up on Christmas and Easter or out of some kind of obligation. It’s rather rare to find a church that discusses sin in detail, follows the moral law of the Bible closely, and expects its members to try and evangelize their communities.
Just about every member of the congregations during the time of the early leaders had a deep knowledge of scripture and what it meant, I’m sure that if you polled a random grouping of evangelicals today, maybe about half of them would be able to say that they’ve read the entire Bible cover to cover. In fact, while the bible is the most widely sold book of all time only about thirty percent of them actually get read in their entirety. There simply doesn’t seem to be an expectation amongst new believers that they need to learn about the system of belief that they’ve adopted, which makes one question the authenticity of their conversion. In the times of old, there was an expectation for everyone to be well learned about the gospel and know how to teach it to the uninitiated, in the modern era most believers would seem to reserve that position to their pastor.
There is also quite a bit of history that Mr. Bercot traces to explain how it is the modern church got so far of the path of their forebearers. He takes the reader through the Council of Nicea and the multiple creeds that would follow, the rise of the Catholic church, and the errors that would come from Luther's reformation. There was some absolutely fantastic information included in these segments that would probably make most Protestants concerned about some of their standard bearer’s teachings. In addition to that, there are several moments where Mr. Bercot describes different doctrines in the modern church that were practices of the Gnostics, this leads the reader to see that there’s been a lot of church doctrine that we’ve assimilated that should have remained far outside the church.
The only negative thing that I could say about the work was that there weren’t enough quotations, all of the information is good but I wish that Mr. Bercot had put in even more material from the early Christians’ writings. All of the moments in which quotations are used stand far above any of the writing that Mr. Bercot does himself, that isn’t to say that his writing is bad, it's just that the early leaders writing is much more interesting. When it does come to Mr. Bercot’s portions they are well written, easy to understand, and contain no confusing language that would keep certain people from enjoying the book.
Overall, Will the Real Heretics Please Stand up? is a book that should probably be read by every evangelical Christian across the world, there is some truly shocking information here that would most likely shock a good percentage of believers. If the Christian church to remain then vast changes have to be made to bring us back to the baselines of the bible and the doctrine that it professes, that task will be much easier if we understand where we’ve come from and how we ended up here.
April 4, 2025
I loved this book! For context, it was written by David Bercot, a Mennonite preacher. He, apparently, used to be a Jehovah's Witness. Then he became an evangelical Christian. Somewhere along the way, he started studying what the early Christians believed in the 1st century through the 3rd century(before the time of the catholization of the Roman empire through Constantine). In this book he discusses what the early church believed compared to what is taught, now, in modern Christianity. He proposes that some gnostic doctrines have polluted the church over time through St. Augustine in the 4th century. He cites his sources well, in my opinion. It was an interesting read and gave me a lot to think about. Particularly, the importance of letting the scriptures speak for themselves and not letting someone tell me what they ACTUALLY mean. Also, the importance of obedience to Jesus as a fruit of real, saving faith. I highly respect David Bercot as a fellow Christian. I admire his pursuit of the truth, holiness, and genuine fellowship with the Lord Jesus. I don't know that I always agree with him on every subject, but still, I'm impressed by his loyalty to Jesus. This is a good book and I think it should be read by evangelical Christians everywhere to remind us of early history, so we can hold on to what is true and get rid of the chaff. *Just a heads up, also. David has youtube videos about early Christian history online. The video that most mimics the information in this book is almost an hour long and it is about the subject of Salvation. Search David Bercot and Salvation in the youtube search bar and it should pop up.*
March 21, 2019
Very Informative and Highly Recommended
The author of this book is a Latter Day Saint who doesn't know it. (There are a lot of them around). I enjoyed the book immensely, and would love to have a long discussion with Mr Bercot. I made copious notes, highlighting the parallels between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the early/primitive Church of the original Apostles.
Amazingly the word Mormon or Mormonism is not mentioned once among the many churches that taught things that resembled the teachings of the early church (anabaptists etc.) I say amazing because the Restored Church of Jesus Christ resembles the original Church in so many more ways than any of the others, as of course it should, being a restoration of all that was lost during the apostasy.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bercot, like so many Conventional Christians today, is totally fixated upon the fact that no-one, including God Himself, can add to the canon of scripture, the Bible.
For anyone open minded enough to dig deeper, I recommend "Offenders For A Word" by Daniel Peterson. It can be read online for free at Farms - Neal A Maxwell Institute.
I challenge any Christian to read it and still say we are not Christians.
Congratulations, Mr. Bercot. Very enjoyable and honestly written (apart from not giving the Latter Day Saints perspective a fair hearing).
The author of this book is a Latter Day Saint who doesn't know it. (There are a lot of them around). I enjoyed the book immensely, and would love to have a long discussion with Mr Bercot. I made copious notes, highlighting the parallels between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the early/primitive Church of the original Apostles.
Amazingly the word Mormon or Mormonism is not mentioned once among the many churches that taught things that resembled the teachings of the early church (anabaptists etc.) I say amazing because the Restored Church of Jesus Christ resembles the original Church in so many more ways than any of the others, as of course it should, being a restoration of all that was lost during the apostasy.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bercot, like so many Conventional Christians today, is totally fixated upon the fact that no-one, including God Himself, can add to the canon of scripture, the Bible.
For anyone open minded enough to dig deeper, I recommend "Offenders For A Word" by Daniel Peterson. It can be read online for free at Farms - Neal A Maxwell Institute.
I challenge any Christian to read it and still say we are not Christians.
Congratulations, Mr. Bercot. Very enjoyable and honestly written (apart from not giving the Latter Day Saints perspective a fair hearing).
June 21, 2020
A well-written, easy to read overview of the transition of Christianity from a small Messianic Jewish sect to the State Religion of the Roman Empire.
David Bercot is a rare Christian - he believes in Jesus Christ, but recognizes that the doctrines of the Christian Church from before the time of Constantine have departed from the original teachings of Jesus.
This book points out which “heretical” groups introduced which new (and thus changed) doctrines, as well as how the Church was initially protected against corruption (see ch 13-14), but when those “barrier walls” were neglected, the whole structure collapsed.
Most Christians are unaware of these changes, since the documents of the EARLIEST centuries of Christianity were not widely available in modern languages until the last few centuries. For example, the earliest texts Martin Luther had easy access to were those of St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) - a great man (Bercot calls him “The Most Influential Christian of All Time” and “father of Western Theology”), but his doctrines were NOT the same as those taught by Jesus.
I’m looking forward to reading another of his books, ”The Kingdom that Turned the World Upside Down.” This one deals with Jesus’ teachings about the Kingdom of Heaven, which is the reciprocal of the kingdoms of THIS world.
David Bercot is a rare Christian - he believes in Jesus Christ, but recognizes that the doctrines of the Christian Church from before the time of Constantine have departed from the original teachings of Jesus.
This book points out which “heretical” groups introduced which new (and thus changed) doctrines, as well as how the Church was initially protected against corruption (see ch 13-14), but when those “barrier walls” were neglected, the whole structure collapsed.
Most Christians are unaware of these changes, since the documents of the EARLIEST centuries of Christianity were not widely available in modern languages until the last few centuries. For example, the earliest texts Martin Luther had easy access to were those of St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) - a great man (Bercot calls him “The Most Influential Christian of All Time” and “father of Western Theology”), but his doctrines were NOT the same as those taught by Jesus.
I’m looking forward to reading another of his books, ”The Kingdom that Turned the World Upside Down.” This one deals with Jesus’ teachings about the Kingdom of Heaven, which is the reciprocal of the kingdoms of THIS world.
February 19, 2025
Highly recommended as an exploration of the evidence for pre-Nicene Christianity and the areas of alignment and misalignment between that early Church and its modern-day avatars. As usual, claims of counterculturalism falter in terms of being selective about what aspects of current culture are countered. In some ways, Bercot’s depiction of early Christianity reflects aligns it quite closely to present-day conservative causes. That being said, other aspects of his presentation give reason for contemporary Christians to pause and examine their theologies and reading of Scripture, potentially considering them in a new light, which is helpful. Overall more Jesus followers should be more intentional about reading and thinking outside of their specific (non)denominational frameworks in order to better explore the richness of the whole, historic faith. This book provides a needed nudge in that direction.
January 23, 2021
Based on the title of Bercot’s book, I was a bit apprehensive about the approach he would take. So many people try to define what the early church was like based on a couple of passages in Acts. But Bercot has taken a very interesting approach. Using the writings of 1st-3rd century Christians, Bercot looks for comments made about topics like salvation, baptism, predestination/free will and living counter-culturally. The positions taken in these early writings were so unexpected that I started to question if Bercot was quoting these early saints correctly. I verified many of the quotes and Bercot seems to be handling them appropriately. This book will make you question what you have been taught in the church and challenge how you live your Christianity day by day.
February 17, 2023
In this book, Bercot compares current evangelical Christian practices with those of the early Christians (2nd to 4th century AD). While those comparisons are certainly enlightening, including how some current beliefs align more with the heretical Gnostics than with orthodox teaching, I found the basic premise of the book a bit lacking. Since the author admits that the early writings he's looking at are not inspired, it seems to me that it might have been more profitable to spend more effort comparing both current and early practices to the Scriptures to help determine whose teachings were closer to what was delivered through the apostles. To be fair, Bercot does that a bit. I just think the balance was off, which led to some problematic conclusions.
December 11, 2023
This book is an uncomfortable mixture of "Oh yeah!"s and "Oh no!"s. His basic point that the values, beliefs and practices of many modern Christians are very much not in alignment with the NT church has merit. I actually felt convicted a number of times along the way (e.g. modern entertainment). However, some of Bercot's descriptions of the NT landscape are just inaccurate, while others are overly simplistic. It's hard to rate it lower than 3 stars, however, because the primary message he's hoping to convey - that modern Christians have lost a lot in terms of how we are called to be separate from the world - is a valuable one.
March 22, 2024
This is one of those life altering books that will share ideas that open minds towards New Testament practices and early church culture during and immediately after the Apostles.
The golden age of revelation that caused a revolution was a period of risk and adversity for Chistians. But it was also a time of heartfelt feeling and devotion.
The quotes of the early church fathers during the era of the early church is eye opening. It shows the culture of that time and how Christians understood scriptures, interacted with the world, and how they practiced certain teachings. This book is extremely well written and is a great book to read or listen to.
The golden age of revelation that caused a revolution was a period of risk and adversity for Chistians. But it was also a time of heartfelt feeling and devotion.
The quotes of the early church fathers during the era of the early church is eye opening. It shows the culture of that time and how Christians understood scriptures, interacted with the world, and how they practiced certain teachings. This book is extremely well written and is a great book to read or listen to.
October 12, 2018
This is one of those important books which inspires the reader to think about their life with Christ. This book motivates the questions: Are God's people too much like the world? Am I sure I believe the same way the first Christians believed? Do I understand the true meaning of discipleship? Have I truly been changed by my life with Christ? This book will challenge and, maybe, frustrate the way we think, live, and view a God-led life. However, maybe it is past time for Christians to be challenged and frustrated by our own consciences. Great read, highly recommended.
March 24, 2021
Challenging and Thought Provoking
I was very intrigued by Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up and it made me pause to think about what I believe. Though I already held on to the beliefs of the early Christians, David Hardly reminds the readers of things today's church seems to have adopted from the world. He's may come across in the book as critical but he assures the reader that he is not. He wants us to examine our beliefs in light of what the early Christians believed. God didn't change but somehow in the last several centuries Christians did!
I was very intrigued by Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up and it made me pause to think about what I believe. Though I already held on to the beliefs of the early Christians, David Hardly reminds the readers of things today's church seems to have adopted from the world. He's may come across in the book as critical but he assures the reader that he is not. He wants us to examine our beliefs in light of what the early Christians believed. God didn't change but somehow in the last several centuries Christians did!
October 30, 2022
A Convicting Read for Bible Believing Chdistians of Any Denomination
Mr Bercot does an excellent job looking through the writings of the early church fathers, and showing us their beliefs on several core issues of the Christian lifestyle and salvation. After reading his book, I feel compelled to read their words for myself, and to see through their writings the Faith as it was practiced by the earliest Christians. All believers should give this book a read, it is well worth your time.
Mr Bercot does an excellent job looking through the writings of the early church fathers, and showing us their beliefs on several core issues of the Christian lifestyle and salvation. After reading his book, I feel compelled to read their words for myself, and to see through their writings the Faith as it was practiced by the earliest Christians. All believers should give this book a read, it is well worth your time.
February 20, 2024
Witnesses to history
It has always amazed me how those who are 2000 years apart from the beginnings of the church believe they know better than those who live among the apostles or within the first one hundred years. Bercot gives much to consider and study. In seminary when questioning a professor and pastor about some of the practices of the early church, he was quick to point out their errors and state such practices may have worked then, but have no relevance to the church today. Makes you understand better about who may actually be in error.
It has always amazed me how those who are 2000 years apart from the beginnings of the church believe they know better than those who live among the apostles or within the first one hundred years. Bercot gives much to consider and study. In seminary when questioning a professor and pastor about some of the practices of the early church, he was quick to point out their errors and state such practices may have worked then, but have no relevance to the church today. Makes you understand better about who may actually be in error.
November 8, 2025
Starts off well and presents some good info about the early church fathers, but in the latter half devolves into typical lazy anti-Catholic slop. (No, Catholics don’t pray to Mary, no Augustine and Constantine did not invent new pagan doctrines into the faith, etc.)
And — wouldn’t you know it — the particular “Bible-believing” subset of a subset of a subset of a new world protestant sect that the author happens to belong to is thankfully the truest expression of the earliest Christians. How fortunate!
And — wouldn’t you know it — the particular “Bible-believing” subset of a subset of a subset of a new world protestant sect that the author happens to belong to is thankfully the truest expression of the earliest Christians. How fortunate!
January 17, 2020
Majority of it is a well researched easy to read summary on the early church Christians
I really enjoyed reading about the early Christians. I couldn't put it down and read it all in one sitting. It's very well researched until chapter 13 where it's a bit sloppy and more of the personal beliefs of the author come out for the rest of the book but I still recommended it. It was further conviction for me of how close my church is to its roots!
I really enjoyed reading about the early Christians. I couldn't put it down and read it all in one sitting. It's very well researched until chapter 13 where it's a bit sloppy and more of the personal beliefs of the author come out for the rest of the book but I still recommended it. It was further conviction for me of how close my church is to its roots!
Read
January 31, 2025An introduction to the early Christians. This is a great book to teach and convict, espcially in the area of holiness. Going back to our early Christian roots is extremely important and this book will inspire that. It also inspires one to look further into the early Christians. It is an easy read (it will capture you), and you can read it quickly without losing the main points. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND this book to all modern day Christians. Your conscience will be stirred.
April 22, 2020
This book makes some really good and interesting points. I especially liked his thoughts on God for-seeing and not causing things and how the early church viewed that. I wouldn’t completely agree with all the “extreme” focus on early church teaching by David Bercot, but I do agree on the fact that we could learn much from them.
October 21, 2025
An important work
David Bercot does the nearly impossible. He presents the early Christians in balanced light, challenging our current theological tendencies without throwing the baby out with the bath water. A must read for the modern evangelical, particularly those who've gotten comfortable with their theological assumptions.
David Bercot does the nearly impossible. He presents the early Christians in balanced light, challenging our current theological tendencies without throwing the baby out with the bath water. A must read for the modern evangelical, particularly those who've gotten comfortable with their theological assumptions.
May 6, 2017
An amazing book. Challenge yourself by being willing to look at the early church and where you are today. Does your doctrine line up with the early church? The apostles? Or have you tried to "improve" Christianity? Challenging and excellent! It definitely has called me higher!
October 7, 2019
One of my favorite books. I read this many years ago, and it gave me an appreciation for the value of the early Christian writings, and a new perspective on things that were taught in the church I was part of at the time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews