Rating: 
Summary: The 1st of many works
Review: 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
Rating:
Summary: Like it or not, it's The Real Deal.
Review: Are you an open-minded lover of truth who is seeking to follow Christ more closely and correctly? If so, then this book could potentially change your life, or at least help to get you pointed more in the right direction.
However, if you think that you have the Bible all figured out, or if you think that your interpretation of it is the only correct one, and you don't care what the early Christians had to say about it, then in all likelihood, you won't like this book. In fact, you might even get so upset upon reading that you feel compelled to come online and give it a bad review.
Want to know more about this book, who the early Christians were and what they taught, and/or what the Bible has to say about the post-Biblical Christians and the importance of their writings? Then feel free to contact me via E-mail.
Rating:
Summary: good book.
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Very Engrossing First Half, But Spotty in Places
Review: David Bercot has written a book that grabs your attention from the start and make Christians of any bent ask how their life compares with the non-Christian world. Bercot discusses early Christian views of entertainment and war. He concludes that the early Christians would have never approved of many movies that are produced today nor would they have gone to war to fight for their country, though it appears that some early believers did remain in the army after baptism, but evidently refused to take up arms against enemy nations. One weakness to Bercot's book, however, is that his arguments are condensed and he sometimes fail to examine the context of a given utterance made by a certain church father. Thus, he does not discern that the idolatrous nature of the Roman army also played a part in early Christian pacifism as well as the way Christians exegeted Isa 2:1-4. All in all, Bercot's book is a nice read. Just don't depend on it for serious historical analyses or in-depth and rigorous documented accounts.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting first half, but definately biased
Review: 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!
Rating: 
Summary: Very good - but be mindful! AELVONUSatJUNOdotCOM
Review: 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). 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. 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. And 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 misrepresent what he presents. In the final section of the book, he traces an outline of how those teachings were handled and mishandled, 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 totally identical with the concerns of the early Christians. Even in the 2nd edition, he doesn't talk about some important beliefs about the nature of the Church that the early Christians held firmly to. It was four 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). First, read the Ante-Nicene Fathers for yourself. If you don't have time for all of them, at least read Bercot's _Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs_, as well as Kirsopp Lake's 2 volume translation of the Apostolic Fathers (a collection of important writings from before the year 200 A.D.). I also cannot more strongly recommend reading N.T. Wright's _The Challenge of Jesus_, with or without this book. If you're more ambitious, then pick up his _Jesus and the Victory of God_, which _The Challenge of Jesus_ is an abbreviation of. His portrait of Jesus fits so perfectly with the pre-Nicene Church's teachings and life. Secondly, don't dismiss the Christians who wrote during the century that followed after the council of Nicea (325 A.D.), particularly Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem and many others. Some of Bercot's portraits/conclusions about the Church's history during the centuries that followed immediately after Nicea are misleading. He doesn't do this intentionally, of course; I've visited with Bercot twice, and he's a wonderful man, a sincere Christian - and from what I hear from friends who know him, he's now a Mennonite. 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 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.
Rating:
Summary: Reinventing the Fathers
Review: One of the more fascinating stories in the last few years is the rising interest among Evangelical Protestants in reading the Church Fathers and examining their own beliefs in light of the patristic synthesis. In the hands of some (e.g., D. H. Williams, Thomas Oden, and Christopher A. Hall), there have been honest attempts to bridge the gap with the early Church without losing their own Evangelical distinctives. Unfortunately, there are also those who wish to see themselves in the early Church and rewrite history in the process. David W. Bercot in his book Will the Real Heretics Pleas Stand Up? falls somewhere between the two poles - pointing out many differences between patristic and Protestant beliefs but conveniently ignoring them when they do not support his conclusions. The book may be conveniently divided into four sections with each defending a thesis. The first section (chapters 1 - 3) makes the case for the deep allegiance of the ante-Nicene fathers to the faith of the Apostles and their willingness to die rather than renounce their Christian faith. Why this is certainly a true enough proposition, Bercot almost immediately (and falsely) constructs a dichotomy between the ante-Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers. By judiciously choosing his subjects and ignoring contradictory writings, he ignores the undeniable theological continuity between the two periods. For example, he absurdly objects to the term "fathers" to describe the writers of this period - even though the ante-Nicene writers used the term to refer to the Christian writers who preceded them. He also places much emphasis on Polycarp of Smyrna, a martyr whose surviving letter deals little with topics Bercot does not wish to consider, while ignoring his contemporary (and fellow bishop and martyr) Ignatius of Antioch whose numerous surviving letters demonstrate an ecclesiology in place looking much like it would in later centuries. While Polycarp's sparse writing allows any to impose a false picture, Ignatius fixes the image and so is conveniently ignored. The second section (Chapters 4 - 11), and by far the strongest, enumerates the differences in doctrine between the early Church and modern Evangelicalism. Bercot forcefully points out the early Christians did not believe in salvation by faith alone, total depravity, baptism as a "symbol", earthly prosperity, and cultural compromise. Yet even here, there are glaring exaggerations as well as omissions. The Christian rejection to service in the Roman military service is by no means a clear cut rejection of any such service but is likely motivated by the adversarial relation to the Roman government as well as the pagan nature of the Roman military culture. Also, the Christian rejection of the larger culture was not as absolute as Bercot believes. Justin Martyr and Origen (both highly learned men) integrated what was good in the philosophical discourse of the time to reach the educated classes with the Gospel. Finally, Bercot never considers how the early Christians worshipped. One suspects any mention of the early Christians worshipping according to a Eucharistic liturgy would undercut the remainder of his book. The third section (Chapters 12 -16), covering the so-called "apostasy" of the Church, is where Bercot goes completely off track. Rehashing long discredited polemics, Bercot ties together a series of yarns published in post-Reformation anti-Catholic literature and serves them up as historically accurate. Using Constantine and Augustine as his primary villains, he credits them with ideas already prominent in the ante-Nicene Church. His ridiculous claim that Christians were not so concerned with Christology before this period is quashed by the extensive and forceful writings by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others on this very issue. He also neglects to mention that local Church councils were meeting and discussing doctrinal matters long before Nicea - it was merely the freedom and support Constantine granted the Church that allowed this first Ecumenical gathering. In the final section (Chapters 17 -19), Bercot looks to certain groups as promoting a return to early Christianity. It is here that he reveals the nature of his prejudices. In looking to his beloved Anabaptists as "spiritual successors" of the early Church, he must defend their doctrine of a total apostasy. Since the claim is ridiculous on its own merits, he has "managed" the evidence to cover only points of convergence while ignoring the overwhelming differences. In fact, the Anabaptists were by far the most removed from the ante-Nicene Christians of any ecclesial group in the Reformation period. Their complete rejection of Church tradition, liturgical worship, and the office of bishop as signs of Christian unity would make them heretics in the eyes of the very men Bercot admires as faithful followers of Christ. Although Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up? contains some strong sections, it is so seriously flawed that it cannot be recommended as an accurate portrayal of the true state of ante-Nicene Christianity. Despite good intentions, Bercot has only allowed the fathers of the period to speak for themselves where they support his current ecclesial affiliation. Exposure to the Fathers is good for Evangelicals, but it is best done by those who present rather than reinvent their beliefs.
Rating:
Summary: Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today'
Review: Praise God! This book really made me think about True Holiness and what it really means! I go to an Apostolic church where everyone believes in being Holy- without no man shall see God! Emphasis is put on being separate from the world in almost every aspect. After reading this book I feel that we(church) are so far from "True Holiness" in light of the early Christians. We say we don't love the world or the things in the world. We say we have the lifestyle of a christians, but after reading this book, I will have to evaluate everything I'm doing..."Ouch and Amen" is all I have to say! I highly recommend everyone, especially Christians, to read this book!
Rating:
Summary: Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today'
Review: Praise God! This book really made me think about True Holiness and what it really means! I go to an Apostolic church where everyone believes in being Holy- without no man shall see God! Emphasis is put on being separate from the world in almost every aspect. After reading this book I feel that we(church) are so far from "True Holiness" in light of the early Christians. We say we don't love the world or the things in the world. We say we have the lifestyle of a christians, but after reading this book, I will have to evaluate everything I'm doing..."Ouch and Amen" is all I have to say! I highly recommend everyone, especially Christians, to read this book!
Rating:
Summary: A valid assessment of American Evangelicalism
Review: 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.
|
