Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland in 2 Minutes

[@Mic1904]

The story was once recounted to me that a young man visiting another church's youth camp described his Free Presbyterian upbringing with the sentence, "We weren't allowed to watch The Sound of Music, for it gave too favourable an impression of nuns".

[@astutik8909]

And rightly so. The " sound of music" was just another attempt to hide the fact that hitler and the papacy worked hand in hand.

[@Hark1677]

You didn’t have to make me like them more 😂

[@Mic1904]

@@Hark1677 Lol!

[@CanadianMonarchist]

That’s funny! I presume Boys of St Vincent’s was permissible.

[@Shikuesi]

@@Hark1677 The nuns or the FPs?

[@jec1ny]

Not the world's biggest fan of Calvinism in general, but I will give a polite hat tip to anyone who can live their faith life with such rigor.

[@pharisaeus6493]

I have to wonder what's the point of being rigorous if everything is predetirmed

[@NeilDonald-y5h]

Is it vigorous faith or vigorous legalism?

[@Hark1677]

⁠​⁠@@pharisaeus6493That’s a misconception I had when I first heard about Calvinism. “It don’t matter how hard you study for the test, God predetermined if you passed or failed already.” No, if God has graciously saved you, you will bare fruit with repentance Matt 3:8, you’ll want to serve God, through His spirit, Psalm 119 and have a lively faith. James 2

[@SC-zk6qb]

Painting the Gospel as works-salvation is the opposite of commendable. They’re leading the flock astray with false doctrine.

[@LonesomeDuck]

Thank you, 5-Point Calvinist here - Calvinism is nothing more than a summary of the Bible. The Five Solas correspond with incredible Biblical accuracy. I recommend reading the Westminster Confession of Faith.

[@kickpublishing]

With an eternity of joy to look forward to the Scots make sure to not not ruin their appetite.

[@hoot7588]

That is hilarious!

[@micoolkidfilms3270]

They certainly gonna need Gods forgiveness, everything they do is extremely heretical. This is coming from a Scot

[@postscript67]

@@micoolkidfilms3270 From your name I'd guess your ancestors came to Scotland several centuries after the Scottish Reformation.

[@micoolkidfilms3270]

@@postscript67 no, my family are a sept of MacDonald Clanranald, and came to Scotland through the Ulster cycle. Clanranald was a non apostate heretic clan

[@saltnessmonster]

I am in the Church of Scotland, very different. We are very open to all people coming into church to know Christ. Free Presbyterians don’t celebrate Christmas. I also think some of their strictness is legalism and echos the Pharisees, and they can be strict to members who don’t behave in a moral way, which is don’t out of love but I wouldn’t be happy about that.

[@astutik8909]

Somebody is deleting all replies. This channel is notorious for it.

[@saltnessmonster]

@@astutik8909 no KZbin is doing it. Comments under videos lost for telling a truth

[@saltnessmonster]

@@astutik8909 KZbin up to bad things in comments and algorithms before the 2024 election don’t want a Presbyterian to be President again

[@FishermensCorner]

​@astutik8909 you don't seem to be right about much.

[@FishermensCorner]

@@astutik8909 literally reading you getting constantly corrected then your deflection and denial ensues.

[@sanguinesteven790]

Such a fascinating denomination. As a Catholic I love to learn about all the different protestant groups and these kinds of denominations (especially the ones who don't observe Christmas or Easter) interest me especially. Keep up the good work! :)

[@jonathandewberry289]

They arent all these protestant groups. Enough of that.

[@timbalfour3909]

Lol at this being uploaded on a Sunday so the wee frees have to wait til tomorrow to watch

[@jec1ny]

🤣🤣

[@postscript67]

To be pedantic, the Free Presbyterians aren't the Wee Frees. The Wee Frees are the dissenting minority of the Free Church of Scotland that remained outside their 1900 union with the United Presbyterians that produced the United Free Church (that united church itself uniting (apart from another dissenting minority) with the Established Church of Scotland in 1929 to form the present rapidly-dying "national church" the Church of Scotland).

[@Hark1677]

Good old Reformed fundamentalist church. Nice that they’re standing strong on Protestant beliefs since 1560. 👍

[@NeilDonald-y5h]

And taking all the colour out of life.

[@micoolkidfilms3270]

Their a bunch of absolute heretical orange bastards who’ll need Gods forgiveness for the amount of heresy they commit

[@GermanShepherd1983]

Reformed fundamentalism has nothing to do with beliefs. It's all about control and forcing members to submit or be disciplined.

[@Mic1904]

Thanks for covering this! I'm not part of this specific denomination, but come from the same Scottish Presby family tree and recognise many of these practices.

[@marriage4life893]

Cool. What are some of the differences between your branch of Presbyterian practice versus the Free Church of Scotland? (Genuinely curious, not here to argue in the least bit)

[@mathieu2moon]

​@marriage4life893 you literally deleted a thread where that guy was arguing about Easter lol

[@Mic1904]

@@marriage4life893 Genuinely, remarkably little on paper (identical adherence to confessional standards, similarly Puritan-inspired type Protestantism, acapella psalm singing, a light version of KJV-Only, and similar Scottish Highland origins), maybe just the dial turned back 1 or 2 notches in practice. A woman wouldn't get barred from Communion for wearing trousers during the weekdays at my church, nor would the reading of fiction (yes, really), the occasional use of the television (nothing perverse, obviously), or dare I say it, making casual conversation over a cup of tea on the Lord's Day get you barred, for the most part anyway. But it might well with the FPs. Christmas and Easter are not practiced or observed and are generally discouraged as Papal in origin, but individual members might privately give their kids presents on Christmas Day, or chocolate at Easter. You can read about my denomination, its name is the Free Church Of Scotland (Continuing).

[@Mic1904]

@@mathieu2moon Apologies, replied to you mistakenly when you were talking to someone else. My mistake!

[@marriage4life893]

@@Mic1904 Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll look into it. Sounds interesting.

[@intergalactichumanempire9759]

I’d love to see a member of this church debate a member of the NIFB. I think it’d be funny.

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

1:15 "You have chairs in your house?! Wicked child!" - Lady Whiteadder

[@hermanstrydom3519]

Sounds like a solid church ❤.

[@Hark1677]

I’d like to see one on the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster and FPCNA.

[@micoolkidfilms3270]

The most heretical church known to man

[@Hark1677]

@@micoolkidfilms3270How so?

[@geordiewishart1683]

I think a rabid statue kissing, bead rattling tag has joined the chat

[@stephanottawa7890]

Thanks, but they are not that strict. I went to one from time to time. They are what most mainline churches were one hundred and fifty years ago. The thing is that they have stayed the same whereas most other Protestant churches have either become modern and now woke or they have become modern and now wacky. Every point or almost every point that you mention would not have struck anyone as particularly conservative or strict. Just look at old photos of Protestant churches before the 1960's. Every woman is wearing a headcovering of some sort. Before 1900 few churches had organs as they could not afford them or there were no organists in the vicinity whom they could afford to pay. At least that was the case for most of Canada. Everyone observed the Sabbath to some extent as all shops and movie theatres were closed. There was nothing else to do but go to church. Of course, we used the Authorized Version as that was the only one available in most places. Now possibly not all churches were following all the 5 points of Calvinism in the same way, but they were Calvinistic in tone and spirit. Even Lutheran and Anglican churches here in Canada had a definite Calvinistic bent to them (apart from the few high churches that were scattered here and there). The unique thing is that the Free Presbyterian church remained what they were and even moved a bit more to the extreme whereas the rest went in the opposite direction. The ultimate question is to where are they all headed?

[@ReadyToHarvest]

I pretty much agree with you here on their conservatism being something that wouldn't have stood out in the past. They have retained what other churches held. Yes, other churches used to be this strict. In the light of all of history perhaps they aren't very strict, but in the world we live in today, they are.

[@Mic1904]

While there is much here that I would agree with in principle, I wonder if I might pose a (seemingly random, but believe me, very much relevant as will become apparent) question: do you believe that it is ok for a Christian to read narrative fiction? Not smut or the obscene, obviously - I mean the very notion of narrative fiction as a concept (be that anything from Shakespeare, to CS Lewis, etc)?

[@Samy-sx6kn]

This slacks thing is just cultural, isn’t it? It’s was inappropriate for women to wear slacks general in society a few years ago. I don’t know any Christian or biblical reason for women not wearing slacks.

[@TheNabOwnzz]

​@@Samy-sx6knDeuteronomy 22:5

[@Samy-sx6kn]

@@TheNabOwnzz Really ? And where is written that slacks are men clothing? And do you obey all commands in Deuteronomy? Like not wearing “garment of divers sorts ? (22:11) , if you build a house do you “ make battlement for thy roof”? (22:08)? Do you celebrate stoning? (21:21)?

[@Many_Sparrows]

Women in slacks is where God draws the line

[@schs1977]

Please quote chapter and verse where, in the Bible, does it state that ladies are not to wear pants? Men didn't even wear pants in the timeframe the Bible was written.

[@barthanson3043]

Oh yeah sarcasm and irony. Not everybody gets those!

[@Samy-sx6kn]

This is irony? Isn’t it?

[@TheNabOwnzz]

​@@schs1977Deuteronomy 22:5.

[@valeriebalzan7619]

Slacks have been women's clothing for about 50 years so get over it!

[@rustledjammies8769]

This was an excellent summary. I can't believe this was only uploaded yesterday as I found this through the search. You should do a video on the unrelated Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster (which I searched for). I'd love to learn more about their beliefs bar the fire and brimstone of the infamous Lord Bannside (Ian Paisley).

[@ReadyToHarvest]

Welcome! I do plan to make a video on the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster - hopefully sooner rather than later.

[@rustledjammies8769]

@@ReadyToHarvest Awesome thanks for replying! ❤️

[@micoolkidfilms3270]

KAH

[@mehrcat1]

@@ReadyToHarvest I hope you do.

[@geordiewishart1683]

KAH? Kill all huns? You fenian papist bog trotting, soap dodging, thick Mick

[@ProductBasement]

They had me until "infant baptism"

[@CanadianMonarchist]

We have the Free Church of Scotland in Canada. I’m Gospel Hall, but a lot of my spiritual heritage comes from the Presbyterian and Free Churches.

[@geordiewishart1683]

I was gospel all but disappointed that Nelson Derby brought in the notion of the rapture into Protestant thinking, considering its Jesuit roots

[@CanadianMonarchist]

@@geordiewishart1683 The Rapture has Jesuit roots? I didn’t think Catholics believe in the Rapture.

[@albionblue123]

It sounds like a good church. Scotland is in real need of Biblical churches and Christianity in general.

[@danielgilbert3044]

We have one in our area in AUS, I love them and have preached there a few of times as a Reformed Baptist minister myself. Dedicated, godly, lovely Christians. : )

[@Mic1904]

Interesting. With the deepest of respect to you personally (I love my Reformed Baptist friends), this surprises me, as the FPs here in Scotland are openly in condemnation of so-called 'anti-paedobaptists' sharing their pulpit. Perhaps the Australian version has easiest off this somewhat uncharitable treatment of our baptist brethren. Which is very good news to hear.

[@albertito77]

Do they seem to be growing? Either in people joining or natural increase? (Curious)

[@astutik8909]

There are " slackers" and " super strict" in every sect of Christianity. And everyone in between.

[@CanadianMonarchist]

We have the Free Church in Canada, and that is the impression I get of them.

[@danielgilbert3044]

@Mic1904 So encouraging, thank you. From our discussions, we are united as beloved Christians with secondary differences. Obviously, when I'm preaching there its not to violate their conscience, nor do I wish to change their robust view of Baptism or exclusive psalm singing. Yes, my experience in AUS has been one of charity and love. Blessings 😃

[@marriage4life893]

Thanks for the video. 😊

[@mr.goldenproductions_0143]

It’s amazing to what lengths people will go to make their own lives miserable.

[@Mic1904]

Fun story: I know an individual from the Highland Presbyterian culture from whence this denomination comes, who always attends Church, in the back row, but personally believes himself to be eternally elected to damnation. Obviously, this is a heretical position that this church would condemn as false, but honestly? Few from this culture would be surprised that someone could end up in such a position.

[@Hark1677]

⁠@@Mic1904Whoa, what hopelessness. Reminds me of the man in the iron cage in Bunyan’s A Pilgrim’s Progress. This kind of strict Calvinism can lead to this behavior, I guess. I’ve heard of Reformed churches in Holland where very few would take the Lord’s Supper because they feel unworthy.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

I'm curious: can you be more specific-what's the miserable part? Resting on the Sabbath? Twice a day prayer? No slacks for women? I mean, compared to many other faiths, the duties are still quite limited.

[@Mic1904]

@@Hark1677 Yes, precisely this - we are, ultimately, just the Scottish cousins of the Dutch Reformed, and there's a similar situation here - a sizeable number take a long time to 'come to the Table' (take communion) and some never do. I believe my grandfather was a professing Christian in his life and practice, but tragically he either never took Communion at all, or if he did it took decades to do so (he died when I was young so I don't remember all the details)

[@hoot7588]

@@Hark1677 It is sadly a very real phenomenon. The same with baptism in some circles - a very bar that hardly anybody can reach, in contrast to the NT practice of baptism (by immersion) following confession of faith in Jesus Christ.

[@GermanShepherd1983]

As someone who cheerfully left a radical Calvinist church I laugh at how controlling these churches are. It's like they want to control every single aspect of your life and threaten discipline if you don't toe the line.

[@astutik8909]

Just like catholicism.

[@GermanShepherd1983]

@@astutik8909 Far worse than the Catholics

[@astutik8909]

@@GermanShepherd1983 Really? Catholics tortured and murdered millions of christians. For those who are awaiting a greater tribulation to eventuate, I doubt anything could come even close.

[@jeremias-serus]

Living rent free, mayhaps?

[@TheNabOwnzz]

Disciplinairy rule concerning congregants is fully in line with the Bible (particularly Paul, who often mentions this). The Church isn't supposed to be this liberal haven where everything is allowed and those living in public and unrepentant sin are allowed to continue thus without being disciplined. If you think that's too radical, then you think the Bible is too radical, and that Christ Himself is too radical.

[@Ninasee19]

Very interesting- Ethiopian Orthodox also don’t sing gospel songs with guitar or any of new instruments but the very old instruments that are mentioned in Bible, while at church it is expected for women’s to cover their head and wear a specific throw that cover up the body till knees, no pants 👖 for women, long dress, and everyone has to takeoff their shoe, the mass lasts 2-3 hours and people are standing or kneeling unless they are sick or parents to hold their babies - u should do video on that 👍🙏

[@igorlopes7589]

The geniuses unironically believe Paschae (that you anglophones call Easter) is pagan LOL

[@ri3m4nn]

You've already been fully refuted. Passover and Easter are different. Nice conflation though.

[@igorlopes7589]

@@ri3m4nn Paschae has nothing to do with Eostre and already existed before any christians had contact with any germanic deity. And the only reason the christian Paschae and the jewish Passover have different dates is because christians didnt want jews calculating their feast. And because Paschae was always celebrated on Sunday(the day Christ ressurected), even when 14 of Nisan didnt fall on sunday. But keep your delusion that anglophone peoples (the only ones that did call Paschae by the name of Easter) did have any deep impact on Christian History before the 18th century.

[@ri3m4nn]

@@igorlopes7589 Passover and Easter are two different things. Easter is a human tradition.

[@igorlopes7589]

@@ri3m4nn Easter is the name you english have for Paschae. Only a person with no care for historical truth can claim that the english name for Paschae says anything about Paschae as a whole, since England was a small part of Christendoom that only came to existence when Paschae did already exist for centuries. Your anglocentric view of christian history is nothing less than anachronic and stupid.

[@igorlopes7589]

Paschae is the feast of Christs Passion, Death and Ressurection. Of course its not the exact same thing as Passover. Quartodecimanians celebrated it on the day before Passover, the day Christ died on the jewish calendar. And others celebrated it on the sunday nearest to Passover, since Christ ressurected on the sunday after Passover.

[@igorlopes7589]

*1- The Martyrs of 2nd and 3rd centuries literally chose to die instead of practicing syncretism* *2- These Martyrs celebrated Paschae* *3- Therefore Paschae isnt syncretism* *4- Therefore Paschae isnt of pagan origin* *5- Therefore Paschae comes from first century christians* *6- Therefore Paschae comes from the Apostles*

[@astutik8909]

You can tell by the dates, which is which.

[@ri3m4nn]

Imagine thinking martyrdom means what they believed in is right.

[@igorlopes7589]

Imagine thinking people who didnt lie and werent mistook are somehow wrong. They didnt lie because they literally died for Christ and they werent mistook because there wasnt enough time to create a whole feast out of hearsay.

[@ri3m4nn]

@igorlopes7589 heresies were happening during the time of the Apostles alone. Even Judas was heretical and he was considered one of the 12 disciples. Stop worshiping idols.

[@igorlopes7589]

@@ri3m4nn Im not worshipping any idol. Also, the Martyrs weren't heretics. If they didnt pervert the Gospel themselves (their witness of it in martyrdoom suggests fidelity to Christ) or weren't mistook about it (their proximity to the Apostles suggests no accidental mistakes) then the only opinion left is their traditions being Apostolic traditions.

[@peterxuereb9884]

The perversity of Calvinism knows no boundaries. Such is Protestantism/Anglicanism.

[@walterworrall]

Nicely done

[@jessietricia1609]

'Free' Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Lol.

[@Iktius]

True presbyterian church of Scotland

[@mzubuki]

Matthew 13:18-23 18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. 19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. 20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; 21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. 22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. 23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

[@jamespitcher6936]

Haha I went to this Church last yeah when I travelled to Glasgow! I’m Australian and I was just looking for a presy church. This one showed up on google so I just went. I was extremely underdressed 😂. And when it was over everyone just immediately walked out and didn’t talk to anyone. So odd. Probably can’t speak to other Christians on Sundays 🤫

[@Mic1904]

Actually, you're pretty much right - Free Presbyterians don't hang around to talk after the Sunday services, and certainly dare not risk such worldly pleasures as a cup of tea and a biscuit, because they genuinely do believe that such 'lingering around' (what almost any other church would call 'fellowship of the saints') promotes idle chat on the Lord's Day. You've basically hit the nail on the head.

[@amypb467]

It may be that they were chatting outside? The congregation in the church I went to left the building immediately but had fellowship and chatting outside of the church building for quite some time

[@emilyf5596]

I'm an attendee of Glasgow now and people do stand and talk, but if it's bad weather we don't! Also, some people opt to go home immediately because it can be tempting to them to talk about things that aren't appropriate for the Sabbath. It's up to individuals but remember to be respectful of people avoiding temptation.

[@yankees4551]

There's one in the south of France too, they are close to the Christian Reformed church (CGK) in the Netherlands.

[@idhalverson]

My church is 95% similar (Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) in the USA) and likewise branched from the Free Church of Scotland. It's wonderful. I love my church.

[@idhalverson]

@john3.169 Cornerstone Presbyterian in Burlington, NC, USA

[@idhalverson]

@john3.169 We retain all practices that were common from the late 17th century through the 19th century. So yes, women typically cover, we use the KJV, and we continue to use the Scottish Psalmody from the metrical Psalter of 1650.

[@postscript67]

This is what most of the Scottish presbyterian churches were like in the early 19th century.

[@micoolkidfilms3270]

Scotlands shame

[@postscript67]

@@micoolkidfilms3270 I think there are quite a few more recent things which shame Scotland more than an over-enthusiastic adherence to the austerities of Calvinism. Such beliefs, like it or not, shaped the Scottish character over centuries and it has even been said that the Shorter Catechism of that faith, drummed into the heads of generations of Scottish children, was the grit in the oyster that produced the pearl of the Scottish Enlightenment.

[@micoolkidfilms3270]

@@postscript67 that is extremely earthly, all reformed theology is absolute heresy, they deny Christ in the Eucharist, they only have 1 sacrament, they have no apostolic succession. They have no priesthood.

[@geordiewishart1683]

Scotland's shame is the papist clergy child abuse covered up by deluded bead rattlers. Famine is over, fenian

[@mistyhaney5565]

I was wondering, given the fact that they seem to adamantly claim to base all their practices on the Bible, if anyone knows how they justify their belief that the state should not only establish the religion, but financially support it as well?

[@Mic1904]

It's a good question, and one that much ink has been spent writing about (if you Google 'Establishment Principle' you'll find an abundance - in fact, one of my first results was from this very denomination). But at least part of it rests in the idea that the civil authority is not some default, neutral entity - civil authority IS God ordained, earthly government is divinely established. And therefore, the only consistent and rightful thing for a divinely ordained government to do is to promote the worship of the divine (otherwise, you have a situation where God's ordained government is supporting something other than God's ordained worship - and 'what fellowship has light with darkness', etc etc). It becomes illogically inconsistent to imagine God-ordained governance establishing and maintaining God-hating religion (or anti-religion). That's just one angle.

[@JohnParks-zc1pn]

Given their views on gender appropriate attire, what do they think of Scottish kilts?

[@micoolkidfilms3270]

@@JohnParks-zc1pnThat’s make so ofc makes can wear it.

[@jonathandewberry289]

This made me smile because i .. well it doesnt matter but yes to this. Btw, they are generally a fun group that i remember, rich in character, kind and also pretty sure whos going to hell. I love these guys

[@thetraditionalist]

pretty interesting, doesn't sound like a very fun church

[@GermanShepherd1983]

Anything connected to the Reformed/Calvinist movement is not a fun church. The governing body dictates everything. I actually attended a Reformed church that wouldn't have the church picnic in the park because someone might have fun. "Picnic" had to be in the church basement, but they'd complain because they couldn't attract any young people to join the church

[@Hark1677]

⁠@@GermanShepherd1983It’s a “pot providence” not a potluck.

[@GermanShepherd1983]

@@Hark1677 In the basement it can be called a "pot providence" but a picnic by definition is to be outside. Funny how it always wound up in the basement every single year even if scheduled for the nearby park.

[@thetraditionalist]

lol@@GermanShepherd1983

[@innovationhq8230]

Church is not for entertainment.

[@Kjt853]

Many of these practices are observed by traditional Mennonites. Women’s head coverings, no musical instruments, a cappella hymns (though not only Psalms), no TV or radio. Mennonites eschew Calvinism, but the similarities in other areas are impressive.

[@hoot7588]

The head coverings here are only in worship, not daily life.

[@wtb61]

No one is forced to join the Free Church of Scotland.

[@MultiJoe84]

I didn’t realise you could close a website on a Sunday! Anyway. Not my cup of tea. As a Roman Catholic, I wouldn’t have anything to do with a church so opposed to mines.

[@23rdFoot]

You might not accept the scientific theory of evolution, but cannot see how you could actually "oppose" it.

[@Hark1677]

By not accepting a theory, wouldn’t that be opposing it or being opposed to it?

[@hoot7588]

@@Hark1677And also by contending for the literal interpretation of Genesis.

[@peterwilding1203]

Aussie Presbyterian here. Not sure how you square requirement of such a strict lifestyle with salvation by grace alone.

[@KingoftheJuice18]

There are different messages in the New Testament: "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." -Matthew 5:20

[@albertito77]

All Christians believe in holy living and Church discipline. Paul is pretty big that how we worship matters. Where to draw the line between appropriate church discipline and legalism? I guess IMO it's legalism if they say that this is definitely the only way church can be done and that we know with certainty that this is exactly how God wants every Christian to live (right down to every detail, no slacks for women and all) and our way is the _only_ way a Christian should live, that this may be legalism. But if there's some humility and admission that although this is how _we_ do church and this is how we've discerned Gods will, we could ultimately he wrong in some details. However, to belong to our church you need to follow our rules, nevertheless this isn't the only way to do do church. I guess if it's the latter that salvation by grace alone may be maintained?

[@albertito77]

Is it a sin to keep the Sabbath a little more strictly than what God actually requires?

[@astutik8909]

​@@albertito77SUNday isnt the Sabbath anyway.

[@astutik8909]

Grace is not license to transgress the laws of GOD tho.

[@urbandad885]

Now that is a contrast.

[@justincabral1150]

Yes

[@charleshowarth8461]

Nice to see serious people being from usa and the mess we call church. Me included

[@anarchorepublican5954]

Alexander Campbell and Thomas Campbell founders of the American Restorationist/Stone-Campbell movement (Disciples of Christ; churches of Christ; Christian Churches) had their background amongst a specific Sect of this group.."the old light/anti-burgers"....both independently ran afoul of its strict "fenced" Communion policies.... 🚫🥖🍷

[@Ggdivhjkjl]

Do they collect a monetary offering or is attendance free?

[@Mic1904]

A collection bowl is situated at the entrance for people to donate privately if they wish. I will say though, in defense of those churches that do pass around a collection bowl to encourage a monetary offering from their members, it would be unfair to say that this means attendance isn't free. These are not the same thing.

[@aben4895]

Exactly the kind of Church I want to attend. No Xmas or Eostre celebrations, no forceful tithing 😂

[@_Jaxx333]

What is forceful tithing lol?

[@_Jaxx333]

@NotRexButCaesar ooooooh, thank you for the explanation!

[@Mic1904]

I mean, realistically, this church would view it as being at odds if you were a professing Christian and member of their church who didn't contribute a portion of your income (now, granted, how they could possibly prove or discipline such a thing, when giving can be done privately, is questionable - but in principle, they would expect giving to the church to be a necessary part of the Christian walk).

[@ri3m4nn]

​@@igorlopes7589 again, Easter is a human tradition that was made out of spite. Passover was given by God. They are different. Easter adopting more paganism overtime doesn't disprove it's core pagan origin and remains to be.

[@igorlopes7589]

@@ri3m4nn 1- Second century anti-pagan anti-gnostic anti-syncretism christian Martyrs celebrated Paschae on a date that wasnt 14 of Nisan. 2- Eostre couldnt have any impact in non anglo-saxon countries, since Christianity was centered on the Mediterranean and english people had a non existent role in the first five centuries and a very small role during the middle ages. You anglophones werent important enough in christian history to substitute the feast of Christs ressurection with a feast secretly dedicated to Eostre. 3- Eggs and bunnies weren't a symbol of Eostre because the sole source that talks about her doesnt mention it.

[@fabulouschild2005]

A guy I'm sweet on is Free Pres. He's very nice

[@GermanShepherd1983]

Remember that they believe the husband is the boss and you'd better listen.

[@fabulouschild2005]

@@GermanShepherd1983 Might be a bit of contention then, as I'd be the husband too lol

[@TheBlueMarbleItself]

As someone who isn't part of the Church Of Scotland (A slightly more theologically centrist church, which affirms LGBTQ+ but still opposes abortion, so it's my kind of church (Even though I'm Catholic as of rn) yet likes it and loves all things Scottish, thank you for making this video.

[@1John3.8]

What?

[@brotherjames1623]

Gifts have finished...hmmm i wont ask those guys to pray for me then.

[@ComeJesusChrist]

Apart from some doubts about the ‘perseverance of the saints’, one of the five-point Calvinistic doctrines and not observing Sabbath on Saturdays, I completely agree with these doctrines and practices. I need a church like this near me! South Wales is dominated by false charismatic churches and CoE or the Welsh equivalent, with a lot of idols in church and LGBTQ ‘values’ tolerated.

[@robertjarman4261]

Greetings from Holy Russia 🇷🇺 Now Orthodox but lived in Wales llandaff. Was a minister for years till I escaped.

[@Hark1677]

You’re a 4 point Calvinist seventh day sabbatarian? What denomination do you belong to?

[@ComeJesusChrist]

@@Hark1677 I seems that I am and have no congregation at the moment. I grew up as a reformed Protestant in Europe, later moved to the UK and ended up in Wales. Having doubts about the security of our salvation is the only doctrine of the five points that would separate me from the official position of most Calvinistic churches and I don’t see it as a deal-breaker. Some years ago, before I was born again, I stopped eating pork and seafood and I started observing Sabbath, being aware that it was the day when the Lord rested and I try not to go out unless it is for worship or family-related activities. Again, this would not prentice me from attending a Calvinistic church. I like their traditions, discipline, hymns and the respect that they approach worship with. In my heart, I am still a reformed Protestant and probably very close to the doctrines of pastors like Dr. John MacArthur and Dr. John Barnett, both of whom, I learnt a lot. I don’t see these doctrinal issues so important that they would prevent me from going to a church. The real issue is that this part of Wales is dominated by Pentecostal and charismatic churches, typically family-run, with a lot of narcissistic features, promoting Harry Potter, dressing up as Satan and so on. There is absolutely no church discipline, community or true fellowship, my experience is that it’s usually the dominating family’s chapel-business and the close friends/outsiders providing a bit of variety to it. Worship songs are just pop songs with religious lyrics, some of them from the heretical Bethel/Elevation/Hillsong music factories. Another issue was the local churches pushing for the recent medical sorcery, then these congregations shedding like toxic clusters of airborne form of inoculation. I hope you understand what I mean by that. What the real conflict is with these churches is the approach to the world and sins. The last pastor of the church I’ve been attending for quite a while proudly claimed to be a “feasting church, not a fasting church” after I privately had a discussion when ai revealed that I fasted occasionally. They wear casual clothes, but mocked me for wearing formal clothes on Sunday. Their abuse of the perverted doctrine of ‘perseverance of the saints’ through the ‘once saved always saved’ ideology prevented any discussion or preaching on correction, reflecting on habitual sins and I genuinely felt that despite the skilled orator regularly talking about the love of God and getting emotional about the cross, it wasn’t the full Gospel that was preached. Just to finish it off, perhaps shocking some who are still reading, I rejected the heliocentric globe nonsense as heretical and unbiblical, which only gets me nothing but ridiculing. I am also a literal, six day Creationist and reject the heretical theory of evolution. More and more Christians and even secular people do, but when the church is fully engaged in the world, they will be very slow to move away from its propaganda and heresies.

[@micoolkidfilms3270]

Seventh day Adventist is a Satan pleasing ideology, its absolute heresy

[@westaussie965]

0:03 Sunday is not the sabbath, so they are not that strict are they if they don’t follow the commandments

[@Zz-lm1no]

I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die. Gal 2:21 I was unfortunately part of a legalistic Church for a year...did a lot of damage. Take Christs yoke as it is lighter

[@emilyf5596]

Every sermon I hear from them mentions the light yoke of Christ. They don't believe the rules in the Bible are for salvation.

[@SantaFe19484]

Sounds like a mixture of Amish and Presbyterian.

[@innovationhq8230]

It shounds like what all Prresbyterian churches were like in the 1600s.

[@catholic4sure976]

*DID YOU KNOW* If Mary named Yahshua (Jesus), the *proper* name: *"Rock"* , Christ's name would have been *"Cephas"* (John 1:42, 1Cor. 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, Gal. 2:9) in the Aramaic and *"Petros"* in the Greek, and "Peter" in the Greek to English. There is only ONE way to Say the *proper* name ROCK and that is CEPHAS in the Aramaic and PETROS in the Greek. If Mary had named Christ "Rock" we would all be calling Christ *"Cephas or Peter"*

[@Mic1904]

None of this makes any sense. There's never once been an argument that 'Rock' is a given name of Jesus, like Bob, Tim or Brian are given names. You know, in that way in which Jesus is Messiah, Lord, God, Person of the Trinity, the Bridegroom, the Door, the Way, the Truth and the Life, but none of these are his given birth name by Mary... but are still true of Him.

[@astutik8909]

But Jesus wasnt named rock. He is the cornerstone. Altho catholics believe Peter is the cornerstone on which the " church" is built.

[@catholic4sure976]

@@astutik8909 Obviously, not. Christ named Him Simon Barjona "Rock" .

[@catholic4sure976]

@@Mic1904 Christ named Simon Barjona, "Cephas" which means rock and CHRIST HIMSELF knowing he would ascend back into heaven, left Peter as "ROCK" while on earth, Christ knowing debates and conflict would come, so Christ put one final authority in place to settle all the debates. *Christ is the ultimate Rock, while Peter is Rock for him while on earth. Christ completing his statement with the final words*, " *Whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and Whatsoever YOU loosen on earth is LOOSEN IN HEAVEN* John 1vs 41 The first thing he did was to find his brother Shim‘on and tell him, “We’ve found the Mashiach!” (The word means “one who has been anointed.”) 42 He took him to Yeshua. Looking at him, Yeshua said, “You are Shim‘on Bar-Yochanan; you will be known as Kefa.” (The name means “rock.”) *The Jewish Bible*

[@Mic1904]

@@catholic4sure976 As you well know, the infallible author of the Gospel purposefully separates 'petros' (Peter) from 'petra' (the foundation and testament upon which He's building His Church) - they are, of course, poetically being linked (it is not lost on me that there's a Biblical 'play on words' that emphasises the connection). But not the same word, referring to the same thing. I look forward to the same tired argument you're about to trot out about these being the same in Aramaic, so that we can dismiss that argument too.

[@evanmartin8199]

Funny how you confuse the Sabbath created and endorsed by Jesus Christ on the seventh day, with the pale imitation created by Constantine and endorsed as their own by the Papacy (he "shall think to change times and laws": Daniel 7:25) on the first day. Do you not know that they are NOT the same, nearly 2000 yrs after He came?

[@geordiewishart1683]

Unfortunately, so much within Protestantism is still tainted by popish errors

[@Wintermute349]

There is no such thing as a “Christian sabbath”. The sabbath was abrogated under Christ in the New Covenant. The Lord’s Day is a completely different thing. > Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ >Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.

[@geordiewishart1683]

The Bible shows no evidence of any change at Christ’s death and resurrection concerning God’s Sabbaths. We see only a continuation of Christ’s followers observing them just as He had done-despite the assertions of some to the contrary. Many people, however, think that Paul, the other apostles and the early Church changed the Sabbath day. But what does the record of the New Testament really say? "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good" (Romans 7:12). We have seen that Jesus Christ did not change God's Sabbath day. On the contrary, throughout His ministry He showed the true purpose and intent of the Sabbath. Jesus often showed that the Sabbath, and particularly His teachings and actions on that day, prefigured the coming messianic age-the time of the Kingdom of God-as one of healing, freedom and restoration for all humanity. Jesus was a Sabbath-keeper. At the time of His death, His closest followers clearly observed the Sabbath, waiting until it was past to prepare His body for burial (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1-2; Luke 23:56; Luke 24:1). Fifty days from Christ's resurrection, many gathered for the Day of Pentecost, one of God's seven annual Sabbaths or feasts observed in addition to the weekly Sabbath (Leviticus 23), and it was on that day that the New Testament Church was founded by the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4). The Bible shows no evidence of any change at Christ's death and resurrection concerning God's Sabbaths. We see only a continuation of Christ's followers observing them just as He had done-despite the assertions of some to the contrary. Did Paul abolish the Sabbath? If the Sabbath, or any part of God's law, was abolished or changed in the early New Testament Church, we should find clear evidence of such a dramatic shift in the New Testament writings. After all, the books of the New Testament were written in the first century over a period of decades ending in the 90s, more than 60 years after Jesus' death and resurrection. Many who argue that the Sabbath was abolished in the New Testament point to the apostle Paul's writings to justify their view. But is this opinion correct? They commonly cite three passages to support that claim-Romans 14:5-6, Colossians 2:16-17 and Galatians 4:9-10. To properly understand these passages we must look at each in context, both in the immediate context of what is being discussed and in the larger social and historical context influencing the author and his audience at the time. We must also be careful not to read our preconceived notions into the text. With that in mind, let's examine these passages and see if Paul indeed annulled or abolished Sabbath observance in his writings. First, let's consider Paul's own statements about God's law. More than 25 years after the death of Jesus Christ, he wrote in Romans 7:12, "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good." In Romans 2:13 he stated, "For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified." In Romans 7:22 he said, "For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man." Many assume that once we have faith in Jesus Christ, we have no more need to keep the law. Paul himself addressed this concept in Romans 3:31: "Do we then make void [Greek katargeo, meaning 'destroy' or 'abolish'] the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish [Greek histemi, meaning 'erect' or 'make to stand'] the law." Faith does not abolish the law, said Paul; it establishes and upholds it. In Acts 24 he defended himself before the Roman governor Felix against charges of dissension and sedition brought by Jewish religious leaders. Replying to the accusations against him, he said, "I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets" (Acts 24:14). Two years later he again defended himself against such accusations, this time before another Roman governor, Festus. "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended in anything at all," he responded to the charges against him (Acts 25:8). Here, some 25 to 30 years after Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, Paul plainly said he believed "all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets" (terms used for the books of the Old Testament) and had done nothing against the law! In light of these clear statements, we should expect to find equally clear instructions regarding abolition of the Sabbath, if that had been Paul's understanding and intent. But do we? Are all days of worship alike? In Romans 14:5-6, Paul wrote: "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks." From this statement, it could appear to some that Paul is saying that whatever day one chooses to rest and worship is irrelevant so long as one is "fully convinced in his own mind" and "observes it to the Lord." Does this mean that the Sabbath is no different from any other day or that we are free to choose whatever day we wish to observe? Some 25 to 30 years after Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection, Paul plainly said he believed “all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets” (terms used for the books of the Old Testament) and had done nothing against the law! To come to that conclusion, one must read it into the verse, because the Sabbath is nowhere mentioned here. In fact, the word Sabbath or references to Sabbath-keeping are not found anywhere in the book of Romans. The reference here is simply to "days," not the Sabbath or any other days of rest and worship commanded by God.

[@jonnbobo]

The New Covenant was instituted in Luke chapter 22 and in Luke chapter 23 they directly kept the Sabbath according to the commandment.

[@igorlopes7589]

​@@geordiewishart1683Let me tell you a very ancient secret knowledge they dont want you to know: *Sabbath is only for jews* Gentiles arent meant to follow sabbath, its a thing specific of God's Covenant with the Hebrews. The God Fearers, gentiles faithful to God in the Old Covenant, only had to follow the Seven Laws of Noah. Regardless, its already evident in the anti-gnostic anti-syncretic christian Martyrs of the second century that Sunday was the day primitive christians set appart to worship the Lord.

[@gracealone8327]

Genuine question: Israel was commanded to observe the Sabbath as a sign between them and the Lord (Ezekiel 20:12, Exodus 31:13). This was a sign of the covenant between them and the Lord so they would remain in the land, and with penalty of death for disobedience. This was a theocratic rule over a physical nation under a covenant of works(not salvation works but in order to remain in the land) this is why it's a covenant of works, and the Sabbath was a sign of this covenant exclusively between Israel and the Lord as no other nation was held accountable under this covenant. So we must ask What is the substance of the New covenant? Is it the same but just a different administration? 16 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. (Colossians 2:16-17, ) Christ is now the substance of the new covenant, where old physical shadows and anti types all pointed to him, including the Sabbath, and have found all fulfillment in him. Our true rest is now in Christ alone (Matthew 11:28) Also it must be asked where do the Apostles anywhere command the gentiles to observe the Sabbath? In Acts 15 , they are commanded to abstain from sexual immorality and idol worship. But nothing of the transfer of the Sabbath observation in the old to now continue the same in the new covenant Church. In the New Covenant we observe what is now called the Lord's day by gathering to worship, break bread, sit under sound biblical teaching overseen by qualified Church Elders, and strive to exhort each other in Christian fellowship together. On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7) If the old covenant Sabbath has now transferred to the New Covenant Church then how is this to be observed? What are we to do and not to do? As one could be put to death in theocratic Israel for working on the Sabbath. Clearly the New covenant is not a physical but spiritual covenant. As then who becomes the authority of what can and cannot be done on the Lord's day? As the New Testament is silent on this, other than saying that these were Shadows of the things to come and now Christ is our substance and fulfilment of all that was in the old Covenant (Col 2:17)

[@Betts-Betts]

​@@gracealone8327 what? The Sabbath existed before the fall of Man

[@owencarpenter5025]

1st

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

*Kirk

[@aaronsaunders6974]

Weird webpage, hunuh

[@ReznaQay]

sounds like a good church besides the calvinism and sabbath on sunday part, wish they had them here in america. but loving god and neighbor can be difficult in a church like this

[@madmurdock100]

*God, not god

[@micoolkidfilms3270]

I mean the new covenant moved the sabbath to the Lords day. Anyone who partakes in Old Testament ritual are heretics and deny Christ.

[@christtrockministeries5542]

Sunday aint Chrian Sabbath that ws changed by emporer Constantine in 300somethig AD. If they allege Sunday is Sabbath, then it would mean Jeus Praise would have rose on what we call Monday, but newtestament Praise God, says Jesus, Praise Him, stayed in tomb on Sabbath, an rose on firstday of week, Praise Him we call Sunday. Daniel 7 v 25 in King James says he will think to change times and Laws, another thing changed without God's authority Praise Him is newyear, from nearest newmoon to spring equinox to January in 46 BC.

[@astutik8909]

SUNday is not the SABBATH.

[@TheNabOwnzz]

It doesn't matter. What matters is what one considers the Sabbath, and since there is now universal concord on considering it Sunday, we consider it on Sunday.

[@innovationhq8230]

It is the sabbath under the new covenant.

[@tonyu5985]

New Covenant Luke 20:22

[@astutik8909]

@@tonyu5985 New covenant according to prophecy is Jeremiah 31 v 31.

[@astutik8909]

@@innovationhq8230 Where does anybody in the new testament mention this??

[@jeffs9850]

Just another cult

[@user-Kova15]

As an Atheist, I hear they have Killer Kool aid😂

[@BeholdTheTruth79]

Wow... All those strict rules TRYING hard to follow the bible closely and yet they make two huge mistakes in following the Catholic churche's changed Sabbath day of Sunday instead of the biblical sabbath of Saturday and they follow the unbiblical Catholic creation of the trinity... crazy.

[@ri3m4nn]

Trinity isn't Catholic

[@RomanPaganChurch]

Catholic Trinity is the filioque

[@memeboi6017]

Trinity is like the most basic biblical doctrine literally john 1:1

[@BeholdTheTruth79]

@@memeboi6017 where is a trinity in john 1:1? at best you can only get 2 persons from that, if that was actually what was being said.

[@BeholdTheTruth79]

@@ri3m4nn Yes, actually it is.