Steve,

I read and reread your post, and did not find the answers to my questions. Do you really believe the following 2 examples are in Biblical unity (using St John 17:23 as a benchmark NOT THE HOLDEMANS!!!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish

http://www.newspring.cc/

I first want to know if you believe these two groups are in unity with each other, and if you are in unity with them, the kind of unity that witnesses to the world of the work of the grace of God in a believer's life. This involves more than lip service, i.e. someone saying that they believe in Jesus and trust him for salvation. That's an easy thing to say, but this kind of "faith" without works is dead, in other words, it don't mean anything. So we will obviously not be able to use that for our indication.

Are these two "households of God" in unity with their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and are you in unity with these groups as well?

Here is the website for the pastor of this New Spring church.

www.perrynoble.com/

Since the Bible teaches us to avoid false doctrine, and we can't avoid it if we don't know what it is, or what truth is, then could you tell me if this person is teaching a false doctrine, or not?

I'm really trying to figure out what you believe. I already know you don't believe like the Holdemans, you don't need to remind me, OK. So is there a way that you could tell me what you believe without you focusing on the false doctrines of the CGCM? Or is that just too difficult?



The question of what is unity? still is a valid one.

Does that ongoing question justify disregard to teachings of the Word to be of the same mind & judgment concerning spiritual things? Or is there a way to return to obedience of the Word instead of constantly trying to justify our lack of conscience by what appears to man to be a reasonable question?

In regards to all your accusations against the CGCM in your last post, there was a lot of half-truths in it. It wasn't hard to tell you are somewhat disconnected from most of the members of the CGCM and getting mostly a one-sided story, which is fine by you. However, since I don't believe that there is any profit in continuing to strain at these gnats until we quit swallowing camels (you included).

Oh, btw, in regards to your comment:

it would be perched right next to the Old Order Amish. Oh, I know you will protest that the Holdechurch is nothing like the Amish,

I don't really keep close tabs on how much the Amish are like or dislike the CGCM, as it really doesn't matter to me. Why would it? I do agree that they are like the CGCM or v.s. in many ways. There isn't any thing particular wrong with that. Do you despise being a human being because the terrorists are human beings as well?

In regards to Cousin Roland's writing, I read it some time ago, and thought it was very well written. I appreciated the brother's inspiration.

>> That's an easy thing to say, but this kind of "faith" without works is dead, in other words, it don't mean anything.<<

Anaverageh, it would sound better if you used the word doesn't rather than don't.

TR:

I did answer you, but in the form of a question, and I quote: "Do people in both these denominations believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah and follow him and trust in him for salvation? That's unity on pretty basic (in the good sense of the word) level."

My assumption is that both these denominations/churches would do so. So. There is your answer.

Now, to get to your subsequent questions:

>>I first want to know if you believe these two groups are in unity with each other,<<

See above.

>>and if you are in unity with them, the kind of unity that witnesses to the world of the work of the grace of God in a believer's life.<<

Yes - based on the assumption that the above is true (i.e. they believe Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah and follow him and trust in him for salvation).

Are we identical? No. But can we all be part of the body of Christ? Absolutely.

>>So is there a way that you could tell me what you believe without you focusing on the false doctrines of the CGCM?<<

Absolutely.

Or is that just too difficult?<<

Not at all.

Here you have it:

I believe in one God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth,
And of all things visible and invisible:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
Begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
Very God of very God,
Begotten, not made,
Being of one substance with the Father,
Through whom all things were made;
Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven,
And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary,
And was made man,
And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.
He suffered and was buried,
And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures,
And ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of the Father.
And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead:
Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost,
The Lord and giver of life,
Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son,
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified,
Who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.
And I look for the Resurrection of the dead,
And the life of the world to come.
Amen

>>This involves more than lip service, i.e. someone saying that they believe in Jesus and trust him for salvation. That's an easy thing to say, but this kind of "faith" without works is dead, in other words, it don't mean anything. So we will obviously not be able to use that for our indication.<<

Well, actually, I think a Jewish carpenter did actually say that roughly 2,000 years ago (see St. John 3:16-7). Then again, he never said anything about beards and beanies, so maybe he didn't have a hot clue what he was talking about when he and the fellow from the Sanhedrin were chatting one night.

>>In regards to all your accusations against the CGCM in your last post, there was a lot of half-truths in it. It wasn't hard to tell you are somewhat disconnected from most of the members of the CGCM and getting mostly a one-sided story, which is fine by you.<<

From my earlier post: "If, as Cousin Roland and no doubt you as well, believe the Holdechurch to be united, then why the multiplicity of congregations? A primary example is my old home community of Rosenort. The church split (aka a new congregation was formed) and the new church is being built about two miles, as the crow flies, from the 'mother' church. Why? Obviously not for reasons of geography. Not for reasons of the existing church building being physically too small to contain the entire Holdeflock in the area. One really does have to wonder, especially when comments are made by members of the 'daughter' church that they would never want to go back to the 'mother' church, or other reports of disunity (err, I mean 'differences of opinion') are heard, how it can be said that the COGICM Inc. is a united, undivided church?

Or, the question also comes to mind: Why does something that can get you expelled in one congregation is perfectly acceptable in a congregation one province/state away (or even one a few miles down the road)?"

If, as you claim, there are a lot of half-truths in it, could you kindly point out precisely where I am incorrect?

>>Why is this 'perfect unity' (and nobody seems willing or able to actually define the term) somehow the litmus test for being THE ONE TRUE CHURCH? And, secondly, who gets to define this 'perfect unity'? The people who wish to establish that they themselves are THE ONE TRUE CHURCH? I suppose if you set the test, take the test, and mark the results, you'll get the outcome you're looking for...<<

Now that I have answered your questions, I think it's reasonable for me to expect you to reciprocate.

>>So is there a way that you could tell me what you believe without you focusing on the false doctrines of the CGCM?<<

In this sentence the third you becomes redundant.

>>There isn't any thing particular wrong with that.<<

Here you should probably say, "There isn’t anything particularly wrong with that."

>>It wasn't hard to tell you are somewhat disconnected from most of the members of the CGCM and getting mostly a one-sided story, which is fine by you <<


Here it would sound better if you changed the word wasn’t to isn‘t, or the word are to were.

A nice Scripture that I noticed lately,

(Is 52:7-8) How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! 8 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall SEE EYE TO EYE, when the LORD shall bring again Zion.

TR, you are the victim of "either/or" thinking.  EITHER it must be this way OR that way.  If only one church can be right in order to meet your definition of "unity", what crucial fact would make you think that this one right way is the Holdeman church?  Suppose the real church is some other church that also has perfection and unity?  That would mean that you are totally wrong, even if it is in ignorance.  Have you fully researched the intricate details of every other church and found them to be wanting in some way?

If you are so concerned about doctrinal perfection and unity, then why are you not able to see all the things that everyone here has pointed out to you?  So, we are suppose to see your wonderful light, but you cannot see the things that have been pointed out to you?  Sheesh.

Brent D, what i have found in there is that they give lip service along the lines "if I find a closer church I will start going there" But they are being very dishonest by saying that, for there is no will to look for error in their own back yard.

The H has just a much error as any other denomination, they have some bible truths, and some errors.

they pick and chose the truth they will adore and despise by the divining truth through their conference idol, and they agree to have unity in their decisions, upon penalty of eternal death. The people that reserve their rights to be under God alone are immediately destroyed in that "unity" in order to keep the father of lies alive in their conference.

To have unity, there must be a laying down of "opinion" and a dying to "self" in deference to the objective goals, for where contention is there is pride/rebellion, however, "unity" is not the same thing as unity of the faith.

Look at this verse:

Eph 4:13* Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:



the holdemans already have the unity, but the bible gives us prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; until we have that unity.

they apparently think the "unity" they force on people with their propaganda machine is somehow a completion and sweet smelling incense to God!


more an abomination! But 'whatever'!


I like Stevens thought of the quoting the apostles creed to attain unity, that is how the fore fathers did it to find unity, bbt the holdies claim the faith of the forefathers all the while expelling anyone that quotes the apostles creed, especially the "universal church" for that creed spits in the holdeman's idols face!



May God richly Bless your day!

Kevin,

I don't agree with a lot of what TR says, but I will stand up for his right to say it without your petty corrections of his grammar.

TR; I believe many are or would be reaching to you for "unity" with you, however it is you that are holding to a disunity with others. It seems that it must be totally on your terms... so that leaves others out in the cold as far as possible biblical inspiration on their part. You have all the godly inspiration, and others do not.

Wish you the best; you are to be commended for reaching out to dialogue these issues.

"Kevin,

I don't agree with a lot of what TR says, but I will stand up for his right to say it without your petty corrections of his grammar."

Bubba....
Dude. Chill. Kevin's just messin' wit 'im.... Don't get yer whities in a tighty.

Maybe so, needleman. But it is interesting how a lot of people conduct themselves online in a way they wouldn't face to face, at least i hope not. Whatever happened to civility and manners?

Bubba
I attribute some of that to youth. I still remember how when I was young me and my cousin would practice how insulting we could be. I also remember about 40 years ago writing a politician and telling him how stupid, brainless he was. I do know we often do not agree here and sometimes we just have to move on. And if I sometime tell you that you are utterly clueless please just consider perhaps it is the Alzeimers kicking in.

Bubba, Needleman’s right, relax, you’ll live longer.

Another thing, Bubba Slim. When I start reading posts like TR’s opening one on this thread, I get bored and my mind starts picking words apart. TR can write circles around me anyway so I doubt whether it bothered him that much

If you are so concerned about doctrinal perfection and unity

Brent D, may I kindly point out something? In the first line of my first post on this thread:

“using St John 17:23 as a benchmark NOT THE HOLDEMANS!!!”

Once we figure out what Jesus was saying here, or what this unity is, what being of the same mind and judgment is, then we can go on to discuss the Holdeman belief. Not the other way around. It just won’t work, as the last several years of this forum activity has proven.




Steve,

I did answer you, but in the form of a question, and I quote: "Do people in both these denominations believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah and follow him and trust in him for salvation? That's unity on pretty basic (in the good sense of the word) level."

My assumption is that both these denominations/churches would do so. So. There is your answer.

My simple belief is that at least one of those groups does not trust in Jesus and follow him, even though they claim they do. At least one is a group that claims Christ and instead teaches a doctrine that soothes the itching ears of the evil heart of man, so that if my son were to go be a part of such a gross and perverted form of idolatry, I would consider him to be a prodigal son and beg him to return to the Lord. The claims of this movement are nothing but empty and vain words before the God of Heaven and earth, and the people that follow such erroneous teachings as what is taught there really do need salvation.

So now, you and I are not of the same mind and judgment concerning this issue, on a very basic level of salvation, false doctrine, and truth.


Are we identical? No. But can we all be part of the body of Christ? Absolutely.

I agree with that statement.

TR: I see you have overlooked the questions I had for you. For your benefit, I have posted them below:

>>In regards to all your accusations against the CGCM in your last post, there was a lot of half-truths in it. It wasn't hard to tell you are somewhat disconnected from most of the members of the CGCM and getting mostly a one-sided story, which is fine by you.<<

From my earlier post: "If, as Cousin Roland and no doubt you as well, believe the Holdechurch to be united, then why the multiplicity of congregations? A primary example is my old home community of Rosenort. The church split (aka a new congregation was formed) and the new church is being built about two miles, as the crow flies, from the 'mother' church. Why? Obviously not for reasons of geography. Not for reasons of the existing church building being physically too small to contain the entire Holdeflock in the area. One really does have to wonder, especially when comments are made by members of the 'daughter' church that they would never want to go back to the 'mother' church, or other reports of disunity (err, I mean 'differences of opinion') are heard, how it can be said that the COGICM Inc. is a united, undivided church?

Or, the question also comes to mind: Why does something that can get you expelled in one congregation is perfectly acceptable in a congregation one province/state away (or even one a few miles down the road)?"

If, as you claim, there are a lot of half-truths in it, could you kindly point out precisely where I am incorrect?

>>Why is this 'perfect unity' (and nobody seems willing or able to actually define the term) somehow the litmus test for being THE ONE TRUE CHURCH? And, secondly, who gets to define this 'perfect unity'? The people who wish to establish that they themselves are THE ONE TRUE CHURCH? I suppose if you set the test, take the test, and mark the results, you'll get the outcome you're looking for...<<

Now that I have answered your questions, I think it's reasonable for me to expect you to reciprocate.

>>My simple belief is that at least one of those groups does not trust in Jesus and follow him, even though they claim they do. At least one is a group that claims Christ and instead teaches a doctrine that soothes the itching ears of the evil heart of man, so that if my son were to go be a part of such a gross and perverted form of idolatry, I would consider him to be a prodigal son and beg him to return to the Lord. The claims of this movement are nothing but empty and vain words before the God of Heaven and earth, and the people that follow such erroneous teachings as what is taught there really do need salvation.<<

To what, exactly, are you referring here? If you want to talk about not trusting in Christ, then I would suggest to you that the denomination that should have cause for concern is the COGICM. Not only is Christ relegated to a back seat waaay behind the BD&P, conference rulings, tech committee reports, and even St. Paul, he's pretty much redundant when you have beards, beanies, and OTVC teachings.

Interestingly, Christ doesn't even get a mention in the TCR posted on another thread earlier today. Perhaps if the Tech Committee (and all of the other Holdepreachers as well as the laity) were to follow the (admittedly somewhat trite) words of this song, all of these rules, regulations, etc. might become rather redundant.

"Turn your eyes upon Jesus.
Look full on His wonderful face.
And the things of this earth will grow strangely dim
In the light of His glory and grace".

The reason why there is all this focus on rules and regulations (and why the members seem to want to break them) is because the Gospel of Christ has been subverted by a gospel of works and legalism. The Holdemans need a revival. Not the 'revivals' that come around once a year like summer follows spring, but true revival where the focus is on the Incarnate, Crucified, Resurrected and Ascended Christ rather than on the rather silly and pretentious pontifications of the Technology Committee.

To what, exactly, are you referring here? If you want to talk about not trusting in Christ, then I would suggest to you that the denomination that should have cause for concern is the COGICM. Not only is Christ relegated to a back seat waaay behind the BD&P, conference rulings, tech committee reports, and even St. Paul, he's pretty much redundant when you have beards, beanies, and OTVC teachings.

Why do you believe Christ is relegated to a back seat way behind all the things you mention? That statement is simply untrue. What more can I really say?

If Christ were not the center of my life, then the BD&P, conference decisions, tech committee reports, and St Paul would not hold any value for me. Neither would beards, "beanies", (by the way, I think that is an extremely disrespectful term) and OTVC teachings.

As far as what I was referring to, I am referring to false teachers who teach a doctrine that sounds good, but in reality does not make Christ the center of one's life. It's really simple, although it does involve a lot if someone is attempting to kick against the pricks. The Bible teaches us clearly that the true followers of Christ will be able to identify, with the same mind and judgment, what false doctrine is. (BTW, it would be somewhat difficult for you to say that the CGCM seriously fails in this area, without quite much appearing to be straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel)

This group of believers happens to be what I'm looking for. I am searching what you believe for these believers, and to date, haven't found them. Instead, the CGCM does not actually vary so widely in doctrine, as you are trying to imply. If a person was excommunicated in one congregation for any reason, and moved to any other congregation, whether near or far, then desired to be a member of that congregation to which he moved, he would need to be formally reaccepted in order to be a brother in that congregation, just as if he'd never moved. The ministers in the new congregation would ask the same questions as the ministers in the old congregation would have. One of those questions is something like "Do you believe you were rightly excommunicated". (I ought to know, as I and other of my family have answered that question with "yes", from the bottom of our hearts.) I have learned, as has my folks, moving doesn't help anything, because your main problem always moves with you...




Steve, I did not "overlook" your questions. I had actually posted a response, then realized you were doing a really good job of getting me to violate my opening statement, in my very first post on this thread. I erased the entire response, and my response to Brent D should really suffice for you as well. That response was:

Brent D, may I kindly point out something? In the first line of my first post on this thread:

"using St John 17:23 as a benchmark NOT THE HOLDEMANS!!!"

Once we figure out what Jesus was saying here, or what this unity is, what being of the same mind and judgment is, then we can go on to discuss the Holdeman belief. Not the other way around. It just won¡¦t work, as the last several years of this forum activity has proven.

However, once again, I edged into that territory, and responded a bit.