Don't get me wrong, after leaving, I simply think their church is a joke and i have no desire to unravel it's legislated legalities anymore. But it is in interesting study to pass time.
Comment by John Holdeman: We have no yearly conference but only when doctrinal points are disputed, then we hold conference to decide such disputed points. Therefore the following decisions are considered such points with few exceptions. I will also avoid giving the ceremonies at the beginning and close of conference & etc for simplicities sake.
1. The first conference after our separation from the sin-decayed church was held in the year 1864, the beginning of Oct. in Fulton Co. Ohio. This conference was called concerning the calling of ministers.
The conference concluded & decided to the two fold sending to the scriptures- the first calling is from God only, as Paul was called: the church is to accept such a calling; - the second calling is by the agreement of the church; and confirmed by the laying on of hands; - but no brother shall preach without the consent of the church (such a calling as Paul’s excepted); -in some cases ministers can be taken on trial: if proved by trial after examination, he shall be ordained by the laying on of the hands. No minister shall go beyond his ability.
This message has been edited by coGforum on Jul 6, 2008 11:01 PM
This is the very first thing he put into his writing on a conference report. And apparently it is therefore a thing of major importance to him, and his "vision"
Notice the "two fold calling"?
This means he can be "ordained" without the church calling him.
Had he known the truth he would have realized that all elders have a scriptural obligation, to "labor in the word and doctrine", but truth is an unfolding principle, you learn it as you walk in it.
What he did in this first foundational conference decision, is lay the foundation for veering from the truth, he gets to be the only one that gets to be called by God, and after he gets what he wants, then every one else has to be called by the church.
- the first calling is from God only, as Paul was called: the church is to accept such a calling
JH is the only person ever since 1864 that God called to preach in the H.
For the H has never accepted another persons call as required by their own foundational teaching.
Now, the truth is All men are "called" and the qualified elders are overseers, to see to it that people that are not teaching truth are not allowed to publicly speak.
1 co 14: 31* For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
But in order to actually allow this the H has to not be "legal" it has to be different than it is.
However if you allow only church called men, because of the principle of democratic politics, the men in power can put other men in power.
I say "power" for JH, not only wanted to be a minister, but his knowledge of the "truth" only let him see that the ministers of his day were not servants, but rulers. So he instigated a perverted legal system that allowed the truth to be evil, and the "anti-truth" to be good.
Church called rulers are a sin and abomination to God. Sovereignty arises from the rank and file by natural selection, and so authority arises in the truth church by natural selection. Chist when speaking of his ministers clearly taught they are servants under the congregation, and Paul told them they are to not rebuke the elders, but only entreat them as a child would his own father.
Clearly the H has a perverted legal system.
1Ti 5:1* Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
The second perversion in there is the lack found in not observing the strict interpretation of Matthew 18
This scripture is the foundation of all justice and true love.
For if I have a fault, you are to shut your mouth and come talk to me about it in honor and integrity, and do so only after carefully considering your own self.
If I wont hear you and you are so heated you simply cannot comeagain or patiently wait on the Lord of the evil involved compels you, then you should not go speak to someone else and get them on your side and surprise me, but you should ask me if there is someone we can mutually agree on to hear both sides.
_______
If it is clear that my sin is so great that I need to repent, then you are to bring the charge to the church, the church should hear your charge, and be able to ask questions, at that point If i reuse to budge, then you are allowed to consider me a renegade, but Matthew 18 does not command the church to do so, the charge is yours, not the churchs, and if you die, so does the charge.
However the Holdemans have put life into their conference identity, they have transfered the charge from the living breathing man with a charge, to the conference at large which by definition is a legal person with it's own life, but has no breath. All definitions of idolatry are that a corporation is an idol.
It is a life without breath. if one is compelled to address the charge held by the corporation, he is actually being asked to speak to an idol, there are few sins worse than forced idolatry, and so the man with a charge has to trade his little sin for the bigger one to stay in the "church". when they asked me to repent, I knew there was no way to do so and remain in a Christian in the H, for to do so requires that you sin willfully in addressing the idol as a living thing.
I have no honest idea of what my sin is even in there minds, there is few if anyone that can say I told him to repent and he refused to answer me.
My sin was simply that I wanted heretics that taught rebellion against parental authority to be taken out of the pulpit
There is no living person that I can go to and say "what do you want me to repent for?" For there is no charge by Matthew 18 that holds me to the eternal fire.
they simply make a rule, and if you don't keep it you are chargeable to the corporation, and subject to expulsion.
", but you should ask me if there is someone we can mutually agree on to hear both sides."
Where do you get that out of a strict Matt 18 interpretation? I'm not saying it isn't reasonable, but I don't see that in a strict reading of the Scripture. Enilghten me.
but you should ask me if there is someone we can mutually agree on to hear both sides."
Where do you get that out of a strict Matt 18 interpretation? I'm not saying it isn't reasonable, but I don't see that in a strict reading of the Scripture. Enilghten me.
Well Axel
You have to look at several issues, but to start with you have to have
Considered yourself, did you do that?
Ga 6:1* Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
Are you guilty? When you went to your brother did you tell him, I do the same thing?
21* Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22* Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23* Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24* For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
Now go to the first part of Matthew 18's teaching.
Mt 18:15* Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Are you interested in destroying your brother? or are you interested in winning the argument? What is the motive of Matthew 18?
So if you bring a man to "hear" the argument a man that I think is a part of the problem, are you going to win me? Or did all hope of attempting to win me go out in the first step? they lost me when they brought witnesses that I think are part of the problem. Do you want to win people or bind them?
So what does it cost you to bring a mutually agreed upon witness or someone I have confidence in or at least don't think was preconceived with the other guys bias?
Christ Clearly taught the object is two fold, one is to win me. The other is to prove you.
Or not?
This message has been edited by bawar on Jun 6, 2008 8:49 AM
3. The avoidance of excommunicated members now understood to include bodily eating & drinking, buying and selling, walk and conversation but, between husband and wife it was not determined to extend beyond to eating and drinking, and matrimonial intercourse and such things which allow them to stay at home, if we are not strict enough, further experience time and circumstance shall decide.
the original was hard to decipher in this, but i just now realized what he was saying
_____
it was not determined to extend beyond to eating and drinking, and matrimonial intercourse and such things which allow them to stay at home, if we are not strict enough, further experience time and circumstance shall decide.
they decided it was not decided to go into the home, the excommunication was not practiced in the home but only in the "body". I presume that means in the "Body of Christ"
"Christ Clearly taught the object is two fold, one is to win me. The other is to prove you."
i don't disagree.
Ga 6:1* Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
Do you understand this verse in the same context or application as Matt 18? Matt 18 speaks of a "trespass against thee" this speaks of "being overtaken in a fault" Same situation or no?
Do you understand this verse in the same context or application as Matt 18? Matt 18 speaks of a "trespass against thee" this speaks of "being overtaken in a fault" Same situation or no?
Well, if you borrowed something from me and refuse to make it right, that is different than if you see me breeching assumed tto be correct conference protocol.
Most discipline in the H that I had a problem with surrounded not an actual transgression, but an assumption that I was bad because I didn't "do it right" and an assumption they did. There is no scriptural provision for discipling conference rules, in fact Paul clearly taught that he would not subject himself to them for even an hour to prove the liberty in the gospel was there.
4* And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
5* To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
6* But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
so I suppose I could digress on this if you could admit the alleged fault is not a fault of not keeping conference subjection.
Obviously if Matthew 18 is ever called upon it must arise with an actual transgression, a provable wrong that someone did against you person or property or against someone under your care or less fortunate that you are caring for.
That being said, I have never even once heard of a Matthew 18 discipline arising in the H from a transgression by the accused by a living breathing person with a name, a face and flowing blood in his veins.
And the H people I know pretend my sin is held in a Matthew 18 charge, however there is nobody that can look me in the eye and say that I sinned against them. This is the charge that most expelled people suffer with, for they are out, but there is nobody that will claim a trespass, they have to genuflect at the altar of an unknown and foreign holdegod to become one with their family again.
But is "trespass" and "overtaken in a fault" the same thing?
Probably
If you are worked up enough to have a charge you probably ought to speak privately to me first, because it is probably your own blind-spot that is being revealed by the Holy Ghost through my life and assumed errors.
This message has been edited by bawar on Jun 6, 2008 9:13 AM
3. No one shall be excommunicated, after he has repented, though his deed would expel him- that is if a brother sin, and from ignorance or neglect be retained in the church, and truly repents, before expelled, he shall not then be excommunicated for there is no ground in the word of God, to
excommunicate the truly converted, but the hardened sinner.
the next conference was mainly on modes and means of baptism, i have no passion on this subject and find it to be a silly reason to withhold breaking of bread together, so I will leave it for greater minds than I
But # 3 was an eye catcher to me for the h routinely puts out penitent Christians because their sin was so "bad" and then lets them right back in.
I find this practice deplorable and silly and filthy practice held in idolatry, and then I find the original teaching condemns the practice too!
how come originally there was "no ground" to expel, but now they found a "new acreage"? I think it is acreage belonging to a minister of light, actually the backroom acreage.
The next conference was an example of Johnny boy's dishonesty. And show how the father of the conference has taught the children to be jello and dishonest
Conference 3. 1874.
This conference was held in regard to the different views on baptism. Many decided on that day that one baptism into one body was the only scriptural baptism, and that we could not accept any baptism administered on division that is outside the true line of the church of God. Some could not yet grasp this;- finally all agreed, but not on that day.
We decided that we should have in our answers, that we excommunicated (Joseph) Leichty for drunkenness, and that sister Leichty avoided him according to our faith, held according to authority of the scriptures, and that we would not appear in court to stand a trial according to a worldly process, by putting witnesses on the stand but if God convinced us to go, we would only answer to the truth we hold;- and then we would leave all the judgment to the jury. If they would condemn us they might take our property. We also held brotherly councils, and decided other matters. In regard to the suffering our property to be taken it was said, and seconded this dark August 15th 1878, this last decision in regard to property, was repealed. We paid the money. ($2500)
note on this: $2500 then would be have been 125 gold eagles ($20 eagles)
making the compromise worth about $100K in todays money.
In the original manuscript, I could tell by the writing that JH was angry and upset, his hand was shaky, and I couldn't quite make out the word that I put in there for "answers". It ("answers")was the closest word that at least sort of fit the letters I could make out but I am not satisfied it is the right word. I never thought of looking to see if he used a German or Dutch word though.
I found this statement extremely interesting and pondered it a while.
if God convinced us to go,
Obviously they were being sued and had to answer or would lose by the principle of "he says nothing". So it may be that God convinced them to go, or perhaps his empty wallet did, but nevertheless he compromised his conviction and "paid the money"
But learned a lesson as well!
The lesson was be more sneaky or you won't get way with getting a man to lose his wife in favor of the holdegod's tender embrace.
What I find interesting is the gross drunkenness they exed him for.
That is without question a bible sin, for "no drunkard shall inherit eternal life" Although it is doubtful the scripture requires an avoidance over it
Pr 31:7 Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.
But at least he is scripturally lost as apposed to the lies they destroy marriages for now a days "he is offended", or "he is a heretic for believing the church is actually all the saved people on the face of the earth" therefore his wife should leave him and cut off his marital relations.
May God richly Bless your day!
This message has been edited by bawar on Jun 7, 2008 7:25 AM
3. Decided that we are not to affirm under the pains and penalty of perjury.
I found this an interesting thing, and they were right in a way. But if they practiced this they would probably have been deported. And forget having nice houses and Jd tractors, and checkbooks now a days!
The United States is a foreign jurisdiction to the States of the united States, and the constitution by the 14th amendment allows Dual citizenship,one in the states and the other in the United States, two separate and individual Sovereign nations.
the United States has no Bill of rights, but is Subject to the laws made by Congress, whereas state citizens are protected by the bill of rights and are sovereign unless franchised to the United States by adhesion contracts.
Now, in my study I was wondering how a minister who is a servant by scripture, can become a ruler (almost absolute monarch) by the same election.
It must be understood the Church compromised the principle of retaining sovereignty, and has yielded to United states citizenship, thus placing themselves "under" the members of congress.
Anyway, that is a different study and not in the scope of this writing, but they caved and no "affirm" which is an atheists vow (swearing) to place oneself under the pains of perjury.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not belittling them, I have a licenses too, but if they ever had vision to repent and 'turn back to this vision! Boy howdy the poop would hit the fan.
Last time I got called into the jury box the judge asked us to raise our hands and swear or affirm to become jurrors. I refused, by politely keeping my hand at my side, but the rest of the jurors did it. The judge just zeroed in on me and stared as well as smirked. I could tell I was in deep do do if he wanted me to individually do it. But they let me go for other cause so it didn't become a point.
But swearing in (affirmation) causes the swearer to be "subject" to all the laws of the foreign jurisdiction.
But I am not picking on the H on this matter, more showing how they have veered by compromise their own foundational teachings, and find it interesting they destroy marriages over silly conference infractions but give the one finger salute to God while doing it on weighter matters.
Jas 5:12* But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.
Now the real reason the H in the local congregation got pissed at me was when they heard I backed down a judge and made him eat dirt, they said I "had a problem with authority" (Quote from Ron Jantz, New Plymouth)
He simply couldn't stomach my refusal to not subject myself to the foreign jurisdiction found in swearing into a court situation, and refused to hear what I was saying.
If you don't keep the whole law, why would you avoid me for it on less weighty matters?
Anyway when I found the original church had a conference decision on it, but they got pissed at me for keeping it, I sort of threw out the whole conference, for it is a "pick and chose" like saul did, he destroyed the vile but kept the good stuff to sacrifice to the Lord. (he kept Agag as the trophy)
Now, the church reads the scripture and the scripture makes the ministry subject, but the men in the church are chicken, Paul called them "silly women" laden with lusts. He also told them he wished they would go emasculate themselves, (instead of emasculating the people with God)
Ga 5:12* As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
2Ti 3:6* For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
HA ! Foreal! Come see me and we will go pontoon together and never speak of h issues,
But to your question, My point was not me, but the original conference decision's and the original teachings, and this point was specifically the "no oath or affirmation" and the funnyness of my getting in trouble for doing what the original fathers taught, but the church has veered from, yet the writings teach to be right.
As I recall there, though I was not present, about 6 people spoke at the meeting that I was asked to repent, (I think they call it members meeting) and all 6 had a different reason to accuse me of for my "need" ranging from authority of the ministry, to authority or the government, to needing to be "teachable" ect it is tough to name my actual sin when the sin is different from each accuser. The H likes to accuse in that jello way of doing things, and when my mind manages to keep the jello effect in tact and jump form one accusation to the next, it makes you look idiotic so you don't like it. Either I sinned, or I didn''t
That is why justice is so important, and when discipling a person, with the specific punishment of life or limb, (family eating rights is a life matter) one should have impeccable and blameless process of justice, and accountability, giving all benefit of the doubt to the accused.
However I did name the specific accuser up there for to make my point as believable as possible.
But if you care to discuss this further and the accusations against my person by the H, lets do it on a different thread, and look at the conference reports on this one, and what they mean or don't.
4. It was decided that we have no gospel form or special cut to dress by; but that we are to labor on the principle of love and conscience. The greater number of ministers claimed it more suitable and honorable that we wear the pantaloons which were in practice before the open frontlets;- than it is however the open frontlets . A plain covering, whether cap or veil, is allowable in forbearance, but if the proof is taken from the scripture and the Jewish custom, the veil will hold the preference.
Best I can tell he meant button up fly as apposed to zipper? Did they have zippers back then? does anyone know?
also notice the covering used to could be a cap?
Anyway, when I read this I think, "why?" I don't even have a decent set of h clothes anymore, i think to go visit them on the rare occasion of deep humility forgiveness and desire for self-abasement/self-mutilation, all I need to do is look in the closet, all I have is normal clothes no h uniform, and they would think I was insulting them to go there in a pair of jeans.
If someone feels like doing it, I suggest looking up all the rules on what to wear, and suggest to me to speak to a guy dying in his sin and sorrow of life and why he needs to wear a certain cut of clothes to fit in there.
You people simply do not realize what a trip you are
the next one that got my attention was the affirmation came up again
Conference 6 1884
The order of the conference was laid before those present. But as the ministers were not all there, we handled several subjects but decided nothing.
The church would have been great if they would have stopped the conference and left it here! this is how the Council in Jerusalem did it, they laid out 4 necessary things as well as the authority of the New Testament, and closed the books on further binding revelations. A truly great way to run the Church of today!
But no, they start tweaking with their own revelations to increase their own authority and the devotion the people would give them.
1. We handled the affirmation. Nearly all the ministers believe that it is an oath to affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury. And as a few ministers hold that the affirmation, as administered by the government is an oath and especially one, and that the government intended it as an oath;- therefore we agreed to inquire of the magistrates what they use the affirmation for. Some other things in regards to the oath: should labor be placed before the magistracy as sound teaching, this writing is to be proved by the ministers before it is sent to the magistrates.
Apparently they realized they were going to be deported if they didn't swear their fealty and obedience oaths to the government, and started hiding their postures in circle reasonings that could say what they want to hear either way!
Have you ever been cught up in a circle reasoning of the H? You ask them a question and they either accuse you of something, or in some way turn the question around so they don't have to answer it honestly.
2. It was decided that the use tobacco as a medicine is allowed. There were no scruples to use it to heal wounds; but some thought that in other diseases of the body, it would hardly be necessary if there was sufficient faith that they could be healed without tobacco but they nevertheless allowed it if they could he convinced that it was necessary. It was decided that other remedies were to be tried first, because of the danger the use of tobacco, especially by those who had been enslaved to it. It was also decided that those who use tobacco should test how little of it is necessary to ease pain or head distress. If used to heal disease, it’s use shall cease when the disease is healed.
If members will not regard this, then other ministers are to be called to aid, and when the duty has been done and such member does not heed the admonitions; and are proved to be dead; then they are to be excommunicated.
When I did the typing, I simply couldn't make out the word that ended up "scruples" there was only a couple of decipherable letters and that was the only word that even sort of fit, but I don't think it was that word.
I can see the preachers all getting together and praying over the sick and smoking tobacco on the wound. (I am joking)
4. In regard to ordaining ministers by lot, it was decided, that it was the last remedy. For this reason all means should be used to decide without the lot. Other ministers are to be called to aid in this case, besides those in the church where the difficulty exists. When convictions disagree as to the time of those who have a calling, to enter their ministry, and no way by conviction to decide then it may be decided by lot, but in this case no one is to be taken in the lot, who has no calling to the ministry, or of whom it is firmly believed that this man has no calling.
Notice the importance he placed on the proving of the other preachers? had he done it scripturally, the senior fathers in the congregation that were willing and blameless would select the local talent that was allowed to publicly teach and lead subject to them.
But the old church was off, so Jh's revelation of the proper government of the church continued the error.
the ordination is nothing more than an election by the congregation allowing a man who has a natural gift of teaching-preaching to exercise it subject to their direction. since the congregation elects them, they can also un-elect them.
Since they (the laity) have the authority, the preachers are subject to them, not the other way around, and this is why Paul taught the ministry to not rebuke the elders (the older laity), but rather entreat them as fathers.
Jh was so blind in his desire to be authority like the people that refused to allow him to preach, that he set up a system that was just as bad but gave him power over the decisions.
Don't get me wrong, the lot is not right either, but it is definitely more subject to an honest decision that an election of men nominated by the preachers
An honest system would probably not have the ordained in power, but the local senior people in the laity
5. If a brother believes a calling, and that the time to enter his ministry was at hand, and the majority of the membership also believes so, (those of the members who have the best gifts), but some could not believe his calling in this case, it was decided that some ministers who do not live at the place, should be called to aid, and if all the ministers believe his calling, and that it is the time for such a brother to enter his ministry; and then after they have done their duty to convince those who do not believe it, then he can be ordained though not believed by all.
6. It was decided that a number of members should go to Michigan and decide the matter in regard to the minister who has been on trial a long time, as to whether he has a calling to the ministry, or not.
7. It was decided not to take any minister on trial, before examined by a number of ministers, and some ministers said they had no light to take any minister on trial.
8. It was decided, that a single brother can be ordained to the ministry.
9. When ministers desire to move away from their churches, it was decided that they should council other ministers and the church, and if agreed that they can move, then they have the liberty to move. One minister desired the matter placed before those ministers who have the general oversight over all the churches; and did not seem really united with the above decision. When there is no agreement amongst those who have examined the case, then it shall come before such ministers (or bishops) who have the general oversight of the churches.
You can see by this time jh was well entrenched in micromanaging the 'calling, and election of the ministry.
THis portion appears to start the "ring around the rosy" confusion do this don't do that
Mostly though is the idea that a local church elects a man to be their servant and when he leaves he miraculously becomes a servant in another place by that election.
____
Now obviously, if the local church had authority over the election of the ministry they should also let the guy go free if he wants to leave, but keep the calling for their own floor.
Another thing worthy of mentioning is the bishops were still in there though they appear to be in authority in more than one congregation.
then it shall come before such ministers (or bishops) who have the general oversight of the churches.
Also exactly how a bishop back then became one would make an interesting to me study if anyone knows
This message has been edited by bawar on Jun 10, 2008 7:39 AM
10. It was decided not to take usury. The advanced opinion: that low interest, which the poor would take, is no usury, but only their living, if lent to those more able and that it is the same as rent on land, was not accepted, because the Bible teaches that God made a difference between land and money.
11. In regard to going in debt, and paying interest to the world, it seemed that all ministers would prefer not to do so, if the church was able to hinder this. But the means to reach this end fail. It was decided not to go in debt where there is no prospect to pay it. And where there is prospect to pay the debt if God bless those who want to go into debt, they shall consult the church, especially where there is danger that the burden might fall on the church to pay the debt, and if the church allows any one to go into debt and the prospect fails so that he can not pay the debt then the church shall again be counseled. The church is accountable for the counsels she gives.
I have collected a little "interest" in my day maybe in the checkbook money, but so little it hardly is worth mentioning.
Collecting interest on cash is dumb in today's society because the government is inflating money quicker than the interest repays the inflation.
The system is flawed, and going short the dollar and long on well priced goods and commodities is way the better deal. But in JH's day and any day of honest money (gold and silver) interest was a real killer.
But the Holdies rules on "usury" are more based on "wishful thinking" than real bible principles, for what we call "money" is actually notes or interesting bearing promises to pay from one government agency, (the fed) to another (the US government)
So instead of honestly thinking this through and just dealing with it, they pass interest bearing notes for money while saying their actions are evil.
okay!
then their people in there simply are not allowed to save up a little cash and collect the paltry interest that keeps up about half way with inflation issued by the government to finance the interest on the bank note "money" that they have to use to be a citizen here.
Anyway here is some of their foundational decisions on this
12. It was decided that we have no teachings in scriptures to bind the members to a special form of dress; but that such forms of dress which prevail as new fashions, when pride provokes to follow, and is unnecessary things, and costly raiment, these should not be worn in conformity to the world.
Now notice the "no special cut" becomes subject to "we" say you have pride and in the very same sentence they completely jello out of the bible fact of no special cut, and go to "wear what we say" or you will get the jackboot for pride
Now this is a foundation of where they have a decision to figure out who has 'pride" since pride provokes one to wear that which those in authority disapprove of. But look at the innocence involved and the seeming non issue of it.
So the beginning of proving spirits is right here!
On the sideline, normal people generally wear normal clothes they don't need a conference sitting there telling them they are proud if they don't genuflect at the altar of Holdeman preacher threats of "pride" fear.
13. It was decided that the proper use of guns is no sin, and regarded as all other allowable things of which men make conscience, but because of the weak brethren it was considered better not to eat meat than to ruin his brother. The abuse of guns to go hunting from pleasure was not allowed.
_______
Now I want to explain a ""spirit" that has arisen in the H.
It is several fold in it's manifestation, but can be found in it's decisions.
Errol Wedel of Phoenix held us revivals one year and told me of his beautiful grandfather clock, and how several brothers came to him with "concerns" of "pride".
He sold the clock to satisfy them.
This story put one pound on the wagon of my desire to leave, for I felt, and still feel that if a man has a problem with my actions or possessions, and the scripture doesn't condemn my actions or possessions, then the thing I should definitely do to help them is to flaunt them in front of them to help them see how carnal they are and possibly pray for deliverance from covetousness.
Errol caved and sold the clock, and in my mind he sinned against their souls, and made their carnal desire to manipulate people even stronger. He should have politely kept the clock, and said nothing but thank you I will pray about it.
But notice this decision
because of the weak brethren it was considered better not to eat meat than to ruin his brother.
He mistakenly thought their concerns would cause a stumbling in the brethren. But actually his getting rid of it did.
In this decision they can have a gun but since a brother might fall over it, they in deference wouldn't have one.
Now that is silly, if they want to make a rule they should just make one, either no guns or guns but the reason is because it is a rule of the church, not because we want to develop cry babies that get concerns about things they cant afford, or their parent don't want them to have.
So they can have one, but not for hunting, and not because they may cause a fall in the brethren, umm friend this is a redundant decision and only builds a consensus of rules that are obviously going to be subject to further legislation to make acceptable legislated exceptions, and give fodder to the preachers to accuse people with to make the submit in other silly places through coercion.
This message has been edited by bawar on Jun 11, 2008 6:58 AM
14. We agreed to call together other non resistant churches, who baptize on remission of sins, to confer with them in regard to the teachings of the unity of the church, and one baptism & ECT the invitation to the conference is to be made by letter and personal, as convenient.
_____
This thing is self explanatory. But look how far the holdies have moved from their foundational attitudes! Or am I misreading it?
And look at some of what his is saying, "other non resistant churches" must mean they accepted them as real churches.
If they were churches then, how did organizing after their conference make them not worthy churches as they now think? Does jH and his crowd have an influence that makes this decision suddenly destroy the creditability of everyone that didn't show up, or submit to their teachers and preachers and baptism? I am just wondering!
15. A brother holds that feet washing should be observed as the martyrs observed it; that is when we get visitors. But the ministers could not find scripture sufficient for this mode. We practice feet washing with the supper: and are still thus satisfied.
Woahh! That is ummm... well I guess it would be strange in our day of shoes and socks to have to wash the guest's feet!
16. The avoidance of excommunicated members was handled in the main, but some ministers and members were stricter than others, but this was left as a matter of conscience.
17. It was handled, whether I (J Holdeman) had done my duty toward the old church before I departed, but there was no special decision; but that I should have done more, it was generally thought; with which I also agreed. In the laying on of hands there was a difference of opinion; it is believed by some, that Paul had hands laid upon, twice, in his baptism, and before his baptism to receive sight and after his baptism to receive the blessings, both for his baptism and to confirm his ministry, a twofold blessing and design in one act. But this was not accepted by all. My calling was not doubted.
This is a revealing decision, for they played ring around the rosy in deference for the poor preacher who wanted to be a leader in his new church.
Many men feel a call, but the system they sit under simply does not bless their arising to the challenge in a public way. JH and his little crowd simply did not take the time to figure out who was suppose to do the preaching, so they floundered around and genuflected at the altar of ignorance, before deciding how it was supposed to be! They never got it right and still don't! But at least they tried!
One of the things that really stands out is his desire to be a special "Paul" the second.
Christ did not come back in front of the disciples and ordain that JH is a witness to bear his name before the gentiles, no matter what they decided to the contrary.
If the h wants to fix their blame, they need to well look into how the ministry is to be called, and by whom, and who they are suppose to be subject to. Until then their will be public and private scorn to them for their open rebellion.
19. The opinion was advanced, that the withdrawal referred to in 2 Thes. 3:6 was to be understood of a withdrawal of the kiss, and not of the excommunication, but only in case of disorderly walk and not in cases of adultery and railing& ect. This opinion was not accepted, but we hold that this withdrawal refers to the excommunication, as it is plainly expressed in V 14.
This was the last article handled in the conference. There were 14 ministers and 2 deacons and a number of members, and several friends present.
____
6* ¶ Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
7* For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
8* Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
9* Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
10* For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11* For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12* Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
13* But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
14* And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
Notice 8 & 12
The verses are obviously speaking of the disorderly walk of having minister demand bread for his spiritual services
With quietness they work, and eat their own bread
It speaks of no other sin to punish by marking and having no company but this extremely disorderly conduct of beggarliness.
The conference revelation adds to it any other sin and now they expel for orthodox teaching because of 'adding to the word'
De 12:32* What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
It is funny that people professing God to be so great and awesome, but insult him by refusing to submit to clear bible teaching.
If you have 7000 conferences and add 230,000 words will it make the disorderly walk that is referenced not be the lack found in not working for ones own bread?
Fred, I've really enjoyed reading your analysis of these foundational decisions, and I agree with a lot of what you've written. You have put good effort into pointing out at a very basic level where things went wrong from the get-go. Even though the H church may have departed from some of these initial decisions, they still set the tone for what is still occurring today. If the foundation is crooked, the house will be crooked as well.
Item #13 is the only one that I don't really agree with you on...
This story put one pound on the wagon of my desire to leave, for I felt, and still feel that if a man has a problem with my actions or possessions, and the scripture doesn't condemn my actions or possessions, then the thing I should definitely do to help them is to flaunt them in front of them to help them see how carnal they are and possibly pray for deliverance from covetousness.
To me, this attitude toward toward fellow brethern does not really seem to agree with I Cor 8:13. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. This verse seems to be saying that we shouldn't intentionally do stuff that might cause someone else to stumble.
I've also enjoyed this thread. I have a question for whoever wants to answer it. (It's not likely going to be TR, given his resistance in answering questions lately. But I digress). As a kid, I remember there was (still is?) a publication of the 'Conference Reports' or something like that. It started with a Conference around 1896, as I seem to recall. Why was the 1896 Conference chosen and these early ones excluded? Any takers?
Fred, I've really enjoyed reading your analysis of these foundational decisions, and I agree with a lot of what you've written. You have put good effort into pointing out at a very basic level where things went wrong from the get-go. Even though the H church may have departed from some of these initial decisions, they still set the tone for what is still occurring today. If the foundation is crooked, the house will be crooked as well.
Item #13 is the only one that I don't really agree with you on...
This story put one pound on the wagon of my desire to leave, for I felt, and still feel that if a man has a problem with my actions or possessions, and the scripture doesn't condemn my actions or possessions, then the thing I should definitely do to help them is to flaunt them in front of them to help them see how carnal they are and possibly pray for deliverance from covetousness.
To me, this attitude toward toward fellow brethern does not really seem to agree with I Cor 8:13. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. This verse seems to be saying that we shouldn't intentionally do stuff that might cause someone else to stumble.
Brent d
I appreciate the comment, and I wholeheartedly agree with you so long as discernment is involved and exercised, However if your covetousness, or your jealousy is motivating you to condemn my actions, those carnal attributes may well keep you out of heaven, and will definitely hinder you here. If you want things the bible says Pr 21:26 He coveteth greedily all the day long: but the righteous giveth and spareth not.
God wants you delivered from them and he uses people to wake you up. What the h has done is made the covetous the one that is Godly, and the guy that has stuff the bad guy!
So if my nice car makes you stumble, then it is your problem, because you are already lost! Why would my nice car make your holy heart troubled? You have to be disturbed to be troubled for a car is amoral, even if it is a Mazzeratti. Your manipulations to get me to be as miserable as you are well thought out by Paul when he said "I would not be subject, no not for an hour.
However you are more right than I am and I back off a notch, I probably wrote that a tad to strong, and thank you for highlighting it.
Why was the 1896 Conference chosen and these early ones excluded? Any takers?
Steve, I'll work on that one if I ever get that far. I think there is a simple answer but the holdies did not even know these reports existed.
I found a mention of them in Clarence Hieberts Book. I made inquiry, and found out they had an original copy in the Kansas Mennonite Museum.
You can see the evolution of the several heretic doctrines hung tightly to in the H, by comparing the older with the newer conference stuff.
When the H preacher was expelling a kid for porking an animal, and after the boy found God, he repented and confessed, well the minister still wanted to ex him, because of the alleged "reproach" on the church were the "outsiders" and weak on the inside to find out about it his not getting "punished" for his actions.
This ticked me off for several reasons, the most obvious is the every time I see the kid I know wonder "If he has been up to it again"
They ruined this boys' reputation and he was a penitent and worse still he was never caught but he confessed the sin as he was attempting to find "peace".
And then when I pointed out the decision of the archives, the minister said "well that one isn't binding" and the exed him anyway over the known complaints of every man in my family. This decision is also written in principle almost word for word in the mirror of truth.
I found many people coming and picking on me for conference infractions, and mostly infractions that aren't even in their rule book, such as possession of Jet Skis and having a 2 tone suburban, but they all sin against the weak and destroy peoples souls over weightier matters as this one, and that contrary to their own rule book, common sense and the bible. I suppose that is why the scripture tells us to 'consider your self first.
The Holdeman people practice the continuing revelation of the "council of Miinisters" just like the Lds people do, and the revelation has more authority than their decisions, and their bible.
They do practice the worship of conference over God, but they mostly practice the worship of leadership, and leaderships' spiritual vision over God.
(all of this is said with the idea that this is my opinion of the majority, but not necessarily everyone in there)
May God richly Bless your day!
This message has been edited by bawar on Jun 15, 2008 8:17 AM
>>And then when I pointed out the decision of the archives, he said "well that one isn't binding"<<
Why would that conference decision not be binding? Was it subsequently rescinded at a later conference? Holdemans out there: Can you provide answers to these questions?
(Yes, TR, I am looking at you although you are so lacking in cojones, a mule looks extremely virile compared to you. Since you have yet to provide an answer to my question to you on the 'same' doctrine, I'll let you off the hook on these present questions. But I digress).
Any other Holdemans want to take a stab at the above questions?
2. Q. Baptism. Is it according to the gospel to make such a weighty decision with several souls, without inviting the scattered children of God, as remnants of the 12 tribes of spiritual Israel and also give liberty to decide, and give them the honor to be present in a matter that also concerns them because it concerns the universal church of Christ?
A. Decided in unity by all the minister and members except 2 minister and several members. The Manitoba brethren had in the decision. (Made at a home before coming here by the church there) That salvation comes from Jesus.
Have you ever gotten a straight answer out of an H? Well here is another foundational reason. They are saying here that baptismal regeneration is not right, and that membership in the H church is not required, but that Christ saves them. But they don't just say it you have to read between the lines.
Notice also they reference a heresy that the Stoppels got expelled for @ a belief in the universal church!
The foundational members of the CGCM, would be expelled if their views were known.
3. Q. Whether this can be called an only ordained church of God that commences in such a lack without orderly calling with laying on of hands in the church (as always was the order and yet is) as took place with us?
I wonder if anyone wants to help me out with the possible meaning of this one?
So no takers? I would sort of figure a Holdy would want to tackle this one rather than leaving it to my hereticness!
3. Q. Whether this can be called an only ordained church of God that commences in such a lack without orderly calling with laying on of hands in the church (as always was the order and yet is) as took place with us?
Well lets look at this
"an only ordained church of God"
Are they an only, or the only? I think they sort of teach that they are the only church and all others are inferior, to their own perfectness.
The word "ordained" is interesting in this setting, for they are "ordaining" their church system!
Behold!
Ac 14:23* And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
5500 ceirotoneo cheirotoneo {khi-rot-on-eh'-o}
from a comparative of 5495 and teino (to stretch); TDNT - 9:437,1309; v
AV - ordain 3, choose 1; 4
1) to vote by stretching out the hand
2) to create or appoint by vote: one to have charge of some
office or duty
3) to elect, create, appoint
Here we see election of elders. However it must be understood that they were already elders, (the election didn't add years to their lives) and of the body of elders they elected certain ones of them to be their servants or do certain jobs with delegated authority.
But the point is they turned a man into a office holder whose job did not preexist before the ordination.
___1Co 9:14* Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
1299 diatasso diatasso {dee-at-as'-so}
from 1223 and 5021; TDNT - 8:34,1156; v
AV - command 7, appoint 4, ordain 3, set in order 1, give order 1; 16
1) to arrange, appoint, ordain, prescribe, give order
Here again the term is used for a beginning and on a man as apposed to the corporate existence.
---------
1Ti 2:7* Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
5087 tiyemi tithemi {tith'-ay-mee}
a prolonged form of a primary theo {theh'-o} (which is used only
as alternate in certain tenses); TDNT - 8:152,1176; v
AV - lay 28, put 18, lay down 12, make 10, appoint 6,
kneel down + 1119 + 3588 5, misc 17; 96
1) to set, put, place
1a) to place or lay
1b) to put down, lay down
1b1) to bend down
1b2) to lay off or aside, to wear or carry no longer
1b3) to lay by, lay aside money
1c) to set on (serve) something to eat or drink
1d) to set forth, something to be explained by discourse
2) to make
2a) to make (or set) for one's self or for one's use
3) to set, fix establish
3a) to set forth
3b) to establish, ordain
Now, once again men were "ordained" But they want to "ordain" their church.
This is heresy even by their own foundational teaching, for they teach the church started in the garden of eden and will continue till the end of time, so it simply cannot be "ordained" for it simply is, it preexisted.
Okay boys, lets argue the preexistence of Christ right here !
How can they start that which was, and is, and is to be always here without interruption?
Conference item : "3. Q. Whether this can be called an only ordained church of God that commences in such a lack without orderly calling with laying on of hands in the church (as always was the order and yet is) as took place with us?"
Fred; it is quite possible that the first draft was written in German and this is a translation to English. I referred earlier to translators comments about the quality of translation of the Mirror of Truth, and the same likely is present here. This was 1887? The Canadian H came on board in 1882 and these brethren really could not speak English too well; certainly sounds to me like a language issue.
But if you look at it, there was other discussion about John Holdeman not having been properly ordained (as they looked at leadership in those days); and so, JH, an unordained man started an unordained church may have been the discussion. The custom in Southern Russia, where the Canadian KG came from, the custom always was to bring in a bishop from an established church or area to ordain new leadership. I believe even when the KG separated from the main Mennonite believers in 1806, they used the bishop from the church they left, to officiate their new leadership ( I have read this, I think, in D. Plett's publications).
I would read #3 to indicate that there was vigorous discussion about the make-up of the church. The Canadian KG leaders that joined with Holdeman were well versed in Biblical understanding and would not have hesitated to speak up about the issues. It was KG Bishop Peter Toews who lead the join-up with Holdeman and he was a well written and outspoken church leader. His son, later (1920 ? -1975 ) a prominent H minister was one who understood the earlier politics, was shunted out during the purge. It was in his Bible that notes were found after his death referring to "coercion" at CGCM in the 1970s.
You refer to the origin of the church in Eden; this definately makes a dent on what Keeping the Faith and BD&P writes. To me, CGCM towards the 1990s, (the 2 above books were published in that time period) clearly had lost sight of what the church is, compared to our ancestors. They lost sight of that which is not seen and focused solely on what one can see. Keeping the Faith says the church was established at Pentecost at baptism, whereas the art. 18 of the 33, says it commenced in the Garden of Eden and includes ALL who are justified by FAITH (as pure as Adam & and Eve were before the fall). KTF may be partially right, but they left the tradition of early Mennonites because, (in my opinion) they lost sight of the true church and, dare I say, of salvation itself. If one limits salvation to those who must bend to your dogma, then it would appear as though salvation is misunderstood. I believe CGCM has come a long way after those turbulent times.
So, If I am understanding you two, and it makes for interesting learning but of little use considering... But you are saying here that this "one true" is based on time and not faith or truth here? If the Church, and not the Kingdom started in Eden, and here vs. the fall and the start of the Kingdom of darkness, Just what does the "one true" do with the announcement of Jesus of "Repent! for the Kingdom of God is at hand"? And also, Jesus' saying, "Upon this I will build my church"? Or was it Kingdom?
Vine; I believe it is well understood that kingdom and church are often interchangeable. The Bible refers to physical churches at different places, and it is used to define all believers as in Hebrews 12:22-24. The scriptures also talk of being "translated into the kingdom of His dear Son" which we understand to also mean salvation. The word "church' simply means "assembly" of people.
In respect to this thread and the conference minutes that Fred has posted, I believe its clear that there was discussion of other churches and even whether some should be consulted before some decisions. In my opinion, there was a more open mind to believers and respect of others' faith. The Toews family tells us that John Holdeman and Peter Toews became good friends and spent considerable time meeting and discussing "theology". History also tells us that Peter Toews and the KG contingent that joined with Holdeman was a valuable contribution to CGCM... and brought stability to Holdeman.
Last fall there was a thread/question addressed to me by TR, about believers/brethren and it generated much discussion also from CGCM members. TR here gives his defense and explanations of CGCM, the OTVC. Any who have interest to revisit this can link to it at: Click Here
This message has been edited by coGforum on Jun 17, 2008 9:38 AM
Hank, Don't get caught up in the Kingdom/church wording. The church as we have today with its divided views could hardly stand the Kingdom test. But we could argue until the cows come home, and well I sold the last of those cows more than 25 years ago.
But, look at my post, I was asking how it could be reconciled that the church began in Eden when Scripture also points to it coming when Jesus announces and then again at Pentecost. Then we throw in JH... That impacts how one looks at the "rights" of these notes and the power they have on the members.
Vine; it really does not matter to me how you view the church/kingdom question. Perhaps you could clearly define your view on another thread, and I will respond. I have not been able to understand your view which you have been talking about for quit some time.
The point I am making is this. The Dutch Anabaptists FIRSTLY described the church as all believers gong back to Adam; as those who are part of the redeemed, and identified them as the "church". The church to them, had only one meaning in this sense; those who were redeemed and destined for eternal glory. Read art. 18 of the 33. Note that the Dutch Anabaptists, MS & DP, were those who CGCM claim lead the true church during the Reformation.
CGCM, because of their 1970 move towards more control, redefined "church" as only those who they have baptized. They apparently felt they needed to change the terminology for this "control" and came up with a new idea; that is they separated the kingdom and the church. They lost sight, in my opinion, of the wider church as the place of salvation; that assembly of individuals where Jesus meets us at the foot of the cross. Their purpose was to acknowledge believers outside of CGCM, but to not allow them to be considered part of the "church".
Matt. 16:16-18 p; "... on this rock (Peter's declaration, 'You are the Christ') I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it... " NKJ
All those who with Peter make this declaration of faith from an honest heart of belief are those who Christ includes in the church , an assembly not physically defined to us; and the gates of Hades, that is "death" or the place of the departed dead will not overcome this assembled redeemed people. That is, the grave will not hold us, but we shall be resurrected to an afterlife in heaven.
This message has been edited by Aaronsboy on Jun 17, 2008 9:23 AM
3. Q. Whether this can be called an only ordained church of God that commences in such a lack without orderly calling with laying on of hands in the church (as always was the order and yet is) as took place with us?
Well, Thinking about this thing a few days I guess to exactly tell the motives for the decision requires more information, but the principle of laying hands is fairly predictable in scripture. We can tell what it is and isn't
These are the verses in the new testament that reference the laying on of "Hands" I looked up "hands" and removed the one that came up as not applicable.
If you find others in there please add them to this study
Ac 6:6* Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.
Ac 8:17* Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Ac 8:18* And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
Ac 8:19* Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
Ac 9:17* And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
Ac 13:3* And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
Ac 19:6* And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
Ac 21:27* And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,
Ac 28:8* And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him.
1Ti 4:14* Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
1Ti 5:22* Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.
2Ti 1:6* Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.
Heb 6:2* Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
This message has been edited by bawar on Jun 18, 2008 8:03 AM
Rebel, I can't answer that, but have found I have little confidence in brethren that think they have authority "over" instead of subjection under, to abuse people with their exalted spiritual status, I see little "in-filling of the Holy Ghost" from the Nicolatians
____
Acts 6:
2* So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables.
3* Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them
4* and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
5* This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism.
6* They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.
Now, to understand the principles of "laying of hands" one must look into some background scriptures.
First one must understand that laying of hands is a "true doctrine"
Heb 6:2* Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Then to figure out this verse one must also understand the apostles sat with Christ and had authority to define true doctrine.
Ac 2:42* And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
There may well be New Testament apostles in our day but the "apostles doctrine" was built on the foundation of the original apostles that sat with Christ and Paul as one born out of due season. Just as the 12 tribes were the foundation of Judaism, so the original Apostles are the foundation of "true" Christianity
Eph 2:20* And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
In the light of these disclosures, we see the apostles being buried with the work of serving tables, and they decided to give that work over to the authority of the body of elders to chose men to do it.
Brothers, choose seven men from among
They were to elect from the body of elders those worthies, that were otherwise qualified.
1 tim 3:
8* ¶ Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9* Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10* And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11* Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12* Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
13* For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
And the responsibilities or the office of the deacons (in the KJV they are called Deacons and Ministers) fell on them subject to their electors.
1Ti 5:1* Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
Now in light of this and probably many more layers of revealed truth, the apostles "laid hands" and gave up any right or obligation to that particular job. Laying the foundation for the government of the "true church" to run itself after they left.
The laying of hands in this case was a "deed" or irrevocable trust granted to the elders of the communion to chose men and to the men they chose.
Or not?
So in this verse we do not see any authority to condone a principle "only true church" except to clarify how she works in raising men to the call, and perhaps to see that one is not the only true church, if she doesn't do it this way.
14* ¶ Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15* Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16* (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17* Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Here we see the laying of hands on men, and then they received the Holy Ghost's infilling.
Some people seem to get extremely violent in their disclosures of the meaning of this portion of scripture, but the meaning of the infilling is not the scope of this study, but no matter what your view, this text certainly does not grant authority to define "one true church" and especially toward the leadership or conference.
If however you look on conference as the voice of God speaking, as the H teaches, then the laying on of hands, coupled with baptism would actually be the infilling so spoken of. But that is such a stretch of the meaning of this text as to ludicrous, for they were already baptized.
This message has been edited by bawar on Jun 19, 2008 6:09 AM
Ac 8:18* And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
Ac 8:19* Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
An interesting aspect of this text is that Simon was not exed over this request, Peter simply warned him of the wrath of God on himself unless he repented.
I simply do not see an orderly continuation of church government here.
from a presumed derivative of 4245; TDNT - 6:651,931; n n
AV - elders 1, estate of elders 1, presbytery 1; 3
1) body of elders, presbytery, senate, council
1a) of the Jewish elders
1b) of the elders of any body (assembly) of Christians
it is the "body of elders" as apposed the body of ministers!
another worthy mention is that elders are that way because of the natural selection of their age, not their elected position of delegated authority.
Therefore a body of elders has nothing to do with conference government, but of community of believers. They get together to have a minister, and they elect one, and lay hands, signifying publicly that he is their delegated authority. But he submits to them, not the other way around as holdemanism practices.
2Ti 1:6* Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.
Finally this one mentions a gift from one man to another, but i have no idea what his is specifically referencing, perhaps someone else does?
At any rate the foundational teaching of an orderly procession of a laying on of hands to keep the church in unity and "only one" is simply not in the bible.
Our dear Brother Holdeman simply ate too much pork that day and had a dream or vision conjured up by hallucinogenics.
Then add in the fact that they agreed it was not necessary to have the hands this one time, but jumped back to the requirement after Johnny got in, well, hmm...
reminds me of piping a water system from both directions to the middle, but never hooking the two sides up!
Decided that it was in lack that hands were not laid on in the beginning 8 of our affirmations with the exceptions of the ministers and some members.
4. Q. If such a lack is overlooked with us, why not compare to lack of other churches with this?
A. Decided that it was no lack with us, in the laying of hands not being observed, as expressed to with the exception of two ministers and some members.
Funny to "overlook" a doctrine, that after they "overlook" it in themselves they judge all other groups as heretical.
I think the reference of the "8" is made to the original "joiners" I think I heard that 8 people originally joined.
My main comment here is the fact that there is simply no foundation to consider that a succession of the "laying on of hands" in a mathematically provable way, that the foundation of the conference simply does not have that. Neither does it have foundation to state they only continue the true doctrine. (not that they don't have at least some "true doctrine') but the only true ordained church is simply a foolish, and historically rediculous notion, that their own writings refute.
5. Q. Is it right to not observe the communion?
A. Unanimously agreed that sin is the cause, and therefore wrong to live in sin so long. It was also agreed that the communion could be held if not all the members would commune; but sins unto death must be purged out before communion. It was decided that in some cases members could be refused to take the communion & ECT.
The only mention here that I have is that they made provision to withhold communion, but didn't name the method for making it so it was withheld, thus proving up a system of oppression and power by the demigods holding the sword over the conference. Built into almost all decisions is the presumption, that the preachers have authority over the laity, and the ministry need not even prove it's authority, let alone justly describe a method of execution of justice built by bible principles of innocent till proved guilty, facing the accuser, right to trial, and to compel witnesses, and the right for the accused to have an advocate.
6. Feet washing Generally agreed that feet washing was according to the example of Christ held with the communion: at least was considered nearest to their view. Could not yet accept the example of the martyrs and follow that. Some held that it could be observed both ways, but others could not see so. The idea was advanced that the feet washing referred to in 1 Timothy 5:10 only meant a washing like that recorded in the old testament when they received guests; but that of Christ was another feet washing such as observed. But many if not all could not accept this view.
Hank this is the first reference to feet washing int he records, but i think he has a lengthy article in the "Mirror"
This message has been edited by bawar on Jun 27, 2008 7:16 AM This message has been edited by bawar on Jun 27, 2008 7:15 AM
7. The calling of ministers, deacons, teachers, bishops & ect. No particular change in understanding than before.
Who, in the history of the h has labored in the doctrine of the election of the servants, and the hiring of the teachers, and the elevation of the overseers? I simply find little or no labor in this doctrine! It is as if they simply stuck their silly notions on the dart board and tossed the dart to chose what the way is they will use!
As Ron Jantz of the Nwe Plymouth congregation was coming to "tell" me his "concerns" for my lost estate, for my speaking the evils of ministerial authority over the laity, I took the time to carefully explain the scripture. I showed him the difference between an "elder", a "minister" and a "bishop" (oversser).
After spending several hours fighting his indoctrinated H brainwashing bias. (it generaly takes 2 hours of verbal battling to get an h willing to take the truth straight from the scripture) I showed him the simplicity of Pauls' Doctrine regarding the "overseers".
At the time he recognized a terrible problem in our local church, and accepted that the laity was powerless to restrain the lordship tenancies of the ministry, and that they were extremely slippery (liars) when help from outside was called in.
Anyway I showed him this verse
Tit 1: 5* ¶ For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
6* ¶ If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
7* For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
I pointed out that the word "bishop" means overseer, and that there are multiple ones in every city, that if they are otherwise qualified, then the scripture says 'if any" Meaning anybody that wants it by desire, and I also mentioned that the scripture clearly spells this principle out in
1Ti 3:1* This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
I also told him that if the church did that the preachers would fear the overseers instead of the overseers fearing the preachers!
He was overcome with terror, no doubt remembering the time that he was spiritually raped in the back room by the un-compassionate examples of satanic inspired false authority that in times past removed certain portions of his manhood in deference to the eunuch state of holdemanism's clutches. I could tell he saw it, he understood it, he believed it but was afraid to confess it. He looked me right in the eye and told me yes, it might say that but we would have to have a "conference decision ' to do it that way!
Umm... why do you need a conference to obey the scripture in the only ordained one true visible church, outside of which there is little or no salvation?
Here is the thing to you Holdeman leaders, you people are liars. you hate God so much that you elevate yourself to a position that God gave to the older laymen in the congregation. You are heading to the hot fiery hell that Scott rejects! Repent and install Gods one true visible overseers, at the local level in every congregation, or burn baby burn!
What cracks me up about them is they aren't stupid. I had the privilege of sitting the "school board" on that board the teachers would come in and ask some of the most absurd questions and we had to sit there and tell them "how to" in all sort of silly things that common sense and the Holy Spirit normally guides people in.
Well the system is right in that area, the teachers are subject to the board, even if the board tends to micromanage.
But the holdies figured out the common sense approach to authority with the schools, how come they are stupid with the church?
The teachers come in, state their troubles, and then they leave, and the board discusses it without them present.
YOU should have seen the terror in the local staffs' eyes as they saw that I knew what they were up to!
Now, the H preachers are proud arrogant scoffers. (a scoffer is a man that rejects truth) they as a body hate the truth that God lifted the elders of each family to be the senior of each family and by that position, if they desire and are otherwise qualified they have a right to oversee. God never intended authority to flow by political election. They would not have the right to rape people in their back room meetings with no witnesses if they were to have overseers, so they simply "don't change their understanding"
<<< You are heading to the hot fiery hell that Scott rejects! >>>
Fred, perhaps what is wrong with elders is that you end up with an unteachable, uncorrectable, old man, who refuses to listen. Now I have never rejected what you said I reject, and I have refuted and rebutted that I believe what you say I believe, and even others have come on board here and attempted to clarify and explain that I don't believe that, and yet, even know, you say that I believe that. Therefore, I would be afraid to be under your authority. I want nothing to do with an authority figure that won't listen and who is always right in his own eyes, and who can't learn anything new when he's past thirty.
<<< Now, the H preachers are proud arrogant scoffers. (a scoffer is a man that rejects truth)>>>
Don't say those things. They can come back to haunt you.
What I have said is that the purpose of "hell" is to restore, purge, and correct, and not to torture, and that its duration is "age-enduring" or "age-lasting" rather than eternal. What you are doing is the oldest deception in the book. You don't want to change your evangelical brain-washing, so you create some fake and easily disputable position for me in your mind which you then feel justified to hold in disdain. I don't like that. I highly recommend you put fresh batteries in your hearing aide with the hope of clarifying and amplifying the incoming signals.
This message has been edited by oldmanrip on Jun 29, 2008 9:15 AM
What I have said is that the purpose of "hell" is to restore, purge, and correct, and not to torture, and that its duration is "age-enduring" or "age-lasting" rather than eternal.
One other thing Scott, the bible would never put you under my authority, never. You are under your parents if they live, and subject to them in the Lord. Period.
If your parents and uncles are all gone then you are under nobody but God
Why if me and you were worshiping together, why would you even have to be under me even slightly?
What I have said is that the purpose of "hell" is to restore, purge, and correct, and not to torture, and that its duration is "age-enduring" or "age-lasting" rather than eternal.
What I have said is that the purpose of "hell" is to restore, purge, and correct, and not to torture, and that its duration is "age-enduring" or "age-lasting" rather than eternal.
Now Fred, look at me because I'm talking to you straight. I am now appealing to universal intrinsic truth of the Milky Way. If you are comfortable with the idea that the purpose of punishment is for revenge rather than for restoration, then you are utterly unqualified to be an authority over anything, certainly not to "rule and reign". God don't need that kind of punitive revengeful bullsh*t thinking in His Kingdom.
Scott, my use of you as a reference was not intended as an insult, though I see now it was taken that way. I apologize, I used bad taste and will not do it again (with the Lords help)
I don't really understand the eternal lake of fire nor how it will be age enduring when it doesn't occur till after time is no more, and I don't claim to understand it. I was using metaphor to bias my attempts to awaken them with a doctrine they understand (hell) though it may not be so clearly understood by me to make it perfectly agreeable to your understanding.
at any rate I am sorry and retract the insinuation
Apparently, even the cold hand of civil law knows God better than the Christians. Why are criminals placed in "correctional facilities"? What if they were placed in "torturing facilities"? Would that agree with your mental assessment of what a a civilized nation should be?
Fred, I'm not responding to the insult, because I really didn't take it that way, and if I did, my skin should be thicker than that, especially in this free-for-all sandbox of blabber mouths (me included). But what is pissing me off is how resistant you are to clear information if it happens to rattle the cage of your precious moth-balled evangelical traditions.
Scott, Why are criminals placed in "correctional facilities"?
Scott those facilities are not eternal, they are temporal, in the here and now, they are there to deter crime, and to protect the citizens.
The eternal lake of fire is found here
Re 20:10* And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Re 21:8* But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
As was mentioned elsewhere, the devil was a created being, and he rejected God, will he repent in the lake of fire? Or is he punished by torment for ever and ever?
<<< Scott those facilities are not eternal, they are temporal, in the here and now, they are there to deter crime, and to protect the citizens.>>>
So by implication, are you saying that they are "correctional facilities" (purpose to correct) only because they are temporal, and that perhaps, if they were eternal, then it would be acceptable to change their purpose to torture instead of correction?
<<< Re 20:10* And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Re 21:8* But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
As was mentioned elsewhere, the devil was a created being, and he rejected God, will he repent in the lake of fire? Or is he punished by torment for ever and ever?>>>
You are evading me now. You ask me about the devil. Well Fred, I don't know nuthing about the devil. Does the devil have a Kinsman Redeemer? Is the bible about us or the devil. Will you derail this discussion by forcing me to make a claim about something that we have no information about?
And now tell me this. What happens when death itself is thrown into the lake of fire? Can you prove that this "death" is NOT a spiritual death?
This message has been edited by oldmanrip on Jun 29, 2008 9:47 AM
Fred, you are so very crafty and evasive. You have your belief, but you sense that your arguments aren't really cutting it either. Here is your evasion. YOu ask me about the devil. Well Fred, I don't know nuthing about the devil. Does the devil have a Kinsman Redeemer? Is the bible about us or the devil. Will you derail this discussion by forcing me to make a claim about something that we have no information about?
And now tell me this. What happens when death itself is thrown into the lake of fire? Can you prove that this "death" is NOT a spiritual death?
Scott, can you find a time that I haven't backed up when you convinced me?
I left the H for you and my shame in what they were doing to you as much as any other living harmed person.
So I well listen to you. I think you are reading into my writing a presumption that I simply do not hold.
I do believe the lake of fire is a real place, and it occurs after time, and the eternal suffering in that horrible place has no fixed duration but will last for ever.
Clearly the liars and abominable are "going there" and as such have their place" But though the devil and false prophet are there for ever and ever, it doesn't really say the liars will be there for ever an ever. So I leave it there, you may well be right, at least in my understanding, (but I doubt it) is the false prophet a man or a fallen angel?
This message has been edited by bawar on Jun 29, 2008 9:53 AM
Fred, again, I like you. But you are not persuaded by what has persuaded me, but I'm not worried about you in a spiritual sense, so I'm ok with you having the last word. You have done much good on this forum, and if you don't see this thing I'm saying, the world will surely keep on turning, No/Yes?
if I think anyone is going to eternal damnation, it tends in my heart to be basically the pharisees. Thank the Lord I am not the judge!
______
8. In regard to the traveling of ministers, offerings for their office and gifts go, how or to whom does it belong to divide?
Decided, that in cases where a minister lives and is (impure) and request to visit other churches he shall not have the liberty to go without the consent of the church where he lives. The church which requests is to make the choice in the request. If trouble arises in this matter further counsel is necessary.
Now, to give them a little credit, here they did properly observe that the authority they got to minister is from the local church that sent them. They had no right to go somewhere else in the name of the church without the permission of the elders that gave them that commission.
To give the H a little credit, it doesn't really have too many "big shots" they don't like the attitude that "great men" end up getting when exalted conference wide, and so tend to discipline them for exalted spirits, or they "bench" them. Meaning the problems committee forces them down. This system is codified later in conference law though.
9. Does the church hold with Menno Simons that Paul was ordained into his office from God, without the agency of man or that he was ordained through the agency of man, and confirmed into his office by the laying on of hands?
Exactly why they keep bringing this up is beyond me, but it continues till the 96 conference. I think Jh was insecure in his "calling" perhaps someone could shed some light on this from a historical perspective?
I Don''t think He understood his natural calling to be an overseer, and that if his family was in order (which it apparently wasn't) he had a right to be an overseer without a laying of hands. Had he not been so blinded by his lust for office though he may have institutionalized the right of all senior fathers to led and oversee the church without the laying on of hands.
Fred-man; control and legalism grows and this is what we see in the older pursuasions of the faith, check this out. It's a leaven in the mind even to the splitting the skull where finally nothing makes sense. Things can easily go beyond the pale.
The Romans have an incredible system built up. The Amish, Mennonites and Baptists are quite old as groups compared to most existing denominations. These systems are built up to nearly match the strength of the Romans. Some great form of control through legalism winds down the pathways of all the older denominations. How much can the individual believer stand is finally the question.
All denominations lay claim to having more truth than the other one down at the corner, or they have not yet denominated. That's the test. If men denominate there is a common denominator and it happens to be us, of course. The more hard-shell denominations automatically dominate their people while denying that this is so. It's amazing to observe.
The older denominations have made great effort to corral this thing called God and His will, and in great detail. Denominations in general have made great effort to domesticate God and when they think they are successful at it He just sort of walks away from them to find a people of Faith in some used and stained tent somewhere. It seems He is not looking for a people of control and legal maneouvering. It seems that He is not looking for a people who pursue truth aside and apart from pursuing His person! These types finally become the periphia and fringes of christianity. We are in a time now that the numbers in these groups are dwindling, or concessions are being made to retain the people.
Most existing denominations sprung up in the past 150 years. These are all new ones in denominational terms. Precious little legal control is in most of these newer groups, but it's growing. There is a strong-hold in denominational type thinking. To denominate is to invite this type of trouble. Mankind becomes tribal almost immediately once as few as two or three meet in the same hard-walled building. There is something about those hard-walled buildings, ha. Am I a tent man, no.
This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jun 30, 2008 10:34 AM This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jun 30, 2008 8:02 AM
Doug, I am speechless except to say that was a great post, thanks!
one thing that stood out to me is the correlation of comparison of the words denomination, to denominate. I suppose I never exactly thought it out that way.
But I also agree that their focus is to build a stronghold that the Bible comes to destroy. It is funny (metaphorically) they use the very foundational document to destroy the building said document attempts to establish!
10 Marriage The order of marriage in all parts.
Unanimously agreed that marriage in the Lord that is two believers joined together in the church was required by the word of God.
11. Q. Can members that marry outside of the Lord, come to the church again without bringing the unbelieving part with him? (if it repents) or remain continent?
A. The unbelieving part must be converted and also join the church, or such excommunicated member must live content; because the sin for which excommunicated for was presumptuous and predetermined.
There is so many places to go with this one, i was wondering if anyone wants toopen it up?
(liberty for opening )
This message has been edited by bawar on Jun 30, 2008 11:03 AM
oh, I will but It is too late in the heat to think! so I am scratching my bellybutton, and my longbeard as I AM "pondering" where to jump in
One thing to always remember when deciphering legal codes is to ponder what the real truth is and what they are actually trying to steal with their legal maneuvering. You don't need a decision if you want the bible for the bible is plain, but if you want to steal somthing, you have to make it legal before doing so.
Now there are several things in this one that they are attempting to steal, so you have to figure out the victim, and the property, we already know the preachers are going to be the perps
Hey, the small print will always take away what the large print giveth thee.
Craftiness in the Word occurs when men develop a geometric type of mind. Men easily think in angles now rather than as angels.
Street crookedness occurs when men develop the geometric mind and it's carried over into religion many many times. Geometry was developed for other purposes than this. Have you ever seen a car salesman coming at you from a different angle than how you were asking the questions? Those tatics are very dangerous to finding the proper perspective butI suspect they could be used properly if the motives are pure. I see this in politics all the time. Geometry alerts me. The Love of God thinks in straight forward terms!
Fred,while you're at it with these conference reports,can you find anywhere in there where it is stated why women wear a second covering to church?
I was sitting in church yesterday morning and noticing that other than the men being dressed up,they looked the same whereas the women were not only dressed up AND already wearing a covering but they were also all wearing ANOTHER one on top of that. Got me thinking.
The only reason I have ever heard is that it is to give special reverence to God's house but why only the women? The men don't put anything different on and for sure don't layer two things. If it's a submission sign,that's already on so why add another?
>>where it is stated why women wear a second covering to church?<<
>>the women were not only dressed up AND already wearing a covering but they were also all wearing ANOTHER one on top of that.<<
Actually, cupcake, the women in your church were wearing three coverings.
1. The original covering they already have which is their hair.
2. The man made one which is the beanie.
3. The tie down. This particular one might be an just so the women are reminded every Sunday that they are to keep their mouths shut and be submissive.
That gets me to thinking about something else, cupcake. If H women wear three coverings to church, but only two coverings throughout the week, what about during sex? Is just the one original covering, which is her hair, good enough?
Cupcake, It's just a question. I’ve never made love with an H woman. I don’t know.
CUPCAKE there are several "decisions concerning the covering, as they come up it may make more sense but i don't think they cover the area Sirus was inquiring about.
I only have the decisions till 56 on the web site though, so if someone else "feels" like scanning them in and posting them?
10 Marriage The order of marriage in all parts.
Unanimously agreed that marriage in the Lord that is two believers joined together in the church was required by the word of God.
11. Q. Can members that marry outside of the Lord, come to the church again without bringing the unbelieving part with him? (if it repents) or remain continent?
A. The unbelieving part must be converted and also join the church, or such excommunicated member must live content; because the sin for which excommunicated for was presumptuous and predetermined.
okay, we got the head covering taken care of!
two believers joined together in the church was required by the word of God
Now here we see that they are making a decision that makes sense to them. But is it a true statement?
In order to unwind this statement we must first have the definition of "required" "church" and the "word of God"
For all 3 of these word are subject to interpretation.
"Required" is probably not so much questionable, but it is necessarily important to know it's meaning to figure out their law.
Now there are several things to consider in the, one is that they are making common law marriage wrong.
Ge 24:67* And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.
Don't misunderstand my intention here, I am so steeped in todays legalisms that I would punish my kids if they married without a ceremony and "license" by the state, but that is certainly not the bible, for marriage was ordained by God and does not require the influence of men or his institutions to make it morally right.
Another sticky thing they have with their interpretations is that if you ask them they would say they have to be married "in the church' and when that is considered, they mean in the CGCM INC.(a kansas corporation) but if outsiders are brought in that were married another way it is okay. This confusion is covered by grace and common sence, but rather than clarify it legally in the conference law, they just leave it to the preachers to untangle on an individual case by case basis.
Now the "word of God" is a funny thing to a holdeman, for they beleive in "dreams and visions" of their prophets, in a very simmilar way as the LDS people do.
they don't however call them "prophets" but hide the names of those prophets in conference incense so the machinery hides their names.
But the word of god to a holdeman is the voice of conference assembled.
The bible takes a back seat to their legalized prophesies. (properly instituted conference decisions)
For except for the place that Paul told the widows to marry "in the Lord" there is no instruction to the believer to marry another believer or a heathen in the new testment.
In fact and I know this may go contrary to many who condemn to marry outside of grace, but the implication is quite different:
11* But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
12* But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13* And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14* For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15* But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16* For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?
17* ¶ But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.
Pr 18:22 Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.
14* I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
Now look at this verse
1Co 7:36* But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
It looks to me the implication is that the "virgin" blew it and started fooling around, yet Paul told them they could marry. And how can people consumed in lust (so that "need so require") be "in the Lord"?
11. Q. Can members that marry outside of the Lord, come to the church again without bringing the unbelieving part with him? (if it repents) or remain continent?
A. The unbelieving part must be converted and also join the church, or such excommunicated member must live content; because the sin for which excommunicated for was presumptuous and predetermined.
Notice the wording here
Can members that marry outside of the Lord, come to the church again
He is saying in this statement, they have to come back to the church.
What he means is the words "the Lord' and "the church" are interchangeable, and mean the exact same thing.
Now, this legislation is extremely deceptive though it's meaning is innocent sounding enough in a casual glance. If you ask a Holdeman if the Church is the Lord, they would deny it, "Oh no!, not at all", but in their heart they know the church is the Lord, and here is a legislated proof of that deception.
Here is what they mean and how they would interpret this, Can members that marry outside of the Church, come to the Church again?
So why not say it this way? Well, one may be "in the church", yet marry someone not in the church. So they make legislated presumption, that steal the right to "marry whosoever" and limit the options to the "church only" instead of keeping open the option to marry anyone of the 'universal church', forcing them to only marry within their own communion/baptism society. They then all agree in this that the presumption is that anyone not marrying in the church is also not in the "lord"
This rule is not necessarily bad, but it is not scriptural, but rather a consent orientated rule, and should be in a church membership contract.
Were the H to start being honest they would have to have a membership contract, and this rule would be one of the rules to remain a member, and if a member would terminate his membership, he would also not be subject to the discipline for not keeping the rule.
But the system has chosen to blame their bad legislation on the "lord" rather on their lack of honesty, and the ability to "get there from here"
A. The unbelieving part must be converted and also join the church, or such excommunicated member must live content;
What they are saying is the one the member married is an unbeliever by presumption, even if he or she is a fine Christian of another denomination. And he therefore must convert, and join their corporate system, and in the lack of that happening, the member must be content to be "lost" and worthy of eternal fire,for they certainly would not punish a penitent child of God would they?
(yes they would) but they shouldn't
It is apparently in their theology a blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, for the one who married outside the church and by that marriage presumably outside of the Lord cannot come back to the Lord without the will of the one he or she married also joining,
Now I don't know about you, but I have made mistakes in my life and prayed and repented, and found peace and reconciliation. But a member simply cannot be saved unless the spouse also joins their system.
12. Q. What is the duty of members in giving and receiving reproof?
A.Unanimously agreed that this should be done according to the word of God.
Now here we have a seeming innocent sounding conference decree, but if it was innocent, and only did as it appears to do, it would not be necessary, for if they considered the bible the "word of God" they certainly would not need to legislate the giving and taking of reproof.
Even heathens, agnostics, and atheists, that care about each other give and take reproof.
So what he is saying must hold a deception to steal a right,for almost always a decision is made to take away that which belongs to the laity and give it to the ministry.
And here the code words are "according to the word of God".
and you must discern who god is in the H in order to get his 'word".
the new comer, or honest Christian would think they are talking about the god of the bible, who theoretically is the Lord of the church too, but he isn't the absolute authority, or "Lord" for the lord of the church is the conference assembled making a rule, and the ministers are the interpreters of those rules.
For this reason you can catch your brother squashing liberty, and reprove him, and get in trouble for it!
I remember telling a brother I wasn't going to conference and I rebuked him for his allegiance toward it, because I felt it was unscriptural to go there and definitely evil to allow conference big shots to add to your understanding. He went to orbitville and extremely rebuked me, so I quoted my justification and foundational scriptural for my thinking.
Ga 2:6* But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:
This really made him down right upset, and he cut me off as his friend for quite a while.
So the bible is not the Word of God to the Holdeman, but rather their rules are
Here is what it should say
Unanimously agreed that this should be done to keep the rules of the church as interpreted by the ministry
They really do not care what God wants if His will crosses their own rules, for conference can take away God and replace it with ministerial authority.
I need to pitch in here that where they went wrong is to not realize the necessity to have a membership contract, with well written out rules of conduct.
Something as simple as this seeming sounding decision is subject to ridicule when closely inspected and laid across their actual practice of it, because of the insincerity they use to enforce it. There is downright deception involved.
However the idea of giving and taking reproof is a grand and noble and unquestionably naturally loving gesture.
Start out by seeing a problem in your brother.
In this problem "consider yourself" for you no doubt do the same thing, or have gotten victory there, or else you wouldn't hardly see it!
Make it a matter of prayer and heart searching, When you see your own faults and failures, you can go to your brother and honestly tell him where you are off.
Unless you have clear victory, and anointed agape love in the matter, my guess is the Lord is laying it on your heart to go to your brother to get help for your own self, and your approach should be from that viewpoint.
For instance:
Brother I have been having a problem being kind to my children when they are mean, do you have something to give me that could help me? Explain to him what they did and how you reacted and why.
Instead of I saw you yelling at your kids the other day and I rebuke you you evil sinner!
_____
I went to the guy that finally got me kicked out of that beast. I told him I was sick of his continual asking for prayer for his son, because I thought it was insincere. I told him I always ask advise of my elders and youngn's before making major decisions, and asked him if he called that alleged "lost son" to ask advise? I mentioned he just bought a car, did you call him and ask him what kind to get? He got mad at me! And yelled, I don't have to ask permission from my son or dad to do anything! At that point I realized this family had some serious issues
ohh! boy!
A few weeks later I am in church work for who knows what and he is the one guiding the preachers to get me!
Okay, we give and take reproof! (pray for his lost son please)
Fred, do you understand how they justify re-accepting Rosalie without me? Isn't this against their own law? I know BD&P forbids it. I challenged them severely on their lack of integrity on this issue, and they did not deny it, but justified it by saying that they knew of several cases where they had reaccepted the wife without the husband and it seemed to be working. Of course, I knew it was futile to further investigate what "seemed to be working" actually meant with men of this stripe.
Scott, they have a saying in there "the wisdom of the just"
By that saying they create what in the civil law is called a "variance"
If they all get together and have a fairly strong quorum, they agree to make their agreement become a "variance" to the bible, and or their own rules.
David Nightengale of the New Plymouth congregation looked me right in the eye (eye contact being an unusual thing for a holdeman) but though there wasn't actually eye contact we were alone together speaking on the principles of ministerial authority, and the facts surrounding the bible having overseers over them.
When he realized he simply could not argue with Titus 1, he simply said "If the senior elders were in control, then God wouldn't be' but he meant that right now "God" is in control, but actually the ministers are in control so he was saying that God is the ministers voice in council.
I honestly believe any preacher in there that didn't hold this as conviction though carefully concealed, he would be benched.
They are a very dishonest bunch of men when together, and one should never allow a subordinates (wife, children, nephews, friends) in their presence without being there with them.
They got your wife alone and ruined her by passing the Holdegod idol seed into her heart.
This message has been edited by bawar on Jul 5, 2008 8:02 AM
13. The Excommunication
Unanimously agreed with the decisions of the 5th conference article 6
Handled avoidance but did not close on it.
(6. We are to be careful and not to excommunicate members when the church is defiled, save fornicators, & ect. Ministers should be called from other places (or place) to decide whether we should excommunicate at the time or not.)
14 Avoidance, What is it or in what does it consist? We the ministers except 1 hold that it consists of avoiding temporal as well as spiritual things. A number of members had not light sufficient and some did not believe in the temporal avoidances.
This article was handled to a considerable extent, and took considerable time; but our ground appeared in more clearness.
15 Q. What is to be done with those who do not observe the avoidance?
A. , decided that those who do not observe the avoidance, shall be excommunicated, because they do not observe the teaching of Christ, and the tradition of the apostles. Matthew 18:17. 1 Cor 5 2Thess 3-6
Matthew 18:17* And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
1 co 5: 2* And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
2 thessalonians 3: 6* ¶ Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
7* For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
8* Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
I find it interesting that they clump all the avoidance scriptures together and make one universal punishment out of them all. There is simply no ground in the bible for that. This practice is the building of a doctrine on a faulty foundation. They are breaking one of their foundational rules, namely adding to the scriptures.
_____
Matthew 18:17 and its surrounding verses speaks on a sin committed by one man toward another. the sin is clearly definable. It is re-provable, and is is repent-able.
A man (the perpetrator) had either a "fault" or a transgression that caused harm or grave concern to a 'victim".
The victim in his love for the perpetrator, goes to him alone and discusses it with him. When he is satisfied that the perpetrator refuses to look at the issues, he takes witness and goes to the man again. The idea is restoration as apposed to building "authority", so the witness ought to be people in authority over the perpetrator.
In that lack it ought to be someone mutually acceptable. They were dealing with me by using people that I thought were the problem. I think they are wolves, and they want me to submit to them. Yea right.
Anyway if the witnesses agree the perpetrator refuses to "hear" the charges and repent, then the victim has permission to "take it to the church.
At that point the perpetrator is to be to the victim as a heathen man or a publican.
Jesus ate with publicans and heathens.
So where they get temporal avoidance out of that is beyond me. I think they dream it up as they atone for their own evil by bookkeeping entries in their own hearts instead of by the Blood of Christ.
_____
1 co 5: 2* And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
This guy was porking his fathers wife and running the isles while falsely giving glory of God. The people were "glorying" thinking "wow" that guy has grace .
This sin was so gross that even in our decadent age it would be a source of ridicule.
It was so atrocious that Paul heard about the scandal in another area! 5* To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Now we can assume what this means, and actually perhaps know by divine revelation, but the bible doesn't say what it includes to deliver one to Satan.
But there is a named sin, it is gross and heinous, it is provable, and it is proof of a lost condition. The man was to be "taken out" of the local communion but obviously no mention is made of temporal avoidance.
If a man avoids other people in the kingdom of satan, then he may consistently avoid this one, but the bible doesn't say to temporally avoid him, you must use presumption, to include that
-----
The last one
8* Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
9* Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
10* For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11* For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12* Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
13* But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
14* And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
Here is a local minister that is eating the "tithes" he wants to be a "full time worker" and still sit at your 'feasts of charity' (as put by Jude) we are not told not to eat with him, but to mark him, avoid him, and have no company with him. A crack in a table hardly works to keep this principle in "Spirit"
It takes presumption to include this verse into the other ones, for they are simply not the same sin, neither are they the same principles.
This message has been edited by bawar on Jul 5, 2008 9:25 AM
15 Q. What is to be done with those who do not observe the avoidance?
A. , decided that those who do not observe the avoidance, shall be excommunicated, because they do not observe the teaching of Christ, and the tradition of the apostles. Matthew 18:17. 1 Cor 5 2Thess 3-6
There is absolutely no place in scripture where a man refused to "avoid' and was "put out"
So they build a doctrine out of thin air and use it to oppress the victim of their doctrine's lies. Then they kick out anyone that doesn't punish the one that are oppressed by the doctrine and/or simply "don't see it".
All the while they claim to be the only one true church, that only uses the bible and refuses to add anything to, neither subtract anything from!
Their avoidance actions, and attempts to tear up our family, are so shameful, and actually unbelievable, that I cannot hardly explain them to the people in my new church. They simply cannot fathom the atrocious behavior of the H toward us.
One of our best friends is a dentist assistant, and as such knows most of our H acquaintance. When I explain what they are doing, she just shakes her head, and simply cannot believe those sweet people would actually do that! (She believes it, because she know's it is true but it is hard for her to reconcile the actions and practice with the people she knows!)
This message has been edited by bawar on Jul 5, 2008 7:52 AM
Now, why do they add to the scripture's to make a universal avoidance out of the several different verses on the matter?
Well Matthew and Thess. belong to the individual and is in no way a communion held avoidance, and the one in Corinthians is a local communion matter for a gross heinous sin that is publicly known.
But the H has labored many times on the avoidance, why? Remember the cardinal rule of codifying truth?
9 times out of 10, they take the truth and turn it into a lie, and gain advantage for the saying so (the bible calls this "gainsaying").
Now they have a nice little package (a clumped together avoidance package that avoids any miscreants. The preachers can now with this ammo stick their whammy into to anyone to keep power intact.) It is taught continually, and remember the saying "a lie told often is usually believed.
So they repeat their avoidance lies over and over until the holders of that lie think they are special for holding it! I mean I have without doubt seen way what I thought was spiritual pride in the people that avoid their victims for nothing more than dreamed up sins they them self do under provacation.
To rebut the presumption of it's honesty is a sin in their system, for its entirety is a lie, and you simply cannot look at a lie or it will fall apart in the face of evidence.
So they build a "Presumption" and it is not rebut-able, and if anyone tries they will be subject to the very lie they are reproving!
To make matters worse, the people holding this lie are honest in all they do except in their theological presumptions, maybe more honest than most and actually hurt of it at times, so they may well justify their dishonesty by doing extreme honesty elsewhere.
Elsewhere in the conference reports we see the ministers voting themselves the absolute authority over the conference. So this presumption built stronghold, coupled with the minters stolen authority makes being a ministry kind of a proud "cool' job. "We get to twist people in a spiritually deviant way and nobody can stop us".
This message has been edited by bawar on Jul 5, 2008 9:30 AM This message has been edited by bawar on Jul 5, 2008 7:58 AM
<<< When I explain what they are doing, she just shakes her head, and simply cannot believe those sweet people would actually do that! (She believes it, because she know's it is true but it is hard for her to reconcile the actions and practice with the people she knows!) >>>
This is a huge problem, is serves as an effective cloak for them. It gives new meaning to the term "wolf in sheep's clothing".
The intrinsic foundational evil of the H system staggers the mind that finally begins to grasp it. I simply couldn't believe what I was afraid I was seeing for a long time. I even went to my best friend and asked him if I was loco. I could not reconcile outward sweet, passive, caring persona with the subtle evil, stubborness, and incredible intellectual dishonesty.
I think the H system is on of the most mature, fully developed Satanic systems in this world. Why? Certainly not because it is the most harmful in a physical sense, but because it captures people and holds them so effectively so far away from the God of the Milky Way. What other system so effectively persuades the people that law is grace. This is really bad stuff.
Historically this has been repeated over and over. Why are we surprised that it occurs in our friends and fellows? It's becasue we once believed in lucifers lie as well and at least somewhat had aligned ourselves with the knowledge of good and evil. Mark Twain was quite accurate when saying that any superstition tends to hold it's adherants fast for a life-time, at least in degree. This occurred in us. Christ alone can deliver us when our dependance is totally on He who is in us! The apostle who came from the ranks of the hardcore pharisees said this; I now preach the gospel according to the mystery of God which was withheld from the prophets of the old covenant, (which is Christ in us the hope of glory)!
God works with what He has. He has a human race that fell or plunged to the full measure of darkness that's in the religious mind. That's the mind of lucifer himself! Lucifer still thinks that he's right and that God is wrong. He realizes that darkness in shades of gray and black are all around him now since leaving God's presence but he holds to his truth with clenched fists. He did it [his way].
The type righteousness that he tempted Eve and Adam with in the garden [i.e. the knowledge of good and evil] is something he thought to be right. Sure this wars against the Spirit of God but if you're right you're right. That's not repentable!
A christian friend of mine said this to me; If you're right then you're already wrong. The only thing that I disagree with in that statement is the idea of wrong. It is not expedient to be right! Christ Jesus is right and there is no other right, that's expediency! He is righteous and there is no other righteousness! That's expediency. That's the real message and can only be received by Faith! His righteousness is received by Faith, it's a gift!
Lucifer did it [his way]and mankind has been doing it [our way] ever since Eden. When you hear the term [our way] the tree is already caught in the snag in the river.
The house of Israel under the law did things in precisely the same way that you have mentioned, Fred-man. This house did not triumph at Mt. Sinai. The overcomers of this tree shall be restored!
"I think the H system is on of the most mature, fully developed Satanic systems in this world. Why? Certainly not because it is the most harmful in a physical sense, but because it captures people and holds them so effectively so far away from the God of the Milky Way. What other system so effectively persuades the people that law is grace. This is really bad stuff."
Scott,
This is an religious approach. All systems effectively hold people away from God, including the Cog system. In other words there's not a one truer system where you're not held as far from God and can access God easier. What the True God is about is so far from it all that it is all in the same picture from where God is at. From where God is at, there's not a hairbreadth between a Holdeman and an Anglican. Now do you see why the Holdemans haven't jump on my band wagon? When I bring justice for the Holdeman here on this forum, it's not because I agree with them or support them. It's because we're all human with like passions, and the way is as equally narrow for anyone that gets off the broad highway of this world.
The Holdemans won't harm you in a "physical sense", but another fanatic religion will. One religious system believes in plural marriages, another don't. What is good in one is banned in another, what is banned in the other is good in the other. It all come out in the wash. What religion or way is better, pray tell?
People want another religion to be bad so their's is good. This is the secret longing. But the more bad you make another religion, the worst your's gets along with it. They both fall and fall and fall. Because what is said against another religion is often times the truth. So down down down everyone goes.
Organizing can be a circle which has no front end. It therefore has no fronteer! Once we organize around certain true things we lose our impetous to go on and hence we stop and begin to make the grand circle. There is nothing new occurring here. We may hold our own, but forward is not in the travel plan. These circles can become very comfortable.
The real Truth lies in the spontaneity of right-doing or righteousness which has been birthed in us by the Spiritual re-birth! Herein exists descovery and adventure forever! If we end the journey by circling our truths and bringing the ends together, has our journey not ended? Of course it has.
The real Kingdom of God is without end for God is not traveling in a circle. A circle brings the ends together and ends the journey.
Organizing around truths [whatever the number of them are], wars against the spontaneity, the descovery, and the adventure of the journey. Organizing in this way robs the believer of much of the journey!
So while we become the enemy of God in this matter we also become our own enemy!
I was thinking and speaking of personal righteousness or right doing and the fronteer of that. How can I say what God in me will perform tommorrow? I do not know what His purpose for me will be tommorrow so I cannot speak of that fronteer in any real way. It's an adventure. If I now knew it, it would not be an adventure; I will discover that stuff tommorrow.
My claim Brent was not that I knew what the fronteer of righteousness looked like, my claim was that there is indeed such a fronteer to the honest and contrite person.
The personal campfire and it's light covers the overview of it.
This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jul 5, 2008 7:30 PM
Boys, I'll tell you what the dark light is, seeing only your own campfire while the bones of other religions lay right out there reflecting your own religion.
If Christ be in us and our heart remains contrite, honest, and pure those things you mentioned are in the believer waiting to manifest without any contrived efforts on our part! If these things are not quite spontaneous in us and waiting to abound, indeed we are something less than the real McCoy.
On the other hand, contrived efforts also reveal something less than the real McCoy.
We are indeed a new creation in Christ or we are not. All things have been made new which means no more self-application of known truths. The new creation involves more than having peace of mind and a freedom from guilt.
This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jul 5, 2008 8:04 PM This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jul 5, 2008 7:49 PM
I came home after a long day and read the thread and kind of could not understand the discussion... so I threw in what I think really matters. The "phony" comment was not quite what I think. If one does not believe and acts as if he/she is a believer, such a person is a fake Christian. But, the fruits of the Spirit do NOT flow spontaneously all the time in believers, nor are we perfectly the real McCoy all the time. I guess the real McCoy is to confess that we are sinners saved by grace and will remain such till the resurrection. But, if one is confessing to be a Christian, I expect such a one would put forth an effort to reflect Biblical teaching.
Brent; I do see the dark light reflecting off of me... sometimes.
We were once a sinner and an unbeliever but now saved from that by Grace through Faith. We are believers; imperfect believers to be sure but no longer sinners. [If] we sin we have an advocate with the Father who is Christ Jesus the righteous one!
If we miss it we repent!
Honesty dictates that we do not go about performing a contrived effort of righteousness. We live out of what we are. We can seek the Water of the Word that abides out beyond the righteous information that's immediately in front of us; we then allow that to cleanse and wash us! To self-apply righteous information speaks of something less than the New Creation. This activity speaks of something less than the real McCoy..Hidden dishonesties do not go readily until we see the integrity of God in a very real way. There is a glorious window through which to see His integrity. We become what we see. We do not become what we contrive to be.
This message has been edited by doug-64 on Jul 6, 2008 8:00 AM
16. How shall a minister or member do, if they believe another doctrine from that of the church if they can be borne?
A Such a minister or member shall place such views before the church, and if not accepted, such minister or member shall remain silent in the matter, if it is a matter that be borne; but if it is a matter that can’t be borne, then repentance is require, or neither minister or member is to be borne; In no wise is it allowed to labor on division and to make disturbance.
Borne is a past participle of bear
bear 1 (bâr)
v. bore (bôr, br), borne (bôrn, brn) or born (bôrn), bear·ing, bears
v.tr.
1. To hold up; support.
2. To carry from one place to another; transport.
3. To carry in the mind; harbor: bear a grudge.
4. To transmit at large; relate: bearing glad tidings.
5. To have as a visible characteristic: bore a scar on the left arm.
6. To have as a quality; exhibit: "A thousand different shapes it bears" Abraham Cowley.
7. To carry (oneself) in a specified way; conduct: She bore herself with dignity.
8. To be accountable for; assume: bearing heavy responsibilities.
9. To have a tolerance for; endure: couldn't bear his lying.
10. To call for; warrant: This case bears investigation.
11. To give birth to: bore six children in five years.
12. To produce; yield: plants bearing flowers.
13. To offer; render: I will bear witness to the deed.
14. To move by or as if by steady pressure; push: "boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past" F. Scott Fitzgerald.
v.intr.
1. To yield fruit; produce: peach trees that bear every summer.
2. To have relevance; apply: They studied the ways in which the relativity theory bears on the history of science.
3. To exert pressure, force, or influence.
4.
a. To force oneself along; forge.
b. To endure something with tolerance and patience: Bear with me while I explain matters.
5. To extend or proceed in a specified direction: The road bears to the right at the bottom of the hill.
Doctrine
doctrine
Also found in: Legal, Acronyms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, Hutchinson 0.04 sec.
doc·trine (dktrn)
n.
1. A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
2. A rule or principle of law, especially when established by precedent.
3. A statement of official government policy, especially in foreign affairs and military strategy.
4. Archaic Something taught; a teaching.
Doug; really off the subject here, but I say we are sinners. This, compared to a holy and righteous God. The important thing, as I see it, we must always remember that God is above us and we will not reach perfection till we get new bodies at the resurrection. This is one downfall (as I see it) that happened at CGCM in the 1970s. They started to look for perfection and anyone who did not meet those expectations were put out.
Menno Simons, one of my mentors, says "Death is but to cease from sinning". He certainly taught of a life of righteous living, but he always remembered that we are imperfect and "sinners"... but saved by faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ. I accept this slant, rather then the Baptist shout, that we are "perfect and righteous in the Lord".
16. How shall a minister or member do, if they believe another doctrine from that of the church if they can be borne?
A Such a minister or member shall place such views before the church, and if not accepted, such minister or member shall remain silent in the matter, if it is a matter that be borne; but if it is a matter that can’t be borne, then repentance is require, or neither minister or member is to be borne; In no wise is it allowed to labor on division and to make disturbance.
Now let compare this statement with the scripture?
Ac 17:11* Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
2Ti 2:15* Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
1Jo 2:26* These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you
27* But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
It appears to me that the somebody has to be a judge of what is to be borne? Funny they say the "church" when they actually mean the minister in control. For instance few if any Holdeman people would actually deny the existence of the "universal church" meaning all Christians throughout the world that are saved by the Blood of Christ through believing on his name. But to "teach" that or even speak it above a whisper is to incur the wrath of the "church" (meaning the ordained pobah that would lose his stolen power if that teaching were to be unleashed)
This whole decision is a major rule that defines Holdemanism, and is one of the most deceitful conniving pieces or heretical power grabbing falsehood, I have ever heard of.
Hank, you say that we are still sinners. The word sinner defines a state of being in Biblical terms. In our terms it may define something we do from time to time. In Biblical terms the believers of the early church were saints and no longer sinners. I am okay with and I embrace their consciousness.
All I can say to thinking that we are still sinners is this; our consciousness determines a whole lot. If we know that we are blood-bought saints we will spontaneously walk into more of His victory than if we are always brow-beating ourselves by being so conscious that we still sin! Do we have a sin consciousness or do we have a consciousness of His righteousness?
Do we have our eye upon our sins or do we have our eye only upon Him? We ourselves direct our eyes. Are we preoccupied with good versus evil, or is our eye upon the Perfect one only?
What are we looking at? What fills our scope of vision from one day to the next? What we look at is the image we come into! 11Cor.3:18 I think that some of us do not believe this truth but let us not argue with the verasity of it!
If our eye is dark we take to us that darkness but if our eye be full of light then we walk in the light, paraphrased. To walk with Christ Jesus is to learn how to walk. We choose to walk in the light the moment we make the discision to see only the light of Christ! I was blind but now I see!
What are we looking at anyway?
The reason some believers see so much darkness in others is that they first see and dwell on their own darkness, rather than upon His Light! This type word is good news to us!
Caution: This forum may contain statements and comments that are offensive. If you are easily offended, please exit this forum now.
By using this forum you agree to be accountable and liable for your post's. All postings are the responsibility of the posting participant. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the management.
