Looks like Uncle Bennie is vacillating. I don't have my copy of Keeping the Faith in arm's reach, but if I remember correctly, he proudly touted the lineage and the early church fathers. I think he based his correctness on the presence of the Early Church Fathers being in the lineage, and claimed a sameness of doctrine and practice with them. If I am wrong about this, someone please correct me. It would appear that Jerry's debunking of the Early Church Fathers myth has reached Bennie's ears. They realize that they now no longer believe the same as the Early Church Fathers so therefore the Early Church Fathers go down the toilet and the Holdemans remain correct. The lineage jumped a few thousand years and landed right on them. Here are some lines from the latest MOT, as penned by none other than the same Bennie Giesbrecht who wrote Keeping the Faith;

In this article he is speaking of the verse "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers." (1 Cor. 4:15)

"...When we think of church fathers we, of course think of the apostles. They were early church fathers. The Lord used them to give us a body of teaching useful to attain salvation. We read the letters they wrote by the Holy Spirit, which have become Scripture for us. They proved their calling by their faithful service. Most of them gave their lives for Christ and the church.

Following the apostles' time, there were men whom today are referred to as Early Church Fathers. They have received more attention by brethren of recent times than formerly. The question has risen more as to what place we give them.

Among them is Polycarp, who lived between the years 65-168. The account of his life and his testimony is impressive. His teaching is simple and scriptural. His heroic martyrdom and absence of any sign of lordship harmonize with the teachings of Christ and the church. We might think of his as a true church father.

There were in that early church period (before AD 300) other writers and teachers who are referred to as Early Church Fathers. They also left impressive and interesting writings referring to gospel matters. These writings might be read with profit. It is recognized, however, that in their time (and somewhat through their writings ( concepts came into the churches that in the church of our time we do not embrace. Among them was acceptance of supremacy of some ministers and bishops, or one church over others, and a concept of the church forgiving sins, together with other questionable developments. Some of these men were instructors, but were they true church fathers? It is significant that in our experience the church has not resorted to their teachings to establish doctrine. For that we rely on prayerful consideration of Scripture in harmony with men of God whom we recognize as true church fathers from Anabaptist times until now." And so on and so on. You get my point.

I have read parts of my Martyrs Mirror, Some of Menno Simons writings, and Most of John Holdemans. And there is some good in all of it. However one of my best investments was a CD case of over 50 CD's of the Bible from Genesis to Revelations. I do quite a bit of driving so I have had the chance to listen to the Old Testament once through and the New Testament twice. The Bible is God's Word. The other books the authors may have been spirit filled but some of those writings may have had a little of the human twist to it.
Herman

Now that's interesting VS, as well as laughable.

I would REALLY like to see what is actually written in the book "Keeping the Faith," especially if it was written by the same guy who wrote what you just posted from the MOT.

The Stoppels site says....."According to your schoolbook, THIS IS MY HERITAGE, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian handed down from the apostles the true doctrine of the true church." (And then Stoppel states that this is found on pages 9, 14, and 17 in that book)

I would also REALLY like to see what is actually written in their book "This is My Heritage." One thing for sure is that the Holdeman Church definitely disagrees with what those guys said about Baptism and the Eucharist (The Lord's Supper).

The claim that the Holdemans make of an unbroken lineage of the true faith from the apostles unto them is simply not true.

Well Jerry what do you think of Bennie suddenly breaking fellowship with the Early Church Fathers?

Another concern I have with the article, (if I may humbly critique) is what he says about the writings of men; "...When we think of church fathers we, of course think of the apostles. They were early church fathers. The Lord used them to give us a body of teaching useful to attain salvation."

I just have a hard time when a man tells me that other men have written things that will help me to "attain salvation". They taught a lot of things which are useful for knowing a good way to live,and for the proper functioning of the church, but only Jesus Christ taught us the way to attain salvation.

Another odd statement; "These writings might be read with profit. It is recognized, however, that in their time (and somewhat through their writings)concepts came into the churches that in the church of our time we do not embrace. Among them was acceptance of supremacy of some ministers and bishops, or one church over others, and a concept of the church forgiving sins, together with other questionable developments. Some of these men were instructors, but were they true church fathers? It is significant that in our experience the church has not resorted to their teachings to establish doctrine.

What kind of clever wool pulling is this? Telling people that the H church doesn't believe in supremacy of some ministers and bishops, or one church over another, the concept of the church forgiving sins, etc. To anyone who has ever been crosswise of them, these comments seem quite odd. It was never good enough for them if I said I was on good terms with God, they had the power to receive or reject me. Of course they claimed that they only did what God had done already, but which man wouldn't say that when refusing absolution to a handwringing sinner?


Sheesh Bennie.

Maybe i don't get it, but this sounds like Holdemanism?


Among them was acceptance of supremacy of some ministers and bishops, or one church over others, and a concept of the church forgiving sins, together with other questionable developments. Some of these men were instructors, but were they true church fathers? It is significant that in our experience the church has not resorted to their teachings to establish doctrine.

They will claim association with anyone as long as it supports their case, but if they suddenly come into possession of information that makes the association unfavorable, they quickly back away. They never admit they were wrong to make the association in the first place, or admit that maybe they have an incorrect understanding of anything. EVERYONE in the whole world is wrong and they are right. (How can this be???) I have observed recently that they have a hard time holding a similar point of view with any other Christians, past or present. This would tend to make them look like Christians-at-large. That can't ever be, so their position must become more and more exclusive so that they never appear to agree with "worldly Christians."

I found the book Keeping the Faith. In chapter 2, on page 52, beginning with the chapter titled Into the third century, he quotes (favorably) many of the Early Church Fathers; Tertullian, Origen, Clemens. In his article, he is down to Polycarp as the only one who had writings that he could agree with. Even at that, he boasts, it is remarkable how forward-seeing the H church was in not using any of these men's writings to establish doctrine. Duh! It would be a good idea to never use the writings of men (particularly those who lived tens of centuries ago) to "establish doctrine." However, he makes no such disclaimer about the writings of John Holdeman, Dietrich Phillip, or Menno Simons. He and the brethern together decided that these men agree with their position well enough that they can use them to prove the position the H church now holds. You would thin they would learn that men can be shown to be incorrect and it is best to distance yourself from them when it comes to establishing rightness.

Obviously it is double speak, the favorite past time of most holdeman people, for they say one thing while actually meaning another,




Among them was acceptance of supremacy of some ministers and bishops,

Notice he mentions "some" as apposed to "all" what he is meaning they are all equally supreme over the people that asked them to serve.


or one church over others,


What he means is the congregations are all equally even, he doesn't mean the Lutheran or baptist are equal with his great diana.


and a concept of the church forgiving sins,

I spilled my coffee on this one! it is such a joke as to be completely laughable. I have been the eluded boot, and therefore the members on the other side of the family avoid me. If i ask what my sin is they mumbo jumbo and look toward Diana for my forgiveness. No matter what I say or do I will be a lesser caste of citizen until the Diana of holedemanism "forgives me" for an alleged but unnamed and unprovable sin committed against her evil person hood. To even pretend that the church doesn't forgive sin before allowing the avoidance to stop is funny. (like hitting a bees nest with a hammer on a hot day, is funny)

together with other questionable developments.

Like saying "we don't add anything to the bible" and then make some provision to make conference decisions "mandatory". The early fathers did not have conference decisions, they felt it evil to add words to the Word of God.

Some of these men were instructors, but were they true church fathers?


oh, but the statement presumes the ignorance of the people reading it, that though they weren't true, he is!



It is significant that in our experience the church has not resorted to their teachings to establish doctrine.




u.mmm there is a word for statements like this "liar" Almost all their conference doctrine is built around church fathers teachings, you simply do not need a rule book if you are bible only.

>>>Well Jerry what do you think of Bennie suddenly breaking fellowship with the Early Church Fathers?....In his article, he is down to Polycarp as the only one who had writings that he could agree with.<<<

Sounds to me like he wasn't listening very well when he was in school. Either that, or he disagrees with their school book. I went back to the Stoppel site and found the following.....




Holdeman school textbook book, This is My Heritage pg 9,14,17:

”The apostles taught their students [Polycarp & Ignatius] the teaching which they learned directly from Jesus.”

“The Church Fathers [Justin & Ireneaus] lived one generation later, learning from the Apostolic Fathers.”

“Tertullian was…a defender of Christianity”




Ante-Nicene Fathers about Apostolic Succession

“We are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the apostles, and the succession of these men to our own times.” Ireneaus ( A.D. 120-202) Vol 1 pag 415

“Nor will any one of the rulers in the churches teach doctrines different from these” Ireneaus ( A.D. 120-202) Pg 331

“No other teaching will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation” Tertullian (A.D. 145-220) Vol 3 pg 349

“Let them [the heretics] produce the original records of their churches. Let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that the first bishop of theirs can show for his ordainer and predecessor one of the apostles” Tertullian (A.D. 145-220) Vol 3 pg 258

The thing about using these bits and peices from the Early Church Fathers, is not that they were making a strong case for any of the positions that these men held, but rather they were quoting them favorably so that they could use them to establish the one thing that they really hold dear, and that is unbroken lineage back to the apostles and Jesus. My question now is, if they have discarded these men, what happens to the lineage? The entire book, Keeping the Faith is written to promote the lineage, to draw a straight line back from the Holdeman church to Jesus. If these men go, then what? Is that why he tentatively held on to Polycarp? Because if they all go, there goes the lineage? Is that it? If the lineage goes, what about so many of their claims? Can there be a large gap so close to the time of the apostles and Jesus? Paul warned in the NT that "grievous wolves" (Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.) were destroying the flock. All but one of the churches that he himself started had fallen away. If there was such apostasy in Paul's own lifetime, how is it safe to EVER base doctrine, lineage, rightness, etc. on ANY man?

>>>My question now is, if they have discarded these men, what happens to the lineage?<<<

It goes bye bye! lol

>>>how is it safe to EVER base doctrine, lineage, rightness, etc. on ANY man?<<<

It's not safe to BASE any of those things on anything else besides Scripture. That would also exclude basing any of those things on any man's OPINION of Scripture also(commentaries, "pastors," and the millions of conflicting ideas about what this or that really means in Scripture).

Speaking for myself only, I don't believe that it was a coincidence that all of the apostolic churches in the days of Irenaeus universally taught the same basic truths regarding the faith. And it's those basic truths that I believe in. And it's all right there in Scripture too! My base is the Scripture, and the confirmation is the testimony of what all the apostolic churches then taught.

What the early Church believed and what the Holdeman believe is really a study that is beyond most of the Holdeman people in my opinion. My Father was the Book agent and in about 77 or 80 he was exed for about a year. Up until that time he was always very pro education. And the H school system to grade 9 I think was something that he was not entirely sold on. With his grade 6 and my Mother's Grade 11 I think they had more books and read more than many people with university. I well remember Dad Crying when I dropped out of school 3 days in Grade 12.

Now to get to the point, I do think 90% of the H people, At least until they got the intranet and computers went by what they hear from the pulpit, Not from what they read. Those who really search the scriptures will find the Truth and the Truth will set them Free.

God works in Mysterious ways his wonders to preform. I am not a prophet and I may be wrong. but I do think that with the invent of the intranet many of them will be saved. Many will find Freedom in Christ. I pray daily for them, Not only the masses who listen to the words from thier pulpits but also for those who speak and those who do the exing. Please also pray for me that I may be a witness to them, That I may show them the Love of Christ and when they set me at appart from them at a seperate table that I may be radiant and show them God's love. I know he has forgiven me for my Sins and for this I am very thankful.

Herman

I believe in an unbroken lineage of the church with or without Polycarp or any of the others. For me, it is a matter of faith, not of proving my point. That's not to say I have no interest in how such a lineage has existed throughout time, but how this lineage existed is not really the basis for my beliefs concerning the matter.

Hey TR that was slick. Now it isn't necessary to be able to trace the lineage, but only to say that you know it is there. Where on earth did people get the idea that an unbroken lineage is necessary or desirable? Where does the Bible teach this? In fact, it would appear to teach quite the opposite.

>>Now it isn't necessary to be able to trace the lineage, but only to say that you know it is there.<<

I can just see it now:

TR: There is a direct lineage between the New Testament Church and the COGICM.

Skeptical person (SP): What is this lineage and how do you trace it?

TR: Well, I can't trace it exactly, but it is there.

SP: So it's not a direct lineage, then?

TR: Well yes it is but we can't trace it.

SP: If you can't trace it, how could it be direct?

TR: Because the COGICM says it is.

In fact, it would appear to teach quite the opposite.

Really? Where?

Steve,

Just for my own info, from your last post, I would take from you that you believe it's quite possible that there were times in history where truth was lost to the pressures of worldly influence?

I borrowed a copy of KTF from my parents' bookshelf some time ago, and I am sure it's still here somewhere. I'll have to dig it out and take a look at it.

Give the recent revision of the Holdehistory by BG one wonders how long it will be until Gospel Publishers deletes it from its' catalogue or perhaps BG will issue a 'new, revised' version of KTF, one which conveniently leapfrogs the Apostolic and Patristic eras and the 1,200 or so years from then until Menno Simons shows up in the 16th century, and then skips another 300 years or so until Johnny Holdeman shows up to rescue the church Christ died for, from extinction.

>>There were in that early church period (before AD 300) other writers and teachers who are referred to as Early Church Fathers. They also left impressive and interesting writings referring to gospel matters. These writings might be read with profit.<<

Very interesting as well how the writings from the Apostolic and Patristic eras are now merely able to "be read with profit."

This one takes the cake, though.

>>It is significant that in our experience the church has not resorted to their teachings to establish doctrine. For that we rely on prayerful consideration of Scripture in harmony with men of God whom we recognize as true church fathers from Anabaptist times until now.<<

Apparently the Holdeman church, some 2,000 years later, is more authoritative than those fathers of the church who were mentored by the apostles and/or the proteges of the apostles. The arrogance of the Holdeman church is nothing short of audacious.

People of the Holdeman church: Wake up! Stop letting false prophets like Benny, Gladwin, etc. lull you to spiritual slumber with their smooth and soothing claims and frequently changing stories. See them for what they are: Wolves in sheep's clothing, perverting the Gospel of Christ, He who has redeemed the world.

>>Steve,

Just for my own info, from your last post, I would take from you that you believe it's quite possible that there were times in history where truth was lost to the pressures of worldly influence?<<

I don't know where you would pick that up from what I said. Are you saying that the church of Christ has failed to exist at some points between ca. 33 AD and 2008 AD? Or are you saying that individual churches have fallen away from truth? Or are you saying that individuals have fallen away from the truth? Please clarify what it is you are asking.

I certainly remember from the time of my indoctrination into all things Holdeman, that the "lineage" was taught as the unassailable proof regarding the existance of the One True Visible Church now abiding in the Church of God in Christ Mennonite, Inc. (A Kansas Corporation).

So now that the "lineage" statement can be easily disproven, the only response is; " I choose to believe it" and that makes it true regardless of evidence to the contrary. That is deception so convoluted, it makes ones head spin.

<<< I believe in an unbroken lineage of the church with or without Polycarp or any of the others. For me, it is a matter of faith, not of proving my point. That's not to say I have no interest in how such a lineage has existed throughout time, but how this lineage existed is not really the basis for my beliefs concerning the matter.>>>

Oh dear God have mercy!

>>My base is the Scripture<<

At least until psychosis sets in.

Are you saying that the church of Christ has failed to exist at some points between ca. 33 AD and 2008 AD?

I'm asking of you what your belief is concerning this question.

That is deception so convoluted, it makes ones head spin.

That was a political statement.

Try this: It is a simple belief in the power of God to keep His people.

TR am I one of Gods people?,,I don't have a clue who Irenious, Polycarp, or Justin are..but I do know who Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke John and numerous others who are in the Bible and whaty they taught. You don't really have to answer that,,but what I am saying is that we don't get saved by knowing all this stuff about the early church fathers and claiming lineage means nothing.


♪*•.¸¸¸♥¸¸¸.•*♪

Paris, I have no idea.

Paris, I have no idea.


I do,,I am one of God's people and like I said I know none of those people.


♪*•.¸¸¸♥¸¸¸.•*♪

TR Wrote,

>>>Try this: It is a simple belief in the power of God to keep His people.<<<


TR,
I wonder why He didn't keep His people better in old times, when the prophets were being persecuted and God could not find one to stand in the gap? Further I wonder how well the church was kept in the New Testament when the Bible speaks of all the virgins slumbering and sleeping (Matt 25), speaks of the witnesses of God laying dead on the streets (Rev 11), and in Daniel quite clearly speaking of the end times speaks of the power of the Holy people being scattered. But I am afraid the Holdemans will keep right on sleeping and telling themselves that God will keep His people and that means us the Holdemans and means we got to be right!

I don't agree with a lot of things that go on this forum but I neither agree with how the Holdemans deny Christ came in the flesh, deny proper baptism, make women's hair with Paul spoke of a glory to her a hidden nuisance, strain at gnats or colors of shoes and refuse to consider any of their obvious errors, but swallow those camels, while riding on their one true church horse saying we can't be wrong for God keeps his people! In reality many Holdemans believe in a Christ that took not on him the nature of Abraham but took on him the seed or character of angels, although the Bible teaches the very opposite. Christ so meaningfully was sinless because of overcoming your problem not because of not encountering it or having a solution for it. He was the first to resurrect from humanities situation and problem and intended to create in man a living hope of he same. But it appears when people are used to swallowing camels their throats are enlarged so it seems they are good at keeping on doing it. May God have mercy on us.

*Are you saying that the church of Christ has failed to exist at some points between ca. 33 AD and 2008 AD?*

>>I'm asking of you what your belief is concerning this question.<<

No, it has not failed to exist at any point. The gates of hell have not prevailed, nor will they prevail, against Christ's church.

This post and the next ones that are entirely devoted to Jerry are put n a new thread,

here Please Jerry and everyone that want to speak to his issues, lets do it over there instead of hijacking this one

In John 9; Jesus makes an important statement about acknowledgement of sin/error. After Jesus restored sight to a blind man, the Pharisees excommunicated this man from the Jewish Synagogue; and then some of the Pharisees asked Jesus; V 40, "Are we blind also ?"

Jesus responded, V 41; "Jesus said unto them, If you were blind, you would have no sin: but now you say, We see; therefore your sin remains."

All of us from time to time come to realization that some of what we stand for may not have been fully right and so our understanding changes and we acknowledge our error. That is normal in Christian growth; I certainly have had things pointed out to me that needed adjustment and I have tried to work through those issues. I believe it is becoming of a believer to recognize that we need each other, and that none is immune from error.

The principle Jesus brings forward in John 9, is that when one refuses to acknowledge error, but say "we see", then sin or error cannot be corrected among or in individuals. Forgiveness or reconciliation is not possible as long as one does not see and acknowledge one's mistakes, and consequently: "therefore sin remains."

Bro. BG, has previously written in "Keeping the Faith" about the early church fathers, and pointed out their importance to the church in keeping doctrine and faith intact. He writes page 52: "It was there at that time that Tertullian, one of the most highly regarded of the early church fathers lived and worked... presented a noble apology in defense of Christians..." Br. BG then goes on to name additional early church fathers; Clemens, Origen, and other individuals and groups with whom true Christianity was practiced.

It has been noted that recently Bro. BG has written in the MOT, and carefully scaled back his view of the "early church fathers"; and rather points to the Reformation and the Anabaptists where true church doctrine is modeled. It seems to me, had he acknowledged his change of view in his recent article, it would have gone further to demonstrate consistent theological and spiritual leadership.

Now though, if we look to what the early Mennonite Anabaptist leaders believed and taught, we would need to see that CGCM has actually left that fold (as written in Bible Doctrine & Practice" ) and taken on the views of J.R. Graves and the "Primitive/Landmark Baptists" in respect to baptism, the church and kingdom. I think a reasonable question then is; where will Bro. BG need to next turn to, to adjust his base to protect current H theology and practice.

My friends, we all make mistakes; but it does not work to cover mistakes or changes in understanding with other mistakes. We must truthfully and humbly acknowledge our errors, and our human condition; and look to the Bible alone for direction.