Settling the accounts of the Expelled

Or

Your restitution to the Church

Now if one is of the persuasion that the Holdeman church is indeed the OTVC, then would its members also support the idea that to remain “true” it has to and will need to continue to line up and be supported with the Word? Including the doctrine of excommunication? And that those that vowed to be true to the church did so understanding or at least acknowledging the practice of “the avoidance”, were aware that if they found themselves at odds with the “church” in any way that this would be the likely consequences. Now the burden of keeping itself pure would rest with the church, therefore the “doctrine” and any scriptural “proof” for such a practice rests upon the “church”. Now the same “practice” of this form of “doctrine” as an “unending” or “open-ended” would need to therefore line up with the Word to continue to be biblical and for the church to remain “true”. And the cause of God and the “church” would demand a changed or discontinued “doctrine” if found to be in error. Would that be found true amongst the members?

Would the “church” and it’s members agree that ones vow to the “church” would make ones “membership” “binding” to serve the Church? So what does justice demand of the church when it comes to “Indentured Servitude”? This is the proper term for biblically sanctioned servitude. Leviticus 25:39-41. There verses specify that if an Israelite (or in this case a church member) became indebted to a fellow Israelite, (this here being the “church” or its other members or at least the staff) the debtor could sell (surrender to expulsion) or indenture (repent, and submit to correction) himself to his creditor (being the “church”) to pay back the legitimate debt. But verse 40 provided that this condition would only last until the year of Jubilee, which we know as the year all debts were forgiven. And even while the debtor Israelite was in the creditor Israelite’s service, the latter was not to “rule over him with severity” (Lev. 25:43). So the idea that a master could mistreat of kill a slave at whim was strictly prohibited. The Israelite (member) that sold himself into “servitude” to another (here being the “church” or staff) Would not be in an never ending state, but could always work his way to “freedom”. In the bible, slavery included the “possibility” of freedom. This was “guaranteed” during the year of Jubilee. And this servant (member, in this case ex-member) was not to be sent out empty-handed. “If your kinsmen, a Hebrew man or woman, is sold to you, then he shall serve you six years, but in the seventh year you shall set him free. And when you set him free, you shall not send him away empty-handed. You shall furnish him liberally from your flock and from your threshing floor and from your wine vat; you shall give to him as the Lord your God has blessed you. And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this today.” (Deut. 15:12-15). This “guarantee” provides freedom without a life in perpetual need. Now, in light of this, it falls back upon the “church” to remain “true” both biblically and “doctrinally”. Will the “church” settle the accounts?

Sounds very good to me. In another 10 or 11 years I should have gone through 7 jubiliee`s