It is this simple. Either the holdies ARE the OTVC and we all need to join, or they are frauds and nobody should join. How does one find a third position?

I don't know, but I'm sure Hank will tell us.

I suggest that those who need to make a descision on this find out first if they have a relationship with God that satisfies them. When that is in place, they will know. RM states that he found the relationship and it appears that he has made a move. Others on this forum state being satisfied as well, and have not made this move. Each man will have to live with his own choice.

notg, your way of thinking is incredible. CS Lewis argued vehemently this same point about Jesus. He said, that when Jesus claimed to be the son of God, the middle ground was removed. At this juncture, He either was exactly who He claimed to be, or He was a total frigging fraud.

Now your comments would apply if their was no claim of OTVC. Do you actually not get this?

What constitutes the belief of a particular denomination? Is it the belief of the loudest talker, an avg. of the group of members, a dictated form from head office, or?

There is no way of forcing a belief on an individual. You can force outward compliance but I cannot perceive a way to add belief to that. We choose our beliefs. Knowledge can be offered and absorbed and is definately a major influence in making up what we believe.

now my point is that a belief is the property of an individual and we are not in a position to dictate that belief. We can offer knowledge that is used in the makeup of our beliefs, but that is as far as we can go. The link at the bottom of this page points to a website that offers knowledge that the auther of the site feels should influence beliefs. Is it truly what the H church believes?

Your statement on no middle ground is ok by me. I am not convinced that the analogy applies.

As I believe that church and fellowship are gifts given by God for the wellbeing of His children, and as I do not comprehend all of God, I am willing to give everyone the choice for themselves. I hold to my post as the way to make that decision.

<<< Your statement on no middle ground is ok by me. I am not convinced that the analogy applies.>>

Well perhaps that explains that, i.e., notg denotes notg(etting) it.

notg,

"The link at the bottom of this page points to a website that offers knowledge that the auther of the site feels should influence beliefs. Is it truly what the H church believes?"




Well, if the H put it in writing, and signed it, then that's what they believe.

The last time I looked at the site you mentioned, the author of it simply quoted the H's own writings to say what they believed.

With your perspective we can say that this site advocates "exterminating gays". It was written by a leader of this forum.

Does this make it the belief of the forum members? With your conclusions we can also call all Germans of the WW2 era "bad". All Russians became comunists on a certain day, all the Swiss in some countiess were Catholic one day and Protestant the next, only to return to Catholic.

When we want something to be true bad enough, we can almost believe it.

The site link below points to proof of what all H believe or even most of them, or even one of them? Not sure. Add brackets and select specific quotes from anyone and you can build a case on about anything. The media does it everyday to credit or discredit people. It is amazing that people fall for it.

>>With your perspective we can say that this site advocates "exterminating gays". It was written by a leader of this forum.< <br>

Notg(etting it):

You know, you've got to be the most (intentionally or unintentionally, I am not sure which) obtuse person I've encountered in some time.

For the eight millionth time, this forum is not a group, with a creed or statement of beliefs. It is a location in cyberspace where people who have been affected in some way, shape or form, by the the organization incorporated as the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite (a corporation resident in the state of Kansas), can discuss issues related to their experiences. There are no requirements for belief to contribute to this forum, nor is there a membership list, membership fee, or any other requirements or benefits associated with this forum.


>>The site link below points to proof of what all H believe or even most of them, or even one of them? Not sure. Add brackets and select specific quotes from anyone and you can build a case on about anything.< <br>

The quotes attributed as Holdeman beliefs according to the writers of the site below, are drawn from official publications and periodicals of the abovementioned incorporated organization. Any quotes from decisions made by its 'General Conference' have been declared to be binding and are mandatory beliefs or practises for members of said organization. While there are no doubt individuals who privately may not accept these beliefs and practises, to public deny or renounce them is grounds for excommunication.

Try again.

While there are no doubt individuals who privately may not accept these beliefs and practices, to public deny or renounce them is grounds for excommunication.

Actually even if you use them you an get the boot, because they are actually pointing to the authority to the grand ordained pobahs in there, and they require full submission or you are out regardless of what you "believe".

Well maybe we need to test it out. Quite simply done. Send the page form the link at the bottom of the page to 5000 Holdemans. The questionnaire is this simple. Is this what you believe. Yes/No. I venture it will be a resounding no.

Steve, you nailed this person with your "obtuse" comment. I still have no idea what notg(etting it) does, or does not believe.

Peter gave me the opportunity to respond... here are some brief thoughts.

Our parents and grandparents knew what they believed and the subject of this question was not part of what their belief system was. While the "movement" of the 1970's brought out the "worst" of John Holdeman's bent; the church (CGCM, as I historically view it) was not where it went in the 70's. One need only look at what Fricke wrote in 1925 and CGCM published as late as 1951. That is that when one was born again one enters, quote: "the invisible church, Christ". No one, not even JH, ever suggested that there is no salvation outside of CGCM, and so it is very clear that they viewed the "church" differently then how it is presented in BD&B or as many here have come to know it.

So, it is clear that earlier CGCM had a base of belief that was not a "do or die, black or white" issue as presented in the opening post of this thread. But how did our grandparents view the church? I will say up front that this is "my view" of historical understanding based on my up-bringing, my early church life, writings of FC Fricke, specific quote of my Grandfather (a bishop & colleague of Fricke), the writings of our early Mennonite ancestors and the corporate understanding of the Mennonite churches at large... who by the way, in the past CGCM did not condemn, and even cooperated with them on certain issues.

Simply put, they really did not believe in "top down" controlled exclusivity (to the point promoted and explained by BD&B) but rather understood more individual freedom of belief and practice (within a reasonable range). It is my impression that CGCM is realizing the errors leading to the purge of the 70's and what it breed, and that changes are taking place. 50 years is a short time in the progression of society and so no one should look for drastic, lightening strike changes, but rather a continual gradual change back to a more reasonable biblical church society. Even Steven T. elsewhere spoke highly of changes he saw with respect to his family.

So Peter, the third position is that many of you view CGCM differently then I do, and this likely because of local extremes, cultural differences of states and countries, differences in backgrounds, etc. If we could only look at the bigger picture, then we need not divert to a "do or die, black or white" mindset, but rather see diversity with its regress and progress in society. We all know that "Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever" and He with mercy, love and longsuffering nurtures all those who place their trust in Him. And, if we understand the teachings of the Epistles, we too will honor faith, even in those of a different cut of clothing or identity.

now that makes sense, Hank

Well, there you have it Scott. The third position is frauds don't exist (in the big picture). There are no sheep and no wolves in sheep's clothing, just different cuts of cloth and identity. I need to be sedated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMD7Ezp3gWc&feature=related

Times are changing. More people are seeing the light. God does not see as man sees.
We must follow the Holy Spirit, Not argue how wrong they are. I read John M. Penner's "History of the Church of God" the Day before yesterday while the the Man at my wedding was being cared for by my Wife and his Wife. He left with a smile. I cannot say he died singing like some of the martyrs However he smiled at us many times the last days. I think we are wasting our breath if we look at the Holdeman's as sinners and ourselves as rightous or vice versa.
I must study God's word.
Share it when possible when the Holy Spirit Promps.
Leave the rest to God - especially the judging.
Herman