>Will it ever get easier to accept that even tho I am out of the H church, where I was raised that I can still be saved?
That is something that is so instilled in us that we find it hard to move on. I'm not sure anybody ever really does...< <br>

This was on a different thread.

In either another thread or somewhere in my research I found a statement that John Holdeman taught that Church membership was not a requirement for salvation. Is this correct? I understand that there are still "Old Mennonite" churches that teach this and one of the reasons for his break was this teaching. Can anyone help me out?

Hank would probably know.

Why I thought to bring this up is because if the writer of the post is worrying because she has been taught she cannot be saved outside the Holdeman church, she may find security knowing that this is not even a true teaching of that church.

I personaly believe that salvation comes first and then we find fellowship (Church). We dare not put anything else as more important then personal relationship with God. eg. fellowship, what the neighbor thinks, etc.
Get together with God and the rest will fall in place.

Having said that, we WILL find fellowship when we find God; unless we are the only one left of 6 billion or so souls on earth that God is seeking and has found.

where I got the thought that about John Holdeman's teaching was from Hanks thread. It refered to baptism not being a requirement of justification.

notg, notice that the holdies have not chimed in here to support your idea. Believe me, they would if they could get away with it. Spend five minutes, well, maybe three minutes reading on this link and you will have your answer. They are quotes from Holdeman's book.

http://www.theholdemans.com/teaches.htm

How cultish and clanish can one get and still be unaware ot it! Why must a clan or a cult think in terms of an inner circle? What exactly is the profile of all that.

What's so bad about simply being one of the boys so far as Faith and Grace is concerned? Why is mankind so prone to making such divisions and establishing such self-elevations and then claim it is not I, but it is God who has done it? We ought to leave God out of that type of thing!

What's the real reason for all this?

Holdeman wrote (paraphrased) " we do not teach that salvation is found only in the church (or in CGCM)..."

He was then challenged by a (Christian) attorney that Menno Simons and Dirk Phillips (those who JH revered as leaders of the true church of the Reformation) taught that there was no salvation outside of the church. It is then Holdeman responded and said : "Well, If one had knowledge of the church (CGCM) and did not avail himself of its safety, then one's salvation could be in jeopardy".

As far as I understand, CGCM is in error in the publication of "Bible Doctrine & Practice" on church and kingdom. It is just plain not (Dutch) Anabaptist teaching. Now, the positive about BD&B is that CGCM clearly says church membership does not guarantee salvation and that salvation IS FOUND OUTSIDE OF CGCM. They further say no baptisms are performed (or should be performed) unless such salvation has occurred outside of the church. This (from a CGCM laity standpoint) should comfort those believers outside of CGCM.

The crux of CGCM error is in how they define the church... although I do not think any here believe that this point puts their salvation in jeopardy. Salvation is by faith in Christ; and NOT by faith in the church or in being exactly correct in every point of NT teaching.

On another thread where Fred and Doug were discussing "idolatry" and how CGCM says they just don't see it (the issues) that way... my belief is that the best way to get them to understand their error (if they have desire for truth, and they do) is to look at their contradictions against Menno Simons and Dirk Phillips. CGCM has strayed from those teachings in church, baptism and by extension, the Lord's Supper. Anabaptist teaching is absolutely clear that (1) there is no salvation outside of the church, ( 2) that baptism belongs to the church outside of which there is no salvation, and (3) by extension that the Supper also belongs to the church outside of which there is no salvation. (CGCM will excommunicate one if they participate in the "Supper" outside of their church; they hold their communion (and baptism) in such a high exclusive regard that it could become idolatry. Although, I have heard personal opinions from H missionaries that they should not re-baptize or upset churches who are close to their beliefs and practice.)

The above Anabaptist leaders NEVER taught that they were the "true universal church". Of course, they discussed doctrine with their local opponents and how a church should look like, and in these discussions they said we teach (are) the truth and you (the Reformed, RC & Lutherans) teach (are) untruth. They did however, consider that those who "believe ( John 3:16) WERE IN THE church.

<< They further say no baptisms are performed (or should be performed) unless such salvation has occurred outside of the church. This (from a CGCM laity standpoint) should comfort those believers outside of CGCM.>>>>

LOL! Steve, I trust that the pain in your heart which Monteman inquired of yesterday will find comfort now.


<< On another thread where Fred and Doug were discussing "idolatry" and how CGCM says they just don't see it (the issues) that way... my belief is that the best way to get them to understand their error (if they have desire for truth, AND THEY DO)>>>


Hank, sometimes when you find yourself overwhelmed with an extra special touch of ass-kissing spirit towards the holdies and their detestable errors.....you open your mouth and the craziest things come out. The last little add-on, "AND THEY DO", now that takes the cake.

>>LOL! Steve, I trust that the pain in your heart which Monteman inquired of yesterday will find comfort now.< <br>

Yes, Scott, I am now going to 'lay it all down' and am in the 5th stage (Grade 5 to our young friend Doyle).


>>Hank, sometimes when you find yourself overwhelmed with an extra special touch of ass-kissing spirit towards the holdies and their detestable errors.....you open your mouth and the craziest things come out. The last little add-on, "AND THEY DO", now that takes the cake.< <br>

Scott: If I ever have any construction project, can I hire you? You have a really effective way of 'hitting the nail on the head' and 'calling a spade a spade' - you'd make a good contractor. I've heard of lots of 'spurits' in my time, but never the 'ass-kissing spurit'.

>> Anabaptist teaching is absolutely clear that (1) there is no salvation outside of the church, ( 2) that baptism belongs to the church outside of which there is no salvation, and (3) by extension that the Supper also belongs to the church outside of which there is no salvation. < <br>

Hank,
Do you have references for where this teaching is found?

>>The above Anabaptist leaders NEVER taught that they were the "true universal church". < <br>

This is quite a stretch from the original church that most of them came from. It seems to me that there must have been a considerable tendancy to return to this kind of thinking when for generations preceding "true church" was all there was.

Consider the Jews/Gentiles mix of the early church as well. The individual's anchor as well as the Church's anchor needed to be something entirely different then doctrine handed down from the prceding generation to make fellowship.

NOTG; If I had time I would pull them up for you... you need only go to the Stoppel site. I think they list most of them.

Scott & Steve; I believe H folks are sincere and so they desire truth. I suppose there could be some hypocrites among them who are just putting on a front. Such of course, would not really desire or look for truth.

Fellows; this is the way my thought pattern works.

NOTG; I should have added "church at the exclusion of all others".

Our Anabaptist ancestors believed they were a true church but never exclusively "the true universal church".

They said the true church was seen with eyes of faith, and one day it would become reality in the after life. The true church are those who with Peter confess "Thou art the Christ". Jesus said upon this Rock (confession) I will build My church". Are the H folks the only one's that confess "Thou art the Christ" ? No; they themselves say there are others beside them who confess Christ, and so these others are part of the real true church.

The Bible refutes H error on church on more then one front!

>>they themselves say there are others beside them who confess Christ, and so these others are part of the real true church.< <br>

Hank, while in theory they will admit the first part of that statement, as has been previously observed here, it's always 'somewhere else'. It's never the folks down the road who go to the Baptist, (non-H) Mennonite, Methodist, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Pentecostal, or non-denominational church - or those who don't go to any church. It's always a nebulous, hypothetical, sort of thing that exists somewhere, but not in rural, midwestern North America.

Any Christians apart from their co-religionists in the Holdeman church, I mean cult, are condescendingly called 'professing' or 'so-called' Christians and are never actually accepted as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. Even you, Hank, for all your 'ass-kissing' of the Holdeman church (as Scott so succinctly described it) is not accepted as a fellow brother in Christ - no matter how longingly you might stand at the window peering in.

As far as being part of the 'real true church' (as opposed to the unreal true church, the real false church, or what?), I think you might have reached over and grabbed your rose-coloured glasses (again). They might grant these 'other' Christians, 'kingdom' status at best.

Steven; either I was not clear or you miss-read me... I did not say that H called others "church". I did say that our Anabaptist ancestors considered those who trusted in Christ to be in the church.

I sense that I do not write clearly or that others read more into what I say.

>>Our Anabaptist ancestors believed they were a true church but never exclusively "the true universal church".

They said the true church was seen with eyes of faith, and one day it would become reality in the after life. The true church are those who with Peter confess "Thou art the Christ". Jesus said upon this Rock (confession) I will build My church". < <br>

I may have misread this part of your post, but at the end of the day, I think my point still stands: In actual practise, the Holdemans do not accept anyone outside of their church (unless it is a 'convert' who has imminent plans and intentions to join the cult). They may give lip service to the invisible 'true church' but in actual practise, it's still only members of Johnny's club that are accepted by them.


>>Are the H folks the only one's that confess "Thou art the Christ" ? No; they themselves say there are others beside them who confess Christ, and so these others are part of the real true church.< <br>

Again, this is what they say with their mouths, but they don't really believe it in their hearts - any Christian who does not join their cult is only a 'professing', 'nominal', or 'so-called' Christian - in other words, not really a Christian at all. The last phrase "and so these others are part of the real true church", is your attempt to show that logically it must follow that the Holdemans believe that "these others are part of the real true church".

Am I still misunderstanding something from your post?