I will be up front with you and admit that I have some scars, and I sometimes question what my motives are to contribute here; are my motives pure or are they self serving ? I do not always clearly know my inner self, but I can only conclude that if I can motivate anyone to search and check what biblical eternal life is and how one comes to it... this must be acceptable.

If you feel up to this, answer this questions for me, taking at face value the following quotes explaining how scripture is to be understood.

This question; what do these quotes tell you about who are "the church, the body of Christ" that Jesus the Christ is building (Matt. 16); and do these quotes support what is taught about church, kingdom & baptism in CGCM publication "Bible Doctrine & Practice" ?

Menno Simons, page 692-93: "... Eph 1:3-6. My faithful reader, understand well what these words of Paul imply. This paternal adoption into Sonship; this great favor, love and grace through Jesus Christ; this holy unblameable life in love of which Paul speaks here... All who rightly believe it and are through faith truly converted...who partake of the Holy Spirit, these are children of the covenant, graciously accepted of God, and blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ; even before they have come to the sign of baptism.

Behold, thus we are incorporated by God's election, through faith in Jesus Christ, and by the impulsion and renewal of the Holy Spirit, incorporated into the body of Christ., which is the true church, and we become flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone; and this not through any external sign."

Dirk Philips; page 53-54: "... 1 Cor. 12:13... Because the apostle here writes expressly of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and of the incorporation into the church of Christ, which takes place through the Spirit of faith, for these are the words 'BY one Spirit are we all baptized into one body and have been all made to drink...' Faith therefore is the gift of the Holy Spirit by which all believers are gathered into one body, and are THEN baptized as a testimony and proof of the true real inner life and spiritual fellowship with Christ and all the saints."

MS page 705; "... if he can at any time prove to us by the unadulterated , divine scriptures and truth... that baptism anywhere in the scriptures is called a sign of the covenant of grace, and an incorporation into the church ( more issues)... then we will put our pen into the ink well, repent and confess before the whole world... "

MS page 706; "Abraham and all his seed, I mean both men and woman, young and old, were the Lord's people and church... Similar in the New Testament. The gospel is preached and all who believe and are baptized shall be saved; be they men or women. They are members of the church of Christ, in God's covenant and grace... So also the children, although they are not baptized."

OOPS...wrong link!

Menno Simons on ... the church

Those who are one with Christ in Spirit, love and life; who teach that which was commanded by Christ, such as repentance and the peaceable gospel of grace, which he himself received of God, and taught to the world, all those who hear, believe, keep and fulfill the same in true fear, are the church of Christ, the truly believing, christian church, the body and bride of Christ, the ark of the Lord, the mount and paradise, the house, people, city and temple of God, the spiritual Eve, flesh of Christ's flesh and bone of his bone, children of God, the chosen generation, the spiritual seed of Abraham, children of the promise, branches and trees of righteousness, sheep of the heavenly pasture, kings and priests, a holy begotten people which is God's own. Besides, they are chosen to proclaim the power of him who has called them from darkness into his marvelous light, Col. 1:14; 1 Cor. 12:27; Heb. 12:22; Matt. 5:14; 2 Cor. 6:16; 11:5; Eph. 5:30; 1 Pet. 2:9; Rom. 9:8; Isa. 61:3; Ps. 95:7; 79:13; Rev. 1:6; 1 Pet. 2:9. [p. 345]



The CGCM teaches that other Christians are only part of the kingdom, not the church.

All who are saved are in the kingdom, but not everyone in the kingdom is in the church. Bible Doctrines and Practices, page169.

Picture the kingdom as a large circle, with the church as a smaller circle in the center of the kingdom. One enters the kingdom by inheritance upon becoming a child of God through spiritual birth (John 3:3-5).Only those already in the kingdom may enter the church. The entrance into the church is by baptism. Bible Doctrines and Practices, page169

If 10,000 persons should receive remission of sin and join in fellowship with each other by organizing themselves into a body without baptism, we could not acknowledge them as the church of God. .. before we could acknowledge them, they must be willing to unite with the truly organized Church of God [The Church of God in Christ, Mennonite] baptism. John Holdeman, A History of the Church of God, page 183.

So, it looks to me like JH himself did not see non-Holdemans as part of the church, meaning that perhaps Hank is incorrect about the 'pre-1950 CGCM'. I mean, if their founding father held views like that, I don't think it's particularly likely that his followers only began to believe that 50 years after his death. I think it was embedded in Holdemanism from the get-go. Individual ministers, members, and even congregations might have been 'soft' on this, but it was there in the founder's writings.

Hi Hank, I have been studying, on what the anabaptist&reformers,wrote and disagree on .I have a question
what are your leanings to the anabaptist or the reformist?When I read Meno or Dirks and other anabaptist, they have weird concept, on the Incarnation,of Jesus birth. J.Calvin I feel is closer to my leanings.I will not go deeper into this due to it can become another Incarnation duel.

>>This question; what do these quotes tell you about who are "the church, the body of Christ" that Jesus the Christ is building (Matt. 16); and do these quotes support what is taught about church, kingdom & baptism in CGCM publication "Bible Doctrine & Practice" ? < <br>

Hank, to me it comes down to "what do I believe personaly." It is interesting to explore what others believe and have believed in times passed as it opens our minds.

I am interested to compare what BD&P presents with your quotes.

Do you believe the same as the COGM and there book onDoctrines?

Menno Simon quote above,

1.Those who are one with Christ in Spirit, love and life; who teach that which was commanded by Christ, such as repentance and the peaceable gospel of grace, which he himself received of God, and taught to the world, all those who hear, believe, keep and fulfill the same in true fear, are the church of Christ, the truly believing, christian church, the body and bride of Christ,



Menno Simon quote on Hank's thread.
2.But this emphasis on true Christian living does not take. place in a vacuum or as a matter merely between the individual and his God, but rather within the congregation, the church of Christ. Menno's faith is therefore not only Christ-centered but also church-centered: But this emphasis on true Christian living does not take. place in a vacuum or as a matter merely between the individual and his God, but rather within the congregation, the church of Christ. Menno's faith is therefore not only Christ-centered but also church-centered: his chief concern was the achievement of the true church of Jesus Christ or the body of Christ.


Looking closely at these two statements by Menno, the first one gives to understand that all those that are one with Christ in Spirit, comprise the church of Christ.


The second statement shifts the emphasis more to the church - his church, especially the last part, his chief concern was the [achievement] of the true church of Jesus Christ or the body of Christ. I still believe their is a somewhat hidden agenda in both Menno S. and John H. to establish themselves as a leader and reformer and to have their own following.

Thanks GM & Atrisk. My question was twofold; (a) what do these quotes tell you about who are "the church, the body of Christ" that Jesus the Christ is building (Matt. 16); and (b) do these quotes support what is taught about church, kingdom & baptism in CGCM publication "Bible Doctrine & Practice" ?

I understand that different people understand MS & DP differently, but we can only analyze what they wrote and come to our own conclusions.

Here is my answer to the question assuming the quotes of MS & DP can be taken at face value and are not taken out of context.

Part (a) As taught by MS & DP.

1. The church of Christ, the body of Christ is made up of ALL who rightly believe Eph 1:3-6 and are converted...

2. This takes place through faith, and a believer is incorporated into the church, the body of Christ by God's election through the power of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) , fully made one with Christ... "flesh of His flesh, bone of His bone."

3. Faith is the gift of the Holy Spirit by which ALL believers are gathered and incorporated into ONE body which is the church.

4. This incorporation into the church, the body of Christ does NOT take place by water baptism, but by faith in Jesus Christ. Baptism is a testimony of something that has already happened.

5. Unbaptized children ARE members of this same church together with all the saints,

6. To teach that water baptism is incorporation into the church is NOT biblical.

Part (b) as I understand the teaching of BD&P.

1. The church of Christ, the body of Christ are ALL those who have and been water baptized (by CGCM). All who are saved are in the kingdom but not everyone in the kingdom is in the church... The entrance into the church is by (water) baptism." BD&P page 169. "Being a member of the church of itself does not save anyone. (page 184)

2. The church of God is united and undivided... "she recognizes only her baptism as incorporating believers into the true church of God. (page 182). "... Succession of true teachers... Consequently, it will never be needful for a new, or parallel line of baptism to be initiated." (page 182)

3. BD&P, page 155; "Who is in the kingdom of God?... the new birth and obedience to Christ's words are the defining elements which determine who is on the kingdom."

4. This incorporation ("made members of") into the church, the body of Christ takes place through "water baptism", BD&P page 197... also page 199 quotes Smith's Bible dictionary; "Baptism... is the rite or ordinance by which persons are admitted into the Church of Christ."

5. Of children, though not specifically said in BD&P, it is well understood that ONLY those who receive water baptism are members of the church. Children are saved, but NOT IN the church.

6. CGCM teaches repeatedly as biblical, that water baptism is entry and incorporation into the church.

The five quotes in the original post are a few of dozens of similar statements in the writings of Menno Simons and DIrk Philips. CGCM teaches that they are of the same church, doctrine and teaching of these Anabaptist reformers and in succession of their line of baptism back to the early church. My friends, judge for yourself.

Further, CGCM teaches of an impure church. They say all of their members may not be saved. In fact, the editors of BD&P advised me in writing that the inner (church) circle should really intersect over the outside circle, into the world of the unsaved. My H friends, believe what you want about the church... but do not lose sight of what Christ does for all who trust in Him for eternal life. Organized church structures cannot be trusted to be safe.

Hank,

Sorry I don't have more time to post, not trying to ignore, just got too much going on. Some quick points are all I can do for now.


#1 I believe that Menno definitely taught a visible and invisible church, and am suggesting that the main difference between MS & BD&P is terminology, where-in MS calls it the invisible church (although maybe not in so many words), and BD&P, in an effort to clarify, calls it "kingdom" and "church". There may be slight discrepancies, but I have not found reason to believe the fundamental practice would vary so much.


#2 You well know that Menno Simons taught excommunication from the visible church as being a Biblically established responsibility of believers who are members thereof. What do you believe would have been Menno Simon's view of those who have been excommunicated from that visible church? (For the sake of this discussion, I'd like to leave reasons to the side for now, we can get in to that later).

#3 Noting that in order for the excommunication that he so ardently taught to be functional, one must first be a part of an organized body for it to work. Given that, do you believe Menno ever advocated in any way that one should not become a member of the visible church so as to avoid whatever issues may arise when such a one might later be come excommunicated?


Once again, my apologies, that's about all I have time for now. I'll be quite busy the next week or two, but will read, consider, and respond as time permits.

>>Do you believe the same as the COGM and there book onDoctrines?< <br>
Howie,

I bought that book a few years ago but have only read a bit of it. I have read part of Hank's suggested reading now. I agree with some of what I read, but some was new to me. As to whether I believe the same as the COGM, that is impossible to answer. There is diverse beliefs on diverse subjects. Your's would fit in quite well as far as what I have read from your posts.

"#3 Noting that in order for the excommunication that he so ardently taught to be functional, one must first be a part of an organized body for it to work."

TR, I would be interested to know exactly what you mean by "functional" and "work" in this sentence. It would also be helpful if you could use Scripture to back up your thoughts.

Hank,

One thing I have wondered about in regards to MS writings is what he would have written if he was addressing the different views of the churches that claim to have originated from his era. Particularly, he wrote to Catholic priests defending his view verses theirs. The Catholic view included everything from civic government and national policys, to capital punishment as a form of church discipline. No matter which way you look at it you have to conclude that excommunication is less severe then beheading.

It is interesting to note that even protestant reformers such as Luther eventually resorted to severe forms of church discipline.

My point:
If you remove the influence of the era, what would reflect the kind of teaching these men represented.


BTW, you can apply this kind of thinking to Jewish influence as well.

Thanks TR; take your time. I appreciate your (and all H members) interest in this subject because it is a divisive one... but, in my opinion of great importance. You are to be commended for seeing that there is a "holy catholic (universal) church".

I note that you avoided any comments about water baptism...

Here is copy of my online response to you of October/07, on excommunication.


"TR, I do not claim to have everything right; and I also admit that to a certain extent we are products of our experiences in life. What impresses us or just how we often believe debatable issues, may be shaped by how we have had to cope with those issues. What we may consider to be lax, we likely will tighten up on, and what we consider to be too tight, we will loosen up on. I have said in the past that I see a different biblical excommunication then what came on in the 1970's.

Firstly, excommunication is for unrepentant stubborn sinners who turn their back on God. It NEVER should be used on any sin, regardless what the sin may be... if the person acknowledges, repents and seeks reconciliation. If you want to base your understanding on excommunication on what Menno Simons writes, then you would run as fast as you can from CGCM practice (at least as of mid 1970s practice).

Secondly, it was only the Dutch arm of the early Anabaptists churches that taught "tough" excommunication, and the practice caused constant friction between the churches; not a good witness to the community. My view is that excommunication and avoidance should be a "non-formal issue", practiced personally where blatant deceit is in evidence. Where one does not try to hypocritically hide his sin, another approach may be in order.

If we are to follow the example of Christ then we would freely and deliberately mix and minister to the sinners and outcasts of this world. Paul taught and debated in the Synagogues and streets whenever he had a chance. The church of today (not only H) in my opinion, have isolated themselves far to much from their "neighbors" including such who have left off of faith. The best evangelism is to create relationships with people ( 1 Cor. 9:19-23; ...to the Jew I became as a Jew...). Paul certainly did not mean with this to partake of another's sin, but to identify with the inner need of others. It is when we acknowledge our own errors and the temptations that we deal with ourselves, that we can effectively minister to those who struggle or are out of fellowship. Our constant need of Christ is no different then the needs of open sinners. For dealing with sinners, I read Gal 6 to say that we are to gently help others bear their load, being careful to lay aside our (potential) conceit which breeds an attitude of intolerance of error in others, and causes one to think he is above failure. This is not the way to deal with discouraged sinners.

Having said this, we must understand that the scriptures teach admonition, correction and restoration of sinners. For me this is a hard area to comprehend and practice. (End of part of Oct/07 post)

*************

Atrisk; all writings usually address the issues of the day, and so did the early Dutch Anabaptists. BTW. I concur that excommunication is not as severe as beheading... else I could well be horizontal now.

I read MS and DP, PARTLY in this way. They were denied being a legitimate assembly of believers; and were forced to receive baptism of the state approved churches... or death. They argued that they were the correct representation of the "true church" and they should be allowed to function. They said, "wherever true doctrine was taught and practiced", THERE IS the true church. One comment of DP, chiding the exclusive claim of the RC is, page 389-90;

"...for the honor that comes from God, and which is obtained by genuine faith and a holy life they do not aspire to, yet they want to be the church of Church and be known, yea, held exclusively as such."

Another quote that gives indication of their view of the sinless, perfection of the true church is same chapter, page 401. Describing "the great mystery of Christ and the church" as a place of a perfect bride adorned for her husband Christ; no night here, the gates ALWAYS open (no waiting for a panel or convenient time to baptize), all glory and honor are to be brought here... DP prefaces this with; "This is a description or lifelike portrait of the Christian church, as she exists here in Spirit, and hereafter in the perfection of heavenly existence."

No one can be blocked from the blessings of this place of grace, peace and rest, wherever a believer may be.

(I do not like long posts; sorry.)

TR; forgot to mention; I disagree with you that the change is basically one of terminology. It was a concerted effort to remove the word "church" from your vocabulary, to be used in no other context then to describe CGCM.

And here is one reason that looks so oddly obvious. Look at BD&P page 154, it states that the "kingdom" began with Adam and Eve on earth. Now look at article 18 of the 33; it says the "church" commenced with Adam and Eve on earth and includes all who believe.

I can see no other explanation then the editors of BD&B were well aware of what the 33 Articles of faith said, and had to weave that into their exposition of the kingdom/church. I do not think they realized their error... nor thought clearly of what they were doing. But they changed the way they wanted H believers to look at non-h believers. Their intent (while not realizing the gravity) was to claim Matt. 16 as their own demesne.

It was a concerted effort to remove the word "church" from your vocabulary, to be used in no other context then to describe CGCM.

I agree Hank, there is no way that was an innocent mistake. Someone back there spearheaded that doctrine of devils, and the reason was to pull the wool over the eyes of the sheep and remove a (the) stumbling block and rock of offense that has burdened the liars by exposing their treachery in historical writings.


Here is a reworded paragraph for those people who think I am "offended"


I agree Hank, Perhaps the was less than an innocent mistake. Someone back there may have spearheaded that doctrine that appears to be as a doctrine of devils, and maybe the reason had the motive and effect as to pull the wool over the eyes of the sheep. Since Christ is stumbling block and rock of offense to those that are less that virtuous of motive, his way burdens those less than honest and less than noble souls by exposing those "new doctrines" which would appear to be condemned in historical writings.

Good questions Hank:

Straight from the hip, Fred.

Whether we shoot from the shoulder with recoil-pad or we shoot from the hip, we do well to shoot straight. Fred; you do shoot straight. I commend you. A spade is a spade.

Personal ambition is such a large a part of every historical and Spiritual movement of God that the only reliable template is the Word and Spirit of God! Even the utilization of the Word can become quite tainted by personal ambition. Oh for the day when ambition i.e. (the beast) dies and is cast into the pit along with the [evil one]! Even what many degradingly call [religion] is not nearly so troublesome as is [personal ambition] in my opinion.

GM you said it proper; you suspect ambition was in the equation to create a following in men like Menno S. and John H. Indeed! Many other as well, we might add. In so doing one validates his own ambition to be a better form than the other fellow's ambition on down the street. Hence comes the phony argument about the issue of church and kingdom. [Called out of darkness into the light of Christ is what the word church means]. In concise Bible terms the word church has no other meaning. We ought not vary from this by way of our ambitions. As to the Kingdom: the Kingdom is within the born-again believer and this Kingdom is Love, Joy, and Peace in the Holy Ghost!

All other speech concerning what the church is or what the kingdom is, smacks of ambition at it's root. If we're the church and they're the kingdom, this yields to those of the kingdom just a bit of charity, I suppose.

We see this type ambition in reverse action, with the J.Ws and the Mormans.

When ambitious men run out of things to talk about, it's amazing what cranks up next.

I am not in any way addressing this post!

To back up personal ambition one [must] resort to an emphasis upon extra-biblical things and hope against hope that no one will call it. The pure Word of God does not allow for personal ambition to get off and running! It's by the extra-biblical things that personal ambition anchors itself.

Most of the issues debated on this post evaporate and go away when we get past the the extra-biblical issues such as legal memberships and legal type expulsions. This error is birthed in personal ambition. Think about it my friends. There is a root to every religious problem. Discard the root of it and the problem goes away.

Expulsion is indeed lighter than the death sentence but that's a mute point. This type idea occurs when the debate did not begin at the root of the issue.

Personal ambition on the religious front is an unruly evil! It violates men and women, it abuses men and women. The Gospel of Jesus is freeing and it's Good news! This Gospel edifies men and women bringing Life and that more abundantly to them! This Gospel violates no one! This Gospel abuses no one! It's of Faith. "For we [await] the Righteousness that comes to us by Faith". To self-apply any form of righteousness by way of a doctrine or an ordinance is not of Faith, it is of self. If of self then it is self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is performance based while His Righteousness is Faith wrought! There is a premise from which we can fall and it's from the premise of Grace and Faith!

Ro. 10:3-4. Being [ignorant] of God's Righteousness (men) go about establishing their own Righteousness for they have not submitted themselves to the Righteousness of God! next verse; For Christ Jesus (in us) is the end of the law/letter for Righteousness to everyone who believes (from the heart). Parenthesis mine. If we have an ambition to be righteous rather than to simply to [know] Him, we still have the root problem of the traditional christian religion.

There's a New Covenant established with greater promises! One can only live out this New Covenant with Christ in any full way as we allow our ambitions to be righteous to die. We do this by simply determining to live from His well-spring within us! It is now that the Righteousness of God manifests through us and we can say that we are no longer ignorant of His righteousness! The New Covenant is glorious!

"It was a concerted effort to remove the word "church" from your vocabulary, to be used in no other context then to describe CGCM".


You are so right. The above statement caused me to become aware that I was still writing-the church-and putting it in paranthesis!

It will take a concerted effort to change to CGMC...albiet a more user friendly description!


Fred

Thank you for your considerate 2nd paragraph! What I got from it was that your using the words "perhaps", "maybe", "appear" and "they may" causes you to sound like you are open to learning...



Oxy

Bee Kind

Doug,

I believe in ambition, I believe in performance, I believe in work, for the simple reason they bring a world of experience that can't be attains any other way but by immersion in some big things. Granted, all the finer or smaller details can't be experienced in a life time, but so much crosses over from hard long experience that gradually one understands a lot of what they haven't directly experienced.

Ambition and these things in and of themselves are pure. Unto the pure, all things are pure.

I sat around for years waiting for things to happen in the realm of religion, and the most that ever happened was NOTHING! They implied you're not doing it our way, what do you expect. Ah what? groan.

If you don't know anything but farming, go do it with all your gusto that perchance God will sit you on more experience. If more experience don't come, there will still be profit and reward in all your labor, to say nothing of tranquility and peace. God will see to that. How do you think a farming empire rises? We are clay in the Potters hands.

Doug, does doing something with all your heart, soul, mind and strength resinate with you?

Brent

Brent;

Oh yes sir I believe in being energetic in whatever our hands find to do and that we ought to do it with all of our might.

I was not referring to that by saying [personal ambition] and I am glad you brought what you did into the equation.

I was speaking of competition and ambition at a level that competes with God! Our Love can be without competition. All righteousness is fulfilled in Love!

Our love can be free from the hindrances of being competitive. Even between brethren competitiveness is not productive on the Spiritual front. Unconditional Love carries us past all this!

Churches compete for God's good-pleasure in the ambition to behave better than other believers in other churches. Churches at the local level compete for members. It's not productive in real terms.

We compete with God when we self-apply ordinances and precepts of righteousness to our lives for the sake of being accepted by God or for the approval of God. This in particular is what I was calling [personal ambition]. The religious mind in [performance gear] sees this activity as cooperating with God.

Doing a work for Jesus can fall into the pattern of competing with God if doing a work for Jesus to us is a matter of performance rather than a simple matter of His overflow within us!

We ought rather to simply flow in the Spirit of the Lord. From this premise of grace, his Spiritual work gets done [without ambition and without competition].