Holdeman Transitions ?

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Sudsy
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Sudsy »

KingdomBuilder wrote:
Sudsy wrote: When we think we have it all figured out in a group it leads to this non-acceptance of one another.
Or you can actually just stop striving to outdo other groups in some never ending head-game and you can focus on living the faith.
This isn't meant to be taken as an insult, Sudsy, but your approach in this thread seems to be very competitive.
I don't take it as an insult but you will have to explain where I am being 'very competitive' as I don't think the Christian life is competing with other Christians on who is the better Christ follower. I don't understand where my approach in this thread is one of competing and may need to explain myself better.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Wade
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:09 am
Affiliation: kingdom Christian

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Wade »

Sudsy wrote:
KingdomBuilder wrote:
Sudsy wrote: When we think we have it all figured out in a group it leads to this non-acceptance of one another.
Or you can actually just stop striving to outdo other groups in some never ending head-game and you can focus on living the faith.
This isn't meant to be taken as an insult, Sudsy, but your approach in this thread seems to be very competitive.
I don't take it as an insult but you will have to explain where I am being 'very competitive' as I don't think the Christian life is competing with other Christians on who is the better Christ follower. I don't understand where my approach in this thread is one of competing and may need to explain myself better.
My experience with Holdeman's has shown them to be quite humble and what I can say about them more than others is they do not profess they are better than other groups or point out faults of others(I don't know if they bothered with knowing much about others?).
I wonder if their doctrine just keeps them free of worrying about others and can focus better on other things...?
0 x
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 3878
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

Soloist wrote:
Sudsy wrote: This is a typical example of how our beliefs in some areas change as we seek to understand Christ following better. To those who are convinced in their minds that total non-resistance is what Jesus requires of us, this may be considered as heresy. The same with the head covering. Yet both are interpretations of scripture. Personally, these are not big issues and a bigger issue to me is interfering with the work of the Spirit in each individual's life by creating sanctification rules that must be followed to retain fellowship and withdrawing from other Christians in other groups as though they are not Christians.

so if non-resistance and head covering are just interpretations of scripture and we need to not pay attention to these because it interferes with the Spirit's leading (which quite regularly seems to lead in all directions) (that is if you trust people saying they are Spirit led and not spirit led) Why are we told to test the spirits and why bother reading the Bible at all? And if the only big issue is following the Spirit, why would you find reason not to fellowship with JW's? after all isn't it just interpretative differences and they are spirit led too?
You hit the nail right on the head here. IF you admit a hermeneutic that subordinates the reading of scripture as it would be ordinarily understood to one where you pass it through the "filter" of things like "interfering with the work of the spirit" (Whatever that means), "that must have been cultural" and "that's not how God is leading us" you will wind up EXACTLY where MCUSA is right now. First you explain away 1 Cor 11, and sisters do not cover, next it is divorce and remarriage, before you know it, you are explaining away Romans 1:26+27 and admitting all kinds of immorality. What is next is anyones imagination.

Once you admit that sort of thing, there is no firm stopping place, and sooner or later you will take the next step because your hermeneutic permits it, and it cannot withstand the cultural pressure. Once you start this trajectory, example after example shows you will not stop. If someone says "the spirit is leading me to divorce my current wife and marry the one who I perceive as my "spiritual" wife", without the firm "regulation" of the plain meaning of scripture and the rules we have agreed upon as a fellowship, who is to say he is wrong and an adulterer? After all he is saying "god lead me to do this."

As a leader in my former (Non mennonite evangelical church) I heard all sorts of clearly sinful things (according to the plain reading of scripture) justified by "god is leading me this way, and I have peace about it."

The "peace", in retrospect, may be the fact that the individual is actually unsaved and the Holy Spirit is not at work convicting of sin.

So be careful if you have "peace" about clearly unscriptural practices. It may be more than just interpretation.

J.M.
0 x
:hug:
Sudsy
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Sudsy »

Judas Maccabeus wrote: You hit the nail right on the head here. IF you admit a hermeneutic that subordinates the reading of scripture as it would be ordinarily understood to one where you pass it through the "filter" of things like "interfering with the work of the spirit" (Whatever that means), "that must have been cultural" and "that's not how God is leading us" you will wind up EXACTLY where MCUSA is right now. First you explain away 1 Cor 11, and sisters do not cover, next it is divorce and remarriage, before you know it, you are explaining away Romans 1:26+27 and admitting all kinds of immorality. What is next is anyones imagination.

Once you admit that sort of thing, there is no firm stopping place, and sooner or later you will take the next step because your hermeneutic permits it, and it cannot withstand the cultural pressure. Once you start this trajectory, example after example shows you will not stop. If someone says "the spirit is leading me to divorce my current wife and marry the one who I perceive as my "spiritual" wife", without the firm "regulation" of the plain meaning of scripture and the rules we have agreed upon as a fellowship, who is to say he is wrong and an adulterer? After all he is saying "god lead me to do this."

As a leader in my former (Non mennonite evangelical church) I heard all sorts of clearly sinful things (according to the plain reading of scripture) justified by "god is leading me this way, and I have peace about it."

The "peace", in retrospect, may be the fact that the individual is actually unsaved and the Holy Spirit is not at work convicting of sin.

So be careful if you have "peace" about clearly unscriptural practices. It may be more than just interpretation.

J.M.
I agree that there are some sins listed in scripture that are quite clearly stated. However what is a clear, unscriptural practise to one is not always the same to another. None of us have a lock on all truth.

So, lets look at the slippery slope argument from the other side. This is how this might be argued. Here are the kind of arguments I have heard regarding the slippery slope into legalism that goes something like this -
"First you think women need some material covering and not the one God gave them when they pray or prophesy; next instead of defending the helpless you think turning the other cheek includes no room to defend the helpless with force; next you withdraw from evangelizing because you don't wanted to be tainted by the world; next you restrict communion to only those who believe exactly the way you do on most issues; next you make clothing restrictions beyond what the scriptures actually say; next, next, next. And to rephrase your comment - "Once your hermeneutic interprets scripture that way, there is no firm stopping place, and sooner or later you will take the next step because your hermeneutic permits you to practise Christianity in a way that makes other Christians appear as non-Christians." Let this be a warning."
I agree a reason of having a "peace" doesn't trump all other considerations. However, for instance, many Christians ladies are at peace and live godly lives without wearing a material head covering. Christian men have returned from wars where they killed others and have peace in their heart. You may chose to believe this is a false peace because your view in these areas is that they committed sin. Theirs is that a "plain meaning of scripture" is that they did not and are not sinning. So, unscriptural practises and beliefs do arise from interpreting of scripture with scripture. Look at Calvinism versus Arminianism, both founded on using scripture with scripture.

I believe if we study these varying beliefs within Christianity and are truly born again and in relationship with God, we can trust Him to guide us in the way that we should go.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Sudsy
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Sudsy »

By the way Josh, in my study on the Holdeman group I come to find out there is a COGICM just 10 miles from where I live. Looks like a small congregation but it is one of a handful here in Ontario. I may just get up my nerve to drop in sometime and check it out for myself.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Josh »

Likewise many people live in homosexual relationships at apparent peace with God often doing wonderful things like the peace building work CPT does. That doesn't mean they aren't deceived by the deceiver and living in sin.

I think Jude has a strong warning about deciding to selectively ignore the scriptures.
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Josh »

Sudsy wrote:By the way Josh, in my study on the Holdeman group I come to find out there is a COGICM just 10 miles from where I live. Looks like a small congregation but it is one of a handful here in Ontario. I may just get up my nerve to drop in sometime and check it out for myself.
They have services virtually every Sunday night which is a convenient time to visit. Just go with an open mind.
0 x
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 3878
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

Sudsy wrote:
Judas Maccabeus wrote: You hit the nail right on the head here. IF you admit a hermeneutic that subordinates the reading of scripture as it would be ordinarily understood to one where you pass it through the "filter" of things like "interfering with the work of the spirit" (Whatever that means), "that must have been cultural" and "that's not how God is leading us" you will wind up EXACTLY where MCUSA is right now. First you explain away 1 Cor 11, and sisters do not cover, next it is divorce and remarriage, before you know it, you are explaining away Romans 1:26+27 and admitting all kinds of immorality. What is next is anyones imagination.

Once you admit that sort of thing, there is no firm stopping place, and sooner or later you will take the next step because your hermeneutic permits it, and it cannot withstand the cultural pressure. Once you start this trajectory, example after example shows you will not stop. If someone says "the spirit is leading me to divorce my current wife and marry the one who I perceive as my "spiritual" wife", without the firm "regulation" of the plain meaning of scripture and the rules we have agreed upon as a fellowship, who is to say he is wrong and an adulterer? After all he is saying "god lead me to do this."

As a leader in my former (Non mennonite evangelical church) I heard all sorts of clearly sinful things (according to the plain reading of scripture) justified by "god is leading me this way, and I have peace about it."

The "peace", in retrospect, may be the fact that the individual is actually unsaved and the Holy Spirit is not at work convicting of sin.

So be careful if you have "peace" about clearly unscriptural practices. It may be more than just interpretation.

J.M.
I agree that there are some sins listed in scripture that are quite clearly stated. However what is a clear, unscriptural practise to one is not always the same to another. None of us have a lock on all truth.

So, lets look at the slippery slope argument from the other side. This is how this might be argued. Here are the kind of arguments I have heard regarding the slippery slope into legalism that goes something like this -
"First you think women need some material covering and not the one God gave them when they pray or prophesy; next instead of defending the helpless you think turning the other cheek includes no room to defend the helpless with force; next you withdraw from evangelizing because you don't wanted to be tainted by the world; next you restrict communion to only those who believe exactly the way you do on most issues; next you make clothing restrictions beyond what the scriptures actually say; next, next, next. And to rephrase your comment - "Once your hermeneutic interprets scripture that way, there is no firm stopping place, and sooner or later you will take the next step because your hermeneutic permits you to practise Christianity in a way that makes other Christians appear as non-Christians." Let this be a warning."
I agree a reason of having a "peace" doesn't trump all other considerations. However, for instance, many Christians ladies are at peace and live godly lives without wearing a material head covering. Christian men have returned from wars where they killed others and have peace in their heart. You may chose to believe this is a false peace because your view in these areas is that they committed sin. Theirs is that a "plain meaning of scripture" is that they did not and are not sinning. So, unscriptural practises and beliefs do arise from interpreting of scripture with scripture. Look at Calvinism versus Arminianism, both founded on using scripture with scripture.

I believe if we study these varying beliefs within Christianity and are truly born again and in relationship with God, we can trust Him to guide us in the way that we should go.
I am actually not making a slippery slope argument here, I am actually making an observation from history that has repeated time and time again. Look at United Church of Christ, PCUSA, United Methodist, American Baptist and even MCUSA. Same historical progression in each and every case. Same result. If the same pattern repeats itself, and likely it will, you are about 10 years from women preachers (My former denomination, the C&MA has already done that, slipped it in through the back door, they call them "Consecrated Women" one is on the district executive committee, in effect a bishop) and 20 or so from ordaining homosexuals.

If you look long and hard enough, you will always find a group that agrees with whatever unscriptural notion you come up with. Does this make it right in God's sight to follow such, because it has become "disputable." If that is your hermeneutical practice, you are in for trouble.

J.M.
0 x
:hug:
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 3878
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

Sudsy wrote: "First you think women need some material covering and not the one God gave them when they pray or prophesy; next instead of defending the helpless you think turning the other cheek includes no room to defend the helpless with force;
If you are wondering about the issues of defending the helpless without the use of force, perhaps this video may be useful. Dean Taylor, "What If."



J.M.
0 x
:hug:
Sudsy
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: Holdeman Transitions ?

Post by Sudsy »

Josh wrote:
Sudsy wrote:By the way Josh, in my study on the Holdeman group I come to find out there is a COGICM just 10 miles from where I live. Looks like a small congregation but it is one of a handful here in Ontario. I may just get up my nerve to drop in sometime and check it out for myself.
They have services virtually every Sunday night which is a convenient time to visit. Just go with an open mind.
Good. Sunday night sounds like a good time for a visit. Awhile ago I visited a small, very faith sharing (avoided the word 'evangelical' :) ) Baptist group on a Wednesday night and met the pastor. This group still does a week of summer faith sharing, soul winning, tent meetings. I plan on attending one of these this summer to see just how they preach the Gospel.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
Post Reply