"One True Church and related topics."

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
Wade
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:09 am
Affiliation: kingdom Christian

Re: "One True Church and related topics."

Post by Wade »

Hats Off wrote:Wade and Kingdom Builder, I feel under attack here - I am sorry but I don't want to defend our practices. We have standards that we are required to meet if we want full fellowship with our conference. For that I don't apologize. However, we do not judge others who do not adhere to our standards. The church that my son and daughter attend also has standards that they are required to meet. Appleman and Silentreader are members of a fellowship that also has standards that they are required to meet. Same with RZehr and Lester. The standards are not the same from one group to the next but I think we would all recognize each other as brothers and extend the right hand of fellowship and the kiss of brotherhood and peace.

I don't want to judge you for where you are and I don't want to be judged by you for where I am. I want to co-exist peacefully with you, recognizing you both as followers of Jesus.
It's people like you and Lester and etc. that I even bother to keep coming back. Please don't think this is an attack. I do have much respect to you and look for your advice.
I do however want to expose some hard questions at times because I am hoping to bring light in the ability of newcomers to pass some hurdles and for people like you to express as you have that some of those hurdles are actually very small when looked at from the right angle, while still maintaining biblical seperation.

And please consider, although I am for church standards, if circumstances dictate ones ability to abide by those standards; could we say that those standards are based off of circumstances then rather than biblical doctrine?
0 x
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: "One True Church and related topics."

Post by silentreader »

Wade wrote:
Hats Off wrote:Wade and Kingdom Builder, I feel under attack here - I am sorry but I don't want to defend our practices. We have standards that we are required to meet if we want full fellowship with our conference. For that I don't apologize. However, we do not judge others who do not adhere to our standards. The church that my son and daughter attend also has standards that they are required to meet. Appleman and Silentreader are members of a fellowship that also has standards that they are required to meet. Same with RZehr and Lester. The standards are not the same from one group to the next but I think we would all recognize each other as brothers and extend the right hand of fellowship and the kiss of brotherhood and peace.

I don't want to judge you for where you are and I don't want to be judged by you for where I am. I want to co-exist peacefully with you, recognizing you both as followers of Jesus.
It's people like you and Lester and etc. that I even bother to keep coming back. Please don't think this is an attack. I do have much respect to you and look for your advice.
I do however want to expose some hard questions at times because I am hoping to bring light in the ability of newcomers to pass some hurdles and for people like you to express as you have that some of those hurdles are actually very small when looked at from the right angle, while still maintaining biblical seperation.

And please consider, although I am for church standards, if circumstances dictate ones ability to abide by those standards; could we say that those standards are based off of circumstances then rather than biblical doctrine?
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: "One True Church and related topics."

Post by silentreader »

silentreader wrote:
Wade wrote:
Hats Off wrote:Wade and Kingdom Builder, I feel under attack here - I am sorry but I don't want to defend our practices. We have standards that we are required to meet if we want full fellowship with our conference. For that I don't apologize. However, we do not judge others who do not adhere to our standards. The church that my son and daughter attend also has standards that they are required to meet. Appleman and Silentreader are members of a fellowship that also has standards that they are required to meet. Same with RZehr and Lester. The standards are not the same from one group to the next but I think we would all recognize each other as brothers and extend the right hand of fellowship and the kiss of brotherhood and peace.

I don't want to judge you for where you are and I don't want to be judged by you for where I am. I want to co-exist peacefully with you, recognizing you both as followers of Jesus.
It's people like you and Lester and etc. that I even bother to keep coming back. Please don't think this is an attack. I do have much respect to you and look for your advice.
I do however want to expose some hard questions at times because I am hoping to bring light in the ability of newcomers to pass some hurdles and for people like you to express as you have that some of those hurdles are actually very small when looked at from the right angle, while still maintaining biblical seperation.

And please consider, although I am for church standards, if circumstances dictate ones ability to abide by those standards; could we say that those standards are based off of circumstances then rather than biblical doctrine?
I'm not sure what you mean in the last sentence, "...if circumstances dictate ones ability...."
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
KingdomBuilder
Posts: 1482
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:00 pm
Affiliation: church of Christ

Re: "One True Church and related topics."

Post by KingdomBuilder »

HatsOff, it wasn't my intent to personally attack anyone. Sorry for poor wording on my part that lead to that attitude being conveyed. Looking back on the thread, I can see how you could've felt tag-teamed.
My questions and concerns really are not about people, they're about principles and Biblical reasoning, so it really wasn't personal at all. My questions weren't to question your character, and they weren't necessarily seeking for your personal elaboration. They were really for larger questions and points I was trying to make. I realize that standards exist for many of you, and I can't bash anyone for being in a church with such standards, but I do feel obligated to ask questions about how folks relate to standards/ their Biblical impressions of them.

I've enjoyed your posts and our conversations thus far and I hope to continue in them.
0 x
Ponder anew what the Almighty can do
Wade
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:09 am
Affiliation: kingdom Christian

Re: "One True Church and related topics."

Post by Wade »

silentreader wrote:
silentreader wrote:
Wade wrote:
It's people like you and Lester and etc. that I even bother to keep coming back. Please don't think this is an attack. I do have much respect to you and look for your advice.
I do however want to expose some hard questions at times because I am hoping to bring light in the ability of newcomers to pass some hurdles and for people like you to express as you have that some of those hurdles are actually very small when looked at from the right angle, while still maintaining biblical seperation.

And please consider, although I am for church standards, if circumstances dictate ones ability to abide by those standards; could we say that those standards are based off of circumstances then rather than biblical doctrine?
I'm not sure what you mean in the last sentence, "...if circumstances dictate ones ability...."
If a church has a standard that a woman or a man couldn't physically comply with because their spouse had to agree with it for it to happen, and the disagreeing spouse wasn't causing sin, then that standard could dictate ones fellowship with a local body because of circumstances rather than sin keeping them out of communion. Not to make provision for the flesh but rather we need to see that the cross each one bears in denying self isn't always practically the same. Hence why I believe there are true believers longing for a chance to be in an Anabaptist fellowship yet suffer because of loving self denial and it greives me to think that these people are being grouped as outside. And don't get me wrong if someone walks and talks and thinks like ______ then any amount of wishing doesn't change that unless we walk and talk and think like that. But also to balance it, man looks on the outward...
0 x
silentreader
Posts: 2511
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 9:41 pm
Affiliation: MidWest Fellowship

Re: "One True Church and related topics."

Post by silentreader »

Wade wrote:
silentreader wrote:
silentreader wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean in the last sentence, "...if circumstances dictate ones ability...."
If a church has a standard that a woman or a man couldn't physically comply with because their spouse had to agree with it for it to happen, and the disagreeing spouse wasn't causing sin, then that standard could dictate ones fellowship with a local body because of circumstances rather than sin keeping them out of communion. Not to make provision for the flesh but rather we need to see that the cross each one bears in denying self isn't always practically the same. Hence why I believe there are true believers longing for a chance to be in an Anabaptist fellowship yet suffer because of loving self denial and it greives me to think that these people are being grouped as outside. And don't get me wrong if someone walks and talks and thinks like ______ then any amount of wishing doesn't change that unless we walk and talk and think like that. But also to balance it, man looks on the outward...
I'm not in any way trying to be critical, judgemental, self-righteous, or any thing like that, and a lot of this is probably absolutely none of my business, but your first sentence makes me wonder if the biggest stumbling-block is a "can't" or a "won't", either by one spouse or the other, or to some degree both?
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Wade
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:09 am
Affiliation: kingdom Christian

Re: "One True Church and related topics."

Post by Wade »

silentreader wrote:
Wade wrote:
silentreader wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean in the last sentence, "...if circumstances dictate ones ability...."
If a church has a standard that a woman or a man couldn't physically comply with because their spouse had to agree with it for it to happen, and the disagreeing spouse wasn't causing sin, then that standard could dictate ones fellowship with a local body because of circumstances rather than sin keeping them out of communion. Not to make provision for the flesh but rather we need to see that the cross each one bears in denying self isn't always practically the same. Hence why I believe there are true believers longing for a chance to be in an Anabaptist fellowship yet suffer because of loving self denial and it greives me to think that these people are being grouped as outside. And don't get me wrong if someone walks and talks and thinks like ______ then any amount of wishing doesn't change that unless we walk and talk and think like that. But also to balance it, man looks on the outward...
I'm not in any way trying to be critical, judgemental, self-righteous, or any thing like that, and a lot of this is probably absolutely none of my business, but your first sentence makes me wonder if the biggest stumbling-block is a "can't" or a "won't", either by one spouse or the other, or to some degree both?
I wasn't trying to make this personal.

In a scenario like this I think often it is "won't" that leads to someone else's "can't." But no matter how one tries to word it, it always sounds like placing blame or excuse. That's probably why some people quietly walk away without saying why... Doesn't mean they don't miss you.
0 x
Judas Maccabeus
Posts: 3878
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:13 am
Location: Maryland
Affiliation: Con. Menno.

Re: Seekers Gathering 2018?

Post by Judas Maccabeus »

Ernie wrote:
Josh wrote:
Anyone who believes that their church is the true church is not invited unless they are seriously open to questioning that belief.
It looks like this event specifically excludes Holdemans. Is there any way to get an exception so I can attend?

For example, we could be asked to refrain from pushing or talking about that belief. In exchange, other attendees could be asked to refrain from arguing/trying to convince Holdemans to abandon this belief.
I'd really like to have you there. I don't think you would try to convince my friends to join your church. I also know its not your fault that your church took this position about itself and you might not have this belief if they had not generated it.
Yet its hard to have much camaraderie and Christian fellowship with folks who have this belief because at the end of the day, I'm still in the wrong church no matter what good fellowship we enjoyed during the day. If my friends became friends with you, they would feel the same thing at whatever point in the future they learned what your beliefs are.
The purpose of events like this is to help destroy walls like this that various groups of plain people have created the last few hundred years. I'm not interested in making provision for these two belief systems to co-exist at an event like this. I feel strongly about this because this kind of sectarianism in the Body of Christ is what I think Jesus came to destroy. (There may be events where the two beliefs could easily co-exist.)
There have been many groups with this belief over the centuries who have either died out or eventually given up this belief. So if there is anyone from your group or a representation from your group who is seriously open to revisiting this belief then they would be welcome. From what I understand, you used to receive instruction from a church like the rest of us that did not have this belief, and now you are receiving input from a church that does have this belief. I can get along just fine with you as a person and I don't hold anything against you for taking this step. Everyone has the freedom to pursue whatever doctrine or church they wish. But as people of integrity, we need to live honestly with our choices and realize how those choices will affect our friendships.
I don't go to the same church that I used to and that has cost me certain "fellowship privileges". I accept those consequences.
I've interacted with Church of Christ people in the past who have had this belief. We had good times together and enjoyed a certain level of friendship. But outside of this friendship, I was his church's "mission field". I don't want my friends who come to this event to learn later in life that these nice people they visited with at SG would gladly help them join a Holdeman church.
I don't know about you, but I find belief in baptismal regeneration/ baptism (In the correct manner) as a requirement for full salvation FAR more divisive and spiritually dangerous than any "One true church" stuff. One true church may impact ones choice of fellowship, These views requiring baptism, frequently in a certain way, impact one's very salvation.

I just laugh off "One true church" claims, but hey, here in my fair city we have seen this all before.

J.M.
0 x
:hug:
KenW
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2017 5:31 pm
Affiliation: Christian

Re: "One True Church and related topics."

Post by KenW »

Hello.

The discussion has moved on from references to the COC and ICOC, but I'll throw this in nonetheless. I'm a long time member of both the CoC and the ICOC, where I'm currently still a member. We are (in)famous for being one-true-churchers. Though that is changing, slowly. You can generalize but you can't really paint everyone in a given group with the same broad brush strokes, as everyone knows.

I'd say many (most?) members of the CoC and ICOC who know of the Anabaptists came to know them from following the ministry and writings of David Bercot.

It is true that the "connecting tissue" between "us" and Mr. Bercot was around the role of Baptism in the believer's conversion. Anyone who knows the CoC knows that we believe water baptism is the point where a believer (first having repented) receives forgiveness of sins and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

David Bercot acknowledged as part of his investigation in the early church writings that this was the original practice...with some important differences for the current era that I'll note shortly. I think Mr. Bercot's position on baptism is what allowed us to "hear" what else he had to say about other topics.

As an aside, I thought having read a number of discussions on this forum that this view of baptism was also commonly held among Anabaptists groups, and that Menno himself understood infant baptism to be corruption of the practice, thus having himself and those who followed his teachings (re)baptized as adults. And that many were persecuted (murdered) by both Protestants and Catholics of the era for doing so. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding that narrative.

Anyway, in the last few years, a small group broke away from the ICOC in Boston led by a man named Chuck Pike. Chuck was particularly influenced by David's stance on non-violence, divorce/remarriage, head coverings, and perhaps a general lack of holiness in our fellowship regarding involvement in / consumption of modern media/professional sports activities. You would have to understand the history of the ICOC to understand why the things Anabaptist groups consider unholy are seen differently in the ICOC. But that is a discussion for another day, in the unlikely event anyone would care to discuss it.

I think what David Bercot forced CoC folks (who listen to his teaching) to consider - in regard to Christian Baptism - is that a believer doesn't have to understand all the theological implications of baptism for God to bestow its benefits. i.e. a person doesn't have to be baptized the "right way" - as the COC understands it - to be in fellowship. If the believer is surrendering his life to the lordship of Jesus then it doesn't matter whether he's been taught that he's already been saved by saying a prayer, or having a religious experience, or what-have-you as long as he's been baptized by somebody somewhere as part of the process, and that the person bears fruit in keeping with repentance. I *think* I'm stating this view fairly.

This is a very attractive perspective for those of us from a restoration background who yearn for unity and fellowship with all followers of Jesus outside our "one true church". And I believe there are many in the Restoration Movement who do in fact take this view.

Chuck has built relationships with some Anabaptist folks, including Followers of the Way and Finny Kuruvilla. Neither Chuck nor ex-ICOCers in his group would try to "re-baptize" any of these Christians he's building friendships with, though he has stated emphatically that he has not changed in his belief in the role of baptism one iota, other than the modified view stated above.

An important caveat: I do not personally know David, or Chuck or Finny or any of the folks in Boston. I simply listen to the messages that they post on their respective web sites where some of these issues are discussed. Its quite possible I misstated their positions or am missing some nuance.

For what its worth, I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussions I have read here and very much appreciate the insight shared by all of you. In the coming years I feel that all who seek to follow the Master will need each other more than ever.

Ken
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23806
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: "One True Church and related topics."

Post by Josh »

Wade wrote:
Hats Off wrote:At the time of the Amman/Reist disagreement, one of the sticking points was at how the Reist party looked at "friends." In those days there were many people who sympathized with and supported the Anabaptists but were not ready to "forsake all" and join them. They were known by the Reist people as the "True Hearted" and were truly friends. The Amman group considered them "lost" while the Reist group didn't.
I am also curious what "forsake all" means to Mennonites? Because of the "time of proving" this, from my experience does not (didn't) work for us today. So those who do forsake all are just left with nothing. And yet they have set there hand to the plow and aren't looking back because we are not looking for the praise of men, yet still alone... I guess why should us newcomers expect to be treated any different from our Lord in not being accepted by the religious community of the day?
Wade,

Please consider that most churches not like the one that refused to accept you. Please stop acting like all Mennonites will act the way you were treated.

In particular, Holdemans are pretty welcoming and accepting and don’t have really long proving times, and are quite upfront and open about what the process is.
0 x
Post Reply