Holdeman shunning practice - does it include family?

[Chris]

Chris,

I’ve never quite understood the whole issue with wondering of baptisms are “valid” or needing them to “transfer”.



We neither condemn nor endorse these groups - nor Catholics, Orthodox, Jesus-only Pentecostals, etc.

However, if you wish to be a member of the Church, you need to be baptised by it. No judgment positive or negative is made about prior churches you may have been part of.

I'm still confused. The Bible talks about one Baptism. But okay that clarifies the point though.

Yes, we believe in one baptism, administered by one faith, not a dozen different kinds of baptisms performed by who knows what.

So basically everybody else is not Baptized except for the Holdeman church.

Just about every moderate conservative Menno church I know of believes in one Baptism, on the confession of faith, Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

So the Holdemans actually would consider that "invalid". Because there is only one Baptism. You can't Baptize "again" as that would be Heretical. So are Holdeman churches claiming that every other "Baptism" is actually "invalid" and that the Candidate is actually only being Baptized that one single time?

[Josh]

So basically everybody else is not Baptized except for the Holdeman church.

I never said that, as we don't judge people who aren't part of our church and aren't seeking membership there.

Within our circles, we take care of what we are responsible for. We believe our church should be responsible for baptising people properly, after confession of faith and evidence of sincere conversion, when they desire to become church members.

Just about every moderate conservative Menno church I know of believes in one Baptism, on the confession of faith, Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

We are not a moderate-conservative Mennonite church and, generally speaking, do not have any desire to become one.

So the Holdemans actually would consider that "invalid". Because there is only one Baptism. You can't Baptize "again" as that would be Heretical. So are Holdeman churches claiming that every other "Baptism" is actually "invalid" and that the Candidate is actually only being Baptized that one single time?

I have personally been a witness to baptisms in a moderate-conservative Mennonite church that were not genuine and lacked proving, and the person is now living in grave sin - and their church has never bothered to discipline or excommunicate them. So, yes, I would at this point say many baptisms and members of moderate-conservative churches are not "valid".

[Chris]

So basically everybody else is not Baptized except for the Holdeman church.

I never said that, as we don't judge people who aren't part of our church and aren't seeking membership there.

Within our circles, we take care of what we are responsible for. We believe our church should be responsible for baptising people properly, after confession of faith and evidence of sincere conversion, when they desire to become church members.

Just about every moderate conservative Menno church I know of believes in one Baptism, on the confession of faith, Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

We are not a moderate-conservative Mennonite church and, generally speaking, do not have any desire to become one.

So the Holdemans actually would consider that "invalid". Because there is only one Baptism. You can't Baptize "again" as that would be Heretical. So are Holdeman churches claiming that every other "Baptism" is actually "invalid" and that the Candidate is actually only being Baptized that one single time?

I have personally been a witness to baptisms in a moderate-conservative Mennonite church that were not genuine and lacked proving, and the person is now living in grave sin - and their church has never bothered to discipline or excommunicate them. So, yes, I would at this point say many baptisms and members of moderate-conservative churches are not "valid".

Okay not trying to debate you here but either there are other churches that have valid Baptism or there is not. If Holdeman churches believe in truly in "one Baptism" then they are either 1) believing others from other churches are not Baptized at all or 2) Holdemans only have a real Baptism.

Why else would they Baptize (again) if they only believe in ONE Baptism - If somebody else had a real believer's Baptism, on real conversion, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? That would be heretical.

Now this ponders another question - To a Holdeman church is anybody else saved who professes Christianity? Please remember being saved (for the sound minded) believes in a real repentance of sins and conversion to Jesus Christ. Baptism follows. Are they saved or must they be Holdeman.

Follow up question: If Holdemans believe they ARE saved, then their conversion and Baptism must be valid correct? So if others are saved and join the Holdemans, why would they be Baptized in the Holdeman church?

[RZehr]

Because official Holdeman church doctrine is that they are the one true church. So while individuals within that church may not wholly believe so, the official doctrine is still what it is.

[Josh]

Okay not trying to debate you here but either there are other churches that have valid Baptism or there is not. If Holdeman churches believe in truly in "one Baptism" then they are either 1) believing others from other churches are not Baptized at all or 2) Holdemans only have a real Baptism.

Chris, we simply don't have the same approach to church that moderate-conservative Mennonites do, where one eagerly accepts "transfers of membership" and "baptisms" from more-conservative churches (yet strangely, these churches often do recommend baptisms if one comes from a worldly background, such as myself and some of my family).

Why else would they Baptize (again) if they only believe in ONE Baptism - If somebody else had a real believer's Baptism, on real conversion, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? That would be heretical.

Because we believe the baptism should be performed by the church and ordained men in the church. We don't believe a baptism is something just any random person can do after a period of little or no examination at all. My experience with both baptisms prior to joining my church is that were frivolous, performed by people with no authority to do so, and most people who got them fell away and returned to living in sin shortly thereafter.

Now this ponders another question - To a Holdeman church is anybody else saved who professes Christianity? Please remember being saved (for the sound minded) believes in a real repentance of sins and conversion to Jesus Christ. Baptism follows. Are they saved or must they be Holdeman.

Anyone who believes in Jesus, confesses their sin, and asks and trusts in Jesus to save them is born again and saved. I don't believe baptism is required first for salvation.

To put it this way, Jesus grants salvation individually to the believer. Baptism is something performed by the church (obviously); someone else has to baptise you.

Follow up question: If Holdemans believe they ARE saved, then their conversion and Baptism must be valid correct? So if others are saved and join the Holdemans, why would they be Baptized in the Holdeman church?

Because baptism and salvation are not linked, in our view?

People need to be baptised when they become church members and part of a church body.

If you are looking for a setting where baptism is completely disconnected from membership - I recommend a run of the mill Baptist church, liberal Charity, etc.

[justme]

Here's how i'm understanding the past few posts.

Holdeman's see baptism: as gaining membership into the Holdeman church. A person cannot become a member of the Holdeman church unless they are baptized by the Holdeman formula. (I haven't quite figured out from what josh is saying if baptism is also a profession of faith, but it most definitely is the only way to get membership into the Holdeman church.)

Where as many other conservative anabaptists, and other not so conservatives, see baptism as: a profession of faith and acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior. The initial church often has membership attached to the baptism, but the baptism focuses on the profession of faith, and not the membership.

Where as Holdemans focus on the membership aspect.

that's how i've understood the past few posts.

[Sudsy]

Going back to the original water baptisms, I really doubt there were any qualifications to be a baptizer to baptise another person in water. I believe the 3,000 simply baptised one another. Who does the baptizing doesn't matter and sometimes in our local MB church, a friend or relative will immerse a person along with the pastor. However, there are lots of alterations to the original that were added to water baptism. Most of which I think were very unnecessary.

[Josh]

Going back to the original water baptisms, I really doubt there were any qualifications to be a baptizer to baptise another person in water. I believe the 3,000 simply baptised one another. Who does the baptizing doesn't matter and sometimes in our local MB church, a friend or relative will immerse a person along with the pastor. However, there are lots of alterations to the original that were added to water baptism. Most of which I think were very unnecessary.

That is a common modern view. The ancient view was that if a bishop is available, they should be the one who baptises.

[Soloist]

Going back to the original water baptisms, I really doubt there were any qualifications to be a baptizer to baptise another person in water. I believe the 3,000 simply baptised one another. Who does the baptizing doesn't matter and sometimes in our local MB church, a friend or relative will immerse a person along with the pastor. However, there are lots of alterations to the original that were added to water baptism. Most of which I think were very unnecessary.

That is a common modern view. The ancient view was that if a bishop is available, they should be the one who baptises.

I thought y’all didn’t have those?

[Josh]

Going back to the original water baptisms, I really doubt there were any qualifications to be a baptizer to baptise another person in water. I believe the 3,000 simply baptised one another. Who does the baptizing doesn't matter and sometimes in our local MB church, a friend or relative will immerse a person along with the pastor. However, there are lots of alterations to the original that were added to water baptism. Most of which I think were very unnecessary.

That is a common modern view. The ancient view was that if a bishop is available, they should be the one who baptises.

I thought y’all didn’t have those?

We don’t, but the ancients did have such an office. A present day Holdeman minister fulfils the biblical office of “bishop”; in my opinion the lesser tier of “minister”, etc. isn’t really found in scripture. I will admit the early church became quite hierarchical very quickly.