Interested in learning about Holdemans

[Judas Maccabeus]

yes, when you get "purity through isolation" and add it to one true visible church®." it normally equals cult. I have seen that pattern over and over.

That's not how Holdemans work, though. Holdemans simply don't esteem other Anabaptist groups as somehow "better" than other types of Christians.

For example, I send my son to a preschool run by an evangelical Christian churches and churches of Christ type of church. I am more comfortable with that than sending them to the Beachy school.

We volunteer at a soup kitchen run by an alliance of evangelical pastors in our region. We're more comfortable with that some moderate-conservative run ministry doing a similar thing.

The Holdemans are not a "cult" any more than other Anabaptist groups are. I don't think plain people should generally lob the "cult" accusation at each other.

If it walks like a duck..........

[JohnH]

If it walks like a duck..........

Well, it isn't. Your own fellowship is also described by some people as a cult. Lots of other plain groups are. I think it's a good thing for us to avoid.

[Judas Maccabeus]

If it walks like a duck..........

Well, it isn't. Your own fellowship is also described by some people as a cult. Lots of other plain groups are. I think it's a good thing for us to avoid.

But we neither believe that we are the only true church, nor are we exclusive. We are very connectional and work with numerous groups.

A fair mirror is in the Plymouth Brethren moment. Your doctrine and practice is remarkably similar to the "Plymouth Brethren Christian Church." It is a cult as well.

I am simply warning people. Look at the title of the thread.

[JohnH]

But we neither believe that we are the only true church, nor are we exclusive. We are very connectional and work with numerous groups.

The Holdemans are quite upfront about what their doctrines and practice are. You can, in fact, obtain a book called "Bible Doctrines and Practice" which lays it all out.

What, exactly, is your definition of a "cult"? I am having a hard time seeing how you wouldn't condemn the majority of plain Anabaptists as a "cult".

The most usual accusation I hear is "because they shun you if you leave" (although usually in reference to the Amish, not the Holdemans). I don't think that makes a group a cult, though. It just means the group practices church discipline and the avoidance like they feel the Bible teaches.

I don't see somewhere in the New Testament it teaches that churches should make it extra-easy to disobey church teachings, come under church discipline, and then go somewhere else that doesn't teach sound doctrine and practice. In fact, I see the opposite.

[ken_sylvania]

The Holdemans are not a "cult" any more than other Anabaptist groups are. I don't think plain people should generally lob the "cult" accusation at each other.

Is that somehow worse than lobbing the "you are not part of Christ's church" accusation?

[JohnH]

The Holdemans are not a "cult" any more than other Anabaptist groups are. I don't think plain people should generally lob the "cult" accusation at each other.

Is that somehow worse than lobbing the "you are not part of Christ's church" accusation?

It's a difference in definitions of what "the church" is.

One definition is that "the church" is simply the collection of all believers anywhere, whoever that happens to be at a given point in time. It does not hold meetings, conduct church discipline, conduct services / communion / ordinations, or anything like that.

The other definition is that "the church" is visible congregations.

I think part of the reason some people find a "true church" doctrine offensive to themselves is because they are thinking of the former definition. Fundamentally, the Holdemans have a different definition of "church" (mostly aimed at trying to make it fit various uses of "church" in the Bible).

Other non-true-church groups hold more to a Lutheran style of doctrine of "wheat and tares" being side by side in a congregation, and the idea of a "visible church" and "invisible church". So the question at hand is when you say "church", are you referring to the visible church or the invisible church?

Hence why I prefer the term "one true visible church". In the New Testament, it sometimes (but rarely) uses the term "church" to mean all believers, but also uses other terms such as saying "Israel of God", "Children of Promise", "the Olive Tree", "Chosen Nation", "members of the Household of God", or "one new man".

To give an example, I think lots of true believers are in the Catholic church, the 7th Day Adv. church, and even in the Mormon circles. I would, to varying degrees, consider them to have false teaching and not represent the "true (visible) church". Every Christian does this. It's just a question of how big you draw the circle of what you consider an acceptable visible church.

[Ernie]

To give an example, I think lots of true believers are in the Catholic church, the 7th Day Adv. church, and even in the Mormon circles. I would, to varying degrees, consider them to have false teaching and not represent the "true (visible) church". Every Christian does this. It's just a question of how big you draw the circle of what you consider an acceptable visible church.

Are these true believers part of the church, according to how you define the church?

[Ernie]

Other non-true-church groups

Who are the non-true-church groups?

[JohnH]

To give an example, I think lots of true believers are in the Catholic church, the 7th Day Adv. church, and even in the Mormon circles. I would, to varying degrees, consider them to have false teaching and not represent the "true (visible) church". Every Christian does this. It's just a question of how big you draw the circle of what you consider an acceptable visible church.

Are these true believers part of the church, according to how you define the church?

Let's say someone is a sincere Christian believer, like many, many people are.

If someone is part of the Catholic church, do you consider then part of the "church"?

If they attend at and are a member at a Mormon church, are they part of the "church"?

The answer will depend on what you primarily think of as "the church" in your mind. Holdemans think of it as a collection of visible congregations that they can attend that stay faithful to sound doctrine and practice.

Other non-true-church groups

Who are the non-true-church groups?

Congregations or denominations that have an anti-"true visibile church" stance. (There are some Anabaptist groups who are not necessarily one true church groups, but are open to the idea there is one or should be one, but don't take a strong stance that they necessarily are the one, true, visible church. Examples would be Apostolic Christian - Nazarean, some Swartzentruber groups, and many of the Pure Church Movement groups.)

[ohio jones]

That's not how Holdemans work, though. Holdemans simply don't esteem other Anabaptist groups as somehow "better" than other types of Christians.

From the examples given, it seems like they esteem other Anabaptist groups as somehow "worse" than other types of Christians.

To be fair, I sometimes have that view toward MCUSA, particularly their educational institutions, depending on who they are being compared to.