Interested in learning about Holdemans

[JohnH]

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.

The groups, yes, the individual people, no. The groups are viewed as a spiritual danger. (To be fair, lots of other Old Order or conservative groups consider a significantly less conservative group a spiritual danger as well.)

I like to evaluate individual people as individuals and give them the benefit of the doubt until I have a compelling reason to do otherwise.

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

That would be someone analogous. Another similar mindset is how German Baptists are comfortable going to secular universities, but wouldn't go to "Christian" ones.

[mike]

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.

So Holdemans are more comfortable associating with mainstream Christian churches than with fellow conservative Anabaptists. Or am I misreading you?

[JohnH]

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.

So Holdemans are more comfortable associating with mainstream Christian churches than with fellow conservative Anabaptists. Or am I misreading you?

Or at least on equal footing. It really depends on the individuals and specific church.

There are some groups that we seem to get along with really well. One Beachy church here has a number of guys in it working for our deacon and then seem to find themselves mostly in alignment.

In other settings there is a vast chasm. A common source of dismay is that we might seem aligned (like the aforementioned church) but then a bunch of things change. For example they started having cameras relatively recently.

[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?

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.)

I believe that there is one true church that is comprised of all those who are saved. This could also be referred to as the catholic church or the universal church.
I believe in a visible church. The people in the church (who have not gone on to their eternal reward) are visible.
I believe in visible congregations and visible groups that are recognized by God as being churches since they are under the Lordship of Christ, and consequently, they have authority to function as a church. (think Revelation 2-3) I don't believe that people can just say, "we are a church" and that automatically makes them a church or part of the true church.

Does this differ from Holdemans and from the other groups you mention?

[Judas Maccabeus]

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 Aposttolic Christian - Nazarean, some Swartzentruber groups, and many of the Pure Church Movement groups.)

Pure church does not equal "One true church." One speaks of organizational purity. The other speaks of organizational exclusivity. They are not equivalent.

[Judas Maccabeus]

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).

Which is, by the way, a typical Landmark Baptist definition of the church. As I said before, that was current at the same time the COGICM was being formed. It is such a unique definition, it leads creedence to the idea that it was "borrowed."

[JohnH]

I believe that there is one true church that is comprised of all those who are saved. This could also be referred to as the catholic church or the universal church.
I believe in a visible church. The people in the church (who have not gone on to their eternal reward) are visible.
I believe in visible congregations and visible groups that are recognized by God as being churches since they are under the Lordship of Christ, and consequently, they have authority to function as a church. (think Revelation 2-3) I don't believe that people can just say, "we are a church" and that automatically makes them a church or part of the true church.

Does this differ from Holdemans and from the other groups you mention?

It differs in terminology since Holdemans don’t use “the church” to refer to the invisible church / “Israel of God” etc

Now, when it comes to specific congregations Holdemans have a much narrower view of the range of doctrine and practice. Basically they feel full communion is required. Practice doesn’t have to be identical, but congregations that are part of “the church” (the visible church) must be aligned enough to share pulpits, allow visiting ministers to conduct revivals, have communion, marry each other, and affirm each other’s excommunications and reacceptances.

They also don’t have any concept of a “church split” where a church simply fissions and each side has a gripe with the other. In Holdeman circles that would be endlessly worked on until unity were achieved and/or individuals causing the conflict were dealt with. (That might mean moving to a different place, coming under discipline, or simply being pastored / discipled).

[JohnH]

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).

Which is, by the way, a typical Landmark Baptist definition of the church. As I said before, that was current at the same time the COGICM was being formed. It is such a unique definition, it leads creedence to the idea that it was "borrowed."

Holdemanism predates Landmarkism and John Holdeman would have had zero contact with southern Baptists anyway.

What I described above is found in Dutch Anabaptist writings.

If you want to keep promoting an alternate history, I guess you can do so, but Holdemanism isn’t like Landmarkism at all.

[JohnH]

Pure church does not equal "One true church." One speaks of organizational purity. The other speaks of organizational exclusivity. They are not equivalent.

Pure Church Movement is a collection of 90+ Anabaptists groups, some of which are much more sectarian than the Holdemans. All are horse and buggy.

Holdemans do not have a goal of organisational exclusivity but do have a goal of organisational purity. In practice, the latter often leads to the former, simply because it’s hard to do things with other people who don’t like our own practices.

For example, I would be quite useless to your school and ministries since I can’t partake to photography and would think of it as a spiritual danger for pupils to use it. Yet you might be instructing them to do so as part of their curriculum and assignments. Likewise, perhaps you have music class with instruments taught. I couldn’t be part of that either. And on and on.

[mike]

Pure church does not equal "One true church." One speaks of organizational purity. The other speaks of organizational exclusivity. They are not equivalent.

Pure Church Movement is a collection of 90+ Anabaptists groups, some of which are much more sectarian than the Holdemans. All are horse and buggy.

Holdemans do not have a goal of organisational exclusivity but do have a goal of organisational purity. In practice, the latter often leads to the former, simply because it’s hard to do things with other people who don’t like our own practices.

For example, I would be quite useless to your school and ministries since I can’t partake to photography and would think of it as a spiritual danger for pupils to use it. Yet you might be instructing them to do so as part of their curriculum and assignments. Likewise, perhaps you have music class with instruments taught. I couldn’t be part of that either. And on and on.

Would the Holdemans consider it a spiritual danger to routinely participate in lengthy theological, political, and other discussions on the internet with people who partake in photography, define church differently, and disagree with them many other similarly important issues? I assume this must be the case, because 99.9999999% of them don't seem to be doing that.