Interested in learning about Holdemans

[Anthony]

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.

The internet is a liminal space devoid of any human connection, the danger with it is more it being a waste of time or inflammation of sin/passions. Very different from real life events like JohnH described, though still a danger

[Ernie]

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.

This is the same within the various Anabaptist constituencies, ultra-conservative to progressive-conservative.

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).

This is different. We sometimes agree to disagree. Some Anabaptist fissions don't agree to disagree and then they stop sharing pulpits, communing together, etc.

Does agreeing to disagree ever happen in Holdeman churches.

[JohnH]

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.

Probably for younger people.

Past a certain age / maturity, you’re expected to take care of things in your own. Most Holdemans aren’t interested in discussion forums with other types of Anabaptists for whatever reason.

[joshuabgood]

Didn't the Holdemans themselves split...as a means of getting started with the one true church?

[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."

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.

What you are saying here is factually incorrect. Holdeman is AFTER Landmarkism:

Landmarkism, from Wikipedia
The movement began in the American South in 1851, shaped by James R. Graves of Tennessee,[3][4] and Ben M. Bogard of Arkansas.[5] The movement was a reaction to religious progressivism earlier in the century.[4] At the time it arose, its proponents claimed Landmarkism was a return to what Baptists had previously believed, while scholars since then have claimed it was "a major departure."[3]:
Church of God in Christ, Mennonite:
In the mid-19th century, some American Mennonites believed they saw in their church a spiritual decline and drift away from sound doctrine, and sought to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints". Among these was John Holdeman (1832–1900), who was born in Wayne County, Ohio, to Mennonite parents. John's father, Amos Holdeman, was interested in the revivalist movement of John Winebrenner, the Churches of God General Conference. John Holdeman became both an evangelist and a reformer. Issues he believed needed reform included the baptism of persons not giving sufficient evidence of conversion, less than diligent child training, and laxity of church discipline. Holdeman and other concerned individuals began holding separate meetings in April 1859, resulting in a permanent separation from the Mennonite church and the eventual organization of the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite. Holdeman wrote extensively and traveled widely, and new congregations were formed in the United States and Canada.[5]

So 1851 for Landmarkism, 1859 for COGICM. Identical views of the church, which were unique for the era. Once again, this view developed during this period, and it was not previously seen in Mennonite circles. Add to it the superseperationist views that both have as well as the "one true visible church" and you have a match. So, in many ways, they are the same.

I seriously doubt the Herrites had much influence on anything.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Didn't the Holdemans themselves split...as a means of getting started with the one true church?

As far as my studies go, no.

Except they started as a split from what became the General Conference.

[JohnH]

So 1851 for Landmarkism, 1859 for COGICM. Identical views of the church, which were unique for the era. Once again, this view developed during this period, and it was not previously seen in Mennonite circles. Add to it the superseperationist views that both have as well as the "one true visible church" and you have a match. So, in many ways, they are the same.

I seriously doubt the Herrites had much influence on anything.

JM, you are simply being ahistorical about this. Herr promoted these views back in the 1810s. Stauffer did in 1845. (Herr's views were extreme; Stauffer's were milder and closer to Holdeman's position.)

There is no evidence at all that Landmarkism had any influence on John Holdeman at all. For starters, I highly doubt the Landmark Baptist were writing or doing much in German.

[ken_sylvania]

Well, the Bible does teach us to hold all things in common, but Christians keep finding excuses to just dodge that part of the Bible.

Can a church be a true church if the majority of it's members ignore plain Bible teaching?

[JohnL]

Well, the Bible does teach us to hold all things in common, but Christians keep finding excuses to just dodge that part of the Bible.

Can a church be a true church if the majority of it's members ignore plain Bible teaching?

I’m thinking that’s where interpretation is affecting the way people live it.

[JohnH]

Well, the Bible does teach us to hold all things in common, but Christians keep finding excuses to just dodge that part of the Bible.

Can a church be a true church if the majority of it's members ignore plain Bible teaching?

That’s a good question. My answer is that I don’t consider myself the authority on plain Bible teaching.