Progressive Conservative Mennonite Churches

[Ken]

ECT is not something that God imposes or punishes men with.

Rather, it is something that the devil offers and that sinful man chooses. Mankind has the option to repent.

Who created the devil and the universe in which he has such power to punish people for eternity?

[Josh]

ECT is not something that God imposes or punishes men with.

Rather, it is something that the devil offers and that sinful man chooses. Mankind has the option to repent.

Who created the devil and the universe in which he has such power to punish people for eternity?

God gave both the devil and people free will to choose or reject him.

[barnhart]

ECT is not something that God imposes or punishes men with.

Rather, it is something that the devil offers and that sinful man chooses. Mankind has the option to repent.

The horrible truth is that those who don’t listen to Moses and the prophets won’t listen after the second death and judgment either. I believe Jesus offer of salvation remains open to all - it is just that many choose to reject it.

That understanding of ECT I find the most compelling. Though I still think the Biblical data that explicitly supports the idea of the immortal soul, or Immortality for all, is scarce. It does specifically note that the soul that sins shall die and that God alone is immortal.

I have a strong bias to interpret the whole of the scriptures around Jesus and his teachings where it the immortality of the soul seems clearest. However if I were more inclined toward a more flat Bible interpretation scheme, I can see the data would be thinner.

[Judas Maccabeus]

The current push is really coming from the Lancaster Conference origin congregations that weren’t allowed to join Keystone. (Keystone made a deal they wouldn’t accept any more congregations from Lancaster in exchange for a peaceful separation. The ones who got left out went BMA instead.)

To the best of my knowledge, there are only 4 of these, that being Stricklers, Herr St., Mt. Airy and Goshen. Mt. Airy closed, so effectively there are three. Our KMF congregation enjoys a very close relationship with all of these churches, including having their Pastors speak at our church. One year, we were part of a joint winter Bible school.

All of the Martindale churches wound up neither joining KMF or BMA. There are more than 3 of those.

That deal was at the time, churches could only leave with their bishops. That is how my now retired bishop explained it to me. To the best of my knowledge, it was never put in writing. Personally considering all of the changes at LMC, and the number of churches that have left for Atlantic Coast (MCUSA). I doubt that LMC would try to enforce that.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I would add that fundamentalism is very clearly derived from (Reformed) systematic theology. All of the Mennonites who embraced fundamentalism are thus infected with various strains of Reformed doctrine.

Huh? Are you saying all systematic theology is reformed? While I will admit most of the texts out there are, there are some like Odom (most assuredly not) Erickson, (maybe a moderate) and Pardington (an old C&MA guy, not) not all of them are. Pardington actually predates Fundamentalism.

You could also consider Gordon Fee (Pentecostal ) or even Daniel Kauffman (Mennonite)

So working within the discipline of systematic theology does not necessarily make you reformed.

No, I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that Fundamentalism sprang from Reformed origins, and like anything else Reformed, has a heavy influence of systematic theology. Those who adopted fundamentalism end up with both reformed and systematic theology influences.

Daniel Kauffman was the major cheerleader for fundamentalism in Mennonite circles, and ended up promoting a very confused mix of fundamentalism with some plain clothes put on and changes to a few reformed doctrines that would be too offensive for Mennonites to accept.

When one interacts with people who are German Baptists, Old Order, or Holdeman, it is like a breath of fresh air or water to thirsty soul simply because the influence of fundamentalism is not present. As I’ve often said, if one thinks reformed theology is the way to go… then go be part of a reformed church.

System Theology is a discipline, not a doctrinal or teaching position. Most Bible schools will have such courses, whether they call it that or not. While most prominent authors in the past 60-70 years have been reformed, that does not make the discipline reformed. People who go to reformed seminaries like to write. They regard that as the pinnacle of Christian service. Most of the rest of us would never consider writing so important. Hence, people who are not reformed tend not to churn out books. Many authors are not reformed.

Here is a standard definition:
Systematic theology is a discipline of Christian theology that formulates an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the doctrines of the Christian faith.

Please tell me why this is inherently reformed. It simply is not so, as everyone from Catholics to Pentecostals do this. You must do this, if anything is to make sense and not be a scattered pile of facts. I studied this, and let me assure you, I am in no wise reformed. I reject most of their distinctive views.

So what definition are you using?

BTW, to formulate a confession of faith, you inherently must be systematic about it for it to make any sense at all, Maybe not so much Schlictheim, that reads like a position paper, but from the 1578 Swiss Brethren confession, they all use elements of systematic theology.

Also your definition of fundementilism seems more like "Churches influenced by the second great awakening" and not any definition I have seen before.

[Josh]

The current push is really coming from the Lancaster Conference origin congregations that weren’t allowed to join Keystone. (Keystone made a deal they wouldn’t accept any more congregations from Lancaster in exchange for a peaceful separation. The ones who got left out went BMA instead.)

To the best of my knowledge, there are only 4 of these, that being Stricklers, Herr St., Mt. Airy and Goshen. Mt. Airy closed, so effectively there are three. Our KMF congregation enjoys a very close relationship with all of these churches, including having their Pastors speak at our church. One year, we were part of a joint winter Bible school.

All of the Martindale churches wound up neither joining KMF or BMA. There are more than 3 of those.

That deal was at the time, churches could only leave with their bishops. That is how my now retired bishop explained it to me. To the best of my knowledge, it was never put in writing. Personally considering all of the changes at LMC, and the number of churches that have left for Atlantic Coast (MCUSA). I doubt that LMC would try to enforce that.

Yeah, things were different in the 1990s. Any congregation could get a release now that asked.

The group that left to form Keystone and the group that joined BMA is probably what led to Martindale being basically left alone or even encouraged to maintain a distinct plain identity.

[singitagain]

Any good teacher of systematic theology will do just that, concluding with the case as to what is the Biblical position and why. I don’t think academic discussion is what the issue is.

I think that a good teacher of theology will read what the Bible has to say on a topic, all that the Bible has to say on that topic, and stop right there.
If more than one conclusion could be taken from scripture, and the teacher uses logic and certain verses as trump verses for laying out the "Biblical position" on the topic, he has just taken upon himself the role of clarifying something God did not see a need to clarify.
And... he is setting himself up for someone else to come along and challenge his position using the other verses as trump verses. (How many thousands of times do Christians through the ages need to do this before we conclude that this isn't helping the cause of Christianity very much? How any more doctrinal schisms do we need to have?)
Why not use all the verses and let God be God? (I'm fine with a person giving their opinion, but that is different from clarifying doctrine on behalf of God. It is possible to say what one believes or for a group of believers to say what they believe, but when they indicate that they have THE BIBLICAL POSITION is when the problems start.)
About a year ago a friend told me he preached a series of sermons on hell and made a case for ETC. He admitted that he did not include the verses that might cause a person to lean CI.
His heart smote him afterwards and he wishes he would have gone ahead and read those also. I commend him for his honesty and sensitivity in this matter.

Your approach is admirable...however, it isn't taken a lot. If one takes it, one can't just ignore Romans 9, like was wont to do in the circles I frequented growing up =).

Perhaps this is a tangent, and should be a separate thread. The reference to Rom. 9 piqued my interest.

joshuabgood, are you suggesting that Rom. 9 is relevant to the discussion of ECT and CI, or that our circles have passed over the subjects addressed in Rom. 9, and not looked at the passage thoroughly?

[Neto]

....
System Theology is a discipline, not a doctrinal or teaching position. Most Bible schools will have such courses, whether they call it that or not. While most prominent authors in the past 60-70 years have been reformed, that does not make the discipline reformed. People who go to reformed seminaries like to write. They regard that as the pinnacle of Christian service. Most of the rest of us would never consider writing so important. Hence, people who are not reformed tend not to churn out books. Many authors are not reformed.

Here is a standard definition:
Systematic theology is a discipline of Christian theology that formulates an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the doctrines of the Christian faith.
....
BTW, to formulate a confession of faith, you inherently must be systematic about it for it to make any sense at all, Maybe not so much Schlictheim, that reads like a position paper, but from the 1578 Swiss Brethren confession, they all use elements of systematic theology.
....

I realize that systematic theology is not the subject of this thread, and probably why I didn't see this discussion until now. (I saw it come up in current discussions, and a username that I thought was a new member, so I popped in here, even though I know pretty much nothing about the actual topic - this other group of congregations.)

For me, systematic theology (as opposed to just "Theology") focuses heavily on the two words in your definition that I set in bold type.

I must ask: rational and coherent according to whose judgement or mind? My beef with ST is that the "compiler" must "fill in the gaps" of Scripture in order for the presentation to appear rational and coherent to the analytical reader. It is, after all, an analysis of Scripture that makes specific conclusions about the nature of God, what salvation is, and how it comes about. In terms of soteriology, the emphasis of most views of the atonement is very heavily on the HOW, the mechanics of it. How God did it, and very little focus on WHY he did it.

God didn't "fill us in" on all of the details of how salvation is brought about in the human soul. Nor did He give all of the other details to answer all of our questions. Sticking strictly with Scripture will not render a completely 'rational' explanation. Many truths of Scripture are neither rational nor coherent - that element of mystery that remains. Filling in these "Divine Omissions" with human logic that appears to be rational & coherent results in the twisting or "obscurization" (to coin a new word, I guess) of the things God really wanted to communicate.

I do agree that one must be "systematic" to formulate a confession of faith. That involves topical studies, "gathering in one place" all that is found in Scripture regarding one question or topic. But I also admit that I am very conscious of the inherent dangers of topical studies, because it becomes very easy to just look for and include the Scripture texts that fit my own preconceived notions or beliefs. Leave room for the mysteries. Maybe God didn't explain it all because we wouldn't understand it anyway, or very possibly because we would be distracted from His main message, focusing instead on the "curiosities".

[joshuabgood]

I think that a good teacher of theology will read what the Bible has to say on a topic, all that the Bible has to say on that topic, and stop right there.
If more than one conclusion could be taken from scripture, and the teacher uses logic and certain verses as trump verses for laying out the "Biblical position" on the topic, he has just taken upon himself the role of clarifying something God did not see a need to clarify.
And... he is setting himself up for someone else to come along and challenge his position using the other verses as trump verses. (How many thousands of times do Christians through the ages need to do this before we conclude that this isn't helping the cause of Christianity very much? How any more doctrinal schisms do we need to have?)
Why not use all the verses and let God be God? (I'm fine with a person giving their opinion, but that is different from clarifying doctrine on behalf of God. It is possible to say what one believes or for a group of believers to say what they believe, but when they indicate that they have THE BIBLICAL POSITION is when the problems start.)
About a year ago a friend told me he preached a series of sermons on hell and made a case for ETC. He admitted that he did not include the verses that might cause a person to lean CI.
His heart smote him afterwards and he wishes he would have gone ahead and read those also. I commend him for his honesty and sensitivity in this matter.

Your approach is admirable...however, it isn't taken a lot. If one takes it, one can't just ignore Romans 9, like was wont to do in the circles I frequented growing up =).

Perhaps this is a tangent, and should be a separate thread. The reference to Rom. 9 piqued my interest.

joshuabgood, are you suggesting that Rom. 9 is relevant to the discussion of ECT and CI, or that our circles have passed over the subjects addressed in Rom. 9, and not looked at the passage thoroughly?

Yeah. I think Roman's 9 offends our free will sensibilities. I never he a rd it preached on that I can remember as a young man in the CA world.

[singitagain]

Joshbgood, I understand. I, too, seldom heard it preached on, and the one time I can remember, it had a Reformed slant. This concerns me. I feel like it has been avoided, because it can be difficult passage to understand. And because of the influence of Reformed theology in our culture, we tend to come to the passage with those presuppositions. But I think there is a way to understand the passage that is better intellectually, theologically and historically. I wrote a paper on Rom. 9-11 which I was going to attach, but the site doesn't seem to like the PDF format. Anyone who wants a copy can PM me.

Basically, I don't think Rom. 9 is talking about individual personal salvation. It is talking about God using the nation of Israel as His servant to bring the Gospel and the Messiah to the people of Israel and then to the world. This is established in the Book of Isaiah upon which Rom. 9-11 is based.

I could go on, but I wouldn't know where to stop. Joshb, as you are an educator, I would love to get your input (or that of anyone) on the subject. I would like to see it discussed from a CA perspective, rather than simply accepting the teaching of those from other backgrounds.