Progressive Conservative Mennonite Churches

[Nomad]

The next fundamental line that will be drawn in BMA in their search for Biblical purism will be atonement. They will be mandating a belief in PSA over Christus Victor.

Wonder what they will do with someone who answers the “which theory of the atonement do you believe “ with “Several of them?”

I think they would say that’s fine, as long as PSA is primary

Most people I know agree with portions of each atonement theory and disagree with portions of each as well. The Christus Victor crowd has gotten more dogmatic in recent years, it seems to me....

[barnhart]

Wonder what they will do with someone who answers the “which theory of the atonement do you believe “ with “Several of them?”

I think they would say that’s fine, as long as PSA is primary

I'm just the opposite. I think several of them have good Biblical basis excluding PSA. I'm ok with sacrificial atonement and to a certain degree, substitutionary atonement. But I think PSA, like many other fabricated doctrines, is heresy.

It depends a little on who is explaining it, but it's not my favorite, nor primary.

[Nomad]

Wonder what they will do with someone who answers the “which theory of the atonement do you believe “ with “Several of them?”

I think they would say that’s fine, as long as PSA is primary

I'm just the opposite. I think several of them have good Biblical basis excluding PSA. I'm ok with sacrificial atonement and to a certain degree, substitutionary atonement. But I think PSA, like many other fabricated doctrines, is heresy.

I would be a little cautious throwing the word heresy around. Usually the PSA-only defenders and the Victor-only defenders tend to misrepresent one another...

[Judas Maccabeus]

Wonder what they will do with someone who answers the “which theory of the atonement do you believe “ with “Several of them?”

I think they would say that’s fine, as long as PSA is primary

I'm just the opposite. I think several of them have good Biblical basis excluding PSA. I'm ok with sacrificial atonement and to a certain degree, substitutionary atonement. But I think PSA, like many other fabricated doctrines, is heresy.

There are elements of each contained in the Bible. So I would not go as far as that. I would say complete reliance on one to the exclusion of all others would be unwise. There are clearly both sacrificial as well as substituteionary elements contained therein.

[JayP]

I read this thread from beginning to end without commenting until I finished. It was, for me, both informative and shocking.
My lifetime, from just childhood familiarity with some folks, to meeting folks from Anabaptist backgrounds when we homeschooled, to joining Eastern, having OO friends, to my remaining contacts and friends as we have rejoined the RCC, have always been on what (not me, most of you would call ultra or OO).

First, I am gobsmacked about the questions of who is influential in these circles,the only name I recognized was Dave Ramsey. In the same manner, I know at the time Bill Gotherd influenced many “soft”:Mennonites (soft is my term) and homeschoolers.
For me, the attraction of churches like NWF and EPMC, or the OO, is the rejection of the influence of these modern Protestant thinkers.

I stand by the term. Sure, many people write and present a few good thoughts, but cannot people see that more often than not, the influences and final fruit of these people and movements is at best useless, and at worst harmful.

And I say soft because as I read an out many of these groups mentioned in this thread, I see a slow absorption into generic evangelical Protestantism. One of the things that makes me shake my head, and a number of leading Eastern ministers would agree with me on this in conversations, is the “gut” antipathy towards Catholicism in Mennonite circles is a mistake. NOT because they should embrace Catholicism but their gut reaction protects them from it. Yet while openly criticizing Catholic thinking they ignore the insidious in roads historical and modern Protestant thinking makes into Anabaptist circles.

IMHO, Anabaptism that does not recognize itself as a third way, distinct from BOTH Catholicism and Protestantism is not in the end Anabaptist.

I am not criticizing membership in these groups. Many are where they are because of historical changes they have no control over.
I would say in closing, I do not understand how anyone can be optimistic about where their children and grandchild will be unless they are in a church group of sufficient size and history. Size so that structures can both stand against the future as well as be organized/structured sufficiently to make appropriate choices as the future unfolds. Having a history so that you have a rock to withstand the buffers of the winds of change.

I completely understand why most of you do not want to be in my church. You probably should not be. But my liturgy and Sunday worship this Sunday will be the same as it was 500+ years ago. The liturgy here in DE will be the same as that in Ca, or France, or Australia if you attend a Tridentine Latin Mass. EPMC will have a thread back to the old “real” LMC of 100 and 200 years ago.
Old Order Amish may have aspects you or I do not agree with. But I suspect in 30 years their culture/community/religion will hold.

Not all that wander are lost, but many that wander will be.

Again, not trying to be critical of anyone as individuals. Just offering my thoughts. I feel very much for those caught in church groups that continue to swirl.

[Soloist]

And I say soft because as I read an out many of these groups mentioned in this thread, I see a slow absorption into generic evangelical Protestantism. One of the things that makes me shake my head, and a number of leading Eastern ministers would agree with me on this in conversations, is the “gut” antipathy towards Catholicism in Mennonite circles is a mistake. NOT because they should embrace Catholicism but their gut reaction protects them from it. Yet while openly criticizing Catholic thinking they ignore the insidious in roads historical and modern Protestant thinking makes into Anabaptist circles.

Sadly, I have seen much inroads of Protestantism and for someone who has left all behind except what the Scripture teaches, I see a serious encroachment of Protestantism into Mennonites. When I read Menno Simons and the modern views I don’t see commonality. They would kick him out today from many Mennonite churches for his views.
The response “Menno Simons wasn’t right on everything” is true but misses the point entirely. Why are other men right and he wrong? I see much more of how a person was raised instead of an openness to what the Scripture teaches.

I would say in closing, I do not understand how anyone can be optimistic about where their children and grandchild will be unless they are in a church group of sufficient size and history. Size so that structures can both stand against the future as well as be organized/structured sufficiently to make appropriate choices as the future unfolds. Having a history so that you have a rock to withstand the buffers of the winds of change.

God has no grandchildren in heaven. As flippant as that sounds, one just has to look at the nation of Israel and the many times they rejected God.

I

completely understand why most of you do not want to be in my church. You probably should not be. But my liturgy and Sunday worship this Sunday will be the same as it was 500+ years ago. The liturgy here in DE will be the same as that in Ca, or France, or Australia if you attend a Tridentine Latin Mass. EPMC will have a thread back to the old “real” LMC of 100 and 200 years ago.
Old Order Amish may have aspects you or I do not agree with. But I suspect in 30 years their culture/community/religion will hold.

I don’t desire to be in your group, not because of their style of worship changing little but to deep seated differences in what we do or don’t do. The Catholic Church is not unique in that, the Orthodox have the same problems.

Again, not trying to be critical of anyone as individuals. Just offering my thoughts. I feel very much for those caught in church groups that continue to swirl.

Those caught in the ship rowing towards the waterfall have a smooth steady trip to destruction.
Those that fight and quarrel are dragged the same way only with more chaos.
Those that row away from the unseen death are rare indeed but rarely is it found in large historical groups.

[Ernie]

I think they would say that’s fine, as long as PSA is primary

I'm just the opposite. I think several of them have good Biblical basis excluding PSA. I'm ok with sacrificial atonement and to a certain degree, substitutionary atonement. But I think PSA, like many other fabricated doctrines, is heresy.

There are elements of each contained in the Bible. So I would not go as far as that. I would say complete reliance on one to the exclusion of all others would be unwise. There are clearly both sacrificial as well as substituteionary elements contained therein.

Isn't that what I said?

[barnhart]

... Yet while openly criticizing Catholic thinking they ignore the insidious in roads historical and modern Protestant thinking makes into Anabaptist circles.

IMHO, Anabaptism that does not recognize itself as a third way, distinct from BOTH Catholicism and Protestantism is not in the end Anabaptist....

I agree with this. Well said.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I'm just the opposite. I think several of them have good Biblical basis excluding PSA. I'm ok with sacrificial atonement and to a certain degree, substitutionary atonement. But I think PSA, like many other fabricated doctrines, is heresy.

There are elements of each contained in the Bible. So I would not go as far as that. I would say complete reliance on one to the exclusion of all others would be unwise. There are clearly both sacrificial as well as substituteionary elements contained therein.

Isn't that what I said?

You refer to PSA as a "fabricated" doctrine. If you are referring to the substituteionary aspects of the atonement, I would see them as completely Biblical. By His death and resurrection from the dead, Christ accomplished the full justification of those who believe in Him. Is this what you have an issue with?

[Ernie]

There are elements of each contained in the Bible. So I would not go as far as that. I would say complete reliance on one to the exclusion of all others would be unwise. There are clearly both sacrificial as well as substituteionary elements contained therein.

Isn't that what I said?

You refer to PSA as a "fabricated" doctrine. If you are referring to the substituteionary aspects of the atonement, I would see them as completely Biblical. By His death and resurrection from the dead, Christ accomplished the full justification of those who believe in Him. Is this what you have an issue with?

I said that I am fine with a sacrificial view and am ok with some of the substitutionary view.

The fabricated part is when someone says that "God is a just God and cannot allow sin in his presence. He needs to punish sin. So since we couldn't stand in his presence, there needed to be someone to take our punishment. So God took out his wrath on Jesus as the consequences of sin."
As one German Baptist preacher once preached...
"Who killed Jesus?
Was it the Jews?
No, it was not the Jews.
Was it the Romans?
No, it was not the Romans?
Who was it?
IT WAS GOD WHO KILLED JESUS!"