Progressive Conservative Mennonite Churches

[AnthonyMartin]

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.

I really hope this isn’t the case, but I’d be surprised if that doesn’t happen soon.

[Josh]

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.

I really hope this isn’t the case, but I’d be surprised if that doesn’t happen soon.

It would seem to me this isn’t going to be nearly as much of a flashpoint as dealing with the crowd trying to claim hell isn’t as described in the Bible.

BMA has already taken a stance against notorious Reformed doctrines such as “eternal security”.

[Josh]

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.

These churches already decided to essentially be evangelical Protestant doctrines with plain clothes on; to the extent they start looking at other backgrounds, it is merely because that’s what all the other evangelicals are doing, too.

Discussing things from an actual Anabaptist perspective is almost culturally offensive to the progressive Anabaptist.

[AnthonyMartin]

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.

I really hope this isn’t the case, but I’d be surprised if that doesn’t happen soon.

It would seem to me this isn’t going to be nearly as much of a flashpoint as dealing with the crowd trying to claim hell isn’t as described in the Bible.

BMA has already taken a stance against notorious Reformed doctrines such as “eternal security”.

I hope you’re right, but I expect it will be even more of a flashpoint.

[Neto]

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.

I really hope this isn’t the case, but I’d be surprised if that doesn’t happen soon.

If this is the case, then it's time for them to take "Biblical" out of their name. (I am not espousing any one "View of the Atonement, Christus Victor, or any other. I think that the whole quest to establish any one view as "the only right one" is unbiblical. As I said earlier, both in other discussions and in this thread, the important part, the aim of God in the atonement, is over-looked, and the focus is wrongly placed on the mechanics of it. The Father deeply desired, and desires, reconciliation with his creation.)

[joshuabgood]

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.

I'd like to see that paper. You can email it to me at joshua.good@ephratamennonite.org.

[Judas Maccabeus]

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?”

[Neto]

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?”

In that they all (the 8 or so I've seen described) reference Scripture, I would say that they all contain truth.

[AnthonyMartin]

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

[Ernie]

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

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.