Progressive Conservative Mennonite Churches

[Josh]

Why is this such a lightning-rod issue?

I mean none of us are really going to know the actual answer until the time comes anyway. How does this affect how anyone lives their life among the living? And honestly, how often is it even going to come up in church sermons?

Believing the unsaved will cease to exist is a very different concept from being physically tortured for all of eternity. How else will they terrify young teenagers into becoming Christians?

Is this what Scripture means by being "saved by fear"?

Such a belief aligns with the JW's and Seventh Day Adventist cuz, ya know, no fire burns forever. Eventually it goes out.

Of course, it's possible that those who never choose Jesus in this life... won't choose him in the next either (why would they?), and it's simply reality, and is not part of some grand conspiracy to scare young people into becoming born again.

[joshuabgood]

I heard yesterday that in at least some BMA churches, ordained persons are being asked what their doctrinal position is on Eternal Conscious Torment vs. Conditional Immortality. If an ordained person makes any room for CI, his credentials are withdrawn. Even if he believes in ETC, but acknowledges that there are some verses that could use further discussion, his credentials are withdrawn. He is required to state that the New Testament only teaches ETC and that the NT does not make any room for CI.

Is what I heard correct? And is this test being applied to all BMA pastors, or is this regional?

I have heard roughly the same thing, but I heard it from my Indiana connections.

This sort of thing makes its rounds in the evangelical world from time to time. I remember a prof. At one of the C&MA colleges being fired for just such teaching. It was in the early 90s.

To be fair, I have come to the conclusion that CI is heresy, and the path that I have seen everyone I have known who has followed this to its conclusion (with a handful of exceptions such as our friend gcdonner) is eventually they stop believing in hell at all… then become a Marcionist, thinking the OT God was evil, then eventually lose faith in heaven, too, and God himself, and abandon sound doctrine.

I would not fault BMA at all for expecting ministers to “hold fast to the doctrine once delivered to the saints”. If it’s really important to believe in annihilationism, go join the Chhrch of God of Abrahamic Faith or something.

I can see why you conclude what you do in paragraph 1, however, if in fact there is substantive biblical data for considering CI I don't know that perceived cultural trajectories are reason to avoid that data.

Re paragraph 2, I don't really have problem with a conference "throwing down" over what feels important to them. If folks don't support their take (heresy and false teaching) on CI, it would probably be best to find another group to closely fellowship with.

[Josh]

I can see why you conclude what you do in paragraph 1, however, if in fact there is substantive biblical data for considering CI I don't know that perceived cultural trajectories are reason to avoid that data.

I am not a fundamentalist myself and in my own church conference, our "fundamentals" are things other than things like CET.

Re paragraph 2, I don't really have problem with a conference "throwing down" over what feels important to them. If folks don't support their take (heresy and false teaching) on CI, it would probably be best to find another group to closely fellowship with.

The issue at hand is that BMA (and its predecessors, the Lancaster Conference and the C(A)MC) were all founded as explicitly fundamentalist organisations. Fundamentalism is basically their core doctrine. If someone does not agree with fundamentalism, BMA seems like a very odd choice of place to be.

I don't actually disagree with any of the fundamentals, so I don't hold anything against people who contend for sound doctrine - although I wish they would contend as fiercely for the rest of the New Testament, instead of just a handful of verses.

[Judas Maccabeus]

In our circles, any minister holding such views would be shown the door, and rightly so……

There is however a difference between holding a view and admitting some verses may be seen to support it.

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.

[joshuabgood]

I have heard roughly the same thing, but I heard it from my Indiana connections.

This sort of thing makes its rounds in the evangelical world from time to time. I remember a prof. At one of the C&MA colleges being fired for just such teaching. It was in the early 90s.

To be fair, I have come to the conclusion that CI is heresy, and the path that I have seen everyone I have known who has followed this to its conclusion (with a handful of exceptions such as our friend gcdonner) is eventually they stop believing in hell at all… then become a Marcionist, thinking the OT God was evil, then eventually lose faith in heaven, too, and God himself, and abandon sound doctrine.

I would not fault BMA at all for expecting ministers to “hold fast to the doctrine once delivered to the saints”. If it’s really important to believe in annihilationism, go join the Chhrch of God of Abrahamic Faith or something.

In our circles, any minister holding such views would be shown the door, and rightly so……

I do know of several ministers who I have spoken with directly and plainly about the issue=, even influential ones, in your circles (the KMF sphere) that lean CI, though they don't broadcast it around unnecessarily. (And they don't really hide it either...but they definitely would not agree to formally calling it "heresy.")

[Judas Maccabeus]

To be fair, I have come to the conclusion that CI is heresy, and the path that I have seen everyone I have known who has followed this to its conclusion (with a handful of exceptions such as our friend gcdonner) is eventually they stop believing in hell at all… then become a Marcionist, thinking the OT God was evil, then eventually lose faith in heaven, too, and God himself, and abandon sound doctrine.

I would not fault BMA at all for expecting ministers to “hold fast to the doctrine once delivered to the saints”. If it’s really important to believe in annihilationism, go join the Chhrch of God of Abrahamic Faith or something.

In our circles, any minister holding such views would be shown the door, and rightly so……

I do know of several ministers who I have spoken with directly and plainly about the issue=, even influential ones, in your circles (the KMF sphere) that lean CI, though they don't broadcast it around unnecessarily. (And they don't really hide it either...but they definitely would not agree to formally calling it "heresy.")

If they hold that view, I would not want to be in their shoes. If it came up in BMA likely it will come up in our circles as well.

[Judas Maccabeus]

In our circles, any minister holding such views would be shown the door, and rightly so……

I do know of several ministers who I have spoken with directly and plainly about the issue=, even influential ones, in your circles (the KMF sphere) that lean CI, though they don't broadcast it around unnecessarily. (And they don't really hide it either...but they definitely would not agree to formally calling it "heresy.")

If they hold that view, I would not want to be in their shoes. If it came up in BMA likely it will come up in our circles as well.

Just checked the 1963 confession of faith. Requires belief in eternal punishment, if the people you are referencing believe that, then they are at variance with a statement of faith that they pledged to uphold. Some of us take that seriously. If you want to look it up, look at article 20.

[joshuabgood]

We believe that in addition to the physical order with which our senses are related, there also exists an eternal spiritual order, the realm of God, of Christ, of the Holy Spirit, of the angels, and of the church triumphant. We believe that at death the righteous enter at once into conscious joy and fellowship with Christ, while the wicked are in a state of conscious suffering. The church militant lives and witnesses in this present evil world, a world in which apostasy from God is to become even more pronounced. The church also looks forward with hope to the day of the Lord, to the personal return of Christ, and the glorious future of the kingdom of God. In His triumphant Second Coming Christ will judge Satan, and usher in the consummation of all things. His coming will introduce the resurrection, the transformation of the living saints, the judgment of the just and the unjust, and the fulfillment of His glorious reign. He will deliver the kingdom to God the Father, cleanse the world by fire, create new heavens and a new earth, consign unbelievers to eternal punishment, and usher His children into the eternal bliss of the world to come. (Article 20 1963 MCF)

Some people feel this fits fine with CI. The eternal punishment could well reference a punishment that is irreversible as opposed to ECT. And the conscious suffering is with regard to when they are being justly punished with the amount of stripes due them...not to insist that they are forever immortal in their conscious suffering.

[Ernie]

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.

[joshuabgood]

We believe that at death the unsaved enter into everlasting punishment and the saved into conscious bliss with Christ, who is coming again, and will raise the dead, sit in judgment, and bring in God's everlasting kingdom.

Some feel the summary version also harmonizes fine with CI.