Progressive Conservative Mennonite Churches

[joshuabgood]

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 =).

[Judas Maccabeus]

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.

Whoever would say that is unfamiliar with the plain meaning of the word “everlasting “. I guess that “some” does not include the leadership of BMA either.

[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.

Whoever would say that is unfamiliar with the plain meaning of the word “everlasting “.

The standard response goes something like this, "When the death penalty is given by the state for a capital offense, the punishment is everlasting. Meaning it is never undone, and in fact, cannot be undone." The argument is that this is a better understanding of everlasting punishment than is a ECT and harmonizes better with the overall preponderance of evidence with regard to OT and NT biblical data.

I can see the arguments both ways and think there is scriptural data for both positions...and see some weaknesses and issues in all the various positions. So I would align fairly closely with Preston Sprinkle who concludes that one/the other are not heresy but are all various Christian doctrines of future eschatological happenings about which no one can be absolutely certain. I would rest instead in the super-ordinate truth that God is completely just and righteous and I am content at the end of the day to let him sort out who gets punished how considering all the considerations that he alone knows. I don't love the idea of schisms based on differences of opinions regarding where the preponderance of scriptural data leads. I think most reasonable people will agree there is some biblical data for CI, ECT, and even Universalism (though it seems to me perhaps not as much for Universalism).

[Soloist]

Whoever would say that is unfamiliar with the plain meaning of the word “everlasting “. I guess that “some” does not include the leadership of BMA either.

Conveniently enough, Mennonites decide that exact words don’t always mean what it says particularly with standards.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Some feel the summary version also harmonizes fine with CI.

Whoever would say that is unfamiliar with the plain meaning of the word “everlasting “.

The standard response goes something like this, "When the death penalty is given by the state for a capital offense, the punishment is everlasting. Meaning it is never undone, and in fact, cannot be undone." The argument is that this is a better understanding of everlasting punishment than is a ECT and harmonizes better with the overall preponderance of evidence with regard to OT and NT biblical data.

I can see the arguments both ways and think there is scriptural data for both positions...and see some weaknesses and issues in all the various positions. So I would align fairly closely with Preston Sprinkle who concludes that one/the other are not heresy but are all various Christian doctrines of future eschatological happenings about which no one can be absolutely certain. I would rest instead in the super-ordinate truth that God is completely just and righteous and I am content at the end of the day to let him sort out who gets punished how considering all the considerations that he alone knows. I don't love the idea of schisms based on differences of opinions regarding where the preponderance of scriptural data leads. I think most reasonable people will agree there is some biblical data for CI, ECT, and even Universalism (though it seems to me perhaps not as much for Universalism).

Same construction is used for Rev 22:5. If one lasts forever, than the other must as well. Unless you think John completely changes his usage of the term in two nearly adjacent chapters. I know my way around John from grad school, and I cannot think of a time he does that.

And I would in no wise be quoting Preston Sprinkle.

[ken_sylvania]

Some feel the summary version also harmonizes fine with CI.

Whoever would say that is unfamiliar with the plain meaning of the word “everlasting “.

The standard response goes something like this, "When the death penalty is given by the state for a capital offense, the punishment is everlasting. Meaning it is never undone, and in fact, cannot be undone." The argument is that this is a better understanding of everlasting punishment than is a ECT and harmonizes better with the overall preponderance of evidence with regard to OT and NT biblical data.

The example you provide is not a correct use of the word "everlasting" because "everlasting" does not mean "never undone" or "cannot be undone." It might be "final", it might be "irrevocable", it might be "ultimate" but cannot be "everlasting".

[joshuabgood]

Whoever would say that is unfamiliar with the plain meaning of the word “everlasting “.

The standard response goes something like this, "When the death penalty is given by the state for a capital offense, the punishment is everlasting. Meaning it is never undone, and in fact, cannot be undone." The argument is that this is a better understanding of everlasting punishment than is a ECT and harmonizes better with the overall preponderance of evidence with regard to OT and NT biblical data.

The example you provide is not a correct use of the word "everlasting" because "everlasting" does not mean "never undone" or "cannot be undone." It might be "final", it might be "irrevocable", it might be "ultimate" but cannot be "everlasting".

I don't know...the penalty of death seems like one that is everlasting to me. It is a punishment without end, literally everlasting. That sort of helps me understand why murder us such a terrible sin.

[RZehr]

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.

Seems disingenuous to take this statement, and shoehorning in, or reinterpreting the statement in such a way as to permit an interpretation that the writers in 1963 did not accept themselves.
You tell me - which belief did the church in 1963 hold to? Or, since there may not be a direct line from 1963 to BMA, how did the BMA people believe when they adopted the 1963 confession?
If BMA’s common understanding excluded CI when they adopted this statement, then it seems awfully sneaky to leave the language the same, but now claim it magically means something new, without broad input and an official change. It’s no different than these rogue EPMC bishops that I keep hearing about, who magically decide that a “no internet” standard, now really means “just a little bit of internet for me”.

[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.

Seems disingenuous to take this statement, and shoehorning in, or reinterpreting the statement in such a way as to permit an interpretation that the writers in 1963 did not accept themselves.
You tell me - which belief did the church in 1963 hold to? Or, since there may not be a direct line from 1963 to BMA, how did the BMA people believe when they adopted the 1963 confession?
If BMA’s common understanding excluded CI when they adopted this statement, then it seems awfully sneaky to leave the language the same, but now claim it magically means something new, without broad input and an official change. It’s no different than these rogue EPMC bishops that I keep hearing about, who magically decide that a “no internet” standard, now really means “just a little bit of internet for me”.

I think your point re "original intent" of the 63 confession is most certainly valid.

[Josh]

One thing I highly respect about BMA is they seem to be committed to consistency. I expect they will probably be more “conservative” than many other formerly quite plain churches in 30-50 years, simply because they choose to hold the line and stop gradual shift and change.