I finished reading through the article this morning, and here are my last comments. (I do agree with what Max wrote here as well - we are all faulted people, and none of us will get everything right. We err in other ways as well, and it is *probably* the area of practice where we should focus most. Doctrine must be correct in order that our actions are properly informed, but we must not stop with doctrine.)
Pg 495
“Menno and Dirk ... posited that God created Jesus’ pre-Fall human nature ex nihilo ....”
This is not an accurate representation of Menno’s position. Instead, he states that The Word – God – became flesh, that in this sense he ‘came down from heaven’, thus the common misrepresentation of “heavenly flesh”. [He also does not say that Jesus’ actual flesh came down from heaven – this is why that terminology is inaccurate. It was The Word who came down, and BECAME (human) flesh.]
Pg 497
Regarding the arguments presented here that Menno “assumed orthodox Trinitarianism” because of his statements about each of the so-called persons of the trinity – I am not convinced that the author is not just reacting to familiar Biblical language that is now commonly associated with Trinitarianism, that is, it is taken as assuming a “fully developed” doctrine of the trinity. I think that this is a confusion of two separate doctrines, the deity of Jesus the Christ, and this doctrine of the trinity, which the author accurately labels as a “later development”.
Footnote 100 (pg 499)
“... Menno Simons ... thought that Christians should not kill. I am arguing that he did not argue that position as a separate issue from other Christian doctrinal issues.”
I fully agree, and I think that this is a key issue with many conservative anabaptists – they seem (to me) to somehow see nonresistance as a sort of stand-alone doctrine, or one that is primary, or central. I personally do not believe that the belief is lessened by recognizing that if doctrines can be separated and categorized or set into a sort of hierarchy of importance, it is a secondary one, one which flows out of (that is, as a natural result of) the nature of the Kingdom of The Christ.
Further, in regard to the question of nonresistance as practiced or not by the early church (that is, beyond the death of the last original apostles), the question of appealing or not to the non-Scriptural writings of that period must be seen from the fact that if the church wandered from the truth, it was a gradual change, not a sudden and total shift (at least until the time of Constantine).
Pg 502 – 503, views expressed regarding rebaptism (Menno & Martyr’s Mirror) in which the Nicaea Creed is mentioned or quoted as supporting this, the fact that it was endorsed
in the parts where they regarded it as conforming to Scripture demonstrates the attitude we all ought to have (in my opinion) toward any extra-Biblical document or discourse – we may support or endorse these to the extent that they reflect Biblical truth. For instance, just because we differ with some points of Calvinism, or of Protestantism in general, does not mean that we must condemn it all. We may approve of truth where ever we find it.
Back to non-resistance.
There is a very interesting statement made at the bottom of page 503, where the author writes:
No systematic attempt was made to tell a story of nonviolence or to justify Anabaptist views on war and peace, because it was not the defining position they claimed for themselves apart from other issues. Van Braght [Martyr’s Mirror editor/writer] was well aware of canon laws and could have found many references. He chose instead to tell the history of baptism.
(The author continues on page 504 with other comments which I find of interest, but will not quote. I will just comment, again, that in the citations given, these original anabaptist writers did not use these early writings to prove a
doctrine, but rather to prove a common
practice. I think that this is a worthwhile distinction.)
This is the type of perspective I too often fail to see in present day writings or discourses on non-resistance. I am not against it, but it has been singled out as an identifying mark, as a central doctrine, of modern anabaptism. I do not believe it should be lifted to that position – it is a secondary ‘doctrine’ that flows out of the Kingdom, and out of expressions of God’s love, and our ‘duty’ to express it as he would have us do.
But in respect to the general question regarding the attitude of the early anabaptist writers toward the patristic literature, I think that the larger question is whether they TYPICALLY made reference to, or appealed to the “authority” of the so-called church fathers, not just on occasion.
I also think that there is another way in which this can be understood. I am not terribly well acquainted with all of the different persons and groups with which Menno and other anabaptist writers were attempting to reason, but it would be my assumption that they all revered the “church fathers”, considering them authorities to be followed, and not questioned. So by making reference to what these men had written, it was as if the anabaptists were saying “These are your own authorities, men you call ‘father’, (which our Lord told us not to do), and yet you take positions contrary to them.”
I am reminded of the time when Jesus, when he was accused of casting out demons by the power of the Satan, said “Well then, what about your own people who are casting out demons? What do you say about them? Do you not realize you are also condemning them?” (a free paraphrase)
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
