Video: A Lamp in the Dark

[temporal1]

Joseph J. Graber
Doug Grandon
Paul Veraguth

2017 / The Amish and The Reformation / 54 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugY5mshEnSM

i expect some here may have viewed this video, and/or may know the three men who created it.

[temporal1]

Joseph J. Graber
Doug Grandon
Paul Veraguth

2017 / The Amish and The Reformation / 54 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugY5mshEnSM

i expect some here may have viewed this video, and/or may know the three men who created it.

The Waldensians

i appreciate mention of the Waldensians in this video and in “A Lamp in the Dark” video.
Both noted the Waldensians predated the Reformation (by 200 years)!

This is part of my fascination with how Martin Luther is BOTH blamed AND credited with the Reformation; in reality, there is a lot of history that LED to Martin Luther (including moveable type). Martin Luther is a key figure. And there is so much more.

i want to learn more about the Waldensians. i’ve known so little.
there are contemporary Waldensians. i had no idea.

Waldensian Trail of Faith / What is the price of faith?
https://www.waldensiantrailoffaith.org/ ... n-timeline

A WALK THROUGH WALDENSIAN HISTORY:
c 58 - 59 A.D.
Apostles of Christ plant seeds of Christianity in the Waldensian Valleys as they travel across the Cottian Alps into Gaul (France) and other parts of Europe.

839 A.D.
Claudius, Bishop of Turin, is burned at the stake for passionate protests against the Medieval church. In 1805, when Napoleon asks the Moderator of the Waldensian Church, “How long is it since you became an independent church?” — his reply is: “Since the time of Claudius, Bishop of Turin.”

1120
An ancient Confession of Faith of the Waldensians predates Calvin, Luther, and Peter Waldo.

1165
Waldensians escape persecutions in France by fleeing to the Valleys of the Piedmont, and find there like-minded brethren, with whom they enjoy a mutual edification of faith.

1173
Peter Waldo, wealthy merchant of Lyon (France), experiences a spiritual epiphany, divests himself of his wealth — using some to have a few passages of scripture translated from Latin to French. He then takes up the cause of evangelism. He and his followers call themselves “the Poor in Spirit,” but soon become known as “the Poor of Lyon.” .. ..

?? / Francis and the Waldensians
https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/m ... aldensians

WAS FRANCIS OF ASSISI secretly a Waldensian?
Catholic writers vigorously reject the idea that a “heretic” such as Peter Waldo could have had any direct influence on the saint from Assisi. However, a cross-fertilization of ideas, with Peter Waldo directly or indirectly influencing Francis of Assisi is definitely possible.

Considered a major forerunner of the Protestant Reformation, Peter Waldo lived at the same time as Francis, in the twelfth century. He was a French merchant who was converted in 1170 and promptly gave up his substantial wealth. He formed a band known as the Poor People of Lyons. They went about preaching, translating the Bible into the language of the common people, and ministering to the poor, though they were committed to poverty themselves. .. ..

2015 / Pope to Waldensian Church: Forgive us! / 2 min.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iByYW5_EopI

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news ... tion-43232

(not all are forgiving) -
http://www.theeponymousflower.com/2015/ ... gy-we.html

[temporal1]

In time, the original followers/Followers of Jesus were labeled Christians, a derogatory term.
The Apostles, the followers, none of these had written scriptures. Eventually, scriptures were written.

Over hundreds of years leading to the labels, Protestants+Anabaptists, there were a number of Catholic monks+priests that meticulously READ and TRANSLATED scriptures .. arriving at conclusions that differed from what had become Catholic teachings. they noticed .. “But it says this.”

The Catholic Church did not want the Bible in the hands and languages of the masses.
(From what i can tell, i’m not sure this has entirely changed.) i’m unsure.

The climax of these different views, based on personal reading+study by devout monks+priests eventually resulted in the dramatic Reformation.

1500’s Protestants and Anabaptists did not appear out of nowhere.
Moveable type probably was the mechanism that determined timing of the dramatic, violent climax.

But there’s more than the Bible. The elusive “more.”
Reading alone guarantees nothing. The Holy Spirit determines outcomes. Without the blessing of the Holy Spirit, scriptures are ink on paper. Pray to be touched by the Holy Spirit. When reading, and in all matters.

This confounds intellectuals.

Jesus was not an intellectual. He could have been. Using few words, never parsing words, He is so much more.
Using so few words, He turned the world upside-down.

Thank you, Jesus Christ. Forgive us our sins.

[temporal1]

This post from Neto relates to my interest in this thread.
(i bunny trail about birth control pills.) but, whatever.

I think that the same holds true for what I'll refer to as "neo-anabaptism" - a reinterpretation of history to fit concepts that are really not consistent with positions held by the early 'anabaptists' - called the 'baptism-minded' in the Dutch setting. (Since the terms 'Mennists' and then 'Mennonites' arose in that settings, sometimes I have said 'real Mennonites', but I wouldn't want to quibble over names, especially when what THEY were doing was attempting to be Biblical followers of Jesus the Christ.)

Perhaps none of us are entirely innocent of this tendency to stir up a revitalization movement that emulates those people, rather than emulating the One they were attempting to emulate.

I'm not saying that I think they did it badly, but it is the introduction of new 'causes' into their vision, injecting these things into the 'original movement' without subjecting them to the same scrutiny they utilized that can cause us to loose our way.
This is where this 'intellectual Biblicism' in needed, in my opinion.

One example from my own 'revitalization' from 'Evangelical Mennonitism'. As influenced by the Hippie Peace movement, and the women's liberation cause,
we looked back through the old writings and 'highlighted' anything that could be used to suggest that women had leadership roles in that early period. And we did the same thing to cast them as 'charismatics', tongues speakers. The real issue is not centrally whether either of these were actually the case in any of those early settings, but rather how these questions stack up against Scripture.

Our questions need to be settled on the basis of the Scripture, not on even a true interpretation of what any of the early anabaptists in the Swiss setting wrote, or what Menno or Deitrich said or thought.

I don't throw them out - I use their example of how they desired to follow Christ.
They didn't do it all perfectly, and following them instead of the One they followed is a bit like hanging a picture of yourself up in front of your mirror and looking at that while shaving.

good points. as always, you strive for depth in language.

regarding the “women’s liberation cause” of the hippie days, i align this directly with free+cheap/accessible birth control pills, which enabled women to “do their best impressions” of “being male,” and it has not ended. families and morality decimated - because they could be. One high price of fornication and adultery, pregnancy, esp for females, was removed.

at the onset, no one imagined this would quickly translate to “sexual freedom” of the unmarried, teens and children.
the original aim was to help authentic traditional families “space” out births, for different “logical” reasons, financial, and the mothers’ strength and health.

frankly, if those same early people could have foreseen the devastation that quickly ensued, i sincerely suspect they would have rejected the access altogether - because marriage, families, women, children, and men, were ‘way too valuable to sacrifice.
they would have chosen to wait for another answer.

so much of what is now taken for granted would have been abhorred by individuals, churches, doctors, communities.
and it’s now all formally taught+enabled in public schools and in “health care.” at taxpayer expense.

the earliest folks would have said, “NO.”
they would have been deeply shaken to even consider risking what all has been lost. so foreign to their thinking, the sorrowful results we live with today would not have seemed possible.

[temporal1]

More:

This reminds me of the note one of my Bible college theology professors wrote on a paper I submitted about "The Doctrine of the Trinity". He says: "Are you against the intellect or are you saying that the intellect has limits?" (It was at the end of a semester, and there was no provision for me to answer his question, which was probably more of a statement than a real question anyway. So I never talked with him about it.)

I am not "against the intellect", and I would say that the intellect has some serious limits, but what I mean is to be qualified by the injunction to not go beyond Scripture. I think that we should use the brains that God gave us, but not to attempt to fill in some parts he (in his all-surpassing wisdom) chose to leave out. That is where the Calvinists got into trouble with their Remonstrant brothers.

I think that understanding the Scriptures requires both the essential revealing work of the Holy Spirit of God, and also the Spirit-let human mind, straining toward the fullest understanding intended by God.

The intellect gets us into trouble if we miss the Spirit's voice, and w/o it we will not know enough to understand the written words, to avoid wild interpretations that follow some other spirit.

(As a former Bible translator I can attest to the desire to be able to write by the inspiration of God, but I am not one of the authors of Scripture. And so I needed to study many texts over and over, to the greatest ability of my fragile human mind, realizing that it is the holy message of God that I am handling, attempting to convey its meaning to a people who have never heard it before, and do not have the ability to read & understand in some other language.)

[temporal1]

More:

Even though Conrad Grebel was highly educated, I believe his statement "I believe the word of God without a complicated interpretation, and out of this belief I speak."

One of the characteristics of intellectual depth is the ability to distill complexity into simplicity.

When selecting college classes I looked for the ones that were taught by a full professor, or better yet a department head.

This doesn't always hold true, but in general the people with the most knowledge and experience in their field can give the clearest explanations out of the depth of their wisdom. This is because they understand the detail, the nuance that underlies that clarity.

The Gateway Arch in St. Louis is an iconic form that everyone recognizes. But the nuts and bolts of the design, the structure, the construction, and even the operation are anything but elementary.

The gospel is simple enough that anyone can understand it, yet a lifetime of study and walking with God cannot exhaust the profound riches that he has made available to those who seek him; there is always something new to discover.

The Anabaptist hermeneutic and the orthopraxy of straightforward obedience that flows from it are an expression of this principle.

Simple but not simplistic; logically coherent but not rigidly systematized; authoritative but not authoritarian.

Somewhere along the line of history, we lost that.

i’ve been listening to a tape of Thomas Sowell recently.
One comment included about him was about his ability to take the complex to ordinary people with no special education on the topic, yet convey information in ways they could understand it. There is a gift/genius to it.

Jesus Christ did this perfectly. Nothing less than astonishing. Awe-inspiring. Humbling.

[temporal1]

1 Corinthians 2:13
https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/2-13.htm

12We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.

13And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

14The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God.
For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.…

Human intellect is God designed, and God given. It is a wonderful gift! But there is more, and without the God-given more, the Holy Spirit, human intellect falls short.

Thankfully, the Holy Spirit is not stingy, but generous, ever watching, guiding, protecting, i believe even when we’re unaware.
So much so, we should all be in a continual state of gratitude. (If we were as smart as we like to think we are.)

[temporal1]

This is more difficult for me:

While I see danger in college and a high view of one's own self understanding, I also see a danger in "this is the way we have always done it" Especially when that "way" has only been that way for maybe the last two generations.

How did the colleges of the day teach doctrine? how did the Anabaptists teach doctrine?
How do we teach doctrine now and which makes more sense?

Was it purely persecution that limited the intellectual side of anabaptists?
Or was there a deeper concern evidenced by the poor and the uneducated actually converting to begin with?

You are definitely on to some of the conundrum of conservative Anabaptists these days.
Both intellectualism and anti-intellectualism are problematic.

We know that high intellect is not a necessary hallmark for a follower of Jesus, but at the same time the idea of trading in the God-given gifts of intellect and logic for non-thoughtful traditionalism is repulsive.

Regarding Soloist’s question of “colleges of the day teaching” -
my understanding would be colleges of the early days would NOT have been teaching from the protestant or Anabaptist pov.
(Please correct if i’m mistaken.)

Regarding mike’s word, “intellectualism,” possibly word definitions need clarification to avoid confusion?

intellect
intellectual
intellectualism

Human intellect is a gift from God. Worship of it causes problems.

It’s similar to science versus scientism. To me, the latter is not science.

Money is not evil. The love of money is evil.

[temporal1]

Still collecting notes ..

Third way ..

I think Jesus came to establish a "third way". One that does not align with either the Sadducees nor the Pharisees.
Neither the Zealots nor the Essenes. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans. Neither the Fundamentalists nor the Progressives. Note even the Anabaptists, Evangelicals or Kingdom Christians.

Jesus came to establish a new perspective on life.
A new perspective of the kingdom of God.
A new perspective of God's role in the cosmos.
A new perspective on what it means to be a follower of God.

Different movements throughout history have identified various good pieces of this (some more than others) but eventually it seems that every movement ends up lopsided because they focus on certain aspects of truth at the expense of other complimentary aspects of truth.

A lot of conflict was due to various Catholic monks+priests, over hundreds of years, meticulously READING and TRANSLATING scriptures, yearning to discern Truth, finding conflicts between what was written, and what was said to be written.
To my understanding, these devout ones did not want to leave the Catholic Church! - only to correct it and improve it - including Catholic Martin Luther and Catholic Menno Simons. This sounds like a basic request to contemporary ears.

They found this could not be!
How different history would have played out, if this one thing had been met differently.

It’s helpful to realize, those who were eventually labeled Lutherans, Protestants and Anabaptists did not, and did not intend to throw out “everything.” As a child, i was puzzled that all could use+believe in the Bible, yet be so distinctly at odds.

These men found certain conflicts they wanted to correct.
This was met with violence. Anabaptists went further than others, this was met with violence.

“Truth is stranger than fiction.”

[temporal1]

1215 England / The Magna Carta
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=3794

The Magna Carta is part of what eventually led to the Reformation, Protestants and Anabaptists.
So much happened over hundreds of years getting there.

i don’t believe the MC was mentioned in the video, A Lamp in the Dark. (?)
if not, this would seem quite an oversight. (?) i’m not sure.