MennoNet.com

I found this 2.5 minute exchange fascinating. It appears the student understood some important and foundational beliefs about Jesus and the NT era.

Very perceptive young man.

I think this exchange illustrates the neo Reform affinity for collapsing the distance between the old and new covenants, especially in the areas relating to government.

The Evangelical Protestant approach is to separate the old covenant into Ceremonial, Civil and Moral law with the Ceremonial law made inert through the fulfillment of Jesus, the Civil law outsourced to Democracy and the Moral law reformulated to be internal and individual.

Kirk and the movement he represents would rather read Genesis as a mandate for God's people to dominate and control, Moses as model for nation building and Daniel as a model for infiltrating and controlling pagan empires.

The student represents a more Anabaptist style theology by asking how the old covenant is interpreted in light of the revelation of Jesus.

barnhart wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 9:00 am I think this exchange illustrates the neo Reform affinity for collapsing the distance between the old and new covenants, especially in the areas relating to government.

The Evangelical Protestant approach is to separate the old covenant into Ceremonial, Civil and Moral law with the Ceremonial law made inert through the fulfillment of Jesus, the Civil law outsourced to Democracy and the Moral law reformulated to be internal and individual.

Kirk and the movement he represents would rather read Genesis as a mandate for God's people to dominate and control, Moses as model for nation building and Daniel as a model for infiltrating and controlling pagan empires.

The student represents a more Anabaptist style theology by asking how the old covenant is interpreted in light of the revelation of Jesus.

When I read the early Anabaptists, they didn't seem to draw much of a distinction between Old and New Testament at all. I'm of the opinion that sharply delineating the two is a feature we got from dispensationalism.

Of course, having to accept the God of the Old Testament as the same God we serve today does present some challenges for those who want to reshape God into a god of their own making, such as one who would (for example) never command his followers to go to war.

JohnH wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 11:53 am

barnhart wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 9:00 am I think this exchange illustrates the neo Reform affinity for collapsing the distance between the old and new covenants, especially in the areas relating to government.

The Evangelical Protestant approach is to separate the old covenant into Ceremonial, Civil and Moral law with the Ceremonial law made inert through the fulfillment of Jesus, the Civil law outsourced to Democracy and the Moral law reformulated to be internal and individual.

Kirk and the movement he represents would rather read Genesis as a mandate for God's people to dominate and control, Moses as model for nation building and Daniel as a model for infiltrating and controlling pagan empires.

The student represents a more Anabaptist style theology by asking how the old covenant is interpreted in light of the revelation of Jesus.

When I read the early Anabaptists, they didn't seem to draw much of a distinction between Old and New Testament at all. I'm of the opinion that sharply delineating the two is a feature we got from dispensationalism.

Of course, having to accept the God of the Old Testament as the same God we serve today does present some challenges for those who want to reshape God into a god of their own making, such as one who would (for example) never command his followers to go to war.

The NEW Testament is, in fact, a new one, not a revised old one.

JohnH wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 11:53 am When I read the early Anabaptists, they didn't seem to draw much of a distinction between Old and New Testament at all.

You might want to spend a bit more time reading Marpeck. Or even just this essay:
The Relation of the Old and New Covenants in Pilgram Marpeck’s Theology

JohnH wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 11:53 am When I read the early Anabaptists, they didn't seem to draw much of a distinction between Old and New Testament at all. I'm of the opinion that sharply delineating the two is a feature we got from dispensationalism.

cmbl wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 6:41 pm Edsel Burdge's "History of the Anabaptists - Part 9" has some discussion of Swiss Brethren views on the relation of the Old and New Testaments and a Christocentric hermenutic.

Burdge's discussion of the Frankenthal debate between Swiss Brethren and magisterial Reformers (he sometimes says Lutheran, sometimes Reformed) starts at 43:51.
He gets into the topic of the Old and New Testaments and Christocentrism at 49:09.



A couple highlights:
The Reformed view:

The Old Testament Scripture is as valid to the Christian as the New Testament...The New Testament accepts the Old Testament as authoritative in the principal doctrines of Christian faith and conduct...We say that the New Testament does not require anything else concerning Christian conduct than that which was also required in the Scriptures of the Old Testament.

The Swiss Brethren:

The New Testament is the final authority in the principal doctrines of faith and conduct...Concerning conduct we hold that there is a difference between the teaching of Moses and the Prophets and Christ and his Apostles, for the one rules through the law while the other through evangelical freedom...The New Testament fulfilled the Old Testament and thus superseded it.

Burdge comments, "[The Magisterial Reformers] did not succeed in getting the Anabaptists to either throw away the Old Testament or to say it stood on equal footing with the New."

In the debate, Rauff Bisch, summarizing the Swiss Brethren position, said,

Rauff Bisch wrote:We declared before that we consider the Old Testament valid in the doctrines of Christian faith only in so far as the New Testament permits...We have previously expressed that we do not want to judge Christ according to Moses, but Moses according to Christ, and that Moses was a servant, but Christ spoke as a Son in his own house...Therefore, as far as conduct is concerned,...Christ must be held above Moses - for we hold there is a great difference between the Jewish and the Christian life.

They freely quoted from the OT and apocryphal books. There wasn’t a sharp distinction between two dispensations.

JohnH wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2026 4:26 pm They freely quoted from the OT and apocryphal books. There wasn’t a sharp distinction between two dispensations.

I disagree. The majority clearly articulated how the Old Testament ended and the New Testament is now in effect. They also show how the New realties supercede the old. Here is a sampling.

Conrad Grebel — “Neither do they use worldly sword or war, since all killing has ceased with them—unless, indeed, we would still be of the old law.”
Conrad Grebel — “They must reach the Fatherland of eternal rest, not by slaying their bodily enemies but by mortifying their spiritual enemies.”
Conrad Grebel — “The gospel and its adherents are not to be protected by the sword, nor are they thus to protect themselves.”
Michael Sattler / Swiss Brethren — “The sword is ordained of God outside the perfection of Christ.”
Michael Sattler / Swiss Brethren — “In the Law the sword was ordained for the punishment of the wicked and for their death.”
Michael Sattler / Swiss Brethren — “In the perfection of Christ, however, only the ban is used for a warning and for the excommunication of the one who has sinned, without putting the flesh to death.”
Michael Sattler / Swiss Brethren — “Christ says to the heathen woman who was taken in adultery, not that one should stone her according to the Law of his Father…but in mercy and forgiveness and warning, to sin no more.”
Michael Sattler / Swiss Brethren — “Christ teaches and commands us to learn of him, for He is meek and lowly in heart.”
Michael Sattler / Swiss Brethren — “The government magistracy is according to the flesh, but the Christian’s is according to the Spirit.”
Michael Sattler / Swiss Brethren — “Their citizenship is in this world, but the Christian’s citizenship is in heaven.”
Michael Sattler / Swiss Brethren — “The weapons of their conflict and war are carnal and against the flesh only, but the Christian’s weapons are spiritual.”
Michael Sattler / Swiss Brethren — “The worldlings are armed with steel and iron, but the Christians are armed with the armor of God.”
Michael Sattler / Swiss Brethren — “In the Law it is commanded to be performed in God’s Name, but only in truth, not falsely.”
Michael Sattler / Swiss Brethren — “Christ, who teaches the perfection of the Law, prohibits all swearing to His followers, whether true or false.”
Michael Sattler / Swiss Brethren — “So you see it is for this reason that all swearing is forbidden.”
Bern Anabaptist Conference (1538) — “We grant the Old Testament validity wherever Christ has not suspended it and wherever it agrees with the New.”
Pilgram Marpeck — “In the Old Testament nearly everything was done in a figurative way and experienced in that way.”
Pilgram Marpeck — “For Christians, however, it is quite a different matter.”
Pilgram Marpeck — “A great difference exists between Christians and Abraham’s promise.”
Pilgram Marpeck — “A difference everyone, who can clearly understand the difference between the Old and New Testaments, can easily perceive.”
Pilgram Marpeck — “Like most other things in the Old Testament, circumcision is a figure and image.”
Pilgram Marpeck — “One cannot extrapolate from this promise to Abraham that children are to be baptized.”
Pilgram Marpeck — “The old covenant is merely a covenant of promise.”
Dirk Philips — “Christ Jesus is the spirit and the substance of all the types and figures that have passed away.”
Dirk Philips — Christ is “the end and fulfillment of the law of types, figures and shadows.”
Dirk Philips — Christ is “the beginning of the true substance and completeness.”
Dirk Philips — “All shadows and figures are fulfilled in him.”
Dirk Philips — “All things are changed in Christ and are transfigured and made new by him.”
Dirk Philips — They are “changed from the letter to the Spirit.”
Dirk Philips — They are changed “from the carnal to the real.”
Dirk Philips — They are changed “from the old to the new.”
Dirk Philips — They are changed “from the figure into the true abiding substance.”
Dirk Philips — They are changed “from the transitory to the eternal and heavenly.”
Dirk Philips — “The figures of the old testament must be carefully examined and be understood, not according to human opinion.”
Dirk Philips — “Christ before his death called his disciples—his beloved friends—to him, revealed his words, and declared his will to them.”
Dirk Philips — “Christ Jesus dedicated or established the new testament with his innocent death and precious blood.”
Menno Simons — “All the promises to the fathers, the waiting of the patriarchs, the whole figurative law, and all the predictions of the prophets, are fulfilled in Christ, with Christ, and through Christ.”
Menno Simons — “Moses and his successors, with their iron sword, have served their day, and…Christ has now given us a new command and another sword.”
Menno Simons — “We know and use no other sword than that which Christ himself brought down from heaven.”
Menno Simons — “We shall…leave the armor of David to the carnal Israelites.”
Menno Simons — “The sword of Zerubbabel [we leave] to those who build the temple of Zerubbabel in Jerusalem, which was a figure of them and a shadow of things coming.”
Menno Simons — “We should not understand that the figure of the Old Testament is so applied to the truth of the New Testament, that flesh is understood as referring to flesh.”
Menno Simons — “The figure must answer the truth; the image, the being, and the letter, the Spirit.”
Menno Simons — “A letter of the law of Moses could not be changed till the new Moses, Christ Jesus, came.”
Menno Simons — “If then the letter of the law was so strong, effective and firm…how much more powerful, effectual, firm, and unchangeable is the free law of the Spirit.”
Menno Simons — The law of the Spirit “was given through the Son himself, and confirmed by the blood of the eternal covenant.”
Menno Simons — “If you would appeal to the literal understanding and transactions of Moses and the prophets, then must you also become Jews.”
Menno Simons — Christ “has changed the literal and figurative ceremonies into new, spiritual and abiding substances.”
Menno Simons — “The figures and shadows were…changed into the new and abiding reality.”
Menno Simons — “After it had all been accomplished according to the Scriptures, and all things made new in Christ, he did not then send out the Scribes and Pharisees with Moses’ law, but his disciples with his own doctrine.”
Menno Simons — “Since then all things are new in and through Christ…in the new Testament, are we…directed to those preachers who sit in Christ’s seat.”
Menno Simons — “To swear truly was allowed to the Jews under the law; but the gospel forbids this to Christians.”
Menno Simons — “Moses commanded not to forswear thyself, but I say unto you, Thou shalt not swear at all.”
Menno Simons — “The literal law of Moses…had to remain unchanged until the coming of Christ.”
Menno Simons — “Not a tittle could be changed in all the law of Moses until the new Lawgiver came who was promised by Moses and the prophets, Jesus Christ.”
Menno Simons — “How much more authoritative and unchangeable is the law of Jesus Christ which is free, spiritual, eternal, given through the Son and sealed by His blood!”
Peter Riedemann — “Therefore it is ended, stopped and broken in Christ.”
Peter Riedemann — “He also hath now begun a new regime that is not like the old one and is not supported by the temporal sword.”
Peter Riedemann — “The regime of the Jews, who until then were God’s people, came to an end in Christ, ceased and was taken from them.”
Peter Riedemann — “It is his desire to rule over Christians with his spiritual sword alone.”
Peter Riedemann — “From henceforth the people of God ought no longer to use the temporal sword and rule therewith.”
Peter Riedemann — “[The people of God] ought to be ruled and led by the one Spirit of Christ alone.”

barnhart wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2026 9:40 pm Very perceptive young man.

Yes, and he did the best he could against a Gish Gallop...which CK vigorously employed in an effort to run the student over... and drown him out...