Anabaptists and the Authority of Scripture

[ohio jones]

” You can also read Paul—who was quite possibly only semi-literate himself—who makes extensive references and builds arguments from scripture assuming his audience is very familiar with them and will be able to follow his arguments.

If Paul was only semi-literate, then who wrote all the Epistles?

His amanuensis. Though to the extent he did not write his own letters, I suspect it was due to physical limitations rather than lack of literacy.

[Pelerin]

” You can also read Paul—who was quite possibly only semi-literate himself—who makes extensive references and builds arguments from scripture assuming his audience is very familiar with them and will be able to follow his arguments.

If Paul was only semi-literate, then who wrote all the Epistles?

Tertius for one. Paul apparently didn’t do hardly any of the actual writing of his letters. In Romans 16:22 we suddenly find out that someone named Tertius is the one actually holding the pen. In Galatians 6:11 Paul emphasizes something by pointing out that he’s writing it with his own hand which they can tell because he’s using large letters—possibly large like a child’s because he’s unused to writing himself. Some people have speculated that this was because Paul was partially blind, maybe as a lingering effect from his experience on the way to Damascus—maybe the “thorn in my flesh”.

Reading and writing are two different skills and in a world where “paper” was harder to come by it wouldn’t be too surprising if Paul either wasn’t taught that in his education or didn’t get a lot of practice. Even in books from 150 years ago or less you find references to public writers who offer their services for writing letters. Something like this from just thirty years ago.

[Pelerin]

a world where “paper” was harder to come by

One thing that occurred to me this morning while I was sitting in church: the introduction of actual paper would have had a similar effect as the printing press by providing more ready access to information. In addition though, cheaper paper would have meant that rather than reserving the vellum for special uses by senior scholars, the opportunity to write (and learn to write) would have been more accessible to those being educated so that by the sixteenth century most or all of the Swiss Brethren leaders were educated and could write. It would increase the number of people who felt qualified to have an opinion on scripture in the first place. In other words maybe one of the factors feeding into the Reformation was simply that there were more potential reformers—because of paper.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Would you agree that within the Reformation, no group took Sola Scriptura more seriously than the Anabaptists?

yes

If so, has that remained true in the past 500 years of Anabaptist history?

Yes, for a minority. No for the majority.

I am curious what the minority is. Do you mean that conservative Anabaptists still hold to this while more progressive Anabaptists (like MCUSA) do not because they are giving in to the trends of the world? Or do you mean that moderate to progressive Anabaptists still hold to this because very conservative Anabaptists place more authority on their ordnung than on scripture? Or do you mean something else?
Also, which is the minority? MCUSA boasts a lot of congregations worldwide, but aren't the Old Orders growing to be the biggest population among Anabaptists? Which is the minority?

Is this statement true:

The Bible became and remained for them the supreme judicature by which all human opinions were to be tried.

For some early Anabaptists, yes. This resulted in lengthy and sometimes pathetic debates with the Catholics and Protestants as well as with other Anabaptists.

Other Anabaptists placed God/Jesus as the foundation below the Bible upon which everything else was built upon. This posture made them Christ followers rather than Bible fundamentalists.

I'm curious about this as well. I spent some time with an Anabaptist church that really challenged me to find out what the Bible said about the authoritative Word of God. I came away realizing that the term "The Word of God" refers to a personal being, either the presence of God visiting His people in the Old Testament, or the incarnate person of Jesus in the New Testament. This challenged me into developing an Anabaptist "Christocentric" hermeneutic for the Bible, even though I'm not sure the church that challenged me on that would share the same exact hermeneutic.

I have heard many times that the original Anabaptists emphasized the authority of Jesus over "the Bible", but I don't know if I've seen sources that indicate this.

[Ernie]

Even in books from 150 years ago or less you find references to public writers who offer their services for writing letters. Something like this from just thirty years ago.

I learned something new today. I never knew that this existed in modern times.

[mike]

Would you agree that within the Reformation, no group took Sola Scriptura more seriously than the Anabaptists?

yes

If so, has that remained true in the past 500 years of Anabaptist history?

Yes, for a minority. No for the majority.

Is this statement true:

The Bible became and remained for them the supreme judicature by which all human opinions were to be tried.

For some early Anabaptists, yes. This resulted in lengthy and sometimes pathetic debates with the Catholics and Protestants as well as with other Anabaptists.

Other Anabaptists placed God/Jesus as the foundation below the Bible upon which everything else was built upon. This posture made them Christ followers rather than Bible fundamentalists.

Ernie, I'm also curious about this last statement of yours. I've heard some people say that the ethos of the early Anabaptists was more Sola Christus than Sola Scriptura. How could the idea of Sola Christus look different from Sola Scriptura, and how well do either of those ideas describe Anabaptists today? You said above that you think only a minority would still take Sola Scriptura seriously today.

[HondurasKeiser]

I’m not so sure about Estep’s last sentence, especially the “and remained” part. The curmudgeon in me would aver that some conservative Anabaptists have developed a congregational form of conciliarism, where the authority of The Brotherhood rivals if not supplants that of Scripture. And some liberal Anabaptists seem to place human opinions (or at least the ones they agree with at the moment) at the pinnacle, reinterpreting or ignoring Scripture if it conflicts.

Might both the liberal and conservative inclination towards congregational authority be of a piece and perhaps endemic to Anabaptism all the way down? Indeed, the authority of scripture, while prime within Anabaptism is nevertheless determined or interpreted within the body of believers. This to me is part of what makes Anabaptism and its "orthopraxy" so communal. It's rather unlike a more evangelical approach to the scripture which, while also a holding a high view of the text, makes each individual their own pope, council and priest.

[joshuabgood]

I think a compelling argument can be made that the fundamental difference for the Anabaptists is that they make Jesus the supreme authority and interpretive lens, rather than "the Bible." After all Jesus himself said "all authority is given to him." He, without excuse, rewrote/interpreted scripture. It's impossible to put him on too high a pedestal.

[Nomad]

I think a compelling argument can be made that the fundamental difference for the Anabaptists is that they make Jesus the supreme authority and interpretive lens, rather than "the Bible." After all Jesus himself said "all authority is given to him." He, without excuse, rewrote/interpreted scripture. It's impossible to put him on too high a pedestal.

I dont think Jesus rewrote or reinterpreted scripture. The message of the Bible and Jesus harmonize rather than conflict. It seems a bit presumptuous for us to attempt to pit the Bible and Jesus against each other. I fail to understand how its helpful to try and elevate scripture over other scripture or Jesus above other scripture or Paul vs Jesus or Paul vs James. It just shows man's pathetic attempts to place their base knowledge and pride above Gods given Word.

[barnhart]

Might both the liberal and conservative inclination towards congregational authority be of a piece and perhaps endemic to Anabaptism all the way down? Indeed, the authority of scripture, while prime within Anabaptism is nevertheless determined or interpreted within the body of believers. This to me is part of what makes Anabaptism and its "orthopraxy" so communal. It's rather unlike a more evangelical approach to the scripture which, while also a holding a high view of the text, makes each individual their own pope, council and priest.

I agree. At the same time it sets Anabaptism apart from the high church model where theology and practice are set by centralized authority.