Anabaptists and the Authority of Scripture

[barnhart]

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.

Another way of looking at it would be to say the detractors of Anabaptism are "putting the Bible against Jesus" by creating theology that says in effect Jesus didn't actually mean what he said and Anabaptism is harmonizing their false conflict by returning authority to Jesus.

[mike]

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.

Not that far apart in the conference structure of many conservative Anabaptist churches, where theology and practice often ARE set by centralized authority.

[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.

Another way of looking at it would be to say the detractors of Anabaptism are "putting the Bible against Jesus" by creating theology that says in effect Jesus didn't actually mean what he said and Anabaptism is harmonizing their false conflict by returning authority to Jesus.

I dont see any reason to divide the Bibles authority from Jesus authority. I see the Bible as 1 book with different themes that all intersect at Jesus. Not a bunch of differing messages that contradict.

[Neto]

A former OO Amish guy on FaceBook (I also have a book he wrote) made an illustration some month or so back, contrasting GPS vs a paper map, saying that the Holy Spirit is like GPS, because He tells you straight up which way to turn, etc. (Not his exact wording.) Then the Bible is like a paper map, which is "somewhat difficult to interpret". I responded that I like a paper map because it gives you the big picture, and it doesn't do the "recalculating" thing, or tell you to turn into a back alley.

I mentioned this FaceBook exchange in our SS class, and also told how a guy my daughter knew well (back years ago) 'confessed" that on one occasion, when he couldn't get a signal, and had to rely on a paper map, that he had tried to "expand" or zero in on the paper map several times (forefinger and thumb) before realizing that he was using a paper map, and that it wasn't going to zoom in at all. Then one of the brethren in our SS class said that the Holy Spirit is the one who expands the "paper map" of Scripture, and as you zoom in, you see JESUS. In more conventional "Church talk", the Holy Spirit illuminates the Scripture, revealing the Truth, which is Jesus.

[barnhart]

I dont see any reason to divide the Bibles authority from Jesus authority. I see the Bible as 1 book with different themes that all intersect at Jesus. Not a bunch of differing messages that contradict.

So do I but it's not hard to find theologians with doctrine proposing the perfection of Jesus teaching is not to be obeyed perse, but rather to illustrate our sinfulness and need of grace, or that Jesus' teaching is for inspiration purposes only to cause us to raise our standards and aim higher so we will fail higher, or that Jesus' teaching is not for us at all but for the millennial reign after enemies are defeated by force.

Jesus also claimed a certain amount of authority over the scripture by defining its true purpose, "you have heard that it was said... but I say unto you." The common listeners were "amazed at his teaching, for he taught as one with authority..." And the religious leaders also understood Jesus as claiming authority over scripture. I am comfortable allowing Jesus the final word on the meaning of scripture.

[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.

Not that far apart in the conference structure of many conservative Anabaptist churches, where theology and practice often ARE set by centralized authority.

There is a tendency to drift in that direction but there are also many counter examples of Anabaptists intentionally moving away from that.

[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.

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.

Jesus: It has been said unto you...but I say unto you.

I am not sure how much more clear it can get =).

[joshuabgood]

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.

Another way of looking at it would be to say the detractors of Anabaptism are "putting the Bible against Jesus" by creating theology that says in effect Jesus didn't actually mean what he said and Anabaptism is harmonizing their false conflict by returning authority to Jesus.

I dont see any reason to divide the Bibles authority from Jesus authority. I see the Bible as 1 book with different themes that all intersect at Jesus. Not a bunch of differing messages that contradict.

So what you are left with then is...assuming you are an Anabaptist that believes in living out the Sermon on the Mount...the idea that somehow the Anabaptists are just better exegetically than the Piper's, RC Sprouls, MacArthur's, Calvins, Luthers, Kellers, not to mention the all the Catholic and EO learned men and theologians. That seems arrogant to me. Those men are learned men who exegete "the Bible" very carefully and many of them understand historical languages far better than we do.

I think there is another much more compelling explanation. That explanation is our starting point regarding the authority of Jesus, his teachings and his witness, being the supreme authority and interpretive lens. Jesus is Lord of the scriptures. He didn't say I will go...but never fear I will later send you a book. No, John's gospel notes how he promises his Spirit will come. Saying all that, I think the scriptures are reliable and trustworthy, however, lifting up Jesus too high is impossible. We interpret all Scriptures through Jesus Christ. Not the other way around.

[Ken]

Another way of looking at it would be to say the detractors of Anabaptism are "putting the Bible against Jesus" by creating theology that says in effect Jesus didn't actually mean what he said and Anabaptism is harmonizing their false conflict by returning authority to Jesus.

I dont see any reason to divide the Bibles authority from Jesus authority. I see the Bible as 1 book with different themes that all intersect at Jesus. Not a bunch of differing messages that contradict.

So what you are left with then is...assuming you are an Anabaptist that believes in living out the Sermon on the Mount...the idea that somehow the Anabaptists are just better exegetically than the Piper's, RC Sprouls, MacArthur's, Calvins, Luthers, Kellers, not to mention the all the Catholic and EO learned men and theologians. That seems arrogant to me. Those men are learned men who exegete "the Bible" very carefully and many of them understand historical languages far better than we do.

I think there is another much more compelling explanation. That explanation is the authority of Jesus, his teachings and his witness, being the supreme authority and interpretive lens. Jesus is Lord of the scriptures. He didn't say I will go...but never fear I will later send you a book. No, John's gospel notes how he promises his Spirit will come. Saying all that, I think the scriptures are reliable and trustworthy, however, lifting up Jesus too high is impossible.

Then why do Anabaptists spend so much time centering on the teachings of Paul rather than the teachings of Jesus?

Is it not correct that most of the characteristics that separate plain Anabaptists from the rest of the Christian world are based on Paul's epistles rather than Jesus' gospels?

[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.

Jesus: It has been said unto you...but I say unto you.

I am not sure how much more clear it can get =).

Most likely Jesus was correcting misinterpretations of scripture when He said "but I say unto you..." hence why you won't find anywhere in the OT to "hate your enemies" as stated in Matthew 5:43. In fact you find the opposite stated in Leviticus 19:18.