Anabaptists and the Authority of Scripture

[ohio jones]

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?

No. But it may depend on what those characteristics of separation are. If you're only looking at head coverings and lack of external ornamentation, those are from the epistles. If you are looking at larger issues like love for enemies, lifelong marital commitment, and truth-telling, those are from the gospels.

[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.

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.

I don't find that compelling because the disciples and the early church in fact lived like Jesus lived and taught, and it was much different than the old order and Levitical law. Suffering love, one man/one woman, no oaths, different approach to Sabbath, etc. It seems clear to me that there was a marked change that Jesus brought, a new teaching/order.

[joshuabgood]

The question needs to be asked...why is there resistance to putting Jesus on the highest pedestal? Could it be because the way of the cross is so counterintuitive it is an offense to them? They don't have the faith to believe it? What is the reason?

[Nomad]

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.

I don't find that compelling because the disciples and the early church in fact lived like Jesus lived and taught, and it was much different than the old order and Levitical law. Suffering love, one man/one woman, no oaths, different approach to Sabbath, etc. It seems clear to me that there was a marked change that Jesus brought, a new teaching/order.

Of course there is some discontinuity between the OT and NT. And Jesus did inaugurate the New Covenant at His 1st coming. However, the Bible speaks of 2 coming and both the OT and NT reference this. The Law was given specifically to the nation Israel and no other nation was held to that standard (Ps 147:19-20 says so). But the OT also speaks of a time when Gentiles will also be able to partake in fellowship and worship of God without having to be an Israelite or holding to the Mosaic Law. This was all foretold before Jesus. The OT also references the heart needing to follow God not just the practice of the Law. This was not a new message but was always spoken by the prophets long before Jesus came on the scene. Jesus also speaks that people hearts are to be drawn to God...so His message was hand in glove with the Prophets. The message of repentance was clear from OT to Jesus as well.

The idea that God spoke one thing then changed His mind when Jesus came, reeks of Nosticism where the OT God was different from the NT God.

[Neto]

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.

I don't find that compelling because the disciples and the early church in fact lived like Jesus lived and taught, and it was much different than the old order and Levitical law. Suffering love, one man/one woman, no oaths, different approach to Sabbath, etc. It seems clear to me that there was a marked change that Jesus brought, a new teaching/order.

There may be exceptions, but in most of the cases where Jesus used that phraseology ("It has been said to you"), you will not find the quotation to be taken from the Law as given by God to Moses. I think that if we get our concept of the Law from the things Jesus said IN OPPOSITION to the Pharisees and the Teachers of the Law, we will have a distorted view of the Law. THEY had distorted the Law, and he was calling them back to the true intent of the Law. Jesus demonstrated his high view of the Law in various places in the Gospels. To the Teacher of the Law who said that to Love Yawheh your God with all of your being and your fellow man as yourself sums up the Law and the Prophets Jesus responded "You are not far from the Kingdom of God".

I will maintain that Jesus lived out the true intent of the Law, encapsulating the "Ten Commandments" with what people call "the Golden Rule". It was there all of the time. God didn't give the Law in order to trick people for hundreds of years.

[Ken]

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?

No. But it may depend on what those characteristics of separation are. If you're only looking at head coverings and lack of external ornamentation, those are from the epistles. If you are looking at larger issues like love for enemies, lifelong marital commitment, and truth-telling, those are from the gospels.

Sure. The doctrine of non-resistance of pacifism comes from the Sermon on the Mount. But lots of Christians are pacifists, not just Anabaptists.

However most of the characteristics that distinguish PLAIN Anabaptists from other worldly Anabaptists like MCUSA or other pacifists are based on Paul's Epistles. Are they not?

I'm just quibbling with the notion that Anabaptists are especially Jesus centered compared to other denominations when much of what makes Anabaptists plain comes from the teachings of Paul and not the teachings of Jesus.

[ohio jones]

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?

No. But it may depend on what those characteristics of separation are. If you're only looking at head coverings and lack of external ornamentation, those are from the epistles. If you are looking at larger issues like love for enemies, lifelong marital commitment, and truth-telling, those are from the gospels.

Sure. The doctrine of non-resistance of pacifism comes from the Sermon on the Mount. But lots of Christians are pacifists, not just Anabaptists.

However most of the characteristics that distinguish PLAIN Anabaptists from other worldly Anabaptists like MCUSA or other pacifists are based on Paul's Epistles. Are they not?

I'm just quibbling with the notion that Anabaptists are especially Jesus centered compared to other denominations when much of what makes Anabaptists plain comes from the teachings of Paul and not the teachings of Jesus.

Well, for every plain Anabaptist distinctive that's based on the teachings of Paul, you can also find other Christians practicing that. Or are you unaware of conservative Holiness groups or the Head-Covering Movement, for example?

And for every plain Anabaptist distinctive that's based on the teachings of Paul, the other worldly Anabaptists should recognize that Paul's epistles are authoritative scripture (even if they should be viewed through the lens of Jesus' teachings) and not throw them out.

Plain Anabaptists may have other distinctives that are not based on Jesus or Paul, but on the turtles. But you were not asking about those.

[Ken]

No. But it may depend on what those characteristics of separation are. If you're only looking at head coverings and lack of external ornamentation, those are from the epistles. If you are looking at larger issues like love for enemies, lifelong marital commitment, and truth-telling, those are from the gospels.

Sure. The doctrine of non-resistance of pacifism comes from the Sermon on the Mount. But lots of Christians are pacifists, not just Anabaptists.

However most of the characteristics that distinguish PLAIN Anabaptists from other worldly Anabaptists like MCUSA or other pacifists are based on Paul's Epistles. Are they not?

I'm just quibbling with the notion that Anabaptists are especially Jesus centered compared to other denominations when much of what makes Anabaptists plain comes from the teachings of Paul and not the teachings of Jesus.

Well, for every plain Anabaptist distinctive that's based on the teachings of Paul, you can also find other Christians practicing that. Or are you unaware of conservative Holiness groups or the Head-Covering Movement, for example?

And for every plain Anabaptist distinctive that's based on the teachings of Paul, the other worldly Anabaptists should recognize that Paul's epistles are authoritative scripture (even if they should be viewed through the lens of Jesus' teachings) and not throw them out.

Plain Anabaptists may have other distinctives that are not based on Jesus or Paul, but on the turtles. But you were not asking about those.

I'm not quibbling with any of that.

Only with the notion that Anabaptism is uniquely focused on Jesus rather than "the Bible"

[joshuabgood]

I will maintain that Jesus lived out the true intent of the Law, encapsulating the "Ten Commandments" with what people call "the Golden Rule". It was there all of the time. God didn't give the Law in order to trick people for hundreds of years.

I know what you mean when you say this and to a certain extent I agree. However, the veil wasn't rent for nothing. Jesus came with a new gospel, a new revelation if you will. Matthew 24 and 25, in my view, uses beautiful apocalyptic language to describe the full coming of the new church age with predicted fall of Jerusarlem in AD 70. The elements melting, the old earth being burned, etc etc. The religious order of the day understood something radically different was afoot.

The old eye for an eye, oath swearing, etc, business was no more. There was a new law of love and gospel of peace. A new upside down kingdom anchored in service and suffering lovd. Where the prince was a prince of peace. Whose name would know no end.

But I don't see Jesus as merely following the OT law and system, but establishing a whole new order. Jesus is/was the perfect revelation of God the father. If you see him you see the father. If the law had revealed God perfectly, why would Jesus have come? There would be no need for God with us.

[joshuabgood]

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.

I don't find that compelling because the disciples and the early church in fact lived like Jesus lived and taught, and it was much different than the old order and Levitical law. Suffering love, one man/one woman, no oaths, different approach to Sabbath, etc. It seems clear to me that there was a marked change that Jesus brought, a new teaching/order.

Of course there is some discontinuity between the OT and NT. And Jesus did inaugurate the New Covenant at His 1st coming. However, the Bible speaks of 2 coming and both the OT and NT reference this. The Law was given specifically to the nation Israel and no other nation was held to that standard (Ps 147:19-20 says so). But the OT also speaks of a time when Gentiles will also be able to partake in fellowship and worship of God without having to be an Israelite or holding to the Mosaic Law. This was all foretold before Jesus. The OT also references the heart needing to follow God not just the practice of the Law. This was not a new message but was always spoken by the prophets long before Jesus came on the scene. Jesus also speaks that people hearts are to be drawn to God...so His message was hand in glove with the Prophets. The message of repentance was clear from OT to Jesus as well.

The idea that God spoke one thing then changed His mind when Jesus came, reeks of Nosticism where the OT God was different from the NT God.

A couple of things. God can change his mind. He has agency and sovereignty and is a personal God. The scripture contains many examples of him changing his mind. Examples would be with Abraham, the flood, Ninevah...and many others.

Also, Jesus is the perfect revelation of God. He is God with us. John makes it clear if youvsaw him you saw the father. And they didn't know him because they didn't know the father. If you want to know what God is like, start with looking st Jesus. Everything else is interpreted through him...God become flesh and dwelt among us.