Anabaptists and the Authority of Scripture

[Nomad]

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.

God "changing His mind" doesn't equate to Him contradicting Himself. He never deviated from His plan or changed His course once Jesus came. The New Covenant was prophesied before Jesus came and the Spirit was promised to come (future-tense in the OT and past-tense in our view). The original plan of Gods salvation was stated in the OT from the suffer servant, to the king riding upon a lowly donkey, the Messiah being born in Bethlehem, the messenger sent to prepare the way, and on and on all the way into future events we haven't seen yet in our day referenced from the OT to the NT. If at some point all or part of the OT turns into a bunch of "rewording" or God "reinterpreting" or "its just Jesus", then what hermeneutical principles are we to use if we see major themes in scripture like Kingdom, creation, covenants, repentance, etc...? Jesus fulfills these themes but He doesn't make them vanish into Himself Hindu style. It makes the Bible message vague and blurs the carefully laid plans God spoke throughout the book. I fail to understand how any of us could be taught from the Bible or take it seriously if all the major subjects now just get simplified into "Jesus". So maybe that's why you can say we shouldn't elevate the Bible above Jesus. I dont think we should elevate the Bible above Jesus or Jesus above the Bible...to me they are tightly knit without contradiction or contrast. Can people be saved without the Bible? Of course! That doesn't mean that we must now pit Jesus against the Bible...Gods message of Jesus is in the Bible.

[joshuabgood]

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.

God "changing His mind" doesn't equate to Him contradicting Himself. He never deviated from His plan or changed His course once Jesus came. The New Covenant was prophesied before Jesus came and the Spirit was promised to come (future-tense in the OT and past-tense in our view). The original plan of Gods salvation was stated in the OT from the suffer servant, to the king riding upon a lowly donkey, the Messiah being born in Bethlehem, the messenger sent to prepare the way, and on and on all the way into future events we haven't seen yet in our day referenced from the OT to the NT. If at some point all or part of the OT turns into a bunch of "rewording" or God "reinterpreting" or "its just Jesus", then what hermeneutical principles are we to use if we see major themes in scripture like Kingdom, creation, covenants, repentance, etc...? Jesus fulfills these themes but He doesn't make them vanish into Himself Hindu style. It makes the Bible message vague and blurs the carefully laid plans God spoke throughout the book. I fail to understand how any of us could be taught from the Bible or take it seriously if all the major subjects now just get simplified into "Jesus". So maybe that's why you can say we shouldn't elevate the Bible above Jesus. I dont think we should elevate the Bible above Jesus or Jesus above the Bible...to me they are tightly knit without contradiction or contrast. Can people be saved without the Bible? Of course! That doesn't mean that we must now pit Jesus against the Bible...Gods message of Jesus is in the Bible.

The difference is...the Anabaptist vision and hermeneutic. When Jesus takes all authority, his teachings and witness, are centered. Therefore the Sermon on thr Mount, to the Anabaptist, has a much different impact than it does for the protestant or catholic where the teachings and life of Jesus are subjugated, even explained away, by "the Bible."

[Neto]

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 [sic. ('love')]. 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.

The rending of the temple veil was, I think, only a later physical manifestation of what happened when Jesus was baptized by John - the "veil" of heaven was torn open, and the Holy Spirit came down onto Jesus in a physically perceptible way. This was also a return to what God desired when he met with the Israelites in the desert. His invitation was for a personal relationship with each individual. But the people turned away from that immediately, asking Moses to "not let God talk to them", but to just convey, second-hand, what God was telling him (Moses). (This happened after the giving of the so-called "Ten commandments", which are actual two, to Love Yahweh God with our total being, and to love others as self. The minute spelling-out of how that was to be applied took place after that rejection of God's move to restore relationship, the fellowship that was broken in the garden. I'm not suggesting that this would have somehow replaced the plan of redemption that was already in place, the sacrifice of Jesus, who was sacrificed from before the creation. I'm suggesting that the minute details of the Law were not, and are not necessary, IF one follows the "Golden Rule" Jesus gave as a summation of those "Ten Commandments". That is the spirit of the Law, and the "Sermon on the Mount" is also an expansion of that same Law. The New Covenant is a working out of the desire of God, expressed many times through the "Old Covenant" - the "Covenant of Love". (As my hermeneutics teacher like to say, "The sermon begins when the application begins." Jesus explained in detail what the Law meant, how it was to be lived out, not only in that "sermon", but in his way of living out his life. That was the greater 'sermon'.)

I did not suggest that "Jesus was following the OT law and system" - that is a misrepresentation. But I WOULD say that he was following the same desire and plan the Father had from the beginning, for intimate fellowship with his "crown of creation", human-kind. I do not see any "God changing his mind" business in that.

[barnhart]

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.

But the things God asks of his people varies over time. His covenant with Adam differed the covenant with Noah which differed from the covenants through Moses and with the children of Israel in Canaan. All these different from the Covenant through Jesus. I don't see this as a changing character of God, rather a changing world.

[barnhart]

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.

What makes them plain is not always what makes them Anabaptist.

[joshuabgood]

I did not suggest that "Jesus was following the OT law and system" - that is a misrepresentation. But I WOULD say that he was following the same desire and plan the Father had from the beginning, for intimate fellowship with his "crown of creation", human-kind. I do not see any "God changing his mind" business in that.

I don't see it as God changing his mind either really, in this case. I think what the OT is, is a picture of what the world looks like when sin, death, and satan rule on earth. Before the fall, God reigned on earth as also in heaven. Mankind was at perfect oneness with him. He walked and talked with them openly. His reign was perfect. After the fall of Adam and Eve, sin and darkness reigned on earth. God still ruled and reigned in heaven, however a great darkness, as Isaiah says so eloquently, covered the earth. And then he prophecies that a King is coming to re-establish the rule and reign of God on earth as also in heaven. And that this King, his reign will know no end. And that the government will be on his shoulders and he will be a prince of peace. God with us.

When Jesus came, he came as a the supreme ruler. He didn't come to take sides as they say, but to take over. But not with a worldly kingdom (a nation like the world) but with an upside down kingdom that displays the full revelation of God. That isn't to say that Kingdom he established isn't a present reality, it is. His Kingdom is come now, as he prayed, on earth, as also in heaven. The rule of God has been re-established on earth as also in heaven. Not through violence and the old eye for an eye business, but through the perfect revelation of love incarnate. He takes over through suffering love, redemption, that is the way of the cross. Not by lording over, but by serving under. Not by fighting, but by suffering.

The law of the OT, I think represents the brutal reality of existence necessary to display the paucity of such a system. If the law were sufficient to bring about the rule and reign of God, then Jesus would need not have come. The veil rending, in my mind, is a powerful metaphor to the Jewish people noting a paradigm shift. Same as the apocalyptic language in Matt 24 and 25 regarding the closing of the law age and the beginning of the church age with the complete fall of Jerusalem. We are now in the church age and we win. His Kingdom is advancing and taking over...but not through violence, through the way of the cross. (Yes I am sympathetic to post-millennialism and a positive eschatology =).

This elevation of Jesus I think accounts for the Anabaptist vision versus say Zwingli or Luther's who elevated "the Bible" as Zwingli's statue shows. A Bible in one hand and a sword in the other. Ironically he died by the sword as Jesus noted.

[Bootstrap]

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.

They had wax tablets where they could write first drafts and revise them before putting it down on paper. These wax tablets could have as many as 8 "pages". When Paul mentions other people who also greet the recipients, they may well have been in the same room, talking about what to write down, going back and forth with the scribe, getting it right on the wax tablet before writing it on the expensive papyrus.

But as a Pharisee, Paul probably did learn to write as part of his education. And he also seems to have had a Greek education in Tarsus, he was familiar with Greek philosophers and writers, and he would have learned to write as part of that education as well.

[Ernie]

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.

Can we not believe in the Bible and also build a foundation about Jesus, the chief cornerstone...

Certainly. But making a book the base, instead of making a Person the base, results in drastically different worldviews.

[Ernie]

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:

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.

Sola Scriptura suggests that Christians today can read the Bible today, and understand what the authors intended to communicate, just as well as people in the first century.

Sola Christus (as understood by the Reformers) focuses on Christ' salvation and intercessory work. Look up all articles on the internet about the five Solas and you will read something to this effect. Sola Christus for the Anabaptists included Jesus example and teachings for daily life.

Plain Anabaptists in the 21st century have mostly resorted to elevating the magisterium and church tradition. Very few churches are sitting down with the Bible, reading the New Testament together, and making adjustments in their practices and lifestyles based on what they read. Many Sunday school discussions, devotionals, and sermons are a reconfirming of what is already believed and practiced, and a making of excuses for what is not.

Thankfully there are numerous exceptions to this. There are always individuals and small fellowships within the movement who are trying to adjust their practices to what they read in the NT, but it seems they are a minority.

[Ernie]

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?

I was only talking about Plain Anabaptists in my responses above. See my response to Mike.

Is this statement true:

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.

Yes, I like what you say here. There are sources but I am not able to point to them at the moment. But I emphasize that some early Anabaptists got hung up on the wording of the Bible (which resulted in things like the strict ban) while the whole of Jesus life and teachings were not given much emphasis.