Anabaptists and the Authority of Scripture

[joshuabgood]

I do not see how anyone can separate Jesus from the Bible. Without the Bible we would not know much of anything about Jesus' life or even what he taught us. And without Jesus, the New Testament would not have much meaning...

Both are equally important and equally the foundation of Christian life

For thousands of years, literally, most Christians didn't even have a Bible. They did have Jesus and his Spirit.

No one is denying Jesus authority.

I'm against the "either-or" scenario you have created (and others via their so-called "Christocentric Hermeneutic") that really doesn't need to be their.

The idea we need to choose between "Bible" and "Jesus" is a either-or question that philosophers like to create but really has no business being there. We can chose both (Bible AND Jesus) without basing our decision on hypothetical scenarios of "what if the Bible didn't exist...?" Or "what if Jesus never said this or that...?". We are on shaky ground if we are basing our decisions without scripture. Its much more solidly grounded to take the Bible as a whole contextually rather than saying some scriptures meaning disappears in Jesus because we can't understand them. We need to try to understand them...not try to make them vanish.

Just to be clear, I don't want to make the Bible vanish. It is a reliable and trustworthy account. The issue is about first things and second things. The Bible is a second thing. Jesus is the first thing. That difference explains why the Anabaptist interpretation is different from the Reformed interpretation. It isn't that we are all just that much better and smarter exegetically and that if we explained to them how to "properly" exegete the text we would all then agree. That isn't the issue. They are smart committed people who have a high view of the text. The difference is what we are getting at here in this conversation. That is why some say Anabaptism is properly a hermeneutic.

[joshuabgood]

Yet they could hear the word preached from the pulpit. Or we are to believe that until the Printing Press was created, nobody ever heard any of the scriptures???

I acknowledged that they heard the word at church and were discipled by it. What I stated was they didn't have Bibles. Literally they were without a Bible. And outside of the 30-60 minute homily, the other 98% of their lived life was without a Bible. But they had Jesus and his Spirit.

[JohnH]

Yet they could hear the word preached from the pulpit. Or we are to believe that until the Printing Press was created, nobody ever heard any of the scriptures???

I acknowledged that they heard the word at church and were discipled by it. What I stated was they didn't have Bibles. Literally they were without a Bible. And outside of the 30-60 minute homily, the other 98% of their lived life was without a Bible. But they had Jesus and his Spirit.

I agree but Christian life is not determined by having a printed Bible in your home... it's determined by hearing the word... obeying it... Jesus... the Spirit... and the Bible... all coming together...

[Neto]

In reading through the Martyrs' Mirror, one is struck by the degree to which these "common people" (i.e., the working class, women included, who were not all just preachers) knew the Scriptures, often quoting lengthy passages to their interrogators. Generally, they knew the scriptures better than the Catholic priests who were cross-examining them. (Menno Simons readily admits that as a priest himself, he avoided reading the Scriptures, fearing that he would be lead astray by them. The Scriptures do not lead one astray. I don't know if the Swiss Brethren used this adage as well, but among the Dutch 'baptism-minded' it was commonly said that "The Scriptures are our guide for all matters of faith and practice". - Not in English, of course.... They were like people from Missouri - the Show Me State; they would say "Show me in the Scripture, and I will recant and believe as you say." )

[Nomad]

For thousands of years, literally, most Christians didn't even have a Bible. They did have Jesus and his Spirit.

No one is denying Jesus authority.

I'm against the "either-or" scenario you have created (and others via their so-called "Christocentric Hermeneutic") that really doesn't need to be their.

The idea we need to choose between "Bible" and "Jesus" is a either-or question that philosophers like to create but really has no business being there. We can chose both (Bible AND Jesus) without basing our decision on hypothetical scenarios of "what if the Bible didn't exist...?" Or "what if Jesus never said this or that...?". We are on shaky ground if we are basing our decisions without scripture. Its much more solidly grounded to take the Bible as a whole contextually rather than saying some scriptures meaning disappears in Jesus because we can't understand them. We need to try to understand them...not try to make them vanish.

Just to be clear, I don't want to make the Bible vanish. It is a reliable and trustworthy account. The issue is about first things and second things. The Bible is a second thing. Jesus is the first thing. That difference explains why the Anabaptist interpretation is different from the Reformed interpretation. It isn't that we are all just that much better and smarter exegetically and that if we explained to them how to "properly" exegete the text we would all then agree. That isn't the issue. They are smart committed people who have a high view of the text. The difference is what we are getting at here in this conversation. That is why some say Anabaptism is properly a hermeneutic.

I dont think we have to do any ranking 1st or 2nd whatsoever. But if that helps you then go for it. If we want to understand God/ Jesus and His plan for humanity then we need to read the entire Bible to get the full message. When we understand the Bible then we should use that as a benefit in our worship of Him...not just a bunch of head knowledge. Knowing the Bible gives us a more thorough worship and prayer life AND it unifies us if we let it.

[Nomad]

For thousands of years, literally, most Christians didn't even have a Bible. They did have Jesus and his Spirit.

No one is denying Jesus authority.

I'm against the "either-or" scenario you have created (and others via their so-called "Christocentric Hermeneutic") that really doesn't need to be their.

The idea we need to choose between "Bible" and "Jesus" is a either-or question that philosophers like to create but really has no business being there. We can chose both (Bible AND Jesus) without basing our decision on hypothetical scenarios of "what if the Bible didn't exist...?" Or "what if Jesus never said this or that...?". We are on shaky ground if we are basing our decisions without scripture. Its much more solidly grounded to take the Bible as a whole contextually rather than saying some scriptures meaning disappears in Jesus because we can't understand them. We need to try to understand them...not try to make them vanish.

Just to be clear, I don't want to make the Bible vanish. It is a reliable and trustworthy account. The issue is about first things and second things. The Bible is a second thing. Jesus is the first thing. That difference explains why the Anabaptist interpretation is different from the Reformed interpretation. It isn't that we are all just that much better and smarter exegetically and that if we explained to them how to "properly" exegete the text we would all then agree. That isn't the issue. They are smart committed people who have a high view of the text. The difference is what we are getting at here in this conversation. That is why some say Anabaptism is properly a hermeneutic.

My point of "vanishing" had to do with your statement of Jesus "rewording" the OT. Some state that Jesus changed the meaning of the OT Prophets and Law so that it took on a different meaning. Kind of like He went with "plan B" and switched the script to mean something different after Jesus came. The reality is, the NT never changed the meaning of anything in the OT. The OT foretold the events that were unfolding in the NT and actually foretells future events that haven't happened yet from our present day as well (Daniel is referenced in Revelations over 300times).

Everytime I hear people use wording like "reword" "reinterpret" "transformed" "superseded" etc...I usually earmark it in my mind no matter how good their message is. Typically, they are inferring the OT has lost its meaning or context and we must now elevate other passages of the NT above previous passages...which I disagree with.

[Nomad]

My point of harmonizing the Bible means that the scripture maintains its meaning and context as you read it. It doesn't transform into a different meaning. In other words, shadows and types aren't swallowed up by the archetype and thus making the previous type meaningless.

[Bootstrap]

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

I think early Anabaptists took the authority of Scripture very, very seriously. I'm not convinced that they believed in Sola Scriptura.

I know Menno Simons best. He believed that human traditions were taking the place of the clear teachings of the Bible. He was clear that tradition was valid only if it was based in Scripture. But I think he did believe that tradition has a role to play. He taught that our practice and beliefs must also align with Scripture, but believed in the role of the church interpreting and applying Scripture.

But I don't think he ever said Scripture is the only source of authority.

[ken_sylvania]

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

I think early Anabaptists took the authority of Scripture very, very seriously. I'm not convinced that they believed in Sola Scriptura.

I know Menno Simons best. He believed that human traditions were taking the place of the clear teachings of the Bible. He was clear that tradition was valid only if it was based in Scripture. But I think he did believe that tradition has a role to play. He taught that our practice and beliefs must also align with Scripture, but believed in the role of the church interpreting and applying Scripture.

But I don't think he ever said Scripture is the only source of authority.

I think I would agree with this.

[barnhart]

My point of harmonizing the Bible means that the scripture maintains its meaning and context as you read it. It doesn't transform into a different meaning. In other words, shadows and types aren't swallowed up by the archetype and thus making the previous type meaningless.

True, but their meaning is the thing they point toward. They are not self referential.