Anabaptists and the Authority of Scripture

[Neto]

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.

I will quote this one place, in Foundation of Christian Doctrine
Pg 159-160

We certainly hope no one of a rational mind will be so foolish a man as to deny that the whole Scriptures, both the Old and New Testament, were written for our instruction, admonition, and correction, and that they are the true, scepter and rule by which the Lord's kingdom, house, church, and congregation must be ruled and governed. Everything contrary to Scripture, therefore, whether it be in doctrines, beliefs, sacraments, worship, or life, should be measured by this infallible rule and demolished by this just and divine scepter, and destroyed without any respect of persons.

[eccentric_rambler]

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.

And I think this well sums up the current conservative Mennonite position. I haven't read enough of the Reformers to have a good grasp of the connotation they associated with "Sola Scriptura". From an Anabaptist viewpoint, the trouble imo with the modern usage of the term is the individualism that generally accompanies it.

[mike]

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.

I think this is insightful particularly the last couple of paragraphs.

What is the Anabaptist version of the magisterium?

What problems do you see with the elevation of the magisterium and church tradition?

Is there a better alternative with a proven track record of intergenerational faith and dedication to the following the teachings of Jesus?

[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.

And I think this well sums up the current conservative Mennonite position. I haven't read enough of the Reformers to have a good grasp of the connotation they associated with "Sola Scriptura". From an Anabaptist viewpoint, the trouble imo with the modern usage of the term is the individualism that generally accompanies it.

Exactly. And the other problem, I think, is that the five Solas are associated with our persecutors, not with Anabaptism. They come from Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. I really wouldn't use Sola language to describe Mennonites. We are close enough to be similar, but different enough to matter.

Mennonites definitely emphasize authority of Scripture, with a focus on what Jesus said and did as the lens for understanding all Scripture. And we believe that we need to interpret Scripture together, by the Holy Spirit given to us as a community, not only as individuals. When we look at Jesus, it is not through the lens of systematic theology, not primarily as a way to get our sins forgiven, but as our example, teacher, and Lord. The authority of Jesus is as important as the authority of Scripture.

This is kind of different from Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli.

[Bootstrap]

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.

Very well said. Jesus is the whole point of Scripture. He is the foundation. That's why Menno Simons put 1 Corinthians 3:11 on the front page of everything he wrote:

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

For Menno Simons, faith and works cannot be separated:

Faith cannot be without works, even as a tree cannot be without fruit. Faith is a living thing and gives forth fruit. Faith makes alive, faith is a firm confidence in Christ.

And we seek Christ for all the things we see in what he said and did:

Let us beware lest we seek Christ, not for His eternal gifts, but for what He can give us in this world. Let us look to Him for spiritual food, for strength, and for life in God, seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these other things will be added to us.

I do not have much experience with plain Anabaptists, but I think that Mennonites in my own tradition are often a little weak in their knowledge of Scripture and how to dwell in it and apply it to life together. Ernie said this about plain Anabaptists:

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.

To me, the 1995 Confession of Faith did an excellent job of applying Scripture to important questions, but even that is now being questioned. Our Sunday School materials are weak, often recalling the 1960s and the civil rights movement, which can feel like a golden age for non-plain Mennonites. There are congregations that are very strong in Scripture, but many more are not.

We do not have the same emphasis on the Magisterium and Church Tradition. In Orthodox theology, Scripture derives its authority from the Church, which has inherited the authority of Jesus. In Catholic theology, Scripture must be interpreted within the living Tradition of the Church, guided by the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church). Scripture and Tradition together form the deposit of faith. Non-plain Mennonites do not invest that kind of authority in the church. We tend to look to the church for community, not for authority. And I think we can go overboard in that direction.

[Neto]

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.

I will quote this one place, in Foundation of Christian Doctrine
Pg 159-160

We certainly hope no one of a rational mind will be so foolish a man as to deny that the whole Scriptures, both the Old and New Testament, were written for our instruction, admonition, and correction, and that they are the true, scepter and rule by which the Lord's kingdom, house, church, and congregation must be ruled and governed. Everything contrary to Scripture, therefore, whether it be in doctrines, beliefs, sacraments, worship, or life, should be measured by this infallible rule and demolished by this just and divine scepter, and destroyed without any respect of persons.

Not to be a pest, but since the statements that misrepresent the position of Menno Simons (and, in turn, that of the entire Dutch 'baptism-minded' movement) on the place of Scripture in our lives are being repeated over and over in later posts, I am reposting this correction, for you'all's reference.

[mike]

To me, the 1995 Confession of Faith did an excellent job of applying Scripture to important questions, but even that is now being questioned. Our Sunday School materials are weak, often recalling the 1960s and the civil rights movement, which can feel like a golden age for non-plain Mennonites. There are congregations that are very strong in Scripture, but many more are not.

We do not have the same emphasis on the Magisterium and Church Tradition. In Orthodox theology, Scripture derives its authority from the Church, which has inherited the authority of Jesus. In Catholic theology, Scripture must be interpreted within the living Tradition of the Church, guided by the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church). Scripture and Tradition together form the deposit of faith. Non-plain Mennonites do not invest that kind of authority in the church. We tend to look to the church for community, not for authority. And I think we can go overboard in that direction.

Our conservative Mennonite church uses the 1921 Garden City Confession which I feel is somewhat weak and influenced by then-popular fundamentalist Protestant views. For an example compare the Garden City article on salvation with the similar article from Dordrecht.

Our Sunday School materials read a bit like the Doctrines of the Bible from the same era. Influenced in some ways by Protestant fundamentalism with unique conservative Mennonite quirks.

I'm waiting for Ernie's idea on what the conservative Anabaptist magisterium might be, but I think that as plain Mennonites we invest very heavily in the idea of the authority of church to interpret scripture. I am intrigued by your statement that non-plain Mennonites look to church for community rather than authority. I think we generally have that reversed, but community is still a very strong aspect of church. It is something that is more of a byproduct though, something that we receive by virtue of our corporate yieldedness to the authority of the church.

[Ernie]

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.

1. What is the Anabaptist version of the magisterium?
2. What problems do you see with the elevation of the magisterium and church tradition?
3. Is there a better alternative with a proven track record of intergenerational faith and dedication to the following the teachings of Jesus?

1. It can be the ordained folks in a conference or fellowship. It can also be unofficial "authorities" from affiliated and unaffiliated churches who act as the magisterium.
2. In most places, many topics cannot be discussed openly by the congregation. Some places allow for discussion but there can basically be no changes to the church's belief and practice, which can be frustrating. And worst-case scenario, anyone challenging the status quo is viewed as divisive or promoting false doctrine.
3. I wish I could point to a good alternative, but none are coming to mind.

[Bootstrap]

I will quote this one place, in Foundation of Christian Doctrine
Pg 159-160

We certainly hope no one of a rational mind will be so foolish a man as to deny that the whole Scriptures, both the Old and New Testament, were written for our instruction, admonition, and correction, and that they are the true, scepter and rule by which the Lord's kingdom, house, church, and congregation must be ruled and governed. Everything contrary to Scripture, therefore, whether it be in doctrines, beliefs, sacraments, worship, or life, should be measured by this infallible rule and demolished by this just and divine scepter, and destroyed without any respect of persons.

Not to be a pest, but since the statements that misrepresent the position of Menno Simons (and, in turn, that of the entire Dutch 'baptism-minded' movement) on the place of Scripture in our lives are being repeated over and over in later posts, I am reposting this correction, for you'all's reference.

Could you please be clear about what misconception you think you are correcting? You quoted my post, I assume you think I got something specific wrong.

[Neto]

I will quote this one place, in Foundation of Christian Doctrine
Pg 159-160

Not to be a pest, but since the statements that misrepresent the position of Menno Simons (and, in turn, that of the entire Dutch 'baptism-minded' movement) on the place of Scripture in our lives are being repeated over and over in later posts, I am reposting this correction, for you'all's reference.

Could you please be clear about what misconception you think you are correcting? You quoted my post, I assume you think I got something specific wrong.

I understood your post below to be saying something different than what he actually said. (See the text set in bold in your comment below.) Perhaps I do not understand the phrase "only source of authority" in the same way as you, or I do not understand how you intended it to communicate.

My thinking is that since the Scripture is our only source for everything we know about the Father and Jesus, the plan for restoration of fellowship, etc., and that seems to me to be the "only source of authority". But I am thinking in terms of "authoritative information or doctrine", so maybe that's where the difference lies.

I do not differ with what you said in the first paragraph, but the last sentence seems to be saying something different. If the Scripture is not our only authoritative source (per Menno), then what other authoritative sources do you think Menno recognized or accepted?

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.