Anabaptists and the Authority of Scripture

[Neto]

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?

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 he saw Jesus as a primary source of authority:

Since then, dear reader, we find it testified and proclaimed throughout the Scriptures that Christ Jesus is the promised Messiah, the true Savior of the world; that He is the only, eternal, and undeceiving way to eternal life; the throne of grace; the mediator of the new covenant; our mercy-seat, reconciliation, atonement, and redemption; yea, our only and eternal High Priest, Prophet, and King; therefore, I repeat it, all who desire to enter into life eternal, let them seek Christ with all diligence; let them hear and follow Him, as the voice of the Father commands; let them, in their weakness, do according to His example and will, and not listen to the voice of a stranger, who, under a fair appearance, deceives the poor people with the doctrines and commandments of men. This I say in order that all might understand that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, alone, and no other, is the foundation and essential head of His church, and that He will have no strange head besides Himself. Christ is the bridegroom; the church is His bride; Christ is the shepherd; the church is His flock; Christ is the bridegroom; the church is His spouse. Therefore He alone, and none other, is worthy of our obedience and has the right to command us. He alone has taught us rightly, and is the only Savior to whom we must cleave with all our hearts and minds. For this reason, we are resolved, with the aid of the Lord, not to accept any other doctrine than that of Christ, nor hear any voice except His; not to follow any teaching except the pure word of God. This must be our ground and guide for faith, according to the will of God, from which no human opinion, custom, nor councils shall ever move us.

And the Holy Spirit:

True evangelical faith is of such a nature it cannot lie dormant; but spreads itself out in all kinds of righteousness and fruits of love; it dies to flesh and blood; it destroys all forbidden lusts and desires; it seeks, serves, and fears God; it clothes the naked; it feeds the hungry; it comforts the sorrowful; it shelters the destitute; it aids and consoles the sad; it does good to those who do it harm; it serves those that harm it; it prays for those who persecute it; it teaches, admonishes, and reproves with the Word of the Lord; it seeks those who are lost; it binds up what is wounded; it heals the sick; it saves what is sound; it becomes all things to all people. The persecution, suffering, and anxiety that come to it for the sake of the Lord’s truth have become a glorious joy and comfort to it. And it is nothing else than flesh and blood do; that those who are born after the Spirit live according to the Spirit; they eat and drink, they think, they speak, and hear things of the Spirit, thus, they honor, acknowledge, and praise the Father, and glorify the precious name of God. This is the nature of the true evangelical faith, which lives by and brings forth these fruits.

And the example of the apostles (this quote is also from Foundations of Christian Doctrine):

We believe and confess with the holy apostles and with all the true witnesses of Jesus Christ, that there is but one gospel, one faith, one church, one baptism, and one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all in us all. We believe and confess that the Christian church must follow the teachings and practices of the apostles, and must, in doctrine and life, conform to the Word of God, as it was in the beginning, and must continue to be as it is written in the Scripture. We are willing to accept only that which is in accordance with this rule, and nothing else. We reject all additions, which may have been introduced by men without the authorization of the Scriptures. It is this that we desire to uphold, and it is this that we confess. This, we believe, is our duty as Christians. We find ourselves duty-bound by the example and life of the apostles and the early Christian church to follow the commandments of the Lord alone, and we reject those inventions and ordinances of men that deviate from the example of the holy apostles.

And martyrs as models of faith:

We testify before you, dear brethren and sisters in the Lord, that many godly men and women, whom the world neither knows nor loves, have testified by word and deed, by their whole life, and have attested with their blood, that our doctrine and faith are the true doctrine and faith of Jesus Christ; and that they were sincere and sure of what they testified by God’s help, even unto death; for they sealed it with their own blood and lives, and thus proved it to be true. For this faith and doctrine have been held by true believers since the beginning, as their steadfastness, confession, and witness prove. This faith and doctrine have been upheld by the faithful saints of God, who have been imprisoned, tortured, exiled, and have faced all manner of suffering and persecution for its sake. Their sufferings, endured willingly, are a testament to the truth that we preach, and they serve as a powerful example to all who would follow the Lord. Let us, therefore, not shy away from such a holy confession, but rather take courage from the testimony of these martyrs, and let us press on in the path of Christ, bearing witness to the truth even if it should cost us all that we have.

And even conscience, God's law written on our hearts:

Since then God has written His law upon every heart, and men naturally understand that they should not kill, nor commit adultery, nor steal, nor bear false witness, nor covet another’s goods; and that they should be merciful to the needy, and should assist the afflicted; therefore, since they are well instructed by the law of nature and conscience in all these matters, they are without excuse when they knowingly transgress. Thus, my reader, if we transgress knowingly against God, we do not only err against His Word, but also against nature and conscience. It is true, therefore, that while the conscience may not be perfect, and the law of nature may not be the same as the law of grace, there is yet a witness within every person that speaks of what is right and what is wrong, and this testimony itself is in harmony with God’s Word. Let no one think they are without accountability, for God has left in each heart a guide, a testimony of what is righteous, and He has shown us the truth in His holy Scriptures. Therefore, let us not only be instructed by the law of nature, but let us cling above all to the holy Word, which is our ultimate guide and light.

As you said, everything contrary to Scripture must be discarded:

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.

But I don't think that means Scripture is the only authority. It does mean that all other authorities must be tested against Scripture.

A this point I would say that the difference is semantic, because we depend on the Scriptures to learn about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We depend on the Scriptures to learn what it is that God wants of us. The Prophets, Apostles - all believers, they all look to the Scriptures to caution and to inform them of how they ought to live, what is sin, and what is righteousness. The only thing I can see as an exception to this is the witness of the Image of God on each of us, and the witness of the creation, especially the first. And I have seen this first hand, in the deeply embedded morality that was at the core of Banawa cultural mores. But that is not enough for salvation, not enough to guide a community of believers. It IS, however (in my experience), enough to create the beginning of a searching mind, a vague but persistent yearning to know God. In that foggy mist, however, false gods are created. It requires the Scriptures to guide the seeker to the "Sought One".

Revelation of God comes through the Scriptures, so in that sense I see it as the authority in the Christian life. But as someone else stated on up above (Nomad, I think),the Scriptures and Jesus should not be pitted against one another. The Scriptures only exist to reveal truth about Jesus (and of course the need we have for Him). They have no other purpose, so there can be no either or - it's all both and. If we respect the Scriptures, we will respect, love, and obey Jesus. If we seek to know Jesus, we will find Him (or rather, He will find us) as we search the Scriptures.

I can say it another way: Jesus is the Only Way, the Truth that reveals the Father. But He chose to reveal Himself primarily through the medium or vehicle of the Scriptures. (I do not discount a vision that leads the seeker to Jesus, but at some point they end up in the Scriptures, because that is where they find "the rest of the story".)

[joshuabgood]

I would frame it differently. God had been revealed primarily through the incarnate son. The scriptures are a reliable written record of that revelation, but not the revelation itself. The scriptures are not sufficient for the Revelation of God or Jesus need not have come in the flesh.

[Ernie]

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

Been thinking about this the last day.
This summer a friend told me that he resigned as a pastor because he realized that he and his wife were called to minister to individuals, and their role in the institution put them in a position where they were constantly being expected to uphold the institution at the expense of individuals. He said something to the effect of, "We need institutions, and we need people to run them, but my wife and I were not a good fit for this."

I've been thinking about this also since hearing him say this. I think my conclusion here-to-fore is that any institution that does not allow its leaders to look out for the good of individuals is a bad institution. But understanding the need for policies and structure that will keep something going for more than 5 years, I'm beginning to think that some decisions may need to be made that are good for the institution but bad for individuals at times.
I think that the ideal in such situations would be for the institution to refer the individuals (that may be undermined by an institutional decision) to those who are called to help individuals, or refer them to small groups of believers who have little need for institutionalism. Maybe the two working in harmony is a best case scenario. ???

[Nomad]

I would frame it differently. God had been revealed primarily through the incarnate son. The scriptures are a reliable written record of that revelation, but not the revelation itself. The scriptures are not sufficient for the Revelation of God or Jesus need not have come in the flesh.

How do you know Jesus came?

[Neto]

I would frame it differently. God had been revealed primarily through the incarnate son. The scriptures are a reliable written record of that revelation, but not the revelation itself. The scriptures are not sufficient for the Revelation of God or Jesus need not have come in the flesh.

Yes, Jesus IS the Revelation of God. He Himself said that those who have "seen" him, have seen the Father. The Scriptures tell us this. So, as you say, the Scriptures are a "reliable written record" of that fact. He also said (and it is recorded in the Scriptures) that He would send the Holy Spirit, the One who is NOT a snake or a scorpion, but who is the the Good Gift from the Father, the Comforter of those who believe, and the Convicter of sin and unrighteousness, for both believers and for the disobedient (unbelievers). This Spirit of God, of Jesus, is with us in every moment of our lives, and, He is there as we read and study the Scriptures, revealing the truth contained in them, especially that about THE TRUTH, Jesus, the full Revelation of the Father.

God chose to preserve the written words of the Scriptures, in order that we can know the WORD. In His unlimited power He was not limited to this choice, but this is the avenue through which we can hear the message of truth, that He loves us, that He wants to have relationship with us, and that He wants us to "work in His fields", the world, to take His Love into the lives of every person, all of whom he loves and all with whom He desires fellowship.

But the question I was referring to is regarding the attitude of the early 'anabaptists' (specifically the Dutch baptism-minded, and more specifically Menno Simons in particular) toward the Scriptures - what place did the Scriptures have in terms of establishing truth in their/his world and time, to arrive at THE Revelation of God, Jesus, about whom they tell.

So maybe I could phrase it this way: The Scriptures are the authority (small 'a) about the AUTHORITY, who is Jesus, the WORD made flesh, the Only True Revelation of God. They are the vehicle through which the Holy Spirit gives us knowledge of, and thus access to, the TRUTH, Jesus. They are, in that sense, 'only' a "means to an end". Forgive me for belaboring this point, but I am a Bible translator. That is the burden and task I was given, and that to which I dedicated my life.

[Silentreader]

I would frame it differently. God had been revealed primarily through the incarnate son. The scriptures are a reliable written record of that revelation, but not the revelation itself. The scriptures are not sufficient for the Revelation of God or Jesus need not have come in the flesh.

Yes, Jesus IS the Revelation of God. He Himself said that those who have "seen" him, have seen the Father. The Scriptures tell us this. So, as you say, the Scriptures are a "reliable written record" of that fact. He also said (and it is recorded in the Scriptures) that He would send the Holy Spirit, the One who is NOT a snake or a scorpion, but who is the the Good Gift from the Father, the Comforter of those who believe, and the Convicter of sin and unrighteousness, for both believers and for the disobedient (unbelievers). This Spirit of God, of Jesus, is with us in every moment of our lives, and, He is there as we read and study the Scriptures, revealing the truth contained in them, especially that about THE TRUTH, Jesus, the full Revelation of the Father.

God chose to preserve the written words of the Scriptures, in order that we can know the WORD. In His unlimited power He was not limited to this choice, but this is the avenue through which we can hear the message of truth, that He loves us, that He wants to have relationship with us, and that He wants us to "work in His fields", the world, to take His Love into the lives of every person, all of whom he loves and all with whom He desires fellowship.

But the question I was referring to is regarding the attitude of the early 'anabaptists' (specifically the Dutch baptism-minded, and more specifically Menno Simons in particular) toward the Scriptures - what place did the Scriptures have in terms of establishing truth in their/his world and time, to arrive at THE Revelation of God, Jesus, about whom they tell.

So maybe I could phrase it this way: The Scriptures are the authority (small 'a) about the AUTHORITY, who is Jesus, the WORD made flesh, the Only True Revelation of God. They are the vehicle through which the Holy Spirit gives us knowledge of, and thus access to, the TRUTH, Jesus. They are, in that sense, 'only' a "means to an end". Forgive me for belaboring this point, but I am a Bible translator. That is the burden and task I was given, and that to which I dedicated my life.

The Living Word is the subject of the Written Word. The Written Word is subject to the Living Word.

[joshuabgood]

I would frame it differently. God had been revealed primarily through the incarnate son. The scriptures are a reliable written record of that revelation, but not the revelation itself. The scriptures are not sufficient for the Revelation of God or Jesus need not have come in the flesh.

How do you know Jesus came?

George Washington was the first president of the United States. Because I know this from a book, doesn't make the book the first president. Jesus was the perfect revelation of God. Because I know this from a book, doesn't make the book the perfect revelation.

[joshuabgood]

I would frame it differently. God had been revealed primarily through the incarnate son. The scriptures are a reliable written record of that revelation, but not the revelation itself. The scriptures are not sufficient for the Revelation of God or Jesus need not have come in the flesh.

Yes, Jesus IS the Revelation of God. He Himself said that those who have "seen" him, have seen the Father. The Scriptures tell us this. So, as you say, the Scriptures are a "reliable written record" of that fact. He also said (and it is recorded in the Scriptures) that He would send the Holy Spirit, the One who is NOT a snake or a scorpion, but who is the the Good Gift from the Father, the Comforter of those who believe, and the Convicter of sin and unrighteousness, for both believers and for the disobedient (unbelievers). This Spirit of God, of Jesus, is with us in every moment of our lives, and, He is there as we read and study the Scriptures, revealing the truth contained in them, especially that about THE TRUTH, Jesus, the full Revelation of the Father.

God chose to preserve the written words of the Scriptures, in order that we can know the WORD. In His unlimited power He was not limited to this choice, but this is the avenue through which we can hear the message of truth, that He loves us, that He wants to have relationship with us, and that He wants us to "work in His fields", the world, to take His Love into the lives of every person, all of whom he loves and all with whom He desires fellowship.

But the question I was referring to is regarding the attitude of the early 'anabaptists' (specifically the Dutch baptism-minded, and more specifically Menno Simons in particular) toward the Scriptures - what place did the Scriptures have in terms of establishing truth in their/his world and time, to arrive at THE Revelation of God, Jesus, about whom they tell.

So maybe I could phrase it this way: The Scriptures are the authority (small 'a) about the AUTHORITY, who is Jesus, the WORD made flesh, the Only True Revelation of God. They are the vehicle through which the Holy Spirit gives us knowledge of, and thus access to, the TRUTH, Jesus. They are, in that sense, 'only' a "means to an end". Forgive me for belaboring this point, but I am a Bible translator. That is the burden and task I was given, and that to which I dedicated my life.

The Living Word is the subject of the Written Word. The Written Word is subject to the Living Word.

To use Steven Brubaker's analogy (my application - I am not one hundred percent sure he would agree though I think he might), it is a first things second things frame. The Word of God (that is Jesus), is the first thing. It is the preeminent thing. And this dictates how we interpret the books of the Bible.

[joshuabgood]

So maybe I could phrase it this way: The Scriptures are the authority (small 'a) about the AUTHORITY, who is Jesus, the WORD made flesh, the Only True Revelation of God. They are the vehicle through which the Holy Spirit gives us knowledge of, and thus access to, the TRUTH, Jesus. They are, in that sense, 'only' a "means to an end". Forgive me for belaboring this point, but I am a Bible translator. That is the burden and task I was given, and that to which I dedicated my life.

I deeply respect your work as a Bible translator. Thank you. That is of utmost importance.

I think from my perspective, I don't think it is cognitively dissonant to say that Jesus has all authority, final authority, supreme authority, et al. This authority has primarily been revealed through the incarnation, God with us. The record of that is reliably preserved in the four gospels. In addition, the record of that is born through church history and oral tradition, as Paul himself notes. And in addition, Jesus promised to send the Spirit to continue the work. Through this lens of Jesus, the supreme and final authority, we interpret the rest of the NT, and through that, the rest of the historical scriptures. That is what I am advocating for.

And what I am proposing makes all the difference between where we wind up as Anabaptists and our Reformed, say, brothers and sisters. It isn't that we are just better and more righteous exegetically. It isn't that they are not sincere in their desires and just don't want to live holy obedient lives with the same fervor that we do. Those explanations don't make sense to me as in my experience (with my friends that are of the Reformed persuasion) they are sincere and excellent scholars. Rather the aforementioned explanations seem misinformed and arrogant to me - essentially that we are the best exegetically and/or the most sincere. It seems to me that instead my Reformed brothers and sisters re-intepret the teachings and witness of Jesus around a "biblical" model that includes a "holistic" interpretive lens. That, if one grants them the "biblical" premise, is very thoughtful, compelling, and zealous.

The difference is, we prioritize, rightly I think, teachings and witness of Jesus as the interpretive lens and final say. We harmonize Paul and the OT with the teachings and witness of Jesus and not the other way around. That is a hill I think is worth dying on...and many Anabaptists did it seems to me.

[Nomad]

So maybe I could phrase it this way: The Scriptures are the authority (small 'a) about the AUTHORITY, who is Jesus, the WORD made flesh, the Only True Revelation of God. They are the vehicle through which the Holy Spirit gives us knowledge of, and thus access to, the TRUTH, Jesus. They are, in that sense, 'only' a "means to an end". Forgive me for belaboring this point, but I am a Bible translator. That is the burden and task I was given, and that to which I dedicated my life.

I deeply respect your work as a Bible translator. Thank you. That is of utmost importance.

I think from my perspective, I don't think it is cognitively dissonant to say that Jesus has all authority, final authority, supreme authority, et al. This authority has primarily been revealed through the incarnation, God with us. The record of that is reliably preserved in the four gospels. In addition, the record of that is born through church history and oral tradition, as Paul himself notes. And in addition, Jesus promised to send the Spirit to continue the work. Through this lens of Jesus, the supreme and final authority, we interpret the rest of the NT, and through that, the rest of the historical scriptures. That is what I am advocating for.

And what I am proposing makes all the difference between where we wind up as Anabaptists and our Reformed, say, brothers and sisters. It isn't that we are just better and more righteous exegetically. It isn't that they are not sincere in their desires and just don't want to live holy obedient lives with the same fervor that we do. Those explanations don't make sense to me as in my experience (with my friends that are of the Reformed persuasion) they are sincere and excellent scholars. Rather the aforementioned explanations seem misinformed and arrogant to me - essentially that we are the best exegetically and/or the most sincere. It seems to me that instead my Reformed brothers and sisters re-intepret the teachings and witness of Jesus around a "biblical" model that includes a "holistic" interpretive lens. That, if one grants them the "biblical" premise, is very thoughtful, compelling, and zealous.

The difference is, we prioritize, rightly I think, teachings and witness of Jesus as the interpretive lens and final say. We harmonize Paul and the OT with the teachings and witness of Jesus and not the other way around. That is a hill I think is worth dying on...and many Anabaptists did it seems to me.

So if I read in 1 Corinthians 15:28 where it states the Son (Jesus) will reign until He has put all enemies under His feet and then He will give the Kingdom over to the Father and become subject unto Him. Whom am I supposed to prioritize in this scenario? The Son or the Father of the Godhead? Who do I rank #1 and who am I supposed to rank #2? If you say the Father then Jesus no longer is preeminent...in your view.

I dont think we need to rank anything. They can both be preeminent since they are 1...But, I will state again, if it helps you too rank and prioritize 1 over the other then fine. If it somehow helps you separate us from Reformed thought then go for it. Just don't assume we all must.