Anabaptists and the Authority of Scripture

[Judas Maccabeus]

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.

Been reading Karl Barth,eh? That has historically been an expressway to liberalism, as well as to intellectual snobbery. Seen this many times in my former circles.

Not to mention the total immorality of the messenger.

[Bootstrap]

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.

Suppose someone proved to me, beyond a shadow of doubt, that there are some errors in the Bible. Would I stop believing in Jesus?

[Bootstrap]

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?

That depends on the person, I think. For some, through Scripture. For others, they initially came to believe through the testimony of others. I know some people who had a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit.

I grew up with a rather good knowledge of Scripture. In middle school, I came to doubt. My pastor suggested that I ask God to show me, through the Holy Spirit, whether these things are true. That worked for me. And it made me become very devoted to Scripture.

My boss, however, became Christian after reading the entire Bible several times. I think that is unusual.

[Bootstrap]

[ooops ....]

[Bootstrap]

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.

Been reading Karl Barth,eh? That has historically been an expressway to liberalism, as well as to intellectual snobbery. Seen this many times in my former circles.

Not to mention the total immorality of the messenger.

Or perhaps he has been reading 2 Corinthians 3? Without the Spirit and Jesus, the Scriptures are not sufficient.

Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

We see this also in Luke 24:

They stood still, their faces downcast. One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”

“What things?” he asked.

“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”

He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence.

He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

If Jesus does not open our minds so that we can understand the Scriptures, they are not sufficient. The example of Jesus, what he said and taught, and the presence of the Holy Spirit among us are the means to understanding Scripture in the first place.

At least, that's what Scripture tells us.

[Neto]

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.

This "need" to prioritize and analyze is a characteristic of Western thought, which is largely (I'm told) grounded in Greek philosophy or logic. I do not see the Hebrews thinking that way, and I certainly did not observe anything of that sort in the Banawa way of thinking about the universe. However, Paul used Greek thought in his desire to reach the Greeks, as, I would say, a means to an end. We can read the book of the Acts to see how that came out, whether it was a good strategy or approach, or not. It reached some, so for them, it was successful. I cannot judge it beyond that.

I will also "confess" that we kept animistic thought processes in mind in the way we interacted with the Banawa. One example that impacted translation: I had completed the translation checking of the story where Jesus took his disciples over to the Gentile side of the Sea of Galilee, where the demonic (Luke only refers to one man, and it was in that book that I was working) rushed up to Jesus as he got out of the boat. After we had finished going through the entire story, my translation assistant leaned back in his chair and exclaimed "I'd be crazy too, if I had all of those pigs in me!" To deal with the animistic belief that some 'animals' are not real or ordinary animals, but actually are spirits, I needed to change the presentation order of where the herd of pigs are first mentioned, to make sure the reader/hearer knew that they were there already BEFORE the demons were cast out of the man. In the 'back translation' (into English, for the sake of the translation consultant) it sounds like a really odd break in the story, but for them, it was an essential part of the story background.

So I do not oppose the idea that we need to do the same sort of thing in our use of the Scriptures as we present Christ to Westerners. I suppose it depends on a person's view of the Atonement to some extent, but for the Banawa, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, his death and resurrection, that all bore no relationship to, had no impact on, the existence of sin in mankind, and our need for a Savior. It was just a sad story about how a bunch of evil men got together and killed a good man. Their thoughts naturally went along the lines of "Who in Jesus' family will avenge his death?", because in their culture, this is a cultural value and obligation. But they desperately needed to know that they were sinners - they needed the Law. (Paul tells us that this is its purpose, to show us that we are sinners, and in need of a Savior. We must all be "herded" to Christ through the Law. Or, as L. E. Maxwell put it, in a book by that title, "Crowded to Christ".)

Some other animistic cultures value treachery, so Judas was the hero of the story, because he executed the ultimate treacherous scheme.

[Bootstrap]

Some more relevant Scriptures about this ...

God’s Revelation in Jesus (Hebrews 1:1-2)

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

The Word Became Flesh (John 1:14)

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Scripture Points to Christ, Who Is Greater (John 5:39-40)

You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Sufficiency of Christ Over Scripture Alone (Colossians 2:9-10)

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness.

The Spirit Guides in Understanding (John 16:13)

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

[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.

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.

I can live with that.

[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.

How do you know Jesus came?

That depends on the person, I think. For some, through Scripture. For others, they initially came to believe through the testimony of others. I know some people who had a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit.

I grew up with a rather good knowledge of Scripture. In middle school, I came to doubt. My pastor suggested that I ask God to show me, through the Holy Spirit, whether these things are true. That worked for me. And it made me become very devoted to Scripture.

My boss, however, became Christian after reading the entire Bible several times. I think that is unusual.

I agree with what you've written here, but think that your word initially is key here. The beginning point may come through many types of interaction, but at some point it must lead to the Scriptures, because it is through them that we learn more about Jesus, our minds being illuminated by the Spirit of Jesus.

I would hope that we as believers are open enough about our faith that MOST people will come to know Christ through personal interactions, friendly relationships. Then when they began to respond, and the desire bursts upon them to know more, we point them to the Scriptures.

In our task as Bible translators, I was sometimes frustrated with the way it is written (sounds horrible to admit that, let alone put it down in writing...), and I remember telling a fellow translator that "Sometimes I'd like to just write my own 'Scripture'," expressing it from within the animistic mindset. But that is not our task. That is the Holy Spirit's work, at least as far as Bible translation is concerned. Other types of literature can be written in that way, but it doesn't hold the same place or value as does the actual Scriptures, as handed down to us. These writings only have value to the extent that they accurately reflect the content and meaning of the 'authority' - the Scriptures themselves. (Just as the value of the Scriptures rests on the degree to which they accurately and faithfully reflect truth as revealed by the Authority, God Himself through Jesus, who, in His own words, only spoke what the Father told Him to say.)

[JohnH]

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.

Been reading Karl Barth,eh? That has historically been an expressway to liberalism, as well as to intellectual snobbery. Seen this many times in my former circles.

Not to mention the total immorality of the messenger.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

Seems God... is Jesus... is the Word... is the Bible... you cannot separate any of these...