Anabaptists and the Authority of Scripture

[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.

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.

I actually have never read Barth. I know who he is and that he was in a long term immoral relationship with his secretary...but have only a very passing knowledge of his work. Intellectual snobbery is never good, and we should have some humility re our intellect and approach. Point well taken.

I try to mostly avoid the "liberal/conservative" paradigms as I feel at times they can result in tribal reactions not unlike the political parties, the Republicans and Democrats. I'd rather ask, what is like Jesus? What did he do? What did he teach? How can we exalt him to his proper place, the highest place.

[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.

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...

It seems clear to me that the "Word" John is referring to is a person and not a text.

[joshuabgood]

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?

There are a lot of underlying assumptions in this statement and question that would need to plumbed in some depth to really get at it.

My short answer is, "no."

For instance a few things like John 7:53-8:ll or 1 John 5:7 probably not being part of the original texts doesn't sway my faith.

Underlying questions are "what do you mean by error?" What do you mean by true? What is a made up story like a parable? What is the Bible? Which books/passages are included? What about the fact that we don't have the original texts? What is metaphor...is it true that God is a Lamb?

All of these problems go away if we focus on Jesus as our ultimate revelation of God and truth.

[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.

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.

As I read though this again, the thought strikes me that some, seeing that there was that veil that prevented understanding, even after "only in Christ is it taken away", the understanding now no longer blocked, they do not then look into what had been veiled, but is now unveiled through Christ; those Scriptures being neglected, not read. Why did Jesus unveil them, if he didn't think it wise or worthwhile for us to read and understand them? (I'm speaking to those who do not appear to value the OT.)

[R7ehr]

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?

Isn’t there evidence of Jesus outside of the Bible?

[JohnH]

It seems clear to me that the "Word" John is referring to is a person and not a text.

Changing the scriptures??? The Word... is the Word... Logos... now why would the word be a person and not a text? Words aren't people, words are text

Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The word of God is ALIVE...

[ohio jones]

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.

But perhaps the book is the perfect revelation of the Perfect Revelation?

[Bootstrap]

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.

So the Scriptures lead us to Jesus as our hearts are illuminated, together, by the Holy Spirit. If you remove the Scriptures, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit from this cycle, it all falls short. There are people who believe in Scripture deeply who do not know the Jesus we know from what he said and did, they know it as the basis for some systematic theology, perhaps, or as a book full of "holy words" that they have never quite grasped but which they revere. There are people who believe deeply in the Holy Spirit but do not know Scripture or spend any time in it. There are people who believe in Jesus but consider Scripture unreliable.

None of that is what Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or Scripture testify to.

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.

And I hope we continue to testify to each other through personal interactions, friendly relationships, acts of love and kindness. That we study Scripture together, prayerfully, by the Holy Spirit, with Jesus as our lens.

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.)

Sure ... but I have worked on introductions to Bible passages written for people who are not used to reading ancient literature and do not know the Bible. And Bible dictionary entries designed for various specific groups. Sometimes we give them to translators before they translate. They can help people grasp what the text is saying.

But different people are pulled in via different routes. Plenty of people have accepted Jesus after reading a Gideon King James Bible in a hotel room or prison. Sometimes with very little understanding of what it says. God works in mysterious ways.

[Bootstrap]

It seems clear to me that the "Word" John is referring to is a person and not a text.

Changing the scriptures??? The Word... is the Word... Logos... now why would the word be a person and not a text? Words aren't people, words are text

Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

In the Bible, I think there are places where "the word" means (1) Jesus, (2) Scripture, (3) both Jesus and Scripture, or (4) either Jesus or Scripture and it's not entirely clear which. To me, the Hebrews verse you quoted is probably 3. Consider it in context:

“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”

For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience.

For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Jesus the Great High Priest

Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1 John 1:1

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete.

[joshuabgood]

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.

But perhaps the book is the perfect revelation of the Perfect Revelation?

I get what you are saying...but the word "perfect" in today's language means utopian. I don't ascribe a sacred/mysticism to the text itself. And I don't think it is perfect. We have translations of transcriptions at best. There are very clearly portions of text, two of which I cited upstream, that both "conservative" and "liberal" scholars alike agree were not likely part of the original texts. We have differing translations.

Beyond that, language itself is imperfect. Simple words like "is" don't appear in Hebrew. And yet, they are added to the text and we get The Lord is my shepherd" instead of merely "The Lord my Shepherd."

Beyond that even if it were perfect our interpretation is not.

My question remains, what is gained theologically or emotionally by ascribing perfection to a book instead of naming it as reliable and trustworthy?

In the end, even if we all agreed in the "perfection" and "inerrancy" thinking - what would that get us? In short the differences between the Protestants and the Catholics - who both take this approach. Interpretation is a wheel without which the bike doesn't ride. Even if we were all native Greek speakers and we had the original copy in front of us - we likely wouldn't agree. See the USA Constitution example. We have the original. We have native speakers. And we whole entire schools of law that read and interpret it differently. Thinking that viewing the Bible as a perfect revelation and the anchor of our truth is not sufficient to attain Christlikeness, unity, or brotherhood. There is something greater, more deep, more perfect. That thing is Christ.

None of the above presents any substantive challenge to the scriptures being reliable and trustworthy. In fact, in many ways it makes them more trustworthy. The fact that the primary witness accounts have variation around "How many angels there were" or which temptation happened first. Or if there were four or five thousand people - are all what you would expect of historically reliable, untampered with, reports. Those things actually strengthen the reliability of the accounts.