Anabaptists and the Authority of Scripture

[Nomad]

Exactly. All we know of Jesus comes from the written word. This written word is OBJECTIVELY "God breathed." What we know of the Living Word follows from the written word. No revelation claimed to come from the Living word that is not in the written word cannot be considered to be revelations, but the "doctrines of man." The Spirit cannot be at variance with the written word, after all, He is the author of it.

I agree.

Exactly, the entirety of the Scripture is inspired. It may have different purposes, we need to recognize those purposes, but it is entirely God's word.

I agree. As part of believing that the different parts have different purposes, I do not believe that we need to obey the Old Testament today.

It seems to me that the advocacy of a Christocentric approach is a feature of 20th/21st century neoAnabaptism, rather than historic Anabaptism itself. And I don't think it's the reason for the differences between the Anabaptists and Protestants/evangelicals either. If that were the case, then people talking about Christocentric interpretations would all be in agreement. Instead you have both conservatives (like Finny Kuruvilla) and gay-affirming liberals talking about Christocentric interpretation of Scripture. (This is where that preferred bias of the interpreter comes in).

I would say you are spot on here. I will persist in that they picked it up from Barth, Niebuhr and other "Neo-Orthodox" authors. I Have never run across this in Mennonite writings before the 40s. Enlighten me if you think I have missed something.

Karl Barth was the Ph.D supervisor for a number of Mennonite luminaries. I have already mentioned JHY. Now for J.C. Wenger, from GAMEO...

Barth has shown up again...

The mention of the 1940s is telling...I would say a lot of Mennonite writings from 1900-1940 were Fundamentalist in character, rather than Anabaptist-Mennonite in character.

Would you describe this as Christocentric? I would:

First, a true Christian then, is one who has been convinced of his lost and sinful condition...fled to Jesus for refuge...thus confidently trusting in Him as the only true Savior, with a determination to adhere to Him and to become His disciple...

Secondly, a Christian, then is one who stands in very close connection with Christ; even so closely connected with Him, as the branch is with the vine...

Thirdly, to be a true Christian is to be like Christ, in nature, practice, walk, and conversation - to imitate Him by walking in His footsteps. Was Christ meek and lowly in heart? So is the Christian. Was Christ good and kind, merciful, amiable, benevolent and friendly to all mankind, even to his bitterest enemies? So is the Christian. Was Christ harmless, and of a lamblike disposition? So is the Christian. Did Christ love His enemies and pray for them? So will the Christian. In fact, all the holy virtues and dispositions of Christ will be, to a greater or less degree, the leading principles and features of a Christian's life...

Fourthly, to be a true Christian, we must depart from iniquity: to this the name obliges us...

Fifthly, to be a Christian, is to deny ourselves, to take up our cross, and to follow Christ; as He has left us "an example, that we should follow His steps."

Sixthly, to be a Christian implies, first, that we have passed from death unto life...

The language you use of "we do not need to obey the Old Testament" is where I would diverge from the Christocentric view. Some, including myself, would see the OT as still having relevant passages to the modern Christian while still seeing the Law as directly fulfilled. When Paul tells Timothy that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, and correction, he is most likely referring to OT scripture. The NT writers were very robust in the OT scripture usage and definitely were applying it to their lives as Christ followers.

The Christocentric view seems to view the OT as just a type to be fulfilled or the meanings transformed to a "spiritual" NT meaning. While I dont discount types, I do think the way we apply the term "fulfillment" to the type will have bearing on how much of the OT we think is relevant. The Literal grammatical hermeneutic would see some fulfillments as direct fulfillments while in other places where the OT is quoted in the NT it would be used more as a way to illustrate a lesson (like when Paul quotes from the OT using the Ox that is partaking of grain while threshing in 1 Corinthians 9:9) or as a way to show a correspondence between Jesus life and Israels history (or some times showing David's life corresponding to Jesus life) as proof He is the Messiah who will come and fulfill all scripture pertaining to Israel and the OT ("out Egypt have I called my son" from Hosea would be an example of correspondence rather than transforming with the OT).

While Jesus came and fulfilled the role of suffering servant and brought hope to the Gentiles, thus directly fulfilling some aspects of the OT...there is still some scripture of the OT that has loose ends yet to be tied. Thats why there are 2 comings and both comings are spoken of in the OT. The Christocentric view appears to push all completion of the OT to Jesus 1st coming and at other times seems to conflate the OT and the Law, incorrectly making them synonymous, so that they can use fulfillment language in the NT pertaining to the Law to the entire OT. By doing this they can remove all the OT from the equation. I would tend to see the Law as pertaining to parts of Exodus to Deuteronomy and no where else is it given in the OT. Therefore, places in the OT that have not been implicitly or explicitly fulfilled at Jesus 1st coming, will be at His 2nd coming. So, to me, the OT is still very revalant to the modern Christian.

However, what MattY said of people reading in different places of their lives is important. We need to be gracious with one another. To be sure, I have no problem with the words "being Christ centered".

[joshuabgood]

Thanks for this thoughtful comment Matt.

It is certainly true, as a matter of fact, that the Living Word is primary and has authority over the Written Word. The Living Word is the One who died for our sins and He brings us salvation (John 5:39).

Yes.

But that doesn't mean that the authority of the Written Word is outside of the authority of the Living Word. The reason that Scripture is the only infallible authority for Christian faith and practice is that it is the written Word of God, and comes from the Living Word; it is the Scriptures themselves that tell us of the Living Word (John 5:39 again).

I wouldn't say it is outside, I would say it is subservient to the Living Word. The witnesses of Jesus do give a reliable historical account of who he was and his teachings. However, I don't think a "flat Bible" approach works well with the Anabaptist hermeneutic. The teachings of Jesus, especially the Sermon on the Mt, have always been prioritized by Anabaptists going back to Schleitheim.

The teachings of Christ in the New Testament are not only found in the Gospels, but also in all of the other books of the New Testament. Paul's writings are the teachings of Christ just as much as the Gospels (Galatians 1:11-12; 1 Cor. 14:37). And the Gospels that the Apostles wrote are just as much the teachings of the Apostles as are the epistles they wrote. Christ said He had many more things to teach the disciples, but they were not ready for them yet (John 16:12), and that the Holy Spirit would teach them and bring all things to their remembrance.

I don't see the writings of Paul the same way I see the recorded teachings of Jesus. So this is a difference. I think we ought to interpret Paul's writings through the life and teachings of Jesus. This results in fundamental differences between Anabaptists and Protestants around separation of Church and State, etc.

As far as the Old Testament, Christ never sat in critical judgment on it, never indicated that any of it was not true (precisely the opposite, in fact), and never did anything to indicate that the God of the Old Testament was anything other than the true God as He had presented himself. When anyone looks to remove or disagree with something from the Old Testament because it's different from Christ's teachings (such as God's wrath, or His commands for the Israelites to wage war on their enemies), he's doing the opposite of what Christ did. Christ presented himself as fulfilling the Old Testament, not correcting it. (He also presents Himself as the one who will pour out retributive judgement on the wicked - Rev. 19:15).

I agree he wasn't "in critical judgement," however, he did explicitly reinterpret by stating on several occasions "It has been said to you but I say unto you." There are many instances of his teachings superseding the OT with regards to Sabbath keeping, marriage, oaths, violence etc etc etc.

The problem with most arguments for a "Christocentric" interpretation is that it tends to set the Living Word against the Written Word (by deciding that the Old Testament can't be saying what it seems to be saying), or at the very least, it finds a "canon with the canon" according to the preferred bias of the interpreter - outside of the natural division of Scripture between the Old and New Testaments.

That is how the Protestants see it. However, a better frame is the scriptures should be interpreted through life and teachings of Jesus, to whom all authority is given. And 'written word' that apparently contradicts the life and witness of Jesus should be harmonized with the teachings and life of the revealed Son of God, and not the other way around. Hence, through Jesus we interpret the rest of the NT, and through both of those the OT. It is pretty clear to the reasonably objective person that the teachings and life of Jesus, at least apparently, change/contradict/fulfill whatever words we want to use, portions of the OT with regard to violence, oaths, marriage, etc etc.

I don't see the early Anabaptists as advocating for this position. Rather, they accused the Reformers of not following Scripture accurately, as in Menno here:

I know what you mean, but what you see with the Anabaptists in their confessions is what I describe. They prioritize the Sermon on the Mount over other scriptures. Same with baptism. Hence their rejection of Zwingli's OT motifs around circumcision and the sword.

It seems to me that the advocacy of a Christocentric approach is a feature of 20th/21st century neoAnabaptism, rather than historic Anabaptism itself...

I can understand this point here...but I think the neo-Anabaptists were trying to put into words, in the larger Christian square, what their hermeneutic was. This was the genesis for Bender's essay etc. So while the Sattler's of the world didn't use that language, in reality that his how they interpreted the scripture. It wasn't just that the Catholic/Protestant folks were unfaithful exegetically or poor Bible scholars.

[joshuabgood]

Fundamentalism may have problems, but I don’t think we can say that it causes worldliness based on the Mennonite history.

Chester Weaver would disagree with you. I also think it is closely related to the ethnic assimilation of Mennonite congregations into general evangelicalism - that which many people would see as worldly. The underlying Lutheran and Zwinglian theology results in churches like Luther's and Zwingli's - that is at least, if theology matters which the Reformed folks would very staunchly attest to =).

[JohnH]

Talk to any Old Orders... they will tell you the Bible is important and a strong foundation... Jesus and the Bible is not an "either/or"... it is BOTH...

[joshuabgood]

Talk to any Old Orders... they will tell you the Bible is important and a strong foundation... Jesus and the Bible is not an "either/or"... it is BOTH...

I am repeating myself...but I think it is first thing/second thing.

[barnhart]

A question for those who don't see much Christocentrism in early Anabaptism, how do you account for the rejection of the church state, war, swearing oaths ECT..

[JohnH]

A question for those who don't see much Christocentrism in early Anabaptism, how do you account for the rejection of the church state, war, swearing oaths ECT..

What does the Bible teach...

[Judas Maccabeus]

I think rather it is small f fundamentalist ideas. Controversy forces definition. As the Biblically driven ideas that have always been the core of Anabaptism increasingly came under attack from the culture and the "mainline" church in the US, the need to define more closely what we actually believed became clear. I think that reading the "solas" from the reformed movement into Garden City is more than a bit forced. Rather, it is a right reaction to what the culture was throwing at the church. This was a period where the so called "higher criticism" of the Bible was becoming the predominant view in the religious culture of the US. The area that was most under attack by the "mainline" protestant movement of the day was inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, and that is how Garden City opens. "Reactionary", yes, and rightly so. Culturally Fundamentalist, no.

The "sure" results of higher criticism is so ingrained in the mainlines, I was forced, as an elder responsible for teaching in my former church, to reject Sunday School material because it taught the JEPD view of the Pentateuch. This was in the late 80s. This became the predominant view in the "mainlines" in the teens and 20s. Pushback was needed, and you can, and must pushback against false views of the Scriptures without being a "Fundamentalist." This may, however mean that you hold fundamentalist views.

Can you explain why in a generation, the Mennonites who penned the fundamentalist creeds of the early 1900s transitioned so quickly into mainstream/liberal evangelicalism? What good did it do them to go with reactionary fundamentalist/Fundamentalist ideas and adopt them as part of the Mennonite theological package? A large portion of the Mennonite church is now indistinguishable from liberal and or conservative branches of Protestant evangelicalism, and the only Mennonites that really hold to those fundamentalist-inspired doctrines are the conservative schisms of the 1950s-1970s.

In contrast, old order Anabaptists (Amish, Old Order Mennonites, and probably others) were not influenced all that much by fundamentalism, and still probably hold to much the same theology and values that they did 150 years ago.

My questions are, how much did the Mennonite church really benefit in the long run from fundamentalist influence in the early 1900s, how necessary was it to react to modernist trends in society and the broader Christian church in that way, and what benefit does conservative Anabaptism derive from those influences and reactions today?

I would say the old orders drifted less because of their linguistic isolation from the larger culture, as well as less influence from higher education gone off the rails.

If you read the GAMEO write up on the 1963 confession, it was already being ignored as of its adoption. This squares with what I have heard from my now retired bishop. It is not what herein is being identified as fundamentalist doctrine. It is the world, the flesh and the devil.

[JohnL]

So if I’m getting this right the old orders see a lot less change in their teachings because they don’t have seminary trained preachers? Is that right?

[barnhart]

A question for those who don't see much Christocentrism in early Anabaptism, how do you account for the rejection of the church state, war, swearing oaths ECT..

What does the Bible teach...

The Bible teaches that Jesus is the final and perfect word and is superior to all other revelations.

Hebrews 1
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 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. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Here the superiority and authority of Jesus over the message of the prophets is attributed to his identity as the Son, the heir, the creator, and image of God as well as his pre-existence.

Hebrews 2
We must pay the most careful attention, therefore, to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away. 2 For since the message spoken through angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, 3 how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.

In chapter 2 the message delivered by Jesus is held above previous messages even though they were delivered through angelic messengers.

Hebrews 3
Therefore, holy brothers and sisters, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, whom we acknowledge as our apostle and high priest. 2 He was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God’s house. 3 Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. 4 For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. 5 “Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house,”[a] bearing witness to what would be spoken by God in the future. 6 But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory.

Here the authority relationship between Jesus and Moses is compared to a house servant (Moses) and the builder of the house. Jesus is given title of "Son over God's house" indicating a superior authority. Moses is said to "bear witness" to future, superior message through Jesus.