Anabaptists and the Authority of Scripture

[Ernie]

I suspect, for the conservatives of the period, they are not looking back at Garden City as their heritage, as much as they would see Garden City preserving and stating what they had long believed, before late 19th century and early 20th century liberalism challenged it.

I doubt that Conservative Mennonites prior to 19210 long believed in...

Re: the Bible
"plenary and verbal inspiration"
"inerrant in the original writings"
"the only infallible rule of faith and practice"
I think they believed the Bible to be true, inspired, trustworthy, reliable, profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, etc.

"salvation through the finished work of Christ"
I think they trusted Christ for salvation, not the finished work of Christ. (If you can't see the difference, think about it for awhile.)

"that anointing with oil should be administered to the sick who call for it in faith"
This was a new practice for Anabaptists starting in the 19th century, as a biblical response to the emphasis of faith healings at the time.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I suspect, for the conservatives of the period, they are not looking back at Garden City as their heritage, as much as they would see Garden City preserving and stating what they had long believed, before late 19th century and early 20th century liberalism challenged it.

I doubt that Conservative Mennonites prior to 19210 long believed in...

Re: the Bible
"plenary and verbal inspiration"
"inerrant in the original writings"
"the only infallible rule of faith and practice"
I think they believed the Bible to be true, inspired, trustworthy, reliable, profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, etc.

"salvation through the finished work of Christ"
I think they trusted Christ for salvation, not the finished work of Christ. (If you can't see the difference, think about it for awhile.)

"that anointing with oil should be administered to the sick who call for it in faith"
This was a new practice for Anabaptists starting in the 19th century, as a biblical response to the emphasis of faith healings at the time.

I would say that, if you look at the confessions of faith, which can all be found in the “Classics of the Radical Reformation “ series, now in print from Plough, they actually DID believe all of those things. Garden City simply used the language of the time, and addressed controversy that previous generations were not faced with. If you tried to walk into the meeting at Schlictheim, and suggest that Moses did not write tha Pentateuch, you would have been tossed out of the room. If you suggested that man evolved from monkeys, you would have been shown the door.

Frankly, I see this accusation of “Fundamentalism” in Garden City as looking to a theological past that simply did not exist. In the 16th century, virtually everyone believed every article in “The Fundamentals.” Have you actually read the essays edited by RA Torrey?

[Ernie]

Frankly, I see this accusation of “Fundamentalism” in Garden City as looking to a theological past that simply did not exist. In the 16th century, virtually everyone believed every article in “The Fundamentals.” Have you actually read the essays edited by RA Torrey?

I have not. I was simply responding to your comment about what Mennonites long believed before 1921, and giving some examples of things that I don't think most Mennonites long believed. The rest of the 1921 document might have been affirmed by many Mennonites in the 16th century.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Frankly, I see this accusation of “Fundamentalism” in Garden City as looking to a theological past that simply did not exist. In the 16th century, virtually everyone believed every article in “The Fundamentals.” Have you actually read the essays edited by RA Torrey?

I have not. I was simply responding to your comment about what Mennonites long believed before 1921, and giving some examples of things that I don't think most Mennonites long believed. The rest of the 1921 document might have been affirmed by many Mennonites in the 16th century.

The particular phraseology you are reacting to is simply a statement affirming what virtually all Christians believed prior to the “Higher Criticism “ being taught in first European universities, and later in the United States. They just did not see the need to phrase it that way, because a “New” definition of inspiration was out in theological circles that had little to do with “God Breathed.”

I am sure if you walked into a minister’s meeting in the early 1800s and stated that the Bible was full of errors, the product a period much later than it presented itself as (try written by Ezra) and not written by who it presents itself as, you would surely been shown the door.


Anointing may have been indeed a new practice, and it almost certainly moved across from Keswick/Holiness circles. It would defend it as a Biblical practice, and even wrote a paper on the subject back in grad school.

[cmbl]

Frankly, I see this accusation of “Fundamentalism” in Garden City as looking to a theological past that simply did not exist. In the 16th century, virtually everyone believed every article in “The Fundamentals.” Have you actually read the essays edited by RA Torrey?

I have not. I was simply responding to your comment about what Mennonites long believed before 1921, and giving some examples of things that I don't think most Mennonites long believed. The rest of the 1921 document might have been affirmed by many Mennonites in the 16th century.

Like Ernie, I acknowledge that some things stayed the same. But some things changed.

Another doctrine that changed was eschatology - from an amillenial view to a modified form of dispensational premillenialism.

Old Orders (and Washington County, which did not have an Old Order division) maintained the older amillenial doctrine. Virginia Conference and Lancaster Conference adopted dispensationalism from the Fundamentalists, but modified it to not push the Sermon on the Mount into a future kingdom. And so the descendants of Lancaster Conference (Eastern, Pilgrim, etc.) have this modified dispensationalism, though amillenialism is also tolerated. (Interestingly, dispensationalism was controversial within Fundamentalism - and was named by one of its detractors.)

I would also view "living hope" (Old Order) versus "Assurance of Salvation" as a difference - although I would acknowledge there's room for some interpretation there.

[Ernie]

The particular phraseology you are reacting to is simply a statement affirming what virtually all Christians believed prior to the “Higher Criticism “ being taught in first European universities, and later in the United States. They just did not see the need to phrase it that way, because a “New” definition of inspiration was out in theological circles that had little to do with “God Breathed.”

And I am disagreeing with what you say above.

I am sure if you walked into a minister’s meeting in the early 1800s and stated that the Bible was full of errors... you would surely been shown the door.

I'm certainly not defending those who believed the Bible was full of errors.
Here is what I said about the pre 1921 Mennonites.

"I think they believed the Bible to be true, inspired, trustworthy, reliable, profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, etc."

[Ernie]

Another doctrine that changed was eschatology - from an amillenial view to a modified form of dispensational premillenialism.

Old Orders (and Washington County, which did not have an Old Order division) maintained the older amillenial doctrine. Virginia Conference and Lancaster Conference adopted dispensationalism from the Fundamentalists, but modified it to not push the Sermon on the Mount into a future kingdom. And so the descendants of Lancaster Conference (Eastern, Pilgrim, etc.) have this modified dispensationalism, though amillenialism is also tolerated. (Interestingly, dispensationalism was controversial within Fundamentalism - and was named by one of its detractors.)

I would also view "living hope" (Old Order) versus "Assurance of Salvation" as a difference - although I would acknowledge there's room for some interpretation there.

These are other good things to point out!

[cmbl]

Frankly, I see this accusation of “Fundamentalism” in Garden City as looking to a theological past that simply did not exist. In the 16th century, virtually everyone believed every article in “The Fundamentals.” Have you actually read the essays edited by RA Torrey?

(emphasis mine)

I think this actually gets at one reason why the Mennonites who were more influenced by Fundamentalism lost their identity.
In the 1500s, both Anabaptists and their persecutors agreed that Jesus was born of a virgin. They agreed that he performed miracles. They agreed that he rose from the dead. Etc. Etc.

Modernism was unprecedented. It denied these, and denied the inspiration or reliability or inerrancy of the Bible. So when people looked to shore up against modernism, one of the ways to do that is to assert that, Jesus really was born of a virgin. And He really did perform miracles. And He really did rise from the dead. And the Bible really is reliable and trustworthy and inerrant in the original manuscripts. Etc. Etc. (All of which things I agree with.)

And so there's a sense of common cause there. (E.g., J. Gresham Machen was not dispensationalist at all but recognized that in terms of these things, "the dispensationalists and I are on the same side.")

In the 1500s, everybody believed these things - the Anabaptists and their persecutors as well. So these things are "necessary, but not sufficient" to describe Anabaptist theology. And when these become what people build unity on, and start to build their identity on, we tend to lose the distinctive hermenutic of Anabaptism. And then the distinctive doctrines, and then the distinctive practices.

[joshuabgood]

Frankly, I see this accusation of “Fundamentalism” in Garden City as looking to a theological past that simply did not exist. In the 16th century, virtually everyone believed every article in “The Fundamentals.” Have you actually read the essays edited by RA Torrey?

(emphasis mine)

I think this actually gets at one reason why the Mennonites who were more influenced by Fundamentalism lost their identity.
In the 1500s, both Anabaptists and their persecutors agreed that Jesus was born of a virgin. They agreed that he performed miracles. They agreed that he rose from the dead. Etc. Etc.

Modernism was unprecedented. It denied these, and denied the inspiration or reliability or inerrancy of the Bible. So when people looked to shore up against modernism, one of the ways to do that is to assert that, Jesus really was born of a virgin. And He really did perform miracles. And He really did rise from the dead. And the Bible really is reliable and trustworthy and inerrant in the original manuscripts. Etc. Etc. (All of which things I agree with.)

And so there's a sense of common cause there. (E.g., J. Gresham Machen was not dispensationalist at all but recognized that in terms of these things, "the dispensationalists and I are on the same side.")

In the 1500s, everybody believed these things - the Anabaptists and their persecutors as well. So these things are "necessary, but not sufficient" to describe Anabaptist theology. And when these become what people build unity on, and start to build their identity on, we tend to lose the distinctive hermenutic of Anabaptism. And then the distinctive doctrines, and then the distinctive practices.

I agree with this 99%. I just don't feel it is necessary to say "inerrant in the original manuscripts" since we don't have those anyway. And even if we did it wouldn't solve the larger question, which is interpretation and practice.

And I feel like it introduces a number of underlying assumptions that are problematic. The very assumption that truth is known as, or dependent on, philosophical premises revealed in a text, is in fact modernist and rationalist lenses at work. And once that path is gone down, it doesn't surprise some that modernism and rationalism end up winning out. In other words, it yields (concedes to) a modernist/enlightenment frame before it even starts to defend the so called fundamentals of the faith. That may feel like I am being pedantic to some, but it actually makes sense to me.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Here is what I said about the pre 1921 Mennonites.

"I think they believed the Bible to be true, inspired, trustworthy, reliable, profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, etc."

I take no exception to this. The verbiage you are referring to is simply theological lingo from the modernist controversy. I do not think that it represents a change in the core belief. however, I always wonder about the "original manuscripts" phraseology, as such documents likely have not existed since the fall of Constantinople, if even than. It was largely the fashion of the time, our received text is apparently so close to the autographs that it is a meaningless discussion. The "verbal plenary" phraseology simply means that it was not only inspired, but every word was inspired, as opposed to only parts of it. For the record "plenary" essentially means full. So what I am saying is that the concept you give here, and what the 1923 says are essentially in harmony. It simply uses the terms of the modernist debate of the early 20th century. It is nothing more than a change in verbiage, to match the verbiage commonly in use.

In other words, I am of the opinion they both say essentially the same thing.

As to eschatology, I am essentially premillennialist because I do not like the gyrations that others use, views in this area change every 50 years or so. I will admit I use almost no mental energy on this, and will not write or preach on this subject. There are more important things.