Anabaptists and the Authority of Scripture

[Judas Maccabeus]

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.

They likely have not existed since 1453 when the Theodosian Walls wee breached by the Ottomans, using a cannon built by a christian.

My take is that with the large body of manuscripts we have, we have a text that is better than perhaps we deserve. I always wonder why that verbiage shows up. Was someone expecting them to show up in a dig somewhere in Asia Minor?

[barnhart]

...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.

I'll join you on that soap box. Modernism and Fundamentalism are siblings, or at least cousins.

[cmbl]

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.

Funny you should mention that. When I was typing up that post, I considered putting that in parentheses or not including it. In real-life conversations, I've said things very similar to what you mention here - we don't have the original manuscripts anyway. If someone wanted me to sign a statement of faith mentioning original manuscripts, I wouldn't make a big deal of it. That said, I think what Ernie wrote about being inspired, trustworthy, reliable, is sufficient.

[cmbl]

There's an idea which I think comes from George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture - he was writing about the era from the 1870s through the 1920s and identifies 3 groups of people, namely denominational conservatives, Fundamentalists and Modernists.

The controversy was named for the last two groups. But the denominational conservatives also existed. They just wanted to keep things how they were, maintaining an existing confession of faith in whatever denominational tradition they were from. They took the Bible seriously, which was in some sense similar to the Fundamentalists, but they may not have been enthusiastic about subscribing to the new Fundamentalist language and views.

Within the Mennonite church, Old Orders would qualify as denominational conservatives - they just stuck to the Dortrecht confession.

[Judas Maccabeus]

There's an idea which I think comes from George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture - he was writing about the era from the 1870s through the 1920s and identifies 3 groups of people, namely denominational conservatives, Fundamentalists and Modernists.

The controversy was named for the last two groups. But the denominational conservatives also existed. They just wanted to keep things how they were, maintaining an existing confession of faith in whatever denominational tradition they were from. They took the Bible seriously, which was in some sense similar to the Fundamentalists, but they may not have been enthusiastic about subscribing to the new Fundamentalist language and views.

Within the Mennonite church, Old Orders would qualify as denominational conservatives - they just stuck to the Dortrecht confession.

You have a point here. I am beginning to suspect that it was how the views were expressed, than shift in the actual views.

[barnhart]

There's an idea which I think comes from George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture - he was writing about the era from the 1870s through the 1920s and identifies 3 groups of people, namely denominational conservatives, Fundamentalists and Modernists.

The controversy was named for the last two groups. But the denominational conservatives also existed. They just wanted to keep things how they were, maintaining an existing confession of faith in whatever denominational tradition they were from. They took the Bible seriously, which was in some sense similar to the Fundamentalists, but they may not have been enthusiastic about subscribing to the new Fundamentalist language and views.

Within the Mennonite church, Old Orders would qualify as denominational conservatives - they just stuck to the Dortrecht confession.

This has some traction for me. I see Modernism and Anti- Modernism (Fundamentalism) as twin philosophical innovations. That said, in some sense you cannot completely "just keep things as they were" because resistance to change is change in itself.

[Neto]

There's an idea which I think comes from George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture - he was writing about the era from the 1870s through the 1920s and identifies 3 groups of people, namely denominational conservatives, Fundamentalists and Modernists.

The controversy was named for the last two groups. But the denominational conservatives also existed. They just wanted to keep things how they were, maintaining an existing confession of faith in whatever denominational tradition they were from. They took the Bible seriously, which was in some sense similar to the Fundamentalists, but they may not have been enthusiastic about subscribing to the new Fundamentalist language and views.

Within the Mennonite church, Old Orders would qualify as denominational conservatives - they just stuck to the Dortrecht confession.

This has some traction for me. I see Modernism and Anti- Modernism (Fundamentalism) as twin philosophical innovations. That said, in some sense you cannot completely "just keep things as they were" because resistance to change is change in itself.

I turned on the radio on my way back from a service call earlier this morning, and the preacher was talking about the need to interact with modern objections to the old explanations of "Why there is evil in the world". He said that he had realized that he needed to go deeper over the last 15 years of his ministry, because young people were aware of modern philosophers and their efforts to destroy Biblical belief. I didn't keep listening after I arrived back at my shop, so I didn't hear the rest of his explanation of what he thought he needed to do now, things that were not necessary in the early part of his ministry. But I don't think that responding to current objections is a change in the message. That is, we need to keep in touch with what our listeners are hearing from other sources. I imagine that the wording and language used must change in order to do that, but that doesn't mean that the core stance or belief is different.

[barnhart]

There's an idea which I think comes from George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture - he was writing about the era from the 1870s through the 1920s and identifies 3 groups of people, namely denominational conservatives, Fundamentalists and Modernists.

The controversy was named for the last two groups. But the denominational conservatives also existed. They just wanted to keep things how they were, maintaining an existing confession of faith in whatever denominational tradition they were from. They took the Bible seriously, which was in some sense similar to the Fundamentalists, but they may not have been enthusiastic about subscribing to the new Fundamentalist language and views.

Within the Mennonite church, Old Orders would qualify as denominational conservatives - they just stuck to the Dortrecht confession.

This has some traction for me. I see Modernism and Anti- Modernism (Fundamentalism) as twin philosophical innovations. That said, in some sense you cannot completely "just keep things as they were" because resistance to change is change in itself.

I turned on the radio on my way back from a service call earlier this morning, and the preacher was talking about the need to interact with modern objections to the old explanations of "Why there is evil in the world". He said that he had realized that he needed to go deeper over the last 15 years of his ministry, because young people were aware of modern philosophers and their efforts to destroy Biblical belief. I didn't keep listening after I arrived back at my shop, so I didn't hear the rest of his explanation of what he thought he needed to do now, things that were not necessary in the early part of his ministry. But I don't think that responding to current objections is a change in the message. That is, we need to keep in touch with what our listeners are hearing from other sources. I imagine that the wording and language used must change in order to do that, but that doesn't mean that the core stance or belief is different.

Fair enough. I agree. What I'm not as convinced about is that Fundamentalism is a neutral presentation of the faith that proceeded it. The innovators who started it likely thought so, but I suspect they were mistaken. Saving faith from rationalism by utilizing rationalism is innovative not conservative.

[MattY]

On the one hand, I agree that fundamentalism was, in a sense, itself modernist and quite influenced by modern assumptions about the meaning of texts and the necessity of strict literalism, putting modern assumptions on ancient writers. Thus when it is pointed out that there are gaps in biblical genealogies and Matthew was not saying that there were literally only 14 generations from Abraham to David, or that it's not necessary for Creation to have happened in 4004 B.C. and we don't need to know the exact date, people might look at you askance or act troubled as if such an idea threatens the reliability/inerrancy of Scripture.

But that doesn't threaten inerrancy, it just means you shouldn't put modernist assumptions into the definition of inerrancy. The Biblical authors didn't report everything with scientific precision, or in the exact order they occurred necessarily.

On the other hand, I think this type of argument is overblown when used against inerrancy itself; "inerrant in the original manuscripts" is simply a more precise definition of what most Christians have usually believed; for one thing, modernist ideas specifically challenge the reliability of Scripture and often careful definition is needed. Precision in definitions is probably a feature of the modern world; but that's because modern minds seem to demand it. Without precision, moderns seem to get confused and start conflating different things - for example, immediately point to errors in translation or manuscript transmission as evidence that the Bible is not inerrant, and therefore it doesn't matter if they decide the Bible is wrong about homosexuality, the character of God, the historicity of the OT - like maybe David and Moses never existed and it was all made up post-exile, etc.

Take this discussion of Scripture from someone who lived over 1200 years before rationalism began, for instance. Whatever else Augustine was, at least no one can accuse him of being a modernist:

For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error.

The authors being without error, but not the subsequent copied manuscripts or the translations, is pretty much exactly the definition of inerrancy in the original manuscripts. It sets the parameters, defines the playing field, for discussion of the meaning and application of Scripture. If you wonder if something your copy of Scripture is accurate, you can check other translations, do some digging to see if the copyists could have made an error, look around at other interpretations to see if you misunderstood, or just accept that what it seems to be saying is accurate.

[Ernie]

For the record,
I think that 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th century Anabaptists would nearly all have agreed with the following if you had asked them their opinion about each of these things.
Is the Bible true, inspired, trustworthy, reliable, profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness?

I do not think that the majority of 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th century Anabaptists would have affirmed the following if you had asked them their opinion about each of these things.
Is the Bible plenary and verbally inspired, inerrant in the original writings, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice?

This doesn’t mean that these last statements are untrue, but I don't think they were the sorts of things most Anabaptists would have even thought about in connection with the Bible.