Anabaptists and the Authority of Scripture

[Bootstrap]

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 agree with that.

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.

I don't even understand what "plenary and verbally inspired" unless you subscribe to the idea that language is basically a collection of individual words. These are not words we usually use or ways we usually think. And they are not things the Bible says about itself.

I prefer to stick with what the Bible says about itself, e.g.

7 The law of the Lord is perfect,
refreshing the soul.
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy,
making wise the simple.

8 The precepts of the Lord are right,
giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the Lord are radiant,
giving light to the eyes.

9 The fear of the Lord is pure,
enduring for ever.
The decrees of the Lord are firm,
and all of them are righteous.

10 They are more precious than gold,
than much pure gold;
they are sweeter than honey,
than honey from the honeycomb.

11 By them your servant is warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.

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.

What exactly counts as an error?

If we judge the Bible as a modern scientific text or as any other kind of modern text, we find that it is an ancient text, written in languages and cultures that are foreign to ours. It is not written as a systematic theology or a rulebook or a scientific explanation or a systematic history. The introduction of Luke more or less says he wrote his gospel partly because the other gospels did not look like a systematic, careful Greek history book.

If you read Genesis 1, then read Genesis 2, and treat each of them as a chronological historical sequence of what came first and what came next, I think there are discrepancies. But I don't think either was written to be understood that way. You have to take the genre into account.

So part of the problem is that we think a book should be what a modern book is, we want to judge it by those criteria, so we start talking about science and other things that came much later than the Bible, and we are afraid that the Bible is no good if it isn't a scientific text. But if God wanted it to be a scientific text, he would have written a different Bible.

[ken_sylvania]

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.

How do you think the majority of 16th - 19th century Anabaptists would have reacted if you told them that God had inspired the ideas behind the Bible, but that the words that each of the writers chose to use to set those ideas down on paper were not necessarily inspired?

[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.

How do you think the majority of 16th - 19th century Anabaptists would have reacted if you told them that God had inspired the ideas behind the Bible, but that the words that each of the writers chose to use to set those ideas down on paper were not necessarily inspired?

That is a different question.
It is one thing to believe that God inspired the scriptures. It is quite another thing to clarify how God inspired the scriptures. And it is quite another thing to say God inspired the ideas behind the Bible but the words that each of the writers chose to use to set those ideas down on paper were not necessarily inspired.

I'm fine with the wording of scripture. I'm fine with whatever God intended to communicate to us through scripture. And I am fine with leaving it at that. Whatever God intended to communicate to us through the words of scripture is what he intended to communicate and whatever I or anyone else thinks about it does not change what God intended when he gave us the scriptures.

What I am not ok with is clarifying things on behalf of God that God never deemed necessary to clarify.

Whenever we stick with scriptural wording, we may be thinking slightly different things, but we are at least saying the same thing. When people depart from the wording of scripture in order to clarify doctrine, they are no longer saying the same thing, and it won't be long until they are forming sides and staking out positions in opposition to each other.

[ken_sylvania]

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.

How do you think the majority of 16th - 19th century Anabaptists would have reacted if you told them that God had inspired the ideas behind the Bible, but that the words that each of the writers chose to use to set those ideas down on paper were not necessarily inspired?

That is a different question.
It is one thing to believe that God inspired the scriptures. It is quite another thing to clarify how God inspired the scriptures. And it is quite another thing to say God inspired the ideas behind the Bible but the words that each of the writers chose to use to set those ideas down on paper were not necessarily inspired.

I'm fine with the wording of scripture. I'm fine with whatever God intended to communicate to us through scripture. And I am fine with leaving it at that. Whatever God intended to communicate to us through the words of scripture is what he intended to communicate and whatever I or anyone else thinks about it does not change what God intended when he gave us the scriptures.

What I am not ok with is clarifying things on behalf of God that God never deemed necessary to clarify.

Whenever we stick with scriptural wording, we may be thinking slightly different things, but we are at least saying the same thing. When people depart from the wording of scripture in order to clarify doctrine, they are no longer saying the same thing, and it won't be long until they are forming sides and staking out positions in opposition to each other.

I would still be interested in hearing your answer to my question if you care to provide one.

I think there's evidence that at least some of the early Anabaptists believed that the Scriptures are the final authority in any question regarding faith and practice. They consistently appealed to the Scriptures when challenged on their differences with the Catholic Church and the other Reformers.

Do you have any particular reason that you think that the 16th - 19th century Anabaptists would not have agreed that the Scriptures are inerrant? Surely they would have recognized that the translations they had weren't 100% accurate in every respect.

[Ernie]

How do you think the majority of 16th - 19th century Anabaptists would have reacted if you told them that God had inspired the ideas behind the Bible, but that the words that each of the writers chose to use to set those ideas down on paper were not necessarily inspired?

My guesses...
"What?"
or
"I don't get what you are saying."
Or
"Why do you say that?"
or
"That doesn't make any sense."
or
"I don't know what you are talking about, but I believe the scriptures are inspired by God and given to us by God and that people can wrest them to their destruction."

[Ernie]

I think there's evidence that at least some of the early Anabaptists believed that the Scriptures are the final authority in any question regarding faith and practice.

Yes. But anytime they became overconfident in their ability to understand the meaning of the scriptures, they became quarrelsome and sectarian.

They consistently appealed to the Scriptures when challenged on their differences with the Catholic Church and the other Reformers.

Yes, they often did. But the Catholics and Reformers quoted scriptures back to them.
This happens today as well. People quote scriptures back and forth to each other and at the end of the day, nobody has budged an inch, except for a few people on the fence.

Many Anabaptists appealed to scripture, but ultimately many appealed to Jesus, their leader, the one who gave them a new heart. They pledged their allegiance to Him. Not to a book. And that is what set them apart from the Catholics and Reformers.

[ken_sylvania]

I think there's evidence that at least some of the early Anabaptists believed that the Scriptures are the final authority in any question regarding faith and practice.

Yes. But anytime they became overconfident in their ability to understand the meaning of the scriptures, they became quarrelsome and sectarian.

They consistently appealed to the Scriptures when challenged on their differences with the Catholic Church and the other Reformers.

Yes, they often did. But the Catholics and Reformers quoted scriptures back to them.
This happens today as well. People quote scriptures back and forth to each other and at the end of the day, nobody has budged an inch, except for a few people on the fence.

Many Anabaptists appealed to scripture, but ultimately many appealed to Jesus, their leader, the one who gave them a new heart. They pledged their allegiance to Him. Not to a book. And that is what set them apart from the Catholics and Reformers.

True, but they rejected any kind of "Word from the Lord" or dreams or visions of any kind that went beyond or contrary to the Scriptures, did they not?

The Catholics and Reformers accepted the Pope and Augustine and the early church fathers as authoritative above the Scriptures.

The Anabaptists didn't reject infant baptism because of their allegiance to Jesus, other than in the sense that their allegiance to Jesus caused them to say "We will obey what we are taught from the Scriptures." They drew their understanding of suffering as a defenseless people from the pages of the Holy Word. It's hard for me to read their writings and think that they would not have affirmed the Scriptures as the only infallible rule by which to measure faith and practice.

[Ernie]

Do you have any particular reason that you think that the 16th - 19th century Anabaptists would not have agreed that the Scriptures are inerrant? Surely, they would have recognized that the translations they had weren't 100% accurate in every respect.

I'm doubt that most Anabaptists knew that the translations they had were not 100% accurate. Some could not read or could barely read. (I could read but I didn't know that the Bibles I used were not 100% accurate until I was 36 years old.)

Here are some reasons a person may conclude that the scriptures are inerrant down to the letters used in the original autographs...
1. They've been taught that the scriptures are inerrant.
2. They've been taught a view of scripture that leads them to believe in inerrancy, even if they never heard that word applied to the Bible.
3. They believe that have received a personal revelation from God or a burning in the bosom that the scriptures they have are inerrant.
4. They've heard of folks who claimed the Bible is full of errors, so they read some books or listened to some teaching, and concluded that the Bible is actually inerrant.

[ken_sylvania]

Do you have any particular reason that you think that the 16th - 19th century Anabaptists would not have agreed that the Scriptures are inerrant? Surely, they would have recognized that the translations they had weren't 100% accurate in every respect.

I'm doubt that most Anabaptists knew that the translations they had were not 100% accurate. Some could not read or could barely read. (I could read but I didn't know that the Bibles I used were not 100% accurate until I was 36 years old.)

Here are some reasons a person may conclude that the scriptures are inerrant...
1. They've been taught that the scriptures are inerrant.
2. They've been taught a view of scripture that leads them to believe in inerrancy, even if they never heard that word applied to the Bible.
3. They believe that have received a personal revelation from God or a burning in the bosom that the scriptures they have are inerrant.
4. They've heard of folks who claimed the Bible is full of errors, so they read some books or listened to some teaching, and concluded that the Bible is actually inerrant.

I guess I just think differently than you do!

Maybe I should say that some things we just know are true even if we don't have evidence!

[Ernie]

Regarding what happened at age 36...

I knew that some word choices in the Bible I owned might not have been the best, but I did not know that manuscripts the translators were working off of, had some errors in them. This really rocked my faith when I learned this. Why would a God who inspired the scriptures, and preserved his word, and superintended the canonization of the Bible, - why could He not preserve a perfect text for Bible translators to translate from?
The reason that this was such a shock to me was because I was given the impression that every jot and every title was inspired (dictation view) and that what I held in my hands was translated from a manuscript that was not missing any jots or tittles.
I discovered that not only was the manuscript that my Bible was translated from... missing some jots and tittles (or had some added)... but there was no original manuscript or any copy of an original manuscript available to us to work off of. (I don't think most Anabaptists from 1525-1900 had any idea about these things either.)

Now, for the record.
I would never say the ancient Bible manuscripts available to us today are full of errors, nor that the Bibles we use today that are carefully translated are full of errors. They are not. (although there are a few errors here and there)
Because we have over 5000 portions of ancient manuscripts available to us, they can be compared with each other, and many errors can be eliminated as translation work is done.
And besides, all but a couple possible errors or additions in the manuscripts available to us today have no doctrinal implications whatsoever and the few possible errors or additions that might have doctrinal implications have no major doctrinal implications that change or shake the foundations of Christianity.

All of the above led me to conclude after some time that…
1. The scriptures are trustworthy and reliable documents.
2. The scriptures are what the scriptures say they are. No more. No less. (at least we should not be making them to be more or less)
3. The original autographs may or may not be without any errors, down to the jot and tittle. (We simply don’t know at this time until someone finds the original autographs) And perhaps that “jot and tittle” refers to the law of God as a universal moral standard, or the law given to Moses.
4. The original autographs do not need to be error free, in order for the scriptures to be inspired, trustworthy, reliable, profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, and proclaimed by holy men of God who spoke as they were moved by the holy Spirit.
5. God’s message to us through the scriptures is inerrant, and that what He intended to communicate to us humans through the scriptures can be communicated inerrantly and can be understood and applied to our daily life as much as we are willing to embrace it.
6. What is unclear or hard to understand should not distract us from putting all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength, into acting upon what is painfully easy to understand.