Anabaptists and the Authority of Scripture

[Neto]

I "rebelled" against the suggestion that the Bible I had read all of my life had errors in it... that experience at 19 or 20 didn't shake my faith in God or His Word...

So that experience at 19 or 20 didn't shake my faith in God or His Word, as it did for a friend of mine who was in that same class - he threw his Bible in the trash can, and said to me: "If part of it is not right, then none of it is." He did this while weeping. I'm not sure he ever recovered from that experience.

This has happened over and over and over the last couple centuries.

Pastors and teachers of a certain variety, like to teach that the Bible is without error, and carefully preserved and copied, down to the very letter, and can teach quite persuasively about this. But they stop there and don't tell their listeners, "But the copy you hold in your hands has errors in it." To say this would contradict the point they were trying to make in their sermon so they omit this. Either they are not aware of the errors in the copy they are holding in their hands, or they simply don't mention it to their listeners.
Then folks like you and I and your friend stumble across this later in life and it can be quite problematic, depending on our individual make ups and the foundations upon which we are building.
I think it is possible to talk about the amount of effort that those who copied the scriptures put into their work, while acknowledging that some small errors got passed along. And... that this doesn't make the Bible less trustworthy or reliable. In fact, it tells us something about God, that he uses humans to accomplish his purposes in the earth. If he used imperfect humans in the past to preserve his written Word, he can also use me today in His work, even if I am not perfect, but am diligently doing the best that I can, just like those copy writers centuries ago.

In thinking more about this, and how it affected my friend, I realized that the fact that he continued on as a Christian, but one that was now susceptible to heresy, indicates that this experience did not undermine his confidence in 'God', but rather his confidence in the Scriptures. With that foundation now tainted or diminished, the identity of God was now open to redefinition, based on 'experience'. Once that is removed, every "new wind of doctrine" becomes effective. This is the same thing that happened with my childhood public school friend - although in his case the impetus for change in belief was generated by a desire to accept sinful behaviors (in his case, homos3xuality) as fully moral in the eyes of God. The loss of respect for the Scriptures is what made this shift possible without total loss of 'faith'. But everything got redefined in this process, even what 'faith in God' means, God's identity, Jesus' character, etc.

[JohnL]

I "rebelled" against the suggestion that the Bible I had read all of my life had errors in it... that experience at 19 or 20 didn't shake my faith in God or His Word...

So that experience at 19 or 20 didn't shake my faith in God or His Word, as it did for a friend of mine who was in that same class - he threw his Bible in the trash can, and said to me: "If part of it is not right, then none of it is." He did this while weeping. I'm not sure he ever recovered from that experience.

This has happened over and over and over the last couple centuries.

Pastors and teachers of a certain variety, like to teach that the Bible is without error, and carefully preserved and copied, down to the very letter, and can teach quite persuasively about this. But they stop there and don't tell their listeners, "But the copy you hold in your hands has errors in it." To say this would contradict the point they were trying to make in their sermon so they omit this. Either they are not aware of the errors in the copy they are holding in their hands, or they simply don't mention it to their listeners.
Then folks like you and I and your friend stumble across this later in life and it can be quite problematic, depending on our individual make ups and the foundations upon which we are building.
I think it is possible to talk about the amount of effort that those who copied the scriptures put into their work, while acknowledging that some small errors got passed along. And... that this doesn't make the Bible less trustworthy or reliable. In fact, it tells us something about God, that he uses humans to accomplish his purposes in the earth. If he used imperfect humans in the past to preserve his written Word, he can also use me today in His work, even if I am not perfect, but am diligently doing the best that I can, just like those copy writers centuries ago.

In thinking more about this, and how it affected my friend, I realized that the fact that he continued on as a Christian, but one that was now susceptible to heresy, indicates that this experience did not undermine his confidence in 'God', but rather his confidence in the Scriptures. With that foundation now tainted or diminished, the identity of God was now open to redefinition, based on 'experience'. Once that is removed, every "new wind of doctrine" becomes effective. This is the same thing that happened with my childhood public school friend - although in his case the impetus for change in belief was generated by a desire to accept sinful behaviors (in his case, homos3xuality) as fully moral in the eyes of God. The loss of respect for the Scriptures is what made this shift possible without total loss of 'faith'. But everything got redefined in this process, even what 'faith in God' means, God's identity, Jesus' character, etc.

That's such a sad thing too. I'm sorry about your friend. He might not have been ready and mature enough to learn without it shaking up his mindset. I'm not sure that at 19 or 20 I would have been ready to tackle those kinds of concepts. Sometimes it takes some living in the real world to be able to adjust.

[Bootstrap]

For most Christians in most countries, there really was only one Bible translation, and people did not have to think about variant readings or different legitimate translations of the same Greek or Hebrew text. I grew up with the King James - the 1769 Authorized Version, not the 1611 - and that's what pretty much everyone used.

People called the RSV "the revised Satan version". They denounced the Good News Bible and the NIV. By the time I was in college, the NASB was considered reliable in my circles, but others trashed it because they thought it used the wrong Greek texts.

Few of the people in this debate on either side could read Greek or Hebrew or really knew anything about the manuscripts they were debating.

[Neto]

This has happened over and over and over the last couple centuries.

Pastors and teachers of a certain variety, like to teach that the Bible is without error, and carefully preserved and copied, down to the very letter, and can teach quite persuasively about this. But they stop there and don't tell their listeners, "But the copy you hold in your hands has errors in it." To say this would contradict the point they were trying to make in their sermon so they omit this. Either they are not aware of the errors in the copy they are holding in their hands, or they simply don't mention it to their listeners.
Then folks like you and I and your friend stumble across this later in life and it can be quite problematic, depending on our individual make ups and the foundations upon which we are building.
I think it is possible to talk about the amount of effort that those who copied the scriptures put into their work, while acknowledging that some small errors got passed along. And... that this doesn't make the Bible less trustworthy or reliable. In fact, it tells us something about God, that he uses humans to accomplish his purposes in the earth. If he used imperfect humans in the past to preserve his written Word, he can also use me today in His work, even if I am not perfect, but am diligently doing the best that I can, just like those copy writers centuries ago.

In thinking more about this, and how it affected my friend, I realized that the fact that he continued on as a Christian, but one that was now susceptible to heresy, indicates that this experience did not undermine his confidence in 'God', but rather his confidence in the Scriptures. With that foundation now tainted or diminished, the identity of God was now open to redefinition, based on 'experience'. Once that is removed, every "new wind of doctrine" becomes effective. This is the same thing that happened with my childhood public school friend - although in his case the impetus for change in belief was generated by a desire to accept sinful behaviors (in his case, homos3xuality) as fully moral in the eyes of God. The loss of respect for the Scriptures is what made this shift possible without total loss of 'faith'. But everything got redefined in this process, even what 'faith in God' means, God's identity, Jesus' character, etc.

That's such a sad thing too. I'm sorry about your friend. He might not have been ready and mature enough to learn without it shaking up his mindset. I'm not sure that at 19 or 20 I would have been ready to tackle those kinds of concepts. Sometimes it takes some living in the real world to be able to adjust.

I was the same age, although perhaps close to a year older than he. I have thought about this a lot, wondering why I was able to handle it, and he was not. What was it about our upbringing and or church experiences that prepared me for it - what had he missed out on? I do not recall his church background, or if he may have been a new Christian. I have also wondered what the professor could have said or done to prepare his students to face that shock. If anyone has ideas about that, I would certainly like to hear them.

[Judas Maccabeus]

In thinking more about this, and how it affected my friend, I realized that the fact that he continued on as a Christian, but one that was now susceptible to heresy, indicates that this experience did not undermine his confidence in 'God', but rather his confidence in the Scriptures. With that foundation now tainted or diminished, the identity of God was now open to redefinition, based on 'experience'. Once that is removed, every "new wind of doctrine" becomes effective. This is the same thing that happened with my childhood public school friend - although in his case the impetus for change in belief was generated by a desire to accept sinful behaviors (in his case, homos3xuality) as fully moral in the eyes of God. The loss of respect for the Scriptures is what made this shift possible without total loss of 'faith'. But everything got redefined in this process, even what 'faith in God' means, God's identity, Jesus' character, etc.

That's such a sad thing too. I'm sorry about your friend. He might not have been ready and mature enough to learn without it shaking up his mindset. I'm not sure that at 19 or 20 I would have been ready to tackle those kinds of concepts. Sometimes it takes some living in the real world to be able to adjust.

I was the same age, although perhaps close to a year older than he. I have thought about this a lot, wondering why I was able to handle it, and he was not. What was it about our upbringing and or church experiences that prepared me for it - what had he missed out on? I do not recall his church background, or if he may have been a new Christian. I have also wondered what the professor could have said or done to prepare his students to face that shock. If anyone has ideas about that, I would certainly like to hear them.

In our case, the older prof. that we had for NT introduction had a few history majors/minors for their undergrad in his class. He pulled definitions we used for the reliability of primary source material of antiquity. Than, and only than did we deal with the issue of transmission of the Bible and copyist variations that may have occurred. Bottom line, all conceded that it was a reliable text, likely far better than we could expect, and the evidence is that they were very very careful, but not 100% perfect.

I did not hear of any crisis of faith, but these were evening students taking grad. school courses. Much older than your classmate.

[Judas Maccabeus]

The text we used was Geisler and Nix "From God to Us." I can recommend it.

[Neto]

That's such a sad thing too. I'm sorry about your friend. He might not have been ready and mature enough to learn without it shaking up his mindset. I'm not sure that at 19 or 20 I would have been ready to tackle those kinds of concepts. Sometimes it takes some living in the real world to be able to adjust.

I was the same age, although perhaps close to a year older than he. I have thought about this a lot, wondering why I was able to handle it, and he was not. What was it about our upbringing and or church experiences that prepared me for it - what had he missed out on? I do not recall his church background, or if he may have been a new Christian. I have also wondered what the professor could have said or done to prepare his students to face that shock. If anyone has ideas about that, I would certainly like to hear them.

In our case, the older prof. that we had for NT introduction had a few history majors/minors for their undergrad in his class. He pulled definitions we used for the reliability of primary source material of antiquity. Than, and only than did we deal with the issue of transmission of the Bible and copyist variations that may have occurred. Bottom line, all conceded that it was a reliable text, likely far better than we could expect, and the evidence is that they were very very careful, but not 100% perfect.

I did not hear of any crisis of faith, but these were evening students taking grad. school courses. Much older than your classmate.

That sounds like a good approach, one which easily illustrates the vast difference in reliability of the Scriptures in comparison to other ancient texts that seem to never be questioned.

Yes, this was just Freshman level, and by far the majority of Freshmen were right out of HS (as was I). (I did not go to seminary. The only grad courses I took were all in Linguistics, Literacy, and Principles of Bible translation.) This school DID require a letter from the prospective student's pastor, but some may not have taken much time with that, just a sort of "rubber stamp" approach. There were also students that appeared to have been sent to Bible institute or college by their parents as a sort of last-ditch effort to straighten out their wayward son or daughter.

One thing I think that school got right is that they focused on teaching the students on how to study the Scriptures, rather than having individual courses for many different Bible books, like teaching WHAT to believe, rather than how to dig into the Scriptures yourself. The only Bible courses I ever had (for a BA Missiology degree) were OT & NT Survey courses, and that one Bible Study Methods course, which wasn't really ABOUT I John, but just using it to apply the different methods that were illustrated over the course of the semester.

[Judas Maccabeus]

That sounds like a good approach, one which easily illustrates the vast difference in reliability of the Scriptures in comparison to other ancient texts that seem to never be questioned.

Yes, this was just Freshman level, and by far the majority of Freshmen were right out of HS (as was I). (I did not go to seminary. The only grad courses I took were all in Linguistics, Literacy, and Principles of Bible translation.) This school DID require a letter from the prospective student's pastor, but some may not have taken much time with that, just a sort of "rubber stamp" approach. There were also students that appeared to have been sent to Bible institute or college by their parents as a sort of last-ditch effort to straighten out their wayward son or daughter.

One thing I think that school got right is that they focused on teaching the students on how to study the Scriptures, rather than having individual courses for many different Bible books, like teaching WHAT to believe, rather than how to dig into the Scriptures yourself. The only Bible courses I ever had (for a BA Missiology degree) were OT & NT Survey courses, and that one Bible Study Methods course, which wasn't really ABOUT I John, but just using it to apply the different methods that were illustrated over the course of the semester.

My oldest daughter got her BA from Toccoa about 2007, and she her program mirrors what you are relating here. She also had a systematic theology course taught from Grudem's "Bible Doctrine". They heard about my, my pastor (Who chaired the DEXCOM, effectively a Bishop in our circles) and the District Superintendent's displeasure. They replied that no other textbook existed.

Her major was "Intercultural Studies." She now teaches ESOL.

[Neto]

That sounds like a good approach, one which easily illustrates the vast difference in reliability of the Scriptures in comparison to other ancient texts that seem to never be questioned.

Yes, this was just Freshman level, and by far the majority of Freshmen were right out of HS (as was I). (I did not go to seminary. The only grad courses I took were all in Linguistics, Literacy, and Principles of Bible translation.) This school DID require a letter from the prospective student's pastor, but some may not have taken much time with that, just a sort of "rubber stamp" approach. There were also students that appeared to have been sent to Bible institute or college by their parents as a sort of last-ditch effort to straighten out their wayward son or daughter.

One thing I think that school got right is that they focused on teaching the students on how to study the Scriptures, rather than having individual courses for many different Bible books, like teaching WHAT to believe, rather than how to dig into the Scriptures yourself. The only Bible courses I ever had (for a BA Missiology degree) were OT & NT Survey courses, and that one Bible Study Methods course, which wasn't really ABOUT I John, but just using it to apply the different methods that were illustrated over the course of the semester.

My oldest daughter got her BA from Toccoa about 2007, and she her program mirrors what you are relating here. She also had a systematic theology course taught from Grudem's "Bible Doctrine". They heard about my, my pastor (Who chaired the DEXCOM, effectively a Bishop in our circles) and the District Superintendent's displeasure. They replied that no other textbook existed.

Her major was "Intercultural Studies." She now teaches ESOL.

I do not recall what text book was used for the Theology courses I took. There may not have been any. Theology I was taught by Dr. Daniel Goldberg, a Christian Jew. Theology II was taught by Dr. Richardson, who had been teaching there at St. Paul Bible College for decades. He would probably be considered one of the main Christian & Missionary Alliance theologians. I remember especially how he taught the different "end-times" theories so impartially that the students often tried to guess which one he ascribed to. No one could tell. (That is, by the way, a model for a good exegetical commentary, one that is especially useful in Bible translation work; one that avoids "taking sides" where the Scripture is not completely clear on its own.)

[joshuabgood]

That sounds like a good approach, one which easily illustrates the vast difference in reliability of the Scriptures in comparison to other ancient texts that seem to never be questioned.

Yes, this was just Freshman level, and by far the majority of Freshmen were right out of HS (as was I). (I did not go to seminary. The only grad courses I took were all in Linguistics, Literacy, and Principles of Bible translation.) This school DID require a letter from the prospective student's pastor, but some may not have taken much time with that, just a sort of "rubber stamp" approach. There were also students that appeared to have been sent to Bible institute or college by their parents as a sort of last-ditch effort to straighten out their wayward son or daughter.

One thing I think that school got right is that they focused on teaching the students on how to study the Scriptures, rather than having individual courses for many different Bible books, like teaching WHAT to believe, rather than how to dig into the Scriptures yourself. The only Bible courses I ever had (for a BA Missiology degree) were OT & NT Survey courses, and that one Bible Study Methods course, which wasn't really ABOUT I John, but just using it to apply the different methods that were illustrated over the course of the semester.

My oldest daughter got her BA from Toccoa about 2007, and she her program mirrors what you are relating here. She also had a systematic theology course taught from Grudem's "Bible Doctrine". They heard about my, my pastor (Who chaired the DEXCOM, effectively a Bishop in our circles) and the District Superintendent's displeasure. They replied that no other textbook existed.

Her major was "Intercultural Studies." She now teaches ESOL.

I do not recall what text book was used for the Theology courses I took. There may not have been any. Theology I was taught by Dr. Daniel Goldberg, a Christian Jew. Theology II was taught by Dr. Richardson, who had been teaching there at St. Paul Bible College for decades. He would probably be considered one of the main Christian & Missionary Alliance theologians. I remember especially how he taught the different "end-times" theories so impartially that the students often tried to guess which one he ascribed to. No one could tell. (That is, by the way, a model for a good exegetical commentary, one that is especially useful in Bible translation work; one that avoids "taking sides" where the Scripture is not completely clear on its own.)

I like what you say here. However, many "theologians" feel compelled to teach there "right" and "biblical" interpretation to make sure that "heresy" doesn't prevail.