While I am inclined to follow Dale’s logic as to why anabaptists have been rather quiet about the NPP, I do want to suggest that NPP is more than just the issue of justification by faith. In many ways the NPP is really a new perspective on Judaism. And, as people of the book, which most anabaptists claim to be, these issues are our issues. I have made this point elsewhere, but I’ll sayit here again. Anabaptists, by in large, gravitate toward the Gospels and not the Epistles. Pauline issues, all Pauline issues, are just not on our radar as much.

On your particular topic, I would also take a look at Neufeld’s BCBC commentary n Ephesians. I have not looked at it myself, but I would think that the commentary on chapter 2 would be pertinent to your research. Even if he does not hold to Pauline authorship of the letter, the theology in it flows out of Paul’s.

I also think that one of the things you need to do is define/describe just what is an Anabaptist perspective of anything. What if an Anabaptist position of NPP looks like many other positions? Can we call it a distinctly Anabaptist position? What would set it apart? Just some thoughts. I’m anxious to see how this goes for you.

Thanks for your comment, Chris. I think I will take a look at Yoder Neufeld. His commentary has been highly recommended to me in the past, but I haven’t gotten a peek at it yet.

I think you’re right to ask about how one might nail down an “Anabaptist” perspective on anything. Perhaps multiple approaches could be explored by digging into the 16th century Anabaptist “fathers,” so to speak, as well as looking into some more contemporary Anabaptist theology. There are many themes that Anabaptists tend to emphasize. Obedience, for example, is a traditional emphasis of Anabaptism that has tremendous relevance in this debate. Not that no one else has emphasized obedience, nor that all Anabaptists have said the same thing about obedience, but it something worth exploring (there is no way that a theological peon such as myself could ever offer a definitive Anabaptist view on anything, so I’m ever “exploring” things).

I think that a similar question can be raised on the NPP. There are certain emphases in the NPP, but it’s hard to find a definitive representation of what has become known as the NPP today. What does the NPP say about Judaism (both in itself and in relationship to Christianity) that the OPP doesn’t say? It seems that it has to do with what we emphasize. Covenental nomism versus legalism just seems like such a sticky dichotomy when we think of it on a practical level. Additionally, the OPP doesn’t deny the sociological dimension of Paul’s thought, while the NPP doesn’t deny that Paul’s soteriology is based on some form of “faith in Christ” (and as a sidenote, it was pointed out by one of the NT doctoral students in the class that the whole objective vs. subjective genitive debate doesn’t play a deciding role in the OPP/NPP debate). If I understand any of this, I feel like the two perspectives can work together somehow. Maybe some themes in Anabaptism can deal with that, since we ideally emphasize both obedience and faith.

Pat, would you mind clarifying some issues for me. Anabaptists believe in “believer’s baptism” but how is this belief expressed? In other words, how does one become a believer? Or, to put it a third way, does justification by faith play a decisive role in Anabaptist traditions?

Also, does the (seemingly) anti-Luther leaning of many Anabaptists alter or skew the way that Pauline texts are read. If the basic logic of the text sounds Lutheran is it to be thrown out automatically?

And lastly, I think that in fifteen pages you could wrestle with an “Anabaptist response” to the NPP…as long as you only focus on the broad brush strokes; namely, covenantal nomism vs. legalism (including the “works of the law” debate), justification by faith as ad hoc or central, and was Paul called only or converted first and then called. You could give three or four pages to each of those then have a section on the implications of this particular “Anabaptist” understanding of the NPP.

Matt, you raise really good questions. I would need to look around to get a good answer, and I think I will. My gut reaction is that it is that Anabaptists do not believe that you “earn” your salvation through works, but that “works” or “deeds” are a requisite part of the faith in Christ which leads to salvation/justification. In that way, it doesn’t completely disagree with justification by faith, but it argues for a more holistic understanding of faith. You may have convinced me to go for the broad paper because I’d like to wrestle (in an introductory fashion) with these broad issues. Thanks for the suggested outline, It’s very helpful and I will explore it.