kata ta biblia

a blog exploring Christian origins, biblical studies, social/cultural history, method, education and the journey through academia

What do Anabaptists say about justification by faith?

In response to my last post, my friend Matt raised good questions about Anabaptists and their understanding of justification by faith. I started to copy down some quotes and felt like it was just too much material (and the material was just too good) for a comment, so I’m making a new post out of it. Here’s Matt’s comment:

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?

First, I’d like to say that much of early (and even contemporary) Anabaptism is characterized in its opposition to Luther, so I don’t think we need to be hesitant about identifying an “anti-Luther leaning” of Anabaptists. I’m not so keen on the fellow myself, he said some horrifically awful things (aside from his views on justification). Also, Anabaptists (especially 16th century ones) have a very high view of Scripture; there will be no throwing out of Scripture. From the Anabaptist perspective, they are being more faithful to the Word than “the scribes,” which include Luther. As a matter of fact, the early Anabaptist laity was so biblically literate that their opponents accused them of being demon-possessed: how else could they know Scripture so well? In response to Matt’s comment, I did leave the initial comment:

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.

But I would like to explore some Anabaptist sources here. These are all from the classic resource Anabaptism in Outline edited by William Klaassen (1981). The first quote is from Klaassen himself and the others are from 16th century authors, for which I’ve given both page numbers and years.

Anabaptists were one and all agreed that the process of salvation begins with God’s gracious act in Jesus Christ. There can no longer be any question about this. Once Luther’s formulation on faith and works is seen as one way of several to set out the problem, our minds can be more open to consider the Anabaptist view. Anabaptists, too, believed that man [sic] is saved by grace and not through any merits of his own.

But they were equally certain that man was not saved in spite of himself. God has graciously provided a way of salvation, but in order to benefit from it man must freely choose it for himself. This implied that man could choose, and it was a rejection of the Protestant doctrine of the bondage of the will. The will was set free by God’s grace and then man could choose to do the good that God desires for man.

~William Klaassen (in his introduction to the chapter on “The Work of God in Man” in Anabaptism in Outline, 1981, p. 41)

Faith alone and by itself is not sufficient for salvation. . . . With the heart man believes to righteousness and with the mouth confession is made to salvation (Rom 10). Now we do not wish to be mouth Christians only . . . Rather, faith must express itself also in love to God and the neighbor. . . . O, we wish to be good evangelical Christians; we boast about our great faith, but have never touched the works of the gospel and faith with the smallest finger. Therefore we are, as stated above, nothing but mouth Christians, ear Christians, and paper Christians, but not action Christians.

~Balthasar Hubmaier (Anabaptism in Outline, p. 43, from 1526)

Faith is the obedience to God and the confidence in his promise through Jesus Christ. Where this obedience is absent there all confidence is false and a deception. This obedience must be genuine, that is that heart, mouth and deed coincide together. For there can be no true heart where neither mouth nor deed is visible. And where the heart is not honest all words and works are nothing but deception. An evil heart betrays itself with pride and impatience. A good heart proves itself with humility and patience.

~Hans Denck (Anabaptism in Outline, p. 46, from 1527)

Therefore, when one speaks of justification through Christ, one must also speak of that faith, which cannot be without works of repentance, yea, not without love, which is an anointing. . . . Again when one speaks of works, one must preach not, after the manner of the work-righteous, the works of law but the works of faith; that is a turning away from works, creatures, and your own self, through faith in Christ the crucified one, not as what man can do from himself, but what he really can do in the power of faith; which thereby are not man’s works but God’s, since the willing and the ability to turn to God are not man but the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

~Michael Sattler (?) (Anabaptism in Outline, pp. 56-7, from 1530); he goes on to say “blessed be he who remains on the middle path” between “work-righteous” on the one hand and “the side side of the scribes” (i. e., Luther and friends) who teach “faith without works” on the other. Though this may not be a fair assessment of Luther, I think the “middle path” greatly interests me in this NPP research.

Faith is not the empty illusion that those men think who only bear it about with them in their mouths, and know no more about it; who think that Christianity is in words only, and therefore hold and regard each and all as Christians, no matter how they live, if they but confess Christ with the mouth

True and well-founded faith, however, is not of men but a gift of God, and is given only to those who fear God. . . .

~Peter Riederman (Anabaptism in Outline, p. 63, from 1542)

Those who accept this announced Christ by a true faith which according to the doctrine of Paul, was given us of the Father unto wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and deliverance, are in a state of grace for Christ’s sake and have God as their Father; for by faith they are born of him. . . . And this we say, not by our own merits and works, but by grace through Christ Jesus. . . . [T]herefore it is that they sincerely fear the Lord, and by that fear die unto their flesh, crucify their lusts and desires, and shun and abhor the unclean, ungodly works which are contrary to the Word of the Lord. . . .

They show indeed that they believe, that they are born of God and are spiritually minded; that they lead a pious, unblamable life before all men. . . . They walk in all love and mercy and serve their neighbors. In short, they regulate themselves in their weakness to all words, commandments, ordinances, Spirit, rule, example, and measure of Christ; and therefore they live no longer in the old life of sin after the earthly Adam (weakness excepted), but in the new life of righteousness which comes by faith, after the second and heavenly Adam, Christ. . . .

~Menno Simons (Anabaptism in Outline, p. 69-70, from 1552)

Post to Facebook Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Google Buzz Post to LinkedIn Post to StumbleUpon

7 Comments by Patrick George McCullough  /  January 23, 2007  /  Posted in: anabaptism, justification by faith, New Perspective, Paul, quotes
« Previous post
Next post »
  • Matt

    Thanks Pat!

    This post reminds me of the pleasant days in my historical theology class when I had the honor of reading some of my ancestors writings. As a Baptist, I was never made privy to anything historical past EY Mullins…so when I read Simons and Hubmaier I felt a deep kindred spirit with them.

    On this issue of faith and works and the Anabaptist response, the quotes you provided sound much like “official” (a tough word for non-creedal people!) Baptist doctrine. True faith produces works and works highlight the existence and persistence of this faith.

    Also, the idea that we are able to choose God and that this possibility is a gift from God sounds quite Methodist (and Baptist)…prevenient grace.

    All of this to say that we are all more interrelated than we would sometimes like to admit!

    Thanks again Pat!

  • Patrick George McCullough

    “All of this to say that we are all more interrelated than we would sometimes like to admit!”

    True that. The problem was their historical context. The Roman Catholics had those pesky indulgences and the like, so Protestants like Luther swung all the way to the “faith” end of the spectrum. The Anabaptists reacted against both. On top of that, they believe that since the state corrupted the church, there should be separation between the two (one of many ways the early Anabaptists were ahead of their time). It was that issue that motivated them to refrain from baptizing their infants, when baptism functioned as a birth certificate, establishing citizenship with the state. So they weren’t just theological rebels, but political rebels as well. So they were hunted down and killed.

    With those historical beginnings, one can see why there might be tension with a person like Luther who had no qualms about killing off dissidents. Our contemporary context may include some bitter antagonism about theology and biblical interpretation, but at least we’re not killing each other!

    On the non-creedal people issue, you may be interested to check out an issue of Mennonite Life that deals with Anabaptists and creeds. Also, Aaron Weldon was just telling me yesterday about a Mennonite theologian named James Reimer, who wrote Mennonites and Classical Theology: Dogmatic Foundations for Christian Ethics. Reimer apparently argues that Anabaptists should not hesitate to embrace the creeds as their foundation, especially since so many contemporary Mennonites seem to be wrapped up in liberal thought. My understanding is that the early Anabaptists didn’t oppose the creeds per se, they just felt the creeds were incomplete.

  • slaveofone

    I feel like I’m on both ends of the pole here… I believe that I have a very high view of scripture… and that it is my high view which prevents me from saying I’m not going to throw part of it out… In other words, I’m trying to deal as honestly as I can with the texts and allow them to be false if they actually are.

    I appreciate the holistic aspect of Anabaptism very much. I especially appreciate this:

    “But they were equally certain that man was not saved in spite of himself. God has graciously provided a way of salvation, but in order to benefit from it man must freely choose it for himself. This implied that man could choose, and it was a rejection of the Protestant doctrine of the bondage of the will.”

    Amen and Amen!

  • Patrick George McCullough

    Thanks for your Amens, Dave. Always appreciated.

    What do you mean by “false”? I guess it is the same question I would ask an inerrantist from the opposite end: “What do you mean ‘without error’?” I am not an inerrantist, I think that one can find what you might call “contradictions” and problems of historicity in Scripture, but I have a hard time saying that any part of our canon can be completely thrown out. For me, even the texts with the most problematic messages must be dealt with in some way, interpreted in their context.

    For example, I see an ideal of egalitarianism in Gal 3:28 that was muffled by the cultural expectations of the first century Roman empire. In order to be good witnesses, not stir up too much trouble, Paul (or pseudo-Pauline authors) downplay/restrict the roles of women in the church. This challenges my own knee-jerk counter-culturalism. Perhaps I should ask myself if my revolutionary ideas against the state are just generically “peace and justice” ideas or whether they’re truly gospel-based and whether being “revolutionary” for the sake of revolutionary idealism might actually hinder the ultimate cause of the gospel. I believe that the biblical author was “wrong” that women should not speak in church or have any authority over a man, but I still extract meaning from the text, relevant to my/our life/lives today.

  • Micky

    About 3 years ago I dropped into a black hole – four months of absolute terror. I wanted to end my life, but somehow [Holy Spirit], I reached out to a friend who took me to hospital. I had three visits [hospital] in four months – I actually thought I was in hell. I imagine I was going through some sort of metamorphosis [mental, physical & spiritual]. I had been seeing a therapist [1994] on a regular basis, up until this point in time. I actually thought I would be locked away – but the hospital staff was very supportive [I had no control over my process]. I was released from hospital 16th September 1994, but my fear, pain & shame had only subsided a little. I remember this particular morning waking up [home] & my process would start up again [fear, pain, & shame]. No one could help me, not even my therapist [I was terrified]. I asked Jesus Christ to have mercy on me & forgive me my sins. Slowly, all my fear has dissipated & I believe Jesus delivered me from my “psychological prison.” I am a practicing Catholic & the Holy Spirit is my friend & strength; every day since then has been a joy & blessing. I deserve to go to hell for the life I have led, but Jesus through His sacrifice on the cross, delivered me from my inequities. John 3: 8, John 15: 26, are verses I can relate to, organically. He’s a real person who is with me all the time. I have so much joy & peace in my life, today, after a childhood spent in orphanages [England & Australia]. God LOVES me so much. Fear, pain, & shame, are no longer my constant companions. I just wanted to share my experience with you [Luke 8: 16 – 17].

    Peace Be With You
    Micky

  • Patrick George McCullough

    Thanks for sharing Micky. You’ve made me curious as to how this post motivated that story out of you!

    I would say Amen! I am so grateful (particularly on this Good Friday) for the power of God in my life personally, and in your life as your testimony shows. As an Anabaptist, I believe that the picture is not complete until individual experiences of God’s grace and the power of the Holy Spirit are united in a communal experience. In the local community of Jesus followers, we serve one another and allow ourselves to be served by others. We join together to serve those others around us near and far and live out our lives together as faithful disciples in imitation of Christ’s self-sacrifice. That’s my vision, or at least part of it.

    I hope that you’ve found a wonderful local community with whom to share your powerful experience of God. Have a blessed Easter!

  • http://www.missional.ca/2010/05/james-4/ The Book of James – Part 4 « A Living Alternative Our Missional Pilgrimage

    [...] It is when James says, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone” that he landed himself in hot water throughout Church history.  Many believed that he was clearly contradicting Paul’s teaching on justification my faith alone.  For example, doesn’t this verse contradict Romans 3:28 which says, “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law”?  In fact, he is not.  While our salvation is absolutely an unmerited grace from Christ alone, one that cannot be earned through any words or actions, we also believe that true faith is an active pursuit of Christ.  It is neither an intellectual nor emotional acknowledgment/acceptance of an idea(s) being right and true.  Neither do we believe that we are saved in spite of ourselves, but rather salvation is chosen freely through the exercise of our will (which is itself a grace from God).  Therefore, so to is obedience a reflection of the work of salvation in our hearts.  (For a brief overview of an Anabaptist view of justification, check out “What do Anabaptists say about justification by faith?”). [...]