New Perspectives in Bucer’s Attitudes towards the Radicals

Disclaimer: Any inaccuracies in the following report are due to the nature of presenting papers. Below is represents with the greatest attempt for accuracy but there is not text available for review. Points of uncertainty in the author’s ideas will be evident in how I represent them.

“New Perspectives in Bucer’s Attitudes towards the Radicals.” - Stephen Buckwalter, Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaft

            Stephen Buckwalter’s presentation began with an overview of editorial concerns of involved with the new critical edition of Bucer’s works. In regards to Bucer’s polemic against the Anabaptists, He addressed matters of layout with the works against Pilgram Marpeck, the Marburg Anabaptists and Bernhard Rothmann. The original publication against Marpeck’s Confession was laid out by having two columns. The layout placed Marpeck’s points, to which Bucer added numbers, next Bucer’s replies to each point. The previous critical edition to the new laid the whole exchange in one column, Marpeck’s articles being followed by Bucer’s reply. The trouble with this was that it at times made it difficult to tell who was author at any single point. The new edition sought to revert back to the original two-columned layout in order to preserve coherency.

            The polemic against the Marburg Anabaptists differed in that it was not an imaginary dialogue in the traditional way that the polemic against Marpeck had been. Rather, it was a reflection of actual dialogues that had taken place. This was also a point-by-point response, but the origin of this as a true dialogue required a one-columned format, for the debate had actually occurred in time. The polemic against Rothmann was not point-by-point, so the question did not arise.

Following the discussion of these editorial concerns, Buckwalter investigated similarities and differences between Bucer and the radicals, primarily Marpeck. Both had a high view of a singular covenant, Marpeck using the term bundt Thirty-three times in his confession and Bucer replying with twenty-two instances. For Marpeck, the bundt was of a good conscience toward God while Bucer’s emphasis was on the unity of the covenant through both Testaments as the covenant with Abraham.

The central theological departure that they made form each other was on the intersection of civic and ecclesial life. Bucer insisted on the external structure of the church as an institution with civil support. Marpeck, on the other hand, viewed the church as an invisible reality. The church was not merely a civic community’s religious life but further a gathering of those committed to discipleship.

Recent Trends in Anabaptist Scholarship

This post is a descriptive update to Troy Osborne’s 2007 article and John Roth’s 2002 article on recent trends in Anabaptist studies.1 There have been several threads in Anabaptist scholarship that have recently received heightened attention. Most notable is the volume of work being dedicated to two Anabaptist figures: Balthasar Hübmaier and Pilgram Marpeck.

The swell in Hübmaier scholarship is perhaps largely due to a continued byproduct of the 1989 publication of a new translation of the Hübmaier corpus.2 Also, recent interest has come from Baptists, finding a predecessor to their own confessional stance in Hübmaier more than in other Reformation theologians. Since 1999, 10 doctoral dissertations have been written on Hübmaier. 3 Furthermore, in the editorial preface to the January 2010 edition of the Mennonite Quarterly Review, Roth noted that Hübmaier’s full impact on the Anabaptist movement merited further investigation after years of Hübmaier studies having been marginalized by Mennonite scholarship. The bulk of that edition contained articles on Hübmaier. 4

The recent attention paid to Marpeck has, I believe, two points of origin. One has been the significant biography by Klaassen and Klassen. 5 The other has been the publication of new sources on Marpeck and his “circle.”6 This has resulted in a conference on “Anabaptist Convictions after Marpeck” at Bluffton University, June 25-28, 2009 and an issue of the Mennonite Quarterly Review being dedicated to Marpeck studies in January 2011.

Another trend is the study of the use of patristic literature among the Anabaptists. Much of the came to the fore in a 2005 issue of Mennonite Life, 7 but some groundwork had been laid before. 8 Other works have continued this investigation, 9 especially that of Andrew P. Klager,10 and further work will likely come out of this.

This leaves open certain questions that remain to be made, including more specifically which authors used patristic sources and in what situations. Were Anabaptists more likely to include patristic citations in debate with opponents for who the fathers held authority? Did they appeal to the fathers when writing pastorally to their congregations?

1Troy Osborne. “New Directions in Anabaptist Studies,” MQR 81, no. 1 (Jan. 2007): 43-47.; John D. Roth, “Recent Currents in the Historiography of the Radical Reformation,” Church History 71 (Sep. 2002): 527-529. Osborne includes the proscriptive call for a new generation of confessional Anabaptist scholars to approach the subject in keeping with the concept of an Anabaptist vision, however recognizing the complexities introduced by the polygenetic model.

2H. Wayne Pipkin and John Howard Yoder, eds., Balthasar Hubmaier: Theologian of Anabaptism, Classics of the Radical Reformation, no. 5 (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 1989).

3In chronological order: Emir Caner, “Truth is Unkillable: The Life and Writings of Balthasar Hubmaier, Theologian to the Anabaptists,” Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Arlington, 1999.; Michael Wayne McDill, “The Centrality of the Doctrine of Human Free Will in the Theology of Balthasar Hubmaier,” Ph.D. diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2001.; Samuel Byung-doo Nam, “A Comparative Study of the Baptismal Understanding of Augustine, Luther, Zwingli, and Hubmaier,” Ph.D. diss. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2002.; Brian C. Brewer, “A Response to Grace: The Sacramental Theology of Balthasar Hubmaier,” Ph.D. diss, Drew University, 2003.; Ernst Theodor Endres, “The View of Balthasar Hubmaier of the Church: A Church-Historical Perspective,” D.D. diss., University of Pretoria, 2003.; Kirk R. MacGregor, “The Sacramental Theology of Balthasar Hubmaier and Its Implications for Theology,” Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 2005.; Darren T. Williamson, “Erasmus of Rotterdam’s Influence upon Anabaptism: The Case of Balthasar Hubmaier,” Ph.D. diss., Simon Fraser University, 2005.; Brian David Raymond Cooper, “Human Reason or Reasonable Humanity?: Baltasar Hubmaier, Pilgram Marpeck, and Menno Simons and the Catholic Natural Law Tradition,” Ph.D. diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 2006.; Antonia Lucic Gonzalez, “Balthasar Hubmaier and Early Christian Tradition.” Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2008.; Andrew P. Klager, “‘Truth Is Immortal’: Balthasar Hubmaier (c. 1480-1528) and the Church Fathers,” Ph.D. diss, University of Glasgow, 2010.

4The articles were Andrew P. Klager, “Balthasar Hubmaier's Use of the Church Fathers: Availability, Access and Interaction,” 5-65.; Matthew Eaton, “Toward an Anabaptist Covenantal Soteriology: A Dialogue with Balthasar Hubmaier and Contemporary Pauline Scholarship,” 67-93.; Brian C. Brewer, “Radicalizing Luther: How Balthasar Hubmaier (Mis)Read the ‘Father of the Reformation,’” 95-115.; Jonathan R. Seilig, “Johann Fabri's Justification Concerning the Execution of Balthasar Hubmaier,” 117-139.; Kirk R. MacGregor, “Hubmaier's Letter Johannes Sapidus,” 141-146.

Other recent works in this swell: Emir Caner, “Balthasar Hübmaier and His Theological Participation in the Reformation: Ecclesiology and Soteriology,” Faith and Mission 21, no. 1 (Fall 2003): 32-66.; David Funk, “The Relation of Church and State in the Thought of Balthasar Hubmaier,” Didaskalia 17, no. 2 (Wtr. 2006): 37-50.; Andrew P. Klager, “Balthasar Hubmaier and the Authority of the Church Fathers,” Historical Papers 2008: Canadian Society of Church History: Annual Conference, University of British Columbia, 1-3 Jun 2008, 18 (2008).; Kirk R. MacGregor, “Hubmaier’s Concord of Predestination with Free Will,” Direction 35, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 279-299.; Wayne H. Pipkin, Scholar, Pastor, Martyr: The Life and Ministry of Balthasar Hubmaier (Prague: International Baptist Theological Seminary of the European Baptist Federation, 2008).; Martin Rothkegel, “Von der Schönen Madonna zum Scheiterhaufen: Gedenkrede auf Balthasar Hubmaer, Verbrannt am 10 März 1528 in Wien,” Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für die Geschichte des Protestantismus in Österreich 120 (2004): 49-73.; Kurt J. Thompson, “The Proper Candidate: An Examination of the 1525 Debate between Ulrich Zwingli and Balthasar Hubmaier concerning Baptism,” M.A. Thesis, Liberty University, 2009.; Jean Marcel Vincent,  “Présentation et traduction du premier écrit anabaptiste: Un Résumé de ce qu’est toute une vie chrétienne (1525) de Balthasar Hubmaier,” Études Théologiques et Religieuses 79, no. 1 (2004): 1-18.

5Walter Klaassen and William Klassen. Marpeck: A Life of Dissent and Conformity (Scottdale, Pennsylvania: Herald, 2008).

6Walter, Klaassen, Werner O. Packull and John Rempel, transls. Later Writings by Pilgram Marpeck and His Circle, Vol. 1. Anabaptist Texts in Translation, Vol. 1 (Kitchener, Ontario: Pandora, 1999).; Heinhold Fast, Gottfried Seebaß and Martin Rothkegel eds. Briefe und Schriften oberdeutscher Täufer, 152701555: Das “Kunstbuch” des Jörg Probst Rotenfelder gen. Maler. (Gütersloh, Germany: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2007), and its English translation: John Rempel ed. Jörg Maler’s Kunstbuch: Writings of the Pilgram Marpeck Circle, Classics of the Radical Reformation, Vol. 12 (Kitchener, Ontario: Pandora, 2010).

7Mennonite Life 60 (Sep. 2005). Articles included B. Royale Dewey, “Making Peace with History: Anabaptism and the Nicene Creed.”; Gerald J. Mast, “Creedal Orthodoxy Is Not Enough: A Response to Ollenburger.”; Ben Ollenburger, “True Evangelical Faith: The Anabaptists and Christian Confession.”; J. Denny Weaver, “Identifying Anabaptist Theology.”

8Irvin Buckwalter Horst, “Menno Simons and the Augustinian Tradition,” MQR 62, no. 4 (Oct. 1988): 419-430. Karl Koop, Anabaptist-Mennonite Confessions of Faith: The Development of a Tradition (Kitchener, Ontario: Pandora, 2003).; Dennis D. Martin, “Menno and Augustine on the Body of Christ,” Fides et Historia 20 (Oct. 1988):41-64. A. James Reimer, “Trinitarian Orthodoxy, Constantinianism and Theology from a Radical Protestant Perspective,” In Faith to Creed, ed. S. Mark Heim (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991).

9Andy Alexis-Baker, “Anabaptist Use of Patristic Literature and Creeds,” MQR 85, no.3 (July 2011): 477-504.; Geoffrey Dipple, “Just as in the Time of the Apostles”: Uses of History in the Radical Reformation, Kithcener, Ontario: Pandora, 2005.; Antonia Lučić Gonzalez, “Balthasar Hubmaier and Early Christian Tradition,” Ph.D. diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2008.

10“Balthasar Hubmaier and the Authority of the Church Fathers,” Historical Papers 2008: Canadian Society of Church History: Annual Conference, University of British Columbia, 1-3 Jun 2008, 18 (2008).; St. Gregory of Nyssa, Anabaptism and the Creeds,” Conrad Grebel Review 26 (Fall 2008): 42-71.; “‘Truth Is Immortal’: Balthasar Hubmaier (c. 1480-1528) and the Church Fathers.” Ph.D. diss, University of Glasgow, 2010.; “Balthasar Hubmaier's Use of the Church Fathers: Availability, Access and Interaction,” MQR 84, no. 1 (Jan. 2010): 5-65.

Review of The Concept of Grace in the Radical Reformation, by Alvin J. Beachy

A republication of his 1960 Harvard dissertation, Beachy's work investigates the many facets of theology that grace effects within the thinking of a representative sample of seven South German and Dutch Anabaptists. The central thesis is that the Anabaptist concept of grace was in conflict with the concept of grace among the magisterial reformers. For the latter, grace was viewed in terms of forensic justification whereby the believer, in accordance to the motto simul iustus et peccator, remained a sinner but was given the legal standing of righteousness. The Anabaptists, however, took an ontological view whereby the viator was not just declared righteous but was made actually righteous. This difference allowed the Anabaptists to make the move to righteous living as more than a believer's response to the act of grace but as the outworking of a changed nature.

Beachy also sought to show that the radical reformers taught a soteriology stressing divinization as was consistent with the theology of John's Gospel. He saw this as explicit in the teaching of all but two of the radical at whom he looked, including Hübmaier, Marpeck, Denck, Simons, Hofmann, Dirk Philips and Schwenkfeld. Aside from the relationship of Hübmaier to it, the Swiss movement is not represented.

Beachy made wide allowances in order to include some teachings into his scheme of interpreting radical reformation theology of grace as divinization.  Although his thesis was clearer among some of those with more spiritualistic tendencies, this was not convincingly applicable to all. The normativity of the divinization scheme decreases especially if one were to include the more biblicist Swiss brethren. Further, the assumption that divinization is indeed the Johannine teaching of grace is not put to any critical analysis and might otherwise be contested. So, the suggestion that divinization is an integral part to the radical reformation's concept of grace must be taken with hesitation.

Beachy's central thesis that the radicals preferred an ontological interpretation of justification is enlightening to our understanding of radical reformation theology. It is unfortunate that this information has not been incorporated more into subsequent literature. This is likely due to this book being less accesible to a wider audience of students of Anabaptism. Further, this work is part of the early literature in support of the polygenesis paradigm, especially in the appendices added to the original dissertation material that forms the bulk of the book.

One last note about my copy of the book, which is a review copy that had been sent to Jan Kiwiet and might not be representative of all the copies, is that the typography got worse as the book went on. After about page 90, typos became frequent. Also, the front matter lists pages 1-381 as having been the dissertation. The book is only 238 pages and this note should have included only up into the appendices after the first bibliography.