Bible Students

A reflection based on “The Story of Christian Theology” by Olson (chapters 28-31)

Chapter twenty-eight covered the theological developments of Arminius in light of the Reformed theology of Northern Europe. Arminius brought the next major break off from the majority Reformed Calvinist view. Around 1,560 through 1,600, Arminius was basically a Pelagian to Calvinists. Arminius brought the contrasted view of free will and the potential for compatibilism between free will and God’s sovereignty. He was ignored and rejected by his fellow theologians, and may be one of the most historically ignored theologians relative to the theological advances he brought. The Reformed theology of the time had been developing the system of supralapsarianism, which is the belief that God has decreed all things, not only allowed the, but necessitated them. This includes the Fall and damnation of many people. Supralapsarianism believes even the damnation of souls brings glory to God, and so God is justified in doing so. Infralapsarianism, another belief developed around the same time, believed God is not responsible for sin because He is above the Law. In both cases, both the strong Supralapsarianism and the weaker Infralapsarianism believe God has predestined all things from eternity past. According to Arminius, however, any Reformed theology makes God to be the author of sin, as if He has decreed sin, He must be responsible for sin. I believe there may be some way to justify God in decreeing sin, though I am not sure how that would be. I believe Arminius’ position is more convincing, and I am thankful for the path he paved to compatibilism.
Chapter twenty-nine discusses Pietism and Lutheran theology. The Pietists were often thought as people who were so heavenly minded they were no earthly good, but this is a misrepresentation of Pietism. Pietists were offshoots of the Protestant Reformation who saw the lack of orthopraxy in their theological group, and so broke off to become a sort of Protestant monk. Pietists did not attend monasteries, but did believe orthopraxy should be one of the central focuses of Christians. The Lutheran schools of the area were becoming very stale and hair-splitting, without much orthopraxy. Pietists reformed this dry faith into right believing and living. Francke was one of Pietism’s strongest leaders, but was accused of heresy by his own friends. In this way, he was very similar to Luther. There is much to learn here about proper theology and living: True Christianity must not be hindered by friends. Even Jesus said that whoever chooses their family or friends over Him is not worthy of the Kingdom of heaven. I hope to learn much from the Puritans and Pietists, as both of these groups seem to have made considerable headway into the interrelation between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Especially when moving to a new mission field, I believe taking some of the principles of Pietism and Puritanism would be helpful for establishing a culture-clashing Christianity that chooses to be apart from the world. The well-known Count Zinzendorf was a Pietist. They believed personal relationship with Jesus was the most important, rather than the common view which held that an intellectual relationship with Jesus was most important. I appreciate how Christian history has gone back and forth in cycles, from intellectual to personal devotion, both dancing together. When a culture becomes too intellectually focused on Jesus, reformers come and establish personal relationship with Christ. When Christianity becomes too personal and subjective, reformers come and establish intellectual basis for the faith.
Chapter thirty covers Puritans and Methodists. Puritans were a mix of Reformed theology with Evangelicalism. Methodists were a mix of Arminian theology with Evangelicalism. With the Puritans, there was much division between members and nonmembers. This reminds me somewhat of Donatism, though not as extreme. Methodism did not have this purposeful divide. John Edwards is a well-known Puritan who preached Evangelistically, especially in America. No one held a higher view of God’s majesty than Edwards. Wesley was the practical founder of the Methodists. He never wrote a systematic theology. He believed no one read the Bible alone, but read the Bible through the lens of both culture and tradition, reading both into the biblical text. One must understand the biblical text apart from their own culture and tradition in order to understand it well. Edwards and Wesley were foundational for Evangelicalism in America, especially, though also throughout Europe.
In chapter thirty-one, Deists attempt to reform Protestantism into their own religion. Post Enlightenment, intellectuals leaned towards deism, the belief that God was real, but is not personally related to the universe or His creation. The Deists attempted to follow the path of the Gnostics of the first few centuries of church history by taking base Christianity and changing the epistemological structure. In Gnosticism, salvation came through special knowledge of God. In Deism, special knowledge of God (spurred on by the Enlightenment, the knowledge of God’s distance from creation) is required to be added to the biblical account. Similarly to Gnosticism, as well, Deism is difficult to be understood systematically. With Deism, the biblical account is not regarded as inspired. Deism believes God can only be known through general revelation, not through special revelation. God does not relate Himself directly to creation, and does not reveal things directly except what is necessary to be known about Him through His creation. In other words, God can be known through nature and reason, because these things are made by Him, and so in some way reflect who He is. Deism does believe there is a God who must be worshipped. People should act morally, wrongdoings must be repented of, and there will be both reward and punishment after this life. One of the most famous Deists is Locke. The first true Diest was John Toland. He believed Christianity was made in order to give comfort and moral direction, and to heal their emotional alms. This is known today in the form of moral therapeutic deism. Many “Christians” today believe in a far-off deity who gently smiles down at them from heaven, wanting the best for them and giving them good luck. This is one of the most common views of God in the West, in my experience and the experience of many others. This kind of religious understanding does not require commitment, and so is very appealing to people who do not want a God looming over their every action.
This section of the book offered much for the modern Christian in terms of polemic against theological heresies both inside and outside the church. I believe the testimony of the Puritans and Pietists, especially, gives much for those looking for an authentic orthopraxy in the Christianity. I believe the study of those two groups (not exclusively) will be helpful for missions in another culture, where the witness to the gospel will largely consist of actions over theology.