Friday DIVE – Beware of Theological Labels | FD20260313

As our understanding of who God is (our theology) developed, we began using the term “Incarnational Trinitarian theology” to identify and summarize our understanding.  However, use of that term (and others like it) might cause some problems.  First, it might confuse some who are not trained in theology.  Second, it might be used by some who do not understand it well.  Third, it might be overused and thus become cliché.  Last, it might become a denominational label that could lead some to misunderstand what we actually believe and teach.  

It is helpful to think of Incarnational Trin­itarian theology as describing how we believe rather than merely what we believe.  All orthodox Christians accept the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation.  But for us, they are more than two doctrines on a list of many — they are the heart of our faith and worship.  

Why is that not so for all Christians?  Partly because these truths are deep mysteries beyond our fallen human imaginations.  Also, these doctrines are sometimes poorly taught or not taught at all.  Thus it is easy to drift away from this defining core and begin to emphasize secondary (even tertiary) issues.  When that happens, everything becomes distorted.  

This was seen clearly in the way Jewish religious leaders resisted Jesus.  Those leaders looked to Scripture as a source of truth, but disagreed about its details. Nevertheless, they were united against Jesus.  So Jesus told them,  

You have your heads in your Bibles constantly because you think you’ll find eternal life there. But you miss the forest for the trees.  These Scriptures are all about me!  And here I am, standing right before you, and you aren’t willing to receive from me the life you say you want. (John 5:39-40, The Message)  

Note how Jesus placed himself at the center as the living key to interpreting Scripture.  He himself was the source of their life.  If they would accept and understand that, they would put their petty disagreements in perspective and come together in acknowledging him as Messiah.  Instead, they saw him as a heretic and plotted to kill him.  

As Christians today, we can make the same mistake.  Even if we accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, we can sideline the fundamental truths that define who he is.  The result is the fragmenting of Christianity into competing “schools” of thought with their own doctrinal distinctives.  This leads to a “my Christianity is better than yours” mentality.  Though the distinctives may be accurate, they emphasize peripheral matters.  The result is that the reality of who God is and what he has done for us in his Son is diminished, if not lost.  Division within the Body of Christ results.  

That is why we need to avoid using labels in ways that imply that we are setting ourselves apart as having a Christianity that is superior in comparison to others.  The reason we use a label is to remind ourselves (and others, if they are interested) of the focus of our renewal — the reality of what is revealed in Jesus Christ according to Scripture.  

Also, in using a label, we must avoid implying that we are slavishly beholden to some systematic theology or to certain theologians — even those identified as Incarnational or Trinitarian.  There are approximately 50 systematic theologies in existence today.  However, there is no single concrete, uniform, particular school of thought called “Trinitarian theology.”  

For example, Barth, the Torrance brothers and Thomas Oden drew on many other theologians throughout the ages and on the writings of the early church councils.  Rather than seeking to establish a new theology, they were seeking to serve Jesus Christ and to build up his church through their teaching and research.  They might be described as “Incarnational Trinitarian theologians” because they saw that these elements of Christian faith were being neglected or even forgotten.  They discerned that the church needed to get back on the central path of Christian faith.  

When we use the term “Incarnational Trinitarian theology,” we are referring to the fact that Jesus is the lens through which we read and interpret the Bible and how we have come to know God.  Consequently, any other doctrinal points should flow from and fit with the Trinitarian nature of God. Our role in the administration of our denomination is to pass on the best formulations of Christian theology that we can find — especially on the major issues.  We are blessed to incorporate the ideas of the great theologians of Christian history, and we can learn from those alive today.  But we do not do so slavishly, and biblical revelation always has the controlling authority.  

So, when we say that we believe and teach Incarnational Trinitarian theology, we are describing how we understand and believe Scripture based on Jesus as the centerpiece of God’s plan for humanity.  It is perhaps more like your computer’s operating system rather than one of the many programs you load into it.  Individual doctrines are like the software applications, which must be able to interface with the operating system if they are to work properly.  But it’s the operating system that orders, organizes, prioritizes and produces all other useful results.  

The focus of our renewal as a denomination has been the very theological issues that have been central to historical, orthodox Christianity.  We are not the only branch of the church that neglected or even misunderstood the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation.  We hope that we might benefit other parts of the Body of Christ with what we have learned.  It is in this spirit that we offer our Speaking of Life and You’re Included videos.  If you have not viewed them, I urge you to do so.  They will help us all keep the Center in the center, feed our continuing renewal in the Spirit, and enable us to join with all Christians down through the ages in giving witness to the glory of our triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  

THEOLOGY  =  From Theos (God) and logia (study of words) …  The study of God (and the things of God)  

TYPES OF THEOLOGY …  Theology is generally divided into four main pillars — Biblical, Historical, Systematic, and Practical — which analyze, define, and apply faith, often incorporating contextual approaches like liberation or feminist theology.  These fields examine scriptural, historical, and contemporary perspectives to understand God and apply these truths to life and ministry. (Google AI)  

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY … the methodical, topical organization of Christian doctrines — such as God, humanity, salvation, and the church — derived primarily from Scripture.  It seeks to synthesize the whole Bible’s teaching into a cohesive, logical, and applicable framework for modern life, ensuring  consistency in belief. (Google AI)  

1.  Bibliology … study of the Bible 

2.  Theology Proper … Study of God 

3.  Paterology … study of God the Father  

4.  Christology … study of God the Son 

5.  Pneumatology … study of God the Holy Spirit  

6.  Anthropology  … study of Man (in the image of God)  

7.  Hamartiology  … study of Sin (which is against God)

8.  Soteriology … study of Salvation (by God)  

9.  Ecclesiology … study of the Church (the Body of Christ)  

10. Eschatology  … study of the End Times 

11. Others (Angelology; Israelology, etc. )

IMO … only 3 or 4 of those have any bearing of the essential doctrines re: salvation.  

The one that gives rise to the most controversy, I believe, is Soteriology (study of salvation) … When is a person saved?  How is a person saved?  Does a person play a role in his/her salvation?  If yes, how? 

Two of the main schools of thought, re: Salvation, are the Calvinist and the Arminian.  Many, if not most, Christian denominations trace their roots in one or the other.  Those with Calvinist roots include Reformed Churches, Presbyterian, some Baptists (Southern Baptists, Primitive Baptists), Congregationalist Churches, United Church of Christ, etc.).  Those with Arminian roots include Wesleyan Churches, Methodist Churches, Pentecostal Churches (including Assemblies of God and Holiness churches), General Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Mennonites, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.)  I would probably add Worldwide Church of God to that list.  

Almost all of the aforementioned churches (with Calvinist and Arminian roots) are Protestant churches.  That means they would have been influenced/impacted, in some way, by the actions of Martin Luther, as well as John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius.  

• Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) … 95 Theses …protested against practice of indulgences … was a Catholic (Augustinian friar) 
• John Calvin (1509 – 1564) … raised in a staunch Roman Catholic family … broke from the Catholic church in 1530 … wrote The Institutes in 1536 … was a theologian and pastor during the Reformation   
• Jacobus Arminius (1560 – 1609) … born ~51 years after John Calvin … became a Dutch Reformed minister and theologian during the Reformation period  (was never a Roman Catholic) … According to Wikipedia … 

In attempting to defend Calvinistic predestination against the teachings of Coornhert, Arminius began to doubt aspects of Calvinism and modified some parts of his own view.^[26]  He attempted to reform Calvinism and lent his name to a movement — Arminianism — which resisted some of the Calvinist tenets (unconditional election, the nature of the limitation of the atonement, and irresistible grace). The early Dutch followers of his teaching became known as Remonstrants after they issued a document containing five points of disagreement with mainstream Calvinism, entitled Remonstrantiæ (1610).^{[citation needed]}  Arminius wrote that he sought to teach only those things which could be proved from the Scriptures and that tended toward edification among Christians (with the exception of Roman Catholics, with whom he said there could be no spiritual accord).^[27] His motto was reputed to be “Bona conscientia paradisus“, meaning, “A good conscience is a paradise.”^[28]

Arminius taught of a “preventing” (or prevenient) grace that has been conferred upon all by the Holy Spirit and this grace is “sufficient for belief, in spite of our sinful corruption, and thus for salvation.”^[29]  Arminius states “the grace sufficient for salvation is conferred on the Elect, and on the Non-elect; that, if they will, they may believe or not believe, may be saved or not be saved.”^[30] William Witt states that “Arminius has a very high theology of grace. He insists emphatically that grace is gratuitous because it is obtained through God’s redemption in Christ, not through human effort.”^[31]

COMPARISONS – At a Glance

Calvinism compared with Arminianism and An Alternative “ism”