This series is from the From the Editor’s Desk column of the Sword and Trumpet. The articles were co-authored by Paul Emerson and myself.
Having generally traced the Calvinist movement into the 20th century, we want to examine the development of Arminianism from the early 17th century in the Reformed Dutch Netherlands to the modern Mennonites.
One stream of Arminianism moved from the Netherlands to England, being accepted by the English Congregationalists, General Baptists, and the Methodists under the leadership of John Wesley.[1] Theologically-developed Arminianism since Wesley has mostly followed his form. His theology continues today in the Methodist, Wesleyan, and Holiness groups. The Mennonites have historically been sympathetic toward Wesley’s Arminianism, though the Mennonite beliefs have a different lineage. The Mennonite exposure to Arminianism came in the 17th century in Holland. The Remonstrants established a seminary in 1634 (some 25 years after Jacob Arminius’ death) which some Mennonites attended to receive theological training in preparation for work in the ministry.
While this interaction strengthened the relationship between the Remonstrants (Arminius’ followers) and the Mennonites, and helped develop Mennonite doctrines of grace and salvation, the groups were largely in agreement beforehand. Mennonite soteriology does not come from Arminius, but from Menno Simons and the other early Anabaptists. The friendly interaction between these groups flowed from prior agreement.
It is difficult to find good material on the development of Mennonite theology since the 17th century. Anabaptists have typically emphasized the importance of an applied faith, pouring their energies into life-on-life gospel work more than pen-to-pen theology. As such, their view have often remained unwritten. Mennonites have been generally Arminian, though that has not been well developed in most cases. On the one hand, the priority on a lived faith (over against a well-defined theology) has kept our movement from the philosophical complexities and mis-steps of developed systematic theologies. On the other hand, we lack the material necessary to establish a theological tradition. Since little Mennonite theology has been committed to writing, it is difficult to discover (or maintain) a consensus. That said, Mennonite theology up to and through the 20th century has been of a generally Arminian persuasion.
We noted previously that Arminianism has tended toward humanism and liberalism. The fault for this does not necessarily lie in the system, but in those who misconstrue its claims. Where the biblical gospel is held high, Arminianism has often succeeded in maintaining faithful evangelical doctrine. That said, it is certain that anywhere emphasis on human volition displaces the biblical emphasis on divine grace, liberal theology is certain to follow. A theological system more concerned with buttressing human free-will than with exalting in God’s holiness, grace, and mercy is on a fast-track away from the true gospel. The biblical gospel is unabashedly God-centered. Where that emphasis is lost, true evangelical faith is sure to fail.
As we follow the Mennonite beliefs into the 21st century, one wonders how much remains of the old Arminianism. Doctrines once considered essential to Christian faith lay abandoned by the wayside. Due emphasis on God’s holiness, human sinfulness, and divine grace is often lacking. The Arminianism which the early Mennonites agreed with is little represented today. How do we recover that which has been lost? What is needed, as always, is not a resurgence of Arminianism (or Calvinism for that matter), nor a resurgence of Mennonite-ism, but a resurgence of Truth as it is taught by God in the Bible itself. The most faithful believers have been first of all Bible-people. These theological systems have their place, but none surpasses God’s word in all its worth.
[1] Olson, Roger, Arminian Theology (InterVarsity Press, 2006), 23.