What do you think?
Rate this book
Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace
Jacob Arminius (1559-1609) is one of the few theologians in the history of Christianity who has lent his name to a significant theological movement. The dissemination of his thought throughout Europe, Great Britain, and North America, along with the appeal of his ideas in current Protestant evangelical spheres (whether rightly understood or misunderstood), continue to attract both scholarly and popular attention. Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall's Jacob Arminius offers a constructive synthesis of the current state of Arminius studies. There is a chasm separating technical, scholarly discussions of Arminius and popular-level appeals to his thought. The authors seek to bridge the scholarly and general discussions, providing an account based on interaction with all the primary sources and latest secondary research that will be helpful to the scholar as well as comprehensible and relevant to the undergraduate student.
240 pages, Paperback
First published October 24, 2012
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
November 21, 2013
Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). Paperback
The greatest trick Calvinists ever pulled was convincing the world that Jacob Arminius was Pelagius redivivus. The charge—whether in a strong (Pelagian) or weak (semi-Pelagian) form—was false in Arminius’s day and has not become true since then, Calvinist polemics to the contrary notwithstanding. Unfortunately, it has largely succeeded in both tainting Arminius’s good name and obscuring his theological contributions.
In Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace, Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall render a valuable service to readers by outlining the main points of Arminius’s theology under three headings: “God and Creation,” “Providence and Predestination,” and “Sin and Salvation.” Their discussion of each of these topics include valuable insights into the late-16th- and early 17th-century Dutch milieu in which Arminius lived, served as a minister of the gospel, and taught sacred theology.
Readers accustomed to Calvinist polemics against Arminius’s “synergism” and “anthropocentrism” will find themselves surprised by the depth and breadth of his agreement with numerous points of the Reformed tradition. This shouldn’t be surprising however. As a minister in good standing (during his lifetime) of the Dutch Reformed church, Arminius both subscribed to and taught the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. Only after his death, a decade later, did the Synod of Dordt formally denounce the theology of his Remonstrant followers, effectively foreclosing the range of Reformed theological options that Arminius himself worked to keep open.
Moreover, Arminius was conscious of being the inheritor of a Christian tradition larger than its Reformed component. His deepest desire was fidelity to the teaching of Scripture. However, he was also attentive to the Great Tradition of Christian theology, especially and effectively using it at points to show the novelty (and danger) of the supralapsarianism of his professorial colleague and theological rival, Franciscus Gomarus. Whereas Gomarus turned to Augustine, Calvin, and Beza for inspiration, Arminius appropriated the insights of Irenaeus, Origen, Thomas, and Molina.
Drawing on Scripture, the Great Tradition, and even Reformed resources, Arminius articulated a theology at odds with Calvinism on three crucial points, as Stanglin and McCall note.
First, “Arminius stresses that God’s act of creation is the communication of good only, intended for the creature’s good.” Consequently, “God, as holy love, created humanity for the purpose of eternal communication with him.” Given the doctrine of unconditional election—especially the supralapsarian doctrine of unconditional reprobation, which Gomarus taught—Calvinist theologians could not state things so simply. In Reformed theology, “God does not love all people for the purpose of salvation.”
Second, according to Arminius, “election to salvation and reprobation to condemnation are conditional. God chooses those who are foreknown to be penitent believers, and he condemns those he knows to be impenitent unbelievers.” What distinguishes Arminius and Calvinism, in other words, is not that the latter has a doctrine of election or predestination while the latter does not. Rather, what distinguishes them is the ground of election of predestination. For Calvinists, election is unconditional. For Arminius, it is conditional, based on God’s foreknowledge—middle knowledge, to be precise—of a person’s faith.
Third, “the grace that is necessary for salvation can be refused.” Stanglin and McCall explain: “God’s love is communicated not as an irresistible coercion, but as a tender persuasion that will not finally override the human will.” Faith, the assent of the human will to God’s grace, is not self-willed or meritorious, however. Instead, “grace must still precede the human will to enable any turn toward God,” which is why Arminius cannot fairly be labeled as either Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. “But salvation is received by those who refuse to resist God’s grace. It is offered, even if counterfactually, to all, but is resisted by some.”
The upshot of these theological emphases is a robust defense of God’s goodness that places the blame for sin and damnation squarely on the shoulders of sinners. By contrast, Calvinism—especially supralapsarian Calvinism—grounds both election and reprobation in the unconditioned will of God, effectively making God the author of human sin, which he willed, and therefore the unjust punisher of his own handiwork.
The past two decades have witnessed a renaissance of Calvinism among North American evangelicals. Some results of that renaissance have been salutary, since most of Calvinism—like most of Arminianism—is “mere Christianity.” Other results—especially the recrudescence of supralapsarianism—have not been salutary and need a response. Whether they claim his name or not, the theological heirs of Jacob Arminius would benefit from a fresh engagement with this evangelical theologian. Toward that end, Stanglin and McCall’s book serves as an excellent introduction to and explication of the grace-filled theology of Jacob Arminius.
I highly recommend this book, along with Carl Bangs’s biography, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation , and Roger Olson’s study, Arminian Theology: Myths and Reality . Together, they provide an excellent introduction to the man, his ideas, and the movement that followed him.
P.S. If you found this review helpful, please vote “yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
The greatest trick Calvinists ever pulled was convincing the world that Jacob Arminius was Pelagius redivivus. The charge—whether in a strong (Pelagian) or weak (semi-Pelagian) form—was false in Arminius’s day and has not become true since then, Calvinist polemics to the contrary notwithstanding. Unfortunately, it has largely succeeded in both tainting Arminius’s good name and obscuring his theological contributions.
In Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace, Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall render a valuable service to readers by outlining the main points of Arminius’s theology under three headings: “God and Creation,” “Providence and Predestination,” and “Sin and Salvation.” Their discussion of each of these topics include valuable insights into the late-16th- and early 17th-century Dutch milieu in which Arminius lived, served as a minister of the gospel, and taught sacred theology.
Readers accustomed to Calvinist polemics against Arminius’s “synergism” and “anthropocentrism” will find themselves surprised by the depth and breadth of his agreement with numerous points of the Reformed tradition. This shouldn’t be surprising however. As a minister in good standing (during his lifetime) of the Dutch Reformed church, Arminius both subscribed to and taught the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. Only after his death, a decade later, did the Synod of Dordt formally denounce the theology of his Remonstrant followers, effectively foreclosing the range of Reformed theological options that Arminius himself worked to keep open.
Moreover, Arminius was conscious of being the inheritor of a Christian tradition larger than its Reformed component. His deepest desire was fidelity to the teaching of Scripture. However, he was also attentive to the Great Tradition of Christian theology, especially and effectively using it at points to show the novelty (and danger) of the supralapsarianism of his professorial colleague and theological rival, Franciscus Gomarus. Whereas Gomarus turned to Augustine, Calvin, and Beza for inspiration, Arminius appropriated the insights of Irenaeus, Origen, Thomas, and Molina.
Drawing on Scripture, the Great Tradition, and even Reformed resources, Arminius articulated a theology at odds with Calvinism on three crucial points, as Stanglin and McCall note.
First, “Arminius stresses that God’s act of creation is the communication of good only, intended for the creature’s good.” Consequently, “God, as holy love, created humanity for the purpose of eternal communication with him.” Given the doctrine of unconditional election—especially the supralapsarian doctrine of unconditional reprobation, which Gomarus taught—Calvinist theologians could not state things so simply. In Reformed theology, “God does not love all people for the purpose of salvation.”
Second, according to Arminius, “election to salvation and reprobation to condemnation are conditional. God chooses those who are foreknown to be penitent believers, and he condemns those he knows to be impenitent unbelievers.” What distinguishes Arminius and Calvinism, in other words, is not that the latter has a doctrine of election or predestination while the latter does not. Rather, what distinguishes them is the ground of election of predestination. For Calvinists, election is unconditional. For Arminius, it is conditional, based on God’s foreknowledge—middle knowledge, to be precise—of a person’s faith.
Third, “the grace that is necessary for salvation can be refused.” Stanglin and McCall explain: “God’s love is communicated not as an irresistible coercion, but as a tender persuasion that will not finally override the human will.” Faith, the assent of the human will to God’s grace, is not self-willed or meritorious, however. Instead, “grace must still precede the human will to enable any turn toward God,” which is why Arminius cannot fairly be labeled as either Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. “But salvation is received by those who refuse to resist God’s grace. It is offered, even if counterfactually, to all, but is resisted by some.”
The upshot of these theological emphases is a robust defense of God’s goodness that places the blame for sin and damnation squarely on the shoulders of sinners. By contrast, Calvinism—especially supralapsarian Calvinism—grounds both election and reprobation in the unconditioned will of God, effectively making God the author of human sin, which he willed, and therefore the unjust punisher of his own handiwork.
The past two decades have witnessed a renaissance of Calvinism among North American evangelicals. Some results of that renaissance have been salutary, since most of Calvinism—like most of Arminianism—is “mere Christianity.” Other results—especially the recrudescence of supralapsarianism—have not been salutary and need a response. Whether they claim his name or not, the theological heirs of Jacob Arminius would benefit from a fresh engagement with this evangelical theologian. Toward that end, Stanglin and McCall’s book serves as an excellent introduction to and explication of the grace-filled theology of Jacob Arminius.
I highly recommend this book, along with Carl Bangs’s biography, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation , and Roger Olson’s study, Arminian Theology: Myths and Reality . Together, they provide an excellent introduction to the man, his ideas, and the movement that followed him.
P.S. If you found this review helpful, please vote “yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
June 6, 2025
This engaging theological biography fills a nice gap between Carl Bangs’ classic Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985) and more technical works that place Arminius into the complex world of post-Reformation Reformed dogmatics such as Richard A. Muller, God Creation and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Direction of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991). It deals in more detail with Arminius’ theological system (at least key themes within it) than does Bangs without presupposing as solid a grasp of the field as Muller’s work. As such it is a welcome addition to the body of literature on this neglected theologian. The authors are well across the primary and secondary literature and have developed a succinct defence of Arminius as a substantially orthodox theologian albeit one who dissented in important ways from the Reformed theology of his day. Even though not a defence of Arminian theology, it nonetheless contributes to the ‘new perspective’ on Arminius, by clearing away common misconceptions such as that ‘free will’ was at the centre of his thought or that he was weak on total depravity. The sub-title of the book indicates that grace was at the centre of Arminius’ theology, and in his own way Arminius stressed this theme every bit as much as John Calvin.
After providing a helpful biographical chapter the authors select key themes in Arminius rather than attempting a comprehensive Arminian dogmatic. This makes sense since Arminius’s writings are somewhat ‘occasional’ and he never attempted a fully developed systematic theology. In three further chapters, ‘God and Creation,’ ‘Providence and Predestination’ and ‘Sin and Salvation’ are given comprehensive treatment. The final concluding chapter traces the subsequent history of Arminianism, among Dutch Remonstrants and Methodists in both Britain and America and describes the ‘Arminian legacy.’ The book ends on a very positive note with its claim that the Arminian legacy has bequeathed the declaration that ‘grace is an unmitigated, extravagant gift of God intended for the healing and restoration of all creation, a gift that liberates humanity to seek the beauty of God’s face and to enjoy eternal fellowship with him’ (p. 210).
Arminius held to the traditional view of the simplicity and infinity of the divine being and the corresponding doctrines of impassibility and immutability. However, he embraced the doctrine of God’s ‘middle knowledge’ more enthusiastically than his Reformed contemporaries and it was this that enabled him to affirm that God knows who will respond positively to the offer of salvation and elects them on that basis. More carefully than the Molinist account, however, Arminius avoids associating any merit with the human choice. God does not have foreknowledge of merit but only of faith (pp. 65-69). On the Christological side, though affirming the full divinity of the Son, Arminius found himself at the centre of controversy when he affirmed that the Son shares the same divine essence as the Father but not ‘from himself’ since it is a divinity derived from the Father through relation. Arminius may have managed to keep this hairline distinction from slipping into subordinationism but later Arminians did not prove always as orthodox (pp. 86-90). Given the title of chapter 2, ‘God and Creation,’ this section is quite lopsided with only three of its fifty-six pages given to a discussion of creation, an omission all the more strange since the authors agree with Muller that Arminius’ theology is a ‘theology of creation’ (p. 93).
Like John Wesley (probably the theologian most often identified with Arminianism) the Dutch reformer affirmed the doctrine of predestination but rejected unconditional reprobation as impugning the character of the God of love. As for election, Christians do not believe because they are elect; they are elect because they believe (p. 136). The observation that Arminius rejected unconditional election out of pastoral concern for the believer’s need for religious assurance is an interesting one given the Calvinist conviction that Arminianism often leads to uncertainty about salvation (pp. 137-38). For Arminius the assurance that God has freely chosen to elect all those who believe in Christ avoids the twin dangers of hopelessness and carelessness (p. 199). The third chapter on ‘Sin and Salvation’ makes clear how unfounded are the claims that Arminius’ theology is some kind of semi-Pelagianism. The classical Protestant and Augustinian conviction that the will is in bondage to sin and that people are in need of divine grace in order to know freedom is a core conviction of Arminius. There is room for human response to divine initiative in Arminius, but it is a response enabled by the prevenience of grace. It is more accurate to see Arminius as affirming, not ‘free will’ but ‘freed will’ (p. 188).
The question of whether Arminius should be considered a ‘Reformed’ theologian is assayed in the concluding chapter. Labels are notoriously limiting of course, but using the term in its widest use, and based on Arminius’ ecclesial and historical location (prior to the decisions of the Synod of Dort 1618-1619) it is hard to see how the label could be denied him. It would certainly be futile to use the term in ways that would not be recognised in the seventeenth century (p. 201). Those who read ‘Reformed’ as a synonym for ‘American Evangelical Calvinist,’ will not want to attribute the label to Arminius and books like Stanglin and McCall’s help to challenge the more overtly negative readings of Arminianism that come from this quarter. Like Roger Olsen’s Arminianism: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove: IVP, 2006), the irenic tone of this book, along with its assured scholarship, may help clear away misunderstandings between competing traditions.
After providing a helpful biographical chapter the authors select key themes in Arminius rather than attempting a comprehensive Arminian dogmatic. This makes sense since Arminius’s writings are somewhat ‘occasional’ and he never attempted a fully developed systematic theology. In three further chapters, ‘God and Creation,’ ‘Providence and Predestination’ and ‘Sin and Salvation’ are given comprehensive treatment. The final concluding chapter traces the subsequent history of Arminianism, among Dutch Remonstrants and Methodists in both Britain and America and describes the ‘Arminian legacy.’ The book ends on a very positive note with its claim that the Arminian legacy has bequeathed the declaration that ‘grace is an unmitigated, extravagant gift of God intended for the healing and restoration of all creation, a gift that liberates humanity to seek the beauty of God’s face and to enjoy eternal fellowship with him’ (p. 210).
Arminius held to the traditional view of the simplicity and infinity of the divine being and the corresponding doctrines of impassibility and immutability. However, he embraced the doctrine of God’s ‘middle knowledge’ more enthusiastically than his Reformed contemporaries and it was this that enabled him to affirm that God knows who will respond positively to the offer of salvation and elects them on that basis. More carefully than the Molinist account, however, Arminius avoids associating any merit with the human choice. God does not have foreknowledge of merit but only of faith (pp. 65-69). On the Christological side, though affirming the full divinity of the Son, Arminius found himself at the centre of controversy when he affirmed that the Son shares the same divine essence as the Father but not ‘from himself’ since it is a divinity derived from the Father through relation. Arminius may have managed to keep this hairline distinction from slipping into subordinationism but later Arminians did not prove always as orthodox (pp. 86-90). Given the title of chapter 2, ‘God and Creation,’ this section is quite lopsided with only three of its fifty-six pages given to a discussion of creation, an omission all the more strange since the authors agree with Muller that Arminius’ theology is a ‘theology of creation’ (p. 93).
Like John Wesley (probably the theologian most often identified with Arminianism) the Dutch reformer affirmed the doctrine of predestination but rejected unconditional reprobation as impugning the character of the God of love. As for election, Christians do not believe because they are elect; they are elect because they believe (p. 136). The observation that Arminius rejected unconditional election out of pastoral concern for the believer’s need for religious assurance is an interesting one given the Calvinist conviction that Arminianism often leads to uncertainty about salvation (pp. 137-38). For Arminius the assurance that God has freely chosen to elect all those who believe in Christ avoids the twin dangers of hopelessness and carelessness (p. 199). The third chapter on ‘Sin and Salvation’ makes clear how unfounded are the claims that Arminius’ theology is some kind of semi-Pelagianism. The classical Protestant and Augustinian conviction that the will is in bondage to sin and that people are in need of divine grace in order to know freedom is a core conviction of Arminius. There is room for human response to divine initiative in Arminius, but it is a response enabled by the prevenience of grace. It is more accurate to see Arminius as affirming, not ‘free will’ but ‘freed will’ (p. 188).
The question of whether Arminius should be considered a ‘Reformed’ theologian is assayed in the concluding chapter. Labels are notoriously limiting of course, but using the term in its widest use, and based on Arminius’ ecclesial and historical location (prior to the decisions of the Synod of Dort 1618-1619) it is hard to see how the label could be denied him. It would certainly be futile to use the term in ways that would not be recognised in the seventeenth century (p. 201). Those who read ‘Reformed’ as a synonym for ‘American Evangelical Calvinist,’ will not want to attribute the label to Arminius and books like Stanglin and McCall’s help to challenge the more overtly negative readings of Arminianism that come from this quarter. Like Roger Olsen’s Arminianism: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove: IVP, 2006), the irenic tone of this book, along with its assured scholarship, may help clear away misunderstandings between competing traditions.
April 27, 2014
"Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace" is a welcome addition to Arminian scholarship. Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall have done theology readers a great service in providing an overview of Arminius' theology. The authors divide the book up into three basic parts: a brief biographical sketch of Arminius' life, three chapters addressing Arminius' beliefs regarding "God and Creation," "Providence and Predestination" and "Sin and Salvation" and a conclusion that restates Arminius' beliefs and discusses the legacy left by his thought, most clearly seen in the Remonstrants and the Arminianism that emerged among Anglicans, particularly the Wesleys, and Methodism. One of the great strengths of this book is that the authors make extensive use of Arminius' own writings to explain the theologian's thoughts. Arminius was dedicated to ensuring God could not be blamed as the "author of sin" (as supralapsarian Calvinism is forced to admit) and in expressing the extravagant love of God expressed in His prevenient grace that gives believers a "freed will" to accept Christ as their Saviour. At the same time that Arminius' theology departs from much of his Reformed contemporaries, Stanglin and McCall are also careful to point out the beliefs Arminius shared with Reformed theology. As well, they also acknowledge that much of Arminius' theology is pastoral in its focus (Arminius thus follows in the line of the church fathers who also wrote with a pastoral focus). This is a heavy, academic read (the authors don't both with defining the term "hamartiology") and as such, not recommended for the casual reader, but to anyone interested in theology, this is definitely a book to check out!
December 29, 2023
A recommended read for understanding the theology of Arminius, including his doctrine of predestination (which most will know him for, contra. Calvinists and the Synod of Dort). It is a pity that, with the popularity of Calvinism and reformed theology, Arminius' theology has not received much attention, and some have even branded the professor as a heretic. Stanglin's work is therefore a welcome contribution to this area of theology and scholarship.
Stanglin helpfully starts at Arminius' doctrine of God and divine simplicity, which leads him to reject the notion of contradictory wills in God, which Calvinists often resort to in trying to reconcile the notion that a good and loving God can on the one hand reveal that He loves the world (eg. John 3:16) and Christ came for the world (eg. 1 John 2:2), yet on the other hand decree (logically prior to the fall and/or the appointment of Christ as foundation of salvation to redeem the elect) that some are created for condemnation. Instead, Arminius teaches that God first appoints Christ as foundation salvation, and then ordains to save, in Christ (cf Ephesians 1:4), believers as a class. Arminius also employs the doctrine of middle knowledge to explain how foreknowledge is consistent with genuine freedom, a move which, as Stanglin points out, is welcomed by philosophers as it allows for recourse to the free will defence for the problem of evil. Indeed, apart from the implications for the character and nature of God, the problem of evil (and the foreclosing of the free will defence) was a big reason why I never fully embraced Calvinism, even when its draw was strongest (to me).
It is a pity, however, that there are very little Scriptural references in explaining Arminius' theology. For a book about a theologian who is "remembered as a professor who directed his students primarily to Scripture" (p 204), more references to Scripture would have been appreciated to show Arminius' deep commitment to Scripture on top of his commitment to classical catholic theology.
Overall, a good read on an important topic that is hardly written about.
Stanglin helpfully starts at Arminius' doctrine of God and divine simplicity, which leads him to reject the notion of contradictory wills in God, which Calvinists often resort to in trying to reconcile the notion that a good and loving God can on the one hand reveal that He loves the world (eg. John 3:16) and Christ came for the world (eg. 1 John 2:2), yet on the other hand decree (logically prior to the fall and/or the appointment of Christ as foundation of salvation to redeem the elect) that some are created for condemnation. Instead, Arminius teaches that God first appoints Christ as foundation salvation, and then ordains to save, in Christ (cf Ephesians 1:4), believers as a class. Arminius also employs the doctrine of middle knowledge to explain how foreknowledge is consistent with genuine freedom, a move which, as Stanglin points out, is welcomed by philosophers as it allows for recourse to the free will defence for the problem of evil. Indeed, apart from the implications for the character and nature of God, the problem of evil (and the foreclosing of the free will defence) was a big reason why I never fully embraced Calvinism, even when its draw was strongest (to me).
It is a pity, however, that there are very little Scriptural references in explaining Arminius' theology. For a book about a theologian who is "remembered as a professor who directed his students primarily to Scripture" (p 204), more references to Scripture would have been appreciated to show Arminius' deep commitment to Scripture on top of his commitment to classical catholic theology.
Overall, a good read on an important topic that is hardly written about.
January 5, 2020
It's hard to write an unbiased review of this book since Keith Stanglin is a friend of mine. I expected this short book on Arminius to be mostly a biography with some insights into Arminius's thought, but I was very pleased to find that it was really a treatment of Arminius's theology with just enough notes on his life to provide the necessary context for his writing. Arminius was not a particularly original thinker, but he did manage to synthesize the best insights of the patristics (especially Augustine) and Medieval Scholastics into a Protestant and Reformed context. It was wonderful to see how Arminius managed to articulate a Protestant Thomism. The book is readable and accessible to those with some minimal background in historical and systematic theology and the middle chapters (especially chapter 2) could work well as a stand alone article for a systematic theology class. Stanglin and McCall allow Arminius to guide the reader through the doctrines of God, Creation, Anthropology, and Salvation in a clear and compelling way. If the book has a weakness it's that the section on the varieties of Calvinistic approaches to predestination can get a little long and tedious, but, it must be acknowledged that such was the thought-world in which Arminius wrote. At a time when Neo-Reformed thought is taking the Evangelical world by storm, I'm glad the book is out there, and I hope that it encourages fresh discussion between Calvinists and the heirs of Arminian theology.
November 30, 2017
Stanglin and McCall do valiant work here, bringing together the various strains of Arminius' thought and presenting it in clear, coherent fashion. And what they present is compelling!
One of the tragedies of the modern theological world is that people who believe Arminius was a heretic (Papist! Semi-Pelagian! Full-on Pelagian!) have never actually taken the time to read him! Stanglin and McCall make it an enjoyable and revelatory trip.
This book straddles the line between biography and theology, giving us enough relevant detail about Arminius' life and the controversies surrounding him to help us understand how his theology was shaped, and enough detail about his thinking to understand how his theology shaped the world around him.
Well done!
One of the tragedies of the modern theological world is that people who believe Arminius was a heretic (Papist! Semi-Pelagian! Full-on Pelagian!) have never actually taken the time to read him! Stanglin and McCall make it an enjoyable and revelatory trip.
This book straddles the line between biography and theology, giving us enough relevant detail about Arminius' life and the controversies surrounding him to help us understand how his theology was shaped, and enough detail about his thinking to understand how his theology shaped the world around him.
Well done!
August 24, 2019
Though this book is quite technical and academic in nature, I found it extremely compelling reading. Its thorough explanations of Arminius’s writings totally shattered the distorted caricatures that I had naively made of Arminianism, and it replaced them with rich and encouraging explanations that emphasized the goodness and grace of God! I found the authors to be extremely persuasive in showing me how Arminius’s theology and soteriology is thoroughly Biblical. No longer do I see Arminianism as in conflict with an evangelical understanding of God’s sovereignty, or with salvation by faith received by God’s grace, or with having a solid assurance of salvation (among many other topics). This book has provided me with a very helpful education that I obviously needed.
May 2, 2015
For a careful, brief summary of Arminius's life and thought, this is the book to get. Stanglin and McCall are both Arminian scholars, so they write with sympathy toward Arminius. They are also careful scholars. Finally, this is not a polemical book, unlike Roger Olson's book on Arminian theology. Though they believe Arminius to be right, they allow his exegesis and theology to speak for itself. Highly recommended.
February 17, 2013
A wonderful piece that I pray will remove much misplaced prejudice of a God-exalting theologian.
November 10, 2023
Excellent overview for a proper understanding Arminius' theology and the reasons why he opposed the Reformed Calvinism of his day.
The chapter contents listed in the book are as follows:
1. The Making of a Theologian, where the authors rehearse Arminius' personal life and the various perspectives others have had concerning his person, work, and influence.
2. God and Creation, whereby Arminius' theology is grounded.
3. Providence and Predestination, wherein the authors start getting into the nitty-gritty (so to speak) of Arminius' theology in opposition to Calvinism. What is very interesting are the authors' 7 pages discussing "Providence and Evil" with respect to the divine permission.
4. Sin and Salvation, where he argues that (unlike Calvinism) God's "only role" sinful behavior is "permitting humanity to exercise free will and power" (p.143).
This is a book is for both non-Calvinist and Calvinists interested in the Calvinist–Arminian controversy, for the purpose of clarifying and correcting one's understanding of Arminian theology.
The chapter contents listed in the book are as follows:
1. The Making of a Theologian, where the authors rehearse Arminius' personal life and the various perspectives others have had concerning his person, work, and influence.
2. God and Creation, whereby Arminius' theology is grounded.
3. Providence and Predestination, wherein the authors start getting into the nitty-gritty (so to speak) of Arminius' theology in opposition to Calvinism. What is very interesting are the authors' 7 pages discussing "Providence and Evil" with respect to the divine permission.
4. Sin and Salvation, where he argues that (unlike Calvinism) God's "only role" sinful behavior is "permitting humanity to exercise free will and power" (p.143).
This is a book is for both non-Calvinist and Calvinists interested in the Calvinist–Arminian controversy, for the purpose of clarifying and correcting one's understanding of Arminian theology.
August 23, 2026
This book shatters a lot of the myths about Jacob Arminius's theology that you typically hear in popular level conversations such as "free will" and "man's autonomy" over against the sovereignty of God. It is really interesting to see how his theology of the doctrine of God is directly tied to the conclusions that he came to concerning soteriology. Probably the best introduction to Jacob Arminius out there.
April 11, 2020
Excellent and lucid. Puts Arminius in historical context and makes it clear he is very different from current Arminian theology. For example, Arminius was in many ways a successor of Aquinas, and he also affirmed middle knowledge. My favorite historical theology book so far this year.
May 7, 2013
McCall and Stanglin have give a masterful treatment of the theology of Jacob Arminius in this work. In my opinion, this book should serve as a companion to Bang's even more monumental and influential book on Arminius. The latter deals mainly with Arminius the man, the pastor, and the theologian. The former, on the other hand, deals primarily with Arminius's theology. Though, of course, both occasionally swerve into the other's "territory."
This won't be the easiest read if you are not an "academic" but, should you choose to read this book your experience should be both worthwhile and profitable.
This won't be the easiest read if you are not an "academic" but, should you choose to read this book your experience should be both worthwhile and profitable.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews