After Arminius: A Historical Introduction to Arminian Theology

Until recently, scholarship has suffered from a dearth of historically contextualized, doctrinally nuanced studies of Arminianism. Richard Muller and others have developed sophisticated analyses of the Reformed tradition, which get behind blunt terms such as ‘Calvinism’ in order to highlight the variegated nature of Reformed theology. McCall and Stanglin have harnessed this approach and applied it to the Arminian tradition in a skilful and timely manner. In their previous work entitled Jacob Arminius: Theologian of Grace (2012), McCall and Stanglin co-authored a revisionist study of a Reformed pastor and professor, who became increasingly uncomfortable with Reformed soteriology. From within the camp, Arminius therefore developed an alternative soteriology, which quickly became a point of contention. After his untimely death, the Synod of Dort (1618–19) emphatically declared Arminius’s followers, the Remonstrant party, to be personae non gratae. However, the question remains: what happened next? Scholars, pastors, and lay readers interested in the evolution of Arminianism will want to engage with After Arminius because it provides the most comprehensive and nuanced answer to date.The book is organized in chronological fashion. After a brief chapter summarizing the thought of Arminius himself, chapter 2 considers the reception of Arminius’s thought within the seventeenth-century contexts of Holland and England. This chapter forms a crucial backdrop to chapter 3, which considers the appropriation of Arminian theology by John Wesley and the early Methodists. Finally, two long chapters chart the development of Arminianism within nineteenth-century Methodism, including important but neglected thinkers such as Richard Watson, John Miley, Borden Parker Bowne, and Phoebe Palmer. A concluding chapter briefly considers other movements outside Methodism that have appropriated Arminian theology during the twentieth century, including Pentecostalism. The subject matter is intriguing and deserves a full chapter rather than being squashed into the book’s conclusion.The value of After Arminius lies in its expansive vision, covering 400 years of doctrinal development in a nuanced and integrated manner. As such, it provides a valuable intellectual family history for those who identify with labels such as ‘Arminian’, ‘Wesleyan’, and even ‘Pentecostal’. Too many studies lack this wide diachronic perspective and become isolated in one century of thought such as John Wesley in the eighteenth or Methodism in the nineteenth. After Arminius fills in the gaps and gives depth to confessional identities by tracing the intellectual roots behind ideas that still influence millions today. However, the book inevitably suffers in places from the scale of the task it tries to take on. This is not helped by a lack of sustained focus on the four essential components of Arminianism, which the authors identify in the introduction and conclusion. Instead, other less relevant loci receive undue attention in an inconsistent manner (including the Trinity, Christology, eschatology, scripture). A more consistent and tightly focused structure of analysis would have enabled more detailed and significant points of comparison to emerge.The other major contribution of After Arminius is in demonstrating the plurality of theologies that lie behind the term ‘Arminianism’. Highlighting the diversity enables McCall and Stanglin to debunk several myths along the way. For example, they challenge assumptions in Stephen Hampton’s influential work Anti-Arminians that English Arminians in the seventeenth century, along with Socinians, developed a ‘revolutionary new understanding of the being and attributes of God’ (211). Instead, After Arminius demonstrates that the majority of English Arminians remained closely aligned with Reformed theologians in defending classical theism regarding the formulation of divine attributes such as simplicity, eternity, and knowledge. Terms such as ‘Calvinism’ and ‘Arminianism’ are therefore best conceived of as variegated spectrums rather than ‘in’ or ‘out’ boxes.Equally, McCall and Stanglin demonstrate that the evolution of Arminian thought was historically contingent. Reformed thinkers have persistently accused early Arminians of sowing seeds of thought that inevitably resulted in Enlightenment rationalism and theological liberalism. However, as McCall and Stanglin note in their conclusion: ‘Arminianism was no more destined to become a bastion of Enlightenment assumptions and latitudinarian theology than it was determined to become a home for Methodist pietists or American fundamentalists’ (245). Instead, Arminianism developed diverse trajectories of thought according to differing social, political, and intellectual contexts.Stanglin and McCall helpfully conclude the book by identifying four Arminian themes that provide commonality across centuries of diversity. First, a commitment to the goodness of God from which all divine purpose in creation and redemption stems. Second, the compatibility of divine action with human freedom through conditional decrees of election and prevenient grace that can be received or resisted. Third, an impulse toward holiness and rejection of theologies that breed moral complacency or stagnation. Fourth, a commitment to the social and practical implications of grace, expressed in values of toleration and egalitarianism that show no preference for gender, class, or race. After Arminius, therefore, makes a valuable contribution by highlighting the diverse nature of Arminian theology while also capturing persistent points of unity across the centuries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.