But by almost any other criteria the book itself seems to acknowledge that he was not very important. The book certainly shows that Arminius was a bright and erudite theologian.

It may seem obvious that Arminius is a very important theologian in that he gave his name to a large, influential branch of Protestant soteriological thought. In particular the book presents at great length Arminius's criticism and rejection of supralapsarianism, but never asks if Arminius's emphasis was appropriate since supralapsarianism was a minority point of view among the Calvinists.ДЇifth, while the book presents the basic aspects of the theology of Arminius clearly and helpfully, it does not ultimately address the question of the significance of Arminius as a theologian. 181) of Reformed theology, but Calvinists always seem always unfair to him. Arminius seems always to give the 'fair implications' (p. 179), or responsibility for the 'Enlightenment rationalism and doctrinal latitudinarianism' of the Remonstrant church in the latter part of the seventeenth century (p. Yet they rather easily dismiss Calvinist criticisms of the implications of Arminius' thought, whether on subordinationism (p. Little analysis is given to the fairness of Arminius's often repeated and biting criticism that unconditional predestination logically makes God the author of sin (see for example p. Third, our authors note that Arminius was often more the critic than the constructive theologian: 'Arminius's major treatises that deal with predestination give much more attention to what he opposes than to what he proposes' (p.

Arminius d review