7Īs a result, Arminius has frequently been granted credit for views he never espoused. In our time the term means for some the crowning of Reformation theology for others it points merely to an anachronistic sub-species of fundamentalism and for still others it means an easy-going American culture-Protestantism.

The label of Arminianism has been applied to and often accepted by such diverse entities as the politics of William Laud, seventeenth century Anglican theology from high churchmanship to moderate Puritanism, the communal experiment at Little Gidding, the empiricism of John Locke, Latitudinarianism, the rational supernaturalism of Hugo Grotius and the early Remonstrants, early Unitarianism in England, the evangelicalism of the Wesleys, and the revivalism of the American frontier. Since the time of Arminius’s death, many different groups and individuals have been identified as Arminian. 6 The fact that the term Arminianism has been used to describe a very diverse set of movements has done nothing to improve the situation with regard to understanding Arminius and his views. 5 Since the turn of the century, a few more have been added to this number, but compared to Calvin or even Theodore Beza (1519–1605), Arminius’s thought has received significantly less attention. During the twentieth century, only one noteworthy biography of Arminius was published in English. In light of the significant role Arminius has played in church history, relatively little has been written about his life. Perhaps this is the case because few people are familiar with what Arminius actually taught. Unfortunately, the labels Arminian and Arminianism are used inconsistently and at times get thrown around carelessly. On the other hand, at times Calvinists have had the tendency to apply the term to anything short of what John Calvin (1509–1564) himself taught. Many people who are in basic agreement with Arminius’s views about predestination, humanity’s condition, and God’s role in salvation reject the label Arminian. Yet, despite the familiarity of his name, Arminius’s thought is frequently misunderstood, or at very least, is little understood by many. Furthermore, the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism has never wanted voices on either side. Arminius stands among a limited number of figures in church history who have lent their names to a major theological school of thought. 3 This tendency toward polarization is not without cause. 2 Arminius is generally either vilified as an enemy or embraced as a friend few theologians seem to view him from a neutral posture. 1560–1609) either as a hero or a heretic. Republished with permission.Īs one writer has noted, most theologians regard Jacob Arminius (c.

Joseph arminius