Dr. W. Stephen Gunter, Associate Dean for Methodist Studies and Research Professor of Evangelism and Wesleyan Studies at Duke Divinity School, has made a significant contribution to the study of historical theology and the study of theology itself with his Arminius and His Declaration of Sentiments: An Annotated Translation with Introduction and Theological Commentary. In 1608, Arminius delivered his Sentiments before the States of Holland in response to a growing controversy surrounding the theology professor and his soteriological views.

I have blogged about Arminius before and have interviewed one contemporary Arminius scholar already on this site.  I hope to bring an interview of Dr. Gunter soon.

There would indeed appear to be something of a modern renaissance in Arminian studies. It is interesting to theorize about why this might be.  Undoubtedly the rise of a neo-Calvinism that can, at times, be pretty aggressive has played a part in this.  But there is also something about the neglect of Arminius as well as, most tragically, the caricaturing of him among many today that calls for a just setting straight of the record.  Gunter has taken  his place among those who are currently doing just that.  In so doing, he has helped to right a very real wrong.

Gunter’s translation of Arminius’ Declaration of Sentiments is the first from the original Dutch.  It is an engaging, insightful, and accessible translation that certainly reads much better than the one currently available in the three-volume Works of Arminius by Nichols and Bagnall.  Gunter offers a number of needed corrections to Nichols’ translation.  What is more, he provides a very helpful history and biography of Arminius in the first third of the book as well as an illuminating theological unpacking of the Sentiments in the last third (with the Sentiments themselves comprising the middle section).

In all, this work gives a great overview of Arminius and Arminianism, the man and the theology.  A careful reading of this work should definitively end the stereotype of Arminius as a Pelagian, an anti-Calvinist, and a champion of the modern notion of libertarian free will.  In point of fact, Arminius stood within the Reformed tradition and was simply seeking (a) to push back against the more extreme forms of Calvinistic extremism (i.e., the doctrine of reprobation in particular), (b) to defend the character of God against a theology that he felt necessarily made God the author of evil, and (c) to perform theological triage (to use the language of Al Mohler) and show that speculative theologies concerning the mysteries of predestination should not be elevated to the position of first order.  In a sense, Arminius was calling for theological prioritization, the distinguishing of the core of the gospel from speculative theorization, and appropriate tolerance on these secondary issues among Christians of good will.

Apart from the particulars of the theological debate, Arminius provides us with an interesting model of theological conflict management that would be useful for us to consider today.  Arminius sounds like a “mere Christian” before “mere Christianity,” as we know it today, had come on the scene, and his appeal for toleration, calm, reasonable discussion, and fair treatment in the midst of debate are as needed today as they were then.

This is a very interesting book, and very well done.