In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

161 The Evangelical, Practical Theology of Jacob Arminius 5 Arminius was in almost every way a product of his theological era, especially in method—long, drawn out close reasoning characterized by syllogistic logic. Attempts by earlier Arminian defenders to cast him as a “biblical theologian” in an attempt to rescue Dutch theology from the clutches of an anti-biblical scholasticism are off target. Certainly Arminius meant to be biblical, but that is not to say that his opponents were not also so inclined. On this point they were all theologians of the Reformation with deep commitments to sola scriptura. At the same time, Arminius was of the opinion that undue commitments to “manmade formulae” endangered this Reformation principle. Throughout his entire corpus of writings, we can discern a theological intentionality that works with a dialectic holding these two emphases—biblical faith and historic Christianity—in constructive tension. His is a theological intentionality that was formed in the crucible of fifteen years as an Amsterdam pastor. If we read Arminius anticipating that his goal is first and foremost to win a syllogistic argument, then we are not reading him accurately. We have not listened long enough to what he himself said in places other than the most recent theological debate into which he was forced by his ministerial or university colleagues. Regardless of the topic, I would submit, there is a proximate as well as an ultimate goal in all his theological debates. The proximate goal is to make a theological point (and win that particular dispute), but this must be understood as part and parcel of a larger vision—to discern the salvific disposition of God. His intention is to render the gospel of Jesus Christ as Savior more intelligibly, in order that it may be appropriated and lived out by Christian believers so that they will worship the one true God. Arminius’ theology is always both evangelical and practical; however , those words meant something quite different to Arminius than 162 Arminius and His Declaration of Sentiments they do to most modern readers, especially those who have been influenced by “evangelical” or “practical” theology in the last hundred years. In this more recent context, the word “evangelical,” especially in North America, connotes to a large extent forms of creedal propositionalism that Arminius spent all his pastoral and professorial life polemicizing against. The expression “practical theology” is even further from finding a place in the theological world inhabited by Arminius . The “how to” connotation of getting things done in the routine life of the church would have been a complete conundrum to pastors in Arminius’ time. For Arminius the most practical thing that any pastor could do was lead parishioners in authentic praise and worship of God, and the best way to do this was by formulating a theology that would prove to be foundational to such worship. The formulation of theology that encouraged people to believe and participate in authentic praise and worship was in itself evangelical theology. Any theology that caused confusion about who God is or what God’s salvific intentions are for humanity was, by definition, not an evangelical theology . This was the grounding intention of Arminius’ entire theological agenda, and this is evident from his first inaugural lectures at Leiden; it was also the agenda of his theological compositions in Amsterdam. It is well known that Arminius produced long expositions on Romans and an examination of Perkins on predestination during this period. If we can take Arminius at his word, we now know that he began as a pastor to develop his “systematic theology” as formal propositions. Based on Arminius’ correspondence with Uytenbogaert, Clarke makes the case that previous scholars were wrong when they assumed that the “Private Disputations” were begun during his Leiden years, perhaps even as late as 1607.1 This issue is potentially much 1 Cf. Carl Bangs, “Introduction,” Works, 1:xviii, where he argues that the private disputations were written for university students and notes that the private disputations were interrupted by illness and death. Granting that several of the private disputations “came late” does not mean that they were begun late. Muller seems to follow Bangs in this assumption (25, 50, 111). It seems to me that Clarke and Bangs may both be correct: Arminius began setting out the parameters of his formal theology in Amsterdam, but he prepared his “Private Disputations” after going to Leiden. The implication of this is that the contours of Arminius’ theology were well formed (and...

Share