The first two chapters of Arminius, Arminianism, and Europe: Jacobus Arminius (1559/60–1609) have been very interesting. Today I’ve read more of Arminius than ever before, to distinguish him from the Dutch Remonstrants who slipped into all kinds of unbiblically liberal ideas. They show me again, I think, with a strong argument from the justice of God, why a supralapsarian doctrine of predestination is wrong. Against supralapsarianism, at least, Arminius is far less mushy than Arminians today, arguing in a rigorously Scholastic fashion and holding to penal substitution as the mode of the atonement; I wish those who considered themselves his followers would do the same.
A D.C. editor writes about piety and society, with one eye on the past and the other on the future, and both eyes on the sovereign purposes of God.