Jacobus Arminius, professor of theology at Leiden University from 1603 to 1610, is primarily known in the annals of history for advancing what proved to be controversial views on grace, predestination, justification and concomitant doctrines, sparking debates both in the Netherlands and abroad that would ultimately lead to the rejection of his views by international representatives of the various Reformed churches at the Synod of Dort (1618–19). On account of Dort's rejection of Arminius’ views as contrary to Scripture and Reformed orthodoxy, Fesko's main thesis – that Arminius’ soteriology cannot be properly classified as Reformed but rather represented a different strand of Protestant theology – does not seem particularly original or controversial.

The occasion of Fesko's book, however, is relatively recent revisionist scholarship on Arminius that has either sought to attenuate the degree to which Arminius varied from Reformed orthodoxy, or that otherwise sought to counter misrepresentations of Arminius’ theology. By contrast, Fesko sets out to demonstrate his thesis (p. 5) ‘that Arminius's soteriology differs sufficiently from that of his Reformed contemporaries and Reformed confessional norms to warrant the conclusion that he was not Reformed. His soteriology is an alternative Protestant conception’. To this end, the book examines six aspects of Arminius’ soteriology, comparing them both to the Reformed confessions and various early modern Reformed authors.

Fesko's first chapter argues, in agreement with Richard Muller but in disagreement with Stanglin, that Arminius substantially (albeit in a qualified manner) maintained the late medieval formula of ‘facientibus in quod se est, et Deus non denegat gratiam’ (‘Do what is in you, and God will not deny grace’), which marked a variance from Reformed orthodoxy in that it rendered Arminius’ soteriology ‘synergistic’ rather than ‘monergistic’, meaning that ‘God provides sufficient grace to fallen sinners but they must lay hold of this grace in order to receive the grace of regeneration’ (p. 14).

Chapter ii examines Arminius’ doctrine of predestination, demonstrating not only that Arminius held to conditional election (on account of foreseen faith and perseverance) as opposed to the Reformed position of unconditional election, but also that Arminius employed the doctrine of middle knowledge (‘scientia media’), both of which were rejected by the Reformed before, at and after the Synod of Dort. In Chapter iii Fesko demonstrates how Arminius differed from the Reformed on the doctrine of effectual calling, whereas chapter iv focuses on union with Christ and the order of salvation (‘ordo salutis’), and argues that Arminius’ conception of justification varied from the Reformed tradition in that it ‘was not grounded solely upon the imputed righteousness of Christ but also upon the believer's sanctification-driven perseverance’ (p. 86). The key issue of justification is further considered in chapter v, where Arminius is shown to have taught justification on account of faith as accepted by God for righteousness, whereas the Reformed confessions taught that justification, properly speaking, is on account of Christ's righteousness received or imputed by faith as a mere instrument. Chapter vi then demonstrates how Arminius differed from the Reformed in rejecting the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. On the whole, Fesko's book provides very helpful comparisons of Arminius’ views to those of his Reformed contemporaries, demonstrating persuasively from the primary sources that the differences between them do indeed warrant a classification of Arminianism as a distinct Protestant theological tradition at variance with Reformed confessional norms.

One critique worth mentioning, however, is that despite Fesko's insistence in the introduction that his examination of Arminius ‘is not a theological but historical exercise’ (p. 5), on several occasions he makes value judgements on Arminius’ thought that are not cited from the primary sources (as representing their judgement) but that rather reflect his own observations or conclusions. For example, Fesko claims (p. 36) that Arminius ‘assumes two contradictory wills in God, makes God reactive to human decisions, constitutes a denial of divine freedom of the will, and suggests contingency in God Himself’, with these representing his own deductions rather than judgements cited from the primary sources. Similarly, Fesko charges Arminius with effectively advocating ‘semi-Pelagianism’ (pp. 24, 29), which is not only a term he leaves undefined, but also a value judgement Fesko himself makes of Arminius, rather than it being a judgement cited from Arminius’ contemporaries or his subsequent reception. Moreover, Fesko declared that ‘For Arminius, faith justifies, whereas for the Reformed, Christ justifies’ (p. 98): an arguably simplistic characterisation of Arminius’ doctrine of justification to which Arminius himself would have objected. The result is that, at times, despite its claim to the contrary, this book reads a bit like theological polemics rather than merely descriptive historical-theological analysis.

In sum, although Fesko's main thesis is not particularly original, and although his historical-theological analysis occasionally seems to drift into the realm of polemics, the true value of his book lies primarily in its confirmation of the substantial differences between Reformed orthodoxy and Arminianism, and the clarity and technicality with which these differences are shown from the primary sources. As such, it will serve as a useful reference for anyone interested in the quinquarticular controversy.