While perusing the Arminian Today blog yesterday I found SEA:
(you can get to the SEA site from Arminian Today or):
Why I Am an Arminian, Part 1 of 2
Submitted by Keith Schooley on Thu, 04/10/2008 - 12:00am.
Part 1 (see the excerpt below) is a positive presentation of Arminianism without reference to Calvinism.
I've read Part 1 a couple times and it's an excellent, brief presentation of Arminianism, imo.In Part 1, Keith Schooley wrote:Introduction: Against Reaction to Calvinism
I. Since the Reformation, what has come to be known as "Calvinism" or Reformed theology has been the fundamental interpretive grid through which the doctrine of election has been historically understood by Protestants. This is to say that the Reformers established a dominant Protestant tradition upholding some form of unconditional divine election of specific individuals to salvation (largely by contrast to the medieval Roman Catholic position). Those that differed from this position, notably Jacobus Arminius, John Wesley, and the traditions that arose from them, did so largely in reaction to a prior Reformed tradition. (For convenience’ sake, this paper will use the terms "Calvinism" and "Reformed" in reference to all Protestant traditions, including Lutheran, that espouse unconditional, particular election to salvation, and Wesleyan and Arminian interchangeably in reference to all Protestant traditions that reject unconditional, particular election.)
II. The result of this is that even today, advocates of an Arminian position find themselves generally arguing defensively--that is to say, attempting to refute established Calvinistic doctrines rather than developing a positive case for an alternative point of view. This is seen most clearly in defenses of the Arminian position that are cast (as rebuttals) within the framework of the "five points" of Calvinism. A number of reasons for the continuing of this situation exist:
1. For most people who haven’t been specifically taught unconditional, particular election, the possibility of anyone coming to faith through the gospel seems to be the natural understanding of scripture. [See Note 1 below] Therefore, most people never bother to defend Arminianism except when confronting a specific Calvinistic challenge; and so they end up doing so reactively, rather than proactively.
2. Arminians would hold that their position is an assumption which undergirds scripture (just as the Bible doesn’t defend God’s existence but rather everywhere assumes it) rather than a doctrine to be proven by explicit scriptural statement.
3. For the above reasons and because of the historical prominence of this question within Reformation debate, the issue of election rises to a greater importance for the Calvinist than for the Arminian. The "five points" are taught within the Reformed tradition, whereas the possibility of anyone who hears the gospel coming to saving faith is simply a working assumption within the Wesleyan tradition.
III. The practical result of this situation is that Calvinism is generally thought to be the only intellectually respectable form of evangelicalism. A defense of the Arminian position needs to be made, but it cannot be made merely in reaction to the Calvinistic position; that is to concede to the opposition the terms of debate. A positive case needs to be made for Arminianism. Two points must be understood regarding the following treatise:
1. Some of the foundations of such a case will be common to both Calvinistic and Arminian understandings of scripture--so to assert something as essential to the Arminian position is not necessarily to deny that Calvinists may agree; and
2. Since the immediate point is to build a positive case for Arminianism without reference to Calvinism, some Arminian assertions to which Calvinists have historically responded will need to be laid down without immediate engagement with Reformed criticism. A later section of the paper will be devoted to the Reformed critique of Arminian assertions and to the Arminian response.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] This "naive Arminianism" in itself is neither an argument for or against Arminianism: one could argue that the average Christian hasn’t studied the Bible closely enough to recognize the implication of passages dealing with election, or one could argue that Calvinism is a system of interpretation not naturally arising from Scripture but imposed upon it. What the present writer is concerned with here is the practical implication of "natural Arminianism" that Arminianism tends to be taught only in reaction to Calvinism, as opposed to being taught on its own.
What stood out, and to get this thread going, was [1] (in the last paragraph). What Schooley wrote is essentially the same thing Steve Gregg says. Namely, that Calvinism is an acquired belief system; and, how most Christians get something like a "natural Arminianism" from examining the Bible alone ("Sola Scriptura!")---without reference to extra-biblical ideas or materials.
Schooley calls this "naive Arminianism" to describe new Christians, or Christians who have never really looked into the issues. He would be correct if these said Christains later embraced Arminianism: (I personally do not, but feel Arminianism is much much closer to what the Bible teaches).
This doesn't necessarily mean new Christians or those who've never looked into the issues are Arminians, though they are more likely closer to "being" Arminian at the beginning from reading the Bible alone. In my experience the vast majority of people I know who became Calvinists did so only after reading Augustine and/or Calvin or were, otherwise, taught Calvinist interpretations of the text(s).
Lastly, an historical observation on why it might be that "Arminians are almost always put on the defensive" (imo).
A. Augustine, then later Calvin, came up with their doctrines.
B. Arminius voiced disagreements with them but was never fully heard, so to speak.
C. The Remonstrants, as followers of Arminius, picked up where Arminius had left off.
D. The Council of Dort convened, the Arminians (Remonstrants) were heard and condemned.
E. Arminians have been on the defensive ever since.
Interesting to note that: "TULIP" was invented as the first defensive or response back to the Arminians.
I'm going to read Schooley's Part 2 soon.
Part 1 is excellent, imo,
Btw, I think it's time Calvinists start engaging the Positive Case for Arminianism...(if possible)....
Thanks.