Two Year of SEA Membership

I logged in to the SEA site recently and noted that today marks the two year anniversary of my membership with the Society of Evangelical Arminians. Much progress has been made in the past two years and I am happy to have been able to do my part. The key thing about SEA is the bringing together of Arminians from various geographic regions and walks of life. SEA’s membership has theology professors to new converts, liberals to conservatives, charismatics to cessationalists, Freewill Baptists, Southern Baptists, Methodists, AoG and a host of church groups. Yet we are all united in Christ and in Evangelical Arminian views. So we come together to learn from each other, share ideas, fellowship, support each other. I count it quite a privilege to be a part.

The public website has quickly and quietly become the best resource for Arminian Theology (scriptures excepted) ever. There, readers may find substantially all the classical Arminian works and articles from modern scholarship as well. The links and books page alone can serve as an Arminian interface into the web and in print Arminian scholarship.

I have had moments throughout these two years where I have questioned if I should call myself Arminian. I came to my Arminian views via reading the works of James Arminius, not via an Arminian denomination such as the Free Will Baptists or AoG. So I sometimes surprise people when I say I am a Molinist or I hold to eternal security and in that sense perhaps the label doesn't serve me. But the nice thing about that is it gives me the chance to explain about about Arminius himself and the scope of Arminianism. And overall, since I find myself squarely within classical Arminianism, I find it's best to just say so.

Anyways, I am thankful to be a part of SEA and for all those who make that possible.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more