Calvinists and Traditionalists have been arguing, with varying degrees of amity and enmity, since the SBC was formed. But between these two (with slight overlap of both) is a less argumentative and more cooperative middle view. Because this middle view has commonalities with both Calvinism and Traditionalism, this group has little problem working with pastors and supporting missionaries from either end of the spectrum. However, this ability to cooperate leaves the middle position “out of sight and out of mind,” since we (I count myself among them) usually have little use for “in-house” theological debate*. When we encounter Calvinists who demand that God is the ultimate determiner of the destinies of men, we give a hearty, “Amen!” and we respond the same when that other side demands that men have the free will and ability to choose otherwise. Now, this doesn’t mean that we in the middle accept all that the two sides hold to not at all. But whereas Calvinists deny the full, free will of men, and Traditionalists deny that God is the ultimate determiner of the destinies of men, we in the middle deny neither. We affirm both because the plain-sense reading of Scripture affirms both–and we hold that revelation trumps philosophy and human reasoning. In other words, if something is plainly revealed in Scripture, then it is true whether or not we can explain it through human reasoning.
When forced to acknowledge the existence of the middle view, proponents of both ends of the spectrum will argue that God is not the author of contradiction and claim that the middle involves contradictions in human reasoning. But is He not the God of revelation? So why is a supposed contradiction in human reasoning less acceptable than a contradiction of the word of God? While both sides claim that the middle accepts a logical contradiction, both will gladly show how the other side contradicts the plain revelation of Scripture. We in the middle ask, ought we not to start by ridding our view of anything that contradicts revelation and only then work out an explanation from human reasoning that is without logical contradiction?
Besides, we do not admit to accepting any contradiction–and neither side can prove any contradiction is involved except that which depends on their presuppositions (which we don’t share). One of those presuppositions shared by both ends but not the middle is that if God determines events then it is by necessity (with no difference between necessity and certainty). Calvinists embrace such a necessity-based determinism, while Traditionalists object to any determinism, as if determinism required necessity. But there is a middle option available, held by such Baptist centrists as Andrew Fuller, in which God is seen to determine men’s destinies through certainty alone and not by necessity. This distinction is lost on the two ends, since it is not needed by either’s theology and they’re only used to arguing with each other.
Necessity leaves no real alternative possibilities in this world. Every fork in the road is merely apparent, as the course is infallibly set. Calvinists affirm it and Traditionalists deny it. But remember that Middlers affirm both Scriptural principles, that God determines destinies and that men must freely choose. Certainty is the Biblical means by which both are true. Certainty does not remove from possibility all alternative courses of action, like necessity does. With certainty, a world of innumerable alternative possibilities exists, but it remains utterly certain which of the many possible courses of action will be chosen. With a scheme of necessity, men must be forcibly regenerated or they will perish, without any real choosing on their part. But certainty recognizes that men do have a choice of which they are indeed capable of making, and it recognizes both the warrant to offer salvation through Christ to all (even the nonelect) and the need for divine influence to “woo” and pursue and persuade free sinners to believe.
Necessity sees unbelief as an unfortunate circumstance; whereas certainty sees unbelief as the ultimate sin of rebellion, expressed as rejection of that inner ring of truth experienced by all who have been made in God’s image, as well as the witness of the Holy Spirit that always accompanies the preaching of the gospel. God need not hide His gospel when men are more than willing to reject it on their own. And God is fully able to persuade men without infringing on their free will. God is able to convince men of His truth, and align the sinner’s will with His own, such that the sinner sees that it is in his own best interest to surrender his life to God through the death of the cross, so that He may rise to life anew and eternal in Christ.
Of course, many will object that the middle is inferior merely because it is the middle–as if it were a compromise by the very definition of middle. But such objections beg the question–an unjustified assumption that the Biblical truth could not possibly be located in the center since the center is always a compromise between two sides. We in the middle encourage you to open your eyes to the fact that you both might be wrong. That middle might be not a fence but a third rail from which the Biblical truth radiates.
The next time that Calvinists and Traditionalists want to sit down and productively engage in discussing their differences, set a place at the table for us in the middle so that <em>all</em> Southern Baptists can have a voice—there may even be more of us in the middle than there are of you on the ends. If we can see that we’re all on the same spectrum, we might realize that our commonalities outweigh our differences.
Ken, Without getting into any theological discussion at this time, I would like to point out an error, if not in your thinking, at least in the way it seems you have presented things. You said: “But between these two (with slight overlap of both) is a less argumentative and more cooperative middle view. Because this middle view has commonalities with both Calvinism and Traditionalism, this group has little problem working with pastors and supporting missionaries from either end of the spectrum.” The truth is that, despite a few fringe Cals and a few fringe Trads, These “extremist” views have… Read more »
Mike, I can appreciate what you’re getting at. Not all Calvinists or all Trad’s are engaged “in the battle,” so to speak. Still, I think you’re being a little too generous. The fact is that the struggle between the two sides, whether expressed politically or theologically, has grown bad enough to become a problem. Obviously, those on the fringe make it worse. But if they were not getting some traction with those who are not on the fringe, then this would not be as big a problem as it is. Thank God for those who have been getting along—and we… Read more »
I believe you are speaking as most Trads would speak. Trads are not Arminian. We fully accept God’s foreknowledge. We just reject the thought that everything related to the salvation of every person is predetermined even prior to their birth. And we are fearful of where an emphasis on Calvinist theology will lead the SBC.
“Trads are not Arminian. We fully accept God’s foreknowledge. We just reject the thought that everything related to the salvation of every person is predetermined even prior to their birth.”
There’s a difference between Classical Arminianism and Wesley Arminianism. You need to clarify which one you are(n’t).
Allen,
If Calvinist theology had ever been leading the SBC, the BF&M would explicitly affirm the TULIP. I would say that it is Baptist theology that has been leading the SBC. I know, there are Reformed Baptist and there are Freewill Baptists, etc., but generally speaking, baptists have tended toward the center, denying the extremes of these other two institutions.
I also take the middle view.
Yep. On this issue, I am comfortable in the middle. Although, I like to call it what the guys of two decades called it: The biblical position. Just sayin’.
David Rogers and C.B. Scott,
Thanks for standing up and saying so. I’d bet there’s more in the middle than there are on the two ends. The majority probably couldn’t care less about the Cal/Trad debate.
I have held the “Middle View” since seminary when I was first introduced to the idea when I read, Chosen But Free by Norman Geisler. As you say, Scripture attests to both God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. I can’t explain Christ’s two natures in one person or three Persons in One God, but I believe these to be true. I don’t see why soteriology should be any different.
David,
Man has free will.
Faith, saving faith must be from the heart.
Faith is something one has, not a verb that one does.
Believe though, is a verb, and is what someone does. That too must be from the heart.
If a person, is against God in their heart, how can they trust Him?
If they truly trust God in their heart, how can they never believe in Him?
How then can they not walk in that trust?
Why do some trust God and not others?
Why did you?
Blessings brother.
Some may be interested in a book on Molinism. “Molinism argues that God perfectly accomplishes His will in free creatures through the use of His omniscience. It reconciles two crucial biblical truths: (1) God exercises sovereign control over all His creation, and (2) human beings make free choices and decisions for which they must give account…” “The Molinist model is the only game in town for anyone who wishes to affirm a high view of God’s sovereignty while holding to a genuine definition of human choice, freedom, and responsibility.” -Dr. Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and Sovereignty, B&H Academic; 2010. Keathley is… Read more »
One can certainly be a Christian and a Molinist.
But this optimized world, as one of the myriad worlds God could have chosen, must happen just the way a Molinist God has chosen. Or as a Traditionalist God has foreseen, or as a Calvinist God has preordained.
Only Open Theism denies God already knows exactly what the future holds.
Which is why, unless one is an open theist, to divide over these issues is unwise and counterproductive to our one purpose: proclaiming the Gospel.
Most centrists leave it to the mysteries of God, and do not try to reconcile predestination with free will. Some centrists do try, as I have in the above article. Molinism is also a common attempt to reconcile the two principles. But it is not centrists who divide over such issues. To recognize that the middle exists is not to recognize a third division, but to understand that our convention is not as divided as we might have thought.
I’m a bit partial to the Molinist view myself. I used to identify as a Calvinist but do not any longer. Not because I changed my mind about what I believe, but because I realized that my beliefs aligned better with Molinism than Calvinism. I’m not anti-label, because I think they are often useful, but ultimately they do fall short.
Bill,
It sounds to me like you might be a Centrist. The two ends tell us how they think labels should be: if you affirm that God predestines according to unconditional election, then you’re Calvinist; if you affirm that men have the free will to choose otherwise, then you’re Traditionalist; but if you affirm both, then you’re confused (because they find your view confusing). We in the middle do not conform to their labeling, which makes the middle a really inconvenient thing to those bent on an “us-or-them” struggle.
I’ve read this post two or three times now, and I’m trying to understand how the stated middle position is different from a compatibilist understanding of free will.
It seems the distinction you are drawing between “necessity” and “certainty” are a distinction without a difference.
Matt, If by compatibilist, you mean Calvinist compatibilist, then the difference is in the freedom to choose against one’s nature. Calvinists claim that men are free “to do what they want,” but they deny that a man is free to do what he does not want (to choose against his nature). But the Centrist points out that every man’s conscience testifies against such a view. Every time a man chooses the morally wrong thing, if he has a conscience, his conscience will convict him that he chose wrongly, and that he could have and should have chosen rightly. No man’s… Read more »
So is centrism much more than “God says it. I believe it. That settles it.”?
Adam,
That is the heart of it. Specifically, it is the precept of putting revelation over human reasoning whenever Scripture reveals two principles that human reasoning tends to insists cannot both be true (and which drive theologians into two opposing camps, each denying one principle or the other).
Ken, You said: “Every time a man chooses the morally wrong thing, if he has a conscience, his conscience will convict him that he chose wrongly, and that he could have and should have chosen rightly. No man’s conscience tells convicts him merely of the fact that he is depraved and unable to do the right thing.” Two things. 1] The Bible says that man is a slave to sin. And that only in Christ is he set free. It seems like you are saying, he can be free from sin if he wants to be, no need for the… Read more »
Mike, You said: The Bible says that man is a slave to sin. And that only in Christ is he set free. It seems like you are saying, he can be free from sin if he wants to be, no need for the Spirit, or to be in Christ. That’s exactly what I’m saying, Mike. He can be choose not to sin if he wants to not sin in any given situation. The reason—and the only reason—that sins is because he wants to sin. You continue: We read from the Word that all men are shut up in sin so… Read more »