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 been getting along together, not only in the SBC at large, but in administrations, in colleges and universities, on and in the mission fields, and even in individual churches. They have been cooperating together for a long time.
Blessings brother.
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 pray for more of that. I just think that pointing out that it’s not an “us-or-them” choice—that there is a middle to this spectrum of Southern Baptist soteriology—might help in that regard.
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 a Theology professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Kenneth Keathley includes a chapter on “The Biblical Case for Molinism.”
David R. Brumbelow
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 conscience tells convicts him merely of the fact that he is depraved and unable to do the right thing.
As for the difference between certainty and necessity, see the following: https://kenhamrick.com/2017/09/07/the-3rd-rail-the-fallacy-of-a-restrictive-foreknowledge/
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 Spirit, or to be in Christ. We read from the Word that all men are shut up in sin so that God can have mercy. Along with that, not every sin is pinged by the conscience. There are sins that the conscience of that individual does not convict. For example, a person born a Muslim may not be convicted of worshipping Allah. Not to mention that many times the conviction of the conscience is not recognized by the sinner as the doing wrong, but instead they focus on something outward and think that other things thecuase f their discomfort. Also, as you mention, the conscience convicts AFTER one sins [in many cases], and is no help in doing the right thing.
2]There are these two separate but connected things in the Gospel, the Law we break which renders us guilty before God, and the grace in the cross of Christ. The Law speaks to obedience or disobedience. The conscience is the works of the law written on the heart, Romans 2. But the words of the cross, the Gospel, is not the Law. The Law is obeyed by good works, or disobeyed by bad ones [sins and transgressions]. Thus having faith in Jesus is not of the Law. Neither is it of the conscience. Thus those who hear the Gospel are not necessarily convicted by it despite their great need. In fact the Word is clear: we read:
“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” 2nd Corinthians 4
Part of the nature of fallen man is his blindness to the truth of the Gospel. If a person cannot see the truth of something, he CANNOT in the fullness of hos heart willfully trust in it with his whole heart.
Now yes, he has help cause his own blindness by his disobedience to the Law. And yes, no matter how much he resists his conscience, he knows he does wrong. But there remains a gap between what he understands and what he needs to understand in order to free will choose Jesus. It is a gap the Holy Spirit alone can bridge, and does so when He brings salvation to the sinner.
So while there are two precepts that Scripture reveals as true, the will of man and the sovereignity of God, it also reveals how in salvation, these coincide.
Responsibility [man’s part] always refers to the Law, unless love is involved. But for the sinner, who hates God and does not love Him, responsibility for man means his obedience to the Law of God.
Deut 28: “And if you faithfully obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the Lord your God.”
Proverbs 13: Whoever scorns instruction will pay for it, but whoever respects a command is rewarded.
Jer. 17: “I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve.”
Romans 2: “But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.”
If you are responsible to obey the King, but because of your past sins, are unable to recognize His words, you CANT obey. Even as you said: “No man’s conscience tells convicts him merely of the fact that he is depraved and unable to do the right thing.”
Mike,
You said:
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:
Amen! But HOW are they shut up in sin? Are they shut up in such a way that they could not resist temptation if they really wanted to? No. They are shut up ONLY in such a way that they WANT to sin. Even staunch Calvinists, if they are consistent, must admit that the chains that bind the sinner are made only of his own will. Therefore, it is not true that the man is held against his will, and he could not come to Christ even if he wanted to. He does not want to, and that is why he cannot come to Christ. You (Calvinists) claim that the man is unable to decide against his nature, because his will is always according to his nature; but there is no proof that necessity rather than mere certainty is involved. The fact that the man will with utter certainty choose that which accords with his nature does NOT establish that he could not—if he so willed—choose against his nature. What you in effect claim is that the man cannot want to, but even Edwards admits that such a claim would be nonsense, equating it to the claim that “he could not will if he willed.”
You see, the difference on this, between Centrists and Calvinists, is not whether a man can be saved without the Holy Spirit choosing in the matter; but rather, it is whether a man can perish without the man choosing in the matter. Centrists do not see men coming to Christ against the will of God or apart from the Holy Spirit’s gracious interventions. Rather, it is simply a matter of how much blame truly belongs to the man who perishes—and also, how genuine is the warrant for even the nonelect to believe and be saved. Calvinists say that sinners are deaf and blind—and leave it at that; in which case, they could no more resist temptation in any given situation, or believe on Christ, than they could jump to the moon. But Centrists see the Biblical truth that Calvinists seem to miss: that the blindness and deafness of sinners is culpable, and comparable to one who holds his hands over his eyes and stops his ears to keep from hearing. THAT is the biblical picture of the inability of sinners. As I said in the article above, God has no need to hide His gospel from sinner who are more than willing to reject it on their own. You stated:
You’ve missed the point. Most people know right from wrong. If their conscience has been seared, it was not without ignoring it many times. And as Tertullian (?) said, if you think a man does not know right from wrong, all you need do is wrong him in some way, and he will quickly inform you that he knows the difference! There will be no excuse in heaven whereby a sinner can claim that he did not know he was doing wrong, or was not able to do the right thing. To the degree that either of these are true, he would be excused. We’re not speaking of Jews keeping the Mosaic Law, which they were responsible for studying and knowing. We’re talking about gentile sinners who, as Paul tells us in Romans, “have the work of the law written on their hearts…” With every crime, there was a right way that should have been taken. No one has to steal. No one has to murder. No one has to be angry without a cause or disobedient to parents. No one has to sin (in any number of ways). Even the greatest commandment is tailored to the strength of the individual, since (as Fuller said) we are not commanded to love God with strength that we do NOT have, but rather, only with all the strength that we DO have. And what wool are you trying to pull over our eyes here, anyway? Do you really want to claim that pangs of conscience are ONLY felt AFTER doing wrong? Every one of us who can remember our days before Christ can remember some sin that tempted us but our conscience intervened and we felt the pangs and chose instead not to commit whatever sin it was. And since it is true in some cases, then it proves we were without excuse in all cases. You stated:
Mike, would you have us believe that you came to Christ WITHOUT being convicted of your sins? If so, you’d be the first. You CANNOT come to Christ without repenting of your sins—and you CANNOT repent unless you’re convicted of your sins—CONVICTED BY YOUR CONSCIENCE. So then, if you think you can define faith in Jesus as anything devoid of repentance and conviction, you’re welcome to try; but it will not be biblical. And of course, repentance is more than merely forsaking the sins of our past. It is to forsake our very self apart from God—to surrender our rebellion against Him and His truth. Unbelief is never an unfortunate circumstance. Unbelief is always the ultimate sin of rebellion. Therefore, God DOES use the conscience to convict the sinner of his sin of unbelief, whenever the gospel is preached. When the gospel is veiled to the blinding of minds to the gospel’s light, it is always a veil composed of the will of those blinded. That’s how the god of this world, the devil, works. He never blinds except with the consent of the blinded. But like every other biblical picture of such blindness, it is a willful blindness. It is the kind of blindness that allows sinner to run from and hide from the light—because they hate the light. How is it that these poor blinded souls can HATE the light if they don’t know it exists and have never seen it? That’s why Stephen preached in Acts to the Jews and told them that they do always “resist the Holy Spirit.” Resisting the Holy Spirit is the same as resisting the light. But how does one who is blinded resist the light? You see, what you and most Calvinists miss is that these biblical pictures of the sinners inability use physical images to illustrate spiritual things that cannot be exactly pictured by physical things. So in order to adequately convey such spiritual principles, more than one (and, indeed, seemingly contradictory) metaphor is used. Yes, the Bible says sinners are blind; but it also says that they run from the light and hate the light. Yes, the Bible says sinners are deaf; but it also picture them as stopping their ears. The Bible’s pictures of the sinners inability to believe or even his inability to do what is right is NEVER to say that he could not believe or do what is right if he really wanted to. RATHER, these pictures are to illustrate for us that he does not want to and will never want to, apart from God’s influences of grace intervening to cause him to want to. And whenever Calvinists, who are only trying as best they know how to give God all the credit for saving any man, portray the sinner in such a way that he could not come to Christ (or do what is right) even if he wanted to ,, they go beyond what is revealed and fall into error. I think all the rest that you posted has been answered by this comment.
Just to clarify: I do not intend to debate you here from the beginning of point 1 to the end of point 5 of Calvinism. The purpose of this discussion is simply to establish that the middle view can indeed be defended as cogent, reasonable and biblical. And I think that has been accomplished.
Be blessed, Brother!