I appreciate your willingness to dialogue on this…..

One of the things we hold to in our local body is captured in the introduction of our statements of faith….where we agree that

Any “Statement Of Faith” is potentially flawed in that it is constructed by fallen men. If, as our understanding of God’s Word matures, we need to correct our thinking, we shall modify this Statement if we can be absolutely sure that it will more accurately reflect what God has said in His Holy Scriptures.(1)

Because Christ has called His Church to be and to make disciples, it is necessary for His people to know and to teach what He has made known to us in His Word. And, because we belong to Him, He instructs us so that we should be free (2) both to be loyal to and comforted by Him, as well as to be His faithful ambassadors to a fallen and lost world.

(1) Acts 17:10,11 And the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea; and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.

(2) John 8:31,32 Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

You are also right to say that we should examine all men’s teachings to sift out theory from truth…..and yes Calvin has a “tub” full of problems in his systematic approach. It is always constructive to expose the theories though, so that the theory is not transposed into biblical doctrine that is taught to the Saints.

I hope your studies are going well…. and may God bless your ministry.

Blessings,
Chris

Thank you so much for clearing that up. I truly do appreciate it.

Now, are we to see the same types of posts in the future on Calvin or Augustine? Certainly, they too had theories which may or may not have corresponded with factual, provable truths (exhaustive determinism as opposed to foreknowledge of counterfactuals, limited atonement, unconditional election and reprobation, irresistible grace, etc). Singling out Arminius seemed to me as a bit much (or perhaps I am sensitive where he is concerned, having had to address so many fallacious statements about him or his teaching on the Internet, with students on campus at SEBTS, or even professors and pastors).

I also want to thank you for the tone with which you answer my objections. I sincerely cannot tell you how much that ministers to me, having interacted with some of the most nasty people on the Internet over the last few years.

Again, God bless.

My foreknowledge is extremely limited, …even when I look into a mirror I quickly forget what is ahead until a return to the truth.

As you included in your selection,…the foundation for the post was “unity” while the other themes can be seen as the antagonist. Very simply,….I believe that theories can play a huge role in how we teach and because theory (not fact) is based in assumptions, conflict will surface and the “conflict” can quickly become the foundation for the teaching.

Not too many men these days see their theory or their teachings based upon a theory as an antagonist to the truth. They assume that the theory helps us understand the truth. I’m not convinced of that as of yet….even though I thoroughly enjoy reading the various viewpoints.

From an SBC perspective…I would have hoped that Arminius, as a member of the SBC statement committee, would have fought hard to keep the language a bit more precise. But, I’m not certain that he would have if I am right about him being influenced by the path of middle knowledge. The point is that a theory like “middle knowledge – based in counterfactuals” does influence wording of statements…that is just human nature. Dr. Keathley and others that subscribe to the same Molinistic theory certainly will have influence as documents are produced. That doesn’t make him, Arminius, me, you or others heretical in my view…simply influenced in one way or another. I simply find it interesting that a “theory of middle knowledge” is so influencial.

I completely agree with you that Semi-Pelagianism is heretical and is a problem.

Disunity though,…comes from contention. What I have seen within the SBC during the last thirty five years are men ready to defend their theories, but not ready to submit to the Spirit’s unity. I long for the day in the SBC when men see theory for what it is and return to the pure word of truth. I believe that recognizing the influence and the contention caused by theory is important to understand and confront…..because unity will be faint and illusive as long as theory trumps truth in the minds of the teachers.

The following is an excellent question and statement in my opinion…..

“How exactly could Middle Knowledge be considered a separate entity by itself? In this theory, middle knowledge is God’s knowledge, not a fourth person. Again, as in your former post, you have failed in proving a theory of a fourth person in the godhead, as allegedly promoted by Arminius (or Molina for that matter).”

My response is that “Middle Knowledge” is simply a man-made container for how some think God works….so it remains a theory based upon its assumptions that are not proven as fact. That is why I consider it a “fourth person”. Not a fourth person of the godhead…. But, a fourth person of dependency for anyone subscribing to the theory. I am not saying that Molina or Arminius are calling for expanding the persons of the trinity. Yet this component of “Middle Knowledge” is simply an analogy at best and built upon a theory of counterfactuals. Maybe it can be proved in the future….but for now it falls into the category of theory.

Blessings,
Chris

Certainly, you must have foreknown that I would read this post, considering that your last post, “Arminius: Influencer of Separation” elicited a response from me as well.

Honestly, Chris, I found this post very difficult to follow. What exactly was your main point? There were several points made in this post, making it difficult to acknowledge your main thesis. Was your main point:

1 The Quest for Unity;
2 God’s Exhaustive Sovereignty vs. Free Will; or
3 Theological Influences, i.e. the “Middle Man” or “Fourth Person”?

I could not find a concrete thesis throughout the post. Yet, you made some excellent statements. I agree with you concerning the word “duty” versus “acceptance” or any other watered-down version of the initial intent in the BF&M. As a matter of fact, Arminius agrees with you. He wrote: “The First Part of our duty to God and Christ was the true meaning concerning God and Christ, or true faith in God and Christ: The Second Part is the right worship to be rendered to both of them” (Works, 2:445). Mankind has a duty to believe in Christ and worship God aright; a duty which they fail to perform due to depravity.

Arminius would not have approved of replacing that word or the concept behind it. And yet you admit: “These men (and women) [in the SBC] unashamedly follow the theories of Jacobus Arminius and his astounding logical functions which have supplied the influence and continuance of the theory of the assumptive complex worlds of the counterfactual. This influence, and the dependence on the categorical power of middle knowledge (scientia media) has necessarily formed the environment and ensuing word changes now present in the 1963 and 2000 version of the Baptist faith and message. The slight changes are certainly not heretical by any stretch while they allow for a ‘wider’ acceptance on the teaching of God’s sovereignty.”

How exactly does the relation of middle knowledge effect the word change from “duty” to “acceptance”? I did not see that laid out for us here in this post; especially given Arminius’s explicit use of the word in relation to faith in Christ and the right worship of God. Is your motive to somehow blame Arminius for the replacing of the word “duty”? And though Arminius in no wise formulated or expounded upon the Middle Knowledge view (he merely suggested that God is capable of knowing whatever can be known), would you then suggest that men in the SBC such as Dr. Ken Keathley (a proponent of Middle Knowledge) approve of such a watered-down version of “acceptance” vs. “duty” to Christ and to God? Or would you suggest that Dr. Keathley’s Middle Knowledge somehow denigrates God’s sovereignty? And if not, then neither can Arminius be blamed for such. The problem in the SBC is not Arminius’s theology – it is semi-Pelagianism (and there is a world of difference between semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism, quite to the contrary opinion of the likes of Packer, MacArthur, Sproul, Piper, et al.).

Since you took the liberty of delving into the theory of Middle Knowledge (to which I do not subscribe), I also assume that you read Arminius on the issue as well. His “On the Understanding of God” and “On the Will of God” are available to read online for free.

But how these views within the SBC are causing “contention and fainting unity” is beyond me. You state: “All of these words and explanations absorbed by highly regarded convention teachers have practically made for a wide tent within the SBC . . . yet a tent now revealing evidence of contention and fainting unity.” You made a statement but did not show exactly how this view was causing disunity. With all of the varying degrees of theological positions held within the SBC currently (e.g. Charismatic gifts or manifestations, Calvinism vs. Arminianism, the use of alcohol, women in ministry), I fail to see how Middle Knowledge is having any effect on its “unity.” And certainly, Arminius has had the least amount of effect in this area, since you yourself noted that Arminius was not the one who developed this theory, nor is he known for promoting it, to the degree that it would have such a profound affect on people in later generations.

Enter the “Immerging Middle Man,” as you put it: “Unfortunately some have found a fascination with a ‘fourth person’. A Middle Man beyond the trinity of persons revealed in the Holy Scriptures, whether he is found embedded in the ‘assumption of counterfactuals’ as made popular by those fascinated with Arminius and Molina, or as an assuming ‘means of grace’ thrust upon the water in infant baptism by Calvin. Maybe it is our fallen nature living out loud against a backdrop of determined righteousness announced by God through Moses.”

How exactly could Middle Knowledge be considered a separate entity by itself? In this theory, middle knowledge is God’s knowledge, not a fourth person. Again, as in your former post, you have failed in proving a theory of a fourth person in the godhead, as allegedly promoted by Arminius (or Molina for that matter).

Let us look at two short passages from Arminius in order to detect your fourth person. On the “Vocation of men to Salvation,” Arminius wrote: “We define Vocation a gracious act of God in Christ, by which, through His word and Spirit, He calls forth sinful men, who are liable to condemnation and placed under the dominion of sin, from the condition of the [natural] life, and from the pollutions and corruptions of this world . . . unto ‘the fellowship of Jesus Christ,’ and of His kingdom and it benefits; that, being united unto Him as their Head, they may derive from His life, sensation, motion, and a plentitude of every spiritual blessing, to the glory of God and their own salvation” (Works, 2:232).

No “fourth person” in that statement. Let us dig further. What could be the cause of man’s salvation. Is it his free will? Arminius wrote: “The Efficient Cause of this Vocation is God the Father in the Son. The Son Himself, as appointed by the Father to be the Mediator and the King of His church, calls men by the Holy Spirit; as He is the Spirit of God given to the Mediator; and as He is the Spirit of Christ the King and the Head of His church, by whom both ‘the Father and the Son hitherto work’ . . . But this Vocation is so administered by the Spirit, that the Holy Spirit is Himself its Effector” (Works, 2:232).

Again, no “fourth person” in that statement. As a matter of fact, what we find is three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Chris, could you detail very plainly your exact point in this post? What exactly are you trying to get at, mentioning Arminius in this your second post? (Consequently, since the statement of faith at your church is Calvinistic, stemming from John Calvin, could not someone also accuse you and your church members of possessing a Middle Man, or a fourth person? And what of John Calvin’s middle man, Augustine? And what Augustine’s middle man? I look forward to reading your future posts on both Calvin’s and Augustine’s middle man, or fourth person.)

As far as unity in the SBC is concerned, my being Arminian has not yet caused any disunity with my Calvinist brothers and sisters in the SBC. The bridges that need to built are between those who make these issues first tier matters. Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism is the gospel – Jesus is the gospel! Both Calvinists and Arminians preach that humanity is full of sin, which is an offense to a holy God, and that only through faith in Jesus Christ can a person be reconciled to God – all of this which happens through the agency of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8-11). Simply put, there is no fourth person; there is no middle man. All we have is the Trinity: God in Three Persons (not four).

God bless you and your ministy.

Thanks for braving the wordy post. I think you did hear what I attempted to convey. The truth given to us by God concerning ‘Unity’ is very instructive in those that God has established peace and brought into fellowship with His Son. My main goal was to demonstrate that Godly men throughout the history of the SBC have changed the language of cooperating documents for a number of reasons based upon their understanding of God’s way of saving, yet those changes in language and the wrestling over theories are not the basis or foundation leading to unity. In other words, Unity is not derived by acceptance of a statement or confession…. Unity is “maintained” because it is our duty to obey the command to love one another. Confessions and statements, on the other hand, come and go relative to the strength of men…but Unity is constant and supernatural by the design and purpose of God.

Therefore when you say….“I believe we must say that God has chosen us from the foundation of the world plus nothing and minus nothing. I also believe we must say that we are totally responsible for finding and accepting what God has provided. Both separate and both active in salvation; simultaneously.” …. I will have little heartburn.

So then, obedience to maintain Unity becomes a sweet smelling savor to our brothers and sisters in Christ and a strong witness to our neighbors…..instead of a fight to see who gets to eat the middle of the oreo cookie

Blessings brother,
Chris

When reading your post it seems that we mortals have a difficult time processing “kingdom truth” within our everyday-world way of thinking and processing information. We touch the eternal with mortal minds and cannot easily plot a course; at least not on paper or in any means of earthly communication we possess. We seem to have no problem with God being one and yet three at the same time or even knowing that God already knows what we need before we ask in prayer. I have thought about the unity of these issues, and others, and can only place their blending in the eternal arena. With capabilities of only seeing things based upon time and space we have a problem with the eternal aspect of what God says and does. In the eternal, and with the divine aspect there, I believe we will receive information differently. The language there will not have a beginning and end like ours in time and space. It will take what is conflicting to mortals and have a simultaneous blending affect. For instance, Calvin and Arminius show conflicting beliefs about salvation and both have supporting scripture. What is funny to me is that we split hairs on this subject and have no problem with the Trinity or Prayer. If it looks like God has conflicting aspects about Himself we should come to some reasonable conclusion that God works salvation similarly. Both ideas can exist simultaneously, but, only in the eternal. We, as mortals, have to see truth separately and focus on one or the other aspect at a time. When we place God on the mortal level and cannot combine both truths in salvation we may need to look for the whirl wind because God is not mocked. I believe we must say that God has chosen us from the foundation of the world plus nothing and minus nothing. I also believe we must say that we are totally responsible for finding and accepting what God has provided. Both separate and both active in salvation; simultaneously.

Great post. I hope I understood what you were saying.