Middle Ground Theology on the Big 5

[chadMiddleMan]

Hi Everyone! This is Chad from the Middle Ground. I've dedicated the past couple of decades to reading, researching, pondering, and writing about proposed Middle Ground positions for several major theological categories, Old Earth vs Young Earth, Arminianism vs Calvinism, Credobaptist vs Paedobaptist, Premil vs Amil, Charismatic vs Non-Charismatic.

I pray it helps individuals, groups, and churches of opposing positions to bridge theological gaps, or at least find some common ground.

Come and check out the Middle Ground!

The Middle Ground

 

[Dave L]

Hi Everyone! This is Chad from the Middle Ground. I've dedicated the past couple of decades to reading, researching, pondering, and writing about proposed Middle Ground positions for several major theological categories, Old Earth vs Young Earth, Arminianism vs Calvinism, Credobaptist vs Paedobaptist, Premil vs Amil, Charismatic vs Non-Charismatic.

I pray it helps individuals, groups, and churches of opposing positions to bridge theological gaps, or at least find some common ground.

Come and check out the Middle Ground!

The Middle Ground

There is no middle ground between truth and error.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There is no middle ground between truth and error.

That's the Scriptural Truth.

Where did middle ground thinking come from then ?

(if this cannot be discussed in this section, I'll self-delete this post soon if requested, or maybe anyway...)

 

[chadMiddleMan]

Dave, you're exactly right. Typically both sides on a debate have a mix of truth and error in their assumptions and exegesis. The Middle Ground is typically finding the truth which they are both missing.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Dave, you're exactly right. Typically both sides on a debate have a mix of truth and error in their assumptions and exegesis. The Middle Ground is typically finding the truth which they are both missing.

Jesus said plainly and clearly that every lie, in fact every thing, must be given up if someone wants to even be His disciple.
i.e. no mixture.

 

[chadMiddleMan]

A Middle Ground doesn't mean a compromise.. It means a 3rd option where the truth really lies. And it just so happens that the truth often has some common ground with points from each side ... For example, a man and woman getting a divorce each have their sides of the story, which are filled with some truth and some exaggeration. The truth is, they both had some blame. Both have some genuine points, but both were wrong on several things. I'll call that the Middle Ground.

 

[Albion]

There is no middle ground between truth and error.

Correct, and there simply isn't a middle ground involved with every theological dispute. And to the extent that there is a middle ground with some of them, there is no reason to think that it is not just another erroneous POV.

 

[Jesse Johnson]

Typically both sides on a debate have a mix of truth and error in their assumptions and exegesis.

I wouldn't say "typically."
I once debated a fellow who subscribed to a mixture (since the two are not soluble) of Randian Objectivism and evangelical Christianity who eventually (but accidentally) admitted he was frightened of a threat to his livelihood should his theories be thoroughly debunked.

 

[chadMiddleMan]

Agree Albion, there isn't a middle ground in every instance. But the most controversial theological topics through the ages were often driven by sets of Bible verses that, taken at face value, could seemingly contradict another set of verses taken at face value. Hence two factions formed, and each faction typically did hermeneutical gymnastics with the other set of verses, rather than finding the truth which may or may not have common ground with the other faction.

 

[Albion]

Agree Albion, there isn't a middle ground in every instance. But the most controversial theological topics through the ages were often driven by sets of Bible verses that, taken at face value, could seemingly contradict another set of verses taken at face value. Hence two factions formed, and each faction typically did hermeneutical gymnastics with the other set of verses, rather than finding the truth which may or may not have common ground with the other faction.

But don't you really agree that, with most of those disputes, one side or the other has misread the evidence? For instance, it isn't that Faith saves vs. Faith and Works both save has a middle ground; and one of them is wrong from the "get go" because of a misreading of the Bible.

 

[chadMiddleMan]

But don't you really agree that, with most of those disputes, one side or the other has misread the evidence? For instance, it isn't that Faith saves vs. Faith and Works both save has a middle ground; and one of them is wrong from the "get go" because of a misreading of the Bible.

I agree. Either one or both of them are wholistically wrong from the get-go, because they didn't consider the proper nuances in their cherry-picked Bible verses. In the example you mentioned, perhaps the nuance is "what kind of faith saves?"... "a faith that will work". So that truth may share some common ground that the "Faith and Works" person relates to, but may need to adjust. It may also require adjustment on the side of the "Faith" person who interprets faith as easy-believism.

 

[Albion]

I agree...So that truth may share some common ground that the "Faith and Works" person relates to, but may need to adjust. It may also require adjustment on the side of the "Faith" person who interprets faith as easy-believism.

To me, this DOES sound like arriving at a compromise for the sake of compromise. That is something I believe you said earlier you were not talking about.

And if it is not that...then it is talking about arriving at a "middle ground" of sorts only by way of discarding the false elements in one or the other POV. That isn't actually a middle ground between the two theologies.

For example, "easy believeism" is not part of Sola Fide. It is merely a mistake made by people who think they are in step with Sola Fide/Salvation by Faith Alone (or perhaps it most often is a false charge made by people who reject Sola Fide against all who do).

 

[chadMiddleMan]

To me, this DOES sound like arriving at a compromise for the sake of compromise. That is something I believe you said earlier you were not talking about.

And if it is not that...then it is talking about arriving at a "middle ground" of sorts only by way of discarding the false elements in one or the other POV. That isn't actually a middle ground between the two theologies.

For example, "easy believeism" is not part of Sola Fide. It is merely a mistake made by people who think they are in step with Sola Fide/Salvation by Faith Alone (or perhaps it most often is a false charge made by people who reject Sola Fide against all who do).

Perhaps I didn't make it clear. It's definitely the second thing -- discarding the false elements in the two POV's. But often the third view is true in such a way that some focus, emphasis, or points of the other two views are true in the new system, or are true in a nuanced way. This type of thing I call a Middle Ground. Remember, a Middle Ground is still a different ground than the other two, it just has some point of contact with the other two sides, whether remote or near. Like a mediate point. I feel like the content I offer in my blog is of much more interest to discuss than over the title of it.

 

[topher694]

I feel like the content I offer in my blog is of much more interest to discuss than over the title of it.

Word police don't care much for content.

 

[Albion]

Perhaps I didn't make it clear. It's definitely the second thing -- discarding the false elements in the two POV's.

Okay, but I don't see how this amounts to a "middle ground." It's simply a correction being made about incorrect understandings that people may hold concerning one or the other of the two views.

To cite again one of the examples we both have addressed--'easy believeism'--that is not one or the other of the two poles in the Faith Alone vs. Falth + Works argument. It is only a distortion of one of them that some people have bought into.

Cleaning up the misperception doesn't put us in any "middle." It just straightens out what the two theological opposites actually are and we are left then with those two opposites as always.

 

[Dave L]

Dave, you're exactly right. Typically both sides on a debate have a mix of truth and error in their assumptions and exegesis. The Middle Ground is typically finding the truth which they are both missing.

This assumes too much. Some have the truth.

 

[public hermit]

Hi Everyone! This is Chad from the Middle Ground. I've dedicated the past couple of decades to reading, researching, pondering, and writing about proposed Middle Ground positions for several major theological categories, Old Earth vs Young Earth, Arminianism vs Calvinism, Credobaptist vs Paedobaptist, Premil vs Amil, Charismatic vs Non-Charismatic.

I pray it helps individuals, groups, and churches of opposing positions to bridge theological gaps, or at least find some common ground.

Come and check out the Middle Ground!

The Middle Ground

These are good articles on your blog. I appreciate what you're trying to do. It may help to pick one and then give the whole argument in your OP. This meta-discussion on "middle ground" is just going to encourage naysayers and "dogma thumpers" who haven't read any of your articles and, therefore, really don't understand your position. At any rate, good luck!

 

[chadMiddleMan]

These are good articles on your blog. I appreciate what you're trying to do. It may help to pick one and then give the whole argument in your OP. This meta-discussion on "middle ground" is just going to encourage naysayers and "dogma thumpers" who haven't read any of your articles and, therefore, really don't understand your position. At any rate, good luck!

Thanks, I appreciate the advice and encouragement.

 

[bling]

Dave, you're exactly right. Typically both sides on a debate have a mix of truth and error in their assumptions and exegesis. The Middle Ground is typically finding the truth which they are both missing.

They cannot both be right, but they can both be wrong.

 

[com7fy8]

And to the extent that there is a middle ground with some of them, there is no reason to think that it is not just another erroneous POV.

Yes, I think you mean, both sides can be wrong, plus there can be middle-ground stuff which also is wrong.

But the most controversial theological topics

What gets a lot of attention can be calling attention away from what really needs our attention!!

While ones are calling attention to controversies, are we doing what Paul says to do "first of all"? 1 Timothy 2:1-4