# Introducing the DOG to Pentecostals?



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 7, 2005)

How should I begin to try to share the DOG with family-friends who are pentecostal?

blade


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 7, 2005)

I would highly recommend giving them copies of one or both of these two books:

*Chosen By God* - by R. C. Sproul

*Easy Chairs, Hard Words* - by Douglas Wilson


I have seen _real results_ with both books. Each one presents Biblical election in a very clear yet unthreatening way.

Each book is available on Amazon.com:











On a personal, conversational level, I would recommend starting off with the "T" of "TULIP" . . . ."Total Depravity". The other "points" of Calvinism seem unfair and/or illogical as long as a person believes there is still a little "island of righteousness" left in him. But once a person truly recognizes the utter depravity of the natural human heart, according to Scripture, then the other 4 points of Calvinism flow from there quite easily. (However, you might still possibly run into a snag if your family believes in the Wesleyan version of "prevenient grace" . . . if so, I can point you to some articles on the subject.)

Keep up the good work!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 7, 2005)

Thank you for the encouragement  I do give my insight subtly and at times they suprise me on how much they agree with me so Im guessing Im Lord willing making slow progress.

Blade


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jul 7, 2005)

What about the average pentacostal who has no interest in reading? It is hard to get far with such people who rarely want to talk then much.

I would go with discussing Total Depravity. It is a 'foundation' of the others. What do you guys think then about God's sovereignty? It is not _really_ part of TULIP although it could be considered a starting point (as in not explicitly mentione in the five letters).


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 7, 2005)

Honestly, I would start with the gospel ... if they don't have a proper view of salvation to begin with, they won't care about or begin to be able to understand the DoG.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 7, 2005)

I honestly think it does not really matter which point you start with, since they really stand or fall with one another. Different people with different experiences and theological backgrounds and presuppositions have different problems with different parts of Reformed soteriology. But in any case, the indispensable thing to do is simply to sit down and go through the Scriptures with them. That will do infinitely more than a thousand "philosophical justifications" of God's sovereignty will. I would say that is especially true with Pentecostals, since they tend to be particularly used to relying on subjective experiences and individual interpretations, and so getting them exposed to a biblical use of Scripture is foundational and essential.



> _Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih_
> It is a 'foundation' of the others. What do you guys think then about God's sovereignty? It is not _really_ part of TULIP although it could be considered a starting point (as in not explicitly mentione in the five letters).



The doctrines of grace are simply the application of God's sovereignty and providence to salvation. Total Depravity shows us that we possess, and can do, nothing on our own, hence the necessity for God's full sovereignty in the process. Unconditional Election shows us that God's choice is fully sovereign, not being dependent upon our forseen faith. Limited Atonement shows us that Christ's atonement is fully sufficient on its own, and does not need our willingness to redeem us, but rather fully redeems us into willingness. Irresistible Grace shows us that the Spirit's regeneration is fully sovereign, not being dependent upon our cooperation, but causing it. Perseverance of the Saints shows us that our security is fully in God's work, not ours. Overall, every one of the points is simply an illustration of how God is fully sovereign in each area in question.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 7, 2005)

You all have good points, the common thing I see is a poor understanding of Gods Love and his sovereghnty(sp?)

blade


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Honestly, I would start with the gospel ... if they don't have a proper view of salvation to begin with, they won't care about or begin to be able to understand the DoG.



[typical-Calvinist-rhetoric mode]But Gabriel, the doctrines of grace _are_ the Gospel![/typical-Calvinist-rhetoric mode] In seriousness, I agree with what you're saying. In presenting the doctrines of grace, one should always keep each individual point within the greater framework of the Gospel as a whole. Or, to paraphrase the musketeers, "All doctrine for one doctrine, one doctrine for all doctrine." In other words, we should always remember that systematic theology and biblical theology possess a sort of mutual checks-and-balances nature.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 7, 2005)

I guess what I'm saying is, most Pentecostals, if they believe what they teach, are likely not saved by the gospel. They have it alllllllll messed up. We should start with the gospel with them, and the DoG will naturally come in from there.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I guess what I'm saying is, most Pentecostals, if they believe what they teach, are likely not saved by the gospel.



That is where I would have to disagree with you, if for no other reason than my experience in the Assemblies of God for most of my life. While so many of the people I have experience with do not know how to express or articulate their views in very precise terms, most of them nonetheless have a basic understanding of salvation by grace through faith in Christ. There is a definite and large portion of the Pentecostal community that does not share the doctrines of the Word of Faith teachers, the Oneness Pentecostals and the like.


----------



## turmeric (Jul 7, 2005)

They DO seem to have a faulty understanding of sin - but then, so do I.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jul 7, 2005)

At the risk of going of topic who are the Oneness Pentecostals? PM if needed. I used to be pentecostal but we were just 'Christians' and didnt know people believed different from us.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih_
> At the risk of going of topic who are the Oneness Pentecostals? PM if needed. I used to be pentecostal but we were just 'Christians' and didnt know people believed different from us.



It is essentially a group of Pentecostals that denies the Trinity, and believes that there is only one person in the Godhead, but simply is called different things by Scripture when He is doing different things (i.e. Father when He is ruling, Son when He is redeeming, Spirit when He is moving). T. D. Jakes used to be a Oneness Pentecostal, and still shows much influence from them in his doctrine of the Trinity.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Jul 7, 2005)

Ah that makes sense. That is how someone two days ago said you commit the unforgiveable sin by not believing in God. I pointed out that if by simply not believing you commited the unforgivable sin then arn't we all guilty of it and salvation is then useless? He responded it only came into effect at death. When I asked if he realised the unforgivable sin was in relation to the Holy Spirit he said they were all the same and it didnt matter. Messed up


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih_
> Ah that makes sense. That is how someone two days ago said you commit the unforgiveable sin by not believing in God. I pointed out that if by simply not believing you commited the unforgivable sin then arn't we all guilty of it and salvation is then useless? He responded it only came into effect at death. When I asked if he realised the unforgivable sin was in relation to the Holy Spirit he said they were all the same and it didnt matter. Messed up



Indeed - that is a good example of how when a central doctrine is twisted or neglected, the rest of your theology will suffer as well. His misunderstanding of the Trinity comes with a misunderstanding of the deadly nature of all sin, the nature of believing in God, etc. That further reinforces Gabriel's reminder to keep the discussion on the doctrines of grace within the broad framework of the Gospel as a whole.


----------

