Thoughts on presenting Doctrines of Grace

[heartoflesh]

These are just a couple of ideas I've tried to put into practice in bringing up the Doctrines of Grace around "Arminian-by-default" folk and would appreciate your feedback. Am I taking the correct route or am I in error? Also, please list some ideas of your own that I can put into practice as well.

1) I never mention "Calvinism" or "Reformed". Unless it is mentioned by the other person(s) to which I will then admit I am a Calvinist for the sake of historical distinction, but that I would rather focus on the Scripture at hand. I really want to do all I can to take away any ammunition they may try to take up against me that I'm just "following a system". If I do get enbroiled in words and names I will endeavor to show how the Doctrines of Grace were actually a response to the Arminian doctrines, and not setting out to "enforce a theological system" on the church.

2) I want to deal with Reprobation right away-- This is their favorite stone to throw anyway, so if at all possible I deal with it right away and lay the foundation correctly. Show how mankind is utterly guilty and worthy only of hell; how God would be completely righteous and just if he didn't save anyone. We have absolutely no warrant to find fault with God for choosing to save some and not all. He doesn't have to save anyone. Period.

This is really the main problem people have in understanding the Doctrines, in my opinion. I see peoples eyes light up when I show them how faith is a gift, how Jesus talks about election, how calling works, how redemption is a certainty--not a possibility, how perseverance works..... but reprobation seems to be the big stumbling block that keeps them blinded to the whole truth.

3) I try to emphasize modern missions of the last 500 years and their Calvinistic influence. Talk about George Whitefield, Hudson Taylor, George Mueller--- although frankly most people have never heard of these guys so it doesn't mean much.

 

[Scott1]

You might find helpful doing a search (upper right) of some threads that touch on this topic.

Here's one:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f116/so...redominate-free-will-church-62390/#post804914

The situation you describe comes in a couple of cases:
1) The church has no binding Confession
2) The church has fallen away from its standards

This underscores a characteristic of reformed theology, and a great practical benefit we have in it- namely the principle that the unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement.

Without that, the communion tends to reduce to the "lowest common denominator" (e.g. a "list of essentials" or no specific, limiting theology at all)

or,

to the shifting sands of leadership opinion at a given point in time.

This is why it seems quite right to teach through the doctrines of grace thoroughly, and broadly with a plan towards adopting a binding confession of faith.