When a presentation of the Gospel turns into a discussion of Calvinism

[Davidius]

Should predestination be considered "meat"? Most Reformed Christians I've spoken with don't think we're supposed to understand it anyway, so how can there really be a difference in introducing someone to a doctrine they'll never understand when they're a new Christian or a more mature one? It was through learning about predestination that I was truly introduced to the God of holiness, freedom, and power and the thoroughly sinful man. Perhaps "meat" means things like covenant theology, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc.

 

[JohnOwen007]

Should predestination be considered "meat"? Most Reformed Christians I've spoken with don't think we're supposed to understand it anyway, so how can there really be a difference in introducing someone to a doctrine they'll never understand when they're a new Christian or a more mature one? It was through learning about predestination that I was truly introduced to the God of holiness, freedom, and power and the thoroughly sinful man. Perhaps "meat" means things like covenant theology, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc.

That's the nub of the issue, and a great question. I personally think predestination (amongst other things) should be classed as "meat", because it naturally raises a whole host of issues that are difficult to grasp both intellectually and psychologically.

As Calvin said, speculation about predestintion can take one into a labyrinth, out of which escape is very difficult. Hence, it is a doctrine not for the immature. It must be handled with care and hence needs some godliness in those who embrace it.

However, it is a doctrine that must be taught if we want to reach maturity! That is what many shy from.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Should predestination be considered "meat"? Most Reformed Christians I've spoken with don't think we're supposed to understand it anyway, so how can there really be a difference in introducing someone to a doctrine they'll never understand when they're a new Christian or a more mature one? It was through learning about predestination that I was truly introduced to the God of holiness, freedom, and power and the thoroughly sinful man. Perhaps "meat" means things like covenant theology, ecclesiology, eschatology, etc.

That's the nub of the issue, and a great question. I personally think predestination (amongst other things) should be classed as "meat", because it naturally raises a whole host of issues that are difficult to grasp both intellectually and psychologically.

As Calvin said, speculation about predestintion can take one into a labyrinth, out of which escape is very difficult. Hence, it is a doctrine not for the immature. It must be handled with care and hence needs some godliness in those who embrace it.

However, it is a doctrine that must be taught if we want to reach maturity! That is what many shy from.

I agree but...

I realized after we got into this circle with Matthew that my American mind was able to process an inherent problem in this discussion from the beginning even without the vegemite in my system. Notice that the title doesn't ask: "Should I leave out sovereign grace in my presentation of the gospel?" The question was whether or not a discussion of Calvinism is appopriate during an initial Gospel presentation.

Calvinism is an example of a "theological heading" that need not be discussed during an initial orientation. The terms "five points" don't even have to be utilized nor do other exact phrases have to be utilized. The goal is clarity of presentation and using terms that others may have a caricature in their mind concerning doesn't serve the communication of truth in all cases. It's funny how I've been learning about the debates during the Nicean controversy and how homo ousias had been used by a heretic so that men who otherwise agreed with what the orthodox were saying were gun shy of the term because others had misappropriated it. We are not faced with a "love or leave John Calvin" set of choices or terms.

Thus, I do believe that a proper presentation of the Gospel would not undermine the notion that men have been appointed to eternal life per se but I also don't think it would have to be spelled out. Again, this goes into the realm of the kinds of questions men might ask initially. I don't see how the milk of the Gospel can exclude a fairly clear presentation of men's utter fallenness in sin and incapacity to please God in their flesh. That God had sent His Son to be the propritiation for everyone that believes is the inevitable news that follows. That God has provided this remedy independent of anything good that He saw in those He redeemed is also inevitable. That God's gift includes faith is also inevitable in a presentation.

Now, if a man is sophisticated enough to reason by good and necessary consequence, suffiicient conditions exist at that point for him to lead to more questions as it implies complete Divine inititiation as God extends friendship to an enemy that was not looking for Him. But there are times for those questions. I think it is artificial to expect that every man, especially given the many men and women I know who are very simple people, would start asking profound questions right away. The natural response for a man to do is to repent and believe. If he is predestined, all the means for his salvation have been presented to him and Providence is always best read backwards anyhow.

 

[Davidius]

Just to clarify, the OP was meant to address the question of what to do when it looks like a conversation with an unbeliever is heading in the direction of Calvinism. I do assume that just walking up and beginning a discussion about predestination ("hey man, did you know that you might be a vessel of wrath???") is not the way to share the Gospel.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Just to clarify, the OP was meant to address the question of what to do when it looks like a conversation with an unbeliever is heading in the direction of Calvinism. I do assume that just walking up and beginning a discussion about predestination ("hey man, did you know that you might be a vessel of wrath???") is not the way to share the Gospel.

Roger that little brother. I'm simply clarifying how thoughts form in my own mind d not accusing you of anything.

Part of this is very existential to me. My family is Roman Catholic and when I first started learning this stuff I would start a conversation with my brother like: "Are you Pelagian or Auguistinian?" and then let the dialogue ensue that really didn't leave him anything but intellectually challenged.

I wasted many opportunities. I'm not saying I'm sage but I'm much wiser than when I was 27. I realize now that the thing I didn't force him to contend with is sin and what the nature of the Gospel is. I was focused on the headers and the forms but not on the substance of the matter. I could have penetrated to the core without even using those terms.