Predestination should not be expected to be believed by all...at least not at first.

[alwaysreforming]

I found the following from Lorraine Boettner's "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" to be interesting. Without any commentary by me, here it is:

"The doctrine of Predestination is a doctrine for genuine Christians. Considerable caution should be exercised in preaching it to the unconverted. It is almost impossible to convince a non-Christian of its truthfulness, and in fact the heart of the unregenerate man usually revolts against it. If it is stressed before the simpler truths of the Christian system are mastered, it will likely be misunderstood and in that case it may only drive the person into deeper despair. In preaching to the unconverted or to those who are just beginning the Christian life, our part consists mainly in presenting and stressing man's part in the work of salvation,"” faith, repentance, moral reform, etc. These are the elementary steps so far as man's consciousness extends. At that early stage little need be said about the deeper truths which relate to God's part. As in the study of Mathematics we do not begin with algebra and calculus but with the simple problems of arithmetic, so here the better way is to first present the more elementary truths. Then after the Person is saved and has traveled some distance in the Christian way he comes to see that in his salvation God's work was primary and his was only secondary, that he was saved through grace and not by his own works.

As Calvin himself put it, the doctrine of Predestination is "not a matter for children to think much about"; and Strong says, "This doctrine is one of those advanced teachings of Scripture which requires for its understanding a mature mind and a deep experience. The beginner in the Christian life may not see its value or even its truth, but with increasing years it will become a staff to lean upon."12 But while it is true that this doctrine cannot be adequately appreciated by the unconverted nor by those who are just beginning the Christian life, it should be the common property of all those who have traveled some distance in that way. "

 

[biblelighthouse]

When I first converted to the Doctrines of Grace around 3 years ago, I became quite a "flaming Calvinist". I was an odious stench in my family's nostrils, and wanted to throw up on every Arminian I could find.

But my attitude was NOT of God. I turned people away from the Doctrines of Grace, rather than turning them towards our Sovereign Lord. I sinned!

God was patient with me when I was an Arminian, ignorant of His sovereign Grace. Therefore I need to be patient with my Arminian brothers, until God finally elects to open their eyes to His awesome Sovereignty.

Paul was very clear:

And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth

Paul wrote that passage concerning patient witnessing to non-Christians. But I think the passage also applies to our dealings with fellow Christians who trust in Christ for their salvation.

If we are commanded to be patient with unbelievers, then how much more should we be patient with believers!!

 

[TimeRedeemer]

I may just be coming out of the steel cage stage of Calvinism myself.

I think there's a stumblingblock in it though. The fear of being or seeming mindlessly ecumenical.

When in reality since a Calvinist understands the faith to its depth and heighth (I say referring to the value of Reformed Theology itself and not to my own intellect or anything like that) we can actually afford to be the most diplomatic and confident when defending or discussing or presenting the faith to others.

There is a legitimate off-the-mark element in Calvinist apologists that I see (despite those same apologists being impressive both in their knowledge and in their basic belief) which is a disdain to teach. Really it is a lack of development just in the areas of social interaction. A lack of maturity. Often they just can't talk and engage a person who isn't in 'their club'.

Take a James White, for instance. He's an impressive defender of biblical doctrine, and he has real faith. Yet he often giggles and guffaws and mocks people. He also takes attacks very personally and whines and thrashes about defending and justifying himself in a way a mature diplomat type wouldn't bother to do.

For the record, in my own little way, in my own world, I've been guilty of everything written above to an extreme degree (and I should also add that not every Calvinist or Reformed apologist is guilty of the above or is immature).

 

[Me Died Blue]

Of course we should be truly patient with people when discussing it with them, and also have a genuine concern for their growth. Furthermore, we know we will need to exercise that patience because indeed, not everyone is going to believe in the Reformed doctrine of predestination now. But why is that? Because we are still fallen and sin remains in the world, including in believers. Yet that does not at all excuse a faulty understanding of predestination, even for a time, but if anything highlights the fact that everyone is continuously, biblically obligated to (and in that sense "should") always believe it since it is Scriptural truth.

Originally posted by TimeRedeemer
Take a James White, for instance. He's an impressive defender of biblical doctrine, and he has real faith. Yet he often giggles and guffaws and mocks people. He also takes attacks very personally and whines and thrashes about defending and justifying himself in a way a mature diplomat type wouldn't bother to do.

I am unfamiliar with the types of immature tendencies and actions to which you're referring in White, and I'd like to see some specific examples supporting them.

 

[TimeRedeemer]

Two words: Dividing Line. Many of which are archived at White's Main site here: http://www.aomin.org/

For the record, I'm hardly the first person who has voiced a disappointment in White regarding his personal style. And as I alluded to above, his positives outweigh the drawbacks of his personal style, yet...

 

[non dignus]

I think I must disagree with Boettner.

When I was 11 or 12, long before I ever saw the inside of a church, I was 'witnessed to' by Bible College students. They promised me heaven, eternal life, etc. and all I had to do was pray this prayer....

Well to my mind that was the worst piece of a con-job I had ever heard.

Now on the other hand if he had said, "....God planned long ago to save certain people and the way you know if you're one 'em is you believe the words in this book." I think I might have assented.

That is way more believable, don't you think?

[Edited on 1-16-2006 by non dignus]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I have to say that I too disagree with Boettner here. Predestination in its deep explanations may not be suitable for babes, but children as young as 10 or 12 usually had the catechism memorized in byegone days. The best introduction is to simply treat it as fact, and discuss it as a matter of course, not worrying about "when" to bring it up.

The really powerful argument for me occured back in 2001, when beginning a series preaching through Paul's letters to the Thessalonians. No later than verse 4 of chpter 1 he refers to predestinarian matters--election--and this without a single additional word of explanation. Paul expected that these Christians who sincerely received the Word, imitated the apostles, and well remembered his teaching, to understand what he was saying.

Paul was with these believers for less than ONE month. Yet he left them with a fairly good grasp of the biblical ordo salutis. It helped that there was already a synagogue there, a place where spiritually minded Old Covenant people had already gathered, and from which God provided much of the "elder material" (men) used by the earliest church to found it in strength. But that wasn't the case everywhere. An OT background would certainly help by teaching a sovereign, electing God.

 

[Preach]

I preach the Gospel Sunday by Sunday. We have a church plant and our core families are Arminian and dispensational (they all came out of the same Baptist church). We have a number of visitors who are not Christians but attend because they have relationships with those who are part of the core families.

I preach the whole counsel of God every week and attempt to point out the joy that comes from experiencing the sovereignty of God. Our people are slowly, but surely seeing this. The elders attempt to press this teaching home when we teach Bible study, marriage classes, and engage in personal instruction. They are actually seeing the Bible open up, and how it directly applies to their covenant keeping responsibilities!

By Gods grace, their blood will not be on my head.
"In Christ",
Bobby

p.s.-One of the visitors each week is my own mother. She is not saved, and the last thing I ever thought is that my mom would attend a church. Yet, there she is following the "life of Christ" (I"m following A.T. Robertson's Harmony of the Gospels"). I look her in the eye from the pulpit each week and never water down the Gospel. Please pray for my mom. Her name is Lois.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
I have to say that I too disagree with Boettner here. Predestination in its deep explanations may not be suitable for babes, but children as young as 10 or 12 usually had the catechism memorized in byegone days. The best introduction is to simply treat it as fact, and discuss it as a matter of course, not worrying about "when" to bring it up.

The really powerful argument for me occured back in 2001, when beginning a series preaching through Paul's letters to the Thessalonians. No later than verse 4 of chpter 1 he refers to predestinarian matters--election--and this without a single additional word of explanation. Paul expected that these Christians who sincerely received the Word, imitated the apostles, and well remembered his teaching, to understand what he was saying.

Paul was with these believers for less than ONE month. Yet he left them with a fairly good grasp of the biblical ordo salutis. It helped that there was already a synagogue there, a place where spiritually minded Old Covenant people had already gathered, and from which God provided much of the "elder material" (men) used by the earliest church to found it in strength. But that wasn't the case everywhere. An OT background would certainly help by teaching a sovereign, electing God.

and

Great post.

 

[Puritanhead]

I remember when I was doing evangelism outreach at Liberty, with others, one 'evangelist' was so averse to the doctrine of predestination... I over heard him, and noticed he said in every message to the presumably unconverted, "...The Gospel doesn't say anything about being predestined..." and he probably threw a "...whosoever will..." in his sales pitch too.


I developed enmity against cheesy, dispie-Arminian, insurance-salesman style evangelism which tries to beguile someone into a confession, and hit them over the head with a Bible figuratively speaking. Seeing shoddy evangelism, led me to contemplate more prudent, sound methods of evangelism.

[Edited on 1-20-2006 by Puritanhead]

 

[non dignus]

Particularly distastful is the method adults employ towards unchurched children. The adult often misuses his authority vested in age, and intimidates the child, possibly without knowing it. More than once I was cowed into praying the sinners prayer in a desire to be obedient to my elders. If I didn't hate Christians before then, I sure hated them after that.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Luther says much the same cocerning pred./elect. in his commentaries on Romans. The order should be followed in the epistle. That one should first understand grace & the Gospel, that is faith be very well established, then suffering, then election. Then and only then can election be the support to the central doctrine of the Gospel & a strength.

Similarly Calvin says we should not seek out that eternally dark maze but the Gospel...where we are immediately cast down by God Himself (Calvin). Luther calls such person "high flying spirits" trying to see God nakedly. Luther goes further to show this is where Satan tends to work to further obscure the Gospel. As Satan, as it were, leads us to the edge nakedly of this phathomless pit (Divine election), seeking "am I elect" rather than the cross. As Satan ever so gets a man careening to find this answer this way...he often to the poor weakened soul who is careening so desparately to find out...Satan pushes him off and he despares utterly like Judas and does indeed kill himself.

Here, Luther says, the Devil shows himself to be just as Jesus said, not only a liar but a murderer.

L

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
I have to say that I too disagree with Boettner here. Predestination in its deep explanations may not be suitable for babes, but children as young as 10 or 12 usually had the catechism memorized in byegone days. The best introduction is to simply treat it as fact, and discuss it as a matter of course, not worrying about "when" to bring it up.

The really powerful argument for me occured back in 2001, when beginning a series preaching through Paul's letters to the Thessalonians. No later than verse 4 of chpter 1 he refers to predestinarian matters--election--and this without a single additional word of explanation. Paul expected that these Christians who sincerely received the Word, imitated the apostles, and well remembered his teaching, to understand what he was saying.

Paul was with these believers for less than ONE month. Yet he left them with a fairly good grasp of the biblical ordo salutis. It helped that there was already a synagogue there, a place where spiritually minded Old Covenant people had already gathered, and from which God provided much of the "elder material" (men) used by the earliest church to found it in strength. But that wasn't the case everywhere. An OT background would certainly help by teaching a sovereign, electing God.

I have frequently pointed out to those who charge Calvinists with "elitism" (a la Dave Hunt) that the six-year-old children in my church are five-point Calvinists. They do not have the ability to treat of these doctrines with the depth of Turretin, or Berkhof, or Dabney; but they still know what they believe. Catechizing is a truly wonderful thing.

Q. What is election?
A. God chose people to be saved.

Q. Did God choose everybody?
A. No, He chose some.

Q. Did God choose them because they were good?
A. No.

Q. Did He choose them because they believed?
A. No.

Q. Then why did God choose them?
A. Because He wanted to.

It's not necessary to teach a child polemics, or how to exegete Romans 9, for them to be a Calvinist. I would say that almost any doctrine can be taught to a child (or a new believer, for that matter). It's just a question of how deep you get into it.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by Preach


I preach the whole counsel of God every week

That must be one long sermon.

I enjoyed your post though.

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by Kaalvenist


Q. What is election?
A. God chose people to be saved.

Q. Did God choose everybody?
A. No, He chose some.

Q. Did God choose them because they were good?
A. No.

Q. Did He choose them because they believed?
A. No.

Q. Then why did God choose them?
A. Because He wanted to.

Side bar: Is that the Westminster Shorter'? If not, could you direct me to it?

 

[Kaalvenist]

Originally posted by non dignus

Originally posted by Kaalvenist


Q. What is election?
A. God chose people to be saved.

Q. Did God choose everybody?
A. No, He chose some.

Q. Did God choose them because they were good?
A. No.

Q. Did He choose them because they believed?
A. No.

Q. Then why did God choose them?
A. Because He wanted to.

Side bar: Is that the Westminster Shorter'? If not, could you direct me to it?

No, that was my own example of how to teach little kids the doctrine of election by catechizing. Little kids can eat some meat, as long as you cut it up into bitesize chunks.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism has this to say on election:

Q. 20. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A. God having, out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
I have to say that I too disagree with Boettner here. Predestination in its deep explanations may not be suitable for babes, but children as young as 10 or 12 usually had the catechism memorized in byegone days. The best introduction is to simply treat it as fact, and discuss it as a matter of course, not worrying about "when" to bring it up.

The really powerful argument for me occured back in 2001, when beginning a series preaching through Paul's letters to the Thessalonians. No later than verse 4 of chpter 1 he refers to predestinarian matters--election--and this without a single additional word of explanation. Paul expected that these Christians who sincerely received the Word, imitated the apostles, and well remembered his teaching, to understand what he was saying.

Paul was with these believers for less than ONE month. Yet he left them with a fairly good grasp of the biblical ordo salutis. It helped that there was already a synagogue there, a place where spiritually minded Old Covenant people had already gathered, and from which God provided much of the "elder material" (men) used by the earliest church to found it in strength. But that wasn't the case everywhere. An OT background would certainly help by teaching a sovereign, electing God.

Bruce,

It seems like a lot of folks keyed off your objection so I wanted to discuss whether you're critiquing what Boettner is concerned about.

I certainly don't disagree that the specific issue of predestination is not too hard for a simple man to understand but that is not his point. He is not arguing that most men are too dense to comprehend predestination but whether it should be an "up front" issue when you are presenting the call of the Gospel to a man for the first time.

I think the key considerations to an introductory Gospel message are a recognition of being dead in sin and a longing for deliverance, running to the command of the Cross to repent and believe.

Paul, and the Apostles, were certainly not afraid of talking about the Elect of God so I'm not saying we should treat it as a taboo subject. Preachers of the Word should certainly not shy away from what the Scriptures say. If Paul is addressing the Elect in Thesselonica and you're exegeting then I'm not arguing that you should avoid it just because there's a person that might not get it.

Nevertheless, Paul is, after all, writing to believers in his Epistles. It's hard to argue that his specific letter is an example of how he always introduced the Gospel for the first time. He certainly waits for some time in Romans, laying out the need for salvation first, then who provides it, and our confidence in it, before turning to predestination. It seems when the subject of election is introduced that it is used to give confidence in the believer that he will persevere.

It is reasonable to argue that when people have a faulty view of predestination it casts some doubt on whether they really have the concept of God's grace in their bloodstream. I quite agree but, it is my experience that people who have their "total depravity" ducks in a row and the knowledge that they can do nothing in themselves don't usually argue against the need for grace in election too vigorously. In other words, faulty views of election have their root in a low view of our depravity and God's Holiness. If we are focusing on those aspects when we are presenting the Gospel first then there is not much work to do when you get to the subject of election. Bringing up election before a person has the depravity and holiness blocks in place only seems to risk distracting the person.

I've been taking the adult Sunday School class at the SBC Church I attend through Galatians. I have never brought up the doctrine of election once but I have brought it up without them knowing it. Knowing their inculturated aversion to the word "predestined", they still nod in agreement when I say that God loved them first and they we didn't have the ability to love him in our fallen condition. They nod when I say that God's foreknowledge of His saints was fore-love. They nod in agreement when I say that it is only the Spirit of God that allows us to answer Love with love and that apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit we naturally are enemies of God. These are Arminians mind you. I even taught them how problematic altar calls were and caused them to think about such things more deeply (again more nods).

I'm not saying I have the "ideal" method. I certainly could do better. My point is that there are ways to get the Biblical truths of God's electing love to his saints in a way that doesn't give them an excuse to dismiss it. I'm not ashamed of predestination but I think you understand what I'm saying.

Thus, I don't think the issue is one of "too hard for the Average Joe" as Boettner presents it. It's a matter of what is primary in the initial presentation and I don't see a full-orbed understanding of how we respond in repentance and belief to be a primary issue. It is more important, rather, THAT we repent and believe.

I'll close with the WCF:

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

[Edited on 3-1-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Rich,
My only come-back is this: Sure, the first thing people need to hear is the fact of sin and guilt, followed by the divine remedy. Most everyone doesn't need the doctrine of election as part of the essential gospel presentation. And maybe I misunderstood the good LB. He certainly deserves our respect and admiration. Not taking anything away from him.

But the PB's own Paul Manata gives a stout testimony of how his rebellious heart was broken by the fact of election. He despised the Arminian's God. Then one day he ran across a WS-Cal student who started giving him different answers to all his God-mocking questions.

All I'll say is--don't fear the doctrine of election, ever. Talk about predestination if it comes up. Treat it with prudence. Try not to get hung-up on it if it seems like a distraction to the issues of sin, guilt, judgment, and remedy. I'm preaching through Romans--the "normative" gospel presentation--and believe me, I haven't missed the logic of it. I have hammered home the fact that the bad news precedes the good. The implications of God's complete sovereignty are always implicit though not always explicit, even in Paul's sermon to the pagans in Acts 17.

Don't purposefully avoid election, as though one couldn't possibly begin there as well as most any place and cut a straight course to the Cross, is to misunderstand the interlocking nature of God's revelation. As well as contradicting at least one (and probably many others) real-life experience.

And I think you are doing well with your class, progressing through Galatians. Certainly I think that circumstances--especially in this climate where we are overrun with misperceptions of God's sovereignty--demands the greatest care in shepherding folks back to the green pastures of Biblical predestination from the wilderness of Arminianism. But again, that is one church context, one group of individuals.

I think we are closer together (in the last analysis) than maybe appeared at first.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thanks Bruce. I never thought we were far apart on the issue. I agree with everything you just said. I am not ashamed of election because it ultimately points to our need for sheer grace. I appreciate your perspectives greatly.

 

[turmeric]

This has been fun to read. I keep struggling personally with this question; would I have become a Christian sooner if I'd heard the real Gospel, was I just confused by the Arminian/Perfectionist/Dispensational model? I think if I'd been a Christian, something would have been telling me; God is wonderful, these people are telling me something wrong here.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by turmeric
This has been fun to read. I keep struggling personally with this question; would I have become a Christian sooner if I'd heard the real Gospel, was I just confused by the Arminian/Perfectionist/Dispensational model? I think if I'd been a Christian, something would have been telling me; God is wonderful, these people are telling me something wrong here.

Yeah but you weren't predestined to hear it back then.

 

[ReadBavinck]

I think R.B. Kuiper would have enjoyed this discussion too. He wrote in his book, God-Centered Evangelsim; it comes from the 3rd chapter "God's Sovereign Election and Evangelsim":

An old illustration makes abundantly clear what use should not be made of the of the doctrine of election in dealing with the unsaved. We may speak of the house of salvation. The foundation of that house is the divine decree of election, the entrance is Christ. Said He: 'I am the door' (John 10:9). As those who by the grace of God are within the house invite those without to enter, shall they point them to the foundation or to the door? The answer is self-evident. And so, when the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas what he had to do to be saved, they did not advise him to seek to discover whether he might be numbered among the elect; they commanded him to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31).

He continues. . .

Doese it follow that men should be kept in ignorance of election until they have received Christ in faith? The answer to that question must, of course, be negative. . Contrariwise, they should be warned against distorting this truth and exhorted to its proper use.

Specifically, they should be told:
1) that election spells salvation by divine grace, that human merit is out of the question, and that therefore there is hope for the chief of sinners;

2) that the God of election sincerely, cordially, urgently even, invites every sinner to salvation; that predestination, far from ecluding human responsibility, definitely includes it so that all who hear the gospel proclaimed are in sacred duty bound to believe, and, God not being the cause of unbelief as He is the cause of faith, those who persist in unbelief perish wholly through their own fault;

3) that the decree of election is not secret in the sense that none can be certain of belonging to the elect, but that, on the contrary, faith in Christ being the fruit and also the proof of elction, one can be just as sure of being numbered among the elect as of being a believer;

4) that the house into which they are invited has an eternal, unmovable foundation, so that he who enters, though all hell should assail him, cannot possibly pership but will most certainly inherit everlasting life.

(The itallics in the first quote are his, I added the numbers in the second for ease of reading.)

Not only helpful in understanding the relationship between evangelsim and the doctrine of election, but encouraging to me everytime I read it.

 

[Magma2]

The doctrine of Predestination is a doctrine for genuine Christians. Considerable caution should be exercised in preaching it to the unconverted. It is almost impossible to convince a non-Christian of its truthfulness, and in fact the heart of the unregenerate man usually revolts against it.

I too disagree with Boettner (which I guess means I agree with Bruce and some of the other dissenters). What is lacking in Boettner "œcaution" is that it is impossible to convince a non-Christian of the truthfulness of almost anything, much less the gospel. The problem is that it is not that the doctrine of predestination is hard to understand, rather it is impossible to believe. But isn´t this true of the entire gospel message? I think the greater danger is that most unbelievers and even believers are sold a false bill of goods. The gospel they hear is the gospel of the Arminian and that god is not a god to be feared and worshiped. Pitied perhaps.

Also, I think it important to remember that in Peter´s inaugural sermon he includes predestination as an integral part of his message and seems completely unconcerned that he might offend the unconverted. If men take Boettner´s advice, which I´m convinced too many have, predestination is then never taught because in any worship service or Sunday school class there is always the likelihood that the "œunconverted" are in attendance. I think his type of thinking has been influenced by the errant revivalist mentality and the notion that Arminianism is not a false gospel but rather just gospel light; a stepping stone to a deeper truth and a fuller gospel. Frankly, such "œCalvinists" share the same mentality as Charismatics. Paul said he was innocent of the blood of all men because he did not shrink from declaring the whole counsel of God. Yet, too many preachers, even Reformed preachers, are satisfied preaching a truncated, distorted or even errant message thinking they´re doing the work of an "œevangelist." Calvin said:

"œDearly beloved brethren we must not be amazed if the article of the everlasting predestination to God, be so assaulted and fought against by Satan´s maintainers, seeing it is the foundation of our salvation, and also serveth for the better magnifying of the free goodness of God towards us. On the other side those Dogs which bark against it thinking to have a good and favorable cause are therein more hardy: as in very truth there is nothing more contrary to man´s understanding, than to place the cause of our salvation in the good will of God, in saying, that it belongeth to him alone to choose us: without finding of anything in us wherefore he should choose us: and after he hath chosen us, to give us faith through which we should be justified. But what? Inasmuch as he is not bound to the person, it is good reason that he be left in his mere liberty to give grace unto whom he will, and to leave the rest in his perdition."

in my opinion there are too many who end up aiding "œSatan´s maintainers" all in an effort to cater to their audience.

[Edited on 3-1-2006 by Magma2]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Sean,

Are you speaking from personal experience in Evangelism or are you theorizing about people receiving the Gospel.

You posit:

The problem is that it is not that the doctrine of predestination is hard to understand, rather it is impossible to believe. But isn´t this true of the entire gospel message?

Interesting. So you are distinguishing between predestination and the gospel message in your statement. In other words, the gospel message CAN be presented without mentioning the doctrine of predestination.

Assume, for instance, you were reading from the book of Romans and a person was nodding in agreement the whole time. You even hear them groan as you read through Chapter 2 as they acknowledge they are under condemnation. You read Romans 3 and they say: "You mean Christ can be the Just for Me so that I am Justified?"

Is that person a believer or not? Have you produced a false believer because they have not yet fully understood why they believed, why the Spirit moved their heart? Are they a false believer because they do not yet fully understand when God ordained their salvation?

Really Sean. If they agree with Romans 2 and their utter wretchedness before a Holy God and that they are not righteous in and of themselves then my point is that when you get around to teaching them things about election they're not going to be surprised that God had to predestine them in His forelove because they've already accepted their inability.

There is nothing "catering" to an audience in making the Gospel a clear command. The way it becomes unclear is when people start adorning it with a bunch of extra theologically precise things that, while true, tend to confuse the simple way in which people can be cut to the heart. Peter didn't preach predestination at Pentecost, Stephen didn't at the Sanhedrin, Paul didn't at Athens, etc. I'm not saying avoid it but it's not a necessary component of initial belief.

 

[Magma2]

Are you speaking from personal experience in Evangelism or are you theorizing about people receiving the Gospel.

Hi Rich. Sorry I didn´t get back sooner. I´m not exactly what you´re asking, but certainly Peter´s first sermon wasn´t a personal experience. What is from personal experience is that I´ve met many Reformed Pastors and regular pew-ons like myself who really don´t see the doctrine of predestination as an integral part of the gospel message and because they fear it will "œturn-off" too many listeners they simply avoid the topic. Then there are the Reformed folks who are almost apologetic for believing, much less defending the doctrine. I guess you could call it a form of theological political correctness.

You posit:
Quote:
The problem is that it is not that the doctrine of predestination is hard to understand, rather it is impossible to believe. But isn´t this true of the entire gospel message?

Interesting. So you are distinguishing between predestination and the gospel message in your statement. In other words, the gospel message CAN be presented without mentioning the doctrine of predestination.

Yes, I think so, but without a firm foundation many are left to build their faith on sand or stilts. While some here praise and applaud the Arminians for their evangelistic prowess, I think the ersatz-Evangelical world is a wasteland. And that observation IS from years of personal experience. in my opinion this is why the church today is so positively anemic. There are other reason, but I think the church is in a pretty dire state and the P&R denominations, rather than proclaiming a clear message, are mired in perspectivalist babble, dialectical theology and other infidelities some more fatal than others. After all, the FV attack on justification didn´t happen in a vacuum.

Assume, for instance, you were reading from the book of Romans and a person was nodding in agreement the whole time. You even hear them groan as you read through Chapter 2 as they acknowledge they are under condemnation. You read Romans 3 and they say: "You mean Christ can be the Just for Me so that I am Justified?"

Is that person a believer or not? Have you produced a false believer because they have not yet fully understood why they believed, why the Spirit moved their heart? Are they a false believer because they do not yet fully understand when God ordained their salvation?

I hardly think what you described would amount to a credible profession of faith. Further, even if the profession was credible it doesn´t follow that I can then know they´re justified. The epistemic standard for knowledge is pretty high, but I´m happy to give someone, including myself, the benefit of the doubt. :bigsmile:

Really Sean. If they agree with Romans 2 and their utter wretchedness before a Holy God and that they are not righteous in and of themselves then my point is that when you get around to teaching them things about election they're not going to be surprised that God had to predestine them in His forelove because they've already accepted their inability.

I don´t agree at all that teaching a person about election, predestination or even limited atonement is to be predicated on whether they agree with Romans 2, said a prayer, or even made a credible profession of faith. Pastors, of which I am not one, are charged with preaching the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I wish I had heard the truth of predestination much sooner than I did, but in years of regular church going, bible studies, etc. I never did.

There is nothing "catering" to an audience in making the Gospel a clear command. The way it becomes unclear is when people start adorning it with a bunch of extra theologically precise things that, while true, tend to confuse the simple way in which people can be cut to the heart. Peter didn't preach predestination at Pentecost, Stephen didn't at the Sanhedrin, Paul didn't at Athens, etc. I'm not saying avoid it but it's not a necessary component of initial belief.

Of course it´s not necessary. The point of disagreement with Boettner is that it positively should not be part and parcel of a person´s initial introduction intro the Christian faith and that is false. More to the point, it is positively crippling.

[Edited on 3-2-2006 by Magma2]

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Sean,

1. My question to you about personal experience is: Have you ever presented the Gospel to a Pagan? Simple question. I want to get a feel for your practical experience in Evangelism.

2. In my "Romans" analogy I don't know what you're guarding against. For whatever reason, knowing my Reformed orthodoxy, you assume that Romans 1-3 will be presented as "Jesus Loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" after which I'll sing a song of invitation and expect the penitent to walk an aisle in tears. I mean, really, once again I'm presenting something that is true as far as it goes. Might I have spelled it out perfectly? Yes but it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. The issue is whether solid knowledge of one's wickedness and need for the cross combined with true faith in it is sufficient initial information for the delivery of the Gospel. Trajectories into whether a person is truly justified by a personal decision or the nature of knowledge are unwarranted and distracting. Stick to the point.

3. Nowhere does Boettner in that simple sentence state that election and predestination are off limits to new Christians. Bruce, who criticized Boettner for different reasons, was magnanimous to grant the point and admit that the call of the Gospel is not the call to accept predestination (I knew he would). Insofar as folks believe Boettner is saying that new Christians should never be taught predestination I want you to show me where he says so. The thesis sentence for the above paragraph is this:

"Considerable caution should be exercised in preaching it to the unconverted."

That is, IN FACT, CONFESSIONAL, as I pointed out. Are you taking exception to the WCF on this point?

Quit deflecting on issues that don't relate to the issue at hand. If Boettner is saying "Don't ever teach predestination to a new believer" then I've never defended that. If Boettner is saying: "Considerable caution should be exercised in presenting the Gospel to the unconverted" then what's the problem?

Neither Boettner nor I were/are Arminian and not responsible for, or sympathetic to, the crummy teaching you received at the hand of Arminian teachers. Further, to lump in all the problems that the P&R Churches have into this discussion as if to imply: "See, if they just presented the Gospel to include the acceptance of Predestination everything would be OK..." is just plain silly. If you are not arguing that then don't bring it into a discussion as to what the content of an initial Gospel message to an unconverted person must be to be genuine.

[Edited on 3-3-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[Kaalvenist]

Wow. I managed to bring a month-old thread back from the dead

 

[Magma2]

1. My question to you about personal experience is: Have you ever presented the Gospel to a Pagan? Simple question. I want to get a feel for your practical experience in Evangelism.

Sure, just this morning. I was discussing the finished work of Christ on the cross for the remission of sins in comparison to the Roman mass with a Catholic. Is that Pagan enough?

2. In my "Romans" analogy I don't know what you're guarding against. For whatever reason, knowing my Reformed orthodoxy, you assume that Romans 1-3 will be presented as "Jesus Loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life" after which I'll sing a song of invitation and expect the penitent to walk an aisle in tears. I mean, really, once again I'm presenting something that is true as far as it goes. Might I have spelled it out perfectly? Yes but it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. The issue is whether solid knowledge of one's wickedness and need for the cross combined with true faith in it is sufficient initial information for the delivery of the Gospel. Trajectories into whether a person is truly justified by a personal decision or the nature of knowledge are unwarranted and distracting. Stick to the point.

I guess we´re in disagreement as to what the point is! The crux of the thread that I´m involved in hinges on Boettner´s instruction which includes; "œThen after the Person is saved and has traveled some distance in the Christian way he comes to see that in his salvation God's work was primary and his was only secondary, that he was saved through grace and not by his own works." I completely and totally disagree. I think old Boettner gave some rather bad advice that too many people seem to have followed.

3. Nowhere does Boettner in that simple sentence state that election and predestination are off limits to new Christians.

I´m afraid he does. At least that´s how I understand "œtraveled some distance in the Christian way."

Bruce, who criticized Boettner for different reasons, was magnanimous to grant the point and admit that the call of the Gospel is not the call to accept predestination (I knew he would). Insofar as folks believe Boettner is saying that new Christians should never be taught predestination I want you to show me where he says so.

Now you´re reading into what I´ve said.

The thesis sentence for the above paragraph is this:

"Considerable caution should be exercised in preaching it to the unconverted."



That is, IN FACT, CONFESSIONAL, as I pointed out. Are you taking exception to the WCF on this point?

I don´t see that I have, but I think the problem is not that caution is used in teaching, but that it´s just not taught at all. Throwing caution to the wind would be preferable to the current situation as I see it

Quit deflecting on issues that don't relate to the issue at hand. If Boettner is saying "Don't ever teach predestination to a new believer" then I've never defended that. If Boettner is saying: "Considerable caution should be exercised in presenting the Gospel to the unconverted" then what's the problem?

The problem is you seem to be ignoring much of what he says.

Neither Boettner nor I were/are Arminian and not responsible for, or sympathetic to, the crummy teaching you received at the hand of Arminian teachers. Further, to lump in all the problems that the P&R Churches have into this discussion as if to imply: "See, if they just presented the Gospel to include the acceptance of Predestination everything would be OK..." is just plain silly. If you are not arguing that then don't bring it into a discussion as to what the content of an initial Gospel message to an unconverted person must be to be genuine.

First, there are a number of folks I've met already on these boards who are more than "œsympathetic" to the crummy teaching of the Arminian. As far as P&R churches I don´t think I´m stepping very far out on a limb to say that most pew-ons are woefully ignorant of the distinctive doctrines that makes them Reformed. But I don't want to pick on pew-ons either. I recall an RE asserting that man's will is not free in the usual "Arminian" sense of having the power of contrary choice until after the person comes to Christ. This was in context of a discussion on predestination mind you. Maybe the RE was just being cautious

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Boettner says it should be reserved until the believer has travelled "some distance". Calvin says it's "not for children". Spurgeon says it's an "advanced teaching."

Seeing as how we have so many new Calvinists that mishandle the doctrine, I think they are wise. We expect more mature believers to handle doctrines "...with special care..." and not children.

Once again, I believe to criticize Boettner, Calvin, and Spurgeon on this point and rabbit-trail into discussions on the peversion of the Gospel and other problems in the P&R Church is petty.

Insofar as he says "...some distance..." he leaves it to the reader to determine what that distance is. If you believe that "some distance" is the day after the person is introduced to the Gospel then make it the first topic in your catechism class. Boettner is not prescribing anything. He is suggesting. You seem to have a hard time distinguishing between wisdom and precepts. You might as well criticize Calvin in the same breath when he calls it not a "matter for children." Truly, he must be the "first mover" in messing up Reformed Theology...

I commend you for reaching out to Roman Catholics.

[Edited on 3-4-2006 by SemperFideles]

 

[mybigGod]

I was listening to John Murray on cd on this point and he said speaking to the unsaved about election would make the gospel more appealing.