Discussing Calvinism with Elders

[bsd058]

Hi.

Let me give a preamble. My wife and I are both Christians. I am a Calvinist, and she is not a 5-point Calvinist. She believes in Eternal Security and Perseverance of the Saints but for some reason does not accept the rest (honestly, don't ask me why, I didn't say that she was consistent).

We go to a non-denominational church that holds a lot of Brethren beliefs. Arminianism being one of them. But they know I'm a Calvinist and I defend my beliefs to the Elders whenever given the opportunity. Let me tell you this, they are the most loving bunch of people and I KNOW God has lead my wife and I into fellowship with them. I love them like they were my own real brothers and sisters. I would die for them. They mean everything to me.

So here is my situation. I discuss Calvinism with one of the elders a lot. He doesn't really understand a lot of the terminology (monergism, Arminianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Pelagianism, Doctrines of Grace), sometimes argues from emotion, etc.. He has stated that he knows exactly where I am coming from in terms of Calvinism and he said that he used to be a Calvinist. It makes me wonder if he really has studied it in depth because he lacks the lexicon to discuss Calvinism coherently and with focus. We'll start off discussing Total Depravity, and suddenly an objection to unconditional election is presented. Sometimes I'll use a term like synergism and he doesn't know what that means.

So, I sent him a video (about 9 hours long) on Calvinism so we could get on the same page concerning terminology and order of the doctrines and how they are connected. He seemed somewhat reluctant to watch the video (because he feels he knows what he needs to know), but I think he may watch it. The purpose of it was not necessarily to educate him, but rather to put us on the same page as to terminology so that we don't talk past each other.

I guess my question is, how would you all go about discussing the doctrines of grace with someone like this? Prayer and light conversation? In-depth debate? Or would you take a different strategy? I struggle with the 1 Peter 3:15 mandate to be reverent/gentle when discussing the Scriptures (pray for me for that). I love him more than life, but sometimes don't show it when we argue.

So...any advice?

 

[mark kennedy]

Maybe getting into already entrenched doctrinal disputes should be a secondary option. Just a few things here, first of all, justification by grace through faith has been the key to any Christian understanding of salvation since Christ first articulated the gospel to Nicodemus early in his ministry. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) when the Pharisees 'stood' up and demanded the Gentiles must be circumcised in order to be saved, Peter stood up and said neither we nor our fathers could endure that yoke. Then he silences the argument with an elegant and concise discussion of justification by grace through faith. The Apostles and the elders were in agreement just as any elder worth his salt will agree that justification is by grace through faith.

The works that follow are the fruit of the Spirit and are a work of grace just as all ministry gifts, callings and offices. James 2, the famous passage that says, 'can this kind of faith save you'? I'm paraphrasing but the point is the rich are mistreating the poor and James is asking is this even saving faith. 1 Cor. 11 is dealing with the same issue, the rich are stuffing their faces and getting drunk at the Koine love feasts while the poor go away hungry. Paul says, some of you are sick and some of you sleep.

That's two vital elements all Calvinists and Arminians can agree to, justification by grace through faith and bearing the peaceable fruits of righteousness. Finally dealing with predestination I think the Catholics have one up on us here. The emphasis on predestination in Catholic theology is on what we were predestined to be conformed to, namely the righteousness of God in Christ, not so much who God predestined. My point being, I think it's helpful to emphasis that salvation is that we are justified (made righteous lit.) by grace through faith and there was never a plan B.

It just really helps to be grounded to what beliefs we hold in common before wangling over the semantics and meticulous matters of doctrine and opinion respectively. I hope that helps a little.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[AMR]

For me all differences between Calvinists and anti-Calvinists are reducible to a proper understanding of the impacts of the fall of Adam, and hence all his progeny afterwards.

From Scripture, (e.g., Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph. 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14), it should be clear that the non-believer possesses no moral ability to seek after the righteousness of God, that is, to choose wisely upon hearing of the Good News.

At this juncture, if one is willing to believe these plain statements, it necessarily must follow that God must first act (Eze. 36:26) upon the non-believer such that he or she will then possess the moral ability to choose wisely, and in fact, will not not believe.

Given that not all are saved, per the above, it then follows that God was not disposed to act upon all persons, since we know not all are saved (e.g., Judas). Rather, our self-existent God acts upon only those He has chosen for His own good purposes, not based upon any merit foreseen in these persons (Ps. 136:6; Isa. 46:9-10). These particular persons are the one's given to Our Lord (John 6:37; John 6:39; John 10:29; John 17:11-12; John 17:9;John 17:22; John 18:9), a great multitude no man can number.

Further, when God so acts, it is an efficacious action, and cannot be made later not efficacious, since it was God who did the work and God certainly is not a being who later changes His mind. In fact, God will see to it that those He so acted upon will indeed remain steadfast in their faith.

The above thus establishes all the points of the doctrines of grace without having to explicitly launch into the usual TULIP type discussions. It should always be this way, for TULIP was but an aid developed in the 1900s by a Pastor to aid in the understanding of what Scripture teaches us about grace.

I have these verses on index cards: Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph. 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14. I give one to each member of a study group and ask them to read it aloud and then discuss the ramifications of each verse. By the time all have been read and discussed the dire state of the non-believer is plainly evident: spiritually dead, not wounded, thus begging the question, how then can these persons actually be saved? The answer is obvious: God, and God alone.

When objections to the above arise, they will always be reducible to the state of the fallen man in Adam. Denial of original sin in all its impacts is really what the sin of Adam was all about: man elevating himself above His creator and making himself the captain of his own destiny. This same sin continues to be expressed in any and all objections to the doctrines of grace. So, start with the "T", and the rest (ULIP) necessarily follows.

 

[bsd058]

I do like the posts.

They both make sense. I would say the first post by mark kennedy is more relevant to the discussion. While I believe what you wrote AMR, what I'm trying to find out is the best approach to discuss the topic, or possibly not discuss it.

It's just so central to other teachings, though. I'm thinking perhaps I should just passively talk about it whenever it comes up and if he brings it up, then discuss. Otherwise, I could hold my mouth shut and pray about it. Perhaps it's my attitude that needs adjusting first.

 

[twin1954]

I do like the posts.

They both make sense. I would say the first post by mark kennedy is more relevant to the discussion. While I believe what you wrote AMR, what I'm trying to find out is the best approach to discuss the topic, or possibly not discuss it.

It's just so central to other teachings, though. I'm thinking perhaps I should just passively talk about it whenever it comes up and if he brings it up, then discuss. Otherwise, I could hold my mouth shut and pray about it. Perhaps it's my attitude that needs adjusting first.

You cannot argue a person into the truth. If you could argue him into Calvinism some else can argue him out of it.

The next time it comes up don't use the terminology simply show him the Scriptures. If they don't convince him you will not with argument.