Perceived Determinism in Evangelism Encounters

[eutychus]

Tonight my roommate and I were talking about how one discusses Calvinism when evangelizing or in gospel conversations. Neither of us believe that Calvinism needs to have any relation to the gospel, but a lot of times the intellectuals of Gen Y already know something about the theology, and want to explore this branch of belief. So yeah, to any Westerner, of course, they are going to perceive life as deterministic in a system where God is the player and we are pawns used to accomplish his purpose. They can't be argued against said belief, no matter how much you talk about the attributes of God that need satisfying in saving and damning, and the joy of receiving grace.

So we came to a conclusion, to...duh, focus the conversation on Jesus. For instance, when caught in a discussion like that, bring it all back to Jesus' incarnation and humanity. In their eyes, we are pawns, so remind them that Jesus was the ultimate pawn, and went through everything we do as humans (even in a land of determinism). Not only does this redirect the audience, but it focuses on the only thing upon which any Christian can have a hope of relying upon.

Just a thought that you should feel free to critique. I know that it may sound strange, but think of it contextually. I hope it helps you in any conversations in which you feel trapped and hard-headed.

 

[cygnusx1]

yet there are different ways of seeing determinism , I know some are hard Determinists , I favour soft determinism , God gives a degree of freedom , and what God has determined is mostly hidden ,,,, for good reason , to uphold our accountability ........ "one of you is about to betray me" not .. "it's you Judas , so you cannot make any descision"

 

[Rick Otto]

I have been responding:
"You say "Determinism"(pawn, robot,etc.) like it's a BAD thing!" (incredulous look)

The problem is to get them to see their cognitive disconnect re: total depravity & total soveriegnity.
They don't realize that God creating evil (Isaiah 45:7) dos NOT make Him an evil God.
...And Jesus is the living proof. Jesus took all that God 'dishes out' on the "pawns". That oughta at least give pause to any complaints of His bein' unfair.

 

[Jon_]

Tonight my roommate and I were talking about how one discusses Calvinism when evangelizing or in gospel conversations. Neither of us believe that Calvinism needs to have any relation to the gospel, but a lot of times the intellectuals of Gen Y already know something about the theology, and want to explore this branch of belief. So yeah, to any Westerner, of course, they are going to perceive life as deterministic in a system where God is the player and we are pawns used to accomplish his purpose. They can't be argued against said belief, no matter how much you talk about the attributes of God that need satisfying in saving and damning, and the joy of receiving grace.

So we came to a conclusion, to...duh, focus the conversation on Jesus. For instance, when caught in a discussion like that, bring it all back to Jesus' incarnation and humanity. In their eyes, we are pawns, so remind them that Jesus was the ultimate pawn, and went through everything we do as humans (even in a land of determinism). Not only does this redirect the audience, but it focuses on the only thing upon which any Christian can have a hope of relying upon.

Just a thought that you should feel free to critique. I know that it may sound strange, but think of it contextually. I hope it helps you in any conversations in which you feel trapped and hard-headed.

Quite simply, until they are ready to submit to the fact that they are nothing but the clay in the hands of the Potter, they have not yet been regenerated and they will want nothing to do with Christianity.

Calvinism has everything to do with the Gospel. If you believe that Calvinism is true, then you necessarily believe in a "Calvinistic" Gospel, which means that all five points of soteriology are applicable. That men use the fact that they can't choose God is totally irrelevant. It does not absolve them of responsibility for their sins at all. That they refuse to acknowledge their sins and repent for them is precisely why they are going to hell.

These are the two primary components of the Gospel we should stress: that man is an unrighteous sinner who has incurred the wrath of God, and that Jesus Christ was sent to save that which lost. Those who acknowledge their sins, repent of their wickedness, and believe on the name of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior will be saved.

Don't be afraid to speak the truth. There is absolutely no reason to hide the fact that unregenerate man hates and wants nothing to do with God. This is biblical truth. In fact, deliberately trying to hide it or escape the question might even be deceitful. Be bold with your presentation of the Gospel truth!

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[reformedfan]

Kuiper sez it's "unfair not to tell people of election", for it creates a false anxiety about something not in the hearer's control; Mr. Reformed Doctrine of Predestination Loraine Boetner sez hide the five points from the hearer; mebbe the best course of action is somewhere in between.

You could present the Gospel by a careful analysis of the 5 points, however. At the jail where i lead a study, they don't get TULIP every week, but they all know salvation is entirely a work of God's grace, but they will all stand before God for their sins, i think they get (as much as heathens or anyone else for that matter are able) the link between God's sovereignty & man's responsibility.

good stuff to ponder.

 

[erin74]

I was always taught to bring everything back to Jesus. I think it's a great idea.

 

[Paleoconservatarian]

Coming from a modern evangelifluff church, "focusing on Jesus" or "bringing it back to Jesus" has always meant "pick one from this list of warm, fuzzy statements about our homeboy Jesus and his father, the great big smiley face in the sky." It's used when one cannot answer a doctrinal question, or feels that the unbeliever would be offended by the answer. Perhaps you could help me to understand what you mean.

 

[erin74]

Totally not that. I was taught that any question a seeker has can be brought theologically back to Jesus. And that not to allow them to distract with arguments that are pointless, because salvation is found through the profound simplicity of the cross.

eg if it's creation they have an issue with - what was Christ's involvement in creation - that we are God's creation, and the pinnacle of it. That the world was created by and for Christ, and that it is He that we answer to. That's a pretty badly done example... but I'm not talking about fluff, I'm talking about theology. I'm not into fluff.