Search the Community

What a weird title. It is often the case that when engaging someone about a subject, especially in online forums, we can either share things that are so general as to be of no Earthly good (insert your favorite bumper sticker platitude here), or so technical that the person(s) to whom you are actually communicating approaches zero over a very short time (clearly the author's problem)! I suggest a few guiding principles and examples. Some background: 15 years ago a wide research study about Christian beliefs determined: Only 5% of adults in the US have a Biblical worldview or Christian Worldview (CW) A CW was only held by 50% of Evangelicals, 8% of Protestants, a lot less for Catholics. Given that data, why start with the assumption that the poster is one of the rare well-informed ones? If the poster is relatively new to Biblical Christianity and asks a question about say election, predestination, how free will can be compatible with a God who accomplishes his will by controlling his agents, and other such sticky questions I advise a conversational approach that helps ease into the finer details over time. Even people who have attended Reformed services for a decade are often unfamiliar with the various exegetical nuances of Calvinism. Those who atttend Baptists churches could be Calvinist or Arminian, Molinists, or heaven forbid, open theists if they are American Baptists, yet most will not know the various ways that distinguish their strongly held views from other views. If the poster is asking how God can be good and allow evil help them understand God's choice to make men in his image. That he loved and provided for them. That his plan is that those who do his will and become his children will rule and reign with him.That evil and suffering can produce character and Jesus and his disciples all suffered and were promised suffering while on this Earth. A non-example regarding the case above would be to tell them that infralapsarianiam and superlapsarianism both have as a philosophically necessary element of double predestination in them. Further exegetical requirements in proof texts require the reader to read in the phrase "the elect" ( eisogetically speaking), inserting it in front of every passage where God states he loves, "All," people. ---------------- What is the person really asking? Seek to distill their posts into bite-sized questions. Assume that, initially, they are unfamiliar with the various inferences (various theological theories that try and explain the Biblical data), and focus on aspects that all theories agree on, such as God's loving nature, or his just nature. Mention that, "The answer is controversial but all views share the following features..." Non-examples: Responding to other's responses to, "Correct," their view. Spiritualizing your answer as "The clear Biblical view" and poisoning the wells to other's views by suggesting that they used philosophy of men or worldly wisdom, rather than Biblical references (albeit pulled out of context), to argue their point. In fact avoid conversations with anyone but the original poster as your side conversations often detract from the basic doctrines and lead to confusion and doubt in the young believers especially. Here you can suggest that a poster "correcting," your erroneous view can start a new thread or reach out directly outside the conversation via message or email. Work on one-paragraph answers for new believers and store them in notes or somewhere in a file so they can be quickly submitted and be well-thought out and logically sound, and appropriate to the knowledge-level of the original poster.