First Do No Harm! Matching Responses to Poster's Knowledge Level

[Uber Genius]

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.

[Riverwalker]

First I must say, that the truth is always simple. It doesn't take a lot of explanation.  And we could spend days debating it, or simply accept it.

For instance I accept that God is a trinity, His word says so and that is enough for me, but I will never understand it....not this side of my last breath

There is never any reason to use two dollar words, when nickel words will do.  Keep it simple.  I do not think I have used the words Soteriology or Exegesis in a sentence ever when talking to someone, since I graduated bible college.

Also for some bumper sticker slogans are of much earthly good, reminders of a truth, that we already know.

So indeed keep it simple, and leave the high minded pursuits and the three figure vocabulary for the Seminary and Theological discussions.

[hdtwice]

11 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

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.

Great idea... From a new forum member, and a newer Christian. 

Some of the answers I have read in other posts are a bit over my head, and maybe others as well 

 

Edited January 26, 2021 by hdtwice

[Uber Genius]

17 hours ago, Riverwalker said:

For instance I accept that God is a trinity, His word says so and that is enough for me, but I will never understand it....not this side of my last breath

 

Do you have a paragraph-length general description you use when discussing the idea of the trinity with. On-Christians or new Christians?

[Uber Genius]

17 hours ago, Riverwalker said:

There is never any reason to use two dollar words, when nickel words will do.  Keep it simple.  I do not think I have used the words Soteriology or Exegesis in a sentence ever when talking to someone, since I graduated bible college.

I agree (although struggle to do this as I sometimes misintuit the knowledge level of the poster). 

I limited the scope of my post to matching the sophistication of the message with that of the audience. If I'm in a room full of Calvinist Pastors I would not have a problem using some of the language I mentioned. Point is to communicate at the level of the audience. 

I would not communicate with someone who had a degree from a Bible college the way I communicate with a new Christian due to the advanced nature someone with your educational background would possess.

So discussions of complex theological differentiation require technical terms and philosophical arguments not offered to the newbie.

To your point above I don't even even use trite words like "Saved," due to their misuse in our culture since the Jesus Movememt. 

"God invites us to develop a relationship with him," is how I represent the concept to non-believers.

[Riverwalker]

2 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

To your point above I don't even even use trite words like "Saved," due to their misuse in our culture since the Jesus Movememt. 

"God invites us to develop a relationship with him," is how I represent the concept to non-believers.

That seems okay but it missing one of the most salient point of the salvation message. That there is a heaven to gain and a hell to shun. To be saved from sin is an important message. And yes it might offend some, but Jesus said He was a stone of offense. 

Romans 9:33

As it is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

[Uber Genius]

3 hours ago, Riverwalker said:

That seems okay but it missing one of the most salient point of the salvation message. That there is a heaven to gain and a hell to shun. To be saved from sin is an important message. And yes it might offend some, but Jesus said He was a stone of offense

I think you misunderstood my post.

I am substituting "God invites us to develop a relationship with him," for the phrase, "God wants you to be saved."

the presentation to follow involves god's love for all men (sorry to my Calvinist friends), god's standard is perfection, men are separated by sin nature and deeds, christ's substitutionary sacrifice, and finally that we need to freely accept God's gift, in order to begin the relationship.