Evangelism and God’s Omniscience

Hammster said:

I am posting this in General Theology because we agree that God’s knowledge of all events, past and future, is inexhaustible. Nothing that has come to pass, or will come to pass, is outside of His innate knowledge.

With that said, there is not a single person whose final disposition is unknown to God. He knows all who will be saved, and all who will not be saved. Since He knows this, nothing can change these facts.

So the question is, since God knows who will be saved, and nothing can change this, why do we (or should we) evangelize? If God knows someone will be lost for eternity, what’s the point? They will never believe regardless of how much preaching we do.

Open for discussion.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a free will vs. predestination conversation that you are looking for.


“Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “ and not that he should turn from his ways and live? “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭18:23-24‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

“Say to them: ‘ As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭33:11‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
h

Hammster said:

I am posting this in General Theology because we agree that God’s knowledge of all events, past and future, is inexhaustible. Nothing that has come to pass, or will come to pass, is outside of His innate knowledge.

With that said, there is not a single person whose final disposition is unknown to God. He knows all who will be saved, and all who will not be saved. Since He knows this, nothing can change these facts.

So the question is, since God knows who will be saved, and nothing can change this, why do we (or should we) evangelize? If God knows someone will be lost for eternity, what’s the point? They will never believe regardless of how much preaching we do.

Open for discussion.

Click to expand...

Why?

A. Because Jesus told us to. That alone should be all the "why" we need.

B. Because there are (or are supposed to be) advantages on this earth to being in the Body of Christ. It's lonely being Job.

If evangelists listen to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit will direct them to places where the Lord has "enabled" people to accept the gospel, as He did with Paul.

Hammster said:

I am posting this in General Theology because we agree that God’s knowledge of all events, past and future, is inexhaustible. Nothing that has come to pass, or will come to pass, is outside of His innate knowledge.

With that said, there is not a single person whose final disposition is unknown to God. He knows all who will be saved, and all who will not be saved. Since He knows this, nothing can change these facts.

So the question is, since God knows who will be saved, and nothing can change this, why do we (or should we) evangelize? If God knows someone will be lost for eternity, what’s the point? They will never believe regardless of how much preaching we do.

Open for discussion.

Click to expand...

The sheep, those who will be saved, need to be called to leave the goats and come in.

~Cassia~ said:

Sounds right to me.

Click to expand...

I am really glad to hear that. Most Christians today do not consider Sanctification as a part of God's plan of salvation (after we are saved by God's grace through faith). They prefer just looking at the parts of Scriptures by Paul that talk about grace, and cut out the verses by Jesus and His followers.

You said:

Tbh I couldn’t tell you what they are.

Click to expand...

Calvinism or Reformed churches (Presbyterian churches and some Baptist churches) believe in a five point system called TULIP.

T = Total Depravity.
U = Unconditional Election
L = Limited Atonement
I = Irresistable Grace.
P = Perseverance of the Saints (Which is similiar to OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) or Eternal Security which is held by many Protestants who are Non-Calvinists). Note: There are Calvinists who believe you must live a holy life for Perverance of the Saints to be true, and there are other Calvinists who believe otherwise. Many I have talked with have argued that one can sin and still be saved.

To learn about the five different points, check out this link from Wikipedia.

Category:Five Points of Calvinism - Wikipedia

The problem I have with Calvinism is that God chooses who is saved and not saved and man has no decision in the matter whatsoever. So God is basically creating a whole bunch of people (the reprobate unelect) for the divine purpose so as to torture them for all eternity. That is God's good will according to the Calvinist who is honest and open about their theology. However, I just do not see this as a representation of the loving God of the Bible, though.

As for Calvinists who claim to be followers of John Edwards who was for holy living:

Jonathan Edwards said,

This is not exactly the kind of person I would like to be listening to in regards to living holy.

You said:

My studies have been more restricted to 1800’s mostly with a heavy dose of Origen

Click to expand...

I heard Origen taught holiness (Which is great). However, there are some things by him that I do not agree with. Origen believed in the pre-existence of souls and that one’s status in the present world was proportional to one’s commitment to God during this pre-existence. His negative attitude toward the material world wasn’t much different than that of the Gnostics he so strongly opposed. He also believed that everyone, even demons, would one day be forgiven and purified by God.

You said:

amongst the ECF.

Click to expand...

Is this in reference to the Episcopal Church Foundation?
Or is it a name for another church?

You said:

When Paul mentions putting on blinders I don’t think that’s to other people as equal in God’s eyes but rather to concentrate deeper into the places truth is found. I’ve never found that in any one denomination.
“Be careful where you look so that He may be found"

Click to expand...

While I believe a person can come to Christ by the preaching of the gospel, I am not convinced that all denominations are correct biblically in following our Lord. There are many things that I consider to be deal breakers amongst most of Christianity today. Then again, I try to follow the narrow way that Jesus referred to.

Side Note:

I do notice your use of the peace symbol. I believe the New Testament or New Covenant teaches Non-Resistance. Note: This would not be Pacifism. Pacifism is the belief that one is against all forms of violence of any kind (Which would discount the 2nd coming of Christ attacking the nations and God commanding the Israelites to destroy enemy nations). Non-Resistance would be more accurate of the teachings of Jesus and His followers. Non-Resistance simply means one is not react in violence if one's life is threatened or as a means to solve a violent situation or physical threat. Jesus said we are to turn the other cheek if we are struck and that we are to pray and love our enemies. This does not mean we should not try to help our family to escape if we encounter a violent situation. Our goal should be to protect all life, but it does not mean we kill our attackers as a part of that process (if they seek to harm us).

If you are interested, you can check out the many verses in defense for Non-Resistance in this thread here:

Nonresistance as Taught in the New Testament is Moral and Good.

As for the peace symbol itself:

Well, I believe that it came about as a symbol from the world and not as a result of a Christian creating it. The peace of this world is not the same as the peace of God.

While it was most likely not the creator's original intent, I believe those of this world are influenced subconciously by the enemy. Thus, I see the peace symbol as an upside down cross with the arms broken downwards.

Bible Highlighter said:

I am really glad to hear that. Most Christians today do not consider Sanctification as a part of God's plan of salvation (after we are saved by God's grace through faith). They prefer just looking at the parts of Scriptures by Paul that talk about grace, and cut out the verses by Jesus and His followers.

Click to expand...

Along with all of the OT and digging in to chunks in between.

Calvinism or Reformed churches (Presbyterian churches and some Baptist churches) believe in a five point system called TULIP.

T = Total Depravity.
U = Unconditional Election
L = Limited Atonement
I = Irresistable Grace.
P = Perseverance of the Saints (Which is similiar to OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) or Eternal Security which is held by many Protestants who are Non-Calvinists). Note: There are Calvinists who believe you must live a holy life for Perverance of the Saints to be true, and there are other Calvinists who believe otherwise. Many I have talked with have argued that one can sin and still be saved.

To learn about the five different points, check out this link from Wikipedia.

Category:Five Points of Calvinism - Wikipedia

The problem I have with Calvinism is that God chooses who is saved and not saved and man has no decision in the matter whatsoever. So God is basically creating a whole bunch of people (the reprobate unelect) for the divine purpose so as to torture them for all eternity. That is God's good will according to the Calvinist who is honest and open about their theology. However, I just do not see this as a representation of the loving God of the Bible, though.

As for Calvinists who claim to be followers of John Edwards who was for holy living:

Jonathan Edwards said,

“The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. . .Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell. . . I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss.

Reprobate infants are vipers of vengeance, which Jehovah will hold over hell, in the tongs of his wrath, till they turn and spit venom in his face!”
​

This is not exactly the kind of person I would like to be listening to in regards to living holy.



I heard Origen taught holiness (Which is great). However, there are some things by him that I do not agree with. Origen believed in the pre-existence of souls and that one’s status in the present world was proportional to one’s commitment to God during this pre-existence. His negative attitude toward the material world wasn’t much different than that of the Gnostics he so strongly opposed. He also believed that everyone, even demons, would one day be forgiven and purified by God.



Is this in reference to the Episcopal Church Foundation?
Or is it a name for another church?



While I believe a person can come to Christ by the preaching of the gospel, I am not convinced that all denominations are correct biblically in following our Lord. There are many things that I consider to be deal breakers amongst most of Christianity today. Then again, I try to follow the narrow way that Jesus referred to.

Side Note:

I do notice your use of the peace symbol. I believe the New Testament or New Covenant teaches Non-Resistance. Note: This would not be Pacifism. Pacifism is the belief that one is against all forms of violence of any kind (Which would discount the 2nd coming of Christ attacking the nations and God commanding the Israelites to destroy enemy nations). Non-Resistance would be more accurate of the teachings of Jesus and His followers. Non-Resistance simply means one is not react in violence if one's life is threatened or as a means to solve a violent situation or physical threat. Jesus said we are to turn the other cheek if we are struck and that we are to pray and love our enemies. This does not mean we should not try to help our family to escape if we encounter a violent situation. Our goal should be to protect all life, but it does not mean we kill our attackers as a part of that process (if they seek to harm us).

If you are interested, you can check out the many verses in defense for Non-Resistance in this thread here:

Nonresistance as Taught in the New Testament is Moral and Good.

As for the peace symbol itself:

Well, I believe that it came about as a symbol from the world and not as a result of a Christian creating it. The peace of this world is not the same as the peace of God.

While it was most likely not the creator's original intent, I believe those of this world are influenced subconciously by the enemy. Thus, I see the peace symbol as an upside down cross with the arms broken downwards.

Click to expand...

Hmn sorry I went into Charley Brown mode.

In response to the OP:

The OP ending statement (after the two questions) assumes a form of Determinism by God that is attached with Calvinism. It basically states that people will never believe regardless of how much preaching Christians do.

To answer the first question: We evangelize because we don't know who will accept Jesus Christ by our preaching. But in Calvinism no amount of preaching really matters. If they are elect in the world of Calvinism, they will find a way to be saved by God even without a preacher.

To answer the second question:
Noah is called a preacher of righteousness in Scripture (2 Peter 2:5). This means Noah preached to a world that was doomed to destruction. God knew that they would not repent, but Noah still preached to them. Why? Because they had a free will choice to accept Noah's preaching. They could have believed Noah, and got on the boat. Meaning, Noah's preaching truly mattered. But if Calvinism is true, then Noah being a preacher of righteousness does not make a whole a lot of sense. Why preach to a dead world? It's because they could have made the right decision. God was holding out of a way of escape for anyone who may have had a last minute change of heart, but they refused God's offer.

To give a response in regards to the ending statement made after the two questions in the OP:

This is a statement that would be more in line with Calvinism; Hence, why folks are bringing up the Calvinistic version of Predestination, etc.

~Cassia~ said:

Along with all of the OT and digging in to chunks in between.

Click to expand...

There is much benefit in the Old Covenant.

“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;” (1 Timothy 1:8).

But I believe we are under a New Covenant with New Commands. The ceremonial laws like the Saturday Sabbath, the dietary laws, circumcision, and animal sacrifices, etc. have ended. The laws on justice (like stoning for breaking the Law) has also ended. The New Covenant began with the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross. In other words, while there is some useful things in the Old Testament, I look primarily to the New Covenant (New Testament) to obey our Lord because that is what is more applicable to us today.

You said:

Hmn sorry I went into Charley Brown mode.

Click to expand...

I watched a little of it when I was a kid, but honestly do not remember much about the characters of the cartoon.

So I am not familiar with the term.

Did you mean this?


Source:
Urban Dictionary: Charlie Brown

In any event, I mostly watch Christian movies, family friendly romance films, and nature documentaries with my wife. I used to watch more worldly movies like the Avengers, Star Trek, and James Bond, etc., but I have put these things out of my life so as to follow Christ because they promoted sinful things within them.

Bible Highlighter said:

There is much benefit in the Old Covenant.

“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;” (1 Timothy 1:8).

But I believe we are under a New Covenant with New Commands. The ceremonial laws like the Saturday Sabbath, the dietary laws, circumcision, and animal sacrifices, etc. have ended. The laws on justice (like stoning for breaking the Law) has also ended. The New Covenant began with the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross.



I watched a little of it when I was a kid, but honestly do not remember much about the characters of the cartoon.

I am not familiar with the term.

Did you mean this?

“A Charlie Brown is a “middle of the road” sort of guy. He is not extreme and doesn’t see life as “black and white.” He sees all the grays and variations, which makes him interesting in some way. Some people see this as a “wishy washy” personality, but it is not so.

Charlie Brown is not mainstream. He is loyal to his friends and has an under rated “offbeat” sense –of-humor. Overall, he is not a bad person to be around.”​

Source:
Urban Dictionary: Charlie Brown

In any event, I mostly watch Christian movies, family friendly romance films, and nature documentaries with my wife. I used to watch more worldly movies like the Avengers, Star Trek, and James Bond, etc., but I have put these things out of my life so as to follow Christ.

Click to expand...

“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;” (1 Timothy 1:8).
And to what the conscience is given free reign.
No not to offend, I meant the sound they heard when grownups talk.

I’ve read where your stand is and I agree with much of what you say but much is noteworthy of a question mark imo. So I don’t read it but especially not an exposition of another’s denominational views. I’m not so sure that’s even permissible to expound on according to forum rules iirc

Hmm said:

Your OP implied predestination even though it did not contain the word.

A good way to check my assumption would be this simple question: Do you believe in predestination? So, do you? A straight Yes or No would be very welcomed. If you answer No I'll abjectly admit I was wrong so how's that?

Click to expand...

Does the Bible not teach Predestination, even using that very word? How do you come up with the notion that God is unable to accomplish his plan except by the Sovereign Will of the Creature? The Bible only uses the term, 'freewill', in one place that I am aware of, and that has nothing to do with the use you imply.

~Cassia~ said:

“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;” (1 Timothy 1:8).
And to what the conscience is given free reign.

Click to expand...

I believe Paul warned us that if one seeks to be justified by the Law, they have fallen from grace (See: Galatians 5:4). This was in context to those who thought they had to first be circumcised in order to be saved (Galatians 5:2) (Also see Acts of the Apostles 15:1, Acts of the Apostles 15:5, and Acts of the Apostles 15:24). We are told in Colossians 2:16 that we are not to let others judge us in regards to keeping the Sabbaths, or holy days, or dietary laws. In other words, if Jews or Sabbatarian Christians judge us in not keeping the Sabbath, etc., we are not to allow them to do so based on Colossians 2:16.

You said:

No not to offend, I meant the sound they heard when grownups talk.

Click to expand...

That is the one thing I do recall from the Peanuts cartoon.

You said:

I’ve read where your stand is and I agree with much of what you say but much is noteworthy of a question mark imo. So I don’t read it but especially not an exposition of another’s denominational views. I’m not so sure that’s even permissible to expound on according to forum rules iirc

Click to expand...

I understand. We do have to be as innocent as doves and as wise as serpents.

As for different denominations:

In Revelation 2-3: Only two churches were doing things correctly. The majority of them did not do things correctly and they appeared to be in spiritual jeopardy with God.

Hammster said:

And you are incorrect. Predestination isn’t implied.

Click to expand...

Not that I disagree, but I can see how he might think so, apart from any prejudice concerning you. Logically, if your partial premise, which I would put like this, "God knows so it is a done deal", is true (which I also believe), and the reader brings into it the also agreed on (not mentioned in the OP) notions of Omnipotent, Creator, Planner and such, Predestination seems (at least to my thinking) logically implied.

Hammster said:

I am posting this in General Theology because we agree that God’s knowledge of all events, past and future, is inexhaustible. Nothing that has come to pass, or will come to pass, is outside of His innate knowledge.

With that said, there is not a single person whose final disposition is unknown to God. He knows all who will be saved, and all who will not be saved. Since He knows this, nothing can change these facts.

So the question is, since God knows who will be saved, and nothing can change this, why do we (or should we) evangelize? If God knows someone will be lost for eternity, what’s the point? They will never believe regardless of how much preaching we do.

Open for discussion.

Click to expand...

You probably guess my best answer before I tell it, but there are many many reasons. One of the most ironic is that God's Word will not return void, but will accomplish everything for which it is sent. There is no end to the revulsion of the Satanic forces concerning the word of God, and the fact that those who are at enmity with God, slaves to sin, will harden their own hearts at hearing the Word, fits in perfectly.

Perhaps my favorite answer is the compelling need one may feel to tell others about this astounding God we desire. "The lion has roared --who will not be afraid; the Lord has spoken --who can but testify?" I can't help it. I find it necessary to talk about him. (I find myself smiling and can't stop, saying this). Look at, Jeremiah 20 -- "But if I say, "I will not mention his word or speak anymore in his name," his word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot."

Probably, since you asked it in an intellectual vein, it is best answered by saying that God uses means to accomplish his ends. Pretty simple, that.

Bible Highlighter said:

The OP ending statement (after the two questions) assumes a form of Determinism by God that is attached with Calvinism. It basically states that people will never believe regardless of how much preaching Christians do.

To answer the first question: We evangelize because we don't know who will accept Jesus Christ by our preaching. But in Calvinism no amount of preaching really matters. If they are elect in the world of Calvinism, they will find a way to be saved by God even without a preacher.

Click to expand...

After how many responses to the contrary of your strawman do you insist upon it yet? Calvinism does not teach that no amount of preaching matters. That is only an extrapolation by those who do not understand Calvinism, those who find it repugnant to their notion of free will. You may as well say that Calvinism teaches everyone to lie down and sleep the rest of their lives, since nothing anyone does or thinks or cares about means anything to God.

Calvinism teaches no such thing.

But just for an easy logic, that Calvinism also agrees with, God uses means to accomplish his ends, both in softening and hardening hearts, if for no other immediate purpose. That much, I hope, you can agree with.

Mark Quayle said:

Does the Bible not teach Predestination, even using that very word? How do you come up with the notion that God is unable to accomplish his plan except by the Sovereign Will of the Creature? The Bible only uses the term, 'freewill', in one place that I am aware of, and that has nothing to do with the use you imply.

Click to expand...

There is a biblical meaning of the word “predestinate” and then there is the Calvinistic meaning of the word “predestinate.” They are not the same thing. In Romans 8:


Source:
http://evangelicalarminians.org/if-...glorified-how-is-romans-830-to-be-understood/

As for free will mentioned in the Bible:

Revelation 22:17 says,
“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”

The words “will” and “freely” are used in harmony with the verb “take.”

Combine that together and you have a free will choice being declared to the reader.
We also have to take note that the bride is telling the reader to “Come.”
This implies that they can be a part of the bride if they listen and come forward to the Lord.

However, if Calvinism was true, the last part of this verse would read:


But that's not what the verse says, and so Calvinism is simply not true.

Zachm531 said:

Sounds like a free will vs. predestination conversation that you are looking for.


“Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “ and not that he should turn from his ways and live? “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭18:23-24‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

“Say to them: ‘ As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’”
‭‭Ezekiel‬ ‭33:11‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
h

Click to expand...

Haha! I can see both proponents and haters of Calvinism agreeing with your post.