Evangelism and Number of People Saved

[user385]

We know from 2 Peter 3:9 that God desires that everyone believe in Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is a good thing if the greatest number of people are saved. It would seem that believers should try to witness to as many people as they possibly can.

We know from reading The Bible that God does not need anything. Read Acts 17:22-31 (verses 24-25 are very relevant to this discussion).

If any individual believer chooses not to witness to others, does that mean that all the people they could have witnessed to will not have anyone to witness to them? If a believer named George chooses to live his entire life without trying to witness to others, will God use other believers to witness to all the people that George could have witnessed to?

If George decided not to witness to others would God try to persuade other believers to witness to the people who George could have witnessed to so that they will hear the gospel? Or would all the people that George could have witnessed to not hear the gospel, at least not from a mere man? The question is if a believer chooses not to witness could that affect the number of people saved?

I think Romans 11:14 and 1 Corinthians 9 are relevant to this discussion.

 

[ChristianMatchmaking]

It was determined and chosen before the world was even made who and how many would be saved, and nothing can interfere with that. That is known as election or predestination to put it succinctly. Some people would also call it (part of) "Calvinism." Christ also indicated He would build His church. So yes, it does not depend on any one person's effort or lack thereof; no matter what "George" does, God will bring about the salvation of the elect by whatever means He has ordained from eternity.

 

[South Bound]

We know from 2 Peter 3:9 that God desires that everyone believe in Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is a good thing if the greatest number of people are saved. It would seem that believers should try to witness to as many people as they possibly can.

We know from reading The Bible that God does not need anything. Read Acts 17:22-31 (verses 24-25 are very relevant to this discussion).

If any individual believer chooses not to witness to others, does that mean that all the people they could have witnessed to will not have anyone to witness to them? If a believer named George chooses to live his entire life without trying to witness to others, will God use other believers to witness to all the people that George could have witnessed to?

If George decided not to witness to others would God try to persuade other believers to witness to the people who George could have witnessed to so that they will hear the gospel? Or would all the people that George could have witnessed to not hear the gospel, at least not from a mere man? The question is if a believer chooses not to witness could that affect the number of people saved?

I think Romans 11:14 and 1 Corinthians 9 are relevant to this discussion.

God's plans are not thwarted by our disobedience. If God has elected someone to salvation, He will see that they hear the Gospel.

 

[Galatea]

If George does not witness, George loses reward- but this does not effect whether someone does or does not ultimately get saved. Truly, I think being witnesses is cumulative. I don't think people who are saved can point to one person and say "George is the reason I am saved today." Paul planted, Apollos watered, but GOD gave the increase.

Yes, if George abrogated his Christian duty, God will send other Christians to witness. This is actually great comfort- not to be lazy, but if we screw up and are not as good a witness as we should be. If we bungle the job, God will send in the first string.

Romans 11:14- Paul is explaining to the Gentiles not to despise the Jews, because God wants them saved, too.

If there is a person who WILL be saved, God will move Heaven and Hell to get to that soul. I really think He uses multiple witnesses. That way, no one can glory.

 

[Grafted In]

Is witness a verb or is it a noun?

 

[Widlast]

You are supposed to participate in God's plans. George is a good as a heathen.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

We know from 2 Peter 3:9 that God desires that everyone believe in Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is a good thing if the greatest number of people are saved. It would seem that believers should try to witness to as many people as they possibly can.

We know from reading The Bible that God does not need anything. Read Acts 17:22-31 (verses 24-25 are very relevant to this discussion).

If any individual believer chooses not to witness to others, does that mean that all the people they could have witnessed to will not have anyone to witness to them? If a believer named George chooses to live his entire life without trying to witness to others, will God use other believers to witness to all the people that George could have witnessed to?

If George decided not to witness to others would God try to persuade other believers to witness to the people who George could have witnessed to so that they will hear the gospel? Or would all the people that George could have witnessed to not hear the gospel, at least not from a mere man? The question is if a believer chooses not to witness could that affect the number of people saved?

I think Romans 11:14 and 1 Corinthians 9 are relevant to this discussion.

If George does not witness at all then one would wonder whether George had truly believed in the first place.

And God does not need George to accomplish His plans, all whom God intends to be saved will be saved, but to not participate would show a lack of faith in the Gospel, and perhaps no faith at all.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

,,, Some people would also call it (part of) "Calvinism." ...

One thing I don't understand is why a person hangs a belief onto one person and then follows that person instead of agreeing that that one belief lines up with scripture, in their experience, and with the Spirit. Hopefully George has all his eggs in Christ's basket or those within his influence would be better off that no man taught them.

 

[bcbsr]

If George decided not to witness to others would God try to persuade other believers to witness to the people who George could have witnessed to so that they will hear the gospel? Or would all the people that George could have witnessed to not hear the gospel, at least not from a mere man? The question is if a believer chooses not to witness could that affect the number of people saved?
.

The rhetoric the Bible uses in this matter is contrary to that of the fatalistic puppet theology of Calvinism (really a regurgitation of Augustinian theology) in which the "elect" (which occurs prior to birth under Calvinism) are never not saved. They may be like Saul persecuting the church, and yet such people allegedly were never under threat of eternal condemnation seeing as it was always their fate to go to heaven. This in contrast to such rhetoric as Eph 2:3 "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath."

Regarding evangelism Paul also writes concerning those opposing him, "They displease God and are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved." 1Thess 2:15,16 Notice the relevance of that last phrase. So also consider Rom 10:14 "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" The rhetorical questions imply that it should be obvious that Augustine and Calvin were wrong in this regards.

Yes, likely millions over history could have been saved who are not saved because the message didn't get to them.

 

[user385]

Is witness a verb or is it a noun?

If someone has been saved, then they are a witness to what God has done for them. I was using it as a verb for the purposes of this discussion.

 

[ChristianMatchmaking]

One thing I don't understand is why a person hangs a belief onto one person and then follows that person instead of agreeing that that one belief lines up with scripture, in their experience, and with the Spirit. Hopefully George has all his eggs in Christ's basket or those within his influence would be better off that no man taught them.

That's not what is going on with use of the term "Calvinism." I have also posted about this recently elsewhere in the forum.

In some circles, the term "Calvinism" is used merely more like a convenient and efficient vocabulary word, having nothing to do with the larger teachings of the man whose name the word is based on, but merely referring to "predestination" or "election" alone. I just added it there for completeness's sake, though I could just as easily have left it out. This forum is actually the first time in my life I'm aware of that people don't already know that such a term is (or at least used to be) commonly used that way, so I guess surprises still happen.

Obviously, the only important issue is whether any teaching is Biblical or not. So one can call it whatever one likes really.

Same goes for "Arminian" - often used as just another word to refer to a belief in free will conversion in contrast to the above, not to all the teachings of the one man.

 

[user385]

Ezekiel 3:16-22 also indicates the importance of evangelism. I realize that God was talking to Ezekiel and that Ezekiel was a watchman unto The House of Israel. Could the words in that passage indicate that a non-believer who dies might have believed in Jesus and have become saved if only someone had persuaded them to believe there is a punishment for sins and persuaded them to believe in Jesus Christ.

 

[graceandpeace]

We know from 2 Peter 3:9 that God desires that everyone believe in Jesus Christ. Therefore, it is a good thing if the greatest number of people are saved. It would seem that believers should try to witness to as many people as they possibly can.

We know from reading The Bible that God does not need anything. Read Acts 17:22-31 (verses 24-25 are very relevant to this discussion).

If any individual believer chooses not to witness to others, does that mean that all the people they could have witnessed to will not have anyone to witness to them? If a believer named George chooses to live his entire life without trying to witness to others, will God use other believers to witness to all the people that George could have witnessed to?

If George decided not to witness to others would God try to persuade other believers to witness to the people who George could have witnessed to so that they will hear the gospel? Or would all the people that George could have witnessed to not hear the gospel, at least not from a mere man? The question is if a believer chooses not to witness could that affect the number of people saved?

I think Romans 11:14 and 1 Corinthians 9 are relevant to this discussion.

I don't know.

Most people in my generation do not like to be "preached" to, & the Christian witness - especially regarding American evangelicalism - is severely damaged & not credible in their eyes.

Truthfully, & this may be hard for some, I don't see any possibility of a widespread healing of the damage. All I can do in my own life is love others. Loving others - being kind, speaking up against social wrongs, being a good listener, etc - is all I can do. That is the seed I can plant in the lives of others I know. What happens from there is up to them.

Ultimately, I believe that the only person who won't be "saved" is perhaps the person who just doesn't want to be. I don't know what that would mean or what that would look like. I do believe God is generous with mercy & forgiveness though, so we should be, too.

 

[Tinyarch]

The rhetoric the Bible uses in this matter is contrary to that of the fatalistic puppet theology of Calvinism (really a regurgitation of Augustinian theology) in which the "elect" (which occurs prior to birth under Calvinism) are never not saved. They may be like Saul persecuting the church, and yet such people allegedly were never under threat of eternal condemnation seeing as it was always their fate to go to heaven. This in contrast to such rhetoric as Eph 2:3 "All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath."

Regarding evangelism Paul also writes concerning those opposing him, "They displease God and are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved." 1Thess 2:15,16 Notice the relevance of that last phrase. So also consider Rom 10:14 "How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" The rhetorical questions imply that it should be obvious that Augustine and Calvin were wrong in this regards.

Yes, likely millions over history could have been saved who are not saved because the message didn't get to them.

It sounds like you serve a weak god who is dependent on puny humans to accomplish his will.
By your view, God desires (wishes) all humanity to be saved, but ultimately he cannot accomplish his own wish.
I wonder if the Bible teaches what you seem to teach.