On evangelization and witnessing

[Laughlyn]

I've been losing sleep over this issue for a while now.

Considering the classic christian doctrine of each and everyones free will, and their individual decision to accept christ - where does missionary work and alike fit in the picture, if God is to personally present Himself to all of humanity, and the choice to love him is to take place within oneself? I could never coerce another into choosing God; although we likely play parts in each others relationship to Him, the idea that salvation is the result of anything except this exclusive personal relationship to God doesn't fit in at all - as in the hands of christians, persuading others into believing God's word

So what's the point of witnessing to others, if God is to present Himself to everyone, and the decision is our own?

I'd be happy about any feedback. :)

[Berean Todd]

How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent ... So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

A passage from Romans. God has chosen to use the foolishness of our witness as the means to draw men to Himself; and if nothing else makes sense, then know that we are commanded to be His witnesses, and that should be enough. (see, for example, Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15, John 17:18, John 20:21, Acts 1:8, 1 Pet 3:15 just as a few examples of the command).

[themuzicman]

Yeah, what Tood said. Nice post.

'Nuf said.

[Laughlyn]

How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent ... So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

A passage from Romans. God has chosen to use the foolishness of our witness as the means to draw men to Himself; and if nothing else makes sense, then know that we are commanded to be His witnesses, and that should be enough. (see, for example, Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15, John 17:18, John 20:21, Acts 1:8, 1 Pet 3:15 just as a few examples of the command).

Of course, of course - but still, what about those who never actually hear the word of God as communicated through the Bible? Surely, He manifests Himself to them through other means?

[themuzicman]

Romans 1 says that creation itself is evidence of God's existance, and chapter 2 says that all men know right from wrong, and choose to do wrong.

Thus, all men are guilty of their sin, regardless of whether they hear the gospel or not.

Michael

[HyperHobbes]

Just tell 'em da good news, or if they aren't the elect, it's the bad news. One size fits all though.

HHobbes

[Laughlyn]

Romans 1 says that creation itself is evidence of God's existance, and chapter 2 says that all men know right from wrong, and choose to do wrong.

Thus, all men are guilty of their sin, regardless of whether they hear the gospel or not.

Michael

Yes, I agree. But I think I'm going for the point that all people in all cultures and societies from before His incarnation, and all people who afterwards never heard the Gospel in the form we know of it, also are subject to salvation through Jesus Christ, although not by knowing Him through the very Bible itself. Is that a realistic thought?

Consider Rom. 1:19, Rom. 2:12-16, 2:26-29, and of course 3:29, 4:1-3, and Rom. 4:13-17.

(I'd post the verses in text, but have no copy of an english Bible.)

Nevertheless, I of course believe that the Gospel communicates the truth of God to us, and thus that it is to be spread forth to those who haven't heard it. But it teaches that God reveals Himself to all of His creation, and not necessarily through any Bible. Thereby, it seems that witnessing to others is more for us to teach our siblings what we have learned of His true character, than providing them with their only means of salvation - I'd say the latter is not in our hands at all.

Perhaps I'm only saying what's completely obvious to you, and then I've only to apologize for my naïvite. :)

[infide]

Yes, I agree. But I think I'm going for the point that all people in all cultures and societies from before His incarnation, and all people who afterwards never heard the Gospel in the form we know of it, also are subject to salvation through Jesus Christ, although not by knowing Him through the very Bible itself. Is that a realistic thought?

Consider Rom. 1:19, Rom. 2:12-16, 2:26-29, and of course 3:29, 4:1-3, and Rom. 4:13-17.

(I'd post the verses in text, but have no copy of an english Bible.)

Nevertheless, I of course believe that the Gospel communicates the truth of God to us, and thus that it is to be spread forth to those who haven't heard it. But it teaches that God reveals Himself to all of His creation, and not necessarily through any Bible. Thereby, it seems that witnessing to others is more for us to teach our siblings what we have learned of His true character, than providing them with their only means of salvation - I'd say the latter is not in our hands at all.

Perhaps I'm only saying what's completely obvious to you, and then I've only to apologize for my naïvite. :)

We are told that Abraham's faith was accounted to Him as righteousness. His faith was not in Jesus-as-Savior directly, but in God's faithfulness and goodness. We should always affirm that the substance and nature of salvation is of Christ. But even if someone never hears of Jesus they can exhibit the right quality of faith that if they had heard the gospel they would have responded (note, this is a counterfactual and hence lends nicely to Molinism). Thus perhaps it is not those who know Jesus who will be saved, but those whom Jesus knows.

On the other hand - there are many blessings which those who hear of Christ and respond enjoy - the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the community of the Church, being a part of God's glorious plan, etc. Also - there are many false beliefs and religions which teach people to respond to God in the wrong way. Thus for at least these two reasons, missionary work is extremely important.

peace.

[Laughlyn]

We are told that Abraham's faith was accounted to Him as righteousness. His faith was not in Jesus-as-Savior directly, but in God's faithfulness and goodness. We should always affirm that the substance and nature of salvation is of Christ. But even if someone never hears of Jesus they can exhibit the right quality of faith that if they had heard the gospel they would have responded (note, this is a counterfactual and hence lends nicely to Molinism). Thus perhaps it is not those who know Jesus who will be saved, but those whom Jesus knows.

On the other hand - there are many blessings which those who hear of Christ and respond enjoy - the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the community of the Church, being a part of God's glorious plan, etc. Also - there are many false beliefs and religions which teach people to respond to God in the wrong way. Thus for at least these two reasons, missionary work is extremely important.

peace.

Thanks for an informed reply. As a footnote, 'though, I'd like to add that it is better for a person to know God through a fallable religion, that nevertheless results in a personal relationship with Him, than not knowing Him at all - which I find is the main basis of my initial question.

God Bless

[FlimFlamboyant]

I've been losing sleep over this issue for a while now.

Considering the classic christian doctrine of each and everyones free will, and their individual decision to accept christ - where does missionary work and alike fit in the picture, if God is to personally present Himself to all of humanity, and the choice to love him is to take place within oneself?
I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that "God is to personally present Himself to all of humanity". Perhaps you could clarify?

I could never coerce another into choosing God; although we likely play parts in each others relationship to Him, the idea that salvation is the result of anything except this exclusive personal relationship to God doesn't fit in at all - as in the hands of christians, persuading others into believing God's word
Correct, coersion is not possible, nor is it what we've been called to do. Remember, it is not we who have the power to save, but it is the message that we preach which contains this power:

(Rom 1:16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

If we preach that message and they remain unconvinced, we have nonetheless performed our duty.


So what's the point of witnessing to others, if God is to present Himself to everyone, and the decision is our own?
Again, there's that presentation issue that I'm not following you on. As to the rest of the question, it seems to me that you answered that for yourself a few posts later:

Of course, of course - but still, what about those who never actually hear the word of God as communicated through the Bible? Surely, He manifests Himself to them through other means?
This is precisely the point of witnessing to others. As Berean Todd had posted earlier:

(Rom 10:13,15) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

If you follow the logic of the passage, one cannot be saved if they never hear the message, as Paul reveals a few verses prior:

(Rom 10:17) So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Faith comes by no other means.

[Laughlyn]

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that "God is to personally present Himself to all of humanity". Perhaps you could clarify?

Off the top of me head; I'm mainly thinking of Romans 1:19-20.

(Rom 10:13,15) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

If you follow the logic of the passage, one cannot be saved if they never hear the message, as Paul reveals a few verses prior:

(Rom 10:17) So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Faith comes by no other means.

I still think a view of salvation through the gospel alone, presents a problem regarding deadborn infants, for instance - or as I grind on, "those who never get a chance to hear the Gospel". It seems (in my personal view on NT theology) incompatible with the character of God, that all these, in a very Dantesque manner, are damned. Or am I badly misrepresenting your position here?

[Laughlyn]

My response to "I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that "God is to personally present Himself to all of humanity". Perhaps you could clarify?" was left in the quote; I was referring to Romans 1:19-20 -

[infide]

Thanks for an informed reply. As a footnote, 'though, I'd like to add that it is better for a person to know God through a fallable religion, that nevertheless results in a personal relationship with Him, than not knowing Him at all - which I find is the main basis of my initial question.

God Bless

Well you are assuming that God doesnt reveal Himself in some way to every man. So if that were true, as i believe it is, then every man is responsible for knowing Him and responding in faith to Him.

peace.

[Laughlyn]

Well you are assuming that God doesnt reveal Himself in some way to every man. So if that were true, as i believe it is, then every man is responsible for knowing Him and responding in faith to Him.

peace.

Um. No. I only assume that there are people who do not know God. I fully agree with your latter conclusion.