If We Fail to witness, will their blood be on "our heads?"

[Yeshua1]

does the watchman example of Ezeckiel apply to us for today, that IF we refuse to warn sinners of judgement, tell of Christ, we wuill be held accountibility by God?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

does the watchman example of Ezeckiel apply to us for today, that IF we refuse to warn sinners of judgement, tell of Christ, we wuill be held accountibility by God?

Of course.

 

[righteousdude2]

It is my opinion....

...that our failure to witness will result in the blood of the lost being on our hands. FURTHERMORE, and even more importantly, the blood of those we cause to lose faith in Him will also be on our hands.

The second stain of blood comes through the hands of those who poor witness and bad behaviors drive newbies, and frail believers back into the hands of the world.

The following is simply my humble opinion (from years of personal observation):

So, how can this be, when once saved always saved is my firm foundation [theologically]?

Simple...it doesn't mean that these folks will lose their salvation, but because of our actions, their inactions serve to keep them from being the witnesses God had called them to be, and their lack of faith and worldly walk will mean that they won't sow or reap seeds [of salvation], thus, their crops are going to be on our hands as well as the judgement they will face for being wayward, worldly followers, after encountering us.

One such example of believers who will be judged for "bruising the fruit" will be the WOFer's, whose avid beliefs in name-it-claim-it have driven tons of believers away from their faith. However, WOFer's are not the only ones who will face judgment. Those who hold so stringently to their personal theologies, and doctrines will also be at fault for driving some away by way of divisive acts, in-fighting, and unnecessary [inappropriate] judgment of others within the church, driving many disillusioned folks away from fellowship of any kind of further church involvement.

As believers, we hold a great number of lives in our hands, and we need to exercise the kind of walk that reflects the heart of Jesus.

 

[fortytworc]

Handle Scriptures honestly; with consistancy

does the watchman example of Ezeckiel apply to us for today, that IF we refuse to warn sinners of judgement, tell of Christ, we wuill be held accountibility by God?

Of course.

...that our failure to witness will result in the blood of the lost being on our hands. FURTHERMORE, and even more importantly, the blood of those we cause to lose faith in Him will also be on our hands.

The second stain of blood comes through the hands of those who poor witness and bad behaviors drive newbies, and frail believers back into the hands of the world.

The following is simply my humble opinion (from years of personal observation):

So, how can this be, when once saved always saved is my firm foundation [theologically]?

Simple...it doesn't mean that these folks will lose their salvation, but because of our actions, their inactions serve to keep them from being the witnesses God had called them to be, and their lack of faith and worldly walk will mean that they won't sow or reap seeds [of salvation], thus, their crops are going to be on our hands as well as the judgement they will face for being wayward, worldly followers, after encountering us.

One such example of believers who will be judged for "bruising the fruit" will be the WOFer's, whose avid beliefs in name-it-claim-it have driven tons of believers away from their faith. However, WOFer's are not the only ones who will face judgment. Those who hold so stringently to their personal theologies, and doctrines will also be at fault for driving some away by way of divisive acts, in-fighting, and unnecessary [inappropriate] judgment of others within the church, driving many disillusioned folks away from fellowship of any kind of further church involvement.

As believers, we hold a great number of lives in our hands, and we need to exercise the kind of walk that reflects the heart of Jesus.

I believe this passage is taken way out of context and is totally misapplied.

EZE.33:1
And the Word of the LORD came to me, saying,
:2
Son of man, speak to the sons of your people, and say to them: When I bring the sword on it, on a land, and take one man from the people of the land, of their borders, and set him for their watchman;

:3
if, when he sees the sword come on the land, he blows the trumpet and warns the people,
:4
then whoever hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, if the sword does come and take him away, his blood shall be on his own head.

:5
He heard the sound of the trumpet and did not take warning. His blood shall be on himself. :6 But he who takes warning shall deliver his soul
But if the watchman sees the sword coming, and does not blow the trumpet and the people are not warned; if the sword comes and takes [any] person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity. But I will require his blood at the watchman's hand.

:7
And you, son of man, I have set you a watchman to the house of Israel. Therefore you shall hear the Word from My mouth, and warn them from Me.
:8
When I say to the wicked, O wicked one, you shall surely die; if you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked one shall die in his iniquity; but I will require his blood at your hand.

:9
But, if you warn the wicked of his way, to turn from it; if he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your soul.

:10
And you, son of man, speak to the house of Israel. So you have spoken, saying, When our transgressions and our sins [are] on us, and we are wasting away in them, How then shall we live?
The context has nothing to do with any new or post New testament figures, people, events, or history. Just because a so-called correlation can be made between the Son of man here and a Christian thousands of years later, as well as the wicked House of Israel and the unsaved today, or a person getting their head chopped off and going to hell doesn't mean it is so. This is about a particular calling from God to a particular old testament prophet for a particular purpose.
This prophet was to warn Israel during a time of hostility and war if an opposing army was coming to attack them.
People (just about all of us, including pastors ) are very inconsistent with how, when, and why we pick some really unrelated passage of Scripture then proceed to apply it to today. I am Not saying we can never apply any Scripture to our lives and as examples on how we should or should not live.Making personal application is very different from saying the passage as a whole and in its details is "What This Means For Us." Application of an overall concept is not the same as saying "Thus says The Lord" in these verses in all their detail. I cannot think of any passage of scripture ANYWHERE in the Bible that makes me responsible in any way for any reason for whether anyone is or is not saved. We will Stand Alone and Answer for ourselves Alone when any judgement time comes. This passage is so convenient because it is so easily used to manipulate people into having a false sense of responsibility then a false guilt. None of us have been called to be a prophet to anyone as Ezekiel was called to be a prophet to warn Israel. In contradiction to all of Scripture We have been told that at any given moment during one or two judgement days(or seats) some individual whose name is not written in the Book of Life will be able to stop all proceedings, look at us, look back at God and say something like, "God, he/she never told me!!! or BOB! you knew about this but never told me!!! That is a gross mishandling of God,s Word. Yes, we are called to be witnesses and make disciples. We should do those things. BTW exactly (and from the Scriptures) show me what it means for you if someones' blood is on your head. Something make logical sense does not make it Bible.

 

[freeatlast]

does the watchman example of Ezeckiel apply to us for today, that IF we refuse to warn sinners of judgement, tell of Christ, we wuill be held accountibility by God?

Keep in mind that the prophet was speaking to a nation, not an individual. So I think it would be applied in the NT as in Rev. 2
Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

 

[fortytworc]

Keep in mind that the prophet was speaking to a nation, not an individual. So I think it would be applied in the NT as in Rev. 2
Nevertheless I have [somewhat] against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

Do I understand you to be saying that no individual will have the blood of someone else on their head but a nation might?

 

[freeatlast]

Do I understand you to be saying that no individual will have the blood of someone else on their head but a nation might?

I am saying that any application should be in accord with how the passage is given. The Lord was speaking to the nation Israel which He had called. He was not speaking of warning the gentiles but their own people.
If someone wants to carry this over to the church age then they have to keep in context. If the church watchman stops warning its people in the church then the blood is on their hands. So the watchmen of the church would be held responsible.
This is not dealing with if we witness or not individually. Read the passage. God chooses the watchman and he is warned to tell the people within his own care. Many a Pastor today is failing in this warning. I again point you back to the Revelation if you want to apply this to the church.

 

[Allan]

does the watchman example of Ezeckiel apply to us for today, that IF we refuse to warn sinners of judgement, tell of Christ, we wuill be held accountibility by God?

Have you ever noted the statement Paul makes, and ever wonder why he made it (regarding not having their blood being on their own heads - he is clean)?

Interesting enough, where would the guilt lie if Paul HAD NOT told them?

As simple as I can put it:
Blood on "your" hands is regarding what you didn't DO (thus hands), and blood on "their" heads, regarding where the guilt lies since you did what you were to do but they 'choose' not to regard it.

 

[freeatlast]

Have you ever noted the statement Paul makes, and ever wonder why he made it (regarding not having their blood being on their own heads - he is clean)?

Interesting enough, where would the guilt lie if Paul HAD NOT told them?

As simple as I can put it:
Blood on "your" hands is regarding what you didn't DO (thus hands), and blood on "their" heads, regarding where the guilt lies since you did what you were to do but they 'choose' not to regard it.

Yes and just like in the OT the passage is speaking to a group, the Jew, not to an individual or about individual witnessing. Acts 18:5,6

 

[Allan]

Yes and just like in the OT the passage is speaking to a group, the Jew, not to an individual or about individual witnessing. Acts 18:5,6

No, he was debating with individuals, and yes there was enough to be a group (how big we do not know), yet in order to debate or have such a discussion with them he had to address them and their questions both individually and by extension the group as well. His statement was NOT about addressing the nation as a whole (for we have biblical record that Peter and others still witnessed to them and many were coming to God) but that Paul himself was no longer dealing with the Jews but was going to the Gentiles instead. Yet since the statement is only toward those to whom he was speaking and stating they would bear the responsibility for their choice, he is innocent (not held part to their guilt) because he did what he was told to do (Great Commission) thus we can also note that he was not addressing a nation but individuals but that "he" was going to another group of people.

 

[fortytworc]

I am saying that any application should be in accord with how the passage is given. The Lord was speaking to the nation Israel which He had called. He was not speaking of warning the gentiles but their own people.
If someone wants to carry this over to the church age then they have to keep in context. If the church watchman stops warning its people in the church then the blood is on their hands. So the watchmen of the church would be held responsible.
This is not dealing with if we witness or not individually. Read the passage. God chooses the watchman and he is warned to tell the people within his own care. Many a Pastor today is failing in this warning. I again point you back to the Revelation if you want to apply this to the church.

I do not see this as applying to us today. We just disagree. I really appreciate your desire to be consistent in how your application is to be in line with how the passage is given.

 

[freeatlast]

No, he was debating with individuals, and yes there was enough to be a group (how big we do not know), yet in order to debate or have such a discussion with them he had to address them and their questions both individually and by extension the group as well. His statement was NOT about addressing the nation as a whole (for we have biblical record that Peter and others still witnessed to them and many were coming to God) but that Paul himself was no longer dealing with the Jews but was going to the Gentiles instead. Yet since the statement is only toward those to whom he was speaking and stating they would bear the responsibility for their choice, he is innocent (not held part to their guilt) because he did what he was told to do (Great Commission) thus we can also note that he was not addressing a nation but individuals but that "he" was going to another group of people.

I don't agree with you, but for the sake of argument let's say you are correct. Two questions. One, by your interpretation does this mean that every person we meet if we do not witness to them and they die in their sin their blood is on our hands? Second what exactly will be the consequences for us since we are covered by the blood?

 

[freeatlast]

I do not see this as applying to us today. We just disagree. I really appreciate your desire to be consistent in how your application is to be in line with how the passage is given.

I think we do agree. I do not hold that this is saying we are responsible for someone's blood if we do not witness to them. What I did refer to is for those who want to hold that it has some efficacy for today they would need to place it on the watchmen/Pastors teachers of the church in regards to their flock to be consistent with the passage and not individual witnessing.

 

[Yeshua1]

I do not see this as applying to us today. We just disagree. I really appreciate your desire to be consistent in how your application is to be in line with how the passage is given.

good discussions!

thanks to all posting...

Think that the NT example to this would be Pau;. who had a "Burden' that he MUST preach/teach on Christ!

 

[Amy.G]

If I'm responsible for someone going to hell because I didn't witness to them, do I get to take credit for their salvation if I witness and they believe?

 

[Arbo]

If We Fail to witness, will their blood be on "our heads?"

If so, then every believer is blood guilty because there's always more one can do.

 

[freeatlast]

If We Fail to witness, will their blood be on "our heads?"

If so, then every believer is blood guilty because there's always more one can do.

Agreed and that is why the passage does not mean what many Preachers are saying it means.

 

[seekingthetruth]

If my neighbor is predestined for heaven, and is one of God's elect.....but he has not repented yet.....and I dont witness to him, will God revoke his election?

If he is truly predestined and elect, then wont he go to heaven whether i witness to him or not?

And if this is true, then what blood can be on anybody's hands?

Isnt the OP a useless question for Calvinists?

Just asking

John

 

[Iconoclast]

If my neighbor is predestined for heaven,

He will make it to heaven,because God has only predestined those to be conformed to the image of His Son...who actually get saved,and get to enter heaven.

and is one of God's elect

He would be in God's hands!

.....but he has not repented yet

That is okay,because God grants repentance and faith...in His time

.....and I dont witness to him, will God revoke his election?

All the elect will be saved. If you were a poor witness,God will raise up an obedient Christian to get the gospel to him. Election is unto salvation...it is personal and sure.

If he is truly predestined and elect, then wont he go to heaven whether i witness to him or not?

Yes...however...it is always accomplished by means under normal circunstances. God has ordained preaching from other believers as the primary means to win the lost. God can work through extraodinary means as He wills.

And if this is true, then what blood can be on anybody's hands?

That is known to God alone. If someone fails as a watchman ...God will judge that person.

Isnt the OP a useless question for Calvinists?

Yes..it is. Biblical calvinists.know Jesus as Lord. Jesus said ...why call me LORD,LORD, if you do not do the things that I say???? So obviously a regular christian..ie, a calvinist will already obey the gospel commands to go into all the world ,and preach the gospel.They will obey the command to adorn the doctrine.Knowing that God has predestined a multitude of lost sinners to repent and believe the gospel ,they are already busy winning souls...seeking prayerfully to be used by God in such a way.:wavey:

Just asking

No problem...keep asking good questions..soul winning is a great blessing we get to particpate in:thumbs:John

................

 

[Allan]

I don't agree with you, but for the sake of argument let's say you are correct. Two questions. One, by your interpretation does this mean that every person we meet if we do not witness to them and they die in their sin their blood is on our hands? Second what exactly will be the consequences for us since we are covered by the blood?

For question #1 - Define 'witness', if you mean to share our faith at all times.. then yes.
Now, if you would, define what you mean by 'every person we meet'.
And lastly one other question, IF in 'witnessing' you mean 'sharing our faith' please define for me what YOU mean when you speak of sharing your faith. (ie.. gospel message, our life in Christ, ect..)

For question #2 - What consequences do you presume believers will have to deal with regarding willful disobedience to God's commands (discipleship, going and telling the gospel message, prayer and fasting, ect..). I simply ask question in answer to your question because of the way you posed your question.