Thanks guys. I was thinking of these verses from 2 Peter:

Quote
For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. (2 Peter 2:20-21)

So it seems to me that Peter is speaking of saved people (escaped the pollutions of the world through Jesus) who became unsaved, and thus it would have been better for them if they were never saved in the first place.

The reason I was musing about this is because recently I was debating a universalist, and he told me there was absolutely no scripture that indicated a specific person is in hell. I, in turn asked him why Jesus said of Judas that it would have been better for him if he had not been born. If there's no hell, or if hell is empty and Judas actually ended up in heaven, that statement makes little sense, I think.

So then I was thinking of the passage from Peter, where he says almost the same thing...it would have been better for them to never have known Jesus than to know Him, escaping from the pollution of the world, and then turning away like a dog returning to his vomit.


Last edited by Newman; Thu Jul 28, 2011 1:17 PM.