Tom
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 4,516
Joined: April 2001
|
|
|
Forums30
Topics7,781
Posts54,881
Members974
|
Most Online732 Jan 15th, 2023
|
|
|
#47085
Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:54 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 40
Newbie
|
OP
Newbie
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 40 |
Is it ever better to not know Jesus, than to know Him?
Last edited by Newman; Wed Jul 27, 2011 7:55 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379
Enthusiast
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379 |
Is it ever better to not know Jesus, than to know Him? Hey, Does this article touch on what you are asking? http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/joh_frame/Frame.Apologetics2004.UnregenerateKnowledgeofGod.pdfYou may need to clarify where you are coming from with your question.... I'm taking it that you mean....is it better to be a heathen than taught the word of God but lacking true conversion..... then the answer would be yes....those who hear but remain at enmity will be beaten with more stripes.... But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
Last edited by AC.; Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:39 PM.
The mercy of God is necessary not only when a person repents, but even to lead him to repent, Augustine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516 Likes: 13
Needs to get a Life
|
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516 Likes: 13 |
I am not completely sure what you mean when you say "know Him". When I think of that word in connection with Jesus; the only way for someone to truly know Jesus is to be a genuine Christian. Anyone else whether they are unbelievers, or those who claim to be Christians, but in actuality their fruit shows otherwise, cannot really know Jesus. (Matt. 7:23)
So if this is what you are talking about the answer is no, it is not better not to know Jesus than to know Him.
Tom
Last edited by Tom; Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57 |
Is it ever better to not know Jesus, than to know Him? I would say, "Never". To know Christ, in the biblical sense, i.e., to have been brought to Christ through true regeneration and conversion is eternal life. To not know Him is to be under the wrath and condemnation of God. IF this is not what you are asking, then methinks a little clarification would be most helpful.
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57 |
When I think of that word in connection with Jesus; the only way for someone to truly know Jesus is to be a genuine Christian. Anyone else whether they are unbelievers, or those who claim to be Christians, but in actuality their fruit shows otherwise, cannot really know Jesus. (Matt. 7:23) Tom, We are almost in agreement with our answers. I do want to address the very last part of your reply to Newman, however. Let me do this in the most succinct way by simply providing the actual text of Matt 7:21-23: Matthew 7:21-23 (ASV) "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." The CONTEXT shows that Christ is speaking of the time period surrounding the last judgment. The individuals being referred to are those who claim to be obedient followers of Christ; notice their reference to Jesus as "Lord, Lord". These individuals manifested "fruit" which outwardly did appear that they were among the sheepfold. Now, the most important part of this passage, in verse 23 is the Lord Christ's response to these individuals and His rejection of them, I never knew you. Please note that He did not say, "You never knew me!" Again, these are not the words of the petitioners. They are the words of the Lord Christ spoken to these individuals... He, Jesus, never knew them. Exegetically, I would suggest that what Jesus is actually saying is, 'I never loved you'. (There is strong biblically evidence to support the interpretation of the word "know" gnosis as "love", taken in context.) So, it is true that the individuals in the passage didn't know Jesus, but that is only vaguely implied. The knowing being missing in the passage is that of the Lord Jesus Christ for them.
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379
Enthusiast
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379 |
But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. And then the flip side to that passage is..... For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. So we will need to make the distinctions between.... 1) have not heard the gospel 2) have heard the gospel but do not have true faith 3) have heard and are regenerated * I'm not sure but I believe there are rare examples of some who have not been formerly preached or taught the gospel message due to their circumstances but still have the law & the grace (& spirit of God) necessary for redemption written in their hearts and are saved....but this would be the exception and not the rule.
The mercy of God is necessary not only when a person repents, but even to lead him to repent, Augustine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57 |
* I'm not sure but I believe there are rare examples of some who have not been formerly preached or taught the gospel message due to their circumstances but still have the law & the grace (& spirit of God) necessary for redemption written in their hearts and are saved....but this would be the exception and not the rule. ALL circumstances are created and ordained by God. Thus, if someone has not heard the Gospel, it is because God has so determined it. Not one for whom Christ died will be lost. And, ALL the elect will be called through the Gospel, regenerated by the Spirit and drawn to Christ. There are some, e.g., Abraham, Moses and some others in the OT that heard the Gospel directly from God vs. through a prophet. With this variance in how the Gospel came, There are no exceptions. ALL have the law of God written on their hearts (Rom 2:14,15). But no one has "grace" written on their hearts (by nature). No one has the Holy Spirit written on their hearts. Romans 8:29,30 is sufficient to show that all whom God has set His eternal love upon will be called, justified and glorified. Again, there are no exceptions.
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379
Enthusiast
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379 |
Hey Pilgrim,
Could there be cases in heathen lands, nations, territories where an individual is granted God given knowledge that they are sinners before the one true God and cry out to the unknown God for the misery of their fallen state and are delivered despite their lack of Gospel knowledge...of course, I believe this would be a rarity.
AC
The mercy of God is necessary not only when a person repents, but even to lead him to repent, Augustine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57 |
Could there be cases in heathen lands, nations, territories where an individual is granted God given knowledge that they are sinners before the one true God and cry out to the unknown God for the misery of their fallen state and are delivered despite their lack of Gospel knowledge...of course, I believe this would be a rarity. And how would this occur? According to Paul, Rom 1:16; 10:14-17, faith is only possible via the instrumentality of the Gospel. Why? Because that is the ordained method which the Holy Spirit is operative. Also, according to Rom 1, sinners are aware of the existence of God; His power and deity and judgment in two ways: a) general revelation; those things which are seen, and 2) by the revelation of God within every person's soul, they being created in the image of God. But Paul makes it quite clear that the general revelation and the internal testimony is insufficient to convert the soul... thus verse 16 and the necessity of the Gospel. Secondly, how would a sinner without the Gospel know that God has taken upon Himself human flesh, walked in all righteousness and died to pay the ultimate ransom for sinners on the cross? Who would they cast themselves before?... God in general? A generic god cannot and does not save anyone. Thirdly, because God has ordained salvation for the elect in Christ through the Gospel, ALL the elect, by God's providence the Gospel will be made known to each and every one of them. So, I must insist that there are no exceptions.
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379
Enthusiast
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379 |
Understood, God would have to bring the Gospel to that elect heathen somehow......
The mercy of God is necessary not only when a person repents, but even to lead him to repent, Augustine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57 |
Understood, God would have to bring the Gospel to that elect heathen somehow...... Exactly! Hypercalvinists disagree, of course, i.e., they deny human instrumentality in the salvation of lost souls. Often they have stated, "If God wants to save someone, He alone will do it without our help." The very basis of missions is: 1) God has commanded the Church to bring the Gospel to all the world. And 2) The preaching of the Gospel is the only effective means of bringing sinners to Christ. One of the best books on this subject is J.I. Packer's Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. IF you haven't read this one, make a point to do so.
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 40
Newbie
|
OP
Newbie
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 40 |
Thanks guys. I was thinking of these verses from 2 Peter: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379
Enthusiast
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 379 |
Thanks guys. I was thinking of these verses from 2 Peter: 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. Universalism is all the rage nowadays .....Hell is for heartless fundamentalists
The mercy of God is necessary not only when a person repents, but even to lead him to repent, Augustine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57 |
Thanks guys. I was thinking of these verses from 2 Peter: 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. Wouldn't you know it....!!! we have yet another disagreement. So, taking the bait most willingly, the majority view within the Reformed camp is that Peter is not speaking of "saved people", but rather of those who outwardly professed to be Christians but inwardly they were still dead in their sins, unregenerate, God-haters, sin lovers. Outwardly, had the appearance of being Christians for they exhibited a moral life (cf. Matt 13:3-23) but it was all superficial, self-initiated and self-willed. Judas is simply paradigmatic of this type of false professor. He is a prime example of how far one can appear to be a disciple of Christ yet inwardly, there is only hatred for Him. NONE... NOT ONE for whom Christ came and died can nor will be lost.
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 40
Newbie
|
OP
Newbie
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 40 |
So when Peter says "they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" he's not saying that they actually escaped the pollutions of the world?
Last edited by Newman; Fri Jul 29, 2011 6:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
60
guests, and
9
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|