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.pdf

You 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.

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

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.

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.

And then the flip side to that passage is.....


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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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


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

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.

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?

Isn't that a bit of a silly question? It is obviously not a matter of denying what Peter wrote, but rather a matter of interpretation of what Peter wrote. In my previous reply to you, I explained how I believe this phrase is to be understood, referencing the "Parable of the Sower". Exegetically, the CONTEXT, verses 1-21, shows that Peter isn't speaking of saved individuals whatsoever, but reprobate false prophets and false teachers, 2 Peter 2:1 (ASV) "But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." And Peter goes on to describe the debaucheries and heretical things these people do and teach. Their end, says Peter "whose sentence now from of old lingereth not, and their destruction slumbereth not." (v.3) and "But these, as creatures without reason, born mere animals to be taken and destroyed, railing in matters whereof they are ignorant, shall in their destroying surely be destroyed,".

Anticipating that you will want to bring up the matter of 2Pet 2:1, specifically the phrase, "...the Lord who bought them", and thus insisting that this surely means that Christ died for them, which I expectedly and categorically deny, you might consider THIS and THIS.

Newmie & Honcho....

There are definitely verses that appear to allude to losing salvation....but when you consider the verses that declare the total depravity of man, God's sovereignty/predestination/election and the grace of God given to man unto salvation that there is no room for boasting....I believe the award goes to perseverance of the saints over conditional salvation.....

AC,

Let us not forget the ultimate focus of God's love and of those who have been recipients of that love... THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. It was and is HIS vicarious, substitutionary atonement that satisfied all the demands of the law. It was HIS ransom that paid the infinite debt of those who the Father gave Him to die for. It was HIS propitiation which appeased the wrath of God. It was HIS sacrifice that endured the punishment due to the elect of God. And, it was HE who reconciled those who were born enemies and haters of God to God.

Because the Lord Christ, through His perfect righteousness and substitutionary death, provides the perfect holiness demanded and the receiving of the punishment due for not having it, there is NOT ONE for whom He died that will be lost. Additionally, to 'seal the deal', having lived that perfect life and having died that perfect death, He also sends the Holy Spirit to apply all that He merited for His own and to preserve them, indwelling within them, to the end appointed for them.

Hear the very words of God given through the apostle Paul:

Romans 8:29-39 (ASV) "For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren: and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God [is] for us, who [is] against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth; who is he that condemneth? It is Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Even as it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; We were accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

YES!

I never understood how people could believe that with all Jesus went through it all comes down to our clouded, fool-hearty choice.....with all that Jesus went through it is obvious that when He died such a willing, painful, humiliating death.....it was for the thirsty & needy pilgrims of this world.......John 17

Silly me, I know. Ok, help me out then. Maybe this is just semantics (maybe we agree but just speak differently) because I don't see how the parable of the sower proves that the people Peter is talking about were never saved. If those people are like the seed that fell on thorny ground...well...that seed actually became a plant with roots. True, it was eventually choked out by the thorns (ie. the pollution of the world) but we don't say that it was never a plant. It surely was.

Likewise, when Peter is talking about people who "escaped the pollution of the world" it seems that we shouldn't speak as if they had never escaped the pollution of the world. They had. Peter said so. And when people escape the pollution of the world, we call them "saved." Right?

You and others here have escaped the pollutions of the world, I would assume, and as a result call yourselves "saved."

Hey Brian,

You raise interesting points, but as a whole how would you or the RCC in general interpret the parable of the sower, what was the central point of this parable with all it's symbolic intent?

AC

Let's look at the CONTEXT of Christ's infallible interpretation of the 'types of ground' and the results of seed (the Word/Gospel) falling on them:

Okay.... so here we have first type of ground we want to consider (the second type of ground, the first being where there was initially no understanding), i.e., the rocky ground. The seed doesn't penetrate the soil and thus there is no germination, no root is formed. Thus there is the appearance of growth, but it not a spiritual plant. We might classify this appearance as a weed, undesirable and incapable of producing any acceptable fruit. This 'weed' eventually dies because of its superficiality; no root. It cannot withstand the pressures (tribulation/persecution) of the world, that comes against those who profess faith. In short, there is no real spiritual life, no commitment to Christ which demands that one pick up his cross and follow Him.

The second (third) type of ground is the thorny ground. Here the individual 'hears the word' (externally with the ears) but there is again no real spiritual life, no commitment to following Christ, but in this case the allurements of this world and its philosophy has precedence. The result is this person abandons what he/she professed thus showing that they were never genuinely regenerated and converted.

The last type of ground is called "good", i.e., it is fertile and it allows that which was heard in the Gospel to take root resulting in a genuine change, aka: repentance and a growth in spirituality... sanctification.

Thus, I am suggesting that those individuals referenced by Peter are examples of those represented by the rocky and thorny individuals in the parable of the Sower. Again, I would recommend you read the entire chapter (2Pet 2) and carefully consider how he describes these individuals which is totally pejorative.

I am NOT denying the description of "having escaped the pollution of the world", but rather interpreting it differently than you do. I am assuming that you are wanting to understand the word "escape" as salvific. And I am saying that it is not salvific but rather a perception. These individuals made a profession and perhaps initially abstained from certain perceptible sins. But it was 1) superficial, e.g., the 'righteousness' of the Pharisees, and 2) quickly abandoned and these people's lives became even worse than what it was before they made a profession to be a follower of Christ.

Yes, this is certainly true. And what is also true is that there are those who are 'religious' outwardly, but inwardly they are yet dead in sin. Counterfeits look very much like the real thing, don't they? Even the Devil himself can transform himself to appear as an "angel of light" (2Cor 11:14). But, I seriously doubt you would say Satan was once saved and then lost that salvation, right? There are many false professors, false gospels, false spirits, false prophets, false teachers, etc., who outwardly have the appearance of being genuine.

Pilgrim

I agree with your interp. of the parable of the sower....I really don't see how you could take it any other way.....

I would be curious to see other perpectives however....that's how we get to the 'root' of these disagreements....

AC

Ok, so would you describe these people as “having escaped the pollutions of the world” or would you describe them as “appearing to have escaped the pollutions of the world?”

I am merely saying that "having escaped" means what it says. They have escaped. You interpret "having escaped" as meaning "appeared to have escaped." They never escaped.

I wonder then why a divinely inspired Peter wouldn’t say that they “appeared” to have escaped the pollutions of the world, rather than say “having” escaped… Why do you suppose that might be? Shouldn't he have worded it differently? I mean, I can see describing the seed sown on good ground as "having escaped."

Of course. We may even deceive ourselves, no? So given all that you have said, I don’t understand how one can say “I am saved” or “we are saved” or “they are saved.” It seems not proper to speak that way.

I'm not sure my interp differs from yours or Pilgrim's. Maybe I've missed something, but I don't think anyhing I've seen so far would indicate a substantial difference.

Pilgrim

Thank you for mentioning this, I agree with you. Perhaps I didn't pick the best verse to support what I said.

Tom

Hey Brian I'll let Pilgrim handle the Peter verse because I admit that's a toughy from our POV.....

but for the parable of the sower....

God prepared the soil and planted the seed.... so the good soil represents the elect Christian that gladly receives the Word of God....while the plant in thorny ground was never prepared by God so even though it grew and may have responded to the Word for a time the plant would never remain because there was never any good soil (no regeneration)....so it was a plant but it was never God's plant...make sense?

Ok, I see where you're coming from. So does that mean that a tare may never plow the hard ground and become wheat?

well, that's a whole other parable

Hey Brian, when taking the chapter as a whole it appears to me that 2Peter 2 is talking about false prophets and decievers who may have been taught (and have instructed others in) the way but never had spiritual life. The verse does not seem to be as potent of an endorsement of losing salvation when considering the whole chapter (unless I'm missing something?)

In fact, Peter seems to really be railing against those of whom he speaks in this chapter.....

Well...sort of. I don't know if you've ever read how Augustine related the two parables together, but, as usual, its pretty good stuff:

I'm aware of the context. The fact remains that Peter says that these false prophets and deceivers had escaped the pollutions of the world. In order for it to mean what you think it means, you must introduce something into the text which is not there...you must interpret "they have escaped," penned by the divinely inspired Peter as "appearing to have escaped." Right?

Methinks that Augustine has taken the parable and turned it on its head. There is not even a hint that the Lord Christ's interpretation of the parable to His disciples was intended to be taken as an injunctive counsel to the types of individuals symbolized in the four types of 'ground'. He was simply explaining how certain individuals result from hearing the Gospel. And, that those who do hear (spiritually), i.e., their hearts (good ground) which was created by the Spirit takes root and bears and will bear genuine good works.

In fact, if one wishes to do a valid comparison, one should read Mark's reporting of this telling of the parable and Christ's explanation in chapter 4:2-20. But the most telling part of that anecdote is to be found in verses 10-12:

In short, the reason that Jesus preached in parables to the masses was so that, hina, with the intended purpose, the hearers would not comprehend the meaning and consequently not be converted. Parables were designed to keep the unregenerate in their current state, but to those who were regenerate (given ears to hear, a mind to understand, etc.) they were life-giving words (cf., 2Cor 2:6-16).

This certainly gives much weight to my interpretation, which is held among nearly all Reformed Protestants, both scholars, doctors, pastors and sheep alike.

Hey Brian, what Peter says here is a correct....unlike the heathen they were recipients of the Gospel and made a public profession (and were most probably baptized in the name of Jesus)which especially in those days was no light manner (unlike many of the nominal Christians of recent times). Just like those infants who are baptized in the name of Jesus and are taught the Gospel/hearers of the word (Christ crucified....they have also escaped the pollutions of the world in a sense, as external recipients of the means of grace, however......

Let's consider these few verses of 1 John 2 -
So considering all of what I wrote how do you take what Peter says? You don't believe in 'eternal security' for lack of a better term so what are you implying that Peter means when he says....'they have escaped the pollution of this world? that it was a conditional escape? They escaped from the pollutions on the condition that they don't go back to the pollution? I don't believe Peter is speaking about salvation here....he is speaking externally, Peter does not have divine insight and he is speaking as an observer, not as one judging the heart or teaching unconditional/conditional election or ir/resistible grace.....that is not the focus or the intent of his words here.....Reformed Christians believe that by the fruits you will know who the true Christians are (but even so we don't have the divine insight to know who the true child of God is with complete certainty). We also believe that man is accountable, especially those who have been taught/shown the way and know the truth...they will be beaten with more stripes than the heathen....as Matthew Henry comments....

the next verse 2 Peter 2:22 states..... we have no indication that these 'false prophets' 'deceivers' were regenerated....quite the opposite since these labels are pretty good indicators that they are under demonic influence and do not have God's protection.

Sorry for the long post....I probably haven't changed your mind but thanks for considering what I wrote, regardless!

Peace!

AC