Does salvation automatically equate to 'knowing' God?

[Deborah13]

No it doesn't, please listen closely.


No, John says that if you know God, you will love people. He also says that those who are born again love people and love God. Since the purpose of this text is to provide some kind of grounding for whether or not a person is born again, we can conclude that a person who is not cultivating the habitual behavior of love, does not know God and is not born again.

Other texts in the Bible emphasize the necessity to mature in Christ and that the sanctification process isn't fully complete, but it is a struggle towards the goal.


Anyone who is saved knows God, it is very clear in Scripture.

As JLB pointed out, the New Covenant ensures this will be so as it speaks of the New Covenant in Jeremiah where it says, "and they shall all know God."

By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. 1 John 3:10 (ESV)

If you do not love God, or love the brothers you are not a child of God, and therefore not saved.

We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. 1 John 3:14 (ESV)

If you lack the type of love that John is talking about, or at least are not in the process of cultivating that, i.e. having the desire growing in you to have it.. then according to John you do not have life.


I notice that you have no Scripture to back up this anti-biblical argument. One who is saved is born of God and has the Spirit of God, the love that they then will manifest is fruit of their transformation, which will increase as they grow into maturity in Christ.


This is easy-believeism, which is found no where in Scripture, where a person can have no evidence of having the Spirit yet claim to be saved. Scripture gives a very different picture.

Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! 2 Corinthians 13:5 (ESV)

Paul tells us to examine ourselves, to see whether we are in the faith. Why? Because the reality that Jesus Christ is in us should demonstrate a transformed life.. new desires and new behaviors.

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. Philippians 2:12-13 (ESV)

Paul also tells us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and he does this because of the fact that if we are saved, then we have God working in us to will and work for his good pleasure.

Notice in Scripture, you never see them challenging people to think on how genuinely they believed, but rather to look at the fruit of their life to see if there has been an internal transformation by the Spirit.

Is God truly working in me? Does my life demonstrate that Jesus Christ is in me? Am I obeying Christ's commandments in love? Is there genuine love for the brothers in my heart? Have I begun to break my habitual sins and walk in repentance?

These are the marks of what the Bible establishes as a true believer, and to ignore this in favor of one's life experiences is just not the way to do it.


What does John say about people who are like this?

Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him 1 John 2:4 (ESV)

Look at this text, it is refuting the exact lie you are telling. John is speaking about a people who say, "I know him," but do not keep his commandments (to love God and love the brothers, etc.). How does John describe these people? He says that the person who claims this, but does not keep the commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him.

Those who don't know God, do not have the truth within them, which just like "knowing God" is an evidence of being born again that John consistently uses. Those who don't know God are not born of God, period.

The hardest part of sharing in these forums is getting the other person to actually hear what you're saying. You have to know the other person's argument before you can effectively talk to them about it.

We all have preconceived ideas and beliefs through which we filter what we hear. It even makes us hear the other person's argument incorrectly according to what we've been told their argument is, not what it actually is.

Well I suggest that both of you do a search for each others posts. I think you will be very surprised.
I hear you both making the exact same statements for saving faith.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Wow... earlier I said, "anyone who is saved knows God," and you responded, "No argument here that is not what I am challenging." Now you appear to be challenging the same kind of statement just said differently.

My bad. There is definitely an argument with that.

Somehow I read what you wrote as 'anyone who knows God is saved'. I even went back to look so I could tell you what you actually said, but I see I did not read it correctly.

So, to be clear on that, I do not agree that anyone who is saved knows God. That's the point of the OP. The scriptures and actual experience show that we grow up into a 'knowing' relationship with God. We don't start out with one after we are saved.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Well I suggest that both of you do a search for each others posts. I think you will be very surprised.
I hear you both making the exact same statements for saving faith.

I did recognize there was much we do not disagree on, and I should just focus in on that.

But what you say seems to be definitely true about his last posts, not his prior ones. I don't know if he's adapting his line of thought, or just being more clear.

Doulos, I can't be on line all day. So just show me how the parable is false and that when we become plantings of God we immediately have the mature fruit of 'knowing' instead of just the stalk of our relationship with God. Okay?


And I'm amazed that you disagree that the fruit of a legitimate marital relationship comes along later, not immediately. I don't know what goes on, or doesn't go on in your bedroom, and really I don't care, but the point is, we can only know for sure that you and your wife are intimate by the children, the fruit, you have. That's what John is saying. That's the only way we can KNOW with certainly that you have an intimate relationship with your wife. Come on, how can you possibly argue with that?

This is how it is with us and God. The PROOF of our intimate 'knowing' of God (like how Adam 'knew' Eve) is the fruit that 'knowing' produces. That doesn't mean we aren't legitimately bound to God if in the beginning that proof is not there. Ultimately, it does mean that on the Day of Judgment. But to suggest any and all Christians right out of the gate produce this fruit of 'knowing', because they are saved, and if they don't it means they aren't saved, is simply false and is neither supported by the scriptures, nor by actual experience.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I did recognize there was much we do not disagree on, and I should just focus in on that.

But what you say seems to be definitely true about his last posts, not his prior ones. I don't know if he's adapting his line of thought, or just being more clear.

Doulos, I can't be on line all day. So just show me how the parable is false and that when we become plantings of God we immediately have the mature fruit of 'knowing' instead of just the stalk of our relationship with God. Okay?

I am not saying the parable is false... I am saying you are not understanding it properly. You assume improperly that believers are the "plantings of God" and that it is about their journey in maturing.

Jesus makes it clear at the beginning that the parable is about the kingdom of God, and it's a parable about it's growth.

You also seem to be ignoring what I am saying about how we know about love and how we know God. We know God through his Son Jesus Christ, who saved us through his death on the Cross and resurrection, and in that was God's love most clearly manifested and that is something that every believer new and seasoned both know. It will grow deeper, but that doesn't mean that a person doesn't know this.

And I'm amazed that you disagree that the fruit of a legitimate marital relationship comes along later, not immediately.

I disagree because that hasn't been the case for me, and what you seemed to be saying was that there was no true fruit at the beginning, which is absolutely wrong.

I don't know what goes on, or doesn't go on in your bedroom, and really I don't care, but the point is, we can only know for sure that you and your wife are intimate by the children, the fruit, you have.

This is nothing more than your opinion, which I happen to strongly disagree with. Having children will only make deeper the intimacy that my wife and I share.

That's what John is saying. That's the only way we can KNOW with certainly that you have an intimate relationship with your wife. Come on, how can you possibly argue with that?

That's not what John is saying.. and I don't know what kind of relationship you shared with your wife, but I have certainty in my case. The difference I have with you, is that I view that the relationship already begins with intimacy and only grows deeper, but I never doubt for a second that I do indeed have an intimate relationship with my wife.

This is how it is with us and God. The PROOF of our intimate 'knowing' of God (like how Adam 'knew' Eve) is the fruit that 'knowing' produces.

How does a child of God, indwelt by the Spirit, brought to glorious life in Christ.. not know God? The Greek word implies knowledge through personal experience, not necessarily sexual intimacy, though it can given the context. It doesn't carry this meaning in every usage, that's a failure to understand how meaning of a word is determined.

While I think we can come to know God intimately, I don't think that is what the context of these passages imply.

That doesn't mean we aren't legitimately bound to God if in the beginning that proof is not there.

As I have been saying, this would only be an exercise performed in the retrospective, because one has no assurance at all if there is no fruit. Nothing you have said implies that there is a deep transformation by the Spirit in the believer... it is as if you think the person is just the same until someone tells them to act differently. Then, they themselves are the driving force behind them performing the actions, rather than it being God through his Holy Spirit working in the believer to conform him more and more to be like Christ.

Ultimately, it does mean that on the Day of Judgment. But to suggest any and all Christians right out of the gate produce this fruit of 'knowing', because they are saved, and if they don't it means they aren't saved, is simply false and is neither supported by the scriptures, nor by actual experience.

Find me one Scripture that demonstrates that a person who does not know God is saved.

I have provided plenty of evidence to the contrary, and the New Covenant especially refutes your claim.

Speaking about the New Covenant, God speaks through Jeremiah and says: "And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” Jeremiah 31:34 (ESV)

Yet, you seem to believe that there are some that don't know God, which is to take away the promise of God regarding the New Covenant.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I am not saying the parable is false... I am saying you are not understanding it properly. You assume improperly that believers are the "plantings of God" and that it is about their journey in maturing.

Jesus makes it clear at the beginning that the parable is about the kingdom of God, and it's a parable about it's growth.

The parable is indeed about individuals maturing into Christ. We know that from Matthew's version of Jesus' teaching on the the stalks of growth in the kingdom of God. You can read them here:

The parable: Matthew 13:24-30 NASB

The explanation of the parable: Matthew 13:36-43 NASB

You have to keep John's definition of 'knowing' in mind when determining who has this 'knowing' and who does not. We both agree John is defining 'knowing' God as a lifestyle of genuine change in the believers character, specifically the change into a lifestyle of godly love, and not just a hit-and-miss loving. You claim this knowing, this habitual lifestyle of a changed character, is present in the believer right from the start. Biblically, there is no way to defend that belief.

Find me one Scripture that demonstrates that a person who does not know God is saved.

Keeping John' definition of 'knowing' in mind, we know that the Corinthians were saved but had not yet begun living according to that definition:

10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you." (1 Corinthians 1:10-11 NASB)

"1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?" (1 Corinthians 3:1-3)

The Hebrew church was also guilty of not having come to this mature 'knowing' as John defines that:

"12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant.14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil."" (Hebrews 5:12-14 NASB)

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The parable is indeed about individuals maturing into Christ. We know that from Matthew's version of Jesus' teaching on the the stalks of growth in the kingdom of God. You can read them here:

The parable: Matthew 13:24-30 NASB

The explanation of the parable: Matthew 13:36-43 NASB

Okay.. here is another reason why you are doing so much damage to the interpretation.. This parable is unique to Mark, and the Matthew 13 parable of the weeds among the wheat is entirely different, it only is another example of Jesus using a farming parable to relate to his audience.

I have plenty of commentaries that agree it is unique. Here are a couple examples.

This parable is unique to Mark. [1]

Only Mark records this parable.[2]

The parable is about the the mysterious power of the seed to produce a crop, and how the one who planted it doesn't even know how it grows. Here is a good quote on it.

"As seedtime is followed in due time by harvest, so will the present hiddenness and ambiguousness of the kingdom of God be succeeded by its glorious manifestation[3]

So again, you are wrong.

You have to keep John's definition of 'knowing' in mind when determining who has this 'knowing' and who does not. We both agree John is defining 'knowing' God as a lifestyle of genuine change in the believers character, specifically the change into a lifestyle of godly love, and not just a hit-and-miss loving. You claim this knowing, this habitual lifestyle of a changed character, is present in the believer right from the start. Biblically, there is no way to defend that belief.

You are confused, the word "to know" is used and it is not the present participle, it is present indicative which doesn't carry the same habitual meaning as the word "loving" does in the verse, although it does constitute continual action but not to the same degree.

All believers have eternal life, which is defined by Jesus in John 17:3 as "that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Which of course begs the question of how one can have eternal life in their possession and not know the Father or the Son.

Your argument also fails to note the power of the Holy Spirit, and that it is because each believer receives the Holy Spirit that we come to know God.

For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry out, “Abba! Father!” Romans 8:15 (LEB)

You see, it is no accident that John puts being born again and knowing God right next to each other, for we come to know God because we are born anew by the Spirit and given that Spirit of adoption.

Lastly, your argument fails because it contradicts the promise of the New Covenant given in Jeremiah (which you continually ignore), which says, "for they shall all know me."

Keeping John' definition of 'knowing' in mind, we know that the Corinthians were saved but had not yet begun living according to that definition:

10 Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment.11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you." (1 Corinthians 1:10-11 NASB)

"1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able,3 for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?" (1 Corinthians 3:1-3)
The Hebrew church was also guilty of not having come to this mature 'knowing' as John defines that:
"12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food.13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant.14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil."" (Hebrews 5:12-14 NASB)

You seem to suppose that this knowing has to be so deep that the person doesn't make any more of these mistakes? Peter himself has to get corrected by Paul, and we can be quite sure that he knows God. I have already addressed the necessity for a believer to mature, but do you know what none of these texts say? None of them say that these people didn't know God, that is a self-serving implication you are drawing on these texts based upon a wrong interpretation of 1 John.

Every believer knows God to some degree, and then we come to know him even more intimately as we progress. But the beginning of our relationship with God is unlike any other, because it is supernatural and spiritual, having the Holy Spirit being put within us to reveal the glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus and to unveil the love of God to our hearts in adoption so that we come to know our new Father. This is not a work that comes later, it is only a knowledge that is made deeper.


[1] Utley, R. J. D. (2000). The Gospel according to Peter: Mark and I & II Peter. Study Guide Commentary Series (Vol. Volume 2, p. 57). Marshall, Texas: Bible Lessons International.
[2] Wessel, W. W. (1984). Mark. (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.)The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (p. 652). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
[3] (Cranfield, Gospel of Mark, p. 168).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Okay.. here is another reason why you are doing so much damage to the interpretation.. This parable is unique to Mark, and the Matthew 13 parable of the weeds among the wheat is entirely different, it only is another example of Jesus using a farming parable to relate to his audience.

I have plenty of commentaries that agree it is unique. Here are a couple examples.

This parable is unique to Mark. [1]

Only Mark records this parable.[2]

The parable is about the the mysterious power of the seed to produce a crop, and how the one who planted it doesn't even know how it grows. Here is a good quote on it.

"As seedtime is followed in due time by harvest, so will the present hiddenness and ambiguousness of the kingdom of God be succeeded by its glorious manifestation[3]

So again, you are wrong.

No, I'm not wrong. The parallels in the parables are unmistakable. Matthew simply recorded more details of Jesus' teaching, perhaps brought forth in a different time it was taught. I don't need a commentary that makes what I can plainly see for myself somehow go away (as so much doctrine in the present day church does.). Will the church ever stop doing this dishonest, deceitful thing?

All believers have eternal life, which is defined by Jesus in John 17:3 as "that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Which of course begs the question of how one can have eternal life in their possession and not know the Father or the Son.

Because they have not formed the mature fruit of the Spirit, love. The Corinthians being case in point. You did see the passages I provided at your request, right?

And this is exactly the thinking I'm challenging, that just because you're born again you have a legitimate boast to the quality of life called eternal life. Every person has eternal life as in salvation, but John says not every saved person walks in the life and light of the truth, and as a result they do not live in the manifestation of all that eternal life is in this life. He says they do not 'know' God.

Your argument also fails to note the power of the Holy Spirit, and that it is because each believer receives the Holy Spirit that we come to know God.

Why did this power not bring the Corinthians to the maturity of John's knowing that you insist is in every believer right from the beginning? They did not 'know' God by John's definition, but we know they were saved.

You see, it is no accident that John puts being born again and knowing God right next to each other, for we come to know God because we are born anew by the Spirit and given that Spirit of adoption.

But what you're challenging is what I showed you the Corinthians demonstrated, that just because you're born again doesn't mean you're walking in the mature fruit of love, John's 'knowing':

"...we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments." (1 John 2:3 NASB)

"10 The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him.11 But the one who hates his brother (does not keep His commandments) is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes." (1 John 2:11 NASB)

"This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us." (1 John 3:23 NASB)

You see the church has decided that not loving and, as a result, being in the dark, automatically equates to not being born again. I proved to you in the example of the Corinthians that this simply is not true. They did not keep God's commandment to love, yet they were without question born again. We have Paul's famous love chapter as a result of the correction toward the obedience of love they needed in their salvation. You say they already had this 'knowing' of God in the loving of others from the beginning--but we can plainly see they did not. But you say they did just by virtue of being born again. .

Lastly, your argument fails because it contradicts the promise of the New Covenant given in Jeremiah (which you continually ignore), which says, "for they shall all know me."

What I'm challenging is your assertion that John's knowing, the knowing of 'love your neighbor as yourself', is right from the moment you are born again, because you are born again. I wish that were true. And as I've shown you, the Corinthians clearly disprove your assertion.

You seem to suppose that this knowing has to be so deep that the person doesn't make any more of these mistakes?

Uh, no.

I was pretty sure we were in agreement on this point. Love--the knowing John talks about--is a lifestyle of a changed character of loving God/others, not an inconsistent, haphazard, hit-and-miss record of doing loving things.

I have already addressed the necessity for a believer to mature, but do you know what none of these texts say? None of them say that these people didn't know God, that is a self-serving implication you are drawing on these texts based upon a wrong interpretation of 1 John.

Look at this:

"Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.2 If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know;3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him." (1 Corinthians 8:1-3 NASB)

Paul is plainly saying what I've been saying. These Corinthians do not know God according to John's 'knowing', the knowing of God that is seen in loving God/others. These people DO NOT have the knowing John has defined in his letter, and which I addressed in the OP, yet they are saved. But you say they did have that knowing because all born again believers have that knowing. Well, the Corinthians prove you wrong.

Every believer knows God to some degree, and then we come to know him even more intimately as we progress.

But you say all believers immediately start out in John's knowing. I've plainly showed you from the Bible that your assertion is completely false.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

No, I'm not wrong. The parallels in the parables are unmistakable. Matthew simply recorded more details of Jesus' teaching, perhaps brought forth in a different time it was taught. I don't need a commentary that makes what I can plainly see for myself somehow go away (as so much doctrine in the present day church does.). Will the church ever stop doing this dishonest, deceitful thing?

This is getting awfully tedious..

Just because a parable begins the same way.. does not mean that it is the same parable. They are two distinct parables with different messages. Let's compare them both in their entirety.

He put before them another parable, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while his people were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed darnel in the midst of the wheat and went away. 26 So when the ⌊wheat⌋ sprouted and yielded grain, then the darnel appeared also. 27 So the slaves of the master of the house came and* said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have darnel?’ 28 And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ So the slaves said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and* gather them?’ 29 But he said, “No, lest when you* gather the darnel you uproot the wheat together with it. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the season of the harvest I will tell the reapers, “First gather the darnel and tie it into bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my storehouse.” ’ ” Matthew 13:24–30 (LEB)

And he said, “The kingdom of God is like this: like a man scatters seed on the ground. 27 And he sleeps and gets up, night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows—⌊he does not know how⌋. 28 By itself the soil produces a crop: first the grass, then the head of grain, then the full grain in the head. 29 But when the crop permits, he sends in the sickle right away, because the harvest has come.” Mark 4:26–29 (LEB)

Notice that the only comparison that can be made are the following things.

1) Jesus uses the a similar start to the story by having in one a man who scatters seed on the ground and one where he sowed good seed in his field.
The difference: In the parable of the weeds among the wheat, it mentions that it is "good seed."
2) It mentions that the one who planted the seeds was sleeping.
The difference: In the parable of the weeds among the wheat, it mentioned that the man was sleeping to introduce the "enemy"who came and sowed the weed (darnel is a specific weed that looks like wheat but has poisonous seeds). While in the parable of the seed that grows by itself, the mentioning of the man sleeping was to demonstrate the passage of time.
3) They both mention the reaping.
The difference: This is used often in Jesus' parables to be symbolic of the judgement that comes with the fullness of the Kingdom.

These parables are distinctly different in their content and overall message, which is why commentators and myself recognize that these are not the same parable, but only share small similarities. Yet they couldn't be more different in regards to what the parables mean.

Again.. you are wrong, and all you have done is stated your opinion, while offering no evidence except what seems to be "apparent" to you, then accuse the Church of dishonesty and being deceitful.

Because they have not formed the mature fruit of the Spirit, love. The Corinthians being case in point. You did see the passages I provided at your request, right?

Are they utterly without love? No, they are "infants in Christ," and Paul is rightly helping them. Again, here you have concluded that these people do not know God, yet these people have eternal life (which is to know God and Jesus) and they are apart of the new Covenant, where it is promised that they will all know God.

And this is exactly the thinking I'm challenging, that just because you're born again you have a legitimate boast to the quality of life called eternal life. Every person has eternal life as in salvation, but John says not every saved person walks in the life and light of the truth, and as a result they do not live in the manifestation of all that eternal life is in this life. He says they do not 'know' God.

Where does John say this? Your error is that you think he is talking about two different groups.. which he clearly is not, and is why I cannot find a single exegete who agrees with your outlandish interpretation. He refers to the group of people who are born again and who know God as being the same group.

Dear friends, let us love one another, because love is from God, and everyone who loves has been fathered by God and knows God. 1 John 4:7 (LEB)

If his point is to help a person determine whether or not they have life in Christ, then why would he be concerned with making this ambiguous and arbitrary distinction between a person who knows God and is saved, versus a person who doesn't know God and is saved? There is nothing in the context to denote that, but rather that John is using the idea of "knowing God" as distinct evidence of being born again, which is why he uses it 66 times!

Why did this power not bring the Corinthians to the maturity of John's knowing that you insist is in every believer right from the beginning? They did not 'know' God by John's definition, but we know they were saved.

They were "infants" in Christ, an infant still knows who their Father is, and despite their being clumsy and immature it does not deny that they have been born of God and have begun to resemble their Father in some ways. Your argument is like saying, "why didn't the infant just grow up super fast." You're super imposing your own false understanding of 1 John onto other texts, where it says nothing about them actually knowing God or not, and it is simply not the way to determine Scripture's meaning.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

You see the church has decided that not loving and, as a result, being in the dark, automatically equates to not being born again.

No it equates to having no assurance that one is born again, whether or not that is actually is a reality is the reason why they also tell us to test ourselves and to work out our salvation.

I proved to you in the example of the Corinthians that this simply is not true. They did not keep God's commandment to love, yet they were without question born again. We have Paul's famous love chapter as a result of the correction toward the obedience of love they needed in their salvation. You say they already had this 'knowing' of God in the loving of others from the beginning--but we can plainly see they did not. But you say they did just by virtue of being born again. .

I am saying they had it to a degree, but the whole while Paul is correcting them and even asking them to test themselves. Even warning them at the end that whoever doesn't love the Lord is cursed. One who does not love the Lord is not saved by Paul's estimation.

What I'm challenging is your assertion that John's knowing, the knowing of 'love your neighbor as yourself', is right from the moment you are born again, because you are born again. I wish that were true. And as I've shown you, the Corinthians clearly disprove your assertion.

Again, another dodge...

You continue to ignore the New Covenant promise given through the prophet Jeremiah where it says, "for they shall all know me." Every believer in the New Covenant knows God. End of story, and your refusal to recognize this promise is worrisome.

Uh, no.

I was pretty sure we were in agreement on this point. Love--the knowing John talks about--is a lifestyle of a changed character of loving God/others, not an inconsistent, haphazard, hit-and-miss record of doing loving things.

Knowing does not equal love... love is a fruit of knowing, and as one comes to know God more they will love more. The knowing John is talking about is the relational Hebraic understanding, which is a personal experiential knowledge of God through Jesus Christ, which will cause them to be more loving, we love because he first loved us first.

Those who do not exhibit this fruit of love should be careful to boast that they know God and are saved, as Scripture supplies no assurance for such a person. Though I am granting that it may be because they are an "infant in Christ," but in this stage a person should be testing themselves and working out their salvation with fear and trembling, to see if God is truly working in them.

Look at this:

"Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.2 If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know;3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him." (1 Corinthians 8:1-3 NASB)

Paul is plainly saying what I've been saying. These Corinthians do not know God according to John's 'knowing', the knowing of God that is seen in loving God/others. These people DO NOT have the knowing John has defined in his letter, and which I addressed in the OP, yet they are saved. But you say they did have that knowing because all born again believers have that knowing. Well, the Corinthians prove you wrong.

Wow.. context always helps.

Now concerning food sacrificed to idols, we know that “we all have knowledge.” Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2 If anyone thinks he knows anything, he has not yet known as it is necessary to know. 3 But if anyone loves God, this one is known by him.
4 Therefore, concerning the eating of food sacrificed to idols, we know that “an idol is nothing in the world” and that “there is no God except one.”1 Corinthians 8:1–4 (LEB)

Concerning what? Food sacrificed to idols.. the knowledge that Paul is talking about is the knowledge about the freedom we have in Christ to eat this food, because an idol isn't really anything because there is only one God. However, he is warning them not to use this knowledge to destroy their fellow believers by eating the food that offends them. As he says later, "But watch out lest somehow this right of yours becomes a cause for stumbling to the weak." Those who have this knowledge should walk in love, not arrogance by causing an occasion for them stumbling because of their weakness.

Notice how you cut off the first part of the passage in order to hijack this passage to make it mean what you wanted it to... [edited by mod.]

But you say all believers immediately start out in John's knowing. I've plainly showed you from the Bible that your assertion is completely false.

You and I disagree on what John means by knowing apparently, and I have continued to demonstrate the errors of your interpretations by demonstrating that every believer knows God, and that every believer must love to some degree.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You and I disagree on what John means by knowing apparently, and I have continued to demonstrate the errors of your interpretations by demonstrating that every believer knows God, and that every believer must love to some degree.

That is indeed the problem. You won't stay within John's definition of 'knowing' but insist on straying outside of his definition, which is the basis of my OP, and launching into these diversionary attacks instead of facing the truth I'm presenting.

The bottom line is, you are refusing to acknowledge that John plainly says the person who does not love is the person who does not know God, but which we see from the rest of scripture does not categorically mean that person is not saved.

We know from the examples right in our Bibles, and in our own churches among our own brethren, and in many of our own experiences with God that not living in a lifestyle of love hardly means you are categorically and legalistically not saved. But you are insisting it does, ignoring and unfairly frustrating the plain evidence I present that it does not mean that.

I made some very pointed and direct and irrefutable posts, but if you insist on turning away from the stark and pointed defense I have leveled. There's nothing more for me to do but repost those posts.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What you're challenging is what I showed you the Corinthians demonstrated, that just because you're born again doesn't mean you're walking in the mature fruit of love, John's 'knowing':

"...we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments." (1 John 2:3 NASB)

"10 The one who loves his brother abides in the Light and there is no cause for stumbling in him.11 But the one who hates his brother (does not keep His commandments) is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes." (1 John 2:11 NASB)

"This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us." (1 John 3:23 NASB)

You see the church has decided that not loving and, as a result, being in the dark, automatically equates to not being born again. I proved to you in the example of the Corinthians that this simply is not true. They did not keep God's commandment to love, yet they were without question born again. We have Paul's famous love chapter as a result of the correction toward the obedience of love they needed in their salvation. You say they already had this 'knowing' of God in the loving of others from the beginning--but we can plainly see they did not. But you say they did just by virtue of being born again. .

 

[Jethro Bodine]

"Knowledge (about foods, baptisms, all the mysteries of God, etc) makes arrogant, but love edifies.2 If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know;3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him." (1 Corinthians 8:1-3 NASB)

Paul is plainly saying what I've been saying. These Corinthians do not know God according to John's 'knowing', the knowing of God that is seen in loving God/others. They boasted about knowledge of other things (they're Greeks, for heaven's sake), but these people DID NOT have the knowing John has defined in his letter, and which I addressed in the OP, yet they are saved. Thus Paul's reason for correcting them.

But you say they did have that knowing because all born again believers categorically, by virtue of just being born again, have John's knowing--all born again believers. I've plainly showed you from the Bible that this assertion is completely false.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Okay, let's agree to disagree, you basically just made the same arguments and continually refused to acknowledge certain arguments. Such as:

1) Your misinterpretation of the Parable. (dropped argument)
2) Failure to address the New Covenant promise, "for they shall all know me."

Instead you make self-serving inferences based upon how you personally understand John's knowing, even though you turn it into a contradiction because John also says that eternal life is knowing God, and that you believe someone can have eternal life yet not know God.

Moving forward will just go in circles and you seem personally motivated to entertain other possibilities.

 

[jasonc]

ok so when I got saved and I didn't believe in the trinity until the pastor mentioned the eternal godhead and when I asked God what was he trinity? I wasn't saved? I remember that I did confess jesus dying on the cross and that he was the son of god but until I believe in the trinity I didn't really understand the nature of god . therefore by the dogmatic Trinitarians I wasn't truly saved. if I died and none told me of the trinity and where would I go?

 

[JLB]

I posted some scriptures earlier on in the discussion that seemed to clearly teach us that the New Covenant was designed by God for us to all know him, and be taught of Him.

Peter is an example of this.

When asked by Jesus, who do say I Am?

Peter answered -

"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:16-18

The foundational Bedrock that The Church is built upon is; God speaks to us, leads and teaches us directly because we know Him and are taught of Him.

However, Peter did not know the Lord the way he would after the crucifixion, and would continue to grow in maturity in his love for God as a mature apostle.

Jesus asked him, after the crucifixion, -

"Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs." 16 He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep. John 21:15-17


Peter both knew and loved the Lord in a greater way.

I believe he continued to grow in his love for the Lord the more he knew the Lord.

I believe this principle is true of any relationship especially marriage.

I believe the more we know through experience our spouse, the deeper we love them and are committed to them.


The fruit of the Spirit is laid out in reverse order it seems, as expressed from God to us.

The highest expression or fruit of the Spirit is love. I don't believe we walk in the fulness and maturity of this love at the beginning of our walk with the Lord.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control... Galatians 5:22


Peter himself teaches us this valuable truth that we are to continue in developing the fruit of the Spirit unto Love.

5 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 2 Peter 1:5-7


The end of which is Love. The God Kind of Love. The highest and most valuable fruit. Love.

The deeper we know God. The deeper we Love.

I for one, believe this is the message The Lord has given to Jethro.

I for one, believe this is a very needed and timely message for the Church is this very dark hour.

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 1 John 4:7


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...John also says that eternal life is knowing God, and that you believe someone can have eternal life yet not know God.

I addressed this. Eternal life is not just a life that never ends. Eternal life in the context you are using it from is the quality of life that is eternal life. It's what we have now, in this life. Immortality is what we get at the resurrection.

"You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.3 This is eternal life, that they may know You,the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." (John 17: NASB)

All whom God has given to Jesus (that is, those who are saved) are given to him so they may grow up into the eternal life of walking in the light (walking in the obedience of love). That is the eternal life that is being spoken about--'zoe' life, the abundant spiritual life. This is eternal life, that they may know God and Jesus in the knowing way John talks about, walking in the life and light of love, not death. This 'zoe' life, this light, this obedience is what already saved people are destined for. They don't start out in it. They are conformed to it:

"29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son" (Romans 8:29 NASB)

This 'knowing' of being conformed to the image of Christ doesn't happen when you are born again. It happens as you grow up and mature in the faith.

1) Your misinterpretation of the Parable. (dropped argument)

The stalks that are planted and which grow are PEOPLE. People that eventually either bear the fruit of the kingdom and show themselves to be believers, or don't bear the fruit of the the kingdom, both of which are harvested at the end of the age. I'm amazed that you are even bringing the analogy into question. The stalks are interpreted for us. We don't need to debate and wonder what they are.

It is a teaching that directly contradicts your assertion that John's 'knowing' (the mature fruit of love--eternal 'zoe' life) belongs to every single believer from the moment of salvation. It's so clear and indisputable it can't even be debated except to simply reiterate it again.

Even if you wanted to debate the meaning of Mark 4. Matthew 13 is enough to make the point. Wheat is like any other planting. It bears it fruit after it sprouts. Believers are no different. That's why the analogy is so fitting. We don't bear mature fruit when we first sprout up in the kingdom any more than a stalk of wheat bears it's fruit when it sprouts out of the ground.

For the life of me I can't see any reason to work so hard to make the plantings mean something else except to perhaps guard some preconceived doctrine. That's not a good reason to destroy the simple message Jesus is teaching.

2) Failure to address the New Covenant promise, "for they shall all know me."

As I have said, the promise does not say all believers will have the mature fruit of the Spirit when they are first born again. You're adding that conclusion. But if I missed that in that passage, please show it to me. I've showed you passages that teach the mature fruit of John's 'knowing' not yet coming to fruition in genuinely saved people.

Instead you make self-serving inferences...

Actually you are the one drawing inferences out of passages that don't say what you insist they mean to say. I'm using plain passages of scripture that show exactly what I've been saying.

You have failed so miserably to address those pointed scriptures that I have no choice but to copy my posts over again for you.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I posted some scriptures earlier on in the discussion that seemed to clearly teach us that the New Covenant was designed by God for us to all know him, and be taught of Him.

Peter is an example of this.

When asked by Jesus, who do say I Am?

Peter answered -

"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:16-18

The foundational Bedrock that The Church is built upon is; God speaks to us, leads and teaches us directly because we know Him and are taught of Him.

However, Peter did not know the Lord the way he would after the crucifixion, and would continue to grow in maturity in his love for God as a mature apostle.

Jesus asked him, after the crucifixion, -

"Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs." 16 He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep. John 21:15-17


Peter both knew and loved the Lord in a greater way.

I believe he continued to grow in his love for the Lord the more he knew the Lord.

I believe this principle is true of any relationship especially marriage.

I believe the more we know through experience our spouse, the deeper we love them and are committed to them.


The fruit of the Spirit is laid out in reverse order it seems, as expressed from God to us.

The highest expression or fruit of the Spirit is love. I don't believe we walk in the fulness and maturity of this love at the beginning of our walk with the Lord.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control... Galatians 5:22


Peter himself teaches us this valuable truth that we are to continue in developing the fruit of the Spirit unto Love.

5 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 2 Peter 1:5-7


The end of which is Love. The God Kind of Love. The highest and most valuable fruit. Love.

The deeper we know God. The deeper we Love.

I for one, believe this is the message The Lord has given to Jethro.

I for one, believe this is a very needed and timely message for the Church is this very dark hour.

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 1 John 4:7

JLB

If this had been posted before I started composing my post I would not have gone into the detail that I did in that post, if at all.

Good post.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I addressed this. Eternal life is not just a life that never ends. Eternal life in the context you are using it from is the quality of life that is eternal life. It's what we have now, in this life. Immortality is what we get at the resurrection.

"You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life.3 This is eternal life, that they may know You,the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." (John 17: NASB)

I imagine you don't read Greek, which would explain why you stress the "may" from the NASB translation, which I disagree with.

Here is how the ESV renders it.

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. John 17:3 (ESV)

Now why do these translations differ? The NASB wrongly stresses the subjunctive over the verb tenses, and thus creates an awkward translation. For instance, will God definitively give eternal life to those whom the Father has given? Or simply is it just a possibility or probability?

Let's go to John 3:16 to illustrate this further.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 (ESV)

There are actually two verbs in the subjunctive mood here, and if we applied the same methods it would read, "that whoever believes in him may not perish, but may have eternal life." Should we conclude that there is doubt expressed as to whether or not someone who genuinely believe to have eternal life? Is believing in Jesus only granting a person better odds at not perishing? Or would this translation, much like what you are presenting cause us to do damage to the interpretation? I submit that the latter is the case, and that the present tense of John 17:3 denotes that a person who has eternal life should know God presently and in the future.

All whom God has given to Jesus (that is, those who are saved)

Incorrect, read John 17 again, those who are given to Jesus in this context are the disciples.

are given to him so they may grow up into the eternal life of walking in the light (walking in the obedience of love).

Grow up into eternal life? A person who believes already has eternal life.

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. John 5:24 (ESV)

That is the eternal life that is being spoken about--'zoe' life, the abundant spiritual life. This is eternal life, that they may know God and Jesusin the knowing way John talks about, walking in the life and light of love, not death.

Yes, and every believer not just the mature have eternal life. Therefore, your argument is refuted.

This 'zoe' life, this light, this obedience is what already saved people are destined for. They don't start out in it. They are conformed to it:

The eternal life, is the quality of life of the age to come. To live in the light and know God through his Holy Spirit, which is a down-payment of our future inheritance.

Eternal life is not something received in the future, it is had the second a person believes because of the supernatural work God does in them.

"29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son" (Romans 8:29 NASB)
This 'knowing' of being conformed to the image of Christ doesn't happen when you are born again. It happens as you grow up and mature in the faith.

The "'knowing' of being conformed to the image of Christ"? What are you talking about? As one comes to know God more and more, they will further be shaped and matured by the Holy Spirit to be like Jesus, nothing about that verse denotes that a person doesn't know God prior to that.

These are the ridiculous kind of inferences you have been making.

The stalks that are planted and which grow are PEOPLE. People that eventually either bear the fruit of the kingdom and show themselves to be believers, or don't bear the fruit of the the kingdom, both of which are harvested at the end of the age. I'm amazed that you are even bringing the analogy into question. The stalks are interpreted for us. We don't need to debate and wonder what they are.

In Matthew 13 it is, but in Mark 4 it is about the growth of the Kingdom, not the individual believer.

You transpose your understanding of a different parable onto a totally unrelated parable and therefore do damage to the interpretation of the parable.

I have more than established that they are two distinct and separate parables and you need to handle each on their own terms.

It is a teaching that directly contradicts your assertion that John's 'knowing' (the mature fruit of love--eternal 'zoe' life) belongs to every single believer from the moment of salvation. It's so clear and indisputable it can't even be debated except to simply reiterate it again.

1. Mark 4 is about the Kingdom, how can I make this anymore clear...
2. Nothing in these parables is about knowing God.
3. Your argument continues to be completely built off of self-serving inferences.

Even if you wanted to debate the meaning of Mark 4. Matthew 13 is enough to make the point. Wheat is like any other planting. It bears it fruit after it sprouts. Believers are no different. That's why the analogy is so fitting. We don't bear mature fruit when we first sprout up in the kingdom any more than a stalk of wheat bears it's fruit when it sprouts out of the ground.

You couldn't be more wrong....

He uses Wheat in Matthew 13 because it has a weed called dandel which looks almost exactly like wheat but has poisonous seeds. He isn't using this imagery to denote the growth of a believer (he makes no such inference in this context), but rather he uses the wheat to tell the parable about people who appear to be among believers who will be separated from those who are true at the coming of the Kingdom in glory (the second coming).

Again, more self-serving inferences that are built off of an utter lack of understanding of the text.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

For the life of me I can't see any reason to work so hard to make the plantings mean something else except to perhaps guard some preconceived doctrine. That's not a good reason to destroy the simple message Jesus is teaching.

To destroy the simple message Jesus is teaching? I'm the only one who gave an in depth interpretation of these passages, while you continue to prop up your own understanding as the "simple message Jesus is teaching," when in actuality the text clearly denotes a different message.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you can't comprehend this. Scripture doesn't mean whatever you want it to mean, stop twisting it.

As I have said, the promise does not say all believers will have the mature fruit of the Spirit when they are first born again.

I looked up the fruit of the Spirit, and didn't see "knowing God" in there. And looking at the text again, let's check it out.

And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” Jeremiah 31:34 (ESV)

Yahweh is saying that at the time of the New Covenant, no one will say, "Know the LORD," and that is because they shall all know him, and the "least of them to the greatest," denotes that it will be every last one of them. Why is that? The Hebrew word "ki" translated "for" is an explanatory conjunction that basically means "because." So they will all know the LORD because of the fact that he will forgive their sins and remember them no more. This is true for every believer and member of the New Covenant people of God, just as it is true that they all know him as the promise has said.

The Hebrew word for "know" is the same as in Genesis 4, where it says Adam "knew" Eve, the word "yada."

Actually you are the one drawing inferences out of passages that don't say what you insist they mean to say. I'm using plain passages of scripture that show exactly what I've been saying.

You have failed so miserably to address those pointed scriptures that I have no choice but to copy my posts over again for you.

I derive direct passages pertaining to the subject of knowing God, such as John 17:3 and Jeremiah 31:34. I do make an inference regarding John 17:3, that because believers have eternal life, this means they know God, which based upon the Greek grammar as I explained earlier, means they presently know him.

You've gone to 1 Corinthians to try and demonstrate that they didn't know God, even twisting passages about one's knowledge of their freedom in Christ to try and make it about this subject.

You also object to the plain meaning of John's Epistle which you disagree with based upon it's conclusion, rather than what the text says. You merely don't like that it would conclude with many people not genuinely being believers, but it rather is about a believer having assurance of their being born again. Scripture is clear that immaturities will be present, and a person will have to grow in godliness and work out their salvation, none of this denotes that a person doesn't know God.

When Scripture says, "for they shall all know me (God)," and you say, "they don't all know God," (paraphrasing the message you are giving) then I will naturally side with Scripture.

Behind your argument is the doctrine of easy-believeism which in my book is border-line heretical, I believe the grace of God is so powerful that it has not only the power to forgive, but also to transform, which I have seen not only in my life but also in others. It is not a complete transformation, and growth will still be needed, but a person who has no love for God or His people, should have no assurance that such a transformation has taken place. Perhaps they have a unique circumstance that makes it difficult for them, the powers of culture can sometimes run deep as it did with the Corinthians, but those who are truly of us (as John puts it) will pass the test that Paul submits for them to take.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I posted some scriptures earlier on in the discussion that seemed to clearly teach us that the New Covenant was designed by God for us to all know him, and be taught of Him.

Peter is an example of this.

When asked by Jesus, who do say I Am?

Peter answered -

"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:16-18

The foundational Bedrock that The Church is built upon is; God speaks to us, leads and teaches us directly because we know Him and are taught of Him.

However, Peter did not know the Lord the way he would after the crucifixion, and would continue to grow in maturity in his love for God as a mature apostle.

Jesus asked him, after the crucifixion, -

"Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My lambs." 16 He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep. John 21:15-17


Peter both knew and loved the Lord in a greater way.

I believe he continued to grow in his love for the Lord the more he knew the Lord.

I believe this principle is true of any relationship especially marriage.

I believe the more we know through experience our spouse, the deeper we love them and are committed to them.


The fruit of the Spirit is laid out in reverse order it seems, as expressed from God to us.

The highest expression or fruit of the Spirit is love. I don't believe we walk in the fulness and maturity of this love at the beginning of our walk with the Lord.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control... Galatians 5:22


Peter himself teaches us this valuable truth that we are to continue in developing the fruit of the Spirit unto Love.

5 But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, 6 to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, 7 to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. 2 Peter 1:5-7


The end of which is Love. The God Kind of Love. The highest and most valuable fruit. Love.

The deeper we know God. The deeper we Love.

I for one, believe this is the message The Lord has given to Jethro.

I for one, believe this is a very needed and timely message for the Church is this very dark hour.

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 1 John 4:7

JLB

Yet, JLB, would you conclude with Jethro that there are people who are believers who don't know God at all? Or with my position that there are varying degrees to which believers know God, but all do know him.