Does salvation automatically equate to 'knowing' God?

[Jethro Bodine]

"...God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth..." (1 John 1:5-7 NASB)

James has the same message to the church in his letter:

"13 Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom.14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth.15 This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic.16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing.17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle,reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.18 And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace." (James 3:13-18 NASB)

Saying you have fellowship with God, but then not having an actual crop of righteousness of that fellowship makes you a liar who does not practice the truth. Does that mean you are unsaved? Maybe.......maybe not.

The seed of God which produces a crop of righteous living in a person (the fruit of the Spirit) is sown in peace, not in the way of envy and jealousy or any other thing that constitutes the deeds of the flesh. The Bible doesn't pull any punches. If you say you know God that way, the way of the Spirit, but don't live that way, you are a liar who does not live by the truth. You may belong to Christ well enough, but you simply don't know him the way you ought, the way John talks about. (Hey, what are those three fingers pointing back at me?)

 

[Doulos Iesou]

No. Being sealed with the Holy Spirit when you believe is Christianity 101. That's not what's in debate here. What is in debate is whether or not believers start out in the mature life of the Spirit--John's 'knowing God'--or if they have to come to that 'knowing', even though they are already saved.

Knowing God isn't a mature fruit of the Spirit, it's evidence of being born again and having eternal life. You're debating semantics, and I am debating facts. The New Covenant ensures that every believer will know God, and I am not saying that every believer knows God in an extremely intimate and deep way, but that they know God to some degree. They will have more assurance that they know God and are saved, the more they come to walk in love. However, the knowing God part comes before the fruit, it is the water to the seed that allows it to mature.

They don't have eternal life operating in their life.

Eternal life is something that operates in a person's life or not? [edit]

They do not outwardly manifest the life that is within them by the Holy Spirit. The Bible calls that being immature--not living in the fruit of the Spirit. They are the ones that do not know God, as John qualifies that in his letter.

John qualifies people that don't know God as those who haven't been born again, so no I strongly disagree with this assessment. Your exegesis of 1 John lacks a contextual warrant for establishing this mythical person who is saved, yet does not know God. The whole purpose of the Epistle is to grant assurance that these believers have been born again and have life in Jesus name, not to distinguish the mature from the immature.

All believers know God in salvation.

What exactly does this mean to you?

But not all believers know God in having learned how to live and walk in the Holy Spirit as seen in the fruit of the Spirit--the knowing John talks about.

He actually doesn't explain the knowing that much, but merely talks about the evidence of such. You're mixing cause with effect here. The knowing God is what leads to this kind of life, and as the believer matures they will evidence the root fact that they have known God. Knowing God does not equal walking in the Spirit.

From one of the passages I posted.

Which passage is that?

Do you expect to be sinning in the next life? Of course not. We will walk in perfect righteousness in the life to come. That is our hope. For now we have a down payment of that righteousness via a measure of the Holy Spirit within us.

So you're just guessing basically? Coming up with a reasoned answer with no Scriptural basis really?

But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. 2 Peter 3:13 (ESV)

It is not our righteousness that we are longing for, but the righteousness of God who will "put to rights" the whole of Creation.

They possess the promise of all that eternal life is by the Holy Spirit. What they may or may or not have is the manifestation of that eternal life in their lives. And, obviously, this is talking about the living righteously part of eternal life, not the immortality part. Obviously.

Eternal life is knowing God, not living righteously. Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Knowing God isn't a mature fruit of the Spirit, it's evidence of being born again and having eternal life.

In the context of John's knowing God, knowing God most certainly is the mature fruit of the Spirit--a lifestyle of loving others. And when you are mature that way it surely does serve as evidence that you are born again and have eternal life inside of you.

I told you in the beginning that the mistake you're making is straying outside of John's definition of knowing God.

The New Covenant ensures that every believer will know God, and I am not saying that every believer knows God in an extremely intimate and deep way, but that they know God to some degree.

But for the sake of this discussion, John has framed knowing God to be a mature knowing of God, not just the knowing of being saved.

They will have more assurance that they know God and are saved, the more they come to walk in love. However, the knowing God part comes before the fruit, it is the water to the seed that allows it to mature.

But if we stick to knowing God the way John frames that in his letter (loving others), and which this thread is about, what you are saying is 'the knowing God part comes before the knowing God part'.

Eternal life is something that operates in a person's life or not? [edit]

Eternal life, as John describes that, did not operate in the lives of the Corinthians, the Hebrews, and probably the Galatians. I did not make that up. That's what the Bible says. And the only way to frustrate the argument is to define 'knowing God' larger than what John defines it, and which this thread is based on.

John qualifies people that don't know God as those who haven't been born again, so no I strongly disagree with this assessment.

Problem: We have Biblical examples of saved people who did not know God as John as set that forth. Which is the point I'm laying down in the OP. Just because you haven't come to the mature knowing that John describes--loving others as a matter of lifestyle--doesn't categorically mean you are unsaved.

Your exegesis of 1 John lacks a contextual warrant for establishing this mythical person who is saved, yet does not know God. The whole purpose of the Epistle is to grant assurance that these believers have been born again and have life in Jesus name, not to distinguish the mature from the immature.

Paul calls those who act like John says don't know God (as he defines it) immature, not unsaved.

What exactly does this mean to you?

Knowing God in salvation means to know about the forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ for yourself.

He actually doesn't explain the knowing that much, but merely talks about the evidence of such. You're mixing cause with effect here. The knowing God is what leads to this kind of life, and as the believer matures they will evidence the root fact that they have known God.

As you mature, you come to know God in a way above and beyond just knowing him in the way of having your sins forgiven and begin to know him in regard to his ways and that knowledge begins to show in your own life.

Knowing God does not equal walking in the Spirit.

According to the way John is using 'knowing' in his letter, walking in the Spirit does equate to knowing God. Paul said the Corinthians did not know as they ought because they did not love each other. They had great powers in the Spirit, but they did not walk in obedience to the Spirit. They did not know God the way John talks about, yet they were saved.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Which passage is that?

"...we who were the first to hope in [p]Christ would be to the praise of His glory.13 In [q]Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession..." (Ephesians 1: 12-14 NASB)

Read this parallel passage. He's talking about our bodies.
"...also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:23 NASB)

"52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality." (1 Corinthians 15:52-53)

See? A new immortal body is a promise. We don't have it yet. We have the promise. A promise made sure by the Holy Spirit inside of us, guaranteeing that which has been promised.

"...waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it." (Romans 8:23-25 NASB)

 

[Deborah13]

Please be careful about making personal statements about another poster.

Not necessarily directed at the last poster.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

In the context of John's knowing God, knowing God most certainly is the mature fruit of the Spirit--a lifestyle of loving others. And when you are mature that way it surely does serve as evidence that you are born again and have eternal life inside of you.

I'm sorry, but that is a baseless claim. John never says that knowing God=loving people.

I told you in the beginning that the mistake you're making is straying outside of John's definition of knowing God.

I told you from the beginning that I disagree with your definition of John's knowing God. I have given plenty examples of what I think it really is, utilizing the texts in doing so.

But for the sake of this discussion, John has framed knowing God to be a mature knowing of God, not just the knowing of being saved.

Where did he ever call it a "mature" knowing? He framed knowing God as being evidence for assurance of salvation, and no where did I say that knowing God=knowing of being saved.

That is a straw man.

But if we stick to knowing God the way John frames that in his letter (loving others), and which this thread is about, what you are saying is 'the knowing God part comes before the knowing God part'.

This is basically what you are doing, and why it is so frustrating.

You are applying YOUR definition of what you THINK John means by "knowing God," to my own statements, and therefore creating a straw man.

We mean something totally different when we talk about Knowing God, mine actually uses the definition of the Greek word, yours is made up by a false interpretation.

Problem: We have Biblical examples of saved people who did not know God as John as set that forth. Which is the point I'm laying down in the OP. Just because you haven't come to the mature knowing that John describes--loving others as a matter of lifestyle--doesn't categorically mean you are unsaved.

You're making up your own definition of what Knowing God means so you can try to validate the period in your life that was fruitless/less fruitful. No where does John define it this way. Therefore, your transposing this false interpretation over to other passages to try and prove they did not know God is a fallacious argument.

Paul calls those who act like John says don't know God (as he defines it) immature, not unsaved.

1) No where does Paul ever infer that a person who is saved doesn't know God. That's your own self-serving inference.
2) I have not denied that there are varying levels of maturity among believers.

Knowing God in salvation means to know about the forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ for yourself.

This is "knowledge about," this isn't actually knowing for which the Bible claims. It does not make sense to make these distinctions when the Bible does not make any. Especially when the Hebrew word "yada" is used to denote the knowing that the believers of the New Covenant will have, which is translated into the same Greek word.

As you mature, you come to know God in a way above and beyond just knowing him in the way of having your sins forgiven and begin to know him in regard to his ways and that knowledge begins to show in your own life.

You're still talking in regards to "knowledge about," and John's knowing is relational. It is knowing who God is through experience, that comes when we experience him in Salvation, and is deepened as we walk in his ways and follow him and live life with him.

According to the way John is using 'knowing' in his letter, walking in the Spirit does equate to knowing God.

According to the way you THINK John is using the word "knowing," which you then are equivocating all these unbiblical ideas off of.

Paul said the Corinthians did not know as they ought because they did not love each other.

Paul was talking about a specific kind of knowledge, namely the knowledge of our freedom in Christ that they were using without love and harming the weaker and less mature believers. I've already addressed this text in depth to take into account the actual subject and context, which you seem to ignore continually.

They had great powers in the Spirit, but they did not walk in obedience to the Spirit. They did not know God the way John talks about, yet they were saved.

Please see the above objections, they also apply here.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

"...we who were the first to hope in [p]Christ would be to the praise of His glory.13 In [q]Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession..." (Ephesians 1: 12-14 NASB)

Read this parallel passage. He's talking about our bodies.
"...also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:23 NASB)

Really?

No, the inheritance is the new creation, the New Heavens and New Earth.

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. Romans 4:13 (ESV)

Paul goes on to argue that we too are the offspring of Abraham and therefore heirs of the world.

No where does it say our bodies are the inheritance, you just took a verse that uses somewhat similar language (the use of redemption) to try and equivocate.

"52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality." (1 Corinthians 15:52-53)
See? A new immortal body is a promise. We don't have it yet. We have the promise. A promise made sure by the Holy Spirit inside of us, guaranteeing that which has been promised.
"...waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it." (Romans 8:23-25 NASB)

It is not THE Promise, the one given to Abraham, which is about inheriting the New Creation in the New Testament. Abraham was never promised an immortal body, it was about the land.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Really?

No, the inheritance is the new creation, the New Heavens and New Earth.

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. Romans 4:13 (ESV)

Paul goes on to argue that we too are the offspring of Abraham and therefore heirs of the world.

No where does it say our bodies are the inheritance, you just took a verse that uses somewhat similar language (the use of redemption) to try and equivocate.


It is not THE Promise, the one given to Abraham, which is about inheriting the New Creation in the New Testament. Abraham was never promised an immortal body, it was about the land.

Just so I don't misunderstand, you do agree that eternal life includes immortality, right?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Just so I don't misunderstand, you do agree that eternal life includes immortality, right?

I define "eternal life," and I think the Bible refers to eternal life as, "life that endures in the age to come," speaking to the quality of life that one enjoys in the future age. Yet, they possess this quality of life in Christ by the Holy Spirit. It is what theologians call "already, not yet." Believers in a way possess eternal life now, but the fullness of that experience is yet to come and they will enter into it when the Lord makes all things new.

We are in a sense apart of the New Creation now, and are bringing that future Kingdom of God's rule onto earth now. We cannot bring it into it's fullness though as that will only happen with the Messiah returns.

I think the idea of immortality is better represented in Paul's writings where he uses the term, "athanasia," which literally means "without death."

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I think the idea of immortality is better represented in Paul's writings where he uses the term, "athanasia," which literally means "without death."

Do you agree that this 'without death' is included in eternal life?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm sorry, but that is a baseless claim. John never says that knowing God=loving people.

I told you from the beginning that I disagree with your definition of John's knowing God. I have given plenty examples of what I think it really is, utilizing the texts in doing so.

"let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love." (1 John 4: 7-8 NASB)

Loving = knowing

Not loving = not knowing

Where did he ever call it a "mature" knowing?

John didn't directly that I know of. Paul does that by calling 'not loving' immaturity. He called the Corinthian believers, who did not know and practice the way of love, immature. And immature for that very reason--they abuse each other acting like mere men of flesh, not spiritually minded men:

3 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?4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?" (1 Corinthians 3:1-4 NASB)

He framed knowing God as being evidence for assurance of salvation, and no where did I say that knowing God=knowing of being saved.

That is a straw man.

This is basically what you are doing, and why it is so frustrating.

You are applying YOUR definition of what you THINK John means by "knowing God," to my own statements, and therefore creating a straw man.

We can see from scripture that it is not a straw man.

We mean something totally different when we talk about Knowing God, mine actually uses the definition of the Greek word, yours is made up by a false interpretation.

Now that we can see that mine is not a false interpretation, perhaps we can get onto the same meaning of 'knowing God', the one John describes, and address the point I made in the OP.

You're making up your own definition of what Knowing God means so you can try to validate the period in your life that was fruitless/less fruitful.

Not just a period of time in my life, but, like the Corinthians, a period of time in the life of many Christians--a time of being saved, but not producing the fruit of the kingdom, but which the church generally defines as a time when you are not saved.

No where does John define it this way. Therefore, your transposing this false interpretation over to other passages to try and prove they did not know God is a fallacious argument.

We know the Corinthians did not know God the way John talks about knowing. They did not love each other, but instead were destroying each other with their divisive quarreling. John says that everyone who loves is born of God and knows God, and to not love is to not know God.

"...let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love." (1 John 4: 7-8 NASB)

At first we understand this to mean that the person who does not love is not saved. IOW, 'knowing' is to be interpreted as being saved, therefore, 'not knowing' means not being saved. This is the general understanding of the church. One I suggest is false and unfair.

So we know the Corinthians didn't love, and we are told by Paul himself that they were indeed saved. So how do we reconcile this contradiction in scripture produced by this thinking that 'not knowing = not being saved'? Does insisting that John is saying the person who does not love is unsaved remove that contradiction? Obviously not. So we are forced to come to another conclusion in what John is saying. One more in line with what I've been saying: That knowing (loving) is maturity in Christ, not an absolute, legalistic sign of being saved vs. not being saved. Though it's clear that loving others does indeed serve as the evidence of a saving relationship with God. It's just that 'not loving' does not categorically mean you are not saved.

1) No where does Paul ever infer that a person who is saved doesn't know God. That's your own self-serving inference.

By inference? Yes he does that. We see the inference in that they are saved, but they do not love--the love that John says is 'knowing God'. So we definitely see the inference that you can be saved, but not love others.

2) I have not denied that there are varying levels of maturity among believers.

Right, you haven't denied varying levels of maturity among believers. (Like how a plant gives it's fruit in accordance with it's age and maturity).

What I'm challenging is the church's thinking that to not love (being immature) means you're not saved. The irony being, a church that is not especially known for it's loving says this. (It's interesting to see the duplicity of false doctrines of the church).

This is "knowledge about," this isn't actually knowing for which the Bible claims. It does not make sense to make these distinctions when the Bible does not make any. Especially when the Hebrew word "yada" is used to denote the knowing that the believers of the New Covenant will have, which is translated into the same Greek word.

A knowing that New Covenant believers may not start out in the beginning. The Corinthians being our scriptural example of that.

Why does the Jeremiah prophecy HAVE to mean each and every believer has love for others--John's knowing--right from the beginning of their salvation? You're reading that into the passage.

You're still talking in regards to "knowledge about," and John's knowing is relational. It is knowing who God is through experience, that comes when we experience him in Salvation, and is deepened as we walk in his ways and follow him and live life with him.

But the suggestion that to not have this knowing means you're not saved is the point I'm challenging.

According to the way you THINK John is using the word "knowing," which you then are equivocating all these unbiblical ideas off of.

John defines 'knowing God' as loving others. That's Biblical.

Paul chastises a group of believers that did not know God in the way of loving others, but who were saved, nonetheless. That is Biblical.

It's impossible to suggest that what I'm putting forth here is unBiblical.

Paul was talking about a specific kind of knowledge, namely the knowledge of our freedom in Christ that they were using without love and harming the weaker and less mature believers. I've already addressed this text in depth to take into account the actual subject and context, which you seem to ignore continually.

They had knowledge of facts. What they did not have knowledge of was the ways of God in regard to loving others (the irony being, their knowledge of things actually negating the knowledge of God in regard to loving others). He says that person has "not yet known as he ought to know" (1 Corinthians 8:2 NASB). The very point John is making, except that we think John is saying if you do not love you not only do not know him as you ought, you aren't even saved.

 

[The Gospels]

in a way I guess..