What if a Person Obeys Jesus but Doesnt Know Jesus?

[darinhouston]

My own personal take is that this man has experienced and has been moved by the light that has been generally given to the world and has come to realize the truth of what Jesus speaks of as the blessedness of service. He is living in the way of the "path" but without the power of the Holy Spirit (assuming he's not a believer). He may well continue in this role all his life and many good things come from it, but he may also fail to fulfill all that he could do if he were indwelt by the spirit. He may also fail to be sustained in his walk. We also don't know what motivates him, and if some psychological defect or life experience has driven him to this, it could well be a facade, and come crashing down. There is no way to tell, and unless motivated and empowered by the spirit, can't be counted on. As to his eternal destiny, yes I believe that is in the Lord's hands, though it would be unlikely in my estimation that he would reign with Christ in eternity if he were to reject the truth of his Lordship today.

I could be wrong.

[Paidion]

How about a man who had "accepted Christ as his personal Saviour" and who lives his whole life for himself, never helping anyone else, or caring at all about the sufferings of others? Is this man going to spend eternity in heaven because he "accepted Christ", while the man in the video spends eternity in hell because he didn't?

Which one of the two has a heart for people which God requires? Which one of the two "cannot love God whom he has not seen, because he cannot love his fellow man whom he has seen"?

Little children, let no one deceive you. he who does right is righteous, as He is righteous. 1 John 3:7

[TK]

Paidion-

Your point is very well taken.

But can you go a little further and explain where Jesus fits into your equation? (I know that you believe that Jesus would be behind this man's "salvation", if he is saved, just not 100% clear how).

Thanks!

TK

[darinhouston]

How about a man who had "accepted Christ as his personal Saviour" and who lives his whole life for himself, never helping anyone else, or caring at all about the sufferings of others? Is this man going to spend eternity in heaven because he "accepted Christ", while the man in the video spends eternity in hell because he didn't?

Which one of the two has a heart for people which God requires? Which one of the two "cannot love God whom he has not seen, because he cannot love his fellow man whom he has seen"?

Little children, let no one deceive you. he who does right is righteous, as He is righteous. 1 John 3:7

I think that man would clearly be unsaved in any respect. There is no scriptural authority for merely accepting Christ's salvation apart from anything else. James (and Paul) tell us that you know what sort of belief one has by the changed heart, and the works that flow from it. If a man lacks that, then accepting Christ as "savior" alone without agreeing to live according to His will/teaching (perfectly or not) has no eternal (or I believe even temporal) benefit apart from cultural/social implications of "joining the club." It would be as if one accepted a job offer, but only the salary part. If he didn't think he needed to go into work and put in an honest days' work, then he clearly didn't accept the "employer as such," he only accepted the pay. The employer's not likely to pay him. That's not to say we earn salvation, so the analogy is not perfect, but it gets at the point of what was truly "accepted" by the man.

[darinhouston]

A slight addendum, there's always the possibility that one in that situation is ignorant of what Jesus expects as to what is to be accepted/believed. The degree that ignorance is excusable, we have to leave to God. But, considering so many who seem to fit this category, surely there are some who if it were explained to them would "get it" and buy into it. Others might just prefer to keep to their ignorance and rely on the life saver. For those, they may well be surprised in the end and wonder now why they lack power over temptations and struggles in this life.

[Homer]

So Abraham was credited as righteous when he "did some good deeds"? I must have missed that one somewhere.

If we had the ability to line up all the people in the world, shoulder to shoulder, ranked according to their good deeds, the meanest on the far left and the best on the far right, I would say there would be no noticeable difference between any two persons on the line. So where would the cut-off line be between saved and unsaved? Yet Jesus said the division would be as easy for Him as separating sheep from goats.

I believe that sheep and goats story to be badly misunderstood. Perhaps works count for little or nothing unless done for His sake.

[Homer]

For some very enlightening info on this subject google "DA Carson sheep and goats". Here is an informative short article:

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~tim/study ... stions.pdf

[darinhouston]

So Abraham was credited as righteous when he "did some good deeds"? I must have missed that one somewhere.

I didn't hear anyone suggest deeds were credited as rightousness. If the man were doing things out of a score-card sort of motivation, then the deeds themselves have no righteosness value. The question here (I think) is assuming that the man did it out of self-less love for the people. I've expressed my view that this isn't enough of itself, though he's tapped into some blessings that flow from the truth of such a life lived. Only God knows his motivations, and if they are in some way driven by a recongition that there is some creator and that as his creation, it honors that creator to treat these people with respect, then he may well be treated in some respects as Abraham as having a less than perfectly informed faith, but responding in faith no less. That's not the same as works-righteousness.

[TK]

Darin wrote:

It would be as if one accepted a job offer, but only the salary part. If he didn't think he needed to go into work and put in an honest days' work, then he clearly didn't accept the "employer as such," he only accepted the pay. The employer's not likely to pay him. That's not to say we earn salvation, so the analogy is not perfect, but it gets at the point of what was truly "accepted" by the man.

I haven't heard this analogy before but I really like it. Definitely a keeper.

TK

[Joan]

I'm with TK. I like the employer/employee analogy and will definitely be using it. Thank you for your insights, Darin. Well put; I think you're right on the mark (great new photo of you and your wife, by the way)! This has been a fun discussion. It isn't until something like this comes up that I realize how much I take for granted that I know, when really, I need to be challenged.
Joan