Replies

Thank you for your comments...

Moreover, the entire arc of the OT and NT are of a perfect, unified story of how we come to find God. And how He came to find us. To pretend that it was somehow “lost” after our own liberty as humans was founded on its abiding principles [truth] is to set oneself up on shifting sands

I think what I bold-faced above is the "better version" of what you wrote -- How he came to find us ... especially how God in Christ...vs. how we "find God." After all, if 'twas left up to us to merely try to find & fathom God, who could do it?

Not sure what you're referencing as "lost"...Because indeed, the Bible presents man-upon-natural birth as spiritually in bondage; spiritually dead; in sin; subject to darkness, death & the devil. Those are hardly "neutral" spiritually enlightened conditions to begin a "trek" toward God.

In turn, my own Christian faith is based on no leap into the darkness of doubt, no transitory feeling or warmth, but IT is a light of wisdom that shines brighter and brighter the more I question, investigate, and demand that the Truth be more worthy and higher than myself. I seek to let IT conform me to all things that are true.

I don't know you...I may be off-base in this assessment...but having read many others' comments about their "spirituality" makes me ask you: do you have any New Age tinges in your "faith?"

Why do I ask? Because those who integrate some New Age leanings into their spirituality tend toward the impersonal in describing their relationship with divinity. And, in this graph, you twice reference an impersonal "it" -- first in reference to your "faith" -- and then to "wisdom/Truth."

Our Lord Jesus has shown that Truth is Personal...a Living Person. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life," says Jesus. (John 14:6). Likewise, if I was to ask about your trust relationship with your spouse or key other person in your life, would you describe the relationship as an "it?" (I think of a trust relationship as deeply more personal than that).

Conversely I know that if salvation is merely deemed to be “correct thinking” about God, then who will arbitrate such thought?

Good reminder. There is such a thing as "dead orthodoxy."

But that gets back to my previous graph...that Jesus defined eternal life as follows: 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:3)

Notice ALL key components here: An intimate relationship ("knowing" -- going beyond dead orthodoxy); it also includes not only knowing Jesus...but knowing "the ONLY true God."

In the context of your comments, knowing "any ole god" won't do...You may have given a nice counterbalance to relying only upon dead orthodoxy, but knowing any ole god won't do, either. You may think you might have a "wonderful" online relationship with someone you've never met face to face, but if that person has either misrepresented themself -- or if others have done that on his/her behalf -- you don't really know that true person, do you.

People can be counterfeited...
...$ can...
...Goods can...services...products...currency...

However much the temptation exists to downgrade "correct thinking about God," the opposite error is to neglect the sad reality of counterfeit spirituality...counterfeit knowledge...counterfeit relationships...counterfeit presentations about who the "only true God is.

In the context of this thread, there is really no way Mormons can properly honor Jesus' words in John 17:3. Why? Because Lds theology doesn't teach that there's "only ONE TRUE God."

They teach many!!! God the Father had a father & a grandfather. A "council of Gods" appointed him to become a god. This god had a wife or wives...apparently also divine. Mormons deem their "jesus" and their "holy ghost" as separate gods. And then they teach that males can become gods & add to the great god count.

Such theology makes a mockery of many straightforward statements by Jesus and by writers of the Bible.