Pres. Uchtdorf at first session: the g and s building

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As far as I know, becoming a joint-heir with Christ in receiving all that the Father has is a part of protestant doctrine.  The bible teaches it in Romans 8:17 and Revelation 21:7.  But for some reason they don't believe that inheriting all actually means all.

It may be in the Bible, but if they don't teach it -- or if they implicitly reject it or any portion of it -- it is not part of their theology/doctrine.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

This is still a matter of interpretation.  How can we judge whether someone "believes in Christ"?  I would submit that following the principles as espoused by Christ, or "feeding his sheep" is the measuring stick for this belief.  I'm not one that cares about confessing the name of Jesus, and I can't imagine why God would care about that either. 

I can only go by what I read in the scriptures. Saying that God doesn't care whether one believes in Christ contradicts the scriptures, which make it clear that there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Should we start another thread to discuss?

I think so.  It's an interesting topic.  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I can only go by what I read in the scriptures. Saying that God doesn't care whether one believes in Christ contradicts the scriptures, which make it clear that there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved.

It only contradicts your interpretation of the scriptures, it aligns just fine with my interpretation.  

[mnn727]

23 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It only contradicts your interpretation of the scriptures, it aligns just fine with my interpretation.  

How else can it be interpreted? Seems pretty clear to me.

Quote

NIV

Acts 4:
11Jesus is "'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.'
12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved."

 

[Five Solas]

On 9/26/2017 at 9:43 AM, Gray said:

Okay, I'm going to cheat a little and go beyond Paul:

You're obviously a pretty thoughtful guy, Gray.  But in this example--none of those verses support the main points of your argument.  Recall your POV--

"Paul believed that Jesus was adopted by God at his resurrection and transformed into a divine spirit being. A new species. He also believed that followers of Jesus would be similarly transformed, joint heirs with Christ." 

Nothing you cited tells us Jesus was "adopted by God" (although he certainly was adopted--Scripture tells us by a man named Joseph).  And nothing you cited tells us he was transformed into the divine (as if He hadn't already possessed a divine nature).  And certainly nothing says He became "a new species"--as if New Testament writers/readers would have had any notion of this taxonomic unit (at least readers up until the 19th century).    

That believers will be "joint heirs" with Christ is straight out of Romans, so at least you ended your paragraph on an uncontroversial note.  Congrats on that.

;0)

But that doesn't justify those first couple of sentences.  Your biblical exegesis is wanting.

--Erik

_________________________________________________________

It isn’t the mountains ahead to climb that wear you out
It’s the pebble in your shoe.

--Muhammad Ali

[Raymond Ellis]

I like what Dieter F. Uchtdorf said in page 80 of the 2018 Febuary Ensign: 'Isn't it a remarkable feeling to belong to a church that embraces truth -- no matter the source -- and teaches that there is much more to come, that God will "yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God"' Articles of Faith number 9.