Saving Knowledge

If no-one is saved in ignorance, what do you think constitutes saving knowledge?

  • http://www.headlife.org Ronan

    The knowledge that, despite indications to the contrary, David J is, in fact, a Mormon.

    Seriously…hmmm…

    This is life eternal: to know God and the one whom he sent. But what does that actually mean?

  • http://thezigguratofmusings.blogspot.com/ David J

    Ronan, if that is what constitutes saving knowledge, then you’re one up on me. ;)

    BTW – If the Bengals keep this crap up, the AFC is headed for a big time upset in the playoffs. Mark my words.

    John, I suppose you’re pulling from D&C 131:6, right? If so, I usually go with the context to answer the question, in which case I believe verse 5 discusses that saving knowledge — knowing that one is sealed up by the power of God (the verb “knowing” is even used). If one knows that, one is saved. I remember being so upset with myself when I spotted that because it was right under my nose the whole time.

  • http://www.newcoolthang.com Geoff J

    This is life eternal: to know God and the one whom he sent. But what does that actually mean?

    This verse is my answer too. I explained why (at least partially) in my latest post.

  • http://www.splendidsun.com J. Stapley

    What is saving knowledge? Though I do agree with David J, In general and in reality the only knowledge for salvation is that of Jesus Christ and an acceptance thereof. To borrow from Brother Laub’s account of the KFD:

    Jesus Christ being the greater light or of more intelligence for he loved rituousness and hated iniquity he being the Elder Brother Presented himself for to come and redeem this world as it was his right by inheritance he stated he could save all those who did not sin against the holy ghost & the[y] would obey the code of laws that was given…

    …and I guess I will finish the quote on the other thread.

  • Mogget

    I’ll go with the context as well and then add a little NT flavor by pointing out that a good part of 1 John has to do with this same question, and it comes up with a very different answer.

    The christological climax of 1 John, 5:4b-8, is the only place in the Johannine corpus where faith is a noun (PISTOS). Elsewhere, it is always the verb (PISTEUEIN). What follows then, is a statement of the proper content of that faith:

    “This is the conquering power that has conquered the world: our faith (PISTOS). Who is the one who conquers the world, if not the one who believes that the Son of God is Jesus?

    Jesus Christ, this is the one who came by water and blood. Not solely in the water, but in the water and in the blood;

    and the Spirit is the one who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. And there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one.”

    So… one must believe that the Son of God was Jesus, and that Jesus came not just in water, but in water and blood.

    Needless to say, there’s alot of debate over what it meant to say that Jesus came “in the water and in the blood.”

    My thought is that the triple reference to water, blood, and the Spirit can only refer to the events of John 19:34. The water marks the gift of the Spirit, the blood marks the atonement, and the presence of the Spirit reveals the glorification of Jesus. The great gift of the Father, eternal life, is two-fold: the Spirit and the atonement. The Elder’s opponents, who valued the Spirit but not the atonement, are so corrected.

    However, the argument is long and it’s getting late. FWIW, there are other answers.

  • http://faithprorumor.weblogs.us John C.

    Mogget, may I just say that I am glad to have you around (as I am happy with all others who comment).


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X