One Fold, One Shepherd.

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
Claire
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

One Fold, One Shepherd.

Post by Claire » Sat Jun 01, 2019 5:03 am

Rian wrote:The Christian church was built on and by Christ Jesus...
I begin by referring to earlier on in Jesus's third year of ministry, where He asked His disciples: "Who do you say that I am?". The significance behind Peter's answer was God the Father directly revealed it only to him, and Peter understood and accepted that reply (Mt. 16:16). Additionally, because he believed Jesus was the Christ since he first saw Him, and his faith was never shaken, that is why Jesus called him "Peter" ["Cephas" or ''kēp̄ā'' in Aramaic. "Petros" or "Πετρος" in Ancient Greek], meaning "stone, rock", and chose him to build His church upon (Mt. 16:18).

After Jesus's resurrection, but before His ascension to Heaven, He asked Peter three times if he loved Him. After the first two responses, Jesus commanded: "Feed my lambs", on the third it was: "Feed my sheep" (Jn. 21:15-17). It was then Peter's treble profession of love cancelled his treble denial, making him completely pure, thus ready to begin his mission, as the first among equals in shepherdship.

Peter, nor his successors, are greater than Jesus, but in any organism a hierarchy is required, so that it may be truly active and wholesome, that is, someone who commands, another who transmits orders, and those who obey. This happens in courts of kings and religions. From the Hebrew religion to others, even if they're so impure, there's always a chief, his ministers, the servants of the ministers, and the believers.
Rian wrote:I would agree that other Christian churches are breakaway sects, but only "breakaway" in a technical sense and "sect" in a non-heretical sense.
I'm not sure how many ways "breakaway" can be taken. The protestant Churches broke away from the larger Church as a whole, now being separated from it. Regarding "sect", when used within the context of religion, it is often associated with heretical groups. Perhaps some would prefer "un-orthodox", "non-conformist", or "apostate", but regardless of preference, the reality is that there are many Churches not in communion with Rome anymore. And, what was once whole is now sectioned and scattered, with adherents from these now rival Churches calling the others "non-Christian". An outcome that the LORD warned us against.

How can we call out the important differences as being wrong or blasphemous, if we do not have clear lines drawn when it is necessary? Do we accept all Churches calling themselves Christian? Jehova's Witnesses don't believe Christ is divine. Is that considered to be outside of the basic requirements for a "Christian" Church?
Rian wrote:I think they rightly broke away because of how the Catholic church grew worse and worse, and into some truly horrific abuses of power. Personally, I have no problem with the idea of different Christian churches with slightly different doctrine. Also, I think the multi-Christian-church model is good because I think it's safer to have authority distributed among different Christian church groups so that if one group goes really bad, there are plenty of other healthier ones available. Plus so many people come to Christ from so many different backgrounds that I think it's great to have a lot of different churches so people can find what ministers best to them at the particular place they're in at the time (as long as the basics are there).
Jesus has a problem with that, because it's not what He advocates: "And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." (Jn 10:16).

None of the breakaway sects run short of sinners and sin, but due to the Church's longevity, certainly its history of offenses against the LORD runs the deepest. Would it shock you to learn Satan has a hand in that? Since its inception, there has been more of a spiritual attack on the leaders within, and he'll only fight harder the closer Jesus's return approaches. While we know the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church (Mt. 16:18), it does not mean there won't be damage. This is why it's essential to pray for those in positions of authority (1 Ti. 2:1-3), they are held more accountable (Jm. 3:1), as well as reprove, and forgive them (Lk. 17:3).

Alas, the Church is divided, and unwise to leave it as it is: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment." (1 Co. 1:10).
Rian wrote:You bring up the concept of family; well, I don't live with my parents, although we are still family. My husband doesn't live with his parents, either. When we married, we left our parents, as the Bible describes, and made our own family. I think that is an accurate picture of how the Christian church as a whole operates.
The "moving out" analogy applies better to the non-Roman Rite Catholic Churches, e.g. Eastern Rite Catholics. Protestants are more like the members who condemn and cut themselves off from the family.
Rian wrote:I, along with many Catholics, belong to the Church founded by and on Christ Jesus, and since I have some pretty major issues with some Catholic doctrine, I will not join the Catholic church...
The Church, or Catholic Church, was built upon Peter by Jesus.

You know not what you do.

At least give credit where credit's due, because the Church is responsible for the following:
  • Carrying on of apostolic traditions from the time of Jesus.
  • Creation and compilation of the Bible as you have it -- minus some of the books protestants deemed unimportant because...reasons.
  • Rights and rituals that protestants have taken with them. Or, at least the ones that they haven't almost entirely turned their backs on.
----------
To summarize, the concept of one fold, under one shepherd, and the primacy of Peter, was clearly established by Jesus.
The promotion of multi-Christian sects flies in the face of these truths.

Rian
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: One Fold, One Shepherd.

Post by Rian » Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:58 am

Since I don't consider Christian churches "sects", your argument fails to convince me (plus other issues I have with your opinions in your post, but I won't get into that).

Claire
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: One Fold, One Shepherd.

Post by Claire » Sun Jun 02, 2019 3:21 am

Rian wrote:Since I don't consider Christian churches "sects", your argument fails to convince me (plus other issues I have with your opinions in your post, but I won't get into that).
Research for yourself the history of your Christian denomination, and trace how far back it goes without the involvement of the Catholic Church. See which denominations broke away from Catholicism, read about how bloody and turbulent the next hundred years were, and the differences between the denominations, and tell me why they shouldn't be termed "sects". Your feelings about the term do not make it any less accurate.

Rian
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: One Fold, One Shepherd.

Post by Rian » Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:22 am

And yours don't make it accurate. And I have no problem saying we came from the church that calls itself the RCC now. That doesn't mean that it was a bad or wrong thing to split off from the RCC which had many, many heresies. Your argument is not convincing. It's opinion.

Claire
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: One Fold, One Shepherd.

Post by Claire » Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:53 am

Rian wrote:And yours don't make it accurate. And I have no problem saying we came from the church that calls itself the RCC now. That doesn't mean that it was a bad or wrong thing to split off from the RCC which had many, many heresies. Your argument is not convincing. It's opinion.
You have a problem with the term "sects", yet I'm hearing everything other than why that term doesn't apply. And, why was it not bad or wrong to separate from the Church even though Jesus spoke of one fold (Jn 10:16), and Paul warned in the name of Jesus against schisms? (1 Co. 1:10)
Last edited by Claire on Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:56 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 2034
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: One Fold, One Shepherd.

Post by SEG » Sun Jun 02, 2019 10:55 am

I really have a problem with the Christian sheep analogy. Sorry, but it makes you sound like passive farm animals.

Christian Mindless Sheep.jpg
Christian Mindless Sheep.jpg (47.23 KiB) Viewed 718 times
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Claire
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: One Fold, One Shepherd.

Post by Claire » Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:59 am

Claire wrote:
Rian wrote:And yours don't make it accurate. And I have no problem saying we came from the church that calls itself the RCC now. That doesn't mean that it was a bad or wrong thing to split off from the RCC which had many, many heresies. Your argument is not convincing. It's opinion.
You have a problem with the term "sects", yet I'm hearing everything other than why that term doesn't apply. And, why was it not bad or wrong to separate from the Church even though Jesus spoke of one fold (Jn 10:16), and Paul warned in the name of Jesus against schisms? (1 Co. 1:10)
Have you chosen to bow out, Rian?

Rian
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: One Fold, One Shepherd.

Post by Rian » Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:44 am

Personally, I believe that we ARE one fold, and that differing beliefs on non-essentials are fine and even good, if the parties involved don't get their knickers in a knot over it. I'm fine with Christians belonging to the RCC if that's where they feel they should be. It looks like the only one with a schism issue here is you.

Your argument, filled with your unfounded opinions and vague interpretations, hasn't convinced me of your position. That's all there is to it. I have no desire to prolong the discussion. I've read your argument and I find it unconvincing. If you are being blessed in the RCC and feel that's where God wants you to be, then I'm glad for you. I feel that I'm where I should be in the church I'm at.

Claire
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: One Fold, One Shepherd.

Post by Claire » Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:17 am

Rian wrote:Personally, I believe that we ARE one fold, and that differing beliefs on non-essentials are fine and even good, if the parties involved don't get their knickers in a knot over it. I'm fine with Christians belonging to the RCC if that's where they feel they should be. It looks like the only one with a schism issue here is you.

Your argument, filled with your unfounded opinions and vague interpretations, hasn't convinced me of your position. That's all there is to it. I have no desire to prolong the discussion. I've read your argument and I find it unconvincing. If you are being blessed in the RCC and feel that's where God wants you to be, then I'm glad for you. I feel that I'm where I should be in the church I'm at.
You've described my interpretations of Jn 10:16 and 1 Co. 1:10 as vague. But, my "interpretations" was little more then letting their words speak for themselves. I assume you have your own interpretations?

Using my knowledge of basic math, multiple folds, or sects, does not equal one fold. And, you did not present evidence for why the term "sects" does not apply, therefore my "opinion" remains undisputed.

Additonally, it's not just myself with the schism issue, but apostle Paul, countless other Christians across the world, and more importantly, Jesus. Curious, if the schism was over "non-essentials" as you claim, then why separate from the Church, and remain separated?

How can we call out the important differences as being wrong or blasphemous, if we do not have clear lines drawn when it is necessary? Do we accept all Churches calling themselves Christian? Jehova's Witnesses don't believe Christ is divine. Is that considered to be outside of the basic requirements for a "Christian" Church?

The aforementioned questions are there if you, or another member with mutual views, decides to answer them.

Rian
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: One Fold, One Shepherd.

Post by Rian » Wed Jun 05, 2019 7:00 am

Claire wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:17 am
Rian wrote:Personally, I believe that we ARE one fold, and that differing beliefs on non-essentials are fine and even good, if the parties involved don't get their knickers in a knot over it. I'm fine with Christians belonging to the RCC if that's where they feel they should be. It looks like the only one with a schism issue here is you.

Your argument, filled with your unfounded opinions and vague interpretations, hasn't convinced me of your position. That's all there is to it. I have no desire to prolong the discussion. I've read your argument and I find it unconvincing. If you are being blessed in the RCC and feel that's where God wants you to be, then I'm glad for you. I feel that I'm where I should be in the church I'm at.
You've described my interpretations of Jn 10:16 and 1 Co. 1:10 as vague. But, my "interpretations" was little more then letting their words speak for themselves.
Er, no. It was quite a bit more than that.
Using my knowledge of basic math, multiple sects, or multiple folds, does not equal one fold.
Perhaps that's your problem, that you think it's merely a maths problem, or a basic one at that!
And, you did not present evidence for why the term "sects" does not apply, therefore my "opinion" remains undisputed.
It WAS disputed; you just didn't agree.

Your "opinion" remains unproven.
Additonally, it's not just myself with the schism issue, but apostle Paul, countless other Christians across the world, and more importantly, Jesus.
You're going by your opinion on what that means. You do a lot of extrapolation and interpretation and have a lot of trouble seeing that it's not fact. Good people have differences, and we can't always know what's right. Plus sometimes what's right for one person may not be right for another, as is explained in several places in the NT. I hope you can see that one day.
Curious, if the schism was over "non-essentials" as you claim, then why separate from the Church, and remain separated?
When I said, "non-essentials", I was talking about current times, not about the time of the Reformation. I think the RCC has fixed some of their issues since then.

And as far as the time of the Reformation, people didn't separate from the Church. They remained within the Church established by Jesus Christ, but broke away from the very corrupt leadership in the Roman Catholic Church, and very rightly, I think. I think the issues back then were bigger than the ones today.
How can we call out the important differences as being wrong or blasphemous, if we do not have clear lines drawn when it is necessary? Do we accept all Churches calling themselves Christian? Jehova's Witnesses don't believe Christ is divine. Is that considered to be outside of the basic requirements for a "Christian" Church?
I've already tried to explain things to you much more than I intended, so I won't address this. I doubt if we would agree on the answer.
The aforementioned questions are there if you, or another member with mutual views, decides to answer them.
I gave it one more shot, but will probably have to just cut it off eventually, as usual, because you just can't seem to have a rational discussion.

Post Reply