Jump to content

Inclusivity


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Is the truth to be determined by its inclusivity? I could argue that the Catholic faith is inclusive. Truly. While there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, we are also instructed with all earnestness that we cannot know that any particular person is in Hell. There are extra-sacramental means for those who are not members of the Church to be saved by the Church. But I don't want to try to prove that we are inclusive. What difference does it make for our truth claims? It is all about perspective anyway. We are exclusive in some respects, and inclusive in others. But I do not see anywhere that anybody should win a prize for being the most inclusive in every respect. I do not see why anybody should be afraid to be understood as exclusive in many respects.

I am wondering where any of us here are told, by authority we accept, that we can identify the true religion by the standard of which religion is most inclusive. At most, we know that the most inclusive religion is the one we hope is true if we are in the wrong religion. Maybe I should talk about wide roads and narrow roads and where they lead. Is "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by me," inclusive? Let's quit trying to be the nicest religion. Would any of our founders have been trying to be the nicest? Not even those "churches" that thought to replace Rome were founded by people trying to be inclusive (nice). Being nice does not create the kind of motivational zeal that it takes to try to start a religious organization. The standard of being nice comes slower for some, Catholic and LDS?, faster for others ("churches" that try to replace Rome).  

If I was wrong about the Catholic faith (mind you this is a mere thought experiment), I would hope that the LDS message is true. The only good reason the "churches" that tried to replace Rome could have for making the attempt, is if the belief and practice of the Catholic faith leads to damnation. The only reason these people in those "churches" are supposedly inclusive of Catholic people, is because there might be Catholic people who reject Catholic teaching and practice. If I was wrong, I would not benefit from that kind of defective inclusivity. I believe everything the Catholic Church teaches, including the Gospel that is condemned as false by the "churches" that tried to replace Rome. That means I believe in indulgences, the veneration of the Virgin Mary, the treasury of the Saints, statues, icons, purgatory, faith and works for salvation, and any other doctrine that these "churches" that tried to replace Rome holds to be abominable. Protestant/Mennonite/Anabaptist inclusivity for Catholics must be logically limited to those who are Catholic in name only. If I was wrong in my faith, given the choice, I would opt for LDS inclusivity.     

Why does a church have to be true, why not just Jesus only. It's not in any brick or mortar. https://relevantmagazine.com/faith/remember-bible-never-mentions-building-called-church/

 

Link to post
2 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Because to reject the Church is to reject His work. 

 

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Basically because Jesus said so.  Argue with him that he was wrong to establish his Church with its Sacraments or Ordinances.

That is your belief, and I will not argue. 

Link to post

I don’t insist others believe it, but it is why Latter-day Saints in general make the claim. And why they resist changing the language they believe God instructed them to use. 
 

Soinds like faithful Catholics see it the same way. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

..................... inclusivity.     

I kind of like inclusivity, as long as it isn't mandatory.  I like to meander among unfamiliar places, imbibing the friendly atmosphere, even if I am not a native son.  At the same time, I try very hard not to step on the toes of those exclusive guys over yonder.

Link to post
8 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

In order to embrace the "Jesus only" ideology you pretty much have to reject 98% of the New Testament.  Otherwise, what was the point of the apostles writing their epistles and making corrections to false doctrines and keeping order in the church if it is just "Jesus only"?  It makes no sense.

Jesus' person, work and teaching are known to us through the Gospels.  Acts and the Epistles continue to flesh out the way that believers are to live out His teaching, while gathering together in community.  "Jesus" people like me (ie 'Christians' or 'Christ-followers') take the New Testament very seriously, and definitely do not "reject" it. 

I also strongly believe in the need for all members of a specific Christian community to respect, honour, and adhere to the guidance of the pastoral leadership/ elders of that community. I think this is generally understood and practiced by believers that are neither Roman Catholic nor LDS.  While we believe in the priesthood of all believers, we also recognize the authority of church leaders in the area of decision making for our specific community.  When it comes to doctrine,  we believe that God's Spirit helps us to discern God's truth and will from His Word (Scripture).  We also believe that God's Spirit speaks to us most clearly as we gather together around His Word.

Within each Christian community, God calls and equips people with the needed spiritual gifts (teaching, giving, encouraging, admonishing, administering, etc) for that body of believers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
33 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

In order to embrace the "Jesus only" ideology you pretty much have to reject 98% of the New Testament.  Otherwise, what was the point of the apostles writing their epistles and making corrections to false doctrines and keeping order in the church if it is just "Jesus only"?  It makes no sense.

Can't they be disciples of Christ? https://religiousaffections.org/articles/articles-on-theology/what-is-an-apostle-requirements-from-acts-121-26-part-1-of-2/

Link to post
19 minutes ago, Paloma said:

Jesus' person, work and teaching are known to us through the Gospels.  Acts and the Epistles continue to flesh out the way that believers are to live out His teaching, while gathering together in community.  "Jesus" people like me (ie 'Christians' or 'Christ-followers') take the New Testament very seriously, and definitely do not "reject" it. 

I also strongly believe in the need for all members of a specific Christian community to respect, honour, and adhere to the guidance of the pastoral leadership/ elders of that community. I think this is generally understood and practiced by believers that are neither Roman Catholic nor LDS.  While we believe in the priesthood of all believers, we also recognize the authority of church leaders in the area of decision making for our specific community.  When it comes to doctrine,  we believe that God's Spirit helps us to discern God's truth and will from His Word (Scripture).  We also believe that God's Spirit speaks to us most clearly as we gather together around His Word.

Within each Christian community, God calls and equips people with the needed spiritual gifts (teaching, giving, encouraging, admonishing, administering, etc) for that body of believers.

But what you say here really is my point.  Generally speaking when someone says they are "Jesus only" it means they don't believe they need to go to a church or believe specific doctrines or follow any appointed leaders, they only need to "believe in Jesus and be saved", period.  Nothing else is needed. 

What you describe above includes (1) living a Christian life (and we need a way to understand what that means), (2) participate in a Christian community [attend a church] and adhere to pastoral leadership (but we also need a way to know how to find the right leadership to follow and what church to attend), and (3) priesthood authority (but we need to understand how that authority is obtained and know who has been given that authority), and (4) believing in true doctrines as found in scripture (but we need to know how to interpret scripture so we can understand true doctrine), and (5) receiving guidance from the Spirit (but we need to recognize the difference between true guidance from the Spirit and our own interpretations).   All of those things are more than just "Jesus only", and those are the things that are what 98% of the New Testament is all about. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
29 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

By "they" do you mean the apostles, since that's what that web site is about?  That web site appears to be arguing for the Latter-day Saint definition of apostle (except that one of his "requirements" is misconstrued), not merely a "disciple".  What did you have in mind?  I'm not sure I understand.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I agree with a lot of your points @3DOP, but disagree on one major one.

Exclusive / inclusive talks are one thing.

Being kind and respectful to others in another thing.

A person can have exclusive believes and still be respectful and kind to others.  Conversely, a person can have very inclusive beliefs and still a total flaming jerk.

I am unaware of having  expressed a belief that it is okay to be disrespectful or unkind. You disagree with me about what? I believe it is okay to be rude or obnoxious to those with whom we disagree? I think you have misunderstood me. I also, exclusivist though I am, see no reason to be ugly about it.

I won't try to be political here. But a long time ago, I followed Patrick J. Buchanan politically, before I joined his religion. I sent him this goofy book that explained how the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon and he had better come out. He kindly wrote back thanking me for the "little book". He was very gracious with someone who attacked what he loved. I do not claim to be able to as kind and respectful to those who hate what I love as good Mr. Buchanan. But I will always try to take him for a modern model.   

Edited by 3DOP
  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

 

That is your belief, and I will not argue. 

It’s not just a belief. It’s incontrovertibly true that, at least according to the New Testament, Jesus Christ established his earthly Church and personally called twelve apostles to serve as the presiding council of that Church organization; with Simon Peter being called by Christ himself to serve as the presiding officer within that presiding council of twelve, and upon whom Christ conferred the keys of his earthly kingdom’s presiding priesthood power.

The only way your belief can be supported is if the Christ of the New Testament is a false Christ who had words put into his mouth that the authentic Christ never actually said. But why would someone come to believe Jesus is the Christ through the witness of the Bible and simultaneously reject many of the most critically important things the same Bible testifies he said?

Edited by teddyaware
Link to post
4 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It’s not just a belief. It’s incontrovertibly true that, at least according to the New Testament, Jesus Christ established his earthly Church and personally called twelve apostles to serve as the presiding council of that Church organization; with Simon Peter being called by Christ himself to serve as the presiding officer within that presiding council of twelve, and upon whom Christ conferred the keys of his earthly kingdom’s presiding priesthood power.

The only way your belief can be supported is if the Christ of the New Testament is a false Christ who had words put into his mouth that the authentic Christ never actually said. But why would someone come to believe Jesus is the Christ through the witness of the Bible and simultaneously reject many of the most critically important things the same Bible testifies he said?

I believe everything you say, but one thing, according to what I've read, and I'm not absolutely positively sure I'm right, is that it ended with the original twelve. They set the precedent. 

Link to post
31 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

By "they" do you mean the apostles, since that's what that web site is about?  That web site appears to be arguing for the Latter-day Saint definition of apostle (except that one of his "requirements" is misconstrued), not merely a "disciple".  What did you have in mind?  I'm not sure I understand.

I mean, can't our current apostles in the LDS church just be disciples instead?

Link to post
18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No.

I like my own authority, and not to be beholden to an apostle's authority. That's not how Jesus set up the church. I've seen too many apostles/prophets put out doctrine/policies that injured. But enough of that, don't want to go down that road. Because they are prone to getting it wrong, since they are fallible. Middle men scare the life out of me now. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

But what you say here really is my point.  Generally speaking when someone says they are "Jesus only" it means they don't believe they need to go to a church or believe specific doctrines or follow any appointed leaders, they only need to "believe in Jesus and be saved", period.  Nothing else is needed. 

What you describe above includes (1) living a Christian life (and we need a way to understand what that means), (2) participate in a Christian community [attend a church] and adhere to pastoral leadership (but we also need a way to know how to find the right leadership to follow and what church to attend), and (3) priesthood authority (but we need to understand how that authority is obtained and know who has been given that authority), and (4) believing in true doctrines as found in scripture (but we need to know how to interpret scripture so we can understand true doctrine), and (5) receiving guidance from the Spirit (but we need to recognize the difference between true guidance from the Spirit and our own interpretations).   All of those things are more than just "Jesus only", and those are the things that are what 98% of the New Testament is all about. 

Can't church be among a group of friends, or anywhere, like the beautiful mountains, or gardens or ? Why a building? How many have had a wonderful few months by having church in their homes? And have you heard members of the LDS church say, members are only practicing on Sundays, and the rest of the week not so much?

Link to post
1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I like my own authority, and not to be beholden to an apostle's authority. That's not how Jesus set up the church. I've seen too many apostles/prophets put out doctrine/policies that injured. But enough of that, don't want to go down that road. Because they are prone to getting it wrong, since they are fallible. Middle men scare the life out of me now. 

Again, this is why I said you'd have to throw out 98% of the New Testament to hold such a view.  If Jesus did not set up his church with apostles who held his authority and should be taken seriously, then why did Jesus say (when he was sending out his apostles): 

"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." (Matt 10:40).  

And to his seventy:

"He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." (Luke 10:16)

To "hear" one of his apostles or the seventy he sent out was the same as hearing him and his Father.  And to "despise" one of them is the same as "despising" Jesus and his Father.  That sounds like a serious need to listen to and follow them to me. 

The 98% of the New Testament I was talking about has to do with the authority of these apostles and their directions to the church.  None of the epistles, none of their teachings and ministry matters at all if it is "Jesus only".

Link to post
13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I like my own authority, and not to be beholden to an apostle's authority. That's not how Jesus set up the church. I've seen too many apostles/prophets put out doctrine/policies that injured. But enough of that, don't want to go down that road. Because they are prone to getting it wrong, since they are fallible. Middle men scare the life out of me now. 

I think some took the warning to worry about wolves in sheep’s clothing to mean that one should drive off all the sheep just in case.

  • Like 2
Link to post
44 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

I am unaware of having  expressed a belief that it is okay to be disrespectful or unkind. You disagree with me about what? I believe it is okay to be rude or obnoxious to those with whom we disagree? I think you have misunderstood me. I also, exclusivist though I am, see no reason to be ugly about it.

I won't try to be political here. But a long time ago, I followed Patrick J. Buchanan politically, before I joined his religion. I sent him this goofy book that explained how the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon and he had better come out. He kindly wrote back thanking me for the "little book". He was very gracious with someone who attacked what he loved. I do not claim to be able to as kind and respectful to those who hate what I love as good Mr. Buchanan. But I will always try to take him for a modern model.   

The below gave me that impression.  If I misunderstood, I apologize.  As to your personal behavior, you actually a generally very respectful and I enjoy your posts.  

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Let's quit trying to be the nicest religion. Would any of our founders have been trying to be the nicest? Not even those "churches" that thought to replace Rome were founded by people trying to be inclusive (nice). Being nice does not create the kind of motivational zeal that it takes to try to start a religious organization. The standard of being nice comes slower for some, Catholic and LDS?, faster for others ("churches" that try to replace Rome).  

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...