You agree that a sub forum will be sufficient?
Why? Tradition?
I see Semper Reformanda as of right now a totally mixed up forum..it's not what it advertises to be...at all.
Semper Reformanda...if we go with a subforum for presbyterians...needs an entire revamp. Which to me isn't the point.
A sub-forum meets the objective of having a place for Presbyterian only discussions. The Reformanda forum is a bucket for all things "Reformed", despite what we would claim that "Reformed" means. This allows one stop shopping for folks that have heard the word "Reformed" and are curious about all the flavors of those that appropriate the label "Reformed". Discussions of what "Reformed" means to this or that group can take place there as they do now. But, under the Reformanda umbrella would appear yet another sub forum, Presbyterian, which would have its distinctiveness, e.g., no dispensationalism, credo-baptism, etc. If such a distinctiveness is impossible (not permitted) when using a sub-forum, then, of course, I would be opposed to using sub-forums.
I sense that creating a separate Forum for Presbyterians is being resisted by management purely from a logistical view, so grabbing a sub-forum is a win-win for all parties that I could live with. I am merely being pragmatic and empathetic; looking at things as an administrator of a similar forum.
AMR
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(a.k.a., Patrick)
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Founder, Reformed Theology Institute Faculty, The North American Reformed Seminary I'm a Christian, catholic, Calvinist, evangelical, Presbyterian(PCA). Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell
in the midst of a people of unclean lips
A sub-forum meets the objective of having a place for Presbyterian only discussions. The Reformata forum is a bucket for all thing "Reformed", despite what we would claim that "Reformed" means. This allows one stop shopping for folks that have heard the word "Reformed" and are curious about all the flavors of those that appropriate the label "Reformed". Discussions of what "Reformed" means to this or that group can take place there as they do now. But, under the Reformata umbrella would appear yet another sub forum, Presbyterian, which would have its distinctiveness, e.g., no dispensationalism, credo-baptism, etc. If such a distinctiveness is impossible (not permitted) when using a sub-forum, then, of course, I would be opposed to using sub-forums.
I sense that creating a separate Forum for Presbyterians is being resisted by management purely from a logistical view, so grabbing a sub-forum is a win-win for all parties that I could live with. I am merely being pragmatic and empathetic; looking at things as an administrator of a similar forum.
AMR
Excellent post AMR.
A subforum solves all the potential problems especially with the relativistic view of CF. I'm sure if it was up to Presbyterians we would ban dispensationalism all together from Semper. I am sure according to some Presbys not even baptist would be welcomed there since many only see the truthfully reformed to adhere to the WCF and Three Forms of unity. I think the subforum should make all the parties involved happy.
__________________ "Theological liberalism is a different religion, a religion of moralism and uplift, whereas. Christianity is about sin and grace." -John Gresham Machen (1881-1937)
If this is what Presbyterians on this site would be happy with....I like it. (like AMR stated...as long as a Presbyterian distinctiveness can be maintained and supported in a subforum).
It honestly does make sense to start off with a subforum, and then go from there. It's hard to pinpoint demand for this idea, so a subforum would make it a more manageable startup.
Although my first choice would be what DD2008 suggested:
If we had a forum set up exactly like the Lutheran forum where there is the main presbyterian forum and then the PC-USA/EPC and PCA/OPC sub forums that would work.
I mean...heck, there are TWO forums for Adventists. LOL
I'm up for anything at this point...baby steps eh?
__________________ In Christ,
Fr. John
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by LiturgyInDMinor; 26th August 2009 at 11:16 AM.
Cool...thanks for the info. I'm not trying to start a war here over who can claim the mantle of reformed theology. i, too, understand the need for separation between debating factions at times and also know that SR is a place to hash out some, but not all things.
At any rate I've started a discussion thread in the advisory forum (with the UCC too) so hopefully we can hash this out. You know the pace of change on CF at times...but this is definitely now at least on my radar.
Matt, as I see it, the issue is not as is stated so much as it is that their are other who want to exclude others, period.
And it is also going to the point of who can and who cannot claim the title of "Reformed".
The subject of dispensationalism has come up recently, but in the 4 years I have been a member here, that has only come up perhaps 5 times.
But there is a clear cut belief now, and it is stated in a thread that was shut down recently, that if you do not adhere to Presbyterian doctine 100%, then you have no right to claim the title of "Reformed". If you disagree with the creeds being in authority, your not "Reformed". If you own a Scofield Reference Bible, that makes you a dispensationalist, thus, not Reformed. If you disagree with infant baptism, that excludes you from being considered "Reformed". If you do not view church history in a certain light, that excludes you from being considered "Reformed". If you disagree with anything John Calvin taught, this excludes you from being considered "Reformed".
The issue is, the title of Reformed is now being used exclusively for those of the Presbyterian faith.
I need not remind others that it was only less than 1 year before Calvin released his "Institutes" that he was still a member of the Catholic church.
Martin Luther did not start the Reformation to form the Lutheran church, he merely wanted to "reform" it.
I have been accused of not being "reformed" but you know as well as I do, that we have argued on opposing sides and I have argued the Reformed position many, many times.
I am, a "Reformed" Baptist. Yet in this thread, the "title" or the right to call myself that is being taken away and reserved exclusively for Presbyterians. Hence thwe title: "Presbyterian/Reformed (non-baptist) Forum."
The thing is, there are quite a few of us who claim the title of "Reformed" yet, if we disagree with certain doctrines, we are now being forced out.
I ask you to take a look at the recent threads started by the OP in the SR area.
If you really want to get technical, who were the true and first Reformers? The Donatists as early as AD 315. Who are the Donatists? John Calvin referred to the Anabaptists as "Neo-Donatists" around 1534
If they want a room all to themselves, fine by me. But do not take away from me, or regulate to them the exclusive right to claim the title of "Reformed".
God Bless
Till all are one.
So if anything, by way of the Anabaptists, I have more of a right to claim the title of "Reformed" than most.
__________________ "Cursed be the day wherein I was born: let not the day wherein my mother bare me be blessed. Cursed be the man who brought tidings to my father, saying, A man child is born unto thee; making him very glad...Because he slew me not from the womb; or that my mother might have been my grave, and her womb to be always great with me." -Jer. 20: 14-15, 17 (KJV)
Matt, as I see it, the issue is not as is stated so much as it is that their are other who want to exclude others, period.
And it is also going to the point of who can and who cannot claim the title of "Reformed".
The subject of dispensationalism has come up recently, but in the 4 years I have been a member here, that has only come up perhaps 5 times.
But there is a clear cut belief now, and it is stated in a thread that was shut down recently, that if you do not adhere to Presbyterian doctine 100%, then you have no right to claim the title of "Reformed". If you disagree with the creeds being in authority, your not "Reformed". If you own a Scofield Reference Bible, that makes you a dispensationalist, thus, not Reformed. If you disagree with infant baptism, that excludes you from being considered "Reformed". If you do not view church history in a certain light, that excludes you from being considered "Reformed". If you disagree with anything John Calvin taught, this excludes you from being considered "Reformed".
The issue is, the title of Reformed is now being used exclusively for those of the Presbyterian faith.
I need not remind others that it was only less than 1 year before Calvin released his "Institutes" that he was still a member of the Catholic church.
Martin Luther did not start the Reformation to form the Lutheran church, he merely wanted to "reform" it.
I have been accused of not being "reformed" but you know as well as I do, that we have argued on opposing sides and I have argued the Reformed position many, many times.
I am, a "Reformed" Baptist. Yet in this thread, the "title" or the right to call myself that is being taken away and reserved exclusively for Presbyterians. Hence thwe title: "Presbyterian/Reformed (non-baptist) Forum."
The thing is, there are quite a few of us who claim the title of "Reformed" yet, if we disagree with certain doctrines, we are now being forced out.
I ask you to take a look at the recent threads started by the OP in the SR area.
If you really want to get technical, who were the true and first Reformers? The Donatists as early as AD 315. Who are the Donatists? John Calvin referred to the Anabaptists as "Neo-Donatists" around 1534
If they want a room all to themselves, fine by me. But do not take away from me, or regulate to them the exclusive right to claim the title of "Reformed".
God Bless
Till all are one.
So if anything, by way of the Anabaptists, I have more of a right to claim the title of "Reformed" than most.
Ya know what Dean....I was going to keep my mouth shut...but I refuse to in this case:
Guess what Dean..realize this..the request is what it is...it's not about you or Reformed Baptists, it's not about scrapping Semper Reformanda....IT'S ABOUT HAVING A PRESBYTERIAN FORUM!!!!!!
<staff edit>
. YOU HAVE SEMPER REFORMANDA(In which I can count on 1 hand the number of times you've posted in in the past 3 months and that was alone to refute a post of mine...check the archives...it's there bud.) and you have the Baptist forum.
So what's your problem????
You are NOT presbyterian...thanks for your participation...Your knowledge of Donatists and reformed history is irrelavent here in this thread IMHO.
I quoted you so you don't do your usual:
deleted to keep the peace.
as you've done in the Baptist forum for the past month now when someone doesn't agree with you.
Your points are off base and moot IMHO, the reformed baptist thing is used as example ONLY to justify the need for a PRESBYTERIAN AND TRADITIONAL REFORMED FORUM...you just completely have proven my point by arguing against this in the first place.
You do realize that this thread and request is NOT TO kill Semper Reformanda as a forum don't ya? It's TO ADD A PRESBYTERIAN FORUM!!!!!
<staff edit> Nuff said.
I'm done...Tonks I look forward to your opinion and ruling from the staff on this.
Last edited by Philothei; 16th October 2009 at 04:11 PM.
Matt, as I see it, the issue is not as is stated so much as it is that their are other who want to exclude others, period.
And it is also going to the point of who can and who cannot claim the title of "Reformed".
The subject of dispensationalism has come up recently, but in the 4 years I have been a member here, that has only come up perhaps 5 times.
But there is a clear cut belief now, and it is stated in a thread that was shut down recently, that if you do not adhere to Presbyterian doctine 100%, then you have no right to claim the title of "Reformed". If you disagree with the creeds being in authority, your not "Reformed". If you own a Scofield Reference Bible, that makes you a dispensationalist, thus, not Reformed. If you disagree with infant baptism, that excludes you from being considered "Reformed". If you do not view church history in a certain light, that excludes you from being considered "Reformed". If you disagree with anything John Calvin taught, this excludes you from being considered "Reformed".
The issue is, the title of Reformed is now being used exclusively for those of the Presbyterian faith.
I need not remind others that it was only less than 1 year before Calvin released his "Institutes" that he was still a member of the Catholic church.
Martin Luther did not start the Reformation to form the Lutheran church, he merely wanted to "reform" it.
I have been accused of not being "reformed" but you know as well as I do, that we have argued on opposing sides and I have argued the Reformed position many, many times.
I am, a "Reformed" Baptist. Yet in this thread, the "title" or the right to call myself that is being taken away and reserved exclusively for Presbyterians. Hence thwe title: "Presbyterian/Reformed (non-baptist) Forum."
The thing is, there are quite a few of us who claim the title of "Reformed" yet, if we disagree with certain doctrines, we are now being forced out.
I ask you to take a look at the recent threads started by the OP in the SR area.
If you really want to get technical, who were the true and first Reformers? The Donatists as early as AD 315. Who are the Donatists? John Calvin referred to the Anabaptists as "Neo-Donatists" around 1534
If they want a room all to themselves, fine by me. But do not take away from me, or regulate to them the exclusive right to claim the title of "Reformed".
God Bless
Till all are one.
So if anything, by way of the Anabaptists, I have more of a right to claim the title of "Reformed" than most.
You're wrong Dean, and you're not a Presbyterian so your input on this doesn't matter. We know you are against us.
We want the same freedom as the Baptists have. You have a Baptist forum and the Reformed forum as well. Why can't we have a Presbyterian forum and share the reformed forum with you as well?
It is only fair Dean.
In a Presbyterian forum we could discuss presbyterian issues that are not baptist just like you guys discuss baptist issues that are not presbyterian.
Dispensationalism is not a part of Presbyterianism. Nor is Creedo only Baptism. We are Paedo Baptists and adhere to Covenant Theology.
Last edited by DD2008; 27th August 2009 at 12:36 PM.
(like AMR stated...as long as a Presbyterian distinctiveness can be maintained and supported in a subforum).
Linear Mode
