Semper Reformanda Rule Suggestion

EvAng · Jul 10, 2007

Here is my suggestion for SR rules. Let me know your thoughts

Preliminary Rules for Sempera Reformanda

The purpose of SR is to enable Christians of a Calvinistic background to fellowship and grow in Christ together.

A. Membership
1. Beliefs:
a. In order to be a voting member and/or moderator of SR you must adhere to The Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, Athanasian Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon.

b. In order to be a voting member and/or moderator of SR you must adhere to at least one of the following historic confessional documents:
I. Articles of Religion (Anglican)
II. London Baptist Confession of 1646 or 1689 (Baptist)
III. Savoy Declaration (Congregational/Independent)
IV. Second Helvetic Confession (Reformed)
V. The Goat Yard Declaration of Faith (Baptist)
VI. The Gospel Standard Articles of Faith (Baptist)
VII. Three Forms of Unity (Reformed)
VIII. Westminster Standards (Presbyterian)

c. In order to be a non-voting member you must be able to affirm the doctrine contained in at least one of the historic confessional documents listed above in both a and b.

2. Privileges:
a. As a voting member you have the privilege to elect moderators.
b. As a voting member you have the privilege to serve as a moderator.
c. As a member you are allowed to engage in debate.

3. Responsibilities: As a member you are duty bound to uphold the doctrine set out under A1. Failure to do so shall result in loss of voting rights and/or member privileges. This does not mean, for example, that someone affirming the London Baptist Confession of 1689 cannot criticize or question the Articles of Religion.

B. Conduct
1. Members:

2. Non-Members:
a. Whilst we welcome non-SR members from seeking a greater understanding of our beliefs and practice this must be confined to the sub-forum Ask a Calvinist.
b. Whilst we welcome non-SR members who wish to debate with us our beliefs and practice this must be confined to the sub-forum Debate with a Calvinist.
c. Threads that seek to undermine the doctrine set out under A1 are not permitted anywhere except the sub-forum Debate with a Calvinist.
d. Non-members may not serve as moderators.

These rules can only be changed by a unanimous decision by the voting membership and moderators.

EvAng · Jul 10, 2007

Could someone who is in the know let SR know if this type of Rule would be acceptable? Cheers.

Zacharias · Jul 10, 2007

It looks very specific and well written.

EvAng · Jul 10, 2007

Freak4JC said:
It looks very specific and well written.

The only way to guarantuee that SR remains Reformed is to go confessional. Now I understand that this would stop some who do not like creeds etc from being voting members but this is IMO a necessary evil.

I would rephrase c. to read

In order to be a non-voting member you must be able to affirm the doctrine contained in all of A1a and at least one of the historic confessional documents listed above in A1b.

Zacharias · Jul 10, 2007

EvAng said:
The only way to guarantuee that SR remains Reformed is to go confessional. Now I understand that this would stop some who do not like creeds etc from being voting members but this is IMO a necessary evil.

How could one be Reformed if one does not affirm a confession?

Cajun Huguenot · Jul 10, 2007

I think there is plenty of room allowed in the creeds and confessions listed above so that every Calvinist should be ok with what you have posted.

I think we need boundries and you have set some good ones.

In Christ,
Kenith

EvAng · Jul 10, 2007

Freak4JC said:
How could one be Reformed if one does not affirm a confession?

Some independent baptists who are very Calvinistic do not like confessions. JM and mlqurgw are such people.

Letalis · Jul 10, 2007

Since it's unclear how voting/staff is going to work, I'd leave that out for the moment. I'm not sure how it's going to be set up, but it's being discussed.

An example of something that would work for the moment:

"To be considered a member of the Semper Reformanda forum with full posting privileges, including the right to debate, you must adhere to at least one of the following:

I. Articles of Religion (Anglican)
II. London Baptist Confession of 1646 or 1689 (Baptist)
III. Savoy Declaration (Congregational/Independent)
IV. Second Helvetic Confession (Reformed)
V. The Goat Yard Declaration of Faith (Baptist)
VI. The Gospel Standard Articles of Faith (Baptist)
VII. Three Forms of Unity (Reformed)
VIII. Westminster Standards (Presbyterian)"

EvAng · Jul 10, 2007

Letalis said:
Since it's unclear how voting/staff is going to work, I'd leave that out for the moment. I'm not sure how it's going to be set up, but it's being discussed.

An example of something that would work for the moment:

"To be considered a member of the Semper Reformanda forum with full posting privileges, including the right to debate, you must adhere to at least one of the following:

I. Articles of Religion (Anglican)
II. London Baptist Confession of 1646 or 1689 (Baptist)
III. Savoy Declaration (Congregational/Independent)
IV. Second Helvetic Confession (Reformed)
V. The Goat Yard Declaration of Faith (Baptist)
VI. The Gospel Standard Articles of Faith (Baptist)
VII. Three Forms of Unity (Reformed)
VIII. Westminster Standards (Presbyterian)"

Thank you very much

ksen · Jul 10, 2007

Why are we trying to rebuild a wall?

Isn't the driving force of Calvinism evangelism? Especially since we know that God is sovereign and that He WILL call His people home?

I'd think we'd want to encourage as many people as possible to come and visit . . . especially if we won't go out to them.

That's my $0.02.

EvAng · Jul 10, 2007

ksen said:
Why are we trying to rebuild a wall?

Isn't the driving force of Calvinism evangelism? Especially since we know that God is sovereign and that He WILL call His people home?

I'd think we'd want to encourage as many people as possible to come and visit . . . especially if we won't go out to them.

That's my $0.02.

We are not trying to build a wall but to provide boundaries so that SR does not degenerate into what GA was. Do you want SR to be moderated by Arminians or Atheists? What about letting Arminians, Unitarians, Muslims, JWs, Roman Catholics and hostile Atheists flooding SR with their views and attacking the very core of our faith?

I would welcome non-Reformed folk asking questions hence:

a. Whilst we welcome non-SR members from seeking a greater understanding of our beliefs and practice this must be confined to the sub-forum Ask a Calvinist.
b. Whilst we welcome non-SR members who wish to debate with us our beliefs and practice this must be confined to the sub-forum Debate with a Calvinist.
c. Threads that seek to undermine the doctrine set out under A1 are not permitted anywhere except the sub-forum Debate with a Calvinist.
d. Non-members may not serve as moderators.

ksen · Jul 10, 2007

EvAng said:
We are not trying to build a wall but to provide boundaries so that SR does not degenerate into what GA was. Do you want SR to be moderated by Arminians or Atheists?

Are they familiar with the rules and apply them fairly?

Then I don't care who they are. We are not electing a board of elders.

What about letting Arminians, Unitarians, Muslims, JWs, Roman Catholics and hostile Atheists flooding SR with their views and attacking the very core of our faith?

What about it? Calvinism and the Gospel are strong enough to withstand it.

Have you considered that maybe God is allowing them to "flood" into here because WE aren't flooding out to where they are?

I would welcome non-Reformed folk asking questions hence:

a. Whilst we welcome non-SR members from seeking a greater understanding of our beliefs and practice this must be confined to the sub-forum Ask a Calvinist.
b. Whilst we welcome non-SR members who wish to debate with us our beliefs and practice this must be confined to the sub-forum Debate with a Calvinist.
c. Threads that seek to undermine the doctrine set out under A1 are not permitted anywhere except the sub-forum Debate with a Calvinist.
d. Non-members may not serve as moderators.

Those look fine to me if that's what the SR community wants.

EvAng · Jul 10, 2007

ksen said:
Are they familiar with the rules and apply them fairly?

Then I don't care who they are. We are not electing a board of elders.

Whilst correct the safest route would be to have Reformed mods for a Reformed Forum.

ksen said:
What about it? Calvinism and the Gospel are strong enough to withstand it.

I am not against letting them ask questions and guess what? We already have a subforum called "Ask a Calvinist" for them to do that. My concern is that hostile non-Reformed folk will flood SR with anti-Calvinist rhetoric such as was the case in the Soteriological Forum.

ksen said:
Have you considered that maybe God is allowing them to "flood" into here because WE aren't flooding out to where they are?

As above.

ksen said:
Those look fine to me if that's what the SR community wants.

mlqurgw · Jul 10, 2007

EvAng said:
Some independent baptists who are very Calvinistic do not like confessions. JM and mlqurgw are such people.

I have no problem agreeing with some of the declarations of faith, such as the Goatyard, only I will not be bound by them.

Defcon · Jul 10, 2007

EvAng,
Excellent work bro. Well thought out and well stated. I'm all for it.

cubanito · Jul 10, 2007

1- If I understand the intent of the new CF, this should be posted as a poll, so that we may have an official vote.

2- A unanimous vote for change appears rather extreme. Perhaps a 3/4th majority? In any case, it should be specified how the initial rules are to implemented: by simple majority, supermajority or unanimous consent of those qualifying under the old rules.

JR

Zacharias · Jul 10, 2007

Perhaps add:

Ammendments to the rules may be made by two-thirds majority vote.

?

cubanito · Jul 10, 2007

I say 3/4, you say 2/3. In the ecumenical spirit of the new CF, I say we compromise:

3/4 + 2/3 = ~71% (17/24)

So, anything over 70%

How's that for ecumenical?

JR

Zacharias · Jul 10, 2007

cubanito said:
I say 3/4, you say 2/3. In the ecumenical spirit of the new CF, I say we compromise:

3/4 + 2/3 = ~71% (17/24)

So, anything over 70%

How's that for ecumenical?

JR

LOL I hadn't seen your post.

I just thought that it shouldn't need to be unanimous. 70% does sound good.

Ioustinos · Jul 10, 2007

EvAng said:
The only way to guarantuee that SR remains Reformed is to go confessional.

I agree wholeheartedly

Semper Reformanda Rule Suggestion

EvAng

Guest

EvAng

Guest

זכריה

EvAng

Guest

זכריה

Cajun's for Christ

EvAng

Guest

Well-Known Member

EvAng

Guest

Wiki on Garth!

EvAng

Guest

Wiki on Garth!

EvAng

Guest

Well-Known Member

------ Dr. Greg Bahnsen

Well-Known Member

זכריה

Well-Known Member

זכריה

Veteran

Similar threads