[ALL READ] Upcoming CHANGES

[Hammster]

What's the salary?



.

Five dollars a month.

 

[Hammster]

Regarding the logical fallacies, I read the OWL link from Purdue Uni, but I found the information much too brief. The Nikor Project list of fallacies includes double the number of OWL, is easily accessible, and is more detailed in explanation. See Nizkor Project.

However, OWL has the benefit that it is simple and basic and if a poster wants to go to another more detailed list for explanation, the Nizkor Project is another option, as is,

• Internet encyclopedia of philosophy,
• Stephen Downes, etc.

I think it is a positive move that you are requiring that a further explanation be given to demonstrate which logical fallacy has been committed when a poster claims a person has committed x or y fallacy.

However, I'm encouraging you as moderators to be more aware of how posters use logical fallacies to goad other posters and to act accordingly.

I wait to see how you as moderators demonstrate the difference between general soteriology and debate soteriology.

In Christ,
Oz

If you find a member doing that, you may report them with an explanation as to why you find it in violation.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

What's the salary?

​

Five dollars a month.

That is more than what I am making now.

Sign me up!

Moneys Too Tight To Mention - YouTube

.

 

[A New Dawn]

So, can someone give us an example of a discussion, that will not be debate, that can be undertaken in the main Soteriology forum? ISTM that this is going to create a dead forum.

Also, I would not vote for moving the debate forum to the Discussion and Debate section. That is mostly for forums that non-Christians can post in, isn't it? Christian debate forums have always been in the Theology section. Unless you are changing the nature of the forums, that is.

 

[Edial]

So, can someone give us an example of a discussion, that will not be debate, that can be undertaken in the main Soteriology forum? ISTM that this is going to create a dead forum.

Also, I would not vote for moving the debate forum to the Discussion and Debate section. That is mostly for forums that non-Christians can post in, isn't it? Christian debate forums have always been in the Theology section. Unless you are changing the nature of the forums, that is.

Debate is basically when an unmovable object meets an unstoppable train.
The purpose of a debate is to win, to defeat the opposing view. To arm-wrestle the opponent.
Opinions are never changed. Questions are preset. Everyone knows where this or that point is going. No knew knowledge is gained. The Bible is covered. And if some verses give some disagreement - the answer is - it does not mean what it says.
This becomes competitive in nature.
And since there is no such thing as a friendly competition rules were adjusted accordingly and forum was given it's own space.


The purpose of a discussion is to discuss, built upon the doctrine of salvation, learn, go with the flow of verses instead of fighting with verses.
Opinions get changed because there is freedom to expand, no "sides" to keep, knowledge increases, Bible expands.
Discussions are non-competitive, so we should not anticipate that many fireworks.
Discussions contain some debates of course.

Would the main forum have less traffic than the Soteriology Debate?
Possibly.
But there needs to be room for discussion on an important topic as salvation.
Salvation is the MAIN message to the world.
And the way we act should reflect it.

Examples of discussion?
ANYTHING can be a discussion is you are open to have your mind changed.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[A New Dawn]

Debate is basically when an unmovable object meets an unstoppable train.
The purpose of a debate is to win, to defeat the opposing view. To arm-wrestle the opponent.
Opinions are never changed. <snip>

Thanks,
Ed

I wanted to address this one section. I agree with the first part, but disagree with the part I bolded. When I came here, I was an unorthodox Christian who had a Christian icon pulled from me because I was unorthodox. I had no doubt that I was right and was not looking to be swayed. I debated in UTD for well over a year, and then God started using the debate to bring me to an awareness of what the Bible says. After about 15 months, I completely changed (well, God opened my eyes), and I went from being an unorthodox Christian to being one who believes in the God of the Bible (and the rest is history. ).

While I believe that many believe that they are debating their opponents here in Soteriology, God says that His word will not return void. There are many lurkers who learn from watching discussions of this nature. Besides, all of the Theology forums are debate forums (unless, as I said, you are trying to change the nature of the forums.) Not that this is any different from what I shared when I was on staff.

 

[Philothei]

There can be different styles in debate? Can we just stay with this for a while? I believe that civility can be accomplished as one does not resort to ad hominines. Sometimes I see the fight rather than the points! They are lost somewhere in the ad homine but not visible. And as a mod of over 4-5 years I have heard complains that no one can argue in Soteriology except two polarized groups ! That IMHO has to stop and accommodate more discussion that would explore more venues in a non-hard debate polarized way. Topic such as:
-Salvation as in Theosis
-Salvation through the Eastern Orthodox Fathers
-Salvation and Predestination Is it true that St. Augustine
-What is atonement of Christ
-What is sanctification and redemption East /Western perspectives


For some reason if one feels intimidated to pose these topics then it is not his fault IMHO but the status quo of the debate forum that sometimes makes such discussions impossible to discuss and it all ends us being a screaming match or a mocking/flaming feast! So yeah I believe like Edial said we are in need of a more peaceful and kind approach where posters would respect the OP the topic at hand and do argue or debate to a point but never goad or bate each other to the point of making others to fall into further violations or scare them off.
Not all of us entered the faith by such discussions; I am not saying that it cannot happen but a more welcoming approach is def. needed for it is missing from this forum and the matter of salvation is one of pertinent importance.

 

[Edial]

I wanted to address this one section. I agree with the first part, but disagree with the part I bolded. When I came here, I was an unorthodox Christian who had a Christian icon pulled from me because I was unorthodox. I had no doubt that I was right and was not looking to be swayed. I debated in UTD for well over a year, and then God started using the debate to bring me to an awareness of what the Bible says. After about 15 months, I completely changed (well, God opened my eyes), and I went from being an unorthodox Christian to being one who believes in the God of the Bible (and the rest is history. ).

While I believe that many believe that they are debating their opponents here in Soteriology, God says that His word will not return void. There are many lurkers who learn from watching discussions of this nature. Besides, all of the Theology forums are debate forums (unless, as I said, you are trying to change the nature of the forums.) Not that this is any different from what I shared when I was on staff.

And I am very grateful to the Lord that He used debates to save you.
I am also grateful for Steve's ministry that he was by your side at such an important time as the conversion of the Lord.

Debates have an important place in Christianity.
Debates are apologetic in nature and many, many of our church fathers from all denominations kept the Christian Faith by solid and irrefutable Holy Spirit while defending the Scriptures.

But then debates squeaked into Christendom and believer started debating another believer.
It is true that we should keep the faith pure and (in my opinion) each and every denomination and faith groups have errors.

But our debates became secular in nature.
It became defending my denomination against yours, calling each other names, anger and disrespect often becoming the common denominator in many of the threads.

And all this in front of unbelievers.
And the Lord is watching.

The first step is to separate debate from discussion in Christendom and encourage the discussion part.
The next step is to address un-Christian and uncharitable behavior in the debates in the family of God.

This reminds me of this text ... no doubt there have to be differences among us to show who has the Lord's approval.
But the way we go about it is often divisive.

1CO 11:17 In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19 No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, 21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!

Happy upcoming Resurrection Day.
In Christ,
Ed

 

[DeaconDean]

The bad part about debates, nobody ever wins.

Debate has been a part of Christianity since the first Apostolic Council met. (cf. Acts 15)

The debates between the Arminian and Calvinist positions has raged for what, 500 years now?

And no end in sight.

I'm currently involved in a study on textual criticism. And how long has that debate raged?

What/where are the correct Apostles writtings? Byzantine texts? Alexandrian? Syrian? Egyptian? Coptic? Gothic? Patriastic? MT? TR?

Are they contained in papyrus fragments? Vellium? in the unicals? Cursives? Lexiconaries?

And the debate rages on.

Who was right? Erasmus? Beza? Elzevirs? Schriver? Wescott and Hort?

It can stagger the mind.

And has it ended the debate?

Just something to think on.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Edial]

The bad part about debates, nobody ever wins.

Debate has been a part of Christianity since the first Apostolic Council met. (cf. Acts 15)

The debates between the Arminian and Calvinist positions has raged for what, 500 years now?

And no end in sight.

I'm currently involved in a study on textual criticism. And how long has that debate raged?

What/where are the correct Apostles writtings? Byzantine texts? Alexandrian? Syrian? Egyptian? Coptic? Gothic? Patriastic? MT? TR?

Are they contained in papyrus fragments? Vellium? in the unicals? Cursives? Lexiconaries?

And the debate rages on.

Who was right? Erasmus? Beza? Elzevirs? Schriver? Wescott and Hort?

It can stagger the mind.

And has it ended the debate?

Just something to think on.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Let me share with you how I started disciplining myself.

Some time ago I started re-examining everything I was ever taught about the Scriptures. Every doctrine, every theological view.

Here is my rule - IF, IF even ONE verse PLAINLY disagrees with this theological view, that theological position is incorrect.
Period.
There is no such thing as "it doesn't really mean what it says" in the Bible.
(Of course there are analogies and so forth).

I see that the entire Nicene Creed is correct.

But both OSAS and OSNAS are incorrect because we are quite sloppy with defining what "saved" is in the Bible.

The way I see it (so far ) is this way ...

1. One initially believes ...
2. One continues believing ...
3. One applies what he believes to daily life in small steps ...
4. One does something that is against what he would naturally do, simply because God said so in the Bible.

All 4 steps are a part of the salvation process.

Once one is justified, one cannot lose salvation.
When one is at the 4th step - one cannot lose salvation.

That is when Christ is finally formed in us.

Prior to it we should walk carefully not to do damage.

GAL 4:17 Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may be zealous for them. 18 It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always and not just when I am with you. 19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you,
​

This explains all the pleading of the Apostles for us to watch our step ... until Christ is formed in us.

Satan cannot wait for us to miscarry or to commit abortion to our spiritual life.
And the Apostles are urging us to walk carefully following Christ.

Happy upcoming Resurrection Day.

 

[DeaconDean]

Let me share with you how I started disciplining myself.

Some time ago I started re-examining everything I was ever taught about the Scriptures. Every doctrine, every theological view.

Here is my rule - IF, IF even ONE verse PLAINLY disagrees with this theological view, that theological position is incorrect.
Period.
There is no such thing as "it doesn't really mean what it says" in the Bible.
(Of course there are analogies and so forth).

I see that the entire Nicene Creed is correct.

But both OSAS and OSNAS are incorrect because we are quite sloppy with defining what "saved" is in the Bible.

The way I see it (so far ) is this way ...

1. One initially believes ...
2. One continues believing ...
3. One applies what he believes to daily life in small steps ...
4. One does something that is against what he would naturally do, simply because God said so in the Bible.

All 4 steps are a part of the salvation process.

Once one is justified, one cannot lose salvation.
When one is at the 4th step - one cannot lose salvation.

That is when Christ is finally formed in us.

Prior to it we should walk carefully not to do damage.

GAL 4:17 Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may be zealous for them. 18 It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always and not just when I am with you. 19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you,
​

This explains all the pleading of the Apostles for us to watch our step ... until Christ is formed in us.

Satan cannot wait for us to miscarry or to commit abortion to our spiritual life.
And the Apostles are urging us to walk carefully following Christ.

Happy upcoming Resurrection Day.

I agree (to a certain extent )

But setting that aside, you know as well as I do, many of us here have invited many a many Arminian to come to the debate a Calvinist area.

None have taken the invitation.

I guess they aer more comfortable here, and I agree that you should accomodate them somehow.

And I want to leave you with this thoughht as we (EST) approch the 3 o'clock hour:

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." -Mt. 27:46-50 (KJV)

I do sincerely wish you and your family a very Happy Easter. (And indeed, everybody on CF, Arminian or Calvinist, Protestant or Catholic, paedo or credo )

Just "spit-balling again.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Edial]

I agree (to a certain extent )

But setting that aside, you know as well as I do, many of us here have invited many a many Arminian to come to the debate a Calvinist area.

None have taken the invitation.

I guess they aer more comfortable here, and I agree that you should accomodate them somehow.

And I want to leave you with this thoughht as we (EST) approch the 3 o'clock hour:

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost." -Mt. 27:46-50 (KJV)

I do sincerely wish you and your family a very Happy Easter.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Jack Terrence]

The op says that in the Soteriology Debate forum the rules will be more relaxed.

Will we be able to state our opinion about another theology without fear of censorship?

I have not posted here much lately because your rules are way too rigid to the point of censorship. I had posted a remark in Soteriology in which I said, "It is my opinion that Free Grace Theology be restricted to the Unorthodox Theology Forum." But, much to my surprise I was contacted by an administrator who informed me that my remark had been deleted for "flaming." This is CLEARLY censorship and is un-Christian.

My post was NOT about a particular individual. It was NOT even addressed to an individual. The person who reported the post needs to get a life. I don't report people like this. I am a Preterist, and two days in the Eschatology forum a poster said that Preterism is "antichrist." This was more like flaming. But I let it roll off me.

If the administration may categorize a certain theology as "unorthodox" and create a special forum for it, then we can state that a theology is "unorthodox" if it is our opinion. The administration is being hypocritical.

I am glad I have gotten this off my chest. Christian forums should have rules and guidelines to keep things civil. But there is nothing civil about outright censorship.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by DeaconDean

The bad part about debates, nobody ever wins.

Debate has been a part of Christianity since the first Apostolic Council met. (cf. Acts 15)

The debates between the Arminian and Calvinist positions has raged for what, 500 years now?

And no end in sight.

​

So what does tell us?

.

 

[Edial]

The op says that in the Soteriology Debate forum the rules will be more relaxed.

Will we be able to state our opinion about another theology without fear of censorship?

I have not posted here much lately because your rules are way too rigid to the point of censorship. I had posted a remark in Soteriology in which I said, "It is my opinion that Free Grace Theology be restricted to the Unorthodox Theology Forum." But, much to my surprise I was contacted by an administrator who informed me that my remark had been deleted for "flaming." This is CLEARLY censorship and is un-Christian.

My post was NOT about a particular individual. It was NOT even addressed to an individual. The person who reported the post needs to get a life. I don't report people like this. I am a Preterist, and two days in the Eschatology forum a poster said that Preterism is "antichrist." This was more like flaming. But I let it roll off me.

If the administration may categorize a certain theology as "unorthodox" and create a special forum for it, then we can state that a theology is "unorthodox" if it is our opinion. The administration is being hypocritical.

I am glad I have gotten this off my chest. Christian forums should have rules and guidelines to keep things civil. But there is nothing civil about outright censorship.

Thank you for your post.

If you are a full Preterist, meaning if you believe Christ already came, such theology belongs in the Unorthodox Theology.

The objective throughout the CF is to make sure the Christians who are adhering to the Nicene Creed are not called unorthodox.
Free Grace theology is Orthodox.
The way CF defines Orthodoxy from unorthodoxy is by her Statement of Faith, which is the Nicene Creed.

Can you call another doctrine with derogatory names?

This is what the rule in Soteriology Debate states.

• Do not identify a group of members or a theological viewpoint with a derogatory or inflammatory label.
• Words and phrases which have a negative connotation in Scripture should not be used to describe a member, group of members, or a theological viewpoint. Some examples (including but not limited to): false gospel, false prophet, heretics, blasphemers, evil, sheep in wolves clothing, different God

Does this answer your question?

The rules are more relaxed when you can have a full debate without getting flagged for sneezing the wrong way.

The rules were also honed in a way that only person the post is addressed to may report it.
So no one would be ganging up on each other.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by The Boxer
My post was NOT about a particular individual. It was NOT even addressed to an individual. The person who reported the post needs to get a life. I don't report people like this.
I am a Preterist, and two days in the Eschatology forum a poster said that Preterism is "antichrist." This was more like flaming. But I let it roll off me.

Thank you for your post.

If you are a full Preterist, meaning if you believe Christ already came, such theology belongs in the Unorthodox Theology.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

Why not have a board devoted solely to Preterism, both partial and full, such as the CARM forum has?
And the futurists have their own board?
Just throwing that out there.......

.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Thank you for your post.

If you are a full Preterist, meaning if you believe Christ already came, such theology belongs in the Unorthodox Theology.

The objective throughout the CF is to make sure the Christians who are adhering to the Nicene Creed are not called unorthodox.
Free Grace theology is Orthodox.
The way CF defines Orthodoxy from unorthodoxy is by her Statement of Faith, which is the Nicene Creed.

Can you call another doctrine with derogatory names?











This is what the rule in Soteriology Debate states.

• Do not identify a group of members or a theological viewpoint with a derogatory or inflammatory label.
• Words and phrases which have a negative connotation in Scripture should not be used to describe a member, group of members, or a theological viewpoint. Some examples (including but not limited to): false gospel, false prophet, heretics, blasphemers, evil, sheep in wolves clothing, different God

Does this answer your question?

The rules are more relaxed when you can have a full debate without getting flagged for sneezing the wrong way.

The rules were also honed in a way that only person the post is addressed to may report it.
So no one would be ganging up on each other.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

You evaded my points.

1. There is nothing flammatory about the word "unorthodox." Otherwise, how could you say that Full Preterism is "unortohdox." Hypocritical!

2. The poster said that Preterism is "antichrist." Seeing that you are inclined to give certain individuals passes here when flaming I am going to report it now. Whether or not the administration thinks Full Preterism is unorthodox is beside the point. A poster cannot say it. It is flaming.

Btw, Partial Preterists also believe that Christ has already come. Yet they are not considered "unortohdox." The difference between Partial Prets and Full Prets is NOT about the second coming, but is about the timing of the resurrection and the judgment. This is another beef I have with the administration here. You're not too well informed in the facts.

 

[Edial]

You evaded my points.

1. There is nothing flammatory about the word "unorthodox." Otherwise, how could you say that Full Preterism is "unortohdox." Hypocritical!

It is not my intent to evade your points.
Maybe I misunderstood.

CF's statement of faith is the Nicene Creed. Posters believing everything in it are called orthodox Christians.

CF believes that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is reflective in the Nicene Creed as posted in the Statement of Faith including the asterisks.
If the folks reject any point of it, we believe the Gospel is not fully reflective in such believes and we call it unorthodox Christian.

So, to an orthodox Christian to be called unorthodox it is a flame.

I hope I understood your point correctly.

2. The poster said that Preterism is "antichrist." Seeing that you are inclined to give certain individuals passes here when flaming I am going to report it now. Whether or not the administration thinks Full Preterism is unorthodox is beside the point. A poster cannot say it. It is flaming.

I did not see that post and no passes were given.

Btw, Partial Preterists also believe that Christ has already come. Yet they are not considered "unortohdox." The difference between Partial Prets and Full Prets is NOT about the second coming, but is about the timing of the resurrection and the judgment. This is another beef I have with the administration here. You're not too well informed in the facts.

I was doing this from memory and there are many theological fluctuations in CF.
I checked.

The Wikipedia states that full preterism differs from partial preterism is that it includes resurrection of the dead as well as the 2nd Coming of Christ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_preterism#Partial_preterism
Full preterism differs from partial preterism in that full preterists believe that all eschatology or "end times" events were fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming, or Parousia, and the Final Judgment.
​

I understand this might not be the answer you might be looking for in CF defining the meanings of orthodox and unorthodox Christianity.

Sorry about that,
Ed

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by The Boxer

Btw, Partial Preterists also believe that Christ has already come. Yet they are not considered "unortohdox." The difference between Partial Prets and Full Prets is NOT about the second coming, but is about the timing of the resurrection and the judgment. This is another beef I have with the administration here. You're not too well informed in the facts.
​

I was doing this from memory and there are many theological fluctuations in CF.
I checked.

The Wikipedia states that full preterism differs from partial preterism is that it includes resurrection of the dead as well as the 2nd Coming of Christ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_preterism#Partial_preterism
Full preterism differs from partial preterism in that full preterists believe that all eschatology or "end times" events were fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming, or Parousia, and the Final Judgment.
​

I understand this might not be the answer you might be looking for in CF defining the meanings of orthodox and unorthodox Christianity.

Sorry about that,
Ed

I am going to make a seperate thread on this other board concerning making a seperate board just for "PRETERISM".
I am slowly becoming of the view that partial Preterism and the Amill view may also be "unorthodox", as it makes Jesus out to be a False Messiah to the Jews. But haven't decided concretely yet.

http://www.christianforums.com/f395/
Suggest New Forums



.

 

[Edial]

Why not have a board devoted solely to Preterism, both partial and full, such as the CARM forum has?

This was asked before.
But we need to compare everything to the Nicene Creed so we decided not to combine them.