New Statement of Faith at Christian Forums

[Tonks]

Minor correction needed: Would you all change this back to the way it was before, when the Creed was used?--

"*The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the complete, universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not exclusively to any particular visible denomination or doctrine."

Last time it used a phrase along the lines of 'and does not necessarily'. The Q & A post that explains it has this allowance:
"word catholic can be interpreted to mean"


The statement as it stands is a statement of protestant theology which does not leave itself open to the contrary view. All it needs to say is that either view is okay- rather than affirming what the Church absolutely is not (and thus supposing protestant positions). This is probably just something missed, but it would be important to correct it so that either view can be held. Thanks!

I'll have to poke around the dusty archives to see if I can pull that "old old old" one up and compare. The version used above is from 2006 when the Creed was up previously. It may take me a little while to find it in CF's attic.

I'm not necessarily opposed (as a matter of fact I didn't even think about it nor did it even come up when all the staff picked apart the Q&A...lol).

CaDan: The "C" was capitalized last time the Creed was if. If must nit-pick, I suppose....

 

[Tonks]

This is the other version that I was able to fine quickly:

*The word "catholic" (literally, "universal") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination or institution.

 

[Tonks]

I've changed it to this...I trust everyone is satisfied.

*The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I think that was it. Looks good. Thanks.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I've changed it to this...I trust everyone is satisfied.

*The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

I am sorry to be a pain but could we drop the phrase "or exclusively" and go with:

The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine."

I know this is a little pedantic at this point, but if we're going to go to the trouble of having theological guideposts that people *must* affirm to post here, it's important that they be technically accurate, or at least have it be very clear from the text itself that a technically accurate interpretation is within the realm of compliance.

We've seen too many times through the years where mods x, y, and z understand the issues and interpret things reasonably, but mod q wants to use a hyper-literal interpretation that wasn't what was intended but that technically is what a rule says. I could easy see a hypothetical mod q somewhere at some time decide that someone claiming there was only one Catholic Church was violating the rule because it said "not necessarily or exclusively" and the poster is being exclusive.

People may call that paranoid, but I've been around CF too many years now not to see this as a possibility.

*Or* we could always just simplify things and say anyone who wants to post and is willing to adhere to basic rules of civility and not troll or flame a give forum can post, rather than requiring a theology test as the price of admission. It's not like we're a Church, we're just a bunch of people talking. I know getting people to realize that is pretty much a lost cause, though... so let's stick to at least getting the theology test worded correctly.

 

[Kaonashi]

So, I guess the staff is back to pretending that CF is a Church instead of a messagw board just so they can exclude people who aren't "Christian" enough for them.

 

[Rochir]

Strongly support this position.

I believe it is fundamentally important for every Christian to be able to explain, when asked, what it is exactly that they believe; here is my own statement of faith:

A Christian is a person who willingly believes:

1. That the Universe was created by God.
(Genesis 1:1)

2. That the Bible is divinely inspired by God, and describes how we are to live our lives in a manner that is pleasing to God.
(Matthew 24:14)

3. That we are all sinners and as such, according to the Bible, are destined to go to hell.
(Romans 3:23)

4. That God came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ and promised that if we repent of our sins, and ask God through the power of the Holy Spirit to guide us through life according to His will, that we will have eternal life and a place with Him in Heaven.
(John 3:16)

Nope!

 

[Nadiine]

A great move-- though I don't expect anything will really change by this

This reflects my sentiments

I'm so glad to see something change back towards Orthodoxy!!

But in alot of the posts and threads from members, I see little
that will change becuz the same posters agreed with the creed before
just to post here, but are still unorthodox and in fact deny scripture as
God's truth or as inerrant and support serious moral depravity.
It doesn't close the gaps for the majority of problematic issues we
currently experience (outside our much needed Congregational
safe havens).

Tonks wrote this:

A long time ago many of us (for whom this is not the first rodeo) became very, very tired of the Catholic/Protestant wars, the nickel and diming of every decision.

Like clockwork the Nicene Creed discussion occurred every few months among the Admins...should we or shouldn't we. The two big sticking points were always the words "catholic" and "baptism" - for good reasons. 1) CF has always had a history of having the Creed having addenda to those two specific points and 2) they were *much* bigger sticking points for the Protestant staff than they were for the RCC/EO/OO staff. Likewise, this isn't a Catholic site, an Orthodox site, a Lutheran site, an Anglican site...etc...the words "catholic" and "baptism" are a concern for a great many folks.

The biggest problem I see at CF is btwn. Liberal vs. Conservative theology.
The two do not remotely mix.
I'm not sure this Creed would do anything to plug many -if any-
holes there & most will stay the same as it is right now. (at least where I frequent).
Then again, CF just may want it this way and like it.

I know it sounds so party pooper-ish and I'm sorry.

I'm still very glad for this change and thank everyone involved
for the positive change in the right direction.

 

[Tonks]

I am sorry to be a pain but could we drop the phrase "or exclusively" and go with

It is not changing. This isn't a debate over every word or comma - particularly as we've attempted to take into account the needs of all of CF's members. So, thanks for your input but this version is the final version.

 

[BelindaP]

I have some questions as to how this will be enforced. Since icon changes aren't going to be pursued (thank heavens), will people be warned/infracted if they post contrary to the Creed in the CO areas? Also, will debate on such things as the triune nature of God, etc. be allowed in the CO areas?

Also, who will be making the calls as to whether something is heterodox or not? I know that some things are fairly cut and dried, but others are not. For example, will Nestorianism be tolerated? What about semi-pelagianism?

 

[Chaplain David]

Y'all seem like you're chasing your tails. We had the Nicene creed a while back. Then it was changed several times. Now it's back. One has to wonder...

 

[Tonks]

I have some questions as to how this will be enforced. Since icon changes aren't going to be pursued (thank heavens), will people be warned/infracted if they post contrary to the Creed in the CO areas?

I think that the initial posture will be to just move the stuff to the Unorthodox areas and / or delete the post in the thread. I really don't want this to turn into a "you've posted against the Creed so you must get a warning immediately!!!" type of thing. I'm looking through the old rule revision log to see if there was appropriate language...if not I'll just gin it up myself. If it becomes a recurring problem by a specific user (after moves and notifications of moves etc) the full use of moderation protocol is authorized. But I'm certainly not going to be out hunting it...and I'd venture to guess that the Adivsors will be reviewing the first few instances of warnings / infractions (if they occur) to ensure that they're lining up with our intent.

Also, will debate on such things as the triune nature of God, etc. be allowed in the CO areas?

Define "debate"? An argument that the Trinity is false theology, does not exist etc will not be permitted...it is supposed to be that way now but we may tighten things up in that regard. The intent is not to be overbearing so the initial approach will be soft. Questions / discussion about the nature of the Trinity are permitted, of course...but rank unorthodox advocacy is not.

Also, who will be making the calls as to whether something is heterodox or not?

I'll take a look at things, the rest of the Advisors, the chaplains will, and there are plenty of smart enough people on staff.

I know that some things are fairly cut and dried, but others are not. For example, will Nestorianism be tolerated? What about semi-pelagianism?

Nestorianism is not permitted - nor was it permitted under the previous SoF. The difference is that we will be enforcing that now. This isn't a debatable point...so thus answers that part of the question.

As for semi-pelagianism...I rarely ever see it around here (not that I've really been looking). That being said...the East has a different concept of the atonement than does the West...indeed we're often accused of being semi-pel. But to answer what you're really getting at: as semi-pel. is often a charge by Calvinists towards Arminians (or other groups of various traditions that do not hold to total depravity) the best thing to do is walk softly. If there are sotierological debates that are really goofed up we'll take a look at it. I know that it was condemned at Orange and what it means with respect to Grace but I don't particularly care for people using sotierology as a cudgel.

If people think that this is a good time to start up the old Catholic/Protestant wars or Reformed / Not Reformed wars because the Creed is back and they want to see how far they can push things...they'll be swiftly shown the door.

 

[BelindaP]

I think that the initial posture will be to just move the stuff to the Unorthodox areas and / or delete the post in the thread. I really don't want this to turn into a "you've posted against the Creed so you must get a warning immediately!!!" type of thing. I'm looking through the old rule revision log to see if there was appropriate language...if not I'll just gin it up myself. If it becomes a recurring problem by a specific user (after moves and notifications of moves etc) the full use of moderation protocol is authorized. But I'm certainly not going to be out hunting it...and I'd venture to guess that the Adivsors will be reviewing the first few instances of warnings / infractions (if they occur) to ensure that they're lining up with our intent.

Define "debate"? An argument that the Trinity is false theology, does not exist etc will not be permitted...it is supposed to be that way now but we may tighten things up in that regard. The intent is not to be overbearing so the initial approach will be soft. Questions / discussion about the nature of the Trinity are permitted, of course...but rank unorthodox advocacy is not.

I'll take a look at things, the rest of the Advisors, the chaplains will, and there are plenty of smart enough people on staff.

Nestorianism is not permitted - nor was it permitted under the previous SoF. The difference is that we will be enforcing that now. This isn't a debatable point...so thus answers that part of the question.

As for semi-pelagianism...I rarely ever see it around here (not that I've really been looking). That being said...the East has a different concept of the atonement than does the West...indeed we're often accused of being semi-pel. But to answer what you're really getting at: as semi-pel. is often a charge by Calvinists towards Arminians (or other groups of various traditions that do not hold to total depravity) the best thing to do is walk softly. If there are sotierological debates that are really goofed up we'll take a look at it. I know that it was condemned at Orange and what it means with respect to Grace but I don't particularly care for people using sotierology as a cudgel.

If people think that this is a good time to start up the old Catholic/Protestant wars or Reformed / Not Reformed wars because the Creed is back and they want to see how far they can push things...they'll be swiftly shown the door.

I am heartened by your responses. Consistency in enforcement is something that has historically been lacking on this site. I will pray that you are all successful in implementing this policy, as it seems like it will be a worthwhile change in line with CF's goals and mission. While I regret that ecumenalism failed as a policy, I do hope and pray that CF will continue to minister to the Christian community and that it will regain its ability to be a beacon of Christianity.

Blessings.

 

[Nadiine]

Y'all seem like you're chasing your tails. We had the Nicene creed a while back. Then it was changed several times. Now it's back. One has to wonder...

I see little that has changed btwn having the creed and not -
just a few changes here or there, but the main divisions will
remain with this in tact and that has been many of the concerns
people have raised.

Many have left becuz they're ignored - and so far, they continue
to be today. Who knows how long people will put up with it or just
stay huddled up in their little safe havens so they can find
some agreement w/ a few that are still at CF.

Again, this is a great move towards where it should be, but
what exactly changes is left to be seen. Frankly I'm tired
of what's allowed under a Christian banner here, but
that seems to be the way they want it.

 

[Nadiine]

I am heartened by your responses. Consistency in enforcement is something that has historically been lacking on this site. I will pray that you are all successful in implementing this policy, as it seems like it will be a worthwhile change in line with CF's goals and mission. While I regret that ecumenalism failed as a policy, I do hope and pray that CF will continue to minister to the Christian community and that it will regain its ability to be a beacon of Christianity.

Blessings.

I don't regret that ecumenism has failed - biblically it's supposed to
fail when you try to unite what has been pushed here.
But it still continues actually - they just won't unite; so we continue
to live in constant fighting.

 

[BelindaP]

Nadiine, the Nicene Creed does not delineate our Christian values or morals. It is a statement the embodies the beliefs about God that a Christian should have. Like it or not, different denominations aren't going to agree on a lot of issues. That's part of being in a family. We need to learn to get along in spite of those differences.

The most important thing is that we agree on God and His nature.

 

[Tonks]

I am heartened by your responses. Consistency in enforcement is something that has historically been lacking on this site. I will pray that you are all successful in implementing this policy, as it seems like it will be a worthwhile change in line with CF's goals and mission. While I regret that ecumenalism failed as a policy, I do hope and pray that CF will continue to minister to the Christian community and that it will regain its ability to be a beacon of Christianity.

Blessings.

I don't really think that ecumenism has "failed," per se, rather that what it meant was rather ill-defined. Like everything it is a "work in progress" (this is CF...lol). Things will take time and the intent isn't to say "now that this policy is in effect everyone must do 'X'" but, rather, gently push the site in a given direction over time. If anything failed I think it was the old process of making a change and then grumping about it three weeks later because everything wasn't exactly like you thought it would be in your mind's eye...

 

[BelindaP]

If anything failed I think it was the old process of making a change and then grumping about it three weeks later because everything wasn't exactly like you thought it would be in your mind's eye...

Somehow, I don't think that will change at all. It might be muted or forced off-site, but folks are still going to whine and complain any time a change is made.

 

[Tonks]

True. Some will leave, some will stay...many will complain somewhere. CF will move on. I'm not terribly worried about it.

 

[Nadiine]

True. Some will leave, some will stay...many will complain somewhere. CF will move on. I'm not terribly worried about it.

That's what happens to our attitudes over time thru all these wars
and people leaving...

The confusion, fights & spiritual division still continue under the big umbrella they've chosen to keep outside of the safe havens. (which still undergo 'infiltration'
here and there).
I feel the same way you do - but I think it's unfortunate that we have
come to feel this way about CF.

One thing I keep in mind is that no matter how the SOF is changed to our
liking, I don't doubt that people would find ways to get around even that & we'd probly still be in the same predicaments.