New Statement of Faith at Christian Forums

[BelindaP]

Creeds are devices to keep heretics out rather than draw people in. I believe that each of us, as an individual, have a responsibility before God, to determine what is true about God and also what is false.

That is very true. If we don't investigate that for ourselves, we will never internalize it. Creeds are a good tool for starting that exploration, though. One good thing that most creedal churches have is a catechism that goes through each creed and discusses the meaning and scriptural supports for the statements.

 

[JimfromOhio]

That is very true. If we don't investigate that for ourselves, we will never internalize it. Creeds are a good tool for starting that exploration, though. One good thing that most creedal churches have is a catechism that goes through each creed and discusses the meaning and scriptural supports for the statements.

Yep, which is why I turned to Reformed/Lutheran doctrines. They have wonderful catechisms and they make sure members understand what the Bible really says (even though I may not agree at 100%)

 

[Coptic.Ray]

great news

 

[higgs2]

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:

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.

So you basically want some kind of statement of faith that will ensure that only people who agree pretty much 100% with you will be able to post in cf? You could just start a thread for that.

 

[CaDan]

The Symbol is a good standard. I think I posted once that if you use anything else, you have about a 99% chance of falling into heresy.

What is important is what Staff does with that standard.

If there is anyone on Staff I trust to say what he means and do what he says, it's Tonks. He may be brusque and prone to headaches, but his most important characteristic in this context is that he is honest.

 

[JimfromOhio]

The Symbol is a good standard. I think I posted once that if you use anything else, you have about a 99% chance of falling into heresy.

What is important is what Staff does with that standard.

If there is anyone on Staff I trust to say what he means and do what he says, it's Tonks. He may be brusque and prone to headaches, but his most important characteristic in this context is that he is honest.

I second that.

 

[Nadiine]

So you basically want some kind of statement of faith that will ensure that only people who agree pretty much 100% with you will be able to post in cf?

Oh yes!! absolutely EVERYTHING higgs2 - 100%.
Everything. Every opinion, belief and theory.

I don't even want a HINT of any disagreement from anyone.

 

[Tonks]

So...this is the view from my chair. It is not "official policy" but it is reflective of the thoughts which helped to guide my decision-making process.

For lack of a better phrase CF has had a lot of recent history which involved "message board eugenics." Indeed, much of it has been in the pursuit of a "Christian" forum based on a misguided speculation related to individual salvation, faith, or beliefs. Of note, there was the 777 free-for-all, the post-777 ghettoization where everyone got to play "you can't say/do that in *my* forum" to earlier attempts to promote a "pro-life ribbon" while banning a "pro-choice ribbon." Some of the attempts meant well but many of them fell flat and caused more problems than anticipated.

So...the latest attempt to return to a "Christian identity" on CF. I'm sure we all define it a different way and have a different over/under with respect to its chances for success. Fine, whatever. The one thing, I think, that has been neglected while we were busy playing "you have that sin and I don't" is the fact that we ignored some drift in acceptable orthodoxy.

The Nicene Creed has been used for millenia by the church to define the boundaries of orthodoxy within Christianity. The contents of the Nicene Creed conveniently summarize the main doctrines found in the Bible that are held by Evangelical Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christianity. The Nicene Creed itself has been used since the beginning of church history to battle heresy. It summarizes issues like the Trinitarian nature of God, the Divinity of Christ and other basic doctrines of mainstream Christianity that are agreed upon by all major Christian denominations and churches. The intent is not to label someone "non-Christian." All rebuilding has to start somewhere and I think a reassessment of what is nominally acceptable is a good place to start. Plus it ignores some of the secondary and tertiary issues which are relevant, but beyond the scope of some very basic Christianity.

is that people are saying
IT IS CHRISTIANITY.

CF still has a rule regarding "controversial topics" and where they may be discussed - that is not changing. In fact we'll probably try and ensure it isn't discussed all willy-nilly over the board but direct the discussion to the forums in which the topics belong. The difference is, I think, a push to create a category of sin which means for CF "you can't be a Christian" versus "since I don't hold / do those sins my Christianity is just a-ok." That misses, completely, the point of this exercise. Here is the list of controversial topics:

drug use

gambling

polygamy

extramarital or premarital sexual activity.

homosexuality

transsexuality

abortion.

With respect to this:

The issue here is what CF is allowing AS Christian - they have full
control over that and can change it anytime, but won't.

You again miss the point. CF is defining the boundaries of orthodox belief as it applies to Christology and a whole host of other basic "-ologies." You make the mistake of creating an equivalency between permitting discussion and equating it to A-OK and endorsed. Let's say I'm faced with two choices and I can only choose one (which is essentially what we're choosing). Instead of stripping gay Christians of their rights to post in the "Christian Only" areas I have a much larger and fundamental concern with removing promotion of things such as "the Trinity is really just three different modes of God" or "Jesus was only a human and didn't become God until He was baptized in the Jordan." Sin (all - even though some just like to focus on one or two specific ones) can be dealt with in the church (big C, little c, your choice)...open promotion of seriously problematic views on the nature of God is a much bigger problem in my book. We had a series of options. We chose one...the one that is the most important when it comes to rebuilding and returning a Christian focus to CF.

They protect it and promote rejection of the Bible and moral sins
as Christian. They're clearly stating what Christianity is and refusing
to limit it where it would make most of the difference.

Again...we're choosing to return to some fundamentals of the faith which are shared between pretty much every Christian denomination on the planet. You seem more interested in defining "sin" than you are orthodox Christian belief. I believe, in this instance, we made the right choice. To follow your lead would be to turn CF into an echo chamber of "enjoy being on the outside, sinner!"

In other words, CF is fine with promoting a gay church of God. And nobody can declare that is not Christian - that's against CF terms.
CF is making statements of their own by what they allow in the
Christian forum.

I'm not going to belabor the point other than to say the best way to run a forum with ~700 sub-forums and millions of posts is not to have, as your prime directive, an obsession with homosexuality. In the past 5 days there have been 2,232 new threads, 90,710 new posts, and 386 new user registrations. I'd like to see all of those numbers increase and the best way for the site to do that - in my opinion - is to focus on some basic Christian fundamentals and not specific sin.

& many of those on the liberal side don't believe that fundamentals
& many conservatives are Christians either for that matter, they
consider them legalists or pharisees.

Liberals and conservatives managed to exist with a *relative* level of harmony in the past so there really is no reason that we cannot return to that. People are under the mistaken impression that "they way it is now is the way it always has to be." Liberals and conservatives can disgree on every point but still manage to discuss like adults. CF has had it before and it will return. If people are unwilling to show at least a minimal amount of Christian charity when dealing with a person that they disagree with...staff has many tools available to deal with the problem.

So, to recap...refocus on a general level of orthodoxy vice a singular obsession with sin, enforce the rules as written (to include the no promotion rule), deal with the people that have a default mode of "jerk," and continue to grow.

We're not going to be able to make everybody happy and, frankly, we're not trying to. In conclusion here are some bits of a post I wrote the other day in one of the staff forums when we were discussing the changes:

One of the consistent complaints by users is "inconsistent application of the rules across different areas of the site...[as to what we're going to do in the future] First, we want CF to return to a more "Christian focus." How that works out in practice...we'll see but it is going to be of strong emphasis. On some of the issues we're trying to make life a bit easier for staff. One some of the issues we're attempting to respond to some legitimate member concerns even if the change [will lead to] some staff objections....

...Likewise, things have needed to change on CF for a while for a variety of reasons. One of the issues, in my view, is that we've (myself included) always sat around waiting for a whole host of technical changes to the site...features and whatnot. In the interim while we were waiting we sort of lost the bubble...there are a lot of things that we can do that require no technical changes at all that lead us down the road to growth. Membership is down...the forums are acrimonious in some cases...it can be difficult here for Christians in a place that is, ostensibly, a forum for Christians on the internet.

Beyond just the "Christian focus" we're also going to attempt to deal with some of the Christian-on-Christian bloodletting around here. There has been a huge amount of poor behavior between Christians for far too long. That, too, is going to be a major focus of our efforts and - by extension - the efforts of the moderating staff.

 

[JimfromOhio]

What matters is the areas of disagreement, rather than the areas of agreement. Most Christian denominations and movements share common beliefs in the major aspects of the Christian faith, while differing in many secondary doctrines. Christians believe what the Bible teaches in context which are the basics of what Christians believe and unite on.

My wife and I don't agree 100% does that mean we have to divorce?

 

[Nadiine]

What matters is the areas of disagreement, rather than the areas of agreement. Most Christian denominations and movements share common beliefs in the major aspects of the Christian faith, while differing in many secondary doctrines. Christians believe what the Bible teaches in context which are the basics of what Christians believe and unite on.

My wife and I don't agree 100% does that mean we have to divorce?

?
God hates divorce -- and Paul discusses all the lawful reasons
for it (so does Jesus). This is about a forum that designates
a Christian definition and allows icons to anybody who just doesn't
say anything against those specific issues -
anything else is open season - as Christian members.

So what you're trying to say is, anyone can believe anything in a
secondary doctrine, but as long as they agree on a few things
that seem more important, they're all saved?
The demons believe that stuff too, they were in God's presence
and know Him.

This all makes me confused as to why we keep being warned in the
NT as to decievers; wolves & false teachers who come in
masquerading as angels of light when they're satan's servants.
& to watch their fruit and listen to their messages when these
folks are inside the church, superficially AGREEING to all the stuff
you list as important.

This reminds me to pray for discernment more.

 

[Criada]

The difference, I think Nadiine, is in the phrase "For us men and for our salvation..."
That is the important bit.. demons may believe and tremble, but they do not believe and recieve salvation.
Humans, on the other hand do... and we can't judge to whom God has given that gift.

 

[CaDan]

?
God hates divorce -- and Paul discusses all the lawful reasons
for it (so does Jesus). This is about a forum that designates
a Christian definition and allows icons to anybody who just doesn't
say anything against those specific issues -
anything else is open season - as Christian members.

Yes.

So what you're trying to say is, anyone can believe anything in a
secondary doctrine, but as long as they agree on a few things
that seem more important, they're all saved?
The demons believe that stuff too, they were in God's presence
and know Him.

No.

This all makes me confused as to why we keep being warned in the
NT as to decievers; wolves & false teachers who come in
masquerading as angels of light when they're satan's servants.
& to watch their fruit and listen to their messages when these
folks are inside the church, superficially AGREEING to all the stuff
you list as important.

This reminds me to pray for discernment more.

The most prominently condemned "false teachers" in the New Testament are the Judaizers/Ebionites who demanded that Gentiles follow the Law and the Docetists who denied Jesus was God in the flesh.

I see little condemnation of the modern-day descendants of these heresies and in fact a good deal of promotion of them pass without notice or question on this site.

 

[Nadiine]

So...this is the view from my chair. It is not "official policy" but it is reflective of the thoughts which helped to guide my decision-making process.

For lack of a better phrase CF has had a lot of recent history which involved "message board eugenics." Indeed, much of it has been in the pursuit of a "Christian" forum based on a misguided speculation related to individual salvation, faith, or beliefs. Of note, there was the 777 free-for-all, the post-777 ghettoization where everyone got to play "you can't say/do that in *my* forum" to earlier attempts to promote a "pro-life ribbon" while banning a "pro-choice ribbon." Some of the attempts meant well but many of them fell flat and caused more problems than anticipated.

So...the latest attempt to return to a "Christian identity" on CF. I'm sure we all define it a different way and have a different over/under with respect to its chances for success. Fine, whatever. The one thing, I think, that has been neglected while we were busy playing "you have that sin and I don't" is the fact that we ignored some drift in acceptable orthodoxy.

The Nicene Creed has been used for millenia by the church to define the boundaries of orthodoxy within Christianity. The contents of the Nicene Creed conveniently summarize the main doctrines found in the Bible that are held by Evangelical Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christianity. The Nicene Creed itself has been used since the beginning of church history to battle heresy. It summarizes issues like the Trinitarian nature of God, the Divinity of Christ and other basic doctrines of mainstream Christianity that are agreed upon by all major Christian denominations and churches. The intent is not to label someone "non-Christian." All rebuilding has to start somewhere and I think a reassessment of what is nominally acceptable is a good place to start. Plus it ignores some of the secondary and tertiary issues which are relevant, but beyond the scope of some very basic Christianity.

CF still has a rule regarding "controversial topics" and where they may be discussed - that is not changing. In fact we'll probably try and ensure it isn't discussed all willy-nilly over the board but direct the discussion to the forums in which the topics belong. The difference is, I think, a push to create a category of sin which means for CF "you can't be a Christian" versus "since I don't hold / do those sins my Christianity is just a-ok." That misses, completely, the point of this exercise. Here is the list of controversial topics:

With respect to this:

You again miss the point. CF is defining the boundaries of orthodox belief as it applies to Christology and a whole host of other basic "-ologies." You make the mistake of creating an equivalency between permitting discussion and equating it to A-OK and endorsed. Let's say I'm faced with two choices and I can only choose one (which is essentially what we're choosing). Instead of stripping gay Christians of their rights to post in the "Christian Only" areas I have a much larger and fundamental concern with removing promotion of things such as "the Trinity is really just three different modes of God" or "Jesus was only a human and didn't become God until He was baptized in the Jordan." Sin (all - even though some just like to focus on one or two specific ones) can be dealt with in the church (big C, little c, your choice)...open promotion of seriously problematic views on the nature of God is a much bigger problem in my book. We had a series of options. We chose one...the one that is the most important when it comes to rebuilding and returning a Christian focus to CF.

Again...we're choosing to return to some fundamentals of the faith which are shared between pretty much every Christian denomination on the planet. You seem more interested in defining "sin" than you are orthodox Christian belief. I believe, in this instance, we made the right choice. To follow your lead would be to turn CF into an echo chamber of "enjoy being on the outside, sinner!"

I'm not going to belabor the point other than to say the best way to run a forum with ~700 sub-forums and millions of posts is not to have, as your prime directive, an obsession with homosexuality. In the past 5 days there have been 2,232 new threads, 90,710 new posts, and 386 new user registrations. I'd like to see all of those numbers increase and the best way for the site to do that - in my opinion - is to focus on some basic Christian fundamentals and not specific sin.

Liberals and conservatives managed to exist with a *relative* level of harmony in the past so there really is no reason that we cannot return to that. People are under the mistaken impression that "they way it is now is the way it always has to be." Liberals and conservatives can disgree on every point but still manage to discuss like adults. CF has had it before and it will return. If people are unwilling to show at least a minimal amount of Christian charity when dealing with a person that they disagree with...staff has many tools available to deal with the problem.

So, to recap...refocus on a general level of orthodoxy vice a singular obsession with sin, enforce the rules as written (to include the no promotion rule), deal with the people that have a default mode of "jerk," and continue to grow.

We're not going to be able to make everybody happy and, frankly, we're not trying to. In conclusion here are some bits of a post I wrote the other day in one of the staff forums when we were discussing the changes:

Tonks, I may at some point reply to all this - I don't know and at
this point, I'm not even sure if it's worth my time - I've spent too
much already as it is and frankly I've lost alot of care what happens to
this site since it's willfully taken the positions it has.

I will reply to this part tho:

You again miss the point. CF is defining the boundaries of orthodox belief as it applies to Christology and a whole host of other basic "-ologies." You make the mistake of creating an equivalency between permitting discussion and equating it to A-OK and endorsed. Let's say I'm faced with two choices and I can only choose one (which is essentially what we're choosing). Instead of stripping gay Christians of their rights to post in the "Christian Only" areas I have a much larger and fundamental concern with removing promotion of things such as "the Trinity is really just three different modes of God" or "Jesus was only a human and didn't become God until He was baptized in the Jordan." Sin (all - even though some just like to focus on one or two specific ones) can be dealt with in the church (big C, little c, your choice)...open promotion of seriously problematic views on the nature of God is a much bigger problem in my book.

It's all important becuz it all leads to the same place - salvation hinges on both of them actually.
Read Paul in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and Galations 5; he gives 2 warnings of
those who live in the chronic [unrepented] practice of the listed sins
that they are NOT entering the kingdom of God.

We have people displaying Christian icons promoting some of them directly. What's the difference in a heresy or openly telling everyone that Christians can embrace sin and God's good with it?
Fine, tell everybody the Trinity is true, then tell them Jesus is just
fine with adultery or incest and we can't believe the bible is true.

They both lead people into ditches.
- - - - - - - -

I know that CF can't make EVERYBODY happy and I don't expect it.
But they ARE promoting and supporting serious immorality and the trashing of the bible as "unreliable" and faulty/non authoratative as Christian here -
becuz it's the members w/ Christian icons doing it.

That means that the site is endorsing it as a CHRISTIAN standard.
It goes beyond simply 'allowing controversial topics'.

I have a ton of things I could respond to in your post, but I
really don't think it's worth the effort anymore, I'm sorry.

 

[JimfromOhio]

Compromising relating to little belief issues should not bother me because almost everyone has a different belief system than I do. I have learned that people will not always agree with someone completely. I have learned in my almost 40 years as a Christian. True Christians knows that not everyone is willing to be a Christian. I can't be like a Pharisee to make sure they don't break God's "rules". I can't force against their will to believe what I believe.

 

[CaDan]

Promotion. You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.

 

[Nadiine]

Yes.



No.

I don't recall my reply being to you; how do you decide this
for Jim's post?

The most prominently condemned "false teachers" in the New Testament are the Judaizers/Ebionites who demanded that Gentiles follow the Law and the Docetists who denied Jesus was God in the flesh.

And in OUR times today, we have other groups.
Law and tradition are now trashed for the new unorthodox stuff
and love of the world.

We're told the sins of the future in the Bible in long lists.
We're seeing them; including the apostacy.

I see little condemnation of the modern-day descendants of these heresies and in fact a good deal of promotion of them pass without notice or question on this site.

Obedience isn't legalism - and Christ left us with commands we're under.
Antinomians often consider anyone who obeys God as a pharisee.

 

[JimfromOhio]

I don't recall my reply being to you; how do you decide this
for Jim's post?



And in OUR times today, we have other groups.
Law and tradition are now trashed for the new unorthodox stuff
and love of the world.

We're told the sins of the future in the Bible in long lists.
We're seeing them; including the apostacy.



Obedience isn't legalism - and Christ left us with commands we're under.
Antinomians often consider anyone who obeys God as a pharisee.

I could have replied but Dan's answers would have been mine. No point of repeating

 

[higgs2]

Oh yes!! absolutely EVERYTHING higgs2 - 100%.
Everything. Every opinion, belief and theory.

I don't even want a HINT of any disagreement from anyone.

Thank you for confirming that.

 

[Nadiine]

Promotion. You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.

I know exactly what it means
To allow something to continue is to promote it becuz it is
being accepted as a standard of Christianity.

We already know that CF is claiming to be ecumenical - that means
they open the umbrella up to anyone who wants to claim Christianity
and they openly allow all their beliefs in just as long as it doesn't
contradict a FEW they want to set in place.

It is promoted as soon as they claim ecumenism and decide to
keep Christian membership to those who trash the bible and
literally support, defend and promote moral sin forbidden in the
bible. (and who trash the bible for that matter as well).

 

[Nadiine]

Thank you for confirming that.