Presbyterian/Reformed(non-baptist) Forum???

[AMR]

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

 

[ReformedChapin]

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.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

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?

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

deleted for irrelevance.

 

[DeaconDean]

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.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

double post...kept the next one cause it's better.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

browswer messing up...hmmm...

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

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.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

deleted due to irrelevance.

 

[DD2008]

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&#37;, 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.

 

[Tonks]

I didn't read the title of this close enough...this is for - in my mind - a request to create a forum for Presbyterians. The larger discussion regarding reformed theology belongs in SR.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I didn't read the title of this close enough...this is for - in my mind - a request to create a forum for Presbyterians. The larger discussion regarding reformed theology belongs in SR.

It is.
I 've used the term "Traditional Reformed churches" because there are a bunch of denoms out there that are presbyterian, but don't have the name in them, and to be more specific. I felt I had to add (non-baptist) in there due to some confusion it seems by some people on the intent of this request.
I'm just too specific sometimes it seems eh?

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

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.

Agreed....the best current example is the existence of the Apostolic churches forum...it's a secondary forum to Catholics, etc....this is the exact same thing...our secondary forum IMHO should be Semper Reformanda...our primary forum should be our own forum. See the correlation?

 

[DD2008]

Agreed....the best current example is the existence of the Apostolic churches forum...it's a secondary forum to Catholics, etc....this is the exact same thing...our secondary forum IMHO should be Semper Reformanda...our primary forum should be our own forum. See the correlation?

Right. Semper Reformada can be used by those who share orthodox soteriology yet differ on the other points of faith.

The Catholics are set up that way. The Eastern Orthodox actually have 2 home forums because they have given the Oriental Orthodox their own forum.

 

[Tonks]

The Catholics are set up that way. The Eastern Orthodox actually have 2 home forums because they have given the Oriental Orthodox their own forum.

That is because we're actually two entirely different groups.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I am assuming that no news is good news at this time.

 

[kenrapoza]

Wow...I'm walking into this thread while ducking down low...for what it's worth, a forum dedicated to Reformed/Presbyterians as a faith group interests me as well. As others have said, and NRB has made very clear, it would not replace SR but be in addition to it or at least a subforum in it. One of the great things about SR is exactly what has been discussed, that it has been a place for all Calvinists to fellowship in a somewhat broader way.

There have been many Baptists posters in SR, and I think having that dialogue is valuable and usually edifying. As a Presbyterian, I would certainly be interested in posting in a Presbyterian forum, but I would still want to enjoy the type of interaction that we've had in SR. Essentially I would be posting in both, but discussing Presbyterian matters in the appropriate forum.

Which leads me to the next point which is that I agree with NRB, DD2008, et al., that we who are Presbyterian or Reformed (in the historical sense of the word) do not have a haven where we can go to for discussing our own matters. For example, if I wanted to start a thread discussing the last PCA General Assembly where Tim Keller and Ligon Duncan debated women as deacons, where could I start that thread now? It would be odd in SR and I sure as heck can't put it in GT without it being tortured to death!

Anyways...I regret that such a reasonable request has turned practically into a flame war! Discussion of the term "reformed" should be (and has been) debated in SR, not here.

For what it's worth, those are my current thoughts on the matter.

Ken

 

[DD2008]

That is because we're actually two entirely different groups.

And Presbyterians and Baptists aren't?

 

[FreeinChrist]

I recall a long time ago that the Spirit Filled/Charismatic and Pentecostal/AOG forums were one.
I am recommending that the same be done with Semper Reformanda....a forum split to put it simply. For exclusivity for Presbyterians and Reformed churches(non-baptist). Because honestly they are 2 different worlds...a presbyterian/reformed church vs a reformed Baptist church(mode of baptism being a big difference among other things.) It just makes sense.
That's just my honest opinion, and I'm hoping this doesn't fall on deaf ears.
Not trying to cause trouble, but I know there is a demand from talkiing to others here.
Presbyterians, and in turn true Reformed are a mainline(I don't like that word, but it's a fact.) denom...and the ONLY one without their own forum.
Semper Reformanda does not do this situation justice. IMHO there is no reason for it.

Thankyou for listening.

I think your request would have come off better had you simply requested a Presbyterian forum for the purposes of discussing not only the 5 pts of Calvinism but also a shared belief in paedobaptism, the concept of a presbytery, issues within the organized Presbyterian churches, etc.

In labeling the request as Presbyterian/Reformed (NonBaptist), you set up a negative request - you created a request for a forum that would be free of Baptists (though accepting of other nonBaptist nonPresbyterian Reformed believers according to the title) rather than make a simple positive request for a denominational forum. That is how it came off to me and I am sure it did to others. As a result, there is more conflict in this thread than was needed.


Now some questions:

What about Cumberland Presbyterians - would they be accepted?

I saw a statement that Presbyterians "believe in the undefinable presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper" - so what about the position of the Orthodox Presbyterian who holds to the Westminister Confession which includes:

Of the Lord's Supper
1. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in his church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body.
2. In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to his Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead; but only a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same: so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ's one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of his elect.
.....
7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

Does that fit? Is that what you are talking about? (If so, I don't see a real difference with Baptists in this fwiw. But that is another topic for another forum)

 

[AMR]

I didn't read the title of this close enough...this is for - in my mind - a request to create a forum for Presbyterians. The larger discussion regarding reformed theology belongs in SR.

Exactly!

AMR