Proposed Rule Change via resolution

[JohnT]

Brothers and Sisters:

In light of what happened on one thread, where after a warning came to abate the attacks, and they continued, forcing a closure, I put this forth as a consideration for the mods. and the rest of us.

THIS IS NOT A DEBATE, BUT A ONE TIME COMMENT THREAD

And I am asking mod help in maintaining this

Whereas there is evidence in Scripture for the continuation of tongues, by use of the present tense in Greek, especially as Paul writes about it in 1 Corinthians 12-14 and


Whereas Scripture is specifically silent on the cessation of tongues directly, and specifically says "do not forbid tongues" but indicates a precise manner for tongues: decently and in order

1 Corinthians 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
40 Let all things be done decently and in order, and

​

Whereas neither the five historic Fundamentals of the faith, from which the term "Fundamentalist" properly evolves, to whit

[FONT=&quot]1) Divinely inspired scriptures which were inerrant in the original writing;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 2) Christ's virgin birth and deity;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 3) Christ's substitutionary atonement;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 4) Christ's resurrection, and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] 5) Christ's personal pre-millennial and imminent second coming
[/FONT]​

has no specific mention regarding either the cessation or continuance of tongues, and

Whereas the FSGs of this sub forum likewise have no specific mention regarding either the cessation or continuance of tongues, and

Whereas the cessation of tongues is largely a theological construct of Dispensationalism, and many who are fundamentalists are not Dispensationalists, and

Whereas there are many other false groups, such as the Mormons who adhere to using "tongues" and are by definition not seeking to the Bible as are the fundamentalists, the usage of tongues in those instance is surely extra biblical, and most fundamentalists agree on that, and

Whereas the Enemy of our soul often mimics and alters what God allows, and glorifies Lucifer in the process, we recognize that there are instances of the false and inappropriate usage of tongues, and

Whereas there are Christian groups who permit tongues in their midst, but do not do things decently and in order, proving that instance of tongues to not be God honoring,

Be it therefore resolved
That because tongues is an issue that often divides unnecessarily and is neither a proof positive sign of being filled with Holy Spirit, nor His absence, we therefore an approach of "Seek not, forbid not" regarding postings on the subject of tongues.

This neither endorses nor condemns tongues, for tongues is a non-essential for salvation, and this rule change (addition) is in line with Paul's admonition in Colossians 2:6

As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord [that is by grace alone], so walk ye in him:
7 Rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.


​

We are to build others up, especially as it comes to non essentials.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I have a few issues with this. For one I am a rigid fundie but I don't hold to premill views and I am rigid cessetionist. I would like to have this open for debate if possible. I know many reformed brethren who are in the same boat.

 

[JohnT]

I have a few issues with this. For one I am a rigid fundie but I don't hold to premill views and I am rigid cessetionist. I would like to have this open for debate if possible. I know many reformed brethren who are in the same boat.

AUTHOR'S INDULGENCE

I erred on the part of the premillennial return. The fundamental position is the visible, bodily return of Jesus, not the time of his coming.

Shulda known that!

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

AUTHOR'S INDULGENCE

I erred on the part of the premillennial return. The fundamental position is the visible, bodily return of Jesus, not the time of his coming.

Shulda known that!

Though I don't call myself a fundamentalist because there seems to be so much involved in it that isn't defined by the historic "five fundamentals", I do agree with them, as amended. It's the other stuff, the baggage of the subculture, that I don't want to be associated with.

I like your resolution, but as a guest here (though a frequent one), I don't really get a vote.

 

[ReformedChapin]

I am sympathetic to the continuationist position as well. I just want to be able to debate the issue since I don't hold their position.

 

[desmalia]

John, I appreciate the spirit behind your request, but I none the less find it a bit superfluous. The FSG's have worked well for us, and I would prefer to leave them as they are, especially because they were defined by the early Fundamentalists. Tongues is, for the most part, a peripheral issue that will spark disagreement at times. So be it. We're fundies. We disagree sometimes. And that's OK. That does not need to stop us from talking about these details. The key that really must be remembered is respect and grace. If we all maintain that, it's not a problem. And if/when someone goes over the top, we need to be ready to forgive and move on, even if just to agree to disagree. And when we become too passionate about a subject and cross the line, we must also be willing to apologize and ask for forgiveness. I really think that is what we should be striving for, not a rule adjustment.

Things can occasionally get heated around here. But honestly, I'm OK with that. If I don't like the direction a thread is taking, I may excuse myself from it. Or I may try to help some. And sometimes I may just roll up my sleeves and jump in head first! (Is that enough clichés for one post?) And there are lots of threads where things go much more smoothly. I'd rather we have open discussion and strive to show grace and respect even in those times rather than squelch certain discussions. You shoulda' seen how it used to be in here when we had quite a few KJV-O's squaring off against non-KJV-O's on a regular basis. Hooooboy, talk about fireworks!! lol. It's actually a lot quieter around here these days.

 

[DeaconDean]

John, I appreciate the spirit behind your request, but I none the less find it a bit superfluous. The FSG's have worked well for us, and I would prefer to leave them as they are, especially because they were defined by the early Fundamentalists. Tongues is, for the most part, a peripheral issue that will spark disagreement at times. So be it. We're fundies. We disagree sometimes. And that's OK. That does not need to stop us from talking about these details. The key that really must be remembered is respect and grace. If we all maintain that, it's not a problem. And if/when someone goes over the top, we need to be ready to forgive and move on, even if just to agree to disagree. And when we become too passionate about a subject and cross the line, we must also be willing to apologize and ask for forgiveness. I really think that is what we should be striving for, not a rule adjustment.

Things can occasionally get heated around here. But honestly, I'm OK with that. If I don't like the direction a thread is taking, I may excuse myself from it. Or I may try to help some. And sometimes I may just roll up my sleeves and jump in head first! (Is that enough clichés for one post?) And there are lots of threads where things go much more smoothly. I'd rather we have open discussion and strive to show grace and respect even in those times rather than squelch certain discussions. You shoulda' seen how it used to be in here when we had quite a few KJV-O's squaring off against non-KJV-O's on a regular basis. Hooooboy, talk about fireworks!! lol. It's actually a lot quieter around here these days.

I have to agree here.

There are enough rules to regulate this sort of thing.

If the OP asks for the discussing to be debate free, then it is the posters responsibility to abide by that request.

The biggest problem is that we have some members here who go around posting without reading or considering the rules.

For example:

Harassment
Harassment of another member is strictly prohibited. Respect another member's request to cease contact. Don't make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes, but is not limited to, gossiping or spreading rumors about another member or persistently attacking them in the open forums. Don't threaten another member. Don't report another member out of spite.

Link to this rule.

In the above rule, we see that if the content between members in a thread degenerates to the point of constant bickering, all you have to do is ask:

Respect another member's request to cease contact.

Simply say, I know we are doing nothing but disagreeing, but I would rather you not respond to any more of my posts in this thread. And if somebody ignores that request, report them. That is simple.

Another rule which members largely ignore is:

Congregation Forums
Debating in congregation forums you are not a member of is not allowed.

Link to this rule.

The most often disregarded rule is:

Flaming
You will not insult, belittle, mock, or personally attack other members or groups of members. Use of derogatory nicknames in reference to other members is prohibited. Don't goad another member or start call-out threads. This flaming rule also applies to public figures.

If you are flamed, don't respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.

Link to this rule.

Most specifically, this part:

You will not insult, belittle, mock, or personally attack other members or groups of members.

The biggest problem in the Fundamentalist area is that the term "Fundamentalist" covers a wide varity of beliefs. We have Pentecostals, Charasmatics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc., which qualify under our description.

And in the case of "speaking in tongues" this belief will vary widely.

But, and I point this out.

Here in the open, general area of the Fundamentalist room, if you do not agree with all of what it means to be considered a Fundamentalist, then you cannot be posting here other than fellowship or encouragement type posts.

If you want to debate a topic, there are proper rooms for that.

And the thing above all is that you cannot regulate a persons "theology."

I have seen this a number of times even in the Baptist area.

While I personally disagree with it, I have seen some awful valid arguments for the ceasation of tongues.

This has been, and it will continue to be a controversal topic.

But the best way to deal with these kind of things is in my opinion, to simply state in the opening post, if you do not want debating, ask for no debating.

If a member asks for no debating, and somebody starts debating, then by all rights they are guilty of:

Don't goad another member

Debating when asked not to is baiting and goading. And we (Mods) can deal with that.

God Bless

DeaconDean
Supervisor, Fundamentalist Area

Till all are one.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Be it therefore resolved
That because tongues is an issue that often divides unnecessarily and is neither a proof positive sign of being filled with Holy Spirit, nor His absence, we therefore an approach of "Seek not, forbid not" regarding postings on the subject of tongues.

This neither endorses nor condemns tongues, for tongues is a non-essential for salvation, and this rule change (addition) is in line with Paul's admonition in Colossians 2:6

As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord [that is by grace alone], so walk ye in him:
7 Rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.


​

We are to build others up, especially as it comes to non essentials.

The Forum specific Guidelines cannot be changed by members or even most staff. It rests on the upper staff and the owner.

I will bring up your concern to upper staff . If you have other concerns about CF, you need to bring them up via pm to staff.


Closing this thread.