 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 [Admin] Question for posters: Should this forum permit the promotion of false gospels? |
Dave Dorsey |
Would like to solicit your feedback on this question. I am a part of another forum that includes the rule "no promoting a false gospel". This rule is enforced gently -- it's a mostly Reformed forum that nevertheless permits regular participation from Catholics and Orthodox folks, and even atheists and those outside traditional Christianity, so long as they follow the rules and don't promote views that are antagonistic toward orthodox Christianity.
I can see two big reasons NOT to enforce a rule like this:
1) The enforcement is subjective. If you leave it up to me, I'm banning everyone who can't fully confess Heidelberg (kidding). And if it's up to OTCP, everyone who's even thought about doing online work with an unaccredited school is gone.
2) If you don't engage with people who are lost, you can't proclaim the gospel to them.
But the big reason TO enforce a rule like this would be to prevent the forum from being occupied by people who are not looking for a conversation, but are only looking to promote beliefs that are antagonistic toward the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I'm really interested in your feedback on this, since this is your forum. Do you enjoy sparring with people like that? Does it make you less likely to want to participate in Acts? If you do enjoy it, will something like that get old after several days?
Is there a line? If so, where? Would Mormon evangelists be welcome here? Or atheists, or those looking to advocate Islamic beliefs?
Looking forward to your feedback. Please let me have it openly and honestly. If you think it's a dumb thought top to bottom, let me know. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
2/2/18 8:06 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Carolyn Smith wrote: | | First, you would have to clearly define "false gospels." |
That's one of the questions I asked. What would you say? Where do you draw the line on what belief systems you think should be promoted on this forum?
Should we permit someone who wants to argue that there was never a historical Jesus? One who wants to argue that there was, but He never intended Himself to be thought of as a savior or the Son of God? Etc. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
2/3/18 4:28 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bradfreeman |
| Carolyn Smith wrote: | | First, you would have to clearly define "false gospels." |
Why that's everyone who doesn't agree with me! 
This is the problem with such a rule. Truth can handle discussion.
_________________
I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!
My website: www.bradfreeman.com
My blog: http://bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/ |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 9027
2/3/18 9:05 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| bradfreeman wrote: | | This is the problem with such a rule. Truth can handle discussion. |
I agree with that. It's good for orthodox believers to "stay sharp" and engagement is an opportunty for those in error to hear the gospel and repent.
However, the key word in the question is "promote" not "voice". If someone is continually promoting a false gospel -- not engaging in discussion, not answering questions that are posed to them, but simply using this forum as an avenue to promote a gospel that is antagonistic to the gospel of Jesus Christ -- but otherwise following all established rules, is that something we at least want to preserve the right to address?
Maybe it's not. That's why I threw the question out.  |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
2/3/18 9:07 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | Carolyn Smith wrote: | | First, you would have to clearly define "false gospels." |
That's one of the questions I asked. What would you say? Where do you draw the line on what belief systems you think should be promoted on this forum?
Should we permit someone who wants to argue that there was never a historical Jesus? One who wants to argue that there was, but He never intended Himself to be thought of as a savior or the Son of God? Etc. |
You said, "Is there a line? If so, where? Would Mormon evangelists be welcome here? Or atheists, or those looking to advocate Islamic beliefs?"
Let's be honest here. We don't get many of those folks here. And if we do, they get shut down and banned when they become an annoyance. We do usually try to bring others around to our way of thinking first, at least....I can only think of a handful of times that's happened since I came here several years ago.
The closest you're gonna come here is WOF. And so far, that is open for discussion. This is a discussion board. Healthy discussion can be a good thing. It can help open our minds to truth or to ponder things that are different than what we have believed.
Most of us believe sanctification is a progressive work of grace nowadays, but 50 years ago, we would have been soundly thrown out on our ear and labeled a heretic. Hopefully most of us mature in our beliefs as we grow older.
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5923
2/3/18 10:20 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Carolyn Smith wrote: | | Let's be honest here. We don't get many of those folks here. And if we do, they get shut down and banned when they become an annoyance. |
Well, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about -- not WoF. So what I hear you telling me is, "This is a non-issue because it's already something the forum does when needed." Is that right? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
2/3/18 10:32 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
Since I began participating in Actscelerate in 1998 (back in the EZ-Board days), if memory serves, the only exclusion of anyone from the forum for doctrinal deviations was one time around 2000 or so, when a former CoG evangelist who had converted to Oneness started actively promoting his newfound faith here, and another time maybe four years ago when a ‘gay Christian’ started interacting here, debating in favor of active homosexuality being compatible with Christianity. I could be mistaken, but other than that, most all bannings have been essentially due to not playing nice. In my opinion, Doyle has typically been very lenient regarding doctrinal matters here.
My thought is, such issues, as frustrating as they might be at times, serve to sharpen those who engage them and to generate more traffic to the site. Those who do not find such discussions interesting can just ignore them if they wish.
Even if the forum were to require adherence to a specific doctrinal statement in order to participate in discussions, I’m not sure that requiring such would really make much difference.
I do sometimes think it might be nice to have a way to just block particular posters, even though that would tend to have a negative effect on participation in general.
Last edited by Quiet Wyatt on 2/3/18 12:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
2/3/18 11:19 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | Carolyn Smith wrote: | | Let's be honest here. We don't get many of those folks here. And if we do, they get shut down and banned when they become an annoyance. |
Well, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about -- not WoF. So what I hear you telling me is, "This is a non-issue because it's already something the forum does when needed." Is that right? |
Yes, pretty much. We don't get many Muslims or Buddhists here.
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5923
2/3/18 11:24 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | I do sometimes think it might be nice to have a way to just block particular posters, even though that would tend to have a negative effect on participation in general. |
Shaun and I have often talked about an "upvote" or "downvote" system -- this would allow posters to vote on threads or posts, and without replying, so our lurkers could anonymously offer their two cents on the quality or nature of a post or reply as well. What do you think about that? Usually systems like that impact visibility (heavily downvoted things get hidden), but we probably have too few posts for that to happen.
I remember the two posters you're talking about. I suppose both you and Carolyn are correct that these issues tend to sort themselves out. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
2/3/18 11:39 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| My thought about the upvote/downvote thing is, I’ve participated in forums which had such things, but I don’t know that having that option really made much difference in the content posted, especially with those whose views would be considered unorthodox or even heretical. In my experience, they typically are quite used to being the noncomformist, and would take downvotes as a badge of honor. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
2/3/18 12:56 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Good feedback. Thanks to all three of you. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
2/3/18 1:02 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: [Admin] Question for posters: Should this forum permit the promotion of false gospels? |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Dave Dorsey wrote: | | If it's up to OTCP, everyone who's even thought about doing online work with an unaccredited school is gone. |
Only partially true, so let the ole timer clarify.
1. Nothing wrong with legitimately accredited online studies. Most all major universities (including Lee) now offer entire degree programs 100% online. If the institution holds legitimate accreditation, the online degree is just as valid as one earned on campus.
2. Most religious schools that lack legitimate accreditation could not obtain it if they tried, not in their present form. They use the excuse "we don't want government interference regarding what we teach." Call Paul Conn and ask him when was the last time the government "interfered" with Lee's curriculum. Truth is, the government doesn't. This is a cop out designed with two goals in mind: 1) to justify lack of accreditation; and 2) to look spiritual in the process.
It is the numerous less-than-wonderful, unaccredited entities, whose diplomas grace the walls of so many COG preachers (especially doctoral level diplomas), that makes the entire debacle so unethical. Schools like this brief sampling: International Seminary (Plymouth, FL); Jacksonville Theological Seminary (Jax, FL); Andersonville Theological Seminary (Camilla, GA); Covington Theological Seminary (Rossville, GA); Catalpa Way Bible College (Fayetteville, NC); etc..................
Shameful my brethren, these things ought not to be. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
2/3/18 3:38 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
As a current online student of an accredited university, I was clear to specify online work with an unaccredited school. I'd say my statement was fully true. 
Perhaps it was incomplete -- I suspect you'd want to show the door to people doing in-class work with unaccredited schools as well. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
2/3/18 4:16 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
FLRon |
I seriously doubt that you will be able to garner enough agreement among the regular posters about what constitutes “false doctrineâ€,though it shouldn’t be difficult to determine based upon specific and well established Christian creeds, such as the Nicene Creed for example.
Of course, this being a discussion board means people come here to “discussâ€,and the constraints of a doctrinal statement would no doubt turn many off. Still, it would be beneficial (IMO) if everyone shared some “common ground†doctrinally,aside from just being “Pentecostalâ€. Personally, I often wonder just where some people are coming from,doctrinally speaking.
I believe the better question is “should this board permit the discussion of unorthodox Christian topics� Oneness,Annihilationism,Universalism,and Mormonism are just a few examples. The downside of this would be the need to establish “specific sections†on the board for Orthodox or Unorthodox topics, which would likely need closer moderation.
My 2 cents worth, it it’s worth even that.
_________________
“Hell will be filled with people that didn’t cuss, didn’t drink, and may even have been baptized. Why? Because none of those things makes someone a Christian.”
Voddie Baucham |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 787
2/3/18 5:54 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| The line is clear... |
Aaron Scott |
Any doctrine that is not monotheistic, or that does not hold Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, who was born of a virgin, worked miracles, died on the cross for our sin, rose, ascended, and is coming again, is a false doctrine.
And...the person must accept the scripture contained in the Bible as the standard of doctrinal truth. That is, a Mormon, for instance, could not carry the day if his argument is only from the Book of Mormon.
Just about every other doctrinal variance is more or less within the ballpark, I think...even if there is strong disagreement about it. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
2/3/18 7:37 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Galatians 5 |
UncleJD |
Paul wanted them to shut up and emasculate themselves.
I don't think many posters on here are in danger of falling away from Christ back into the Law like Paul was warning about, but some who read this board may be struggling with Judiazers right now. It is them I worry for. As for blatantly false religions such as Buddhism or Islam, I'm not worried one bit, its the subtlety of the Judiazer that is the biggest offense to the work of Christ on the Cross. That said, I'm not real worried about this guy influencing many posters negatively, but I don't want him to hijack every thread, that gets real old real quick. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3147
2/3/18 7:44 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: The line is clear... |
Dave Dorsey |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | Any doctrine that is not monotheistic, or that does not hold Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, who was born of a virgin, worked miracles, died on the cross for our sin, rose, ascended, and is coming again, is a false doctrine. |
Aaron, you nailed it here. I would hope that any member here could agree with this as a baseline for orthodoxy. This is exactly what I had in mind when I was considering true gospel vs. false gospel in the context of this thread.
I personally don't agree that most any other doctrinal variances are "in the ballpark", but that's just my opinion. As a matter of objective baseline, I think what you have posted is an excellent summation of what it means to be an orthodox Christian. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
2/3/18 7:52 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: The line is clear... |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | Any doctrine that is not monotheistic, or that does not hold Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, who was born of a virgin, worked miracles, died on the cross for our sin, rose, ascended, and is coming again, is a false doctrine.
|
An Arian could accept the above. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
2/3/18 8:52 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
| Or a Sabellian or a monothelitist or a lot of other heretics. Still, it's a real decent place to plant a flag. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
2/3/18 9:01 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
