Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate
Browse by what's: hot | new | rising | top of the week

[Admin] Question for posters: Should this forum permit the promotion of false gospels?
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Quiet Wyatt
I find the Deity of Christ is an absolutely nonnegotiable doctrine for all genuine Christianity. I know Aaron will probably call me names for saying that, but regardless of any objections to the contrary, it is true. [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
2/3/18 9:13 pm
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
I guess I just assumed the deity of Christ was implied in his list. I'm not sure why Aaron would object to that. [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
2/3/18 10:03 pm
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
I will leave that for Aaron to answer for himself; however, I will note that affirming monotheism and that Jesus is the only begotten son of God is not the same thing as an affirmation of His Deity. [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
2/3/18 11:10 pm
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Just to be clear... Aaron Scott
I ABSOLUTELY affirm the deity of Christ. Not one time have I ever argued otherwise. What Quiet Wyatt mistakenly believes is that questioning our formulation of the trinity is to deny the deity of Christ. Not so. What it is is a search for an understanding that doesn’t ignore, twist, or dismiss any scripture.

What QW and others think is missing is some statement on the trinity. I don’t make one because the trinity is not absolutely clear in scripture. Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring plenty of scripture to the contrary. The TRUTH is that none of us know just how Jesus and the Father fit together. I admit I don’t know (even though I believe Jesus is God), but others wouldn’t dare admit that they don’t know, yet they INSIST that everyone embrace a certain formulation of words about the trinity. As soon as they have a formulation that takes into account ALL scripture, I’ll embrace it. Until then, I’m sticking with what the Bible does say...and it DOES say John 1:1.		 Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
2/4/18 6:17 am
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Quiet Wyatt
It is not true that I confuse the trinitarian doctrine with the Deity of Christ. While I do find the doctrine of the trinity to be the only coherent interpretation of the New Testament Scriptures, the fact is, I have never once said that one must believe in the doctrine of the trinity in order to be saved. I have consistently maintained, for as long as I can recall actually, that one may be truly saved while holding to modalism/Oneness, for instance. [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
2/4/18 9:33 am
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Aaron Scott
Quiet Wyatt wrote:
It is not true that I confuse the trinitarian doctrine with the Deity of Christ. While I do find the doctrine of the trinity to be the only coherent interpretation of the New Testament Scriptures, the fact is, I have never once said that one must believe in the doctrine of the trinity in order to be saved. I have consistently maintained, for as long as I can recall actually, that one may be truly saved while holding to modalism/Oneness, for instance.


My apologies, then. But what would otherwise make you think I might not espouse the deity of Christ. I thought for sure it was my critiquing of trinitarian doctrine. Sorry if I misunderstood.		 Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
2/4/18 10:11 am
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post When the "Christians" krista
on Acts can't seem to ever come into agreement over any issue, why would we ever think it will work to allow "false gospels"?
It may be entertaining though Laughing		 Golf Cart Mafia Capo
Posts: 2960
2/5/18 1:11 pm
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Having read Terms of Use and Policy, Mark Ledbetter
I don't see anything that can justify banning anyone for posting "false doctrine."

Are advocating a change in policy? How would that be done? What standard would be used to determine whether doctrine is false or not?

There are a few who post things I object to but when their posts populate the forum, I can either choose to read or not read.

Obviously, the post is a thinly-veiled conversation regarding one particular poster. Of course this is only my opinion (I wouldn't post it if it wasn't).
_________________
God-Honoring
Christ-Centered
Bible-Based
Spirit-Led
(This is how I want to be)		 Golf Cart Mafia Associate
Posts: 2109
2/5/18 1:51 pm
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Nature Boy Florida
No
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today!		 Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
2/5/18 3:17 pm
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Cojak
I am reading some (not all comments/posts by Isa) I see nothing positive that can be gained by him being here. I can ignore him and his comments. I did make one comment lately that I do think he should be banned, his banter is not constructive. But banned or not, I do not want to, nor will I comment again on the subject. Cool
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/		 01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24285
2/5/18 10:57 pm
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post roughridercog
Dave Dorsey wrote:
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.


I like the up or down vote option, but is it even an option with our board provider?
_________________
Doctor of Bovinamodulation		 Acts Mod
Posts: 25305
2/6/18 3:36 pm
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Brandon Bowers
Look, it's not like Acts usage is on the rise. Do you really want to put in rules that will run off people?

I think we currently have fair rules that are fairly enforced.
_________________
---------
My Facebook www.facebook.com/theB3		 Golf Cart Mafia Capo Famiglia
Posts: 4804
2/6/18 4:23 pm
View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.