Is this rule being adhered to in this sub-forum?

[C.F.W. Walther]

1.4 Congregational Areas

"You may post in any of the Congregational Forums if you agree with the contents of the Nicene Creed and the Trinitarian nature of God, but you may not argue or debate with members of particular denominations and groups in their congregational areas unless you are a member of that particular denomination or group."

Do we just go on somebodies say-so that they adhere to this rule or do they demonstrate the violation of that rule by on going contradiction to the basic beliefs of the sub-forum and/or denomination?

Also is constant redundancy necessary to implementing someones opinion or should they be allowed to go on forever on the subject when it has been pointed out that they violated the spirit of the discussion and bring in errancies?




:scratch:

[pmcleanj]

I'm interested in the responses to this, too. As you know, I've done my best to interpret rule 1.4, in the main forum, to allow the kind of open debate that the members of TC-L have told me that they want and welcome.

Should the subforums have a more mainstream interpretation of rule 1.4? Most denominational forums do interpret that rule very strictly.

Also, there very well may be occasions where posters are simply communicating past each other, with perhaps no intent at disrespect, but with increasing frustration with each other -- a probability that increases, the less shared language and experience the different parties have. Is that more likely to happen in the subforums if non-members are allowed to discuss doctrine than in the main forum where there is more breadth of viewpoint? That might have a more restrictive interpretation of rule 1.4 in the subforums.

Or should members of the subforum have a mechanism whereby they can just blow the whistle and say, "Okay, out of the pool: you don't get it and explaining it yet again is going to be just too disruptive".

It would be nice to have a consensus of the members of this subforum, about how to handle such threads.

[Protoevangel]

The way I understood the very reason for the sub-forums, was so members belonging to that particular sub-forum could discuss issues without having to worry about the constant bombardment and harassment as has been recently been experienced.

Open discussion is and always has been encouraged in the main TCL forum, and I wouldn't have it any other way. But are the sub-forums no different than the main forum? If so, why even have them?

If an issue is brought up that one simply must debate about, nothing keeps that person from opening a thread in the main TCL area.

[Jim47]

My 2 cents

This forum was created as a safe haven just as the ELCA or liberal forum was created so they too could have a safe haven. As much as we all love to discuss and debate, I can see all the more clearly now that we do still need this safe haven. We still welcome debtaes and discussions in the main forum and I'm sure we always will. We consider this a part of witnessing and helping those who may not have the benefit of a conservative Lutheran upbringing (which would mean being in agreement with the conservative beliefs). As Dan has pointed out, if we don't follow these rules there is no point in having the forum. I think we still need it as a refuge from debating with others. I think I can say that we still welcome visitors who want to ask questions but refrain from debating. Kind of the same as you would do if visiting someones church. Good manners are always in order. If you don't agree with their teachings then you simply look for another church.

[LilLamb219]

I like what Jim wrote and agree with it wholeheartedly!

[LutherNut]

The type of nonsense that has been going on here would never be tolerated in the ELCA subforum. The ELCA moderators are very quick to hand out alerts and warnings to anyone who goes over there and voices a dissenting opinion on anything. This I know from personal experience.

[Jim47]

I would just like to add this thought. Sometimes it appears that someone is arguing with us, when they are actually seeking answers and don't understand the ones we ae giving them. Also this bible verse from Peter came to mind.


1Pe 5:1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:
1Pe 5:2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve;
1Pe 5:3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.
1Pe 5:4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
1Pe 5:5 Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because,
"God opposes the proud
but gives grace to the humble."
1Pe 5:6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.
1Pe 5:7 Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.
1Pe 5:8 Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.
1Pe 5:9 Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
1Pe 5:10 And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.
1Pe 5:11 To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen.

[LilLamb219]

Sometimes it appears that someone is arguing with us, when they are actually seeking answers and don't understand the ones we ae giving them.

Yes, but they should desire to hear the answers without repeatedly giving their own opinions back if they're truly interested in asking questions.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Well it looks like we have a concensus which is really unusual. Most of the time it's just a majority opinion, but this seems to be overwhelming.

Maybe Erwin take some of these comments and make a better judgement on what can be allowed in the sub forum here and have a stricter interpretation on the rule.

[pmcleanj]

Actually, I have a fair amount of discretion to interpret the "no debate" rule according to the standards of the community.

If I can paraphrase the consensus here, so I know what to say when moderating violators, it would be:

==============================
Lutherans tolerate a broad range of discussion within the scope of "building fellowship", provided that it does not involve direct disrespect of Lutheranism or Lutheran doctrine. That discussion should be restricted to the main TC-L forum; leaving the LCMS/WELS/ELS/LCC subforum as space for Lutherans who are in agreement with the more conservative Lutheran perspective to discuss their own issues among themselves.
==============================
Please correct my paraphrase if I have misrepresented the consensus.

Of course, I will still be relying on you all to send me a notice either by PM or by report in case I miss an incident.

One more point of clarification: I presume you would not choose to limit participation this forum by some strict qualifier, like confirmation. What is the benchmark by which to decide that someone "belongs" enough to be allowed to debate?

[Chemnitz]

Actually, I have a fair amount of discretion to interpret the "no debate" rule according to the standards of the community.

If I can paraphrase the consensus here, so I know what to say when moderating violators, it would be:

==============================
Lutherans tolerate a broad range of discussion within the scope of "building fellowship", provided that it does not involve direct disrespect of Lutheranism or Lutheran doctrine. That discussion should be restricted to the main TC-L forum; leaving the LCMS/WELS/ELS/LCC subforum as space for Lutherans who are in agreement with the more conservative Lutheran perspective to discuss their own issues among themselves.
==============================
Please correct my paraphrase if I have misrepresented the consensus.

That sounds fine to me.

Of course, I will still be relying on you all to send me a notice either by PM or by report in case I miss an incident.

One more point of clarification: I presume you would not choose to limit participation this forum by some strict qualifier, like confirmation. What is the benchmark by which to decide that someone "belongs" enough to be allowed to debate?

Membership in a congregation of one of the confessional Lutheran Churches?

[C.F.W. Walther]

The qualifier could be the stickler. Even within our own synods we have fairly substatial differances and when we took a vote over a month ago to differentiate between confessional, moderates and liberals. Just within this forum we couldn't come to a concensus on dividing the forum up between the confessionals and the "what evers left".

The only thing we could possibley do is make sure that everyone that wants to use this as a haven is they should have, at least, the listing of "Lutheran" and then what church they belong to in their profile. Not much of a deterent but at least we can see their profile and before it gets out of hand we can qualify them according to that or at least see that they are trying to bait us if they are of another denom. Also we could point them to another denom thread and ask them to join in a discussion there or tell them to take there dissention to the main TC thread.

I'm not sure if we can change that part of our profile though.

[C.F.W. Walther]

...............or have them use their secret decoder ring to get in :)

[Jim47]

One more point of clarification: I presume you would not choose to limit participation this forum by some strict qualifier, like confirmation. What is the benchmark by which to decide that someone "belongs" enough to be allowed to debate?



I agree with what Radidio said. A membership in a conservative Lutheran church should be required.

[Chemnitz]

I agree with what Radidio said. A membership in a conservative Lutheran church should be required.

Did my name change?

;)

[C.F.W. Walther]

We said the same thing at exactly the same time. I posted mine central time and you must have posted yours eastern CHemnitz :)

[pmcleanj]

Okay, treat me like I'm dense. I am Anglican, you know;) .

If I understand your praxis correctly, then "membership" is a distinct traceable act for you, right? As in, one can be a "member in Christ" through Baptism, but one still has to "join" a particular congregation through some intentional act in order to be a "member of the Church" (or church)?

You can't kind of accidentally and gradually drift in to being a "member" by just attending for a decade or so?

[Protoevangel]

I think the rule should be open to a certain amount of interpretation, depending on the nature of the debate. I, for one, would find it much more acceptable to have a Presby in here debating a lesser issue, than to have someone who may "officially" belong to a conservative Lutheran congregation, promoting Works Salvation, or denying the Chief Article. I suppose then, it comes down to who hits the report button, and when.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Okay, treat me like I'm dense. I am Anglican, you know;) .

If I understand your praxis correctly, then "membership" is a distinct traceable act for you, right? As in, one can be a "member in Christ" through Baptism, but one still has to "join" a particular congregation through some intentional act in order to be a "member of the Church" (or church)?

You can't kind of accidentally and gradually drift in to being a "member" by just attending for a decade or so?

Ok lets not get it too complicated. First prereq. You have a denom listed in your profile and also have you particular chuch listed. If you had come in here and argued just for the sake of arguing and not clarification and had been redundant about it then as Dan said (Second prereq) then we would hit the report button.

As someone mentioned before that in their subforum the perp would have been reported and kicked out a lot earlier that what happend here. These guys in here are too nice. I'm not.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I note that some in this discussion have an icon that just says "Lutheran" (as does mine). Some have added the name of their congregation. Some have added the denomination to which their congregation belongs.

But, does that mean that everyone in the LCMS, WELS and ELS groups agree with each other in all things? Could someone still be considered a part of those groups and disagree with another person in one of those groups about something? Will that be accepted? OR is this subforum only for the purpose of agreeing with each other and disagreements and/or discussions about varient opinions will not be permitted? Perhaps that needs to be decided and clarified...

[DaRev]

I note that some in this discussion have an icon that just says "Lutheran" (as does mine). Some have added the name of their congregation. Some have added the denomination to which their congregation belongs.

But, does that mean that everyone in the LCMS, WELS and ELS groups agree with each other in all things? Could someone still be considered a part of those groups and disagree with another person in one of those groups about something? Will that be accepted? OR is this subforum only for the purpose of agreeing with each other and disagreements and/or discussions about varient opinions will not be permitted? Perhaps that needs to be decided and clarified...

Your "icon" is not the Lutheran icon, but rather the generic "Christian" icon. I believe that Radidio and DanHead are referring to the specific Lutheran (Luther's Seal) icon that appears next to the posters name.

Of course the LCMS and WELS members do not agree in all things. And those things are discussed here. The point, however, is that those who post here and discuss these things are actually members of those church bodies and have a full understanding in what those church bodies actually teach. This seems to be the issue here. Those from outside the membership of these confessional church bodies should post their questions, statements, debates, etc. to the general forum. That's why it exists. These subforums are reserved for members of these confessional church bodies. That's why they exist.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Of course the LCMS and WELS members do not agree in all things. And those things are discussed here. The point, however, is that those who post here and discuss these things are actually members of those church bodies and have a full understanding in what those church bodies actually teach. This seems to be the issue here. Those from outside the membership of these confessional church bodies should post their questions, statements, debates, etc. to the general forum. That's why it exists. These subforums are reserved for members of these confessional church bodies. That's why they exist.

Perhaps you then need some way to determine whether the people who post here understand Lutheran theology. I wonder how that will be determined? Will you ask for their educational credentials? Will you have a quiz they must pass? And if someone understands a position, can they still discuss it? Is it possible that a person who understands Lutheran theology might disagree with another person who understands Lutheran theology? If so, how does that address the issue of disagreeing?

Perhaps you need to define more sharply what "member" means. Do you mean baptized? Communicant? Confirmed? And how will you determine that? Will you ask for a letter from their pastor? And it is possible for someone to be a member of an LCMS church and disagree about something with a person who is also a member of an LCMS church? If so, how does that address the issue of disagreeing?


It seems to ME the only PRACTICAL way to handle this (and the way it's done in all other subforums) is that the poster identifies to what group (and if appropriate) subgroup he/she identifies with. They, then, can "debate" only in that group or subgroup. According to the rules we agreed to here at CF, I cannot "debate" in the Catholic forum because I've designated myself as Lutheran - I CAN post and discuss things there (and in the subforums thereof if they have any), I can't "debate" there. That's the way the rule has been applied in all other denominational forums.


IF the issue is "debate" (a subject issue that staff really struggles with), then simply make a rule that disagreements or discussions about such aren't allowed here. Only agreements are permitted. I think that's going to be tough to enforce and for staff to interpret, but if this is a kind of "refuge" where disagreements aren't expected, you can certainly say they aren't allowed.


IF you want a private blog where you personally can control who has access and what is posted, then it might be good to consider creating private blog.


Just MY $0.01...


- Josiah

[Protoevangel]

I don't think this needs to be so complicated. I think I have even been making it more complicated than necessary. This sub-forum should be no different than the normal denominational forums. It is our main TC-L forum that is different (open to lively, but respectful, debate from any/all).

[C.F.W. Walther]

Assign someone with a neutral personality who doesn't get irritated and who is on here alot and let them be a someone that represents the people instead of CF and let them handle the panic button and then help defend us when we are questioned by the mods.



:scratch:

[Chemnitz]

To answer what I think was pjmclean's question, though:

All that is necessary to be considered Lutheran is membership in a Lutheran congregation.

Some are baptized as children, some are adult converts...it's pretty simple though...

[Jim47]

I note that some in this discussion have an icon that just says "Lutheran" (as does mine). Some have added the name of their congregation. Some have added the denomination to which their congregation belongs.

But, does that mean that everyone in the LCMS, WELS and ELS groups agree with each other in all things? Could someone still be considered a part of those groups and disagree with another person in one of those groups about something? Will that be accepted? OR is this subforum only for the purpose of agreeing with each other and disagreements and/or discussions about varient opinions will not be permitted? Perhaps that needs to be decided and clarified...


I believe everyone is in agreement here that we welcome conversations and questions from all people, not just Lutheran.

It is commonly known what points of difference the LCMS and WELS have. Other than a few comments and some friendly discussion I can't recall a single argument, although if we wanted to debate things between our synods that would be allowed. Myself I have a lot of respect for my LCMS friends and don't see the point of debating. They all know what I believe and I know what they believe for the most part, and neither one of us is going to cut the other down or try to steal from the others synod. I of couse whole heartedly welcome anyone to ask me questions and join me in worship.

I also agree with what Dan said. This whole thing has gotten way too complicated. I think what set this off was that some here percieved that what you were posting was debate and not done in a cordial manner. I know from our private conversations that is not the case, but as I said before, "perception is everything"

If the forum Mods percieve any rule violations then it is a rule viloation. The same goes with posts, if someone percieves another to be unfriendly then it is unfriendly. I am only saying this because I think it finally has to come out in the open so we all understand each other.

What is important is that we all respect each other. Conversation should be possible between us and just work on keeping it friendly. I don't appreciate snide remarks anymore then anyone else does and we are all guilty of that from time to time. A lot of people have debated with one of premier debaters here "Edial" and it hasn't always been as friendly as it should. Myself I think when we bow to name calling etc. we have lost all chance at making our points and having them repected. I have seen some of the views here by others and the scripture they presented to back them. Of course this is all subject to interpretation, hence the difference of beleifs.

Did that make cents ? :scratch:

[Jim47]

Your "icon" is not the Lutheran icon, but rather the generic "Christian" icon. I believe that Radidio and DanHead are referring to the specific Lutheran (Luther's Seal) icon that appears next to the posters name.

Of course the LCMS and WELS members do not agree in all things. And those things are discussed here. The point, however, is that those who post here and discuss these things are actually members of those church bodies and have a full understanding in what those church bodies actually teach. This seems to be the issue here. Those from outside the membership of these confessional church bodies should post their questions, statements, debates, etc. to the general forum. That's why it exists. These subforums are reserved for members of these confessional church bodies. That's why they exist.


I would like to take Rev's post one step further. As Rev pointed out we have the main forum for debate, and that is where all debate has taken place as far as I can recall. If something can be discussed here politely and without any heated discussion then it is permissible. If not, then the topic should be transferred to the main forum. Mods can tranfer these discussions of they turn into debate. All anyone has to do is click on the report button and request it. You don't even have to name an offender, as there will likely be more than one, simply ask that it be transferred.

[LutherNut]

I don't think its enough just to have the right "icon" or whatever. If a person asks a question here becasue they want to know what the confessional Lutheran viewpoint is on a particular matter, that's fine. That's why we are here.

But if someone who claims to be a confessional Lutheran, and even has the right words in their profile or their "icon" or whatever, but clearly demonstrates that they haven't got a clue, and furthermore continually argue with those who respond to them and insist that they are right when they've been proven wrong over and over and over, then the line must be drawn.

It should have NEVER gotten as far as it did in this subforum. NEVER. Like I said before, this would have never been tolerated in the ELCA subforum. One of the plethora of ELCA mod's would have ended it in a heartbeat!

I like the idea of being able to request a thread be removed to the main forum, but I will believe it when I see it actually happen.

[pmcleanj]

To answer what I think was pjmclean's question, though:

All that is necessary to be considered Lutheran is membership in a Lutheran congregation.

Some are baptized as children, some are adult converts...it's pretty simple though...

Not simple enough for me, I'm afraid:confused:

For example. I'm Anglican. Darling Husband is Evangelical Missionary Somethingorother. We've attended a Lutheran church for eight years. When we had attended for about 6 months, the Pastor asked if we wanted to "join the church". We said no, that we were sojourners. So we didn't do whatever it is that one does when one "joins the church" (not an Anglican concept. It is an Evangelical concept, but Dean was born into that church and whatever it is seems to be automatic in that case, because he doesn't recall doing anything.) But we've attended for eight years, pay our tithes, volunteer for Bible Study and Worship team respectively -- but never in leadership roles, never voting, because we "aren't members".

So when/how does one cross the threshold between "she sure hangs around here a lot" and "yeah, she's a member"?

(See, I'm really not from around here. But I'm listening!)

[pmcleanj]

... Like I said before, this would have never been tolerated in the ELCA subforum. One of the plethora of ELCA mod's would have ended it in a heartbeat! ...
Well to be fair, one of the ELCA members may well have *reported* it in a heartbeat. If you check out the moderator list at the top of the forum, you'll see you've only got three mods: One ELCA, one WELS, and one poor confused Anglican. The rest are supervisors and chief moderators for the whole gamut of Congregational fora.

I'm counting on Radidio to have his finger hovering over the "Report" button on behalf of the rest of you soft-hearted folks.

[Jim47]

pmcleanj



I'm counting on Radidio to have his finger hovering over the "Report" button on behalf of the rest of you soft-hearted folks.


That was good for a chuckle. :D

[C.F.W. Walther]

Not simple enough for me, I'm afraid:confused:

For example. I'm Anglican. Darling Husband is Evangelical Missionary Somethingorother. We've attended a Lutheran church for eight years. When we had attended for about 6 months, the Pastor asked if we wanted to "join the church". We said no, that we were sojourners. So we didn't do whatever it is that one does when one "joins the church" (not an Anglican concept. It is an Evangelical concept, but Dean was born into that church and whatever it is seems to be automatic in that case, because he doesn't recall doing anything.) But we've attended for eight years, pay our tithes, volunteer for Bible Study and Worship team respectively -- but never in leadership roles, never voting, because we "aren't members".

So when/how does one cross the threshold between "she sure hangs around here a lot" and "yeah, she's a member"?

(See, I'm really not from around here. But I'm listening!)


So now what do we do? We have a mod that is synonymous to the problem we are encountering. Is this going to bias you to someone that comes in here and is not Lutheran and belongs to a Lutheran church? Not trying to start anything but it is a concern with me.


**finger pauses over report button** :)





:scratch:

[Protoevangel]

Not simple enough for me, I'm afraid:confused:

For example. I'm Anglican. Darling Husband is Evangelical Missionary Somethingorother. We've attended a Lutheran church for eight years. When we had attended for about 6 months, the Pastor asked if we wanted to "join the church". We said no, that we were sojourners. So we didn't do whatever it is that one does when one "joins the church" (not an Anglican concept. It is an Evangelical concept, but Dean was born into that church and whatever it is seems to be automatic in that case, because he doesn't recall doing anything.) But we've attended for eight years, pay our tithes, volunteer for Bible Study and Worship team respectively -- but never in leadership roles, never voting, because we "aren't members".

So when/how does one cross the threshold between "she sure hangs around here a lot" and "yeah, she's a member"?

(See, I'm really not from around here. But I'm listening!)

How would this be handled in the Anglican forum? How about the Reformed forum? Is there a "standard" way to handle it, is what I'm really asking.

That being said, if there really is need to define, I will make an off the wall suggestion... How about, if "on the testimony of two or three witnesses," a post or thread is reported as "debate not in accordance with Confessional Lutheranism", a thread can be moved to the main Lutheran forum, where that kind of debate is allowed. This way, we can report a thread and not feel like we are "getting someone in trouble." Except for often repeating offenders, no warnings or anything would ever have to be handed out.

I don't know... It's just a thought.

[pmcleanj]

How would this be handled in the Anglican forum? How about the Reformed forum? Is there a "standard" way to handle it, is what I'm really asking.

There isn't really a standard way of handling it, I'm afraid. In the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox forums, you're expected to have either grown up in the denomination, or at least been formally accepted into the catechumenate. In the Anglican forum if you consider yourself Anglican, you're Anglican. Some forums have doctrinal touchstones that determine who belongs -- you have to believe the Fundamentals to be a Fundamentalist, for example. Each different rule of thumb presents its own potential problem.

Your suggestion about moving threads to the main forum seems perfectly workable to me; if that's how the consensus forms.

[C.F.W. Walther]

I agree with Dan. Lets do it. Who gets to more the threads?

[pmcleanj]

Who gets to move the threads?

Any of the moderators can move a thread. It's best if at least one person reports it -- that sends an automatic private message to all the moderators, and lets us keep track of the request in a formal way.

I'm thinking that, if you think a thread needs to be moved to the main forum, post that comment in the thread -- and if you're the FIRST person to make the comment, also send the report. Witnesses #2 and #3 can just make the comment in the thread, because the moderators will have already been notified to come look into it.

... or, you could designate one specific person to send the report anytime you reach the critical mass of witnesses asking for a thread-move.


... or, every witness who wants the thread moved could send a report -- that would guarantee that the mods got notified. It's a pain to get multiple reports on the same thread, since we look into every individual report anyway. But hey, that's why they call this a ministry.

[Chemnitz]

For Lutherans, especially confessional Lutherans, Church membership is essential to having the name "Lutheran".

A person can "Lutheranize" theologically (as does Dr. Douglas Moo at TED on the issue of Law and Gospel, for example and as are several Reformed people lately on the sacraments) without being Lutheran, but I believe that in order for a person to really be a confessional Lutheran they would have had to have taken the step of being either baptized or received by confirmation to the care of a congregation of one of those churches recognized as taking a quia perspective on the Book of Concord.

We don't have a free church attitude about these things...

[DaRev]

Perhaps you then need some way to determine whether the people who post here understand Lutheran theology. I wonder how that will be determined?

Actually, quite easy.

When someone repeatedly makes statements and claims that are not at all in line with Lutheran teaching and understanding, it is a pretty clear indication that they don't understand Lutheran theology. The determination comes from their own words.

[DaRev]

So when/how does one cross the threshold between "she sure hangs around here a lot" and "yeah, she's a member"?


If there is someone who "attends" a Lutheran church but refuses to join into the fellowship, I as a Pastor would want to know why. Is there a faith issue? Is there a confessional issue? Is there a Biblical issue?

It only follows if someone believes what a church teaches, they would (and should) join that church if they wish to continue attending there. When they refuse to join, that is an indication that there is an issue of unbelief somewhere. That needs to be explored.


DaRev

[DaRev]

For Lutherans, especially confessional Lutherans, Church membership is essential to having the name "Lutheran".

A person can "Lutheranize" theologically (as does Dr. Douglas Moo at TED on the issue of Law and Gospel, for example and as are several Reformed people lately on the sacraments) without being Lutheran, but I believe that in order for a person to really be a confessional Lutheran they would have had to have taken the step of being either baptized or received by confirmation to the care of a congregation of one of those churches recognized as taking a quia perspective on the Book of Concord.

We don't have a free church attitude about these things...


...what he said...

[Protoevangel]

Actually, quite easy.

When someone repeatedly makes statements and claims that are not at all in line with Lutheran teaching and understanding, it is a pretty clear indication that they don't understand Lutheran theology. The determination comes from their own words.
This is a true statement.

Do you think there is a way we could address this in the main forum? What about one who continues to claim that he/she is representing Lutheran belief, but continues to promote the most un-Lutheran of doctrine?

I am not conccerned about a non-Lutheran coming in to debate, but one who falsly claims to be a Lutheran, and refuses to accept any kind of correction. Is there any way we can deal with this?

[Jim47]

Dan, I think I understand why you are saying this, and yes it could technically be done, BUT, do we want to do it? The reason I say this is if we don't allow debate between Lutherans with different beliefs, how will that serve God and how will it bennefit the church that Jesus died for? For if we prohibit debate and discussion just because they aren't in line with the confessions, at that point we have shut ourselves off from witnessing to them. This may relieve stress for a few, but in my eyes it will also defeat the very purpose of having discussion.

[DaRev]

Dan, I think I understand why you are saying this, and yes it could technically be done, BUT, do we want to do it? The reason I say this is if we don't allow debate between Lutherans with different beliefs, how will that serve God and how will it bennefit the church that Jesus died for? For if we prohibit debate and discussion just because they aren't in line with the confessions, at that point we have shut ourselves off from witnessing to them. This may relieve stress for a few, but in my eyes it will also defeat the very purpose of having discussion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that precsiely what the main forum is for?

Wasn't the subforum created for friendly discussion among like-minded Lutherans?

If such is not the case, then I move that the subforums be deleted altogether. They are useless.

[SPALATIN]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that precsiely what the main forum is for?

Wasn't the subforum created for friendly discussion among like-minded Lutherans?

If such is not the case, then I move that the subforums be deleted altogether. They are useless.

Jim,

I have to agree with DaRev. The subforums were so that we could have like-minded discussions with each other. The main forum is where debate should take place.

[C.F.W. Walther]

I think there's some wires crossed. It looks like Jim is addressing a statement that looks like Dan wants to be discussed in the main forum when I really think he wants the change in the sub forum. and Jim is addressing the statement like it was meant for the main forum or.........???

[Jim47]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that precsiely what the main forum is for?

Wasn't the subforum created for friendly discussion among like-minded Lutherans?

If such is not the case, then I move that the subforums be deleted altogether. They are useless.


I agree, but Dan's question was on the main forum.

Dan
Do you think there is a way we could address this in the main forum? What about one who continues to claim that he/she is representing Lutheran belief, but continues to promote the most un-Lutheran of doctrine?

I am not conccerned about a non-Lutheran coming in to debate, but one who falsly claims to be a Lutheran, and refuses to accept any kind of correction. Is there any way we can deal with this?

[Protoevangel]

My question was abut the main forum only.

My question was not about debate about differences in the Lutheran Synods.

My question was not about debate from non-Lutheran denominations.

My question only referred to false bretheren...

People who:
1. Call themselves Lutheran
2. Continue to promote non-Lutheran Doctrine
3. Continue to refuse correction.

[Jim47]

My question was abut the main forum only.

My question was not about debate about differences in the Lutheran Synods.

My question was not about debate from non-Lutheran denominations.

My question only referred to false bretheren...

People who:
1. Call themselves Lutheran
2. Continue to promote non-Lutheran Doctrine
3. Continue to refuse correction.


I understood all of that Dan. I know its frustrating. What would you like me to do?

This is a bigger decision then I can make, and I think before we take it to a staff level we should poll all the members here, but not the usual poll. One where they have to respond with posts and give their reasons.

You are welcome to PM me. Or anyone for that matter.

[Protoevangel]

Ah, I guess I'm just blowing steam.

Even if we did decide to discuss it in earnest, I suppose I shouldn't hijack this thread, it should be discussed in the main forum, since that is where it would affect.

[LutherNut]

Ah, I guess I'm just blowing steam.

Even if we did decide to discuss it in earnest, I suppose I shouldn't hijack this thread, it should be discussed in the main forum, since that is where it would affect.

There is always the option of starting a subscription forum on another Groups server, like MSN or one of those. It's not like we are all locked up here in CF.


...just a thought.

[DaRev]

There is always the option of starting a subscription forum on another Groups server, like MSN or one of those. It's not like we are all locked up here in CF.


...just a thought.

There is already a "Missouri Synod Lutherans" group on MSN Groups, but it's an open forum. There are some who come in to stir up the pot from time to time, but the regulars there (including some pastors) do a good job of keeping order.
It's not as active as it once was, but there are still some good discussions that arise from time to time. Most of the trouble makers have been weeded out.

It might be worth checking out.

There is also a LCMS/WELS oriented group called "White Rose Ministries" but there is a lot more debate that goes on there.

And there is a LCMS oriented forum at lcms.suddenlaunch.com, although this one is rarely active. It could be "re-invigorated" if need be.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Well LQ is available but they are somewhat irratic and argumentative allthough very active

[Protoevangel]

I have been enjoying LQ lately, although I still lurk a lot more than I participate there.

[ByzantineDixie]

I have been enjoying LQ lately, although I still lurk a lot more than I participate there.

Enjoying LQ??? :scratch: I hardly know what to make of that!

[DaRev]

Friends don't let friends read LQ!

[C.F.W. Walther]

Friends don't let friends read LQ!

Why?------because it's Cascione's site or because it's argumentative?

Actually I like their more lenient rules but it brings in some unusual people. Would be informative to have the Prues's over here. Might just go invite them.

[LilLamb219]

I have been reading LQ daily for more than 3 years and really have learned a lot. I rarely post on there though.

[Protoevangel]

Yea, I've had a pretty good reception there the two or three posts I have made there.

I would really like to see the Prues's post here on occasion!