Wiki: Charismatic Forum

[SirTimothy]

Charismatic Forum

Charismatic Forum Rules

Rule 1.1 Debate by Non-Members
All posts by members who are not in line with the definition of Charismatic, (Section 2, below) are asked not to debate (whether debating beliefs or matters of forum policy) or post teaching or instruction regarding such matters.

Rule 1.2 No Accusations of not being Charismatic enough
Any accusation that a member is not Charismatic, or not Charismatic enough, when he has identified himself as being in line with the Charismatic beliefs (Section 2), is forbidden. If a member directly contradicts a statement within this article, please use the 'report' button to report the post to the moderators, and the user will be contacted by them. Let the moderators handle such action officially, rather than taking it into your own hands, as it will make their job easier.

Rule 1.3 Rules carried over
We ask that all posts in this forum adhere to the rules of this site. All of the Forum Specific rules (http://www.christianforums.com/t5673502-old-rules-for-reference-only.html) of the parent forum, 'Spirit-Filled, Pentecostal/Charismatic,' which are not superseded by Charismatic Forum rules, are also to be observed. Moderators will be enforcing those rules in this subforum as well. This would include issues such as the No Flaming rule, for example.

Charismatic Beliefs
The Charismatic forum is a place welcome to all people who consider themselves to be Charismatic. For the purposes of this forum, we define a member of this Charismatic forum, as a member who is in line with the following beliefs.

For the definition of the Charismatic Subforum of Spirit-filled Pentecostal/Charismatic, the following are the distinguishing marks of a Charismatic believer, and we use this definition to show who can and cannot debate within our forum. If your views on these doctrines are contrary to our outline, we ask that you do not participate in discussions about the interpretation and application of these particular doctrines. Such discussions are more appropriate in the SF/PC main forum.

Trinitarian
We believe that in order to be charismatic, one must believe in a Triune God, in line with the teachings of the Nicene Creed (used as a reference point for clear trinitarian teaching which must be adhered to, not required to assent to as a matter of belief) and with the teachings found within the Bible, both Old and New Testament. We respectfully request that non-trinitarian people not debate within this forum.


Church:
Charismatics can belong to non-denominational churches or traditional denominations; we are found in all walks of the Christian life: "For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ." [1 Corinthians 12:12, NASB]

Gifts of the Spirit
All charismatic believers believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within believers; in the continuation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit today; and that the Holy Spirit comes as he wills, working through our prayers as he pleases, rather than coming at any man's command.

We do not believe that there is any gift that is 'evidence' of the filling of the Holy Spirit, rather that the Holy Spirit gives gifts as he chooses for the purposes of the Building up of the Body of Christ. The fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), as seen in a change of character, is a better indication of the filling of the Spirit.

"There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men." [1 Cor, 12: 4-6 NIV]

"All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines." [1 Cor 12:11 NIV]

Healing:
All Charismatic believers believe in the gift of Healing and that God can and does heal. We believe in praying for healing as a significant part of our ministry. However, following on in the example of the Apostle Paul, we believe that healing does not always occur, and that God does not come at our bidding, but rather he works through us serving him in prayer. Sometimes we must acknowledge that healing does not occur so that He may be glorified. Like Job, we can honestly testify, "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised." (Job 1:21)

"To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me." [2 Cor 12:7-9]

Poverty and Wealth:
Charismatic believers come from all walks of life, from extreme poverty through to extreme wealth. We believe that wealth is a gift from God and carries enormous responsibilities. We believe that while God does not necessarily give us money from Heaven, he provides for our needs--sometimes in quite basic ways--rather than providing every little thing we could ever want. We believe in miraculous provision, not as a right to be claimed, but as an answer to prayer as He wills. Jesus taught us to pray for daily bread--implying that we should rely on God daily for our needs.

"He said to them, "When you pray, say:
" 'Father,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come.
Give us each day our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins,
for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.
And lead us not into temptation.' " [Luke 11:2-4 NIV]

God speaks today:
Charismatic believers believe that God speaks today through the ministry of people given the gift of Prophecy, and others who have studied. However, we firmly believe that all ministers, teachers and prophets should have their teaching examined closely, according to the Word of God, and that if it fails to come into line with what God has already revealed, then it must be discarded and labeled as false teaching and prophesy. (2 Timothy 3:16).

Further, we must closely examine all prophecies, and any prophet who prophesies contrary to the Word of God, or if his or her prophecy does not come to pass, must be closely examined as to whether or not they really have this gift. As a significant gift within the church we must be aware that some people are seeking attention through it, and to be wise as 'Bereans', always comparing new teachings and prophetic words with the Scriptures to see if they are from God.

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11 NIV]

[talitha]

subscribing

[Redheadedstepchild]

How about copying and pasting the no flaming rules from the SF Wiki to this one?:)

[JAS4Yeshua]

I would agree that we need it, in light of some posts I've seen.

[SirTimothy]

How about copying and pasting the no flaming rules from the SF Wiki to this one?:)
I'm going to suggest that we add a clause in saying that 'all rules affecting the SF/PC main forum which are not superseded by Forum Specific Rules, are in place and to be followed here.'

[JAS4Yeshua]

That sounds like a good idea. That should cover the basics at least. Don't forget that there's also the site rules to consider. Maybe the clause could be amended to something like:

"All rules affecting Spirit-Filled - Pentecostal/Charismatic Forums, which are not superseded by Charismatic specific rules, are in place and to be followed here. Christian Forums rules are always in effect."

I'm sure someone can word it better than I did, but I hope it conveys the right idea.

[SirTimothy]

Okay. I've edited in some rules and given it some cohesive order, I think. Anyone got any suggestions? I'll also be posting in the forum to get members to check it out and put suggestions there or here before we go for a vote to use these provisionally on Monday.

[JAS4Yeshua]

For Rule 1.2
...and the user will be contacted and asked to not post here any longer...

I think we should change the "asked to not post here any longer" should be changed to "appropriate action will be taken."

The penalty might be "not to post here" but it could be as simple as talking to the person and straightening up misunderstandings. We are to be forgiving, but still not be trampled.

Another idea would be to drop everything after contacted.

[SirTimothy]

For Rule 1.2
...and the user will be contacted and asked to not post here any longer...

I think we should change the "asked to not post here any longer" should be changed to "appropriate action will be taken."

The penalty might be "not to post here" but it could be as simple as talking to the person and straightening up misunderstandings. We are to be forgiving, but still not be trampled.

Another idea would be to drop everything after contacted.
Good change. Fixed.

[New_Wineskin]

I have issues with the following :

We believe that in order to be charismatic, you must believe in a Triune God, in line with the teachings of the Nicene Creed (used as a reference point for clear trinitarian teaching which must be adhered to, not required to assent to as a matter of belief) and with the teachings found within the Bible, both Old and New Testament. We ask non-trinitarian people, and people who reject the clear teachings of Scripture to not debate within this forum.



The Nicene creed does not specifically state the "trinity" . This adds more stuff . Either stay with the creed or make up a new one . This type of addition doesn't help .

Also , the idea of the "bible" and "old and new" testaments is *not* a definition for "charasmatic" . The first Christians didn't have those things except perhaps the Law and the Prophets ( what some call the "old testatment" ) . And , the leaders of Jerusalem threw out the Law except for a couple of items and Paul even threw one of those items out .


Also , this :
However we firmly believe that all ministers, teachers and prophets should have their teaching examined closely to the Word of God, and that if it fails to come into line with what God has already revealed, then it must be discarded and labeled as false teaching and prophesy, and we must closely examine all, and any prophet who prophesies contrary to the Word of God or his or her prophecy does not come to pass, we must closely examine whether they really have this gift, or whether they are merely seeking for attention. As a significant gift within the church we must be aware that people are seeking attention through it, and to be wise as 'Bereans', always comparing new teaching with the Scriptures to see if they are from God.

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11 NIV]



This is self-contradictory . Anyone who followed this would know that it is self-contradictory as the Bereans only had the Law and the Prophets . So , according to this , all things must be validated by the Law and the Prophets - the so-called "New_Testament" is not enough . The Bereans would throw anything out that was not validated by the Law or the Prophets .

A prophesy is by the Spirit - to be judged by the Spirit - not the written code .


I know this is not "popular" but these are *more* rules and the owner of the site wanted *less* rules .

[cyberlizard]

i find the nicene and apostolic creeds quite weak when it comes to the trinity, can we not use the athanasian creed instead for this

Steve

[JAS4Yeshua]

I personally don't care what we have, as long as we have something that is Scripturally sound.

[robbymac]

I've added a copy of edits to the main text. They are BOLDED for easy reference, and also for easy removal if we don't like the edits. :P

One thing I would suggest, Sir Timothy, is to go back through the document -- which I think absolutely RAWKS, btw -- and make the use of pronouns consistent throughout. For example, at times it says "they believe" and at other times "we believe". I vote for the choice of "we", but either way, I think consistency would be good.

I like the use of the Niceme Creed for the Trinitarian section; I had a look at the Catholic Trinitarian Creed, and it does go into greater detail about the Trinity, but it also says at the very beginning that all non-Catholics are going to hell, so I don't think I'm comfortable with taking a piece we like and ignoring the rest. The Nicene Creed should be adequate for our purposes here.

This is looking good, and I'm really appreciating the way it's coming about!

Grace and peace,

robbymac

[robbymac]

I hope I have not over-stepped any bounds of protocol or good manners in suggesting these changes in the main body of the document.

If so, please accept my apologies. This whole wiki thing is not unfamiliar for me, but it's the first time I've actively participated.

[talitha]

Thanks, Robbymac!

http://img101.mytextgraphics.com/sparklee/2007/07/23/5763a1c88749a5944429f98cd750d188.gif (http://www.sparklee.com)

[SirTimothy]

One thing I would suggest, Sir Timothy, is to go back through the document -- which I think absolutely RAWKS, btw -- and make the use of pronouns consistent throughout. For example, at times it says "they believe" and at other times "we believe". I vote for the choice of "we", but either way, I think consistency would be good.


I agree. I'll look through that later on and fix it up.

[Tamara224]

I agree. I'll look through that later on and fix it up.

If you don't mind Timothy, I'll go through the wiki and edit for grammar.

[Tamara224]

I have a couple of suggestions...

First, this clause found under "Trinitarian" is problematic:


For the definition of the Charismatic Subforum of Spirit-filled Pentecostal/Charismatic, the following are the distinguishing marks of a Charismatic believer, and we use this definition to show who can and cannot debate within our forum. If you hold contrary to this (i.e. you are a Pentecostal or Word of Faith believer) we request that you remain quiet in debate threads.


IMO, it doesn't belong under the heading of "Trinitarian". I would suggest that a new heading be inserted directly preceding this paragraph called "Charismatic Beliefs."


Also, I think that we need to discuss the whole "Pentecostals" not being able to post here. I bear a Pentecostal icon and although I understand that a lot of Pentecostals hold to some beliefs we are trying to avoid debate about, I think we should not make a blanket ban on all Pentecostals here because, well, lots of us don't agree with that stuff either, even though we still identify as Pentecostal.

Finally, I suggest adding something about being allowed to post "Fellowship" posts as defined in the main SF-P/C forum rules.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Personally, I don't think we should "blanket ban" anyone based on denomination nor "icon." It should be based on beliefs alone.

[SirTimothy]

Personally, I don't think we should "blanket ban" anyone based on denomination nor "icon." It should be based on beliefs alone.
Okay, lets look at some modifications.

I'm open to modifying a lot of that (Trinitarian based around the creed and a few other bits are the only things I'm hardline for)

Tamara, if you'd go through and do a spell/grammar check of the whole thing before we start editing, that would be wonderful.

[Tamara224]

I have issues with the following :

Also , the idea of the "bible" and "old and new" testaments is *not* a definition for "charasmatic" . The first Christians didn't have those things except perhaps the Law and the Prophets ( what some call the "old testatment" ) . And , the leaders of Jerusalem threw out the Law except for a couple of items and Paul even threw one of those items out .

I'm sorry, New_Wineskin, but I think you're going to be in the minority on this one.

I think it should be in the rules that Charismatics believe that "All Scripture is God-breathed." I think the rules section in question states very clearly that "the teachings" in both Old and New Testaments are profitable for us. It does not mean we are following the law by that.

We have to have something to judge by and it's gotta be the Bible.


Also , this :


This is self-contradictory . Anyone who followed this would know that it is self-contradictory as the Bereans only had the Law and the Prophets . So , according to this , all things must be validated by the Law and the Prophets - the so-called "New_Testament" is not enough . The Bereans would throw anything out that was not validated by the Law or the Prophets .

The New Testament was already validated by the Law and the Prophets (and history). The Bereans probably had the Septuagent (Old Testament). Both are still profitable for doctrine, teaching, instruction in righteousness.

A prophesy is by the Spirit - to be judged by the Spirit - not the written code .

Can't it be judged by both?


I know this is not "popular" but these are *more* rules and the owner of the site wanted *less* rules .

True, but Erwin has stated that it is within the overall goal of the site to allow members to decide for themselves in sub-forums if there should be more rules.

[SirTimothy]

Can't it be judged by both?

It not only can, all prophecy MUST be judged by Scripture, or we end up with churches counted as sound which are going down the direction of the Mormons.

[Tamara224]

Okay, lets look at some modifications.

I would suggest simply removing the parenthetical from that sentence so it reads:

If you hold contrary to this, we request that you remain quiet in debate threads.

I think the areas of beliefs that have been laid out here will effectively prevent debate from WoF and Pentecostals who do not agree with us, while allowing those who do, but who may consider themselves those denoms or have those icons, to debate.


Tamara, if you'd go through and do a spell/grammar check of the whole thing before we start editing, that would be wonderful.

Done. :)

[SirTimothy]

I think the areas of beliefs that have been laid out here will effectively prevent debate from WoF and Pentecostals who do not agree with us, while allowing those who do, but who may consider themselves those denoms or have those icons, to debate.

Sounds good to me.

Spelling and Grammar check also looks superb.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Just a comment. All the "edits" are making it harder to read. There is a "History" button on the wiki that you can use to compare versions. Do you think it would be better to simply use the History to compare, as opposed to what is currently being done?

[SirTimothy]

Just a comment. All the "edits" are making it harder to read. There is a "History" button on the wiki that you can use to compare versions. Do you think it would be better to simply use the History to compare, as opposed to what is currently being done?
I haven't been using edit tags. I just edit and assume that I'm right.

[SirTimothy]

That last bit was sarcasm, by the way.

[robbymac]

That last bit was sarcasm, by the way.

You made me laugh out loud at the "assumed I was right" part.

I'll go back and remove my [edit] stuff and just follow Tamara's example of changing font colour to indicate edits. Since Tamara has chosen purple, I'll go with BLUE.

I also don't want to see Pentecostals feeling barred; I think what we're really after is that we don't have a slew of posts arguing about tongues as THE initial evidence. Or vice versa. We can agree to disagree from the beginning, and let's talk about the multitude of other things that we are in agreement on or want to discuss.

Or did I just step on your toes with that one, Tamara? If so, please forgive me and let me know what you'd suggest.

[Tamara224]

You made me laugh out loud at the "assumed I was right" part.

I'll go back and remove my [edit] stuff and just follow Tamara's example of changing font colour to indicate edits. Since Tamara has chosen purple, I'll go with BLUE.

I also don't want to see Pentecostals feeling barred; I think what we're really after is that we don't have a slew of posts arguing about tongues as THE initial evidence. Or vice versa. We can agree to disagree from the beginning, and let's talk about the multitude of other things that we are in agreement on or want to discuss.

Or did I just step on your toes with that one, Tamara? If so, please forgive me and let me know what you'd suggest.


No, not at all. I agree, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

[SirTimothy]

You made me laugh out loud at the "assumed I was right" part.

I'll go back and remove my [edit] stuff and just follow Tamara's example of changing font colour to indicate edits. Since Tamara has chosen purple, I'll go with BLUE.

I also don't want to see Pentecostals feeling barred; I think what we're really after is that we don't have a slew of posts arguing about tongues as THE initial evidence. Or vice versa. We can agree to disagree from the beginning, and let's talk about the multitude of other things that we are in agreement on or want to discuss.

Or did I just step on your toes with that one, Tamara? If so, please forgive me and let me know what you'd suggest.
Maybe we could change it to something along the lines of:

"All members are welcome to post here so long as they do not post anything contrary to or debating the charismatic beliefs posted here?"

[synger]

I agree that we need to focus on the doctrines that bind us together. The wiki as it stands already outlines those fairly clearly. I would change:

For the definition of the Charismatic Subforum of Spirit-filled Pentecostal/Charismatic, the following are the distinguishing marks of a Charismatic believer, and we use this definition to show who can and cannot debate within our forum. If you hold contrary to this (i.e. you are a Pentecostal or Word of Faith believer) we request that you remain quiet in debate threads.

To something like this (red text is the change):

For the definition of the Charismatic Subforum of Spirit-filled Pentecostal/Charismatic, the following are the distinguishing marks of a Charismatic believer, and we use this definition to show who can and cannot debate within our forum. If your views on these doctrines are contrary to our outline, we ask that you do not participate in discussions about the interpretation and application of these particular doctrines. Such discussions are more appropriate to the SF/PC main forum.

[Tamara224]

I agree that we need to focus on the doctrines that bind us together. The wiki as it stands already outlines those fairly clearly. I would change:



To something like this (red text is the change):


That's good Synger... I like it. :thumbsup:

[talitha]

me too.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I agree with that as well, synger. :)

[robbymac]

Great addition, Synger. Let's put that one in!

Very graciously worded!

[New_Wineskin]

.

Thanks , for your time in responding .

[Tamara224]

Okay, I added Synger's suggestion and made a few other minor changes. I didn't bother with the purple this time... so if anyone wants to see, go to the history and see the changes.

I think this is coming together guys! :thumbsup:

[JimfromOhio]

So far, I like the basic guidelines (rules) for this forum. Its simple and straightforward.

[robbymac]

I have changed all the older edits to plain black text, and have added one additional sentence to the "Poverty & Wealth" section (which is blue for the time being for easy reference).

[Giver]

I don’t agree that a wealthy person can be a true disciple of God. Does that mean that I can’t be a member of this forum?

Luke 12:33) “Sell your possessions and give alms. Get yourselves purses that do not wear out, treasure that will not fail you, in Heaven where no thief can reach it and no moth destroy it. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

(Luke 14:33) “So in the same way, none of you can be my disciple unless he gives up all his possessions.”

(Luke 12:16-20) “Then he told them a parable: ‘there was once a rich man who, having had a good harvest from his land, thought to himself, “What am I to do? I have not enough room to store my crops.” Then he said,” This is what I will do: I will pull down my barns and build bigger ones, and store all my grain and my goods in them, and I will say to my soul: My soul, you have plenty of good things laid by for many years to come; take things easy, eat, drink, have a good time”. But God said to him, “Fool! This very night the demand will be make for your soul; and this hoard of yours, whose will it be then?”

[Tamara224]

I don’t agree that a wealthy person can be a true disciple of God. Does that mean that I can’t be a member of this forum?


There's no requirement in this sub-forum that you believe differently than what you have stated to post here.

However, as with the rest of CF, the general rule is that judging particular people as non-Christian isn't going to be allowed.

Also, I don't think it is going to be a consensus that wealthy people can't be true disciples of God... So we're most likely not going to add that to the Rules.

[Giver]

There's no requirement in this sub-forum that you believe differently than what you have stated to post here.

However, as with the rest of CF, the general rule is that judging particular people as non-Christian isn't going to be allowed.

Also, I don't think it is going to be a consensus that wealthy people can't be true disciples of God... So we're most likely not going to add that to the Rules.
Are Christians ruled by consensus of what other humans think? This forum claims to be people who are Spirit filled. If a person has the Holy Spirit, he or she should have a personal relationship with Jesus. How then can Spirit filled people not live the Word of God?

Jesus told us to lend without expecting any return, that we can’t be disciples of his unless we give up all our possessions, not to store up for our future, not to offer the evil person any resistance, I could go on, but this enough for now. Jesus told us so many things that people who say they are Christian totally ignore. So many take some other people’s watered down word and accept that as gospel instead of what the Word of God says.

How many people really ask Jesus/Holy Spirit how to live the Word of God? I don’t think very many.

[Tamara224]

Are Christians ruled by consensus of what other humans think?

This forum is governed by consensus of its members.

This forum claims to be people who are Spirit filled. If a person has the Holy Spirit, he or she should have a personal relationship with Jesus. How then can Spirit filled people not live the Word of God?

We're all trying to do that. The fact that we disagree with one another about what the Word means and how to live by it doesn't mean that we are not all trying.

Jesus told us to lend without expecting any return, that we can’t be disciples of his unless we give up all our possessions, not to store up for our future, not to offer the evil person any resistance, I could go on, but this enough for now. Jesus told us so many things that people who say they are Christian totally ignore. So many take some other people’s watered down word and accept that as gospel instead of what the Word of God says.

How many people really ask Jesus/Holy Spirit how to live the Word of God? I don’t think very many.


I understand what you are saying and I agree to a large extent. I think this would make a very good thread of its own in the Charismatic subforum.

But this thread is about making rules for our little corner of CF about who can debate here. It is something that will be decided based on the consensus of the members here. Besides, we are all here at the invitation of Erwin and he has said that he doesn't want us to determine who is and who isn't Christian. I think we should abide by his decision on that.

Remember also that the Bible tells us to submit to one another in brotherly love. So, instead of pushing our own opinions, we should be willing to listen and discuss with one another when determining the rules of this subforum. IMO.

[Giver]

This forum is governed by consensus of its members.



We're all trying to do that. The fact that we disagree with one another about what the Word means and how to live by it doesn't mean that we are not all trying.



I understand what you are saying and I agree to a large extent. I think this would make a very good thread of its own in the Charismatic subforum.

But this thread is about making rules for our little corner of CF about who can debate here. It is something that will be decided based on the consensus of the members here. Besides, we are all here at the invitation of Erwin and he has said that he doesn't want us to determine who is and who isn't Christian. I think we should abide by his decision on that.

Remember also that the Bible tells us to submit to one another in brotherly love. So, instead of pushing our own opinions, we should be willing to listen and discuss with one another when determining the rules of this subforum. IMO.
Ok, I have voiced my concerns, and made my stand, but from the way I was reading the rules it led me to believe that if I didn’t agree that being wealthy was acceptable, it would eliminate me from discussing on this forum.

[Tamara224]

Ok, I have voiced my concerns, and made my stand, but from the way I was reading the rules it led me to believe that if I didn’t agree that being wealthy was acceptable, it would eliminate me from discussing on this forum.

Well... I think we're just trying to find some common ground and a balanced position as to wealth. While we disagree with some that God wants us to be wealthy, we don't want to rule out the possibility that a Christian can be wealthy. To include in the rules a statement that wealthy people are not Christian would be 1) contrary to the main rules of CF and 2) not really in agreement with most of the members here.

I don't think we want to discourage you from being a member of this subforum, though.

But I don't have any suggestions on rewording it to make it all work... Anyone else?

[Giver]

Well... I think we're just trying to find some common ground and a balanced position as to wealth. While we disagree with some that God wants us to be wealthy, we don't want to rule out the possibility that a Christian can be wealthy. To include in the rules a statement that wealthy people are not Christian would be 1) contrary to the main rules of CF and 2) not really in agreement with most of the members here.

I don't think we want to discourage you from being a member of this subforum, though.

But I don't have any suggestions on rewording it to make it all work... Anyone else?
I have been a Christian all my life, but for the first forty years I believe being a Christian was what I had been taught by my church. After accepting Jesus’ call I found out that I was a baby Christian for all those years, but a Christian.. Now for the last thirty some years I have been growing to become a mature Christian. I don’t think just because someone doesn’t understand some of Jesus’ teachings that it implies that they are not Christian.

I truly believe that after someone receive the Holy Spirit, and allows them to be taught and guided by him they will grow to be mature Christians.

I personally believe that wealth is the most dangerous hazard anyone can have in his or her walk toward God.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I took a snapshot of our current rules and posted them in our forum, so that they could be enforced. Snapshot can be updated, if it becomes necessary.

[Tamara224]

Recently in the report forums a question came up of whether the Charismatic - Non Word of Faith subforum had or had not adopted the new protocol for Forum Specific Bans (FSBs). For those who may not be familiar, those are bans which prevent members from posting in specific subforums (as the name suggests).

The protocol was adopted in the main SF-P/C forum but by it's nature, it was probably not grandfathered in by our rule 1.3 (Rules carried over).

If we want the protocol to be in place, we need to specifically adopt it.

I suggest that if we do, we refer to the rule specifically under Rule 1.3 but not necessarily add the whole thing to our Rules.

Here is a link to the FSB protocol (http://foru.ms/t5994755-wiki-sticky-et-ban-protocol.html).

Let's open this for discussion... Do we want to adopt this rule?

[JAS4Yeshua]

I think we should.

And, BTW: There was a clarification. Apparently the rule wasn't yet in place in the main SF/PC Forum yet, as the rule snapshot hadn't been updated.

My suggestion would be to reword and clarify rule 1.3 to allow for all rules (wether they are protocols or behavior) of the main SF/PC forum, except if they are superceded by these rules.

[Tamara224]

I think we should.

And, BTW: There was a clarification. Apparently the rule wasn't yet in place in the main SF/PC Forum yet, as the rule snapshot hadn't been updated.

My suggestion would be to reword and clarify rule 1.3 to allow for all rules (wether they are protocols or behavior) of the main SF/PC forum, except if they are superceded by these rules.


I'm fine with that... However, I noticed that Tishri made it clear that if we don't specifically adopt this rule, it shouldn't be applied. So, IMO, we should make mention of this protocol specifically.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I do see your point as well, Tamara, and agree with you.

[jeolmstead]

If it will stop these drive bys and sniping, I'm all for it.

John O.

[robbymac]

Totally in favor of it. I want this sub-forum to be a positive, edifying place, and if we can prohibit a few drive-by's from repeatedly derailing us, I think this sub-forum will be a healthy and beneficial place.
:thumbsup:

[ARBITER01]

Here is something that I will be implementing shortly to the Pentecostal forum,..


Please note, none of the Code of Conduct is a change or deviation from the established Congregational rules of CF, the rules listed below are in addition to the Congregational rules that govern this sub-forum and the board as a whole, and will be used as the baseline for the member-elected staff to determine who may and may not debate and teach, based upon their adherence to these beliefs AND their determination to only hold a visable Triune Pentecostal icon and no other.



I actually got the idea from the WOF forum. They have incorporated this recently to make their forum more about being their safe-haven.

Now it may be too restrictive for you guys, who knows, that is up for you guys to decide, it is an just an idea to consider in the process.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Thanks Dave, but I don't think the icon idea would work for this subforum, as it encompasses members from different denominations.

[ARBITER01]

Thanks Dave, but I don't think the icon idea would work for this subforum, as it encompasses members from different denominations.

Not to be confrontational here Jas, but why did you guys go through all the trouble of getting an icon estabalished then?

The general section is where all the different Spirit-filled and others congregate, so why not establish some borders here for the people that want to be here? People are looking to stop the drive-by sniping, well that is one way of doing it.

It is an idea that can be considered, it is up to you guys. Later on :wave:

[synger]

Not to be confrontational here Jas, but why did you guys go through all the trouble of getting an icon estabalished then?

The general section is where all the different Spirit-filled and others congregate, so why not establish some borders here for the people that want to be here? People are looking to stop the drive-by sniping, well that is one way of doing it.

It is an idea that can be considered, it is up to you guys. Later on :wave:
Because there are many charismatics who do not have a denominational identity, and would rather have a charismatic icon than a plain "Christian" one.

And some of us are charismatics who do have a denominational identity, and prefer to wear that icon rather than a plain "Christian" one, since we self-identify as charismatic "something". (Charismatic Catholic, Charismatic Baptist, etc.)