New site wide rule: Nicene Christianity

[Tonks]

Figured that you all would be interested in this...pretty much the same as the pre-777 days but without the forced icon changes. Same * caveats to the Creed (sadly) but most of the really crazy "optional" stuff regarding the Theotokos, Chialism etc were removed

Annoucement (http://christianforums.com/t6777178-new-site-wide-rule-nicene-christianity.html)

The following is being added to the site-wide rules:


You will not promote any faith, belief, or religion other than Nicene Christianity. Promotion of Satanism is strictly prohibited. Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity.Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed
We believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)
Father (Matthew 6: 9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1: 15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)
Son of God, (Mathew 14: 33; 16: 16)
Only-Begotten, (John 1: 18; 3: 16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1: 2)
Light from Light; (Psalm 27: 1; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
True God from True God; (John 17: 1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1: 18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10: 30)
through whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1 Timothy 2: 4-5)
came down from heaven, (John 6: 33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1: 35)
and became man. (John 1: 14)
And He was crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; 1 Corinthians 15: 3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19: 6)
suffered, (Mark 8: 31)
and was buried. (Luke 23: 53; 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
And on the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1 1 Corinthians 15: 4)
and ascended into heaven, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55)
and He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24: 27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10: 42; 2 Timothy 4: 1)
Whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1: 11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)
Lord, (Acts 5: 3-4)
Giver of Life, (Genesis 1: 2)
Who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]*; (John 15: 26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3: 16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2: 5,9)
catholic**, (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins***. (Ephesians 4: 5; Acts 2: 38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11: 24; 1 Corinthians 15: 12-49; Hebrews 6: 2; Revelation 20: 5)
and the life in the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)

AMEN. (Psalm 106: 48)


*The phrase in square brackets [and the Son] (known as the filioque clause) is not compulsory and does not need to be affirmed by members.

**The word "catholic" (literally, "universal") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination or institution.

***This can be interpreted to mean that baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or a regenerating ordinance.



Posts that promote non-Christian or non-Nicene beliefs will be removed by staff. Posts that merely provide information about a non-Christian or non-Nicene belief are allowed for informational purposes.

Staff may expand on this (via forum-specific guidelines) based on the specific needs of those forums.

Restrictions as to where non-Christian and non-Nicene members will not be imposed, nor will there be a return to forced icon changes. The intent is to moderate based on post content.


The following forums will be closed:

The Non-Nicene Congregation section
The Trinitarian forum
The Jehovah's Witness theology forum
The Latter Day Saints theology forum
The Unitarian/Non-Trinitarian theology forum


Non-Christian and Non-Nicene mods may not moderate the following forum categories on CF. Exceptions may be made by admins in conjunction with Lee and/or his advisors.

Congregation
Theology
Ministry
Edification
OutreachPrior admin approval is required for non-Christian and Non-Nicene mods to moderate the following forum categories:

Life Stages
RecoveryNon-Christian and non-Nicene staff that currently moderate any of the above forums may transfer to another team.

[Macarius]

Now, if only people were required to follow the Nicene creed as it was understood by the Nicene authors... but hey, this is a step in the right direction.

Although, it would be nice to leave a space for non-nicene folks to discuss their theology or debate it with nicene folkses.

[SeraphimSarov]

Now, if only people were required to follow the Nicene creed as it was understood by the Nicene authors...

That would yield an Orthodox forum. ;)

[Tonks]

Although, it would be nice to leave a space for non-nicene folks to discuss their theology or debate it with nicene folkses.

There will still be various places to discuss such stuff...we're just closing the specific theology and congregational forums.

[SeraphimSarov]

It's nice to see that at least there is some working definition of Christianity now.

[Philothei]

Finally my prayers and prayers of many many others have been answered....Glory be to God at all times....

Now it just means that the mods would have to be on guard about this.... because it is one thing to be a rule and another to be enforced....

Thanks be to God...

Philothei

[Macarius]

That would yield an Orthodox forum. ;)

:thumbsup: :liturgy:

[Thekla]

wow !

truly amazing :)

God is good

[fuerein]

I really just don't understand much of modern Christendom. In the thread in the announcements forum regarding this rule change there are a number of people complaining this is 'un-christian'. Since when is asserting what is and is not true Christian doctrine un-christian? Don't any of these people know the lengths the early church went to stamp out what they saw as heresy? (unfortunately I'm afraid I probably know the answer to that) I can only imagine how 'un-christian' some of the church fathers would be labeled by modern christians were they alive today.

[Khaleas]

I really just don't understand much of modern Christendom. In the thread in the announcements forum regarding this rule change there are a number of people complaining this is 'un-christian'. Since when is asserting what is and is not true Christian doctrine un-christian? Don't any of these people know the lengths the early church went to stamp out what they saw as heresy? (unfortunately I'm afraid I probably know the answer to that) I can only imagine how 'un-christian' some of the church fathers would be labeled by modern christians were they alive today.
I hope they are strong enough to uphold this rule! Wasn't this the problem before too, that some christians thought it was unChristian... And at the same time these are probably the same who were screaming when CF turned into Foru whatever whatever... Oh well, they can go off to JungleMonkeyForum... :P

[Philothei]

The atheists and the satanists had such a negative influence in the ministry forums... it had gone real bad....

[hungrytiger]

Restrictions as to where non-Christian and non-Nicene members will not be imposed, nor will there be a return to forced icon changes. The intent is to moderate based on post content.

This may make it harder to moderate than it would be otherwise (I don't know), but I think this was the best part of the 777 changes and I'm glad that it was kept. :clap:

[Tonks]

I really just don't understand much of modern Christendom. In the thread in the announcements forum regarding this rule change there are a number of people complaining this is 'un-christian'. Since when is asserting what is and is not true Christian doctrine un-christian? Don't any of these people know the lengths the early church went to stamp out what they saw as heresy? (unfortunately I'm afraid I probably know the answer to that) I can only imagine how 'un-christian' some of the church fathers would be labeled by modern christians were they alive today.

Hello brother,

I'm not sure what your background is...but perhaps I can answer your question from a "CF" perspective (whatever that means).

Think of the way the Orthodoxy defines herself...the visible Church Militant and the invisible Church Triumphant (likewise made visible through Icons...). Contrast that with the invisible "church" of all "believers."

As a yardstick of correct belief (sidestepping the CF Creed caveats) a definition which states that some posts (and by inference...belief and theology) are not acceptable are bound to offend some folks...as they incorrectly equate Christianity with "every doctrine under the sun ties for first place."

Though the application is broad (and the "critique" is often leveled at Orthodoxy) there is a modern mindset that defining - and defending - truth is prideful. Not only to most folks not know to what degree the early Church went through to defend Truth...they generally don't care. Truth cannot be expressed in doctrine alone," it must be stated that not all expressions of belief in Jesus Christ constitute the truth.

This is all just a really long way of saying that the reinsitituion of Creedal compliance affirms publicly that some beliefs are incorrect (damnable, even) and folks don't like that...a consequence of removing one's self from the mind of the Church and relying on the mind of self.

Very dangerous.

[nikolayalexandroff]

Glory to God!

[Matrona]

I really just don't understand much of modern Christendom. In the thread in the announcements forum regarding this rule change there are a number of people complaining this is 'un-christian'. Since when is asserting what is and is not true Christian doctrine un-christian? Don't any of these people know the lengths the early church went to stamp out what they saw as heresy? (unfortunately I'm afraid I probably know the answer to that) I can only imagine how 'un-christian' some of the church fathers would be labeled by modern christians were they alive today.

Forgive me, but I have to object to the present (and former, I know) usage of the Nicene Creed as a definition of Christianity for this website. I see that the filioque is included in [brackets], indicating (at least as far as I can tell) that that particular clause is optional so long as you adhere to the rest of the creed as written. Speaking for myself, I cannot honestly refer to any denomination that uses the filioque as adhering to the Nicene Creed. But if the filioque is inconsequential enough for us to overlook to include Protestants and RCs as Nicene, or for them to overlook to include Orthodox, then why can't we overlook the passages on Christ's divinity and the Holy Spirit's divinity for Mormons and JWs?

Fudging one passage but not others strikes me as arbitrary. Thus it seems clear to me that this website operates on a different definition of what a Christian is than the Nicene Creed. In the interest of fairness and openness, it would be nice if we could declare what that definition is and work from it directly, rather than laboring under the pretense that this is all "Nicene Christianity".

[Akathist]

Hello brother,

I'm not sure what your background is...but perhaps I can answer your question from a "CF" perspective (whatever that means).

Think of the way the Orthodoxy defines herself...the visible Church Militant and the invisible Church Triumphant (likewise made visible through Icons...). Contrast that with the invisible "church" of all "believers."

As a yardstick of correct belief (sidestepping the CF Creed caveats) a definition which states that some posts (and by inference...belief and theology) are not acceptable are bound to offend some folks...as they incorrectly equate Christianity with "every doctrine under the sun ties for first place."

Though the application is broad (and the "critique" is often leveled at Orthodoxy) there is a modern mindset that defining - and defending - truth is prideful. Not only to most folks not know to what degree the early Church went through to defend Truth...they generally don't care. Truth cannot be expressed in doctrine alone," it must be stated that not all expressions of belief in Jesus Christ constitute the truth.

This is all just a really long way of saying that the reinsitituion of Creedal compliance affirms publicly that some beliefs are incorrect (damnable, even) and folks don't like that...a consequence of removing one's self from the mind of the Church and relying on the mind of self.

Very dangerous.

Exactly. This is one of the most painful things for me to watch. I see the judgement that others are "prideful" when they stand up for the Truth on a more and more regular basis.

They claim others are "judgemental" for saying this or that is wrong.

Relativism is rampant in protestant christian cirules and I never noticed how much it has been like this for a long time... but sliding more and more on the slippery slope.

In the midst of the culture of protestantism, I was acculturated to believe that ethics were in fact relative and that it was always wrong to "judge others" UNLESS it involved bashing the Catholic Church. (and remember, I never heard of the EOC at the time.)

There was this terrible focus on not giving others a "guilt trip" or for that matter, not feeling "guilty" yourself.

Then on top of that you take the idea that the Nicene Creed can be interpreted according to the lastest fad instead of even knowing what the origional meaning of it ever was.

Take for example, our debate in the staff area about Universalism. We say Universalism is most clearly covered by the Nicene Creed. The reply is "we won't 'go there'" when I suggest they read the writings of the ones who wrote the creed.

Heaven forbid they actually would read the writings of the authors.

It reminds me of people who assume things about the "Bill of Rights" and the "Consitution" but have never read any history about these documents. When you read the writings by those authors the true meaning of those documents comes in to clearer focus.

But to do so means you have to give up on the latest fads of what is to be accepted and what is unacceptable.

[Ishida]

It's nice to see that at least there is some working definition of Christianity now.
Yup. (Nice custom title.) XD

[synger]

In case you are interested, there is a thread (http://christianforums.com/t6785584&nw_show=comments)in the Discuss Rules forum discussing what "promotion" is in light of the new rules. Maybe we can give some suggestions to TPTB about this issue.

[xenia]

In my opinion, the only thing this does is get rid of the people who don't believe in the deity of Christ. All the other tenets of the Creed are explained away in such a manner that just about any Trinitarian can say Amen to it. Every line has a disclaimer, turning the Creed into something quite different than it was intended to be.

[copticorthodoxy]

Hail to St. Athanasius the Nicene hero

[Philothei]

Hail to the victory of the Creed of Nicaea :)

Glory to God in all things :)

[Tonks]

In my opinion, the only thing this does is get rid of the people who don't believe in the deity of Christ. All the other tenets of the Creed are explained away in such a manner that just about any Trinitarian can say Amen to it. Every line has a disclaimer, turning the Creed into something quite different than it was intended to be.

It is about as close as we could get (it is the Creed that was in use before the stupidity last summer). I'm more of a glass half full type of guy...

[Matrona]

It is about as close as we could get (it is the Creed that was in use before the stupidity last summer). I'm more of a glass half full type of guy...

It comes with the same capricious "who-are-we-not-allowing-in-our-treefort" mentality that infested this site before. The way the Creed has been used at this site is an insult to the Creed and all that went into formulating it. How is it somehow worse to deny the divinity of Christ directly than deny that the Virgin Mary gave birth to God? Same difference, only the latter group is still considered "Nicene" here, and the former is not.

[Protoevangel]

How is it somehow worse to deny the divinity of Christ directly than deny that the Virgin Mary gave birth to God? Same difference, only the latter group is still considered "Nicene" here, and the former is not.
:eek:

Which group denies that the Virgin Mary gave birth to God?

[Tonks]

It comes with the same capricious "who-are-we-not-allowing-in-our-treefort" mentality that infested this site before. The way the Creed has been used at this site is an insult to the Creed and all that went into formulating it. How is it somehow worse to deny the divinity of Christ directly than deny that the Virgin Mary gave birth to God? Same difference, only the latter group is still considered "Nicene" here, and the former is not.

Well...one can choose to stay or go. That is their choice based on the degree to which they are bothered.

[Matrona]

:eek:

Which group denies that the Virgin Mary gave birth to God?

Not any specific group, just a collective reference to non-Orthodox who have coronaries when they find out what "theotokos" means.

[Tonks]

:eek:

Which group denies that the Virgin Mary gave birth to God?

various non-denom types that think they know better

[Protoevangel]

Gotcha!

Yea, that's no more Christian than the deniers of Christ's Divinity.