Acts20.com

Would like to solicit your feedback on this question. I am a part of another forum that includes the rule no promoting a false gospel. This rule is enforced gently -- it's a mostly Reformed forum that nevertheless permits regular participation from Catholics and Orthodox folks, and even atheists and those outside traditional Christianity, so long as they follow the rules and don't promote views that are antagonistic toward orthodox Christianity.I can see two big reasons NOT to enforce a rule like this:1) The enforcement is subjective. If you leave it up to me, I'm banning everyone who can't fully confess Heidelberg (kidding). And if it's up to OTCP, everyone who's even thought about doing online work with an unaccredited school is gone.2) If you don't engage with people who are lost, you can't proclaim the gospel to them.But the big reason TO enforce a rule like this would be to prevent the forum from being occupied by people who are not looking for a conversation, but are only looking to promote beliefs that are antagonistic toward the gospel of Jesus Christ.I'm really interested in your feedback on this, since this is your forum. Do you enjoy sparring with people like that? Does it make you less likely to want to participate in Acts? If you do enjoy it, will something like that get old after several days? Is there a line? If so, where? Would Mormon evangelists be welcome here? Or atheists, or those looking to advocate Islamic beliefs?

First, you would have to clearly define false gospels. More of Him...less of me.twitter.com/camiracle77www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name

That's one of the questions I asked. What would you say? Where do you draw the line on what belief systems you think should be promoted on this forum?

Why that's everyone who doesn't agree with me! This is the problem with such a rule. Truth can handle discussion I'm not saved because I'm good. I'm saved because He's good!My website: www.bradfreeman.comMy blog: bradcfreeman.tumblr.com/

I agree with that. It's good for orthodox believers to stay sharp and engagement is an opportunty for those in error to hear the gospel and repent.However, the key word in the question is promote not voice. If someone is continually promoting a false gospel -- not engaging in discussion, not answering questions that are posed to them, but simply using this forum as an avenue to promote a gospel that is antagonistic to the gospel of Jesus Christ -- but otherwise following all established rules, is that something we at least want to preserve the right to address?Maybe it's not. That's why I threw the question out.

That's one of the questions I asked. What would you say? Where do you draw the line on what belief systems you think should be promoted on this forum?Should we permit someone who wants to argue that there was never a historical Jesus? One who wants to argue that there was, but He never intended Himself to be thought of as a savior or the Son of God? Etc. You said, Is there a line? If so, where? Would Mormon evangelists be welcome here? Or atheists, or those looking to advocate Islamic beliefs?Let's be honest here. We don't get many of those folks here. And if we do, they get shut down and banned when they become an annoyance. We do usually try to bring others around to our way of thinking first, at least....I can only think of a handful of times that's happened since I came here several years ago.The closest you're gonna come here is WOF. And so far, that is open for discussion. This is a discussion board. Healthy discussion can be a good thing. It can help open our minds to truth or to ponder things that are different than what we have believed.Most of us believe sanctification is a progressive work of grace nowadays, but 50 years ago, we would have been soundly thrown out on our ear and labeled a heretic. Hopefully most of us mature in our beliefs as we grow older More of Him...less of me.twitter.com/camiracle77www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name

Since I began participating in Actscelerate in 1998 (back in the EZ-Board days), if memory serves, the only exclusion of anyone from the forum for doctrinal deviations was one time around 2000 or so, when a former CoG evangelist who had converted to Oneness started actively promoting his newfound faith here, and another time maybe four years ago when a ‘gay Christian’ started interacting here, debating in favor of active homosexuality being compatible with Christianity. I could be mistaken, but other than that, most all bannings have been essentially due to not playing nice. In my opinion, Doyle has typically been very lenient regarding doctrinal matters here. My thought is, such issues, as frustrating as they might be at times, serve to sharpen those who engage them and to generate more traffic to the site. Those who do not find such discussions interesting can just ignore them if they wish. Even if the forum were to require adherence to a specific doctrinal statement in order to participate in discussions, I’m not sure that requiring such would really make much difference.

Well, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about -- not WoF. So what I hear you telling me is, This is a non-issue because it's already something the forum does when needed. Is that right? Yes, pretty much. We don't get many Muslims or Buddhists here More of Him...less of me.twitter.com/camiracle77www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name

Shaun and I have often talked about an upvote or downvote system -- this would allow posters to vote on threads or posts, and without replying, so our lurkers could anonymously offer their two cents on the quality or nature of a post or reply as well. What do you think about that? Usually systems like that impact visibility (heavily downvoted things get hidden), but we probably have too few posts for that to happen.

Re: [Admin] Question for posters: Should this forum permit the promotion of false gospels?