**preacher forums**

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Ron

A big reason I see a problem with people standing behind false identities & making statements such as that & being protected for it.

I honestly thought things have changed around here, boy was I naive!

And you might be a little naive about the other forum too, but sometimes not knowing everything is a good thing.

[Ron]

Originally Posted by bishoph

My good friend, you are maligning good men with absolute false statements. Which is the case in the first highlighted portion of your post. The "unnamed forum" has a very clear doctrinal creed if you will, which one must agree to before becoming a member. If and when some have decided to make their doctrinal stance (which differs from the forum's clearly stated "creed") public knowledge and then debate for its acceptance......they are the ones who have been asked to either agree with the forum's "creed" or remove themselves from membership.......Personally I do not find that to be harsh nor hypocritical. In fact I have much respect for men who would leave an organization or a forum because their beliefs have changed, than to stay and essentially lie about what they really believe.

I have personally watched much heated debate over standards and other peripheral topics, and when the dust settled everyone went home believing what they had started out believing. No one was banned or "booted out," or removed from the forum just because their view of standards was different from the accepted "norm" of said forum. Heated, emotional debate.....you betcha.......kicked out over it.......NEVER.

In response to the second highlighted portion of your post, all I can say is that it is amazing to me how life's experiences sometimes only allow us to see through the lens tainted by those experiences. Take off the glasses Bro. and see reality.

"That sentiment" that you referenced, the "Adultery is preferable, and entirely more tolerable than not preaching "the message"" sentiment was never expressed by me on this thread, nor has it ever been expressed by anyone I know. Adultery hurts everyone involved, and usually many who are not directly involved. No one has denied that, nor tried to cover it up, etc. No one has tried to diminish the sinfulness of it in any way.

However, if not bringing it into an open atmosphere where it can be discussed by everyone (and we all know that just because it is a "private preachers forum" does not insure the "privacy" of discussion, nor limit its scope on the WWW) and putting the offender on the whipping post so that all can take their best shot: if that means the unnamed forum is preferring adultery over not preaching "the message" then so be it.

In my earlier post which you are referencing, I simply stated that when a minister commits adultery they should be/usually are, and IMO must be removed from ministry asap. By so doing it will hopefully limit the harm done to those who have already been affected, and limit further ability to hurt others from a position of spiritual leadership. (Please show where that makes adultery preferable to _____________)

I went on to say that a person who is preaching/teaching false doctrine, (whatever that may be) usually remains in their position of spiritual leadership for umpteen years and may be doing grave harm to those they lead with potentially eternal consequence. So the question is not "is adultery preferable to false doctrine," but rather the question is which one may have the greatest overall impact or present the greatest danger overall? Both must be dealt with IMHO! The tsunami in Japan killed approx 10,000 people because many were warned and were able to escape. However, the nuclear catastrophe may kill or significantly harm millions especially when you consider the long term effects.......is the tsunami preferable?

Again....no one is saying let's give safe haven to and promote the adulterer. But we are mandated by scripture to cover (not the sin but the sinner) and restore.

And finally, if the unnamed forum is a haven for all that you allege and for the reasons you state......then AFF is equally so, as this forum readily and openly discusses what people here deem as false doctrine, naming the perpetrators etc.......but I have yet to see an adulterer or fornicator named, skinned, beaten and left to die.

(As I stated in my earlier posts, forums IMO whether private "preacher forums" or public such as AFF, should promote thorough discussion of issues not people.)

[Ron]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

I have compassion for people victimized by sexual sins. I have watched what it does to people. I have seen it effects up close and personal. The depth of harm wounds people in extraordinary ways. I simply will give Charnock the benefit of the doubt, especially since they have been spoken for by reliable posters.

Cut a guy some slack, especially since you don't know what he/she has been through.

I do as well, a child of a good friend of mine went down to the washroom at Church and when he didn't return in a set time the dad found him in the washroom being molested by another older child.
This was quite a long time ago & though everyone has grown up they are still being affected today.

That being said, you can not justify the statement being made---period!

[Ron]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

And you might be a little naive about the other forum too, but sometimes not knowing everything is a good thing.

I know what I know by what can be read on the forum as for peoples dirty laundry? I tend to stay away from it on any forum.

Nevertheless, you of all people tend to have an axe to grind about many who don't fit your particular brand of Christ likeness-especially in the Ministry.
So you try and justify statements such as Charnock & others & say you have done no wrong.

Renda, that is wrong! Biblically wrong.

[stmatthew]

As one of the admin over at the forum (AMF) I believe is in question, first let me say to Theophil that the Rules had been moved to the regular section, and had been buried (thats how much we moderate over there). I have moved them back into the Admin/Rules area for you to see. They are pretty simple really. One must believe in the Oneness of God and believe that Acts 2:38 is the only method for salvation. Standards can be discussed. Eschatology can be discussed. We have attempted to not have a heavy hand in the administration of the forum. The few that have been banned were either really out there in their foundational beliefs, or were so unruly that we had little choice. But as the charge seems to suggest, we do not ban due to lack of standards. We have those like Bro Tatum posting that do not hold to some standards as well as those like Bro Epley that would be considered very conservative by most here. Bro Tatum and Bro Epley are both treated equally with respect.

Now as to the charge of being a "haven of adulterers", If Charnock is who I think he is, and the forum is the one I am currently an admin of, I asked him plainly to let me know who he was speaking of. I did not receive a response.



Now as to the issue of adulterers, I think there would need to be some qualifications as to whether a person is "PRACTICING" the sin of adultery, or whether one has sinned, and repented, and moved on in their walk with God. Or do some of you now believe that there is no restoration for fallen ministry? I myself think there is a difference in the practicing of sin, and sin that is behind one and under the blood. And if someone says they have repented, am I to continue to hold them at bay as a sinner, or accept them as a brother, and move on praying that they are sincere? Am I not commanded to forgive if I would be forgiven. Not an easy thing to do in the midst of being done wrong. But I can't believe God would call us to forgive our enemies, and not with the command give grace to complete the task.

[Charnock]

Ron, I can hear the familiar ring of "just get over it" in your posts. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by Ron

I know what I know by what can be read on the forum as for peoples dirty laundry? I tend to stay away from it on any forum.

Nevertheless, you of all people tend to have an axe to grind about many who don't fit your particular brand of Christ likeness-especially in the Ministry.
So you try and justify statements such as Charnock & others & say you have done no wrong.

Renda, that is wrong! Biblically wrong.

Guess you missed my post where I said, "I have sinned."

What is my particular brand of Christ likeness - especially in the Ministry?

[Ron]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Guess you missed my post where I said, "I have sinned."

What is my particular brand of Christ likeness - especially in the Ministry?

First answer my question, can you justify Charnok's statement?

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

As one of the admin over at the forum (AMF) I believe is in question, first let me say to Theophil that the Rules had been moved to the regular section, and had been buried (thats how much we moderate over there). I have moved them back into the Admin/Rules area for you to see. They are pretty simple really. One must believe in the Oneness of God and believe that Acts 2:38 is the only method for salvation. Standards can be discussed. Eschatology can be discussed. We have attempted to not have a heavy hand in the administration of the forum. The few that have been banned were either really out there in their foundational beliefs, or were so unruly that we had little choice. But as the charge seems to suggest, we do not ban due to lack of standards. We have those like Bro Tatum posting that do not hold to some standards as well as those like Bro Epley that would be considered very conservative by most here. Bro Tatum and Bro Epley are both treated equally with respect.

Now as to the charge of being a "haven of adulterers", If Charnock is who I think he is, and the forum is the one I am currently an admin of, I asked him plainly to let me know who he was speaking of. I did not receive a response.



Now as to the issue of adulterers, I think there would need to be some qualifications as to whether a person is "PRACTICING" the sin of adultery, or whether one has sinned, and repented, and moved on in their walk with God. Or do some of you now believe that there is no restoration for fallen ministry? I myself think there is a difference in the practicing of sin, and sin that is behind one and under the blood. And if someone says they have repented, am I to continue to hold them at bay as a sinner, or accept them as a brother, and move on praying that they are sincere? Am I not commanded to forgive if I would be forgiven. Not an easy thing to do in the midst of being done wrong. But I can't believe God would call us to forgive our enemies, and not with the command give grace to complete the task.

Agree completely!

[Charnock]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

As one of the admin over at the forum (AMF) I believe is in question, first let me say to Theophil that the Rules had been moved to the regular section, and had been buried (thats how much we moderate over there). I have moved them back into the Admin/Rules area for you to see. They are pretty simple really. One must believe in the Oneness of God and believe that Acts 2:38 is the only method for salvation. Standards can be discussed. Eschatology can be discussed. We have attempted to not have a heavy hand in the administration of the forum. The few that have been banned were either really out there in their foundational beliefs, or were so unruly that we had little choice. But as the charge seems to suggest, we do not ban due to lack of standards. We have those like Bro Tatum posting that do not hold to some standards as well as those like Bro Epley that would be considered very conservative by most here. Bro Tatum and Bro Epley are both treated equally with respect.

Now as to the charge of being a "haven of adulterers", If Charnock is who I think he is, and the forum is the one I am currently an admin of, I asked him plainly to let me know who he was speaking of. I did not receive a response.



Now as to the issue of adulterers, I think there would need to be some qualifications as to whether a person is "PRACTICING" the sin of adultery, or whether one has sinned, and repented, and moved on in their walk with God. Or do some of you now believe that there is no restoration for fallen ministry? I myself think there is a difference in the practicing of sin, and sin that is behind one and under the blood. And if someone says they have repented, am I to continue to hold them at bay as a sinner, or accept them as a brother, and move on praying that they are sincere? Am I not commanded to forgive if I would be forgiven. Not an easy thing to do in the midst of being done wrong. But I can't believe God would call us to forgive our enemies, and not with the command give grace to complete the task.

Please remember this the next time the name of a good brother is sullied and dragged though the mud for issues far less serious than breaking a commandment. I believe in mercy, even for those who show none. But I am sick of unmerciful perverts getting a free pass to continue in sin, and destroy the lives of innocents.