Open for discussion: forum policies
 

Forum users:

I am interested in your opinions about the policy of this forum as to how "open" it is. While I don't have an interest in a strictly moderated (as in each-post-approved-by-me) forum, it may be that my original desire to have a very open forum policy is not actually feasible.

My goal, in the end, is to help increase people's faith in God's word. I figured that having a forum where people could ask honest questions about the Bible and the versions issue would be conducive to this -- I was "converted" away from the NIV in part because I had access to information. So, my hope was that more information would help more people.

But it is apparant that there are people who have nothing better to do than to actively seek an undermining of peoples' faith in the Bible and try to build up secondary authorities (ie, the elusive "The Greek" or other scholars). I have already banned some of the most egregious offenders, but I am wondering if a more stringent policy is warranted.

While I do not have the desire to be a forum policeman, it isn't a big deal to put new posters under moderation for a longer period of time, or to move some of the "borderline" posters into moderation.

I am interested in opinions from users of the forum. I am of course not obligating myself to do anything here -- this is just an informal request for discussion.

As a new poster here, and one that is probably already "locked on in your radar," I think it is a mistake to ban people for reasons other than obnoxiously rude and foul comments. Here is why:

1) A forum is a place for public debate. If the KJVOnly position is not able to "weather" even the stormiest debate, then why have a forum.

2) There are plenty of people that do rely on "The Greek," yet are firmly entrenched in the KJVOnly world. Isolating them from this forum on the basis of their knowledge/use of "The Greek" simply undermines the idea of a forum.

3) About "the scholars." There are KJVOnly scholars. In fact, without scholarship, your positions would not have gained the ground it has. Consider the Ruckmans, Thomas Strouses, and Dell Johnson's in your arena. Scholarship is not a bad thing. Even liberal scholars know the grammar. They simply do not see the significance of Scripture.

4) Though you may view outsider's comments as "destroying the faith of others," it cannot happen if they are genuinely believers.

5) If you prevent non-KJVOnly types, then KJVOnly pastors won't be able to quote us in the pulpit on Sunday :-) Threw that one in for fun.

6) Lastly, from a practical side: This is a forum on the WWW. As a Search Engine Expert, I offer you a suggestion. Seek content. Get as much content as you can get. "Content is King" in the WWW world. Some, here, decry the prolific posts of the "outsiders." Let us post. In my case, I will not turn caustic. I will disagree when I need to. But as long as we behave, why not let our voices be heard. The more content this forum allows, the better it will do in the search engines. Put some AdSense on the forum, Viola! You will have more money to promote the gospel. I use my Sunday School Lessons website to raise money for church planters. The same could/should be done here.

Barry: www.evmikna.com

As an observation from a 'conservative Canadian', the 'fundamentalists' just have to lighten up a bit. (me runs to hide, as he just stuck a stick in a hornets nest) :)

Moderation requirements will be greatly reduced, if we are forced to google "Baptist Jokes" first.

Folks need to remember the extent of thier salvation is not proportionate to the agression in their arguments and viewpoints.

:D I like it.

I, for one, love studying these posts on this forum, and I even have to admit, I sometimes enjoy the "soap opera" [sorry I can't think of a better phrase here, I despise soap operas] banter and dialogue as long as it isn't raunchy, and there have been some, it would seem, who joined just to be antagonistic [and a bit hateful], and I feel those need to find a different forum [may I suggest a fine Catholic website forum:D]; but I honestly don't know why someone who isn't kjv would want to continue to "debate" knowing they aren't going to win any "converts"; as I've said, I've learned a lot studying here. I was always convicted to use kjv only, but I was also one of those who thought we had the elusive "Greek Text" to study in case we needed it. After studying these posts and reading and listening to others, I realize there are several Greek texts and we don't know what the "originals" are. Having said all that, I just hope and pray that Diligent doesn't get too discouraged, and that the forum continues.....God bless, Scott

Thanks Scott. :)

I do get some entertainment value? In a sit back with a bowl of popcorn and watch the fireworks display type of way...but something will have to be done...

We've had a lot on our platters since we started the forum and I know Diligent has not been able to be as active as he would like. Now that the new version of SwordSearcher has been released we'll have a bit of time to work on other things. Like this forum. You'll be seeing a lot more of Diligent's posts in the coming weeks I'm sure. :D

Moderating?
 

I think some easy-handed moderating is a good thing. You don't want to screen out all controversy, but you do want to keep messages out that are intended only to be irritating or instigating.

I co-moderate a group in my profession, and it's not burdensome. The primary screening for that particular group happens when someone wants to join--it's not automatic. The interested person simply has to state briefly the reason for wanting to join the group. You can learn a lot from just a few short phrases!

Lee

Have whatever kind of forum you want to have. You're the boss. Just please make it clear to potential participants what the rules are.

If your objective is not debate but to instruct in your views, make that clear.

I'm curious why Jerry is no longer posting here (he's labeled "inactive"), if that was his decision or yours. I always appreciated his posts even though I disagreed with him about some things.

It was by his request. When it's "my decision" it says Banned, not Inactive.

Well as a 'newbie' here myself I find the forum real good and there are some good folks here, unlike some of the others I have seen...;)

This is a difficult one to call and I support Bro.Brandons desire for folks to come and ask questions. Despite the 'antics' of some there are genuine people out there who are using modern per-versions who have sincere questions, where do they go to get answers?

I think any one showing up who wishes to cause trouble are soon identified and then can be dealt with... I do get concerned as I have seen it many times that a MVer gets flamed when in reality they have not been informed of the truth. What happens is someone 'struts' their knowledge and a would be potential Bible Believer is lost.. but thats IMHO..
evry blessing :cool:

Thank you, brother, for your comments.

This is part of what I said in my very first post on the forum:

The last sentence really sums up the reason for av1611.com in general.

What I would like to see is people asking questions they need answers to, and I am going to continue to strive to make this a place where that can happen.

I don't mind debates at all. There are two things that are bothering me right now as things stand:

1. (This is relatively minor.) Too many threads get hijacked and turned into battles over personalities.

2. And this is the bigger issue: There are some people here who are not interested in getting questions answered, but think they are here to teach us dumb KJV-only nitwits (I'm pretty sure that word's even been used) a lesson or two. They seem to think none of us have done any research and they are going to put us in our place.

#2 is the real problem, and will completely overshadow the main goal here, which in the end must be edification.

I am a firm believer in "useful idiots" as a teaching tool -- which is one reason why I desire to moderate very lightly. But there has to be a balance. I suppose working out that balance is what I'm trying to do now -- and is why I am soliciting feedback. :)

Ditto brother - with one caveat: PERSONAL INSULTS. I believe when a "newbie" joins, if they can not refrain from personally "insulting" those of us who are already here that they should be "bounced" - no second chances!

I believe that this rule alone would eliminate 80%-90% of the "trouble makers".

Right on the money.

Maybe some sort of "statement of faith" in regards to the Book, but more directed at their purpose for joining? Something mild that may run off the real nitwits.

FYI: the Posting Guidelines on the FAQ have been updated.

http://av1611.com/forums/faq.php

That'll work.

I agree as usual with you chaplainles! I will just add that there is a lot of bickering going on between fellow KJVO's. a lot of division as well. We have the KJVO, we have the pure KJVO, we have the TR only and of course we have the pristine KJV edition issue..... When I first came to this site I wasn't thinking at all of all these divisions. I thought we were all KJVO's. We are already in the minority, (that's ok, because the narrow way is always in the minority). I just would like to see us work together respectfully. I think we should be able to disagree respectfully with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If we don't turn this around, we will push more people away from the KJB, those that are truly seeking the best Bible.

When I first started studying this issue, I was at the time reading the ESV. I'm sure in my ignorance I was asking questions and pointing out things that I thought to know to be true while I was seeking answers that would have been considered offensive to a pure KJVO. I had in particular two brothers in Christ that were very patient with me and all of my questions and I can say with all honesty that they never dealt with me in a condescending way, no matter how dumb my correspondence was. and I was quite leery of the KJVO stand at the time. I thought I had already figured this out and had gone from the NIV, to the NASB to the ESV. I finally went off on my own to study the issue. Well, everything they had tried to teach me was true. I had bought my first KJB and I was sure to let them know that they had won me over with their balance of truth and love. These same two brothers also won me out of my Calvinism delusion in the same way. I will always be grateful to them in the way they were vessels for God to help me out.

I think we judge too quickly re: the troublemakers. If we think someone is personally attacking even if a newbie, let's turn the other cheek and address their disagreement politely. If that person continues to be rude then deal with them. I believe if we are the bigger person there is a great chance the other poster will turn it around and they may even begin to understand our point of view??? It happens, believe me, it happened to me personally.

If someone has been rude in the past, lets leave that in the past and address them politely, especially when we can see that they have turned it around. If it appears someone is truly seeking the truth lets just address with facts and not in a way that puts them down. Let's always assume good intentions until it is evident otherwise.

RE: moderating, I believe it would be a good idea to bring in a moderator that is fair and balanced and can keep their cool and not take things personally. It's always good to have a few moderators even three that can look at things from different perspectives. Overall they must be like-minded, that is true. Not that they will agree on every issue, but you know what I mean. They need to deal with insulting behavior without returning like kind behavior. This is hard to do, but I have seen it done. When I first came to this site, I figured Jerry must be an un-named moderator. I thought he did a great job moderating and keeping his cool most of the time. He is also very knowledgable. Of course I now realize that he was not a moderator. This is just for an example, but if he were willing to come back that would be great.

I understand a forum must be going for quite awhile in order to determine the right moderators for the job. It takes a long term history to see if the person can meet the high standards that one sets. It's not an easy task, but makes for a well run forum where many can have fellowship and edification. We should all be patient while the bugs are worked out.

Really applies to the some of the overzealous folks.

One thing we really need to watch out for is the haughty attitude that just because someone is new on this forum, they are immediately assumed not to know anything.

Brandon, this is your board, run it as you see fit and those that take away some value will remain, those that do not, will not.

I have always been a firm believer in that if anything (a forum, a society) is not a place where you can belong and follow it's rules, it's vision, it's direction, then go someplace else.

We need less people here to defend our KJ Bibles to and more looking to learn about God's word. Continuously defending to the same arguments again and again, takes time away from those seeking the truth. Which, of course, is Satan's plan.

Given my example above.... I guess I could of kept my mouth shut to keep from looking like a fool, but then I would have not learned the truth re: God's Holy Word.

Beth, I think we all know that is for the 'argumentative my way only' overly zealous then the inquisitively overzealous. Certainly not directed at you. That is the difference I believe Brandon is trying to get a handle of control on.

I'm glad you clarified that. I did not know, so I don't think you can say we all know.

I'm not so sure I like that quote from Twain, it can be taken in many ways. Besides he was an atheist, correct? The biggest fool there is!

This is addressed to the "Forum" and no one in particular:

Let’s see now, if I understand where some of you folks are coming from – since this is a “Forum”, we suspend the instructions of the Bible in favor of “dialogue” or “discussion”?

#1. 1Timothy 5:1 Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; (except on the Forum?)
1 Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. (except on the Forum?)

#2. Titus 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. (except on the Forum?)

#3. Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (except on the Forum?)

#4. Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; (except on the Forum?)

Thanks – but, No Thanks!

Once again, truly inspired wisdom. Something we can all learn from. Thank you brother George.

I think I need more clarification, especially if this will be a rule of the forum. and yes, the forum rules should be specific if you want to be able to suspend people for breaking the said rules.

First of all, I believe Brandon said this was not a Church and therefore Church order is not in place, such as do not rebuke an elder. and if this is one of the forum rules then we better put the age as well as gender on all of the user profiles. I agree that if we choose to walk in the spirit then we will want to respect those that are older than us, as well as everyone else.

I don't always know who is my elder and also who is male and female. At my home Church this is all well understood and the elders are above reproach.

I'm sorry again George, but this doesn't make sense to me. You need to decide what your mission is. Do you want to put many under Church discipline or do you want to help edify others. Even others that may not be where they need to be as far as their Christian walk? We turn the other cheek in hopes of winning the offender over. We balance truth and love.

If you want to be respected as an elder, you need to be above reproach. Meaning if someone does come to you with a rebuke, you should be able to defend yourself in a Christian way or apologize when you are in the flesh. and I understand personally, the Holy Spirit within us struggles against the flesh and the flesh against the Spirit.

I'm really trying not to be disrespectful, but we need to iron this out? It looks as though since you are older, we are not to question you.

If I may step in here, because I am sure that I am being pegged as a "disorderly brother"...

Beth's comments are right on. This is not a church.

I will say this, if someone is clearly a heretic, then do not hesitate to ban them. Who needs scoffers?

As you see, on this forum, there is a wide variety of KJVOnly people. Even some consider themselves TROnly. There is a wide amount of discussion regarding the textual criticism of the KJV as our brother Bibleprotector seeks to find the purest form of the KJV.

It is quite clear when a person gets involved in a forum to simply "trip up" the other side without trying to explain himself and offer edifying material that leads us all to a clearer understanding of Scripture. If a person simply posts "errors in the KJV" and will not let it drop, then that person violates Paul's admonition in Gal 6.1.

With all of that said, this forum is on the Internet. It is the modern-day equivalent of the Apostle Paul walking into a temple or Mars Hill to discuss matters of Christ. Why have a forum defending the KJV if you will not allow those who disagree with you? This is not church, so don't worry about my comments being used to destroy "the faith" of those under your authority by "causing divisions."

As for me, I will always be respectful. I will not throw Imprecatory Psalms at you or even compare you to the biblical fool in the Psalms or put you in the "house of Satan" (even when that is done toward me). Those judgments are for Christ in His Kingdom.

I take the KJV translator's comments in my signature seriously. I will admit overstatements and faults. I am about to later today admit to a "Hasty Generalization. "I have already admitted to a "Straw Man." I expect others to admit their logical fallacies when I have already pointed them out, but that is up to them.

May we all be willing to "trample vpon our owne credit" when we are proven wrong. The Trueth is the most important thing, not the amount of posts we have. Praise God there is no "reputation" crediting here :-)

Why is this even a question? Where was it suggested that only agreement will be allowed?

Hi Diligent, I never got that impression from you. I was using it as a rhetorical question to stave off the inevitable question from others.

For example, the first contact I had with George was this: "I have a question - WHY are you here? It's certainly NOT to edify!"

Now, he posts here: "Let’s see now, if I understand where some of you folks are coming from – since this is a “Forum”, we suspend the instructions of the Bible in favor of “dialogue” or “discussion”?"

So, my rhetorical question anticipates his inevitable follow through...

It is a valid question he asked of you... but let's not derail the point of this thread.

I think my answer to you will help you formulate your policies. I don't want idiots posting things on my website any more than you do.

I am here to "get inside your heads." Why are you KJVOnly? I have no grand illusions that you are going to change. I simply want to know. In order for me to know, I want to know how you interpret various passages of Scripture and come to the KJVOnly conclusion. As I admit on the "baptism" thread, I am learning how you think.

let us know how your little experiment turns out. k.

Re: "Clarification" > Chit-Chat > Forum Policies
 

"More ‘Clarification”:

Sorry Beth, but I know what my *"mission" is {see*} and it is not to turn my cheek every time a "stranger" insults me or another brother or sister in Christ. And if we "suspend" God's instructions to us as Christians just because this is not a "church", then I for one want no part of such an operation.

There is no reason why, when a person comes on to this Forum that they cannot be Polite, Considerate, Respectful, and Conduct themselves "Honorably". And if they don't have the Christian decency to act in such a manner, then we have no obligation to "turn the other cheek in hopes of winning the offender over." (Wrong scriptural application - wrong dispensation.).

You have said: “you should be able to defend yourself in a Christian way”. What “way” is that? Is it what you “think” I should do or say, or are you referring to my following the scriptures? The following examples demonstrate how the Apostle Paul dealt with the “brethren” in a scriptural manner, I’m afraid it doesn’t follow your “concept” of the “Christian way” – but it is according to the scriptures.

There are people out there who are: “unruly persons”; "heretics"; "reprobates'; "vain talkers"; “deceivers”; “false teachers”; “false brethren”; and “grievous wolves”. These are all “Scriptural” terms describing people who - we have no obligation to extend the hand of “friendship” to, or much less the hand of Christian “Fellowship”. There are those who "shipwreck" other people’s faith (Hymenaeus & Alexander - 1Timothy 1:19-20) of whom Paul did not try to “edify”:

[1 Timothy 1:18 This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;
19 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.]

Nor did Paul "turn the other cheek in hopes of winning the offender over." Instead he “delivered them over to Satan”. Pretty strong words! And the reason for this is we are in a “war” – and that “war” is to be conducted by men in an “army” (according to the Scriptures); not the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Cub Scouts, or Camp Fire Girls.

And what of Hymenaeus & Philetus?

2 Timothy 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Not “everyone” who claims to be a brother is deserving of:
2 Timothy 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

The “unity” of the faith has to do with those with whom we can walk together with:
{Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?} Where can there be “unity” and/or “fellowship”; when a “Christian”, who is a perfect stranger, castigates and insults me after only being on this forum for 5 days? Can you not see that that kind of “conduct” is in total opposition to 90% of the Christians that have joined? When he “bragged” about: “being in rare form tonight”, could you not see him for what he is?

And what of Phygellus & Hermogenes?

2 Timothy 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

Do you really think that Paul was concerned about “reaching out” to these “brethren”?

And what about Alexander the coppersmith?

2 Timothy 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward himaccording to his works:

Paul wasn’t much concerned with Christian “forgiveness” with Alexander – he asked that God would “reward him according to his works” and at some point before this Paul delivered him unto Satan also! [1 Timothy 1:20]

And now on to my being an elder: Common sense and decency, would dictate that all Christians who are new to this Forum would have some consideration and respect for all of us who are already here, regardless of who we are. Not hurl insults against them in less than a week.

I have never pushed what little authority I have (which is strictly confined to our local church – see *) in this Forum, because I do not have any authority over anyone here (except my wife), and I have never even “intimated” that I do. (If I did – why didn’t I go to Brandon and request {or “demand”} that he kick the offender off?). I am a firm believer in the maximum amount of Christian “Liberty” allowed by scripture. Anyone who knows me knows that what I have said is true. I do not seek “dominion” over the brethren – here on this Forum or anywhere else for that matter.

[2 Corinthians 1:24 Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.]

On the other hand I do have the “right” and “duty” to defend myself and any other Christian brother who comes under attack, or who is unjustly charged or accused of wrong doing if we are innocent of the charges. Paul never “rolled over” and “turned the other cheek” when he was falsely charged.

I not only have the “right”, but I also have a duty and responsibility to criticize any one who falsely accuses me or another Christian of wrong doing, or insults us. After all, it would be a double standard if someone on this Forum would have the “right” to accuse me, or say, brother Ruckman, of wrong doing; but I would not have the “same right” to answer the charges and level criticisms’ of my own at the accuser. Or would it be fair, if I am required to answer someone’s criticisms “according” to how the accuser “thinks” I should, or in a “tone” that is acceptable to them?

Titus 2:15These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

Galatians 4:16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

You and others on this Forum may not like or agree with my “tone” or “directness”, but I do not “insult” people by calling them names (like stupid, knucklehead, jerk, etc.), if I call someone a name – it’s because I believe the person is guilty of being: a “Humanist”, a “Sophist” a “liar”, etc.; or if I believe they are proud, vain, arrogant, puffed up, etc. I call it the way I see it. Again, you may not like the way I express myself, but you have no right to “dictate” to me how I do – since I do not “dictate” to you how you respond.

I really don't care how it "looks" to you - I have never ever taken that position here or anywhere else. You shouldn't be "reading" into my motives, unless I have made this "claim" you accuse me of. "Biblestudent and Brother Tim and I have had our differences - why don't you ask them if I left them with the "impression" that they were "not to question" me.

The Apostle Paul spent three years continually warning the Christians of his day of the “danger’ from within the churches of “grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.” From his day until ours there have always been “false brethren”; "grievous wolves"; “false teachers” and such destroying Christian’s faith in God’s word, and eventually destroying God’s churches. {2,000 years of church history demonstrates this over and over and over again – literally hundreds of times).

You will have to decide WHY I am here. Since: “I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.” I cannot be “guilty” of that charge. Of course it could be that I am one of those men who:“arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” Or I could be a proud, vain, arrogant, “blow hard”, and know-it-all. Or I could be a Sophist and a “troublemaker”, who enjoys a good old debate once in a while. Or I just might be a Christian who has “been around the block” a few times, and is genuinely concerned for the welfare (spiritual & physical) of the saints.

This isn’t “My First Rodeo”, I have seen “Christians” (or people who call themselves “Christians”) commit practically every sin in the BOOK. I have no illusions about what “Christians” are capable of doing – and I will continue to “warn” the brethren “night and day” to beware – not everything and everyone is what and who they “appear to be.

The following verses are just a few that describe the days that we live in and why we should be both careful and prudent about who we trust, or admire, or respect, when it comes to God’s words and the “interpretation” of them.

Acts 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
33 I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

1 Timothy 6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

2 Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

2 Timothy 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:
15 Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.
16 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.


* My "Mission": (I “know what my “mission” is and my “orders” come from God – not from contemporary “mores” {socially acceptable behavior} designed to dictate my conduct according to Humanist Dogma).

SCRIPTURAL DUTIES & RESPONSIBILITIES OF: {an elder-pastor}

PERSONAL (Inward)

1. PRAYER [Addressed - to God]

2. STUDY [Scriptures – from God]

CONGREGATIONAL (Outward – “the ministry of the word of God”)

3. PREACHING [The Word of God] {PURPOSE: Feeding & Edification–Doctrine & Conduct}

4. TEACHING [Convincing, Exhorting - Sound Doctrine & the Whole Council of God] {PURPOSE: Feeding & Edification – Doctrine & Conduct}

5. WARNING [Against: Leaven (False Doctrine), Philosophy, Vain Deceit, the Traditions of Men, Science-Falsely-so-called, and the Rudiments of the World, etc.] {PURPOSE: Edification– Doctrine & Conduct}

CORRECTION– SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY & LIMITS OF: {an elder-pastor}

6. ADMONISHING [Advise, Caution, or Notify of a Fault] {PURPOSE - Correction}

7. REPROVING [To Refute, Disprove, or Convince of a Fault or to Make It Manifest] {PURPOSE - Correction}

8. REBUKING [To reprehend for faults; to chide, chasten, check, restrain or silence] {PURPOSE - Correction}

Headings 6-8 above describe the absolute LIMITS OF PASTORAL AUTHORITY (“Correction”). All matters of Discipline within a church are to be administered by the whole body (the congregation) – NOT an individual elder-pastor, or a board of deacons, or any other extra-scriptural council or committee.
NOTE: All matters of Punishment are to be administered by Almighty God!

In the early church there was no clergy–laity set up as in almost all modern day churches. There was no one individual “pastor” over the church, or in the larger churches – a “senior pastor”; “assistant pastors”; “youth pastor”; “Choir Director”; or so-called “Christian Counsellors” - dispensing pagan philosophy within the church, or today’s’ modern equivalent - Humanism, Psychiatry, & Psychology.

The leaders in the early church were called elders and were always plural in number and they shared whatever power and authority they had – equally. No division existed between the congregation and elders-pastors. [They (elders-pastors and the congregation) all were brethren – with no distinctions!]

An elder’s (pastor’s) authority over the brethren (in a local church) was, and still is, very limited – spiritual only!

An elder (pastor) is not to exercise dominion over the brethren or over their faith!

2 Corinthians 1:24 Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand.

Just to be clear: The purpose of my being here on this Forum is mainly to edify and be edified; and to warn the saints of leaven in the form of doctrine or people.

If someone comes on this Forum and hurls insults at me or at the brethren; or if they make false claims and charges against me or my friends; you may be rest assured that I will respond in a manner that I believe is scripturally appropriate according to the circumstances and who is doing the insulting, etc.

I was curious about hearing more about how the instruction in the Bible of not rebuking an elder would be carried out on a forum such as this as far as the rules are concerned. I'm more than willing to adhere to the rules of this forum.

Ok, you've made your position very clear and I think I know where you are coming from.

I would just advise, (I'm speaking to the forum as a whole) that we take a little time in debate before we call someone a heretic or chase them off. Let's show humility and meekness. I agree that if the person continues in rude behavior then they need to be dealt with.

I always thought that this was re: if someone offends you to turn the other cheek. I thought this was the principle learned from this scripture. To do this turn the other cheek, shows humility and then you may also have a better chance of getting your point across. Especially something as important as the Bible version debate. You say wrong dispensation? Are you saying the gospels are not for us the Church?

I guess I need more clarification here.

Although, this is a thread on discussion of forum rules and you have given me a report and as I read it have many questions although don't feel I want to get into it with you. Not on this thread at least. Maybe I should ask Jerry how this will go down? I notice you didn't bring up his name when you mentioned I should ask others.

I also don't understand why you want to rehash the incidence of last week. When t4t tried to explain his position and that he didn't come on to cause trouble, his thread got deleted, (btw t4t I made a response to your thread before it was deleted, email me if you want to see it) My response to this thread was re: what I am seeing as a whole, I was not thinking just specifically of the incidence last week.

why can you continue to drag this on?

I really don't want to get into this again with you. I simply wanted to point out some things that I see on this forum. I'm sorry, but it is different then being in Church or your home or any where else where you can look at someone in the eye and know who they are.

Please just let me give my opinions on forum rules. I will not continue to do this with you. It won't end well for me anyway. I really do like this forum and would like to stay. I have definitely learned my lesson on who I can challenge and who I can't. I'll be done with this topic....now.

Where Is this "advise" found in the scriptures? Hmmm? :confused: Your "advise" is your own "humble" opinion - which doesn't mean a thing to me!

I wonder - why have YOU Have opened up this "can of worms" AGAIN? Do you think that I am going to come around to "your point of view", when all you can give is your "opinion" and a verse taken out of its historical and dispensational setting?

You ignored nearly my whole post! I demonstrated (with scriptural examples) that we are not obligated to "turn the other cheek" (Paul didn't!) and if you had more biblical discernment and understanding you would know that those verses in Matthew 5:39 & Luke 6:29 do NOT "apply" to "Christians" in the "Age of Grace", but to Jews (living at the time of Christ) "under the Law".

If those verses apply to us then ALL of Matthew Chapters 5, 6, & 7 and Luke Chapter 6 are "applicable" to us, and in 50 years of being a Christian I have never met one Christian that ever obeyed the command to: "cut off their hand"; or pluck out their eye" or cut off their foot;[Matthew 18:18 & Mark 9:45] - have you?.

This is known as "rightly dividing the word of God" 101. We can not "pick & choose" which verses apply to us just willy-nilly. There has to be some "scriptural basis" to Bible knowledge, discernment and understanding and that basis is found in "dispensational" teaching and "rightly dividing the word of truth" - or else you are going to try to make me "observe" something that God never intended for Christians (saved by Grace) to observe. ("turning the other cheek" - so we can have "debate"!)

If you don't understand these basic "dispensational" truths - what are you doing trying to "instruct" this Forum when you don't know what you are talking about?

I didn't call the man a heretic! I said that he was proud, vain, and arrogant. (which he demonstrated when he bragged about being "in rare form tonight", after he had just got through castigating, rebuking, and ridiculing me - a perfect stranger who he knew absolutely nothing about!) You still have not replied to my questions about his pernicious conduct, but I guess it was OK because he "agreed" with you on a post that you made about Dr. Peter Ruckman.

I also said that he was a "trouble maker" - which is obvious from what has happened. Why can't you keep your facts straight?

Why are we obligated to give someone who comes on this Forum and personally insults one of the members in less than a week, (who has had to re-write some of his Posts because of his lousy "attitude"), to give him a little time for "debate"? This isn't about "turning the other cheek". This is about a man who insulted me and you don't think that is such a big deal. I guess in your book "debate" is more important than decent Christian conduct!

But it is not so in my "Book":

Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

In my BOOK God puts "debate" way up there amongst murder and deceit. Someone who "enjoys a good debate" is "carnal". I do not "enjoy" debate whatsoever! But I will contend for the faith, when it comes under attack. And I will defend myself from slander and insults.

This man came on the Forum and was almost immediately "contentious", but you ignored his abusive behavior because - you wanted some more "debate"?
1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom , neither the churches of God.

I have tried to be less "harsh" and "direct" with you because of your past posts. What I cannot understand is why you ever posted those "charges" against brother Ruckman from Donald Waite (a man that you "admire" and "respect"). Did you think that I would let them just pass?

At first I carefully and respectfully dealt with them and you seemed to be satisfied until T4T showed up and (by taking them out of context) made 3 of them "appear" to support Waite's accusations; at which time you suddenly did an about face and declared that you were so pleased that someone proved that you (and Waite) were "right" all along.

I then demonstrated that 5 of those charges were FALSE! and the other 4 were FRIVOLOUS! and instead of examining my points, since you had now found an ally (T4T), you ignored them and proceeded to start to "upbraid" me for not being "nice" and "loving" and unwilling to "turn the other cheek".

What about the fact that a man that you admire and respect is proven to be a liar? Making "false" charges; taking words out of context; twisting words to make a man to appear to be something he is not, or believes something that he doesn't. Doesn't that "bother" you even in the least bit?

If I found out that someone that I admire and respect turned out to make false accusations and tried to isolate a fellow brother in Christ by taking his words out of context ,and tried to denigrate him I would be greatly disappointed in that person.

After the remarks that you made when you first returned to the Forum today - I find it hard to believe that you just couldn't help "commenting" on my statements earlier today. Haven't you learned to let "sleeping dogs lie"?

If you had taken time to "check out" the charges & accusations made by a man that you admire and respect, none of this would have happened. But instead, like Jerry before you, you accepted that man's word and maligned, slandered, and falsely charged brother Peter Ruckman with things that he is not guilty of - without reading anything by him; without ever hearing any of his teaching; and without ever having met the man; you judged him by what others said of him (that's known as "hearsay" in court).

I will not stand by while someone insults me, and neither will I stand by if someone falsely charges a man that I admire and respect. And if you can post charges and accusations against him without proof - I certainly can charge Donald Waite with making "false accusations" against brother Ruckman. And unlike you, I can "prove" it!
What's good for the "gander" is also good for the "goose". :D

The fact that you are a woman doesn't change a thing - "turn-about" is fair play. If you don't want to see me be "unloving" and "judgmental", then don't make charges that you can't prove! If you want to see me be more humble and meek then how about a little more "righteous judgment"? :confused:

A man may well be right about his Christian obligation to rebuke offenses and yet be wrong in judging the offense itself, even at times making himself a terror more to the innocent than to the offender.

George, I really just wanted to help out in this open discussion re: forum rules and moderating. I know better than to engage in a debate with you. I don't mind when you chase off real trouble makers, but when I see you chase off others that defend the KJB, (they just don't agree on all the details that you do), I start to wonder. It would be great if we could all defend the KJB together.

I for one refuse to go down any extreme roads, especially hyper-dispensationalism. I also refuse to agree with the extreme views of Ruckman. This makes for a poor witness as it is almost impossible to teach those that prefer the MV to understand the Holy and trustworthiness of the KJB.

The only way I will be able to remain on this forum is if I stay clear of any debates with you. I meant it from my heart how I appreciate your ministry of getting God's Holy Word out to the people, but I refuse to go down this road with you again. Peace be with you. Beth

I need that quote for my scrapbook, could you give Chapter and Verse please? :rolleyes:

I for one will be happy to "abide" by your decision. and I won't even comment on your latest "comments" (in order to keep the peace).

I believe in the ministry of "reconciliation" (if it is possible), so perhaps we can begin again on a more agreeable note. :)

Deal!! God bless you, Beth

Beth post #39,

I'm glad that is over. He is full of fire but I tell you as my husband and friend for 47 years he is a blessed friend to have on your side. I have always known where I stand with George. And I have always said I am above all women blessed.

In Christ love,
Renee