Rule 3.2 needs to be split

[atpollard]

3.2. Avoid promoting heretical views (e.g., denying core Christian doctrines like the Trinity). These forums uphold essential Christian beliefs, including the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and the authority of Scripture. While discussions on various theological perspectives are welcome, any post challenging core Christian doctrines must include biblical and expositional support. Additionally, those presenting opposing views must substantively engage with rebuttals rather than merely repeating assertions. Posts failing to meet this standard may be removed.

The "Additionally …" portion of this rule is of a radically different character than either the first part or the general description. There is nothing even remotely "heretical" about repeating assertions ad-nauseam (just very annoying). It really seems more appropriate to the "Rule 2" area, perhaps a new Rule 2.3 or addendum to Rule 2.1.

Thank you for your attention.

 

[makesends]

3.2. Avoid promoting heretical views (e.g., denying core Christian doctrines like the Trinity). These forums uphold essential Christian beliefs, including the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and the authority of Scripture. While discussions on various theological perspectives are welcome, any post challenging core Christian doctrines must include biblical and expositional support. Additionally, those presenting opposing views must substantively engage with rebuttals rather than merely repeating assertions. Posts failing to meet this standard may be removed.

The "Additionally …" portion of this rule is of a radically different character than either the first part or the general description. There is nothing even remotely "heretical" about repeating assertions ad-nauseam (just very annoying). It really seems more appropriate to the "Rule 2" area, perhaps a new Rule 2.3 or addendum to Rule 2.1.

Thank you for your attention.

Good catch

 

[JesusFan]

3.2. Avoid promoting heretical views (e.g., denying core Christian doctrines like the Trinity). These forums uphold essential Christian beliefs, including the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and the authority of Scripture. While discussions on various theological perspectives are welcome, any post challenging core Christian doctrines must include biblical and expositional support. Additionally, those presenting opposing views must substantively engage with rebuttals rather than merely repeating assertions. Posts failing to meet this standard may be removed.

The "Additionally …" portion of this rule is of a radically different character than either the first part or the general description. There is nothing even remotely "heretical" about repeating assertions ad-nauseam (just very annoying). It really seems more appropriate to the "Rule 2" area, perhaps a new Rule 2.3 or addendum to Rule 2.1.

Thank you for your attention.

But are not views such as Baptismal regeneration, Oneness, Modualism Unitarianism for examples are just heresy and as such, they will have nothing to argue for their position period?

 

[Arial]

But are not views such as Baptismal regeneration, Oneness, Modualism Unitarianism for examples are just heresy and as such, they will have nothing to argue for their position period?

Did you read the part about substantively engaging with rebuttals rather than just repeating assertions?

 

[John Bauer]

The "Additionally ..." portion of this rule is of a radically different character than either the first part or the general description.

Good catch. I know what I meant to say when I wrote it and it looked right at the time, but now that I read it again after your post, yeah, it feels incongruous. I think I’ll amend that rule to reflect what it was intended to say, as follows:

3.2. Avoid promoting heretical views (e.g., denying core Christian doctrines like the Trinity). These forums uphold essential Christian beliefs, including the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and the authority of Scripture. While discussions on various theological perspectives are welcome, any post challenging core Christian doctrines must include biblical and expositional support, as per rule 3.1 above.

Thank you for your attention.

You’re welcome, Mr. President.