Parchment and Pen » Where I stand on all things 2

Where I stand on all things 2

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Continuing the previous post.

8. Belief that Christ is fully God and fully Man – 1

Again, I am not trying to enforce a Chalcedonian articulation on your belief, but I don’t believe that someone could say that Christ was not man and have any sense of understanding of the true Gospel. This would be a serious deviation from a christological basic which defines Christianity.

9. Belief that the book of 2 Peter should be part of the New Testament canon -2

I waver here between 2 and 3. While I most certainly believe 2 Peter should be included in the canon, I understand the arguments that some sincere scholars have over its inclusion. Nevertheless, we must fall into the arms of those who have gone before us and trust the Lord’s guidance. If one has a Bible without 2 Peter, I would say that they are outside of orthodoxy, but I would certainly not call them a heretic in the proper since (I primarily leave that to Christological issues).

10. Belief that the Gospel of John should be part of the New Testament canon – 2

Come on, what possible reason would a Christian have for rejecting this?

11. Belief that the doctrine of purgatory is false -2 or 3

It really depends on what your view of purgatory is. If it is an instantaneous cleansing of the believers soul upon death, then fine . . . not too big of a deal (but you should really call it final sanctification or something like that), but if you believe that you are suffering for your sins as has been traditionally taught by the Roman Catholic church, then I would say that this is outside the bounds of orthodoxy since it causes a definite redefining of the benefits of the work of Christ.

12. Belief in the doctrine of the Trinity (i.e. there is one God who eternally exist in three distinct persons, all of which are fully God, all of which are equal) – 2

I teach the Trinity every chance I get when I visit churches. Every time, it seems, I am converting people—Christians—from a heretical position to an orthodox position. This is a serious issue. Those who deny the Trinity normally do so and redefine theism completely. If this is the case, it is no different than denying the deity of Christ. We need to take a denial of the Trinity very seriously. We also need to be correcting ignorance about the subject.

13. Belief in the inspiration of Scripture – 2

I don’t believe that anyone has to believe in the inspiration of Scripture to be saved, but, once saved, why wouldn’t someone believe what Christ said about the Scripture? How you define inspiration is a different story and is somewhat open for discussion.

14. Beliefs about the age of the earth – 4

While I think that this is a very interesting issues, people need to lighten up. The two issues in theology I like to discuss least is the beginning and the end. Everyone thinks they have it all figured out. Your belief about the age of the earth is not a litmus test in any way. Keep the conversation going, but be careful that your passions don’t make you imbalanced.

15. Belief that Adam and Eve were real people, not simply symbolic of mankind – 2

Sorry folks. This has massive theological implications. If you deny the literal representation of the first Adam, your Christology is going to be effected. I am not saying that this is not open to some interpretation, but, in the end, Adam had to fall as our federal head. Read Roman 5:12-21 and get back to me.

16. Belief in the eternal security of the believer/perseverance of the saints (i.e. that a true believe can never lose their salvation) – 3

I really, really want to put this a 2, but there are too many historical issues. Twist my arm and I will go there.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Print This Post

No Responses to “Where I stand on all things 2”

Lisa R on 16 Oct 2008 at 11:27 pm #

“Those who deny the Trinity normally do so and redefine theism completely. If this is the case, it is no different than denying the deity of Christ.”

Then why a 2 and not a 1?
ScottL on 17 Oct 2008 at 5:48 am #

Lisa -

If one has never been around the teaching of any church, they won’t really have any idea about a Trinity. It is hard to make it absolutely essential for a newborn Christian to have any concept of it, unless they have been around the church for a long, long time and faked everything previous. But most come to Christ simply believing in God and that Christ is God/Lord (or something similar to that). I think we can reasonably expect a true believer to move towards understanding that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God, yet distinct persons. But this is not what usually sees someone initially come to Christ.

CMP -

I am surprised you had nothing on the ‘litmus test’ about sin – believing humanity is sinful, believing in ‘original’ sin, or something like that. But some good test questions to consider.
britphil on 17 Oct 2008 at 6:12 am #

Michael

You are beginning to terrify me now! Out of nos 8-16 we are in agreement on seven of the nine issues and just out by one rating on each of the other two areas! That means out of the sixteen aspects we are in full agreement on 11 of them! Our deckchairs are inching ever closer together on the ship of faith and my soda is beginning to taste a fair bit like yours!

Scott, I agree wholeheartedly with what you say. A fuller understanding of the Trinity can surely only come much later on in someone’s spiritual walk and is a concept/relationship which, as with most things, we are continually learning more about and experiencing more of.

It is fascinating to observe that it is far more likely that, during the early stages of their spiritual quest, a person’s encounter with the various members of the Godhead is bound to be far more experiential than epistemological. By this I mean that the convicting work of the Spirit will lead a person to understand their need of a forgiveness and salvation from the Son and cause them to be welcomed into the loving embrace of the Father. But surely we are not expected that a person should be able to understand what is happening to them at each of these stages, especially if their church/ background is limited and their grasp of theological terms virtually nil.

A rational, intellectual understanding/conceptualisation of what they have experienced will surely come later on in their walk with God and not right at the very start, and certainly not as a qualifying pre-condition for their salvation! If we insist on it at the start, I feel we are placing exceedingly unfair expectations on the shoulders of a new believers, if not disqualifying them from being saved altogether if a 1 ranking is to be awarded and strictly adhered to. These are higher expectations than we often place upon ourselves.

The realisation that a belielf in the Trinity is essential/important for our salvation only becomes evident to us over time, and ironically that is through the prompting/guiding work of the Holy Spirit, one of the Persons of the Trinity about whom we are discussing. This reflects one of my concerns when we discuss issues surrounding the Trinity in a fairly blasé way, in that we are actually discussing (and in danger of grieving as we do so) Divine Personalities of the Godhead, and not mere abstract concepts.
Lisa R on 17 Oct 2008 at 6:18 am #

Scott, I agree with you but I would also contend that your statement could be applicable to one’s accepting the full deity of Christ. I doubt too that a new convert would have grabbed hold of these things right out the gate but that genuine conversion would eventually produce agreement on these subjects. My point is that if a 1 is applicable to the full deity, then why isn’t equally applicable to the trinity, especially since CMP put them on equal footing?
C Michael Patton on 17 Oct 2008 at 8:57 am #

Scott, that is coming on the third installment at 12pm today.
C Michael Patton on 17 Oct 2008 at 8:58 am #

Brit, you are great my friend. Though you will soon discover I have a pint not a soda.
Lisa R on 17 Oct 2008 at 9:53 am #

Scott, I would not reasonably expect a person to have an understanding either in order to come to Christ. That is not the issue. You are right, I think in that all a person knows usually, is that they are sinners and Christ died for their sins. Period.

But if there is genuine conversion, then agreement upon the essential nature of God and his transaction to reconcile mankind to himself should be accepted, if the Holy Spirit so dwells within a person, so John tells us in his epistle. No this would normally not be initially. But here is how I’m thinking about this. Is it possible to say that I believe in Christ, but not believe in His ontilogical nature or that of the Father, which is intrinsically related? If we don’t believe in this essential nature, then who are we saying Christ is? I believe the full deity and issue of the trinity are interdependent, and therefore you cannot have one without the other. Eventually, as the newbie learns, I would think he/she would accept it.
britphil on 17 Oct 2008 at 11:13 am #

“Brit, you are great my friend. Though you will soon discover I have a pint not a soda.

A pint…wow..that sounds fantastic!! Count me in, my irenic friend.

Having not long returned from Prague, can I recommend a pint, or bottle of Czech beer, which, along with Belgian beer, ranks amongst the best in the whole of Europe!
britphil on 17 Oct 2008 at 11:17 am #

“You are right, I think in that all a person knows usually, is that they are sinners and Christ died for their sins. Period.”

Hi Lisa. I couldn’t agree with more. At the outset that is all a person needs to knowand respond to.

With regard to how they proceed in terms of nurture/ working these things ot for themselves, I think we have to exercise a bit of caution, and to allow people to proceed at their own pace. There is always the temptation to forget some of our own struggles in these areas and to expect too much, too soon…and in the worst case scenarios to expect far too much,way too soon.
britphil on 17 Oct 2008 at 11:24 am #

“My point is that if a 1 is applicable to the full deity, then why isn’t equally applicable to the trinity, especially since CMP put them on equal footing?”

That is a really good point Lisa.

All I would say in response is that I think that after conversion it will probably take a person much less time for new believers to get their head around the idea that Jesus is fully God and fully Man than it will regarding the concept of a Divine Trinity.

Also, in a sense this may be something of a logical progression in that once they have accepted the deity of Christ, they are one third of the way to accepting and understanding the concept of God as Trinity. I think most people find it fairly easy to grasp that God the Son leads them into a relationship with God the Father. I think the difficulty comes in grasping the exact role, ministry and Personhood of the Holy Spirit in the Trinitarian set-up. Which is ironic, given that He is the Person of the Godhead who is constantly at work to guide us into more and more of God’s truth.

It would also lead me to understand why someone would place the issue as a 2 or even a 3 on CMP’s ranking list, even though I may not necessarily agree with the ranking score.
C Michael Patton on 17 Oct 2008 at 11:31 am #

Although this is more theoretical than practical, I think it is a healthy discussion in some sense. But what about binitarians—those who believe in the full deity of the Father and the Son, but have reservations about the Spirit, believing that, while he may be a separate person of the Trinity, it is just not revealed enough to be dogma? This would distinguish our rejection of the Trinity from an outright rejection of Jesus Christ.

Another one are those who don’t necessarily limit the Godhead to three, believing that their might be more members that are not revealed. This, again, is a denial of the Trinity, but not a rejection of Christ’s deity.

I think that these are both very serious problems, but I would put them on a different level than on outright rejection of Christ’s deity (in the traditional sense—i.e. Mormon included).
britphil on 17 Oct 2008 at 12:09 pm #

Now Michael..what are you doing to us…what will you come up with next.

I have encountered the binitarian concept but I had never hear of a concept which expands the members of the Godhead as opposed to shrinking them!!

Go on you have got to put us out of our misery..what are the labels given to such people…quadratarians, quinatarians, sextatarians, septatarians, octatarians, nonotarians, decatarians, dodecatarians etc.

Is there any end to such possibilities.

I’m so glad you provided this post to enable me to return to my lighter side. I am just repenting from a rather stern response I have posted in regard to being labelled a heretic twice in one day…which is good going even by my standards!
Lisa R on 17 Oct 2008 at 1:52 pm #

“Go on you have got to put us out of our misery..what are the labels given to such people…quadratarians, quinatarians, sextatarians, septatarians, octatarians, nonotarians, decatarians, dodecatarians etc.”

LOL…Brit, you are quite the humerous one
Jeffrey on 17 Oct 2008 at 3:46 pm #

I can certainly understand why on the age of the earth someone would go for unity over trying to choose which side is right. But the debate is intractable.

YEC says Neanderthal men were fully human. OEC says they were fully animal. Ironically, the middle ground position of “you can make a case either way” is a powerful argument for the existence of ape-men.

OEC thinks that different species [almost?] never share a common ancestor. YEC thinks that bees, wasps, and ants all share a common ancestor. These alternate ideas of what “kinds” means makes a strong argument that the concept of “kind” is fundamentally ambiguous, rather than clearly invariant like both YEC and OEC want.

YEC and OEC are both embarrassed by the existence of the other, because each side undercuts the other’s arguments both scientifically and biblically. This isn’t a matter of unnecessary infighting, but logical incompatibility.
Nick Norelli on 18 Oct 2008 at 1:09 am #

Hypostatic Union – 1
2Peter – 2
John – 2
Purgatory – 4
Trinity – 1 (Is there anything higher than 1?)
Inspiration – 2
Age of Earth – 5
Adam and Eve – 4
Eternal Security – 6
Vladimir on 22 Oct 2008 at 9:16 am #

Michael,

Re:

“9. Belief that the book of 2 Peter should be part of the New Testament canon -2

I waver here between 2 and 3. While I most certainly believe 2 Peter should be included in the canon, I understand the arguments that some sincere scholars have over its inclusion. Nevertheless, we must fall into the arms of those who have gone before us and trust the Lord’s guidance. If one has a Bible without 2 Peter, I would say that they are outside of orthodoxy, but I would certainly not call them a heretic in the proper since (I primarily leave that to Christological issues).”

If M. Luther questioned St James and Calvin questioned Revelation and others (secular scholars or so called Evangelical ones) question 2 Peter, what level of credence do you give to others while obviating your own ability to be responsible and sober (no pun intended)?

Vladimir
Stephen on 23 Oct 2008 at 11:33 am #

Michael,

Could you put a number on the doctrine of a literal, physical hell where unbelievers are punished for all eternity? I’ve been having this disussion with a friend who doesn’t know if the doctrine of hell is essential. Thanks!