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!

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

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

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.

“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

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!

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).

“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.

“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.

“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!