Rating: 
Summary: It seems to treat Christian Faith like an academic subject
Review: This book made for interesting reading. I am a college student and this reminded me of reading one of my assigned textbooks. It gave me lots of information I was not aware of before. It also gave the liberal and convervative perspectives on issues leaving the student to choose.While this might work for college ethics or philosophy, I am not comfortable with treating the Christian faith like one of these academic subjects. When the conservative view is God knows for certain all our free futures in detail and the liberal view is God does not, how can these divergencies be reconciled with the Bible? I guess I'm just not scholarly enough to figure out how. The book comes across as too much a product of academia and not teaching explicitly what the Bible says in some pretty important areas like afterlife, inerrancy, who will be saved and God's foreknowledge. I would not recommend this book to my friends. It sends too much of a mixed message that may be a stumbling block to some.
Rating:
Summary: subtly undermines generally accepted authorized doctrines
Review: With all due respect to a prior reviewer about the long-standing nature of many of the disagreements highlighted in this book about correct Christian teachings in fundamental areas, the following points need to clarify his mistaken notions. 1) Several of the disputes are in fact fairly recent in church history. Inerrancy (error-free Bible) was not really an issue until about a hundred years ago. There have always been squawkers who claim to have found mistakes in the Bible. But only since the late 1800's has this infiltrated into the church in any major way requiring 'Athanasian confutation'. The same could be said for annihilationism, inclusivism (salvation apart from the Gospel being heard/believed), the ramifications of the Atonement(substitutionary, judicial vs. merely exemplary or non-propitiatory), and the heterodox open theoreology of divine ignorance of free-will futures + theo-repentism + God changing as it is beneficial to change + surrendered sovereignty + risk taking vulnerability to failure + other Hartshornian Processism-like ideas ("Trinity and Process","Omnipotence & Other Theological Mistakes"). 2) While it seems true that the authors do not advocate any one position over another or try to 'convert' anyone to their liberal views, the fact that aberrantly minority views are placed side by side with historically held non-liberal majority confessional teachings with no judgment call gives them equal billing and tacit approval as "no less evangelical, just as valid" 3) Some reviewers like lots of options to choose from. It seems so democratic, American and independent to be able to vote for what suits personal preference. What about what the Lord's preference is? See Revelation 2 & 3. How does John the Apostle of Love look on false doctrines/idolatrous notions in his epistles? If only Christians today would read the epistles from the viewpoint of the Lord and the apostolic authors, they would not so cavalierly be open embrace so many differing viewpoints in fundamental areas. Spectrum in this case really means Speculation, Spectral scattering, diffusion of Truth. 4) Some think only what is in the Apostles'/Nicene Creeds should be the bounds of what is Essential Truth. But any review of Church history and what Luther, Arminius, Wesley, Knox, Spurgeon, and others had to say about what are Fundamentals will see this is grossly oversimplistic and naive. Aren't the Attributes of God Essential? The Nature of Scripture, Inerrant or not? 100% Verbally Inspired or not? Heaven & Hell - literal, conscious, eternal, bodily or not? The list goes on for thoughtful Christians who know better, or ought to. This book is deceptive to such a degree as to lead many astray as to what is appropriate for Christians to profess. "If you hold to My teachings, you are truly My disciples, and you shall know the Truth and the Truth will set you free."
| 
