Type 1 in this conversation prioritize (rank in importance) the FG hot topics like this:
1 - COSF (most important)
2 - purity in speech/conduct
Type 2 in this conversation prioritize topics inversely:
1 - purity in speech/conduct (most important)
2 - COSF
Neither Type 1 or Type 2 are wrong; they're just different to stress one over the other but I assume both Type 1 and Type 2 esteem COSF and purity. (Perhaps the difference in emphasis is due to different gifts or parts of the body?) I'm a Type 2. I think there are several who are Type 2 in the blogosphere and I believe the ranks are growing, converting and displacing a few Type 1s. There are many reasons to be a Type 2. Here's some my feeble mind has thought it could notice:
-- One could be hard-core (how shall we label these COSF doctrines?) FGA, GES, or Glorious gospel, but are so disenchanted through seeing ungraciousness that being dogmatic just isn't spiritually worth the cost anymore
-- One could have started off being either FGA or GES and may still believe that COSF is the most important thing, but because there is no pragmatic difference in what is being preached to the lost, or perhaps because one has been convinced by scripture there really is not much difference in the theology between the two, the result is the COSF "debate" doesn't really need to be "debated" like once believed
-- One has studied the COSF debate and does not believe the correct answer is any of those (three) COSF doctrines, but a fourth. And it was when these ones had to sit around on their hands for three years to even get a chance to share their mind they noticed and appreciated grace, and will stay on the cause for purity in speech and conduct because it is still worthwhile to have it as priority
-- One is a student who knows they can't even begin to know the answer to COSF, but one thing they can know for sure right now, which is what purity ought to look and sound like
Are there more?
Dr. Lybrand mentioned in a comment at his blog here (on October 12, 2009 at 5:56 am) how he believes he is observing a variety of people from different backgrounds and values. It is possible this is part of what he meant through acknowledging such. I would be happy to learn more on his thoughts. I noticed "ad hominem" and its purpose to discount the COSF views being contended, and, I saw how Kev wrote on his blog post that "pointing out the [weak points] of another man is plainly silly" if its not related back in to the issue of who should be persuaded by which doctrine. However - I disagree, and that's where I've been for a year and a half. I hope that makes sense. I think purity is its own important issue.
Read this post written over a year ago, sharing my own Type 2 priority which is unchanged:
My Own Conference Soundbytes
I suppose it's possible that one's reason for being a Type 2 is because they love ecumenism, and they choose blind "unity" at the expense of truth. I just don't know if that's anyone around here like we're being told?
How are we supposed to have real dialogue with any person who does "90% contending" when there are all these unique reasons to be a Type 2?