Unless we are two-faced, weak willed, Barney Fife types, we all think that our views are 100% correct, which definitionally makes anything else an "error" from our perspective. So whether we are talking about baptism, eschatological schema, polity, the atonement, justification, or the deity of Christ, whoever does not agree with us will be an errorist.

I'm actually learning to appreciate Tom's strong defense of truth in the face of all comers. However, at some point, it seems to me that there needs to be a hierarchy of hills on which one would chose to die. The deity of Christ, substitutionary atonement, justification by faith, inerrancy of the Bible, etc. are all hills that would make wonderful graveyards for me (IMO).

However, as much as you guys want to make baptism integral to your system, that is just not a hill worth dying on for me (yet anyway). Today, on the plane from L.A. to get to Arkansas, I read Waldron's rejoinder to MacArthur's "manifesto" at last year's Shepherd's Conference and part of Riddlebarger's "Case for Amillennialism." Yes, they are convincing and quite persuasive. Both of them argue for the amil view on the basis of Reformed covenantal arguments. Both are Calvinists. However, one is credo and one is paedo.

I think Rich is onto something. When you have the FV "outside the camp" as it were, you can treat them as brothers in error. When they are professing to be what you are, it is more problematical. Unfortunately, the Puritans (from whence our name, duh) hailed from the paedo and credo sides of the aisle. My guess is that as long as we both participate in this same board, we will continue to annoy the crud out of each other.

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?