We need to stick to the basics, I believe, in inter-doctrinal discussions--especially since the medium itself does not lend itself well to discussions on delicate issues. There are no non-verbal cues, no non-verbal communication at all. As a result, it is very difficult to get one's point across in the manner it is meant. Offense is taken at things which were probably not meant to be offensive. Look at SKUB's reaction to Oberon. That was way over the top for a one-time comment. It's also proof that this medium is not good for discussions with people of thin skin.
I pinged you, people I mentioned, and a few others who may be interested.
I can assure you Ace that I don't have thin skin.
"Oberon" had added one more of the pejorative "ultra-Calvinist"(meaning: hyper-Calvinist) to a mountain of them that are a common false accusation and false labeling as a smear tactic by Arminians here.
I challenged him to see if he knew what the term he was using meant.
How would you like to be constantly misrepresented with a pejorative term that the accuser doesn't even know the meaning of?
Do you think you would reach a point where you would confront that kind of disingenuous tactics?
Therein lies the rub, the Bible doesn't teach that those "elements" of doctrine are all true as they are taught by certain, or else you have doctrinal relativism whereby all doctrines taught as true by every denomination or sect are equally valid, even the one's in direct contradiction to each other.
For example, Roman Catholicism teaches baptism regeneration as a dogmatic doctrine that is absolutely neccessary to be believed if one is to be saved.
The Bible, when taken as a whole, teaches the opposite. It is when we rightly divide the Word of Truth that false doctrines are separated from the True. We are commanded to do just that, as Jesus taught the Samaritan woman at the well, "My Father is looking for those who worship in Spirit AND Truth." You cannot separate Truth from genuine worship of God.
well considered - nice job