That's just not my modus operendi. Here at UB, I'm one of the student leaders of Campus Crusade. I've been given carte blanche in the Bible study I am one of three leaders of. Could you imagine if I did this theological wrangling there? Could you imagine how divisive I could be? How disruptive I could be?
There comes a time when we recognize that Christians honestly differ on the interpetations of the text. You and I disagree with each other on Calvinism. Alright, we'll have to leave it at that. I am convinced that only Calvinism gives God all the glory He deserves in salvation, but, ultimately, what you believe in that respect is between you and God. I will try to help you along and show you why I am convinced that Calvinism is correct, but I will not harshly excoriate you for not believing Calvin. (How could I? I, too, believed in the Arminian position until a year ago last Sept.)
I am not being wishy-washy on theology -- indeed, I am uncompromising on what I believe. It's just that there are things worth fighting over, and there are things that are not worth fighting over. Alas, too much of Christianity has failed to realize this. My own denomination has seen a ghastly split over the issue of communion. One group asserts that the privilege of partaking in communion should be withheld until the elders have gotten to know a person and that he is, indeed a believer. The other group teaches that the question of whether or not a person partakes is one of self-examination. Seems a rather small issue for a denomination that otherwise agrees to split over, but the polemics that go both ways are disheartening.
Oh, well. I'm doing what I can to make sure I don't make that mistake.
Very true, and there's always someone waiting to pounce on the supposed "offender" and pass judgement on whether they are even born-again, deceived, or whatever. I confess that I have played that game a little, and have since grown tired of the one-upmanship and obvious contentiousness of some of the arguments. Seems like many are talking "past" each other, not "to" each other, and there are some who justify this approach by saying "it's for the benefit of the lurkers". Sounds suspiciously like "it's for the children", the favorite mantra of the Liberal Left as they invent another way to rob us of a bit of freedom. In any event, it's not a truly charitable attitude, now is it?
One thing is certain: When Jesus returns, some will find out they were wrong, and some will find out they were right. I believe God's Grace is sufficient to cover even that. After all, it's God's agenda, not ours, and He's not waiting to see who come up with the right interpretation. He's going to accomplish His Purpose and Plan, no matter whether it's Amil, Premil, Calvinist, Arminian, Methodist, Reformed, Baptist, Pentecostal, or none of the above. Sometimes I think we are all blind men trying to describe what an elephant looks like, by feel alone. Even the best of us are still quite blind in some part.