As a Baptist, How far Can You Go IN being "Spiritual tolerant?"

[JesusFan]

Since we are the Christians who like to have each of us make up individual decisions in belief and theology, as long as they fit into "orthodox Christianity"

How far will you extend tolerance to held positions/beliefs?

For examples...

believes in Spritual Gifts still today, as in book of Hebrews?
Believes in Amil/or evem pretieristism?
believes in KJVO?
Believes in a second act of grace?
believes in either cal/arm one thay you refuse to believe in?

just HOW far do you extend your spiritual tolernace, and what would cause you to say that belief/doctrine /practice is a "deal breaker" you cannot in good faith fellowship/recognize them as being "baptists" in good standing?

 

[Tom Butler]

Since we are the Christians who like to have each of us make up individual decisions in belief and theology, as long as they fit into "orthodox Christianity"

How far will you extend tolerance to held positions/beliefs?

For examples...

believes in Spritual Gifts still today, as in book of Hebrews?
Believes in Amil/or evem pretieristism?
believes in KJVO?
Believes in a second act of grace?
believes in either cal/arm one thay you refuse to believe in?

just HOW far do you extend your spiritual tolernace, and what would cause you to say that belief/doctrine /practice is a "deal breaker" you cannot in good faith fellowship/recognize them as being "baptists" in good standing?

Oh, I'm pretty tolerant of other views. Comfort level and fellowship are another matter.

I'm not sure I'd be comfortable in a Baptist church which teaches that spiritual gifts are operational today, since I don't. Nor would I vote to admit to membership to such people. It is virtually certain to cause conflict, because there is no middle ground.

I'm not A-mil, but the people I know who are are good folks and I'd have no trouble fellowshipping with them at all.

I'm not KJVO but could accept one as a fellow member. I have my doubts that a KJVO would want to be a member of my church. We did have a couple join one time, but when they found out we weren't KJVO, they left.

If by Second Act of Grace, you mean sanctification, no problem. If it's being "baptized by the Holy Spirit," then it's a problem.

I'm very tolerant of non-Cals. And the non-Cals in my church are quite tolerant of us DoGs.

My church may or may not be unique in this situation. All I know is that if you've ever had conflict in your church, you'll hate it so much you'll go a long way to keep division from developing. You'll conclude that some things are not worth fighting over.

 

[DHK]

Since we are the Christians who like to have each of us make up individual decisions in belief and theology, as long as they fit into "orthodox Christianity"

How far will you extend tolerance to held positions/beliefs?

For examples...

believes in Spritual Gifts still today, as in book of Hebrews?
Believes in Amil/or evem pretieristism?
believes in KJVO?
Believes in a second act of grace?
believes in either cal/arm one thay you refuse to believe in?

just HOW far do you extend your spiritual tolernace, and what would cause you to say that belief/doctrine /practice is a "deal breaker" you cannot in good faith fellowship/recognize them as being "baptists" in good standing?

Many churches already have most of that laid out in their statement of faith. If a prospective member doesn't agree with the statement of faith he shouldn't be seeking membership in said church.