Minnick Reviews 2009 FBFI Fellowship

[Charlie] I don’t see how a believer in unconditional election and one in conditional election can really end up near each other in terms of ministry philosophy and evangelistic orientation. There are just different ideas of what’s going on in salvation.

Do you both believe in the inspiration of the Bible?
Do you both believe in the creation of man by the direct act of God?
Do you both believe in the incarnation and virgin birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?
• Do you both believe He is the Son of God?
• Do you both believe in His vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind by the shedding of His blood on the cross?
• Do you both believe in the resurrection of His body from the tomb?
• Do you both believe in His power to save men from sin?
• Do you both believe that He is the only person in the universe who *does* have the power to save men from sin?

(Sorry for the blatant use of “the University’s” creed: it was a fast way to copy and paste these basic theological ideas.)

If you both (the universal, general “you”) believe these things, why not fellowship in unity based on these principles (dare they be called “fundamentals”)?

I know that there is some disagreement here on SI on whether the Calvanism/Arminianism issue falls under the category of a fundamental, but for the sake of this illustration, I am holding the position that both can be held within the bounds of Fundamentlism.

If you (once again, the universal, general “you”) have points of disagreement theologically which are not based on “the fundamentals”, why not just make a conscious decision not to “pick at that sore spot”, and endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace? (Ephesians 4:3)

In my own mind and heart, there are three choices here in reference to these issues (Note: I am talking about an issue such as the Calvanism/Arminianism debate - *not* open, blatant heresy):
1. Discuss, debate the issue with civility and Godly, Christlike love, and if necessary, agree to disagree ;
2. If the issue cannot be discussed with civility, let it go, and focus on the principles on which you *do* agree (Titus 3:9 tells us to avoid contentions);
3. Continue an uncivil, un-Christlike argument focused solely on those issues of disagreement, providing Satan and the world with one more poor example of the way the church works. (John 13:35)

(Note Again: I am talking about issues such as the Calvanism/Arminianism debate where there is Scriptural room for debate - I am *not* referring to standing against open, blatant heresy).