Often congregations are comprised of Calvinistic leaning folks and Arminian leaning folks. They have sat under Pastors that present lukewarm food, vague pablum that might mean this or might mean that. Yes, some passages of scripture are vague or ambiguous, where scholars disagree about what is actually being said. But if we are sure, or pretty sure the idea was this, and not that, should we not preach "our" truth. Or is it sound ministry to sail under false colors for the sake of unity? Recently, on this forum, a thread addressed "ignorant Pastors" who taught other than the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement. Setting aside the fact I believe that view is unsound, what about those who believe in "limited atonement" (Christ did not die for all mankind) but preach that salvation is available to all people? Frequently we see threads where the word "atonement" is used but not defined. When Christ died, did He set aside the specific sins, past, present and future, of specific individuals or foreseen individuals? Or did Christ's death pay the ransom for all mankind, such that whoever is spiritually placed in Christ may undergo the circumcision of Christ where the specific sins (past present and future) of that individual are set aside. Two totally different understandings of scripture. Should we pretend the answer to which view is correct is a mystery and we soft pedal around it?