After reading quite a few threads, specifically the 'What is Heresy' and 'the Biblicist alternative threads', I started thinking about how pastors decide who can preach in their pulpit. Particularly, Biblicist stated that the doctrine of limited atonement was heresy and that he'd never let a 5 point calvinist preach in his pulpit. Is this a common point of view from the non-Calvinist (for lack of a better term) camp? Would the calvinist folks allow a non-calvinist in their pulpit? I'm certainly not wanting to turn this into another C vs A vs non-C-or-A argument, I simply want to get a feel for the rules of thumb used when deciding on guest preachers, and on what people define as heresy. For instance, my pastor is Calvinist, however, he did his doctoral dissertation on orthodoxy and what defines it. He would allow (and does) preachers with different views of soteriology and eschatology in his pulpit without a problem. I guess my point is, shouldn't we be careful to only define heresy as Scripture defines it? We should certainly be zealous of our core doctrines (Scripture, person of Christ, second coming, salvation by grace, trinity), but outside of that, shouldn't we be more charitable and respectful toward other Christian brethren who have differing (yet still orthodox) views? even going so far as allowing them in our pulpits? IMO, this kind of in-fighting has led to much reproach and harm in the kingdom of God. Not that we shouln't discuss the issues (that's certainly edifying when done in the right spirit), but when it goes so far that we have 'separated' ourselves from other fundamental Christians, we've put a schism in the Church of God, which is supposed to be united by the spirit of Christ. I look forward to everyone's opinions.