Pilgrim,<br><br>This is an important question, I appreciate your clarification. My question is, how should the Canons of Dordt be interpreted in light of the evangelical church scene as a whole? Can a church teach some heresy, but not be filled with heretics? Isn't heresy, well, such a significant departure from the faith as to make the religious system something other than Christianity, such as modern liberalism? Or is there a difference between heresy and damnable heresy?<br><br>I cannot bring myself to consider someone who accepts an important creed such as the Nicene to be other than my brother or sister in the faith, whatever their theological warts, and that means some who would place themselves by belief or action in the Arminian camp. I know I am not alone among the Reformed in this regard, but I am also open to the idea that this may in itself represent a cultural compromise. <br><br>Another question, if in fact the Arminian theology of most of the church is damnable heresy, why should a baptism in such a circumstance be accepted even upon examination of the profession of faith?<br><br>I hate Arminianism, it is a real perversion of scripture, a truly wicked system with a twisted view of Christ, as Howard has stated. But are we to say that the bulk of evangelical churches today have placed themselves so far from the trunk of Christian orthodoxy that we ought to consider them to be cut off?