Piper's main point though is that there are higher standards of precision and orthodoxy in leadership, than in lay persons–(and yes, he includes acceptance of Romans 9 as part of that precision.) His standard would not excommunicate an Arminian leader in his church…it would just remove him from the privilege of leadership.

Expecting leaders to have precision of belief is entirely consistant with long-standing, common-sense practices across the denominational spectrum.

I might find a Calvinist at a Methodist church, but I wouldn't expect the Pastor to be that way… In the same way, I might find a person baptized as an infant at a Baptist Church (a Piper/tolerant one anyway), but I wouldn't want infant-baptism being taught from that pulpit…(or then the name "baptist" is misleading)(yes I do know Piper is tolerant toward infant baptism). And I'm a Calvinist infant baptism proponent!

I used to attend a Bible Church on Sunday nights, and it really was strange to have one pastor preaching one week, on how John Calvin was an amazing guy, then the next week another pastor saying the idea of Christians as an "elect people" (a New Testament term) is hogwash… That Church did not demand agreement on Calvinist/Arminian theology amidst it's leadership, and that bred confusion in the flock. I know a lot of people now who USED to attend that mega-church.

Other than for post-modernist relativism seeping (or flooding?) into the Church, I really don't see why holding leaders up to a standard higher, and a lot more precise, than lay persons is that big of a deal. But hey, I'm not a baptist.

Maybe Piper is just in the wrong denomination.

Obviously I do not share your dislike for the word "error," but I thank you anyway for your thoughtful response. I also wanted to thank you for your apology in post #73, even though I did not see any reason for you to apologize. You strongly disagreed with me (which is your perfect right), but your attitude came across as worlds apart from Mike's. I know I sarcastically "dug in my heals" with Mike as a result. But that's not his fault, only mine, and I should not have done that (hope you can accept this apology to you, Mike. Seriously, brother, I was wrong to react that way, regardless if your response to me was wrong or right). But you, Karl, even used the words "arrogance" and "ignorance" without making it a personal attack.

What I just do not understand is how disgreeing, and even stongly stating a profound concern for error in someone's theology is turned into percieved hatred for that person themself. I'm simply not going to follow up everything I say with, "But that's just my opinion, and yours is just as valid." If I thought their opposing view was valid, then I would not actually have a conviction. I certainly understand that others disagree with me. We can still talk and present our views (yes, even with strength and conviction). I am just shocked at some of the vehemence I have seen from so many (not just here) the minute someone actually takes a stand. Thank you, Karl, for not being one of them.

At the same time, there have been a few people in the church down the ages who held universalist beliefs, and who I think also had real faith in God and respect for scripture. Among the church fathers and theologians, Origen was one. Somewhat more recently, George MacDonald (who had a great influence on C.S. Lewis though Lewis wasn't a universalist) was another. I side with the historic church in thinking that they're wrong, and that universalism is a fairly dangerous error, out of the various errors (man, I hate that word but here I am using it) that Christians can fall into. But I'm not going to make quick pronouncements on the eternal destiny of their souls, either.