Can I interject a (hopefully brief) experience pertinent to this discussion?

When I returned to Catholicism, I was asked to "team teach" in the R.C.I.A. program (catechism for those adults entering the Church). In one class, I was trying to make what I thought was a simple point. Almost half the students were smiling and nodding in agreement--they "got" it! The other little more than half were frowning, shaking their heads, and looked like I'd suddenly started speaking Swahili! The teacher and I had been debating the merits of baptism for a week, and I had an inspiration. I asked how many of the students had already been baptised, and how many were being baptised at the upcoming Easter service. I'm sure you saw the answer coming! The "frowners"--every single one!--had never been baptised; the "smilers" all had been! Taught me a valuable lesson on trying to "limit" God to my nice, tidy little box.

My wife is a Reformed paedobaptist; I am neither. Finding a church for both of us was an interesting challenge. One that we visited would have required her to be rebaptized, which stuck in her craw. We ended up at a PCA church; this particular one, while standing firmly in favor of infant baptism (and practicing it regularly, with a clear statement of why they're doing it--not regeneratively), admits to membership people like me who think differently, as long as they are in agreement with the basics of the Christian faith. I'm not eligible for the office of elder or deacon, because I don't agree with church doctrine on baptism and a number of Reformed distinctives. However, I was invited to serve as head of the missions team.

The second challenge came when we had children. While I think believer's baptism is the only kind explicitly taught and practiced in Scripture (infant baptism is argued by analogy and inference), I recognize that infant baptism has a long history in the church (I heard a church history prof once remark that the early Christians seemed to practice it first and come up with a theological justification later). And I also had a feeling of "When in Rome, do as the Romans." Therefore, we have had our two sons baptized, though I cherish having been baptized (full immersion) in a cold Michigan river.

I'm a Nicene Creed kind of Christian, in that if you can recite the creed and buy into everything it says, you are my brother or sister in Christ. I think especially in these first decades of the 21st Century, our enemies are not other Christians of any stripe, but those secularist statists who want to destroy our liberty and re-define morality that we might be like God, knowing good and evil.

But I don't think these questions of doctrinal differences are insignificant. It's important for my children, for instance, to know why we believe infant baptism is biblical. Or why why we believe Reformed theology is the most consistent with biblical witness. And so on.

Just because we live in the age we do we don't have to become theological relativists. Love and theological conviction are not mutually exclusive.

.
I represent that remark.

.
From the RE:News article "Preparing for 2017":

"Countries, churches, universities, seminaries, and other institutions shaped by Protestantism face a question: how best to commemorate the Reformation 500 years after the fact?"

They could always roast a few heretics...