This is a note that i wrote because of the issues that i was experiencing among certain people. There was an apology that came after a mistake which was corrected, yet somehow the apology came with a stipulation which came down to another issue of salvation over a non-essential doctrine. It bugged me, so i decided to let my world know of thoughts on this matter.
I still hold to this very closely and i will defend it, but as i now reflect on this note. I’m finding a couple vague terms that would need defining if you aren’t familiar with Christian lingo. Phrases like “Unconditional Election, Sovereignty, sin nature, and apostate” weren’t defined at all or that well in the post. My intention was to define “apostate”, but somehow it alluded me. An apostate is usually someone who once was in a belief but has now left it. Willing or unwilling is not important for that note, but to other Christians… My Theistic evolution views could make me an apostate to them, even though i don’t consider myself to be a non-Christian but they do.
The overall message i attempted and i think successfully is looking for the absolutely minimal amount of axioms for orthodoxy and the considerations one should take when asserting authority to defend your positions. I showed some common examples within Christian circles that could get you into some real heated debate that some use to question your salvation. All I’m doing and I hope you get it, is that if you have some proper argument procedure, then you will have less of an issue discussing these matters. No need to think less of a person’s moral value or consider X person an apostate because of a non-essential doctrine.