I understand the wiki issue (I was pressed on time and it was the first thing that was somewhat coherent that I could grab), but unfortunately "salvation" is not like a "chair" where the meaning is 100% clear, or there wouldn't be contention. By people who are experiencing the exact thing they agree on existentially, but struggle to express verbally which is where the contention happens, I think. I understand where you're coming from though, thanks for clarifying.
Just answer me this: Does she weigh the same as a duck? Alright I'll stop now or I could be at it all night.
I just did a reread of John 15 again. You may want to do the same and maybe consider what verses 1-17 are saying. Edit to say: I apologize for the thread derail Parson.
I understand Kierk completely here and agreed with his point/objection as soon as he posted it. If Christians supposedly don't agree on definitions of the most basic words and concepts, then Christianity is purely relative and has nothing absolute. So when Dani (or anyone) expresses an opinion, since it's all relative, "to hades with her opinion." Who cares what Dani (or anyone) says. Kierk's objection makes sense. Why take what she is saying seriously if that's all we're left with? But if what Dani says is true, why stop at the level of Christianity? Intelligent, moral people disagree if Jesus is the Messiah. If people disagree on that just Christians "disagree about definitions" why assume Christianity is true at all?
Well being the children of faith we are supposed to be - we should know that Christianity is true. Is dani willing to dumb her thoughts down for us?
Then let's use different terms. May our term "eternal life" is presumptive. Let's ask it using a Biblical writer's term: At what point does one who "has once been enlightened, who has tasted the heavenly gift, who has shared in the Holy Spirit, who has tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age" fall away/apostasize?
Christians aren't defined by our definitions, creeds or proclamations of spiritual/theological matters. We're known by our fruit. In Jesus' own words. Which is why I personally hold theological definitions loosely, because I understand that God is impossible to define to begin with (we've tried for literally millennia and are nowhere closer to the answer than we were when we started), and that words like "salvation" and "perdition" are in fact highly contested. They are, and have been, for centuries. From the beginning, where people came in and said "well you need Jesus ... plus circumcision, plus, plus, plus, plus" in their Jewish context. Nowadays that's been replaced by "well, you need Jesus ... plus baptism, plus go to church every Sunday, plus get discipled, plus the Eucharist, plus this catechism, plus that Reformed confession ... plus, plus, plus". People have always been trying to add to Christ. From day 1. Which is why I tend to circumvent a lot of these kinds of debates and drill everything down to the one thing we can agree on: The Person of Jesus Himself. Plus nothing. Paul ran into the same problem, which is exactly why he said "I resolve to know nothing among you, except Christ and Him crucified". Because disagreement has been an issue from the very start, before there were Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox people, and so forth. Sometimes you just have to discard everything, and gather around the table with Jesus. Because we can make things so complicated, we lose the beautiful simplicity that Christianity offers at its core. Christianity has never centered itself around "most correct belief", as if that saves or sanctifies anybody. It's always centered itself around the Person of Christ Himself, who gives us His grace to respond to Him and then gives us more grace to grow His fruit in us. Sometimes I think we think we believe we're way more involved in our own salvation than we truly are. Which to me is more leaning towards humanism than actual Christianity. (Note: This was a comparative statement, please don't perceive it as absolute, thanks). Christianity puts the burden of salvation on God, and not man. As if we had anything to do with it. We have no more to do with God saving us, than we have with God creating us. He did and does it all His own self and didn't ask our permission with any of it, nor does He require our cooperation, although we do get to cooperate. Sometimes I think we think way too highly of ourselves than we should, while at the same time not thinking highly enough of ourselves, because it's a marvelous mystery that God chose to create and save us to begin with. I mean, have you met us? We're all a piece of work. But, God knew this, going in, so it's His problem, really. I'm going to contend these things until the day I fall asleep in my Savior, and nothing anybody can say is ever going to change my mind on it. I'm not a fan of delving into theological hair-splittings in order to discern who is following Christ in deed and truth, and who is just making a bunch of verbal noise. I was added to a Calvinist FB group by a friend, and after a while of observing those hair-splittings, I couldn't even anymore with those people. Good grief. Always trying to one-up each other in their constant striving to "believe most correctly" with their great many "-isms" that never end until nobody knows which way is up anymore. It's terribly, terribly confusing and convoluted. Also: I'm not some sort of pagan or apostate just because I hope in universal reconciliation, and any statements I make here and on other faith-based boards always happen within the parameters of me being a person who follows Jesus Christ and strives each day to obey His teachings and put them into practice. So ... if you honestly think I'm putting everything up for grabs willy-nilly because I made yet another generalized statement (which I tend to make, and you all well know this, and I'm sorry if that frustrates you because your mind don't work that way), then let's just gather around the table of nihilism and call it a day. Kierk says there is a lot of agreement. I say there is a lot of disagreement. Both statements are true, and they do not contradict each other. I can go into all the ways in which there is disagreement, but then I'd have to write a book ... series ... and I don't want to.