FK, again I will say it is strange that you say this because it is subordinating Christ, making Him something other than God. That's why I asked if this peculiar view is something common to Protestant/Baptist christology. You agreed and I suspected that much.
Kosta: everyone was "saved" in a sense that everyone was offered a ticket to eternity who wanted it
FK: That renders the word "saved" to be meaningless, at least in the English
Before Christ no one had a way out. Every one was lost. After Christ, everyone was offered a way out. It's not English, but Protestant mindset.
According to Reformed thbeology, those who were saved by Christ were already saved from all eternity and not by anything that happened chronologically.
Paul preached that salvation is had by grace through faith, and NOT by works
And Christ didn't!!!
Kosta: Forced conversion? Forced love?
FK: I don't look at it that way, but if the choice was between that and relying on my inner goodness and how super smart I am to make the right decisions, do
Oh, that just sounds wonderful, except it has nothing to do with smarts but with ability to love, and to love God more than anything else.
I'll take being forced any day of the week. I would never be able to effect my own salvation the way you all do
Forced "love" is really rape; it's no love at all. Christ certainly does not preach forced "love."
We all know that it is possible for perfectly good Christians to have temporary lapses in faith
Is that God's doing too?
Peter proclaims Jesus to be "the Christ, the Son of the living God". This was a confession of Jesus' diviity
No it wasn't. "Son of God" is the Old Testament title for angels and Israel's kings, those who were favoirtes of God. There is nothing divine in that title. Messiah was supposed to be a man who would be king and favored by God, anointed (which is messiah means). Likewise, the term "Lord" is not only a divine title, but indicative of someone who is over you.
But then later, Peter denies Him and scatters at the time of the crucifixion. Was Peter lying? No, because Jesus validates the statement as having been revealed by the Father
Peter believed that Jesus was the Messiah, but when he saw Jesus arrested and tortured, he lost his faith, got scared and believed he was mistaken. He probably expected Jesus to smite his enemies as the OT would have it happen. But it didn't happen, so Peter backtracked.
What Jesus said, verifying Peter's statement was true. Peter spoke, thinking one thing, without realizing what he actually said. He spoke the words, but did not connect the dots.
Exactly!
FK, again I will say it is strange that you say this because it is subordinating Christ, making Him something other than God. That's why I asked if this peculiar view is something common to Protestant/Baptist christology. You agreed and I suspected that much.
It has been my experience that when your side goes down this line of questioning, no matter what the answer is you accuse my side of some sort of heresy. Your particular side is the "everything is a magical mystery" side, meaning you claim a universal pass by not being able to explain ANYTHING. So, I find it highly disingenuous when you criticize on a hyper-technical level. IOW, you don't even begin to be able to answer the questions you criticize others for not answering to your satisfaction.
With most Apostolics I would have you beat, since I would just ask you to explain if you think Christ prayed to Himself, etc., etc. However, given your view of the Bible, scripture arguments carry no weight with you.
Of course I did not say or imply that Christ was subordinated. Christ is God, there is no one to subordinate to. All I said was that God planned for everything that happened within time, and Jesus did not deviate from that plan, since He made it. If anything, I infer from you that Jesus was subordinated, since I "think" you believe He could have sinned, AND that you believe He made things up as He went along (i.e. your view that Jesus did not know of the Canaanite woman's faith). Further, your view of His work on the cross is very less than "God-like", thus subordinating Jesus.
According to Reformed theology, those who were saved by Christ were already saved from all eternity and not by anything that happened chronologically.
That is a very fair and common misunderstanding by Apostolics who have not had the benefit of having the principles being explained in painstaking detail to them more than a dozen times!!! :) Nevertheless, for the benefit of lurkers I will summarize once again:
God predestines His elect from before the foundations of the world. In this sense, "w" and "x" will be saved, and "y" and "z" will be lost. It is written in the Book of Life. Nothing can change that, it is God's will. Now, that does not mean that certain things don't have to happen during the life of the elect (under normal circumstances).
One of these things is true belief. When someone has true belief we say that this person is saved. But in the overall context, what that means is that another step has been reached that was guaranteed by the original predestination. That person, once a believer, is no more certain to reach Heaven than he was before belief (in either case it was 100%). It was a guaranteed step that from that moment on, among other important things, allowed the person to do good works pleasing to God and to know that he was in fact saved. Salvation "attached" as it were, BUT it must be remembered that Faith within time HAD to happen, but it was guaranteed by God from the beginning.
There is also the moment within time when Christ died on the cross, AND, the moment of the final glorification at the end, both of which could also be termed as a time of being "saved". Again, though, these were all guaranteed. Given the surety of God's word, His personal guarantee, I see all of these as being part of one thing. Therefore, what happens within time DOES matter, but it is guaranteed by God.
The key difference here is that your God guarantees NOTHING. He sets some sort of bar that a man must leap over to be saved and it is up to the man to do it. He doesn't even tell the man how high the bar is, he leaves that to your Church.
Forced "love" is really rape; it's no love at all. Christ certainly does not preach forced "love."
Then you believe that all Godly parents rape their young children. Do the comparison between what Godly parents do for their young children and what God does for us. Do we brainwash our kids or do we show them the truth?
FK: 'We all know that it is possible for perfectly good Christians to have temporary lapses in faith."
Is that God's doing too?
No, nothing that is sin is God's doing. However, God allows lapses for His own reasons in accordance with His plan. I have had a lapse, been punished, and then came out of it as a better Christian. God disciplined me because He loved me.
FK: Peter proclaims Jesus to be "the Christ, the Son of the living God". This was a confession of Jesus' divinity.
No it wasn't. "Son of God" is the Old Testament title for angels and Israel's kings, those who were favorites of God. There is nothing divine in that title.
Oh give me a break, Kosta. :) Peter said THE Son. If you are right, then how do you explain the immediate response by Jesus that Peter was blessed for saying this because the understanding was given to him by the Father? Did the Father tell Peter that Christ was an angel? Come on! :) You have Jesus either lying or supporting a falsehood.
Peter spoke, thinking one thing, without realizing what he actually said. He spoke the words, but did not connect the dots.
Well, then the Father really did NOT impart understanding, contradicting what Jesus said. Do you say that the Father revealed a deception to Peter? You literally have Jesus saying: "Blessed are you, Peter, for my Father has deceived you into thinking I am not who I really am."!!! :)