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."!!! :)
Very good response. Keep it up.
FK, I don't have to accuse Protestantism of heresy. That has been established long ago.
Your particular side is the "everything is a magical mystery" side, meaning you claim a universal pass by not being able to explain ANYTHING
I will leave the "everything is a magical mystery" for another time, but pray tell what have you explained? Your side offers rationalizations, trying at all cost to fit that which doesn't fit, by mashing it, ignoring it, de nying it, cutting it out, and what not. It was your side that decided that Jewish canon was "true" and Christian canon was false. How "inspired" is that? I am still waiting for specific proofs FK, and I am getting generalities dumped on me in response.
I am expected to accept a priori postulates which lack any proof, and my refusal is met with indignation and borderline insults. How dare I question the "facts" of "true" believers? This is rather pathetic, FK.
The NT tells us that Christ performed miracles and as a result of them many believed. Even Christ did not simply preach. Preaching is easy. Anyone can do whatever he or she wants with words. But they are just words.
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!
Obviously, your "explanation" doesn't seem to carry much weight unless someone simply resigns himself to "official truth" and accepts everything that is dished out without a shred of any evidence that such "explanations" are based in fact.
However, given your view of the Bible, scripture arguments carry no weight with you
So, all you have is the Bible? That is your only "proof?" Every major religion has similar "proofs." The Bible you offer is written by men (accoridng to Luke, John, Mark, etc., not accoridng to God); the Jews offer Moses and the prophets; and the Muslims Mohammad. They all claim Gos "spoke" with them and guided them or told them what to write. That's your "proof?"
And what did Christians have to offer in the beginning when the Bible wasn't completed yet, when not even Apsotle Paul wrote a single line? What did they offer as "proof" then to "prove" their faith? And many actually died because of that faith, so it had to be pretty convincing! Imagine, all that without the Bible. And now 2,000 years later the Christians have no other proof that the Bible? Something is missing here. How can my not putting much weight on the Bible thwart your ability to prove this rock-solid faith of yours to me?
But I can assure you that I can convince anyone of gravity, which is itself a great mystery, by the way. No one has seen it. No one can package it. No one can dice it. But it's there because we have direct evidence of it; no bind faith and no a priori acceptance is required!
God predestines His elect from before the foundations of the world
No, FK, some interpret the Bible (based mostly on the writings of one man, +Paul) that this is so. This presupposes two things: one, the Bible must be true for this to be true. Again, you have no proof without the Bible and in order for the Bible to be a "proof" it must be accepted as absolutely true.
Rather naïve, don't you think?
The key difference here is that your God guarantees NOTHING
I know only that it is not in the animal nature to be merciful, and therefore believe that mercy is not of this world. That which is the source of mercy is by necessity merciful, and that is the only guarantee I see in it. Outside of that, I see no other guarantees.
By being merciful, we become like that which is the source of mercy, which is by necessity opposite of our animal instinct.
Kosta forced "love" no love; it is rape
FK: Then you believe that all Godly parents rape their young children
If they use force to get their children to "love" them, yes! If a parent chains a child in the basement until the child starts to "love" and "appreciate" the parents, it is not love, FK. No parent would use such methods our of "love." People who abuse their loved ones don't do it out of love. But then again a sadist and a masochist may make a "perfect" couple.
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.
That's a very long and roundabout way of saying that in the Reformed theology it is believed that those who were to be saved were saved long before Christ died for their sins, FK.
However, God allows lapses for His own reasons in accordance with His plan.
Please provide biblical verses that spell out "God's plan." You said in another post that God uses sin to accomplish his plan. In other words, sin is an essential part of God's so-called "plan." In other words, evil is a creature of God in the Reformed belief!
Peter said THE Son
"And all of you are (E)sons of the Most High" [Ps 82:6]
St. Peter simply repeated Hosea 1:10 "It will be said to them,"You are the sons of the living God" in the singular.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." [Mat 5:9]
And +Peter wasn't the only or the first: "And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly )God's Son!" [Mat 14:33]
"I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ [Messiah], the Son of God." [Mat 26:63]
Here it is clear that the "son of God" is associated with the messiah, but being a Jewish messiah there is no implication of deity, so none of those biblical references imply any deity. The title "son of God"is not so uncommon in the entire Bible and it doesn't always mean what is implied in the Christian understanding of the word.
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."!!!
If +Peter knew what he was saying he would have said what +Thomas said "You are my Lord and my God." +Peter was calling Jesus a Messiah in the Jewish sense, in other words a human anointed of God who will be a warrior king responsible for restoring Israel's kingdom.