That's a strange way to put it, but is it indicative of the Protestant/Baptist christology?
Yes. All I mean by this is that God does not make things up as He goes along. In Apostolic terms, if all time is "now" to God then everything that happened was intentional. God did not "wait to see what happened" and then react accordingly. Christ's divine nature/essence was never at odds with the Father's since it is the same.
FK: "Jesus said He came to save, but under Apostolic thought no one was saved because He came."
No, everyone was "saved" in a sense that everyone was offered a ticket to eternity who wanted it. But God was not about to carry anyone and the luggage to His train.
That renders the word "saved" to be meaningless, at least in the English. "Conditionally offer to save" is NOT "saved". If I now offer to paint your house for $1,000, your house is no more painted now than it was a minute ago. That's why the Apostolic view does not match what scripture actually says.
Then what was +Paul preaching? Was Christ's own ministry not sufficient? And was His prophesy not the end of prophesies, but required a new revelation?
Paul preached that salvation is had by grace through faith, and NOT by works. I.e., that for all those Christ died for, all would be given grace and all would believe. Paul also preached about sanctification, a different subject.
Forced conversion? Forced love?
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, 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.
FK: "Then I shutter to ask what your opinion is of the OT."
Ambivalence. It is quite alien. In some respects even pagan.
Then I AM shuttering. :) But, thanks for the straightforward answer.
FK: "You're only laughing at the words of Jesus Himself IN the Gospels: Matt 10:19-20 : But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it...but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you."
Well, apparently none, save for +John, had the "eyes" and "ears" enough to receive instructions in this manner, let alone faith and courage to face whatever for the Lord.
We all know that it is possible for perfectly good Christians to have temporary lapses in faith. Peter proclaims Jesus to be "the Christ, the Son of the living God". This was a confession of Jesus' divinity. 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.
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.