Why did Peter begin to sink?

Your question is answered in the last verse you posted.

Peter's faith failed...Jesus power could not fail

 

To get to the bottom. :type:

 

I'm interested in Winman's point.

 

I agree, but what would you say to those who consider man's faith empowered alone by Christ and nothing of themselves?

What is the distinction in a purely monergistic system between Peter's faith and divine power?

 

Peter was being taught it must be all Jesus and none of Peter. Thus he sank. Stepping out on his "own" faith, he failed. Jesus alone saves.

- Peace

 

I think you go a bit too far saying that Jesus' power was dependent upon Peter's faith. I would say that Peter's faith limited his access to Jesus' power. Jesus' power was fully available to Peter, but he just lacked the faith to access it.

 

I think the main reason why Peter began sinking was that he took his eyes off of Jesus, and was more concerned with the storm. When we take our eyes off of Jesus, we too, begin to sink. It is then, that we realize what we are doing, and begin calling out to Him for His help. And He is faithful to reach out and lift us up again.

 

Um, no. Jesus power is dependent upon no one. This is Kenneth Copelands theology too. Do you read his works and espouse his beliefs?

Your humanistic theology appears yet again. Oh no, it couldn't have been man, it had to then be the fault of Jesus, Jesus was crippled and powerless unless Peter mustered up more belief. Brother please. Stop your wrangling of the truth.

Total error here. This is what happens when you approach Scripture with presuppositions and eisegetically insert your own doctrine and force the text to prove you correct.

I already gave you the truth right here:

Peter was all about "I" "I" "I" and what he could do, and his faith, and he failed, and was taught a mighty lesson and his epistles prove it.

 

This is the kind of junk that gets posted on this board that needs to come to an end. Can you not disagree with someone without this unChristian personal slam?

 

Show me where there was one personal mention here? The fact is, this is the same thing Copeland teaches. Stick to the facts and debate off of this instead of your baseless implications, OK? UnChristian personal slam means stating facts and aligning two beliefs, Winmans with Copelands? If the shoe fits, deal with it.

Now, does Copeland also teach this? Yes or no?

- Peace

 

It does say "He could not".

But it wasn't ultimately because of the unbelief but because He had volitionally put Himself in obedience to the Father.

Philippians 2

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.​

.i.e. Presumably, the mandate from the Father was to respond in like kind to faith wherever He found it.

So, yes (though a bit convoluted) there was a prima facie agreement between God and man with Peter walking on the water qualified by "without me ye can do nothing", God's graces flowing though Christ to humankind as He willed and was in concord with the will of the Father according to his (Peter's) weak and vascilating faith.

HankD

 

It matters not. Your post was intentioanlly inflammatory. The comparison is not needed and the "humanistic" comment is over the top. Being correct does not make it ok.

 

Why, along with this tirade, didn't you answer Winman's scriptural question. He posted bible verses showing why he believes as he does. You attack him, yet fail to answer one of his points with scripture. This says a lot about your theology whether you want it to or not.

BTW, I don't know anyone, Calvinistic or not, that believes that Jesus' power was in any way limited by Peter; Jesus ultimately showed this. When He took ultimate control, they were both back in the boat.