Featured Faith? Where does it come from?

You might not accept my arguments, but that is fine.
The evidence of a believer's faith in God ought to be seen in the fruit he bears, the fruit of the Spirit.
Have you ever had some one ask you: "What makes your life different from others'" I have. A great opportunity to witness! Every Christian ought to so live so that his life is different than the world around him. Does God answer prayer? Is that not empirical evidence for the spiritual eyes? Remember that faith is based on a relationship. The world knows a religion; the Christian ought to have a relationship with Christ and from that relationship see the fruit, just as he sees the fruit in his relationship with his wife.

I appreciate your explanation.
But how can you describe the nature of your faith when you believed compared to before you believed? How did God make it supernatural or divine, or different in any way. Faith is simple trust or confidence.
Everyone has faith. In other religions, people have misguided faith, faith in false gods.

If you check out this story:
http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/...cle_db56410d-2aea-53c7-a188-cc689bc00739.html

perhaps one of the three teenagers "was not fully persuaded" in her faith. But the other two carried out their grisly deeds according to their faith killing both themselves and over 50 others.
They had faith.
It is not faith in Allah that saves; but faith in Christ. The spiritual faith that you speak of cannot come until after one is regenerated. God doesn't do the believing on behalf of the unsaved. Christ, many times, said: "according to YOUR faith, so be it." There is no evidence that it was Christ ever giving one the power to believe.

 

Yes, that is fairly accurate.

It is sometimes good just to agree to disagree.

 

That is entirely untrue --but what's new about your M.O. The characteristic of the false teachers are listed from verse 1-22. Noah and Lot had to put up with them.

 

From Vine's Word Studies:

 

Feigning ignorance won't save you from this one DHK.

No, you did not. Please tell the truth.

It's your problem that I am addressing. Don't pull the victim ploy.

 

He is speaking of Human trust which is carnal and not spiritual at all.
Saving faith has it's origin in God.

 

I have already quoted other commentaries that hold the same view that I hold to.
So perhaps you should face up to what your own corrupt imagination is falsely accusing me of.

 

Obviously not. I never used those words, never referred to that verse, and am not going to play that game.

 

Then you make no rational sense. The false teachers and their characteristics are spelled out in detail in verse 1-22 of 1 Peter 2 and Jude 4-16 as I have repeatedly told you. Some "Bible Teacher" you are.

 

None hold to what your depraved mind has come up with.

 

The last part of Clark says this:

Denying the Lord that bought them - It is not certain whether God the Father be intended here, or our Lord Jesus Christ; for God is said to have purchased the Israelites, Exo_15:16, and to be the Father that had bought them, Deu_32:6, and the words may refer to these or such like passages; or they may point out Jesus Christ, who had bought them with his blood; and the heresies, or dangerous opinions, may mean such as opposed the Divinity of our Lord, or his meritorious and sacrificial death, or such opinions as bring upon those who hold them swift destruction. It seems, however, more natural to understand the Lord that bought them as applying to Christ, than otherwise; and if so, this is another proof, among many,
1. That none can be saved but by Jesus Christ.
2. That through their own wickedness some may perish for whom Christ died.

 

This is so foolish. On one hand you hear non cals whine that tulip did not exist until the reformers, but now we are supposed to believe that peter spoke against it,lolCautiousCautiousCautious

 

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. In the chapter where the characteristics of false teachers are listed, so is "just Lot," though he be not one of those that are false teachers. IOW, Peter mentions many things.

 

When one's theological acumen is as deep as a pin head and as wide as a gnats brain one must read their agenda into the text as he does. It's just too difficult to get out of the text what it really says, and after all truth just isn't as exciting to them as fables and myths; 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

It makes for exciting preaching when one is looking for something sensational and controversial to preach rather than good exegesis of truth; 2 Timothy 2:15. Then one can leave the pulpit a hero in their own mind after doing so. Did not the false prophets all do the same? They most certainly would not preach the truth, but lies and deception and whatsoever was entertaining, 'positive' and uplifting. Finney did this as well, that is, he had the objective saying that the church needs to muster up excitement from the pulpit, lamenting the church being instead a bastion of truth that does not conform to the desires of the populous nor the pew.

Note 2 Corinthians 2:17; 2 Corinthians 4:2-3 as it aptly fits his and Finney's methods. I say this with sincere sadness because it is certainly true.

 

Read --R-E-A-D I say, 2 Peter 2:1-22 and carefully note what is being discussed. Noah and Lot had to put up with the ungodliness of false teachers. The characteristics of the false teachers are itemized in these 22 verses as well as in Jude 4-16. If you can't follow such plain texts as these you dare not "teach" the scriptures to anyone.