Featured How we obtain our faith?, we receive our faith by divine allotment

It is common for people to disagree with "words on the page". It is when they disagree with the Word of God on the page that things become interesting.

In 2 Peter 1:1, Peter doesn't even explain how they obtained their faith. But the OP claims this verse actually does tell us how they obtained it. Huh? It does no such thing. The OP suggests this verse tells us that it is passively received. Of course, there is a way to clearly indicate passive receipt in Greek. Why didn't Peter do that? Why did he use the aorist active instead?

Nobody is dealing with this question. Why? Instead people are pointing to other verses as supports. They don't talk about why Peter would use an aorist active. Indeed, the translator of the NLV, which was quoted by a poster in this thread, also chooses to ignore the active, presumably because it doesn't clarify and reinforce Calvinist theology.

Well if Peter isn't trying to reinforce Calvinist theology in 2 Peter 1:1, why are we trying to?

 

Because see #2 in my signature: "subjectively". The Greek Card is played ONLY when it benefits one's position.
Going to other verses is the way to understand the Bible, according to the Bible.
The problem here is that people who love to parade the Greek, now suddenly won't.
Calvinism is eastern gnostic fatalism in Christian packaging masquerading in a garb of great humility and deference to God. It co-opts scriptural language which sounds correlative to its system.

 

Yes, I quite agree.

Sure he does.

He tells those being addressed ( "to them that have obtained like precious faith with us... through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ ")
How they had obtained it.
Through the righteousness of God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Is that not plain in the words?
It is to me.

 

Is there something wrong with what's written?
To me, one only has to believe the words.

I do and I cannot find anything to object to regarding what has been laid out.

He did.
By telling us that it was through the righteousness of God and not our own efforts.

Is there something in the words on the page that cause you to doubt them, and then look to the Greek for something further?
I see support not only in the English, but in the Greek as well.

This was presented in the first part of the thread and throughout it.

 

I don't see the Op even bringing up the name of John Calvin.
He's simply presented what he sees, and you've apparently identified it as "Calvinism" because of how it's presented.

My take on it, is that anything that is described, Scripturally, that teaches the Lord as having independently of men given to specific objects of His grace anything in the way of a gift ( that is not made available to all men ) is automatically termed as "Calvinism" by those who object to it.
I disagree with that characterization and always will.

I see that it's the truth of the Bible... and it has nothing whatsoever to do with John Calvin or anything that came out of the "Protestant Reformation".
It comes strictly from the Scriptures and belief of the words as they are written.
Just because a man named Jean Cauvin taught many things similarly, does not make it "Calvinism".

However, you are fully within your right to not only disagree ( which I respect your right to do so ),
you may call it whatever you wish and I won't even hold it against you.

 

@ad finitum :
But to me, it's God's truth;

You may call God's truth "Calvinism", "Augustinianism", "gnosticism" ( truth that isn't available to all men because the Lord hides His secret with the righteous, Proverbs 3:32 ) or whatever you like, the Bible very plainly tells those who believe it, that it is given to some to know the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, and to others it is not given ( Matthew 13:10-17 ).
Jesus as Christ is revealed to someone by the Father ( Matthew 16:13-17 ), not by flesh and blood ( men ).
God the Father is known by someone because Christ chooses to reveal Him to them ( Matthew 11:25-27 ).
People hear God's words and receive them willingly, because they are of God ( John 8:43-47 ).

None of these things is a mystery to those of us who have believed on the Lord and studied them out in His word, ad finitum...
In fact, if you've believed on Christ from the heart, you too can know these things.

All it takes is study ( 2 Timothy 2:15 ).

That's why during discussions like this, I always encourage my brothers and sisters who do as I once did and ( apparently ) roll right over the top of the words and keep going, to study them carefully and to take each and every word slowly...
Letting it all sink in as deeply as possible.

After all, His words are precious...

But they are also not something that we as His children can digest quickly, and I've discovered the hard way that just when I thought that I understood it the first few times, when one goes back over it successively over many years, new insights and vital truths are brought out with each and every reading;
Like what this OP did and I had to take a second look at it and say to myself..."whoa, I never saw that quite that way before."

That said, I wish you well, and this is my final reply in this thread.


May God bless you richly in your ongoing studies,
and may He grant you many good and perfect gifts through the kindness of His mercy towards you through His Son, Jesus Christ.

 

Now please tell us how:

• through the righteousness of God and our Saviour

means:

• "by a mysterious pre-creation decree to irresistibly make us believe when we could not believe".

And not:

• "by preaching the gospel to us and opening our honest hearts to believe it"

See how gnostic that first proposed explanation looks next to the scriptural explanation? Yes, Calvinism is Gnosticism.

 

Isn't that a question for the Calvinist? Look how this thread started. The OP showed two translations:

NIV: "...those who...have received...", which ignores the aorist active (??!).
KJV: "...them that have obtained...", which reflects the aorist active. Yes, that makes sense as a translation.

Somehow, both translations support passive receipt of the gift of faith. (Hey now, keep both eyeballs pointing in the same direction.)

A few posts later, the same apologist finds a "really great" paraphrase. He says,

"New Life Version really describes it well enough

1 This letter is from Simon Peter. I am a missionary of Jesus Christ and a servant owned by Him.
I am writing to those who have received the same faith as ours which is of great worth and which no amount of money can buy.
This faith comes from our God and Jesus Christ, the One Who saves."​

Amazing. That could be right out of a Calvinist theology book. What a coincidence.

Not only does this erase any hint of aorist active "obtained", but it exchanges simple "From our God..." for the apparently unhelpful original, "through the righteousness of our God...etc.", So we haven't lost a thing, right?

In case this transformation is not clear, there is no Greek word for "from" in this verse. But some translations choose to "find it". Good idea. The word for "through" is there -- the Greek en. That indicates there is an instrumentality through which one may obtain. Unfortunately, that is obscuring the correct theology, hence the clarifying simplification so nobody obtains the wrong theology. We can't have people actively obtaining things. That's the wrong idea.

It's a good idea to choose these kinds of paraphrases as proof-texts because they conveniently dispense with any troublesome Greek precision and they rounding out the complex, nuanced corners to make a round peg to fit neatly into the theologically round receptacle. That's the way to find the mind of God.

It's mystifying how Peter managed to over-complicate things. Look how simple that NLV is. That could easily be conveyed in Greek. Why didn't Peter just write that? Well, ours is not to ask such questions. Ours is to be thankful for all this true theology that arises naturally out of the clean paraphrases of the English translation of scripture. Koine Greek is so much more complicated and needlessly "pedantically precise". Ever tried to learn that language? It's a right strawy one. You're never gonna figure out what it says that way.

 

It's: Acts 3:16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

The by references Christ as the medium, not the source:

the faith which is by him, i.e. "the faith that GOES (not "COMES") through him".

Indeed Peter had just defined that expression by the preceding words: through faith in his name. i.e. Peter himself defined by him as through faith in his name.

This is the context, going to God by way of Christ, as he's seeking to persuade men to believe on Christ, not discoursing on "irresistible grace".

This is confirmed again of Peter when he answers the council:
Acts 4:9 If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means [that speaks of medium, not source] he is made whole;
Then he says:
Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by [i.e. "through"] him [Jesus is the medium] doth this man stand here before you whole.

That by in Acts 3:16 finds its match in Acts 13:39 And by him all that believe [there's the faith] are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.
Please note how by him there corresponds to by the law; and by the law is not "from the law" but "through the law".

Hence John 14:6's: no man cometh unto the Father, but by [through] me.

I understand the lure of by him to Calvinism. I get it. But objectively, by him does not automatically = "from him".

 

Ok, well, first: was there anything Biblically wrong with the post?

 

Scott

This version of this verse I believe clarified some things. I know these paraphrase bibles can more often than not be a detriment but at times can be enlightening.

 

God in the past saw who would and who would not believe of their own will. God did not impose his will upon them, forcing them to believe or "failing to force" others to believe.

One has to remember chapter 4, where it says Abraham's faith was not weak (because faith can be weak). If one takes the view that God/Jesus Christ grant faith, then what is the deal with weak faith? Who gave someone "little faith"? God?

Romans 4:20-24

Does it say Abraham "staggered not" because God gave him a good strong faith, instead of a weak, little faith? Does Paul say that to us also, righteousness can be imputed IF GOD GRANTS US FAITH? NO. It will be imputed IF WE believe. We must act in faith. We are not enjoined to hope God will gives us some faith. We are enjoined to act of ourselves with faith.

 

When I go to get my Covid vaccine, I will obtain the shot. I will not give myself the shot, nor will I have anything to do with getting the shot, other than sitting there. This shot will be obtained in an "aorist active" tense, not by my own work, but by the work of the person giving me the shot. That person gave the shot. I obtained the shot. Therefore, in this situation, I both received and obtained the shot by no work of my own.

2 Peter 1:1-2

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

 

In other words, "When I go to get my faith...", it's not passive.

 

Who gives you faith? Was it you or was it God?
Did God lead you to the place where He gave you faith, or was that all you?

God is not passive. God is active. His word is sharper than any two edged sword.

Why then would you lift humans above God as you consistently do?

 

This does not follow. For example, does believing in something or someone elevate the believer above the object of his belief?