Faith? Where does it come from?

[DHK]

So, once again you display your inability to understand fairly simple statements.

The statement made in 2Pet.2:1 is a simple statement to understand. The refusal of most Calvinists to understand it is one of belief. It is very telling that almost all non-Cal commentaries agree with what I have said. My view is not novel of course. It is simply reiterating what the verse says.

 

[DHK]

Where did I say you said 'damnable heretic'? That's right I didn't! Learn to tell the truth.

And you're concerned with insults? Any person, accept you, can see that in my post that you reply to that there are no insults contained in it, it is simply you thinking that if you say something, that is lie long enough and often enough it makes it true. The people of this board aren't stupid nor do you have enough cred to (not to mention your lying track record) cause people to not question the validity of your statements.

Now go fetch Scripture that say that faith is the same as crossing a bridge, sitting in a chair along with your other carnal illustrations.

No, I am not going to bother to answer someone who simply posts innuendos and demonstrates openly he has no use for the Bible.

 

[TCassidy]

The statement made in 2Pet.2:1 is a simple statement to understand. The refusal of most Calvinists to understand it is one of belief. It is very telling that almost all non-Cal commentaries agree with what I have said. My view is not novel of course. It is simply reiterating what the verse says.

Let's see. Arminians read Arminianism into the verse. Then they come to a false conclusion regarding Particular Redemption which they base on their false claim, claiming those who believe in Particular Redemption believe something the Arminians sucked out of their thumb. What else is new?

 

[TCassidy]

You certainly added to 2Pet.2:1 which was the only verse I used.

Yeah. It's called "context." All scripture MUST be understood in the immediate preceding context, the immediate following context, and in the greater context of scripture in general.

You can't honestly divorce verse 1 from the immediate following context. To do so is dishonest exposition.

 

[TCassidy]

What have I misstated?

The issue is that you accused those who disagree with you of a "damnable heresy" because you don't understand what 2 Peter 2:1 is talking about.

In case you missed it the word "Lord" (or "master" in some versions) is NOT Κυριοσ, the usual word for "Lord" in Greek, but the word δεσποτην, where we get our English word "despot."

Do you really believe The Lord Jesus Christ is a a ruler who exercises His power in a cruel or oppressive way?

 

[Rippon]

Here is the Bible Knowledge Commentary on this verse:

The focus of their heresies was the sovereign Lord, Christ, whom they denied (cf. Jud_1:4). This in turn led to their own spiritual destruction or ruin (apōleian; cf. 2Pe_2:3; 2Pe_3:16), which will be swift (tachinēn, “sudden”; cf. tachinē [“soon”] in 2Pe_1:14). How can these false teachers, who were said to be among the people, and whom the Lord had bought (agorasanta, “redeem”), end up in everlasting destruction? Several suggestions have been offered: (1) They were saved but lost their salvation. But this contradicts many other Scriptures (e.g., Joh_3:16; Joh_5:24; Joh_10:28-29). (2) “Bought” means the Lord created them, not that He saved them. But this stretches the meaning of agorazō (“redeem”). (3) The false prophets merely said they were “bought” by Christ. This, however, seems to read into the verse. (4) They were “redeemed” in the sense that Christ paid the redemptive price for their salvation, but they did not apply it to themselves and so were not saved. Christ’s death is “sufficient” for all (1Ti_2:6; Heb_2:9; 1Jn_2:2), but is “efficient” only for those who believe.

Whoever wrote the above did not finish their thoughts. You chopped things off.

This is a strong argument for unlimited atonement (the view that Christ died for everyone) and against limited atonement (the view that Christ died only for those whom He would later save).

You added this from someone else a long time after the other person's thoughts. That was dishonest of you. But typical.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

You are making some valid points in defining faith.
Concerning Biblical faith, my faith grows according to my relationship with Christ. The closer I walk with Christ, and the longer I know Him, the more confident I am that He will continue to provide for me and answer my prayers. That is the more I will step out on faith allowing Him to work in my life.

Over many years my relationship with my wife has grown. As it grows I am able to put more and more confidence in her and her abilities. It is based on that relationship, just as my faith in Christ is based on my relationship with Christ. It is the object of the faith that is important in both cases.

Hi Again brother,

Yes, but don't you see the distinguishing factors that are different between how you obtain faith in your wife is by visibly witnessing her in her earthly flesh with your own eyes carry out faithful decisions in the past, but unlike with your relationship with the Lord, you can not visibly observe with your senses God carry out faithful actions (though assuredly He does) that would enable you to rely on Him for the future because he is invisible, thus also unlike your wife's existence and actions His existence cannot be proven or disproven by science. One cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. As God's faithful actions, unlike all physical things in this world we put faith in as a result of either science, witness of past faithful actions to have confidence in future performance, or human reasoning, this is not the case with God as he is an intangible spiritual being, not a natural being, therefore for you to consistently compare faith in natural things to having faith in God is not analogous, thus proving faith in God which is spiritual must be imparted by a spiritual source (the Holy Spirit), not an "earthly" source our "carnal minds" that are "at enmity with the things of God" or our "natural minds" that cannot receive the "things of God". Where do you disagree with these points dear brother?

 

[BrotherJoseph]

First, realize that it is more accurately translated as a "destructive teaching." Since I have seen Calvinism in general take its toll on local churches in a very destructive way, it should not be questioned that it does.
Second, realize this is a debate board. We even have Catholics, an SDA, a Charismatic, an Anglican, etc. We don't have unity among our beliefs. It is not necessary in a forum such as this. It is an internet debate board. The belief or non-belief of Calvinism is not going to destroy BB. Or do you think it is. If you really think that, then voice your concerns to the other administrators.

Brother,

So am I understanding you correctly that you view the verse in Peter more appropriately as translated a "destructive teaching" therefore those teaching it are not indeed dammed to Hell though they are causing harm in your view to the body of Christ?

I am not of the type of person that it going to "voice...conerns... to other administrators" on you even if I felt you are violating forum rules because I am not a baby. I actually appreciate our discussions and though I disagree with 90% of what you post I do regard you as a brother in Christ and think it shows devotion on your point that you take the time to debate about 3-5 people at once on this thread with nobody, but yourself representing your view and you seem to respond to every post. Besides this, if you are no longer on the forum who would we have to debate? I don't want you banned from the forum.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

I made my statement very clear.
I said that the definition of faith is when one is fully persuaded that what a person has said that that person will accomplish.
Whether that is in the world of being a suicide bomber, or being a wife, or a politician it matters not. It is still in the arena of faith. What is important with faith is the object of faith. If one does not have Christ and his atoning work as the object of his faith they cannot be saved.

Again, your suicide bomber just like your wife example is not analogous to Biblical faith. The reason being is the suicide bomber is having faith in a lie and a false God and this is something the natural unregenerate man by nature does, but having faith in the God of the Bible and His promises is faith in the truth, the unseen, and spiritual not earthly things, and this is not innate in what scripture tells us of a "carnal mind", "natural mind", or "the flesh". Romans 8:8 says, "So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God" , but you say they are able to have faith in God for imputed righteousness, therefore you must no believe Romans 8:8 as doing so would "please God" as seen by those in the hall of faith in Hebrews 11.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

I do not believe that you are either a "false teacher or false prophet" in the sense that Peter is using the word. Nor do I believe that you are headed to swift destruction. But I do believe that the doctrine Peter gives is a destructive teaching. .

While you said you do not believe brother T Cassidy is a "false teacher or false prophet", do you believe Brother T Cassidy is guilty of propagating this "destructive teaching" in Peter?

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Over many years my relationship with my wife has grown. As it grows I am able to put more and more confidence in her and her abilities. It is based on that relationship, just as my faith in Christ is based on my relationship with Christ. It is the object of the faith that is important in both cases.

Brother DHK,

I will post for the third and last time for you my question you have not answered as I have grown weary of posting something that goes unanswered each time-

Brother,

Can you name one worldly physical thing one has full confidence and assurance in in this world without relying on their five senses, or visible seen past performance, or science? I bet you cant because Biblical faith, unlike the faith of this world, does not rely on the senses, science, or even human reasoning to become "fully persuaded" of the truth, this is why God has to grant it unto us.

 

[Rippon]

Non-Calvinists typically think that 2 Peter 2:1 somehow supports unlimited atonement and therefore is against the doctrine pf particuluar redemption. However, no non-Calvinist that I have come across personally or in commentaries has espoused the views of DHK. DHK insists that the destructive heresy of that text is particular atonement. Again, no honest biblical commentator would say it has anything to do with the extent of the atonement. But as I have told DHK repeatedly, those false teachers are described in detail from verse 1-22 of chapter 2 in 2 Peter and verses 4-16 in Jude --a parallel passage.

No one with even the slightest bit of integrity would insist that those descriptions are characteristic of Calvinists. Honestly. Read verses 2-22 and tell us. Is blackest darkness reserved for us? (v.17) Are we slaves of depravity? (v.19). Are we bold in slandering celestial beings? (v.11). are we like brute beasts, born only to be caught and destroyed?(v.12) Are we experts in greed? (v.3 and 14).

DHK, face up to what your corrupt imagination has come up with and repent for your allegations against brothers and sisters in the Lord.

 

[DHK]

Let's see. Arminians read Arminianism into the verse. Then they come to a false conclusion regarding Particular Redemption which they base on their false claim, claiming those who believe in Particular Redemption believe something the Arminians sucked out of their thumb. What else is new?

Wesley and Whitefield were best of friends but differed greatly in their theology. It has been that way throughout much of history.

 

[DHK]

Yeah. It's called "context." All scripture MUST be understood in the immediate preceding context, the immediate following context, and in the greater context of scripture in general.

You can't honestly divorce verse 1 from the immediate following context. To do so is dishonest exposition.

The chapter also refers to "just Lot" in its overall context of false teachers. I am not avoiding the context of either false teachers or false teaching.

 

[TCassidy]

The chapter also refers to "just Lot" in its overall context of false teachers. I am not avoiding the context of either false teachers or false teaching.

So you admit you are saying all those who believe in Particular Redemption are those "to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever."

 

[TCassidy]

Wesley and Whitefield were best of friends but differed greatly in their theology. It has been that way throughout much of history.

Yes but Wesley never said Whitefield was one of those "to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever."

 

[DHK]

The issue is that you accused those who disagree with you of a "damnable heresy" because you don't understand what 2 Peter 2:1 is talking about.

In case you missed it the word "Lord" (or "master" in some versions) is NOT Κυριοσ, the usual word for "Lord" in Greek, but the word δεσποτην, where we get our English word "despot."

Do you really believe The Lord Jesus Christ is a a ruler who exercises His power in a cruel or oppressive way?

The word despot is used, and it refers to the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't consider Christ to be a wicked despot. The implication of that English word certainly isn't implied or applied to Christ. The word, as I understand it, has more the sense of Master, and we his servants. That doesn't change the meaning any. If a false teacher tells someone "God is not my master; I am not his slave; He never purchased me." That makes the denial of Particular Redemption all the greater with the use of that word IMO. That is what redemption is all about--paying the purchase price.

 

[DHK]

Yes but Wesley never said Whitefield was one of those "to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever."

Neither did I.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Non-Calvinists typically think that 2 Peter 2:1 somehow supports unlimited atonement and therefore is against the doctrine pf particuluar redemption. However, no non-Calvinist that I have come across personally or in commentaries has espoused the views of DHK. DHK insists that the destructive heresy of that text is particular atonement. Again, no honest biblical commentator would say it has anything to do with the extent of the atonement. But as I have told DHK repeatedly, those false teachers are described in detail from verse 1-22 of chapter 2 in 2 Peter and verses 4-16 in Jude --a parallel passage.

No one with even the slightest bit of integrity would insist that those descriptions are characteristic of Calvinists. Honestly. Read verses 2-22 and tell us. Is blackest darkness reserved for us? (v.17) Are we slaves of depravity? (v.19). Are we bold in slandering celestial beings? (v.11). are we like brute beasts, born only to be caught and destroyed?(v.12) Are we experts in greed? (v.3 and 14).

DHK, face up to what your corrupt imagination has come up with and repent for your allegations against brothers and sisters in the Lord.

Here's a snippet from Adam Clarke's commentary of 2 Peter 2:1

"As there shall be false teachers among you - At a very early period of the Christian Church many heresies sprung up; but the chief were those of the Ebionites, Cerinthians, Nicolaitans, Menandrians, and Gnostics, of whom many strange things have been spoken by the primitive fathers, and of whose opinions it is difficult to form any satisfactory view. They were, no doubt, bad enough, and their opponents in general have doubtless made them worse. By what name those were called of whom the apostle here speaks, we cannot tell. They were probably some sort of apostate Jews, or those called the Nicolaitans."

Not one mention of those dastardly particular redemption fellows.

 

[DHK]

Whoever wrote the above did not finish their thoughts. You chopped things off.

You added this from someone else a long time after the other person's thoughts. That was dishonest of you. But typical.

I don't know what you are talking about. I posted those quotes quite some time ago. I copy and pasted them word for word, the full quotes. I am not sure what you are referring to or what your problem is.