Faith? Where does it come from?

[TCassidy]

The implication of that English word certainly isn't implied or applied to Christ.

LOL! ROFLOL! You insist on the secular meaning of "faith" and the secular meaning of "fully persuaded" but reject the secular meaning of "despot" because it disproves your false doctrine! LOL! ROFLOL!

Oh, by the way. The Greek word for "Master" when referring to Christ is διδασκαλε, NOT δεσποτην.

 

[DHK]

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[DHK]

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?

Yes, that is fairly accurate.

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 are discussions and though I disagree with 90% of what you post believe 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.

It is sometimes good just to agree to disagree.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Remember that faith is based on a relationship.

And what relationship(communion) does darkness(unregenerate) have with Light(God)?

 

[Rippon]

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.

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.

 

[DHK]

LOL! ROFLOL! You insist on the secular meaning of "faith" and the secular meaning of "fully persuaded" but reject the secular meaning of "despot" because it disproves your false doctrine! LOL! ROFLOL!

Oh, by the way. The Greek word for "Master" when referring to Christ is διδασκαλε, NOT δεσποτην.

From Vine's Word Studies:

The Lord (δεσπότην)
In most cases in the New Testament the word is rendered master, the Rev. changing lord to master in every case but two - Luk_2:29; Act_4:24; and in both instances putting master in margin, and reserving lord for the rendering of κύριος. In three of these instances the word is used in direct address to God; and it may be asked why the Rev. changes Lord to Master in the text of Rev_6:10, and retains Lord in Luk_2:29; Act_4:24. In five out of the ten occurrences of the word in the New Testament it means master of the household. Originally, it indicates absolute, unrestricted authority, so that the Greeks refused the title to any but the gods. In the New Testament δεσπότης and κύριος are used interchangeably of God, and of masters of servants.

 

[Rippon]

I don't know what you are talking about.

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

I posted those quotes quite some time ago. I copy and pasted them word for word, the full quotes.

No, you did not. Please tell the truth.

I am not sure what you are referring to or what your problem is.

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

 

[Iconoclast]

And what relationship(communion) does darkness(unregenerate) have with Light(God)?

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

 

[DHK]

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

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.

 

[DHK]

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."

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

 

[SovereignGrace]

He is speaking of Human trust which is carnal and not spiritual at all.

That's my point. Light and darkness can not even be in the same room at the same time. When Light appears, darkness flees every time. The unregenerate are in darkness and have no relationship with God whatsoever. It is only after God enlightens the unregenerate, pumps Spiritual life into him, infuses faith and repentance, then and only then, do they have a relationship with God, and not before.

Saving faith has it's origin in God.

Bingo!!

 

[Rippon]

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.

 

[Rippon]

I have already quoted other commentaries that hold the same view that I hold to.

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

 

[DHK]

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.

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.

 

[SovereignGrace]

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.

But he never once mentioned particular redemption as one of those damnable heresies that were being taught in Peter's days.

 

[Iconoclast]

But he never once mentioned particular redemption as one of those damnable heresies that were being taught in Peter's days.

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

 

[DHK]

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.

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.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Brother DHK,

And what relationship(communion) does darkness(unregenerate) have with Light(God)?

 

[Internet Theologian]

But he never once mentioned particular redemption as one of those damnable heresies that were being taught in Peter's days.

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.

 

[Rippon]

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.

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.