Why did Peter begin to sink?

Forgive me for my answer seeming inflammatory. However this is what Kenneth Copeland also teaches. Now we have a new rule that if someone is correct they aren't allowed to use it because we don't like it? Let's get passed that. All I am contending is this view matches his teaching. As to Robert Snow, I did answer Winman. I apologize to all for sounding inflammatory. I will contend from here without being contentious but will use aligning beliefs when necessary.

 

Thank you for this explanation. :thumbsup:

Kenneth Copeland shares many beliefs with many Baptists. He believes in the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, etc. Now, there are many places where his beliefs are off the charts, but not everywhere. This doesn't meant that I think you approve of Copeland's theology. I don't think Winman approves of everything Copeland believes either.

 

Just because one doesn't believe all one teacher says, doesn't mean they espouse, unbeknowingly perhaps, some of it, and one belief in their doctrine doesn't cancel out the other as being OK because they are right in other areas, nor does it mean they embrace all. Fair enough?

I wouldn't be so self-assured as you seem about Copelands "beliefs." It's not the slightest bit comforting when you know what he teaches. What one teaches is what one truly believes, not what they've given as a statement of faith. Is this also fair enough?

You say he believes in the trinity and deity? OK. Listen to what he teaches;

He says God failed. He says Jesus is a failure. As a matter of fact he has said God is the biggest failure ever. A failed Deity? OK.

This too; he also believes he is deity himself.

Wonder then what he means that he believes in "the deity of Christ?" (if he's ever claimed that).

Do you know what he's said about Christ upon the cross? If not, you should go do some research.

One more thing, believing these things are not salvific.

His idea of faith (some sorta of powerful force) places the power of the universe in man, not God. Thus, God needs man, not man needing God. Have you heard Copeland teach this? If not, go do research, God is helpless without man according to Copeland. Winmans view could be construed that way when he said what I replied to, that basically Jesus power failed because of Peter. Which is why I replied back.

That others saw it as caustic, I've apologized, but I don't think I will be controlled by one on here with "just because it's true doesn't mean it's ok" (I beg to differ there) in what I am allowed to say as far as proof, but I'll take from Dr. Bob, me being "contentious" as far as I will watch how what I've said comes across.

Anyhow, there is not much difference here when one says this from what Kenneth also teaches. Matt Wade also caught this from him and questioned him on it (not saying he tied it to Copeland as I have.)

- Peace

 

I disagree with you. And the TV "hucksters" may have a grain of truth, but they're still false teachers.

Here is my belief:

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.

Jesus alone saves.

- Peace

 

Are you saying that God was incapable at that moment from keeping Peter from doubting?

This is the problem with an Arminian view of scripture...you fail to see that it is not an either/or question. God ABSOLUTELY gave Peter his faith. God gives the believer his or her faith (Romans 12:3), assigned in specific measure.

Yet Peter is still 100 percent responsible for his doubt, and his sinking was his own fault. He should not have doubted Jesus.

As to God's overarching plan, was it His plan that Peter would sink? ABSOLUTELY! It is an important part of scripture, that has benefited countless thousands of Christians throughout the centuries.

 

You said it right here:

Jesus power failed on account of Peter. Jesus power is dependent upon man. These are the implications.

- Peace

 

As for the OP. Peter sank because he didn't trust Jesus. He looked away and sank. He doubted, he has "little faith." It's a lesson to us to depend on Jesus, have faith in him and don't doubt. Don't take your eyes off Jesus.

 

This is what I've gathered also. This is what Copeland teaches; God dependent upon man, and weak and incapable otherwise.

- Peace

 

This is a horrible application of this verse. Jesus had placed certain restrictions on himself, while He was in the flesh. This is why He did not know the "day and hour" of His return while on earth...do you really think that is true (That He really did not, and could not know)? Or do you think He willingly restricted His own access to His infinite knowledge, while living amongst us?

Same thing with Mark 6. It is true that Jesus, while walking upon this earth, fully human, could not work where the Father had not instilled faith. This was not a limitation that man placed upon Him, but a limitation which He placed on Himself. He could absolutely have said "I am going to do this anyway," but that would have been wrong...because God the Father had not placed faith in these men, and it was therefore not appropriate for Christ to do works there. These men had not "been given to Him," by the Father.

 

You misrepresent Winman which is sad (and evil in itself). Please refrain from doing so.

An example: Christ's power was limited to Peter's faith.
I think that is what Winman said.

God's power (in your life) is limited to your righteousness.
God's power is limited to how much time you spend in adultery.
I didn't say you do, but if you did, would God's power be resting upon you?
God and man in this sense do work together.
Psalm 66:18 says: If I regard iniquity in my heart the Lord will not hear me.

Peter took his eyes off Jesus. There are two ways to look at that and they both add up to the same conclusion.
1. Peter sank because of his own unbelief.
2. Peter sank because God could not keep him up any longer for the sin of unbelief separated man from God.
Both are correct statements. You both are pronouncing tomato two different ways. It doesn't matter.

 

I didn't misrepresent. He said "Jesus 'could not' do mighty works in his own country because of the people's unbelief." "the scriptures do not say Jesus 'would not' do mighty works here, they say he 'could not'

I hardly misrepresented him. Please don't falsely accuse me, thanks.

 

Accurately, it says:

And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. (Matthew 13:58)

But you did misrepresent him, and you were offensively rude.

Are you saying that Winman is unsaved; questioning his salvation, which is against BB rules, or admitting that you both serve a weak God? You can't have it both ways! There is only one God. And you have described "his" god as weak, inferring he is unsaved and worships some other god.

Yes, you have misrepresented him and very rudely so.

 

I said no such thing. Please don't lie about me. I have never stated nor hinted that Winman is unsaved. Never questioned his salvation. I'm not sure if lying is against BB rules, but it's against the Bible. So please don't do that. I have said many times that I believe Winman is saved and never stated otherwise. I also didn't use "god" as you posted here, but "God" to not portray that I believe Winman is serving a false God. So you stated this is totally made up. Shame on you.

 

What did you mean in Post #29 here:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1707250&postcount=29

If Winman is saved and you and He serve the same God, why do you call God weak and dependent upon man?
These are serious allegations that you have made.
They are all in the first part of your post.

 

Hey guys, this is going down hill fast. Please allow me to intervene and get us back on track, if possible.

I think JBH probably meant to communicate that Winman's views projected God to be weaker than what his views project about God. Though he may need to communicate that in a less inflammatory manner next time, I think we can take him at his word and know he wasn't meaning to question Winman's salvation.

Likewise, DHK, wasn't attempting to lie about JBH, but help him to see that his words could be taken wrongly and be easily interpreted to mean that Winman doesn't serve the God of the bible. Lesson learned.

Now, back to the question at hand: "Why did Peter sink?"

 

Thanks for asking...

1. Notice, my "God" and not "god." I did that on purpose. I didn't want anyone to think that I'm trying to say Winman serves a false god.

2. I also said "portray" to focus on what Winmin is displaying about God. Again, 2 things that I did to make sure I wasn't saying that Winman was serving a false god.

3. Dependant on Man came from his wording. If I have misrepresented him, he can tell me. I was basing it off his words that God "can't" do something unless man has faith. I don't see any other way around that this is teaching that God is dependent on man's faith to do work in man's life. This is because he made an emphasis against "not 'Would not.'"

If what I stated is true, then admit that you(speaking about Winman in my post) don't believe that God is sovereign. Anyone that is dependent on someone else is not sovereign. Andy one that is dependent on someone else is not omnipotent.

My issue with your post to me was that you said "god" and not "God" which isn't what I did. I also never stated that I thought Winman served a false god. I said "portray" which doesn't equal serve.

Made up Example off the top of my head....

Say I'm talking about basketball and write bad things about Michael Jordan when he played. Winman response that I'm portraying a weak Michael Jordan. Winman isn't saying that I'm speaking about another person named Michael Jordan, but that my portrayal is off.

Hope that helps.

thanks, and point taken

I'll try to say it better.

Lack of faith. Peter didn't trust God. He got scared with Jesus right there and didn't trust.

 

Ok, follow up question. Is Peter's lack of trust a result of God's failure to provide Peter with that ability, or did God provide what was needed and Peter freely chose to "not trust" as he should?