Why did Peter begin to sink?

[Winman]

Mat 14:25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

This question is simple, why did Peter begin to sink? Did Jesus's power fail, or did Peter's faith fail?

 

[Old Union Brother]

Your question is answered in the last verse you posted.

(Mat 14:31) And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

Peter's faith failed...Jesus power could not fail

 

[mandym]

why did Peter begin to sink?

To get to the bottom. :type:

 

[Scarlett O.]

Peter sank for the same reason that all of us sink - metaphorically speaking.

He trusted in the power of the storm more than he trusted in the power of Christ. And that's unfortunate, because he started out so well.

He was the only one who would get out of the boat. Normally, getting out of the boat during a wicked storm like that would be the LAST thing to do. But he saw Jesus. And all he could think was "I've got to get to Jesus!" Even though getting to Jesus meant doing something that no one else was spiritually discerning enough to do or brave enough to do.

He started out with an A+, but it isn't how you start. It's how you finish. And he finished with an F-.

What's the old saying? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Peter started well and many times we do too. And you have to GET started in order to finish. But how we finish is the measuring tool.

 

[jbh28]

I'm interested in Winman's point.

 

[Skandelon]

Peter's faith failed...Jesus power could not fail

I agree, but what would you say to those who consider man's faith empowered alone by Christ and nothing of themselves?

What is the distinction in a purely monergistic system between Peter's faith and divine power?

 

[Winman]

There are many points in this story.

#1 If faith is a gift, did Jesus give Peter a defective faith that failed? If so, why did Jesus ask Peter why he doubted?

#2 It is impossible for men to walk on water, therefore it is obvious Peter's ability to walk on the water came from Jesus. Do we all agree on that? If so, why did Peter begin to sink? Did Jesus's power fail? Or was Jesus's power toward Peter dependent upon Peter's faith?

Those are questions to start with, I would like to see how Calvinists answer these questions.

 

[preacher4truth]

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.

- Peace

 

[Winman]

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.

- Peace

It wasn't Peter's faith that failed, while he believed he was able to walk on water.

It was in fact Peter's lack of faith, or doubt that caused him to sink.

And wasn't Jesus power dependent upon Peter's faith?

 

[matt wade]

It wasn't Peter's faith that failed, while he believed he was able to walk on water.

It was in fact Peter's lack of faith, or doubt that caused him to sink.

And wasn't Jesus power dependent upon Peter's faith?

I think you go a bit too far saying that Jesus' power was dependent upon Peter's faith. I would say that Peter's faith limited his access to Jesus' power. Jesus' power was fully available to Peter, but he just lacked the faith to access it.

 

[convicted1]

Mat 14:25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

This question is simple, why did Peter begin to sink? Did Jesus's power fail, or did Peter's faith fail?

I think the main reason why Peter began sinking was that he took his eyes off of Jesus, and was more concerned with the storm. When we take our eyes off of Jesus, we too, begin to sink. It is then, that we realize what we are doing, and begin calling out to Him for His help. And He is faithful to reach out and lift us up again.

 

[Winman]

I think you go a bit too far saying that Jesus' power was dependent upon Peter's faith. I would say that Peter's faith limited his access to Jesus' power. Jesus' power was fully available to Peter, but he just lacked the faith to access it.

I understand what you are saying, but do not think I am going beyond scripture. In Mark 6:5-6 the scriptures say Jesus "could not" do mighty works in his own country because of the people's unbelief.

Mk 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

As you see, the scriptures do not say Jesus "would not" do mighty works here, they say he "could not". And why would Jesus marvel at their unbelief if faith is a gift? Wouldn't Jesus know they had no faith because no faith was given to them?

But the point is, God has all the power, it is impossible for man to walk on water. At the same time, faith is required from us. The scriptures do not teach monergism.

 

[Winman]

I think the main reason why Peter began sinking was that he took his eyes off of Jesus, and was more concerned with the storm. When we take our eyes off of Jesus, we too, begin to sink. It is then, that we realize what we are doing, and begin calling out to Him for His help. And He is faithful to reach out and lift us up again.

Yes Willis, Peter took his eyes off Jesus and looked at the circumstances around him, and at himself. He probably thought, "What am I doing? I am a man, I can't walk on water!". When we look at ourselves we will see weakness and failure, and we will doubt. But even when Peter was failing and doubting, we see Jesus is faithful to keep those that are his. It says he "immediately" reached down and took Peter's hand. This is Preservation of the Saints. Peter wasn't doing too well at persevering, but thank God we do not have to persevere, we are kept, we are preserved by Jesus, he will not let us sink. There is a lot of doctrine in this story of Peter walking on water.

 

[preacher4truth]

It wasn't Peter's faith that failed, while he believed he was able to walk on water.

It was in fact Peter's lack of faith, or doubt that caused him to sink.

And wasn't Jesus power dependent upon Peter's faith?

Um, no. Jesus power is dependent upon no one. This is Kenneth Copelands theology too. Do you read his works and espouse his beliefs?

Your humanistic theology appears yet again. Oh no, it couldn't have been man, it had to then be the fault of Jesus, Jesus was crippled and powerless unless Peter mustered up more belief. Brother please. Stop your wrangling of the truth.

Total error here. This is what happens when you approach Scripture with presuppositions and eisegetically insert your own doctrine and force the text to prove you correct.

I already gave you the truth right here:

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.

Peter was all about "I" "I" "I" and what he could do, and his faith, and he failed, and was taught a mighty lesson and his epistles prove it.

 

[mandym]

Um, no. Jesus power is dependent upon no one. This is Kenneth Copelands theology too. Do you read his works and espouse his beliefs?

Your humanistic theology appears yet again.

This is the kind of junk that gets posted on this board that needs to come to an end. Can you not disagree with someone without this unChristian personal slam?

 

[preacher4truth]

This is the kind of junk that gets posted on this board that needs to come to an end. Can you not disagree with someone without this unChristian personal slam?

Show me where there was one personal mention here? The fact is, this is the same thing Copeland teaches. Stick to the facts and debate off of this instead of your baseless implications, OK? UnChristian personal slam means stating facts and aligning two beliefs, Winmans with Copelands? If the shoe fits, deal with it.

Now, does Copeland also teach this? Yes or no?

- Peace

 

[HankD]

I understand what you are saying, but do not think I am going beyond scripture. In Mark 6:5-6 the scriptures say Jesus "could not" do mighty works in his own country because of the people's unbelief.

Mk 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.

As you see, the scriptures do not say Jesus "would not" do mighty works here, they say he "could not". And why would Jesus marvel at their unbelief if faith is a gift? Wouldn't Jesus know they had no faith because no faith was given to them?

But the point is, God has all the power, it is impossible for man to walk on water. At the same time, faith is required from us. The scriptures do not teach monergism.

It does say "He could not".

But it wasn't ultimately because of the unbelief but because He had volitionally put Himself in obedience to the Father.

Philippians 2

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.​

.i.e. Presumably, the mandate from the Father was to respond in like kind to faith wherever He found it.

So, yes (though a bit convoluted) there was a prima facie agreement between God and man with Peter walking on the water qualified by "without me ye can do nothing", God's graces flowing though Christ to humankind as He willed and was in concord with the will of the Father according to his (Peter's) weak and vascilating faith.

HankD

 

[mandym]

Show me where there was one personal mention here? The fact is, this is the same thing Copeland teaches. Stick to the facts and debate off of this instead of your baseless implications, OK? UnChristian personal slam means stating facts and aligning two beliefs, Winmans with Copelands? If the shoe fits, deal with it.

Now, does Copeland also teach this? Yes or no?

- Peace

It matters not. Your post was intentioanlly inflammatory. The comparison is not needed and the "humanistic" comment is over the top. Being correct does not make it ok.

 

[Dr. Bob]

It matters not. Your post was intentioanlly inflammatory. The comparison is not needed and the "humanistic" comment is over the top. Being correct does not make it ok.

Agreed. Contending without being contentious is sorely lacking in some threads on the BB.

 

[Robert Snow]

Um, no. Jesus power is dependent upon no one. This is Kenneth Copelands theology too. Do you read his works and espouse his beliefs?

Your humanistic theology appears yet again. Oh no, it couldn't have been man, it had to then be the fault of Jesus, Jesus was crippled and powerless unless Peter mustered up more belief. Brother please. Stop your wrangling of the truth.

Total error here. This is what happens when you approach Scripture with presuppositions and eisegetically insert your own doctrine and force the text to prove you correct.

I already gave you the truth right here:



Peter was all about "I" "I" "I" and what he could do, and his faith, and he failed, and was taught a mighty lesson and his epistles prove it.

Why, along with this tirade, didn't you answer Winman's scriptural question. He posted bible verses showing why he believes as he does. You attack him, yet fail to answer one of his points with scripture. This says a lot about your theology whether you want it to or not.

BTW, I don't know anyone, Calvinistic or not, that believes that Jesus' power was in any way limited by Peter; Jesus ultimately showed this. When He took ultimate control, they were both back in the boat.