Some shipwreck their faith

[Free]

No I don't think they are contradictory. First off, the term I'm using is biblical. It's not as if I have never researched the term. I have extensively. And although it is mine, it is my most sincere in my perception.

Sincerity does not make something true. The contradiction is that you are using your definition and saying that "we're not to presume that we can speak for God." But that is precisely what you are doing by using your own definition.

If you don't think it is accurate, then you will be kind enough to show me where it does not qualify as blasphemy, in scripture, and correct me.

The onus is on you to prove that your definition qualifies as blasphemy.

Thayer Definition:
1) to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate, blaspheme
2) to be evil spoken of, reviled, railed at

 

[childeye]

Sincerity does not make something true.

Still I have to be honest. Certainly lying doesn't make something true.

The contradiction is that you are using your definition and saying that "we're not to presume that we can speak for God." But that is precisely what you are doing by using your own definition.

I don't agree. I'm not speaking for God. I clearly and honestly said it's 'my' definition, or 'my' honest perception of what scripture intends it to mean. I did not say it is God's definition and presume to speak for God.

The onus is on you to prove that your definition qualifies as blasphemy.

Thayer Definition:
1) to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate, blaspheme
2) to be evil spoken of, reviled, railed at

My definition does not disagree with the Thayer definition. The reason I have my own definition is because I realize, that in scripture, blaspheming is also facilitated, by speaking hypocritically, as if I am a righteous person who knows and does righteousness. And therefore, I presume I am a voice of authority to speak for God, to those who I deem as unrighteous and without God. Romans 2: 21-24.
21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

Ezekiel 20:27
Therefore, son of man, speak unto the house of Israel, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Yet in this your fathers have blasphemed me, in that they have committed a trespass against me.

 

[smaller]

The reason I have my own definition is because I realize, that in scripture, blaspheming is also accomplished by speaking hypocritically, as if I am a righteous person who knows and does righteousness. And therefore, I presume I am a voice of authority to speak for God, to those who I deem as unrighteous and without God. Romans 2: 21-24.
21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

I agree with that assessment.

The very first WARNING provided to the disciples BY Jesus is to not fall into HYPOCRISY:

Luke 12:1
In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

 

[childeye]

I agree with that assessment.

The very first WARNING provided to the disciples BY Jesus is to not fall into HYPOCRISY:

Luke 12:1
In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

Ezekiel 20:39.
39 As for you, O house of Israel, thus saith the LordGod; Go ye, serve ye every one his idols, and hereafter also, if ye will not hearken unto me: but pollute ye my holy name no more with your gifts, and with your idols.

 

[Free]

I don't agree. I'm not speaking for God. I clearly and honestly said it's 'my' definition, or 'my' honest perception of what scripture intends it to mean. I did not say it is God's definition and presume to speak for God.

There is no difference between saying you have your definition of what Scripture intends it to mean, and God's definition. By imposing your definition on Scripture, you are in fact saying that this is what God's word means at this point; you are changing what Scripture is saying, which would be speaking for God. You are saying your definition is God's definition.

My definition does not disagree with the Thayer definition. The reason I have my own definition is because I realize, that in scripture, blaspheming is also facilitated, by speaking hypocritically, as if I am a righteous person who knows and does righteousness. And therefore, I presume I am a voice of authority to speak for God, to those who I deem as unrighteous and without God. Romans 2: 21-24.
21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?
22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?
23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

Ezekiel 20:27
Therefore, son of man, speak unto the house of Israel, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Yet in this your fathers have blasphemed me, in that they have committed a trespass against me.

I'm not sure if you're trying to use those passages to show some other supposed meaning of blaspheme or not. Speaking hypocritically may contain blasphemous speech, but that does not mean that hypocrisy is blasphemy.

So far your definition of blasphemy is unsupported.

Whatever definition one chooses is largely irrelevant to what the verses initially make clear: that believers can shipwreck their faith. The definition then becomes important in knowing what it means to blaspheme God, since that is a way that one shipwrecks one's faith.

 

[smaller]

James also says in Chapter 2 that some have faith, but so do the demons.
That is not saving faith.
James is saying these people are among us and we need to separate ourselves from them.

Just to note, devils do NOT have faith. James says that devils "believe," yet they tremble. It is somewhat disingenuous to connect belief to faith on this basis.

James 2:19
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

They KNOW they are going to be sent to the flames of eternal hell, therefore do they both believe and "tremble."

Matthew 8:29
And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

We also know where specifically to look to find the bad actors, from Paul:

1 Cor. 11:
12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Paul has set up some very CLEAR ROADBLOCKS to identify these types of issues, and more importantly just WHO is behind such things. There is for example, NO DEVIL that can speak truthfully. They will LIE, down to the last one, even on CUE. Apostles are "signified" by being ABLE to speak truthfully, at a minimum. And no devil can do that. Even Legion, when asked "his" name, could only LIE by obfuscation, and not answer, by saying "WE" are legion, for we are many. No, you will not hear "a name." You will hear A LIE of obfuscation, instead.

Believers in faith are to TRY the Apostles, thusly, and it is the first dictate, to the first church in the list of Revelation:

Revelation 2:2
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

Any believer in faith will find ZERO occasion to glory about his or her own self. A hallmark of faith is self hatred and self loathing, properly applied:

Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Any muscle flexing in the church is meant to take us down the path of self denials and self deprecations. And we have ample basis provided in scripture to take us all in that direction, FIRST. There is a principle, that one must die first, in order to be lifted. If we have no "basis" for this "death" there is only vanity and self glory, even "sectarian" glory, and not HIS GLORY, Alone.

Any true and truthful disciple will be known in part, by self deprecation. A brother or sister IN CHRIST, who comes and says I have "evil present" with me, am carnal, sold under sin, have internal temptation of the tempter, am a sinner who's sin is of the devil, HAS SHED their SNAKE SKIN of HYPOCRISY, and knows the only possible GARMENT they have been given to wear is OF HIM and HIS, ALONE, and that they come prepackaged with their own ENEMY, in their flesh, fully meant for destruction, per Romans 9:19-22

Do NOT hold your spiritual breath, waiting to hear this from the PULPITS. It won't be heard. Truth "cries" from the street.

No LIAR can enter this TRUTHFUL GROUND. It's not even possible. They can not spit it out.

Truth tellers and those who are and live IN TRUTH, are known, and to be known as faithful witnesses:

Revelation 2:13
I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

And who would have thought that God in Christ would HIDE HIS ETERNAL GEMS in the DARK, in the darkness of this earth. Even the high priest of the O.T. bore the gems of the 12 tribes, hidden, in his breastplate, as correlate to: Ezekiel 28:13, and the END GAME, in Ezekiel:18 and 24.

Proverbs 1:
23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

Things to contemplate for ALL. Nothing personal.

 

[childeye]

There is no difference between saying you have your definition of what Scripture intends it to mean, and God's definition. By imposing your definition on Scripture, you are in fact saying that this is what God's word means at this point; you are changing what Scripture is saying, which would be speaking for God. You are saying your definition is God's definition.

With all due respect, there is a big difference between my saying it's my definition and it is God's definition. I don't presume to speak for God is the difference. How you turn this into my saying that my definition is God's definition, is no different than you saying that the Thayer definition is God's definition. But I don't even see the problem, since my definition doesn't disagree with Thayer.

I'm not sure if you're trying to use those passages to show some other supposed meaning of blaspheme or not. Speaking hypocritically may contain blasphemous speech, but that does not mean that hypocrisy is blasphemy.

I agree that hypocrisy is not blaspheme so long as God's name is not sullied through that hypocrisy. Yes, I'm showing another meaning in scripture that I feel is not appreciated. So as to understand the many ways mankind sullies His Name.

So far your definition of blasphemy is unsupported.

I've already given scripture that I feel supports it. Scripture does say that polluting God's Name can occur by giving gifts under false pretense as in Ezekiel 20:39. Scripture does say that God's Name is blasphemed by seeing people who claim to serve God act hypocritically. Romans 2:24. Scripture does say that blasphemy does happen because of trespasses in Ezekiel 20:27. The point being that blaspheme sullies God's Name and it doesn't have to be intentional.

Whatever definition one chooses is largely irrelevant to what the verses initially make clear: that believers can shipwreck their faith. The definition then becomes important in knowing what it means to blaspheme God, since that is a way that one shipwrecks one's faith.

I totally agree. As in the shipwrecked faith you are addressing I have already said this. Below is why I don't think they reviled God. 2 Timothy 2:17-18.
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Whether what is in bold represents what Paul is referring to as blaspheme is uncertain, but I think it is connected. As in Hymenaeus presuming to represent God, when he doesn't actually know what he is talking about.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Just to note, devils do NOT have faith. James says that devils "believe," yet they tremble. It is somewhat disingenuous to connect belief to faith on this basis.

James 2:19
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

They KNOW they are going to be sent to the flames of eternal hell, therefore do they both believe and "tremble."

Matthew 8:29
And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?

We also know where specifically to look to find the bad actors, from Paul:

1 Cor. 11:
12 But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion; that wherein they glory, they may be found even as we.
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Paul has set up some very CLEAR ROADBLOCKS to identify these types of issues, and more importantly just WHO is behind such things. There is for example, NO DEVIL that can speak truthfully. They will LIE, down to the last one, even on CUE. Apostles are "signified" by being ABLE to speak truthfully, at a minimum. And no devil can do that. Even Legion, when asked "his" name, could only LIE by obfuscation, and not answer, by saying "WE" are legion, for we are many. No, you will not hear "a name." You will hear A LIE of obfuscation, instead.

Believers in faith are to TRY the Apostles, thusly, and it is the first dictate, to the first church in the list of Revelation:

Revelation 2:2
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

Any believer in faith will find ZERO occasion to glory about his or her own self. A hallmark of faith is self hatred and self loathing, properly applied:

Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Any muscle flexing in the church is meant to take us down the path of self denials and self deprecations. And we have ample basis provided in scripture to take us all in that direction, FIRST. There is a principle, that one must die first, in order to be lifted. If we have no "basis" for this "death" there is only vanity and self glory, even "sectarian" glory, and not HIS GLORY, Alone.

Any true and truthful disciple will be known in part, by self deprecation. A brother or sister IN CHRIST, who comes and says I have "evil present" with me, am carnal, sold under sin, have internal temptation of the tempter, am a sinner who's sin is of the devil, HAS SHED their SNAKE SKIN of HYPOCRISY, and knows the only possible GARMENT they have been given to wear is OF HIM and HIS, ALONE, and that they come prepackaged with their own ENEMY, in their flesh, fully meant for destruction, per Romans 9:19-22

Do NOT hold your spiritual breath, waiting to hear this from the PULPITS. It won't be heard. Truth "cries" from the street.

No LIAR can enter this TRUTHFUL GROUND. It's not even possible. They can not spit it out.

Truth tellers and those who are and live IN TRUTH, are known, and to be known as faithful witnesses:

Revelation 2:13
I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

And who would have thought that God in Christ would HIDE HIS ETERNAL GEMS in the DARK, in the darkness of this earth. Even the high priest of the O.T. bore the gems of the 12 tribes, hidden, in his breastplate, as correlate to: Ezekiel 28:13, and the END GAME, in Ezekiel:18 and 24.

Proverbs 1:
23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

Things to contemplate for ALL. Nothing personal.

Thank you for the correction.

 

[WIP]

Reminder: This forum is not for sharing opinions but for digging to the truth. We have other forums where one can debate based on personal opinion. In this forum, we must back up our opinions and views of Scripture with appropriate Scripture to support our claims.

See Forum Guidelines for more information.

 

[Free]

With all due respect, there is a big difference between my saying it's my definition and it is God's definition. I don't presume to speak for God is the difference. How you turn this into my saying that my definition is God's definition, is no different than you saying that the Thayer definition is God's definition. But I don't even see the problem, since my definition doesn't disagree with Thayer.

But it does disagree, that's the point. And, yes, there is no difference. You are changing what the Word of God is saying, therefore, you are claiming to speak for God, whether you say or not. Of course "God's" definition is Thayer's definition--God inspired what was written and what was written was written in Greek with particular words that have particular meanings. That is quite different than coming up with our own definitions of words. Your definition disagrees with Thayer's because it doesn't agree with it.

I agree that hypocrisy is not blaspheme so long as God's name is not sullied through that hypocrisy. Yes, I'm showing another meaning in scripture that I feel is not appreciated. So as to understand the many ways mankind sullies His Name.


I've already given scripture that I feel supports it. Scripture does say that polluting God's Name can occur by giving gifts under false pretense as in Ezekiel 20:39. Scripture does say that God's Name is blasphemed by seeing people who claim to serve God act hypocritically. Romans 2:24. Scripture does say that blasphemy does happen because of trespasses in Ezekiel 20:27. The point being that blaspheme sullies God's Name and it doesn't have to be intentional.

Again, blaspheming is not hypocrisy; you keep equating the two. All you have shown is that God was blasphemed because of hypocrisy (Rom 2) and other actions that were blasphemous (Eze 20). Those in no way support your definition.

I totally agree. As in the shipwrecked faith you are addressing I have already said this. Below is why I don't think they reviled God. 2 Timothy 2:17-18.
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Whether what is in bold represents what Paul is referring to as blaspheme is uncertain, but I think it is connected. As in Hymenaeus presuming to represent God, when he doesn't actually know what he is talking about.

There is no reason to think they are at all connected. These are two different letters written a year to a few years apart. They were false teachers that blasphemed God, for which they were put out of the church, and then some time later were apparently continuing in their false teachings. What this means is that, as the word "blaspheme" means, the two of them reviled God.

Anyway, there is no more to say on the matter. Christians can shipwreck their faith and so ought to be careful in what they believe and how they behave.

 

[smaller]

There is no difference between saying you have your definition of what Scripture intends it to mean, and God's definition. By imposing your definition on Scripture, you are in fact saying that this is what God's word means at this point; you are changing what Scripture is saying, which would be speaking for God. You are saying your definition is God's definition.
I'm not sure if you're trying to use those passages to show some other supposed meaning of blaspheme or not. Speaking hypocritically may contain blasphemous speech, but that does not mean that hypocrisy is blasphemy.

Seems a bit of circular logic above. Paul does link hypocritical acts in Romans 2, equating same to blasphemy. The bulk of Jesus' confrontations and woe's were laid on phony religious actors, aka Pharisee's. And there are very sound scriptural reasons "why" He did so. They, the leaders of the temple, were the first in line for Mark 4:15, and Jesus confirms this happened to them in John 8:44. It was not then that Jesus was taking on those men, but the internal enemies of them.

Jesus always directs and addresses the "captivity" of people's hearts and does so by attacking and rebuking the captor. One of the first signs of captivity is hypocrisy. The failure to grasp the essence of the internal problem and to ACT like it's not the issue.

There are many ways delivered by Jesus to perceive these matters, of hypocrisy. Pharisee statements such as "I am not like other men" is an easy one.

Luke 18:11
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

The object lesson is very much that Jesus isn't all that interested in phony religious actors aka hypocrites, and these may have very well fallen already in their faith. I wouldn't say they aren't saved, but they are captives in heart and don't know it or perceive it, because they can't speak truthfully about it, according to Gospel directives, and prefer to think themselves entirely clean, when that was never the case to start with.

No Pharisee, then or now, can submit to this reality:

Matthew 23:27
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Paul, in a nearly opposite track, takes this matter head on personally, perceiving himself as DEAD because of indwelling sin's presence, and directs us to perceive, likewise.

Colossians 3:3
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

Romans 8:10
And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

The condition of a dead body because of indwelling sin is a continuing fact AFTER salvation. Most hypocrites do not deal well with these portions of the scriptures, and in fact they can not. It is distasteful to their pride to do so. It is one of the more "bitter pills" of present reality, that we have been delivered to accept. But it does separate those who can speak truthfully from those who can not.

Sailing the "whole body" into cleanness is a basic shipwreck of faith. There is no justification available to a dead body, because of SIN.

The publican however WAS justified in the eyes of God in Christ on the basis of basic honesty before His Maker, as shown below:

Luke 18:13
And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Honesty is a fruit of the Spirit.

Luke 8:15
But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

Personally, I very much distrust those who can not speak speak personally, honestly about the more vile matters of disclosures and discourses of God in Christ. The Body of the Church is meant to coagulate and form on the body of DEATH because of SIN's presence.

It is on this ground that we await our mutual Perfection and Permanent CHANGE.

Philippians 3:21
Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

It's also a good measure to employ to keep from following blow hole hypocrites.

 

[childeye]

But it does disagree, that's the point.

But I don't see where it disagrees, just because you say it does. You have to show me which you haven't done.

And, yes, there is no difference. You are changing what the Word of God is saying, therefore, you are claiming to speak for God, whether you say or not. Of course "God's" definition is Thayer's definition--God inspired what was written and what was written was written in Greek with particular words that have particular meanings. That is quite different than coming up with our own definitions of words.

Free, all I did is say how I perceived the word blasphemy. Even when I'm studying definitions of words, words are being used to explain the definitions. I cannot help but do my best to perceive what they mean. It doesn't mean I'm inventing my own language.

Your definition disagrees with Thayer's because it doesn't agree with it.

If my definition doesn't disagree with Thayer, then neither do many other definitions of blasphemy. The problem I have with the Thayer definition, is it doesn't seem to account for those things that are wrong things said about God, by those who think they are serving God and thereby blaspheming without any reviling of God occurring. Here is what Ozspen provided, and I think this is much more accurate than the Thayer definition, as per this instance with hymenaeus, injure the reputation of, revile, defame'.

Notice that our Lord Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he called himself the Son of God. How does Thayer's definition count that as reviling God? Jesus forgave sins also and he was deemed a blasphemer by the Pharisees for speaking in God's place. I may be wrong, but the Thayer definition doesn't appear to account for that.

Again, blaspheming is not hypocrisy; you keep equating the two. All you have shown is that God was blasphemed because of hypocrisy (Rom 2) and other actions that were blasphemous (Eze 20). Those in no way support your definition.

To be clear, I said hypocritical speech is blasphemy when it sullies God's Name. It's on the record. You are of course correct, that l I have shown that God was blasphemed because of hypocrisy and other actions that were blasphemous. Since my position is that reviling need not occur for blaspheme to happen you basically have admitted I have shown that. So what's the problem?

There is no reason to think they are at all connected. These are two different letters written a year to a few years apart. They were false teachers that blasphemed God, for which they were put out of the church, and then some time later were apparently continuing in their false teachings. What this means is that, as the word "blaspheme" means, the two of them reviled God.

There is no evidence that Hymenaeus reviled God either. All I said is I don't think he reviled God,. If we are to learn from this scripture as an example, then this matters to me, lest we learn the wrong lesson.
re·vile
rəˈvīl/
verb
verb: revile; 3rd person present: reviles; past tense: reviled; past participle: reviled; gerund or present participle: reviling

1. criticize in an abusive or angrily insulting manner.
   "he was now reviled by the party that he had helped to lead"
   synonyms: criticize, censure, condemn, attack, inveigh against, rail against, castigate, lambaste, denounce;More
   slander, libel, malign, vilify, abuse;
   informalknock, slam, pan, crucify, roast, tear into, badmouth, dis, pummel;
   formalexcoriate, calumniate
   "he was reviled as a traitor"
   antonyms: praise

 

[Seabass]

Jn 10:28 "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."

Is OSAS - eternal security - perseverance of the Saints (pick your preference) in this verse or is it assumed into the verse? If it is in the verse, where in the verse is it?

I posted the above (in blue) back on July 29th with no response so I thought I would post it one more time. I have been told by some in times past that Jn 10:28 is a 'proof text' for eternal security. My simple question is where in this verse is eternal security even mentioned? Where does this verse say that eternal security is the reason "they shall never perish", eternal security is the reason "neither shall any pluck them out of my hand"?

 

[OzSpen]

Just to note, devils do NOT have faith. James says that devils "believe," yet they tremble. It is somewhat disingenuous to connect belief to faith on this basis.

James 2:19
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

They KNOW they are going to be sent to the flames of eternal hell, therefore do they both believe and "tremble."

I do wish you would gain an understanding of the NT Greek language. If you did, you would not make this kind of false statement because the Greek noun for faith is, pistis. The Greek verb, I believe, is pisteuw. So, both the noun and the verb have the same foundational meaning, i.e. faith (noun) and I believe = I have faith (verb).

I don't know from where you are gaining this false information, 'devils do NOT have faith'. The fact is that they DO have faith and that's the base meaning of the Greek verb. It's not saving faith, but nonetheless it is faith.

Oz

 

[smaller]

I do wish you would gain an understanding of the NT Greek language. If you did, you would not make this kind of false statement because the Greek noun for faith is, pistis. The Greek verb, I believe, is pisteuw. So, both the noun and the verb have the same foundational meaning, i.e. faith (noun) and I believe = I have faith (verb).

I don't know from where you are gaining this false information, 'devils do NOT have faith'. The fact is that they DO have faith and that's the base meaning of the Greek verb. It's not saving faith, but nonetheless it is faith.

Oz

If a liar says "I believe" or "I have faith" are they telling the truth?

John 8:
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

I also believe as a fact and not as a position of faith, there are reasons for two different words, believe and faith. They are not the same words NOR do they have the same meanings. Devils don't need "faith" to believe because they know for a fact God exists.

 

[Seabass]

The devils did not say "I believe" but James said the devils believe and tremble. Was the inspired writer James lying when he said the devils believe? James 2:19 the verbs 'believe' and 'tremble' are indicative mood, a statement of fact.

 

[smaller]

The devils did not say "I believe" but James said the devils believe and tremble. Was the inspired writer James lying when he said the devils believe? James 2:19 the verbs 'believe' and 'tremble' are indicative mood, a statement of fact.

I differentiated the difference between the terms "believe" and "faith." Devils do not have "faith" just because they believe. They believe because they know God in Christ as a seen and known reality. Faith is not the same as "belief" in this regard.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

When we actually "have" our HOPE, then it is no longer a position of FAITH, but of REALITY.

Romans 8:24
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

I also observed a conundrum that is involved with devils speaking, because "when they speak" they also LIE, and there is NO TRUTH in them to speak TRUTH. So, what do we think we might believe is TRUE from devils speakings? Uh, that would be "exactly nothing." John 8:44.

 

[Seabass]

I differentiated the difference between the terms "believe" and "faith." Devils do not have "faith" just because they believe. They believe because they know God in Christ as a seen and known reality. Faith is not the same as "belief" in this regard.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

When we actually "have" our HOPE, then it is no longer a position of FAITH, but of REALITY.

Romans 8:24
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

I also observed a conundrum that is involved with devils speaking, because "when they speak" they also LIE, and there is NO TRUTH in them to speak TRUTH. So, what do we think we might believe is TRUE from devils speakings? Uh, that would be "exactly nothing." John 8:44.

As already pointed out by others, 'believe' and 'faith' come from the same Greek root word. When James says the devils believe, James is saying they have belief only. The devils' belief is nothing more than mere mental acknowledgement of facts as the devils acknowledge the fact Jesus is the Son of God Matt 8:28,29. Belief only is a mental assent of the mind, mere acknowledgment of facts therefore is dead being void of works. The devils' belief only will not save them for they will not act upon their belief by repenting of their sins, Lk 13:3:5 or be baptized for remission of their sins Act 2:38. Just acknowledgement of facts, a mental assent of the mind cannot save.

 

[netchaplain]

There are challenging verses in 1 Tim 1:18-20 (NIV) which state:

18 Timothy, my son, I am giving you this command in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by recalling them you may fight the battle well, 19 holding on to faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and so have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith. 20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.​

Here we have an example of Hymenaeus and Alexander who have rejected 'holding on to faith a good conscience' and 'have suffered shipwreck with regard to the faith'. So it is possible for those who have faith to suffer shipwreck of that faith. 'Suffered' means 'thrusting away' or 'having thrust away'.

HI OS - The way the passage reads it can seem to be primarily referring to faith, but all Bible commentators attribute the primary reference to the conscience, i. e. "TheGreek does not imply that one having once had faith makes shipwreck of it, but that they who put away good conscience "make shipwreck with respect to THE faith." Jamieson, Faussett & Brown

The word "which" directly refers to the subject it follows (conscience). The word faith in the syntax is mentioned twice, making it a secondary subject in the thought. Not trying to challenge your opinion, just hoping it's okay to share mine, while I'm caring about yours.

I realize that many still do not use Bible commentators for assistance, but I believe they are there for our help if we choose to learn through testing (comparing) our beliefs.

God's blessings to your Family!

 

[smaller]

As already pointed out by others, 'believe' and 'faith' come from the same Greek root word.

Having the same "root" word does not mean they are identical terms with identical applications. That was the general observation.

When James says the devils believe, James is saying they have belief only. The devils' belief is nothing more than mere mental acknowledgement of facts

You are being too polite. When a liar speaks, they only speak lies no matter what they might say. John 8:44

as the devils acknowledge the fact Jesus is the Son of God Matt 8:28,29. Belief only is a mental assent of the mind, mere acknowledgment of facts therefore is dead being void of works. The devils' belief only will not save them for they will not act upon their belief by repenting of their sins, Lk 13:3:5 or be baptized for remission of their sins Act 2:38. Just acknowledgement of facts, a mental assent of the mind cannot save.

I might observe with you a simple fact that could put any matters between you and I to permanent rest. IF you understand that the tempter tempts internally, via "thought" form, you might understand that "man" alone does not exist. I do not believe it to be some fantastic leap of faith to understand this principle. If any person simply examines their own thoughts, they should EASILY find "temptations" of the TEMPTER within their own mind and heart.

There is man, and there is the tempter within the mind. This is WHY no man can be completely justified by ANY work. Because they extend their theological blanket further than it is meant to stretch, and extend it also OVER the tempter who operates "in mind and heart." Mark 4:15 etc.

What avails US everything avails the tempter nothing.