Some shipwreck their faith

[OzSpen]

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.

Why do you refuse to deal with the facts I provided about pistis and pisteuw? Your 'faith' position of 'faith' being different to 'believe' is not based on the facts of the Greek language.

 

[smaller]

Why do you refuse to deal with the facts I provided about pistis and pisteuw? Your 'faith' position of 'faith' being different to 'believe' is not based on the facts of the Greek language.

They have similarities but are not the same words.

Example: Faith works through LOVE. Gal. 5:6

God is Love. 1 John 4:8

Do devils LOVE?

Uh, no. They may believe, but they don't have faith.

 

[OzSpen]

They have similarities but are not the same words.

Example: Faith works through LOVE. Gal. 5:6

God is Love. 1 John 4:8

Do devils LOVE?

Uh, no. They may believe, but they don't have faith.

Do you know NT Greek?

 

[smaller]

Do you know NT Greek?

Pretty sure that if faith and belief were the same words there would be no use for different terms.

Anyone can believe that "a certain man" stood before them, named Jesus, making claims.

It takes faith in Christ's Promises to be saved.

I might hope that anyone could see the difference.

 

[OzSpen]

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!

netchaplain,

Lutheran Greek commentator, R C H Lenski, does not agree with your emphasis in his commentary on 1 Tim 1:19:

The Greek permits Paul to continue with three consecutive relative clauses; in English we should use independent clauses. The first is to be construed with "a good conscience" and not also with "faith," for "the faith" appears in the relative clause: "which some by thrusting away (or: having thrust away) made shipwreck regarding the (their) faith." When they thrust aside their conscience which tried to hold them to the prophecies they had learned from faithful teachers they made shipwreck of their very faith. One cannot keep his faith while he plays fast and loose with the prophecies (Word). He will have to silence his conscience, make it cease crying out against such practice, and then his faith is wrecked whether he admits it or not (Lenski 1937:532, emphasis added).

Gordon Fee is a leading Greek exegete, having edited the New International Commentary series of the NT for Eerdmans. In his commentary on 1 Tim 1:19, he wrote:

As in verses 5 and 6, the mention of faith and a good conscience prompts Paul to reflect on some men who have rejected these. Literally, he says they have "repudiated" or "rejected," both faith (trust in God) and conscience. In so doing, with a typical change of metaphor, Paul adds, they have shipwrecked their faith. It is not their faith that is shipwrecked - although that, too, has happened - but the faith. By rejecting faith (their complete trust in God's grace), they are at the same time in the process of bringing the faith (the gospel itself) to ruin (Fee 1988:58, emphasis in original).

Of course it's OK to share your opinion but in so doing you have challenged mine. That also is reasonable. You've done it in a responsible way. However, yours seems to be an OSAS unconditional approach to faith while mine is a conditional faith, based on perseverance of the saints. It's the classic Calvinism vs Arminianism varieties playing out on CFnet.

Oz
Works consulted
Fee, G D 1988. New International Biblical Commentary: 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers

Lenski, R C H 1937. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc (originally published by Lutheran Book Concern, The Wartburg Press, and Augsburg Publishing House).

 

[OzSpen]

Pretty sure that if faith and belief were the same words there would be no use for different terms.

Anyone can believe that "a certain man" stood before them, named Jesus, making claims.

It takes faith in Christ's Promises to be saved.

I might hope that anyone could see the difference.

You didn't answer my question: Do you know NT Greek?

The foundational Greek works for both the noun, pistis, and the verb, pisteuw, have the same root meaning. They are facts as any Greek lexicon will tell you. Do you want me to quote Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon to demonstrate this for you or to cite some other Greek scholar?

 

[netchaplain]

It's the classic Calvinism vs Arminianism varieties playing out on CFnet.

Yes, I expected such and thanks for sharing the commentary you use. My comprehension is that of John Gill's, in that the passage refers to those who held not to faith but was only professing it, for holding to faith results in a good conscience.

Gill: "Which some having put away"; that is, a good conscience; and which does not suppose that they once had one, since that may be put away which was never had: the Jews, who blasphemed and contradicted, and never received the word of God, are said to put it from them, Acts 13:46 where the same word is used as here; and signifies to refuse or reject anything with detestation and contempt: these men always had an abhorrence to a good conscience among men, and to a good life and conversation, the evidence of it; and at length threw off the mask, and dropped the faith they professed, as being contrary to their evil conscience: though admitting it does suppose they once had a good conscience, it must be understood not of a conscience cleansed by the blood of Christ, but of a good conscience in external show only, or in comparison of what they afterwards appeared to have: and, besides, some men, destitute of the grace of God, may have a good conscience in some sense, or with respect to some particular facts, or to their general conduct and behaviour among men, as the Apostle Paul had while unregenerate, Acts 23:1and which being acted against, or lost, is no instance of falling from the true grace of God, which this passage is sometimes produced in proof of."

If you wish to view the rest of the passage by Gill:
https://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/1timothy/gill/1timothy1.htm

 

[smaller]

You didn't answer my question: Do you know NT Greek?

Irrelevant. If your claim would be that all greek translators see identically, I might propose that might not be the case.

In any case of terms, the words believe and faith are in fact "different" to some extents, in any language.

The foundational Greek works for both the noun, pistis, and the verb, pisteuw, have the same root meaning. They are facts as any Greek lexicon will tell you. Do you want me to quote Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon to demonstrate this for you or to cite some other Greek scholar?

Having the same root word does not make the terms "identical," which seems to be your claim. They aren't.

IF the term was meant to be "devils have faith" then that would have been the term deployed, as faith, rather than believe. If you think bullying me by claimed authority will cause me to see "faith" and "believe" as IDENTICAL you would be wasting your time.

The only faithful thing that devils do is to FAITHFULLY resist everything of God in Christ, if you would care to term that "faith." Mark 4:15

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, I expected such and thanks for sharing the commentary you use. My comprehension is that of John Gill's, in that the passage refers to those who held not to faith but was only professing it, for holding to faith results in a good conscience.

Gill: "Which some having put away"; that is, a good conscience; and which does not suppose that they once had one, since that may be put away which was never had: the Jews, who blasphemed and contradicted, and never received the word of God, are said to put it from them, Acts 13:46 where the same word is used as here; and signifies to refuse or reject anything with detestation and contempt: these men always had an abhorrence to a good conscience among men, and to a good life and conversation, the evidence of it; and at length threw off the mask, and dropped the faith they professed, as being contrary to their evil conscience: though admitting it does suppose they once had a good conscience, it must be understood not of a conscience cleansed by the blood of Christ, but of a good conscience in external show only, or in comparison of what they afterwards appeared to have: and, besides, some men, destitute of the grace of God, may have a good conscience in some sense, or with respect to some particular facts, or to their general conduct and behaviour among men, as the Apostle Paul had while unregenerate, Acts 23:1and which being acted against, or lost, is no instance of falling from the true grace of God, which this passage is sometimes produced in proof of."

If you wish to view the rest of the passage by Gill:
https://www.ewordtoday.com/comments/1timothy/gill/1timothy1.htm

I did shared 2 commentaries by Greek expert exegetes. First Timothy 1:19 (ESV) says they 'have made shipwreck of their faith' (e.g. Hymenaeus and Alexander) and not they 'have made shipwreck of their conscience'.

Near where I live there is the Maheno shipwreck on the east side (Pacific Ocean) of Fraser Island:

(source)

To shipwreck a boat makes it unusable. Same with shipwrecked faith. It is no longer faith for use. Spiritually shipwrecked faith, according to Paul to Timothy, means that these people are blaspheming the faith: 'I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme' (1 Tim 1:20 ESV).

Oz

 

[netchaplain]

Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander,.... The former of these is mentioned in 2 Timothy 2:17 and that part of faith he made shipwreck of, or erred in, was the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, whereby the faith of some nominal (pretense, ingenue--NC) believers was overthrown; and this was attended with the putting away of a good conscience, he seemingly before had; for his profane and vain babblings increased to more ungodliness: the latter seems to be the same with Alexander the coppersmith, who did the apostle much evil, 2 Timothy 4:14

 

[OzSpen]

Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander,.... The former of these is mentioned in 2 Timothy 2:17 and that part of faith he made shipwreck of, or erred in, was the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, whereby the faith of some nominal (pretense, ingenue--NC) believers was overthrown; and this was attended with the putting away of a good conscience, he seemingly before had; for his profane and vain babblings increased to more ungodliness: the latter seems to be the same with Alexander the coppersmith, who did the apostle much evil, 2 Timothy 4:14

We are going nowhere with this discussion. You are OSAS. I'm not OSAS. We are not going to agree. Are we agreed about that?

Oz

 

[netchaplain]

We are going nowhere with this discussion. You are OSAS. I'm not OSAS. We are not going to agree. Are we agreed about that?

Oz

I understand and agree. The OSAS is so significant of a doctrine that no issue in Christianity can be discussed at length without it being a part of it!

Love you in Christ!!

 

[OzSpen]

I understand and agree. The OSAS is so significant of a doctrine that no issue in Christianity can be discussed at length without it being a part of it!

Love you in Christ!!

However, how is it that both of us love Christ and on this important doctrine we come down on different sides of the theological spectrum? This is where, in Christ, we have to agree to disagree on conclusions about whether one can lose salvation.

Oz

 

[netchaplain]

However, how is it that both of us love Christ and on this important doctrine we come down on different sides of the theological spectrum? This is where, in Christ, we have to agree to disagree on conclusions about whether one can lose salvation.

Oz

Yes, I agree that we can agree to disagree (lol), but we should realize that we know the essential doctrines are the same for all, which are teachings related to being saved, i.e. Romans 10:9, 10; 1Jhn 4:2, 3, etc. (of course Rom 19:9 already assumes by faith that "Christ has come in the flesh").

Love You in Christ, and God be blessed!
Bob

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, I agree that we can agree to disagree (lol), but we should realize that we know the essential doctrines are the same for all, which are teachings related to being saved, i.e. Romans 10:9, 10; 1Jhn 4:2, 3, etc. (of course Rom 19:9 already assumes by faith that "Christ has come in the flesh").

Love You in Christ, and God be blessed!
Bob

Bob,

To those Scriptures I would add Titus 2:11 (ESV): 'For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people'.

There is no Rom 19:9 in my Bible. Romans ceases at 16:27. I John 4:2 (ESV) teaches it: 'By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God'.

Oz

 

[netchaplain]

Bob,

To those Scriptures I would add Titus 2:11 (ESV): 'For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people'.

There is no Rom 19:9 in my Bible. Romans ceases at 16:27. I John 4:2 (ESV) teaches it: 'By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God'.

Oz

Yes, Romans 19 is an error, 10:9 was intended, in which faith in Christ's resurrection assumes that He came in the flesh, which are the primary essentials, along with receiving Christ as the Son of God.