Can you lose your faith? ( Original title read loose instead of lose in error. My bad.)

[gordon 2]

In 1 Th. Paul indicates that he is worried that the people who make up the Thessalonian church have fallen away due to the persecutions that all Christians( gentiles and those in Judea) are experiencing at the time he is speaking about.

He says: "For this reason, when I could no longer endure it, I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter had tempted you, and our labor might be in vain."

Paul has described the believers of this particular church to be spared of the coming wrath for their new faith which has replaced their worship of idols.

"...when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe." Note Paul is talking about the words of his and his group's predication.

When Paul describes how the Thessalonians received the word of God not as the words of men, but in truth as the word of God it seems to me that he is describing a lot of Christians today who derived their faith similarly.

If Paul believed that the saints of the Thessalonian church could loose their faith then if he ( Paul) was ministering in person today could he still form the same conclusion of some or all?

Paul states he sent Timothy to this church to "to establish you and encourage you concerning your faith".

Do people of faith today need establishing and encouragement concerning their faith? Can they loose their faith? If so, who is doing this establishing and encouragement and how is it being done?

And finally when faith, if faith found sure, can faith be perfected as Paul indicates? Since Paul is not with us in body who would do this today similar as he did then? Paul sent Timothy.

 

[hummerpoo]

In 1 Th. Paul indicates that he is worried that the people who make up the Thessalonian church have fallen away due to the persecutions that all Christians( gentiles and those in Judea) are experiencing at the time he is speaking about.

He says: "For this reason, when I could no longer endure it, I sent to know your faith, lest by some means the tempter had tempted you, and our labor might be in vain."

Paul has described the believers of this particular church to be spared of the coming wrath for their new faith which has replaced their worship of idols.

"...when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe." Note Paul is talking about the words of his and his group's predication.

When Paul describes how the Thessalonians received the word of God not as the words of men, but in truth as the word of God it seems to me that he is describing a lot of Christians today who derived their faith similarly.

If Paul believed that the saints of the Thessalonian church could loose their faith then if he ( Paul) was ministering in person today could he still form the same conclusion of some or all?

Paul states he sent Timothy to this church to "to establish you and encourage you concerning your faith".

Do people of faith today need establishing and encouragement concerning their faith? Can they loose their faith? If so, who is doing this establishing and encouragement and how is it being done?

And finally when faith, if faith found sure, can faith be perfected as Paul indicates? Since Paul is not with us in body who would do this today similar as he did then? Paul sent Timothy.

Do people of faith today need establishing and encouragement concerning their faith? Can they loose their faith? If so, who is doing this establishing and encouragement and how is it being done?

Q1 — see Q3
Q2 — see Q3
Q3 — God by His will and power.

 

[gordon 2]

Interesting, but are you being lazy again.

Paul sent Timothy. Why couldn't God by His will and power be sufficient back in Paul's day that Paul had to send Timothy? If it was His will and power alone way was Paul worried about "saved" folk loosing their faith?

 

[hummerpoo]

Interesting, but are you being lazy again.

Paul sent Timothy. Why couldn't God by His will and power be sufficient back in Paul's day that Paul had to send Timothy? If it was His will and power alone way was Paul worried about "saved" folk loosing their faith?

Who sent Paul?

 

[gordon 2]

Who sent Paul?

Ok so God sends individuals like Paul on His behalf. Then what authority did Paul have to send Timothy? Was it a failing in Paul's part that he did not know that God would send and not him? In which case Paul's worry about the Thessalonians was misplaced-- God had it covered all along without Paul's need to send someone.

 

[hummerpoo]

Ok so God sends individuals like Paul on His behalf. Then what authority did Paul have to send Timothy? Was it a failing in Paul's part that he did not know that God would send and not him? In which case Paul's worry about the Thessalonians was misplaced-- God had it covered all along without Paul's need to send someone.

It seems to me (please place all do emphasis on that caveat) that you are trying very hard to deny Providence.

Providence:
The unceasing activity of the Creator whereby, in overflowing bounty and goodwill, He upholds His creatures in ordered existence, guides and governs all events, circumstances and free acts of angels and men, and directs everything to its appointed goal, for His own glory. J.I. Packer

 

[gordon 2]

I am not. Never thought of this.

 

[gordon 2]

Paul seems to me to be saying that it is possible for believers, people of faith, to loose their faith or at least he believes this can be a possibility. His remedy is to send Timothy for purposes of establishing and encouragement of faith.

My basic question is can people of faith loose their faith? And are there Christians today that are loosing their faith or were once Christians have lost their faith? And what would be a remedy today in keeping with Paul's sending Timothy to the Thessalonians? My principle question is can Christians loose their faith as Paul seems to think it so?

Following this and provided it is possible to loose one's faith, what was Paul's authority that he could send Timothy? Was Paul a mediator of God's will that he could send others to the church at Th.?

 

[hummerpoo]

I am not. Never thought of this.

Very well; I would think that the next step would then be to consider whether or not Packer's definition is a reasonably accurate summation of God's role in His creation. Our primary source, as with most knowledge, being Scripture and Spirit, it seems prudent to first ask if Scripture's primary purpose is to provide information concerning men and their activity, or is the primary purpose to provide information concerning God and His activity? I would suggest that we have been told that the primacy of knowledge of God is far greater than even that question suggests — "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Rm 1:20 (also Job 12:7-10 and Ps 19:1-6) — indicating that not just Scripture, but Creation in its entirety, is purposed to illuminate the attributes of God to the extent that we possess the faculty (as enhanced by The Spirit) to understand; the limits of that faculty, in most cases, dictates the form and the method used to describe the attributes and activities.

 

[gordon 2]

I'm not sure if you've attempted to answer my question(s). So are you suggesting that all, including Christians are able to be limited in understanding to the point that faith is without effect and possible to be lost where for example a Christian or former Christian simply does not live by/with faith?

Sorry if my understanding is without some possessions and a tax on your own patience.

 

[Madman]

Ok so God sends individuals like Paul on His behalf. Then what authority did Paul have to send Timothy? Was it a failing in Paul's part that he did not know that God would send and not him? In which case Paul's worry about the Thessalonians was misplaced-- God had it covered all along without Paul's need to send someone.

Apostolic succession. Christ sent 12, they laid hands on more, who laid hands on more.

 

[gemcgrew]

Very well; I would think that the next step would then be to consider whether or not Packer's definition is a reasonably accurate summation of God's role in His creation.

I see his definition as somewhat ambiguous. The providence of God is the will of God. The supreme law of the universe.

 

[hummerpoo]

I'm not sure if you've attempted to answer my question(s). So are you suggesting that all, including Christians are able to be limited in understanding to the point that faith is without effect and possible to be lost where for example a Christian or former Christian simply does not live by/with faith?

Sorry if my understanding is without some possessions and a tax on your own patience.

No, I'm saying that men are not capable of thinking, imagining, or conceiving of Holiness, Goodness, etc. that even approaches that which is God.

Without looking up the exact quotes,
Thomas Aquinas said that every word spoken of God is analogical.
(he referred to Aristotle's classifications of univocal, equivocal, and analogical.)

Herman Bavinck said that scripture does not have a smattering of anthropomorphisms, but is anthropomorphic through and through.

 

[1eyefishing]

Yes.

 

[hummerpoo]

I see his definition as somewhat ambiguous. The providence of God is the will of God. The supreme law of the universe.

Although I like Packer's definition for his willingness to say things that others are afraid might ruffle some feathers, I can't argue with your point. In listing the things as he does, he sends the idol-follower looking for what is not listed, or what can be redefined, so that he can claim it for himself.

 

[gordon 2]

And Hummerpoo should I understand your points are that faith is not faith it is something else, it is an analogy of some reality which cannot be but communicated through anthropomorphisms. Man can understand faith but not as God might understand to what it refers who formed it.

Therefore Paul's ministry was really not Christian as we understand it, but was something else we cannot possibly and fully understand. Faith is not faith. Paul is not Paul. What was Paul's worry about the church he really did not minister to? Can we even know if he says why since language is humanlocked?

So man might be able to loose faith if we really knew what it was, but because we can never know even from scripture or know only in part by analogy from it... we can only suppose that faith might be lost or/and it might not. We can't be sure.

 

[hummerpoo]

And Hummerpoo should I understand your points are that faith is not faith it is something else, it is an analogy of some reality which cannot be but communicated through anthropomorphisms. Man can understand faith but not as God might understand to what it refers who formed it.

Therefore Paul's ministry was really not Christian as we understand it, but was something else we cannot possibly and fully understand. Faith is not faith. Paul is not Paul. What was Paul's worry about the church he really did not minister to? Can we even know if he says why since language is humanlocked?

So man might be able to loose faith if we really knew what it was, but because we can never know even from scripture or know only in part by analogy from it... we can only suppose that faith might be lost or/and it might not. We can't be sure.

I'm sorry, but I just can not see how this, even remotely, follows from my post.

 

[gordon 2]

Ok. I misunderstood then. What does the providence of God have to do with my question which is: Can Christians lose their faith? I just noticed that I had been using loose for lose which I meant. Could this be the reason of my confusions with your replies... and yours with mine?


The title should read lose not loose. Sorry. Big sorry.

I think I will delete tread after I hear from you Hummerpoo.

 

[Israel]

We could spend, no, perhaps we must spend and will spend to our very own endings in time, our lives; mining the reality of this:

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

And now we are in the most curious place. And if curious is too casual or carnal sounding as in not being of dread or paramount importance to our interests (even interest may sound too casual) can we go with dire, dread, single, paramount, sole, only...import? Even if we are able to "leave our interests out" (what a universe is found in "if") so to speak (as in seeking to be free of any selfish motive) the words still remain.

To go even further in both inclusion and exclusion, had we no more than only those words

"the words I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life"

left to us, by the Spirit's persuasion and prompting to faith in them, we would have "no less" to mine.
(Yes, I make a huge jump for our sake of some sort of agreement, that all originates in God toward us in any and every sense to persuasion. Who, if God's wanting to remain "hidden"...could force God from that spot? But the obverse then becomes no less true...if God's intent is to glorify His name through His Son...who could stop Him? even "slow Him down"? Do anything...against?)

But now...we have not only "those words"...even if they be to a sufficiency to provoke us to all seeking out. We have the truth that He speaks spirit and life...and then (if believing) that any word spoken by Him is no less. His unfailing imprimatur is upon all He says and does. So any...or every word, and every word, is of eternal depth. There! is the resolution of time and every manner and matter in which it inhibits. Anything "of distance" (for what is time but that very thing?) is soundly resolved in the eternal. Does it become more clear to us then at all, this saying?

and no one hath gone up to the heaven, except he who out of the heaven came down -- the Son of Man who is in the heaven.

YLT

Time and/or any seeming of distance cannot suffer the eternal's entrance...it totally upends and undoes it the moment of its revealing. Any wonder one works furiously to hide/cover/obscure in great fury (and deepest of frustration, adding only to fury) the revelation of the One who shows him as he is? Of such great fury...knowing his time is short. His manifest "digging in of heels" to resist the irresistible yet holds some allegiance in mind that Christ patiently exposes and by exposure (in His own possessions) display His triumph over. Only Christ is able to effectually remove all and everything of "but not yet, Lord".

We are given (if one can believe it) to walk in the eternal light and life that is Christ. Even made ours by Christ, in Christ, through Christ. What we at first receive as command we (may learn? must learn?) learn is all to His glory and our benefit. Christ well understands (as only Christ has ever understood among men) that the frame of mind that rejects commandment as inhibition (instead of a prompting to life and liberty) is just a stronghold for the manifestation of His victory over. He has no troubling at what is "set up" against Him...it and they are all for the knocking down, that His preeminence, which is His Father's received:

"this command have I received of my Father"

is not even beholden to death.

In some sense of our experience it seems like we are men working backward to:

the words I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life

All is working to our convincing of this. I mean no insult in this as though I have apprehended and am speaking to any who have not, yet. But am I deceitfully trying to inhibit or stumble when I ask...Who of us is not and/or is not coming to the place/to some place of "wow, Lord! you mean exactly what you say!" In some admission we have not understood? There's more here than "I thought".

We are men growing to be children. We often either hear or exclaim ourselves "but it must be simple...it must be so easy even a child might understand!" Yes. To this end Jesus Christ tells us "unless you turn and become as little children"
(as children are easily...led)...all must appear...hard. We may still see command as inhibition...rather than release from all that truly does inhibit us.

What matter has this to do with Paul...and/or any sending and care...or worry even?
Do we think him (Paul) a magic man...who, getting the "download" (as do we all) all "at once" instantly understood all? He had some deep grasp of the gravity of which he had been entrusted...but the "working out" in Christ of how God was not burdening him, but freeing him (who doesn't understand this?) was all for the learning...even past any place of fear, doubt, and worry...(who doesn't understand this?)? And specifically, yes most specifically, of those to whom he was in giving his heart. Spending all of himself.

There is a lie rampant that is appointed to our overcoming. The indicia for the more "one cares" is worry about them. When actually it is the hard stop just before all of care. "Worry over" is the manifest demonstration assigned a thing not handed over to the Lord's care. It is a torment till then. Will God have us "care" to torment?

If we cannot hear (with some humor) these words to Jesus Christ while he slept in the boat

Master/Lord, don't you care that we perish?

We have time.

Time to learn the significance of His being in the boat with them, at all. With us, at all. We are commanded to pray. Is the end for us to learn God needs His attention called to certain things of which He may not be aware? Is it? Do any think I argue against prayer? Do you?

What might Paul have learned? Fighting past worry? Fighting past "his own" care of things? Is something resolved of that distance? The distance in which "not knowing" dwells; to either a yes or no...but all of unsure and insecure?

Is this too mystical? Too weird?

for I indeed, as being absent as to the body, and present as to the spirit, have already judged, as being present, him who so wrought this thing:

and

For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.

Do you...as I...often (always?) discover I must be reminded of all things? That laughing in joy at God's previous deliverance manifest yesterday may be so easily seem out of sight when the pressure of today (in evil) causes me to "despair even of life"?

Why are "the days" evil? Or how?

Pay careful attention, then, to how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

Perhaps to deliver us...or make known our deliverance...from them.

Really can we "redeem time"? If we are, (the redeemed) we are told, even "commanded" to do so. We can bring no more grace to any day short of any we see.

What might this command "force" us to? Seeing more of grace? Who is sorry for that?

Is the command burdensome? Is life and spirit...too much?

Maybe we have not heard as rightly as we imagine.

 

[hummerpoo]

Ok. I misunderstood then. What does the providence of God have to do with my question which is: Can Christians lose their faith? I just noticed that I had been using loose for lose which I meant. Could this be the reason of my confusions with your replies... and yours with mine?


The title should read lose not loose. Sorry. Big sorry.

I think I will delete tread after I hear from you Hummerpoo.

I didn't even notice "loose" vs "lose".

"What does the providence of God have to do with my question which is: Can Christians lose their faith?"

The lazy answer is "What does the providence of God not have to do with?". But non-lazy answers tend to lead the hearer to a lazy response, And sometimes, just sometimes, the lazy answer can entice the hearer to an active response.

Let's review.

OP
"who is doing this establishing and encouragement and how is it being done?"
#2
"God by His will and power."


#3
"Why couldn't God by His will and power ..."
OP
"For this reason, when I could no longer endure it ..."
#4
"Who sent Paul?"
#5
"God sends individuals like Paul"
"Then what authority did Paul have to send Timothy?"
#6
"... guides and governs all events, circumstances and free acts of angels and men, ..."
#7
"Never thought of this."

#8
"His remedy is to send Timothy ..."
#6
"... and directs everything to its appointed goal, for His own glory."
#9
"... Creation in its entirety, is purposed to illuminate the attributes of God ..."
#12
"The providence of God is the will of God. The supreme law of the universe."

#10
"I'm not sure if you've attempted to answer my question(s)."

O.K., that whole project looks like a failure, in that it doesn't seem to be providing the clarity that I was shooting for, but I'm leaving it here because of the time it took to put it together, and some piece of it might click with somebody.

As to "I'm not sure if you've attempted to answer my question(s)."
What I have been trying to do is establish the ground from which the question can be answered from a God-centered prospective. As long as we are talking about what a man (Paul) did, with no consideration of God's undergirding activity, we are following the path of what is euphemistically (my opinion) called "higher criticism", which grew out of "the enlightenment", (both expressions would more accurately be called man-centered study of xxxxx). And such study is appropriate only for those who have not been graced with a new heart (see "Knowledge and Christian Belief", Plantinga; maybe — IMHO it's a valid attempt to introduce theological/spiritual reasoning into the philosophical framework; but I'm unsure how valuable that is).

What this whole thing amounts to is "Who do you believe God is?"