Behold, I stand at the door and knock.

Hey Hardsheller

Congrats on the brilliance to understand the destiny vrs rewards; justification vrs sanctification; and position vrs fellowship.

You are a rare bird!
Lloyd

 

Scriptural proof?

Actually, Colosse and Laodicea were similar, as evidenced by the opening address to both churches. The church at Colosse became gnostic. They also embraced jewich legalism and ceremonialism for salvation, not to mention the worship of angels and other mystical experiences. Epaphras woas so concerned about what the church had become and the heresies taught, he made the long trip from Colosse to Rome to speak to Paul.

While this may be true, this is speculatative at best.

Personal opinion, unsubstantiated by fact.

Agreed.

You are turning salvation around making man responsible.

This is your interpretation, and is implying that their salvation was lost. I don't believe that. I believe in OSAS.

Neither you nor Macarthur are truly correct. You say it's about fellowhsip, "spiritual aloofness", he says it's about admitance into the church of unregenerated elect, I believe it is aimed at those within the pagan church to "open the door" to Christ individually.

To eisegete that the meaning of being on the outside of the door knocking waiting for the person to open to begin fellowship as regaining fellowship with believers, is not reading with context in mind.

 

Lloyd, explain "position vs. fellowship" and how it pertains to Laodicea and Colosse.

 

Hey webdog

I don't think one's personal position in Jesus Christ can be modeled by the present or future status of a Church.

A Church can turn liberal, starting denying Christ, and lose it's lampstand. Like the Catholic Church or its kissing cousin Churches of Christ, etc.

A believer's position in Christ is rock solid. It is related to justification. A believer's experience of fellwoship is fickle depending on the foibles of human obediences.

Christ's Church will never be overcomes. Certain churches can go out like a light. The analogies of Rev 1-3 must be done carefully.

Lloyd

 

Webdog,

Are you really prepared to name names of the Churches mentioned in the NT that didn't start out as Biblical Churches?

Why would the NT writers, led of the HS, refer to them as Churches (ecclesia-the called out ones) unless they were REAL Churches?

How can it possibly be speculative to believe that all the churches mentioned in the New Testament had true believer in them when they are referred to as Churches by the NT writers?

I fear you are letting the modern usage of the word Church interfere with sound Biblical understanding.

----------------
1 John 2:28 has nothing to do losing salvation - it is addressed to Christians and tells them how they must live their Christian lives unless they want to be ashamed before Christ when he comes again.

Being ashamed before Christ is not to be equated with losing one's salvation in this verse.

I believe in OSAS also.

------------------------

As far as Rev 3:20 goes - Does Jesus ask the person(s) behind the door to open the door so that he might save them? NO he asks them to open the door that he might "sup" with them.

How do you get from having dinner to being saved?

 

A church was not necessarily a group of believers. The greek:
ἐκκλησία
ekklēsia
ek-klay-see'-ah
a calling out, that is, (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both): - assembly, church.
This word also can mean a "religious gathering", which was common even for gnosticism.

As far as Rev. 3:20, Jesus asks the person to open the door so that He might come in AND sup with him. These are two separate things: 1. coming in, and 2. supping (either partaking of the Bread of Life at the marriage supper of the Lamb, or fellowship). A believer does not need the first, He is already in, therefore this verse does not make sense if it is to a believer. The "supping" could refer to:
Luke 17:8 Will he not rather say to him, 'Prepare supper for me, and dress properly, and serve me while I eat and drink, and afterward you will eat and drink'?

Luke 12:37 Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them.

John 6:56 Lifting up his eyes, then, and seeing that a large crowd was coming toward him, Jesus said to Philip, "Where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?"
Joh 6:6 He said this to test him, for he himself knew what he would do.

Luke 22:30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Mark 14:15 And he will show you a large upper room furnished and ready; there prepare for us."

Rev 19:9 And the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." And he said to me, "These are the true words of God."

Mat 26:29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

Isa 25:6 On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine, of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined.

 

I also would like to add that the last church's reward (Laodicea) for heeding Christ's warning is to "...sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne." This is salvation, different than the previous 6 churches in Revelation.

 

Every time the word Church is found in the English New Testament it means the people of God. Do you deny this?

As far as the Church in Laodicea, Paul sends instructions to the Colossian Church for them to salute the brethren which are in Laodicea..

(Col 4:15 KJV) Salute the BRETHREN which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

Paul obviously thought there were true believers in the Church at Laodicea.

 

Yes, by definition of ekklesia. The text reads "To the church at Laodicea...". As I have stated the greek, ekklesia, has more than one meaning.

I agree. There were most likely believers in the church, something I disagree with Macarthur on. There are believers in the RCC also. Does not mean the "church" is biblical even though it bears Christ's name.

As do I. This is not to say that the majority were, though.

 

So then our disagreement in REV 3:20 is whether Jesus was knocking on the door of the Believers' Hearts or the UnBelievers' Hearts in the Church of Laodicea?

If he's knocking on the Believers' hearts then it's about them repenting and coming back to where they used to be.

If he's knocking on the unbelievers' hearts then it's about repentance unto salvation.

Would this be an accurate assessment of our disagreement?

 

That would be pretty accurate. They were not cold (flatly rejecting Christ) nor hot (living for Christ), but lukewarm (posers and gnostics). This is what I believe Jesus was saying when He mentioned vomiting them out of His mouth; they disgusted Him.

 

Well then I guess there is nothing left for us to do but to agree to disagree.

Better men than both of us have been wrong about scripture before.

 

I had hoped that these "3 simple questions" would lead to some progress with my Calvinist brother.

KJB responds

Apparently that number "3" was ... "too many".

Was it "two too many"??

I mean - you could have answered that last one -- "Do you still agree with yourself".

Come on - these were really really EASY Questions KJB!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

I think your problem is that I DO AGREE With you that those on the INSIDE are OUT OF UNION with Christ and that only those OPEN the door are then IN UNION with Christ.

I don't agree with you sleeze-marketeeze idea that God is employing a "Trick marketing gimmick" so that what APPEARS to be a knocking on ALL doors and an invitation to ALL is just gimmickry to mask that it is only the FEW of MATT 7 that actually have been given the blessing of being able to take advantage of the offer.

That is the only part where you and I differ on this one.

I am just pointing out that were we DO agree - you have shown a big leap forward into the light from what many of your Calvinist brethren have been saying.

They claim that ALL THOSE on the inside ARE ABLE to open the door because ALL are IN UNION with Christ!! Innexplicably they DEFINE union with Christ such that ALONE WITHOUT CHRIST on the inside is "union" in Rev 3.

So this brings up the other "obvious" question. Since you have been allowed to admit to the obvious - (that ALONE WITHOUT CHRIST is NOT UNION with Christ) -- how in the world is it that you do not lovingly point out this blatant, obvious, clear as day fact to your unbelieving fellow Calvinists?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here we see the case of those NOT in UNION with Christ – NOT in fellowship with Christ. As even some Calvinists will admit – regeneration is the first point where a person IS in union with Christ.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1533.html#000005
</font>[/QUOTE]Wow A Calvinist like OldRegulare CONFIRMING this view that UNION is the first step in regeneration!

Boy this point above would be a GREAT one for Calvinists to ignore...

From MacArthur's study Bible comments on Rev 3, page 1997.
</font>[/QUOTE]WoW! Brother John admitting that the Rev 3 case does NOT SHOW UNION with Christ -- as we see those on the INSIDE WITHOUT CHRIST being asked to HEAR and OPEN the door so they can be WITH CHRIST!!

What a WONDERFUL point for a blinders-on Calvinist to ignore in an "all for Calvinism" desperate defense!

Note – the “individual terms” continue –

It is NOT just the Laodiceans that will enjoy God's company and sit with Christ - but ALL who open the door.


So how "swiftly" will Calvinists "dump all the details in this argument" and hope for "better days" and "better topics to discuss"??

That was pretty "fast" if you ask me!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

Glad I could provide you with some Comic Relief!

 

I just wanted to point to your need to dodge the inconvenenient facts and change the subject as fast as possible.

I thank you for illustrating the point

(But we all can "remember" that an unanswered post is "unanswered still" when treated to nothing but bogus attempts to change the subject. So simply piling a string of that non-response together and then later claiming "we already answered this many times" does not actually "change history" the you were thinking it did - right?)

 

Bob, I have no need that is any way remotely connected to any argument you have ever put forth for your views.

You can twist a premise until there is no way under the sun to even trace the logic that you use.

At least Webdog can argue consistently.