Free will(not to derail another post)

This is part of a message sent to "the seven churches in Asia." You can try to twist that whatever way you want to, but you cannot change that this was one of the seven churches to whom this was to be written. It was just as much a church as Ephesus and Philadelphia were, although in considerably worse shape.

Concerning lukewarm:

The Greek word is chliaros.

Vines says this about this word: "'tepid, warm' (akin to chlio, "to become warm," not found in the NT or Sept.), is used metaphorically in Rev 3:16, of the state of the Laodicean church, which afforded no refreshment to the Lord, such as is ministered naturally by either cold or hot water."

Thayer's says this: "metaph. of the condition of the soul wretchedly fluctuating between a torpor and a fervour of love"

Some synonyms for torpor: Dullness; laziness; sluggishness; stupidity

Here is a church that is neither cold or hot. They are rather in between. They have become lazy, dull, sluggish. They are just going through the motions. They have enjoyed some prosperity and have forgotten the Lord. The Lord Jesus Christ is warning them to repent. He walks among the seven golden candlesticks, which reprensent the seven churches. Laodicea still has her candlestick, but she is warned by Him lest she lose hers.

 

Actually, it is to the pastors (angels) of the churches located in the specific cities. It is symbolic of the different type of churches today and throughout history. I think what Macarthur posted belows is spot on (and I'm not a fan), as for Christ to rather have someone be an unbeliever than a sluggish, lazy Christian is blasphemy, and He also stated those who came to Him He would in no wise cast out. Vomiting out these people goes against that.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg1444.htm

 

Where do you get the idea that cold refers to an unbeliever? Have you ever met a cold Christian? I have. Have you ever met a hot Christian, one that is on fire? I have. Both were believers, both children of God, both saved to heaven. One isn't coming to church, the other is. Not coming to church is not a good thing, but that person isn't a snare for everybody else in the church. The snare is the person who comes to church and then simply goes through the motions, walking out of the door when all is over thinking he/she has done his/her duty. This church at Laodicea is filled with these kinds of people. I call them Sunday Christians. They think showing up for the Sunday morning church service fulfills their duty to Christ. They are lazy, sluggish Christians who have a bad influence on other Christians. They think they are rich and increased with goods, when in reality they are poor and naked.

 

John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

Reconcile that to Revelation 3:15-16.

 

What is there to reconcile?

There is absolutely nothing in the passage in Revelation 3 directed to the church of the Laodiceans that entails anything eternal. In verse 20 He promises them He will give them something if they repent. What did He promise them? Eternal life? Salvation to heaven? Nope. He promised them restoration to fellowship. The whole passage is about how Christ deals with His church. This is what you seem to get hung up about.

The entirety of Revelation 2 and 3 is directed to churches and shows us how the Head deals with His them. In chapter 1 we see a glorious vision of Jesus Christ walking among the golden candlesticks holding seven stars. We are told that the seven candlesticks are the seven churches, and the seven stars are the seven angels of the seven churches. The next two chapters are directed to these seven churches and show us how He who walks among the candlesticks operates in His capacity as the authority over them. Each of them, save the Philadelphian church, has issues, but they are all churches and are told to repent lest they be judged by the Lord Jesus. This is not dealing with unsaved persons, but with born again children of God who are members of a church. The same is true of Laodicea. They have become lukewarm, and Christ is telling them to repent from their current state. If they do, they will receive restored fellowship. This is all about a church being dealt with, chastened, rebuked, whatever you wish you call it, by the Lord Jesus in time. It is in much the same fashion as the warnings against the other churches in these chapters.

 

You said quite a bit without answering the question. Revelation 3:15-16 states He is going to spew them (vomit, cast out). Comparing Scripture to Scripture, this is an impossibility concerning a believer.

The "buy from Me"'s are indeed an offer of salvation, to sit on the throne WITH Christ, not fellowship. They thought they were rich, but were poor. They thought they could see, but they were blind.

At this point we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

 

For the life of me I've never understood where people got the idea that angel meant pastor. When the NT speaks of a preacher, elder, bishiop, or pastor, it calls them by one of those titles or the title of overseer. Angel in the bible typically means an angel. I think that's what it means here. The greek word is never used to point to a preacher.

It may be symbolic, but it was also written to real churches experiencing these real problems stated here.

I read that by MacArther and I believe he goes way beyond the text to come to conclusions that aren't warranted or backed up by the actual text. Again, I could conclude anything and then force it on the text, but that isn't sound practice. I can't think of a single time that an "unsaved church" or "apostate church" is mentioned in the NT, nor can I think of a single time when such is called a church. In the NT I find something called a church. It is always referring to either geniune called-out believers in Jesus Christ or the congregation of Israelites in the wilderness. Sometimes it refers to the whole body, other times to a local group of these called-out believers who have come together for the purpose of worshipping the Lord Jesus Christ. Find me an instance where the definition of church in the NT doesn't meet those meanings.

The greek word ekklesia, when used in a christian sense (as here), always is used in these ways:

"1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting

2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake

3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body

4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth

5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven"

That is from Thayer's lexicon. By the way, the reference they give for number 3 is Revelation chapters 2:1, 8, etc.

 

Ladies and/or Gentlemen,

I have a question. I was invited to a Baptist home on Monday, to meet a Chinese man. It was arranged, because I have been ministering to Chinese via the internet for 8 years. Well, somehow I said something, and the Baptist man said, no, that cannot be, for once someone is saved, they are always saved.

I quoted the verse, where Jesus said, if you don't forgive others, then your Heavenly Father will not forgive you. I asked him, "Do you suppose that God will allow someone in heaven that God Himself has not forgiven?" We supposed that a born again person died suddenly that had not forgiven someone.

He thought that it must be so, if the person with unforgiveness was born again.

I don't think anyone with unforgiveness at the moment of death would be allowed into heaven, because SIN cannot get into heaven, and unforgiveness is certainly sin.

I hope to get some input here. Ideas? Comments? Scriptures? Sorry if I posted this in the wrong place.

Coop

 

Not sure this is the thread to ask that, you may want to start your own...not too many people join the calvinism debates and might not read it.

I will say if unforgiveness can forfeit God's grace, salvation is no longer by grace through faith but by works (forgiveness).

 

You are assuming a lot. First, you are assuming that spewing them out of His mouth constitutes eternal damnation. I have a few questions concerning this. Are unregenerate men in the mouth of Christ? Whoever Christ is talking to and saying He will (not He has) spew them out, they must be in His mouth. Of course, this is figurative language, but, nonetheless, how can one place an unregenerate in such a relationship with Christ that he can be spewed out? What is he being spewed from? If he has no relationship with Christ, how can he be spewed out? He's already on the outside.

Another question: what does Christ warn these churches with? Well, removal of the candlestick. That doesn't seem to constitute eternal damnation, but rather a loss of something they had. The loss of His recognition of them being a church, the loss of fellowship with Him, etc.

I can't see any reason to assume this spewing out must mean eternal damnation. In fact, everything in the passage scream timely discipline from the Lord. After upbraiding them for being lukewarm and thinking themselves to be rich, He counsels them to buy things from Him. The things He counsels them to buy are interesting. They serve to fill up that which the church lacks. Then, He tells them that as many as He loves He rebukes and chastens, and therefore they need to repent. In other words, I wouldn't be chastening you except I love you. He certainly is not dealing with them as unbelievers - those who aren't His - but rather as disobedient children. Well, that's exactly what the bible says God does. He chastens those He loves and scourges every son He receives. Peter said judgement begins at the house of God. God is not chastening those who aren't His children. Jesus then tells them He is at the door knocking, and the very minute any opens, He will immediately come in and sup. I've looked at this the wrong way in the past. I've looked at it and focused on Christ being outside the church. The thing that should stick in our minds is how close Christ is to the church. He is near, even at the door. What is more, He is knocking, and will immediately enter if the door is opened. Even after all this church is guilty of, Christ is right there exhorting them to repent and promising great blessings if they do.

As for the final remarks concerning eternal things, Christ does that with all of the seven churches. He that overcomes, he that does this, he that does that. Are we to understand that eternal life is a reward for our works?

 

Well, in Revelation 2 and 3 Christ promises "he that overcometh" some things that certainly appear to be eternal blessings. You took that to be a condition of eternal life in looking at the Laodicean church.

 

Yes, isn't it amazing that I showed three different commentaries where they all believed as I do that Rev 3:20 is a universal invitiation to all sinners to accept Christ? And Matthew Henry and Barnes were Calvinists!!

 

...not to mention the modern day spokesperson for many calvinists, John MacArthur has just as little understanding as we do according to TC.

 

Not sure what you are saying exactly or how that disagrees with what I have said on this thread.

 

And Calvinists commentators are not above taking a text out of context and wrongly applying it.

Christ is speaking to a church and dealing with them as disobedient children, invited them back to fellowship with Him. That is clear from the context and the language. Applying it to unregenerate sinners at large is totally against both. I don't care who has done it, they are wrong.

Concerning commentaries on that section of scripture - many men will try to say the angels of the churches are the pastors. That doesn't make a lick of sense. Commentaries on Revelation are tricky things. I've yet to find one that I feel is really good.

 

MacArthur is very knowledgable, but he breaks a cardinal rule of bible study - he disobeys the context.

 

As I said in post number 32 -- Matthew Henry did not write any commentary on Revelation -- he only got through Acts and died. Albert Barnes was a mild Calvinist.

 

Agreed. In fact, I believe you will find that most Cist theologians and thinkers would agree with this. The error would be in placing the whole stress of salvation on the individuals faith.

 

One should be careful in taking this verse too far in either direction.
"Any" is a funny word. It can expand and contract based on the context. To base ones take on this verse on the phrase "any man" would be, at best, problematic. Notice, for instance, several cases where "any man" is used but where limiting it to mean "any man of this particular group being addressed" makes a lot more sense than "absolutely any man whatsoever":
Exo 24:14And he said unto the elders, Tarry ye here for us, until we come again unto you: and, behold, Aaron and Hur are with you: if any man have any matters to do, let him come unto them.

"Any man" includes gentiles or even the past dead or yet to be born? Or "any man" includes merely those Israelites gathered there?

Leviticus 1:2
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.

"Any man" includes gentiles as well? Or "any man" is just referring to any man who is a Jew (or proselyte even)?

Leviticus 15:2
Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When any man hath a running issue out of his flesh, because of his issue he is unclean.

Ditto.

Leviticus 27:9
And if it be a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the LORD, all that any man giveth of such unto the LORD shall be holy.

Ditto and etc. etc. etc.

So, arguing that "any man" must necessarily mean all men universally is fallacious. Any man legitimately restricts itself to the group that is being addressed - in fact, such should, if anything, be the default assumption. Thus, for this verse to be seen as necessarily addressing all men universally (vs. "any man" within the particular context of the church) it would need to be shown that Christ is addressing all men everywhere.

However, doing that is problematic at best. First of all, the passage specifically identifies the audience as being the churches. No where does the passage say that the audience is universally meant. Is it possible to demonstrate that there is a universal element meant in this passage? Possibly. However, Winman's attempt to do so relies on a fallacy of begging the question. He first assumes that since such phrases such as "any man" and "He that hath an ear" *can* be meant universally they therefore *must* be meant universally (and thus the passage is addressing everyone). Such is not the case though. These sorts of phrases *can* be meant universally, true enough, but it is just as likely (if not more) that they are restricted to the particular audience they are being addressed to.

So, the presence of such phrases cannot legitimately be used as proof they are meant universally since is just as legitimate to see them as restricted to the audience being addressed. (begging the question).


At the same time however, even if we concede that the primary audience is the church it would be just as fallacious to insist on the "fellowship" vs. "relationship" sort of dichotomy. For one such an insistence is illogical. Christ is speaking to the churches yes, but to insist on "fellowship" only is in view in this passage would require that one assumes that every member of the church actually is a believer and has fellowship. The passage is addressing the church (mixed with believers and unbelievers) and not specifically the saints or elect (believers only). Thus, for this first reason, it would be taking the passage too far to insist that fellowship only is in view - logically relationship could be included as well in the passage even if "any man" is restricted to those in the church.

Secondly, even if the church is the primary audience and "fellowship" is the primary point to be taken from the verse. It would be fallacious to insist that this is the *only* application we could take from this passage. After all, theologians (Cists among them) regularly take principles found in one passage and use them to interpret another passage w/o restricting it to its primary meaning or audience. As long as one is careful to distinguish between what the verse is actually saying or who its primarily addressing and what one can logically infer from the passage, its not a problem.

In short, neither side can take this one passage and use it to argue pro or contra Cism.