I will spew thee out of my mouth......

[nebula]

Hey, NITE OWL -

First thing, please wittle down the quotes to the essential points, OK? There's no need to re-read what's already been said.

OK, both SJ and Shiloh gave the best reply backs to what you have stated.

I just wanted to add, though:

When I first heard this translation given, one point the man made was that it's rediculous to think that the Lord would prefer us as his enemy (satanist, witch, murderer, athiest, etc.) than a backslider.

Second, why would the Lord give a message to the Laodiceans which was meant for our interpretation? That's like saying the Lord gave you a word to give to Americans, yet to use lingo that the Chinese would understand!

But for points:

How many people on this board know about the rivers mentioned? How many knew 100 years ago?

Irrelevant. God gave you a brain to learn of the people, languages and cultures back then - use it!

Cold water isn't always refreshing. Have you ever fell through the ice?

Again, irrelevant. If you were a Laodicean and heard the cold, hot, lukewarm analogy - wouldn't you be thinking of drinking water?

Christ may have been using the rivers as a ref., but they are not what He was referring too.

And your evidence for this is. . . ?

Cold..Not knowing who God is.

Hot..Being filled with the Spirit. Living in the Word.

Lukewarm..Knowing God but backsliding. Putting the cares of the world before God.

Again, what is your evidence to support this interpretation?

I see your point about the rivers, but unless they are mentioned in this passage, they mean nothing.

If I were making a point and used the expression "he's out in left field," would I have to mention "baseball field" for the expression to be referring to the left field of a baseball field?

That's how I see it . If anyone wants to believe otherwise, they have that right.

When I used to believe the "hot = on fire, cold = not knowing God, lukewarm = fencesitter or backslider", this passage had no meaning to me.

When I learned this to mean: "Hot = minister of healing, cold = minister of refreshment, lukewarm = inneffective" - suddenly I could relate to the message. Am I ministering healing? Am I ministering refreshment? Or is my ministry and testimony inneffective and I am giving God a bad name?

Sure, being a backslider can be lukewarm but lukewarm can mean so much more - and is much more terrifying.

It's nice to know about the physical locations of places mentioned in the bible, I just don't believe it's necessary.

I really don't understand this mentality.

Edited September 18, 2005 by nebula

[ruah brit]

Does this verse mean that we indeed have lost our Salvation and that we can not come back to God, again.

Does this mean litraelly?

Or does it mean that God is just annoyed with us?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you read all of the scripture around that phrase you will find that it is written for correction. You can repent right up to the point where the Lord stands up and shuts the door and those outside begin to knock and say please let us in.

Rev 3

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Luke 13:25

Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.' "But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.'

[NITE OWL]

I'm not going to go in circles about this. You can believe what you feel is right.

Take a poll...see how many people knew about those two rivers.

Matt. 24:12 "....the love of many will grow cold".

The message Christ is trying get across here is,

Cold...He would rather have someone flatout deny Him than to have a church that only pays lip service.

Hot...Being filled with the Spirit. Walking in the ways of the Lord. Not pretending too.

Lukewarm...Putting on a good show for others while the heart is filled with deceit.

Look at the church in general and tell me you don't see a lukewarm church.

If the message was only ment for the Laodiceans, why do we have it?

Your "left field" remark. To someone who knows nothing about baseball or what a baseball field even looks like, the term "out of left field" means nothing.

Why would God rather have someone hate or not know Him?

People that hate or don't know God, don't preach His word. You know where that individual stands as far as God is concerned.

People that are Lukewarm try to live in both worlds. They preach one thing and do another. Look at all the different denominations out there. Thats a Lukewarm church. There are so many different messages out there, who's to know what to believe.

Where are the hot and cold rivers mentioned in the bible? I don't doubt you...I must have missed it.

These are my beliefs. If you disagree, that's your business. I have no problem there.

To walk in the Lord is Spiritual. His Word instructs us on how to build ourselves up spirirtually. What do two rivers have to do with being spiritual?

[ruah brit]

There are so many different messages out there, who's to know what to believe

Believe the life and teachings of Christ and rely on no man or woman’s understanding. If you have so little faith that you are unwilling to search out Christ with zeal to find Him you probably will not.

Heb 11

6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him

Denise

[Gerioke]

Irrelevant. God gave you a brain to learn of the people, languages and cultures back then - use it!

I don't recall reading anywhere in the bible were Jesus suggests that we should brush up on ancient cultures. By your way of thinking, only scholorly people would be worthy of salvation. If God loves the whole world I would think that would include the people who don't have the capacity to learn.

The message as far as I know is simpler than some of you intellects would like to believe.

[Guest shiloh357]

I don't recall reading anywhere in the bible were Jesus suggests that we should brush up on ancient cultures.

Understanding the cultures and issues that affected the people of the biblical time periods is quite valuable. Since those things were not circumvented when the Bible was inspired. The Bible is also a book of history written to a people in history, and it is not hard to learn about their culture, customs and idioms. Those are part of the equation where biblical interpretation is concerned. There are nuggets of wisdom that can be found in this venue of study. We use terms and phrases in our current generation that might be ambiguous to peple 20 generations down the line. References to current issues, celebrities, sports, figures of speech that are just understood by our generation might be a mystery to someone 2000 years from now.

By your way of thinking, only scholorly people would be worthy of salvation.

Why don't you cut paste for us where someone said that gaining such knowledge was necessary for salvation?

The message as far as I know is simpler than some of you intellects would like to believe.

Studying the Bible is as much an intellectual excersize as it is a spiritual one. The Basic message of the Bible is simple, but it is not simplistic. The Bible talks about the manifold (many sided) wisdom of God. There is so much out there to learn and discover, and it can really open up the Bible to anyone who is hungry for it. But it does take some time and some effort. There are plenty materials available to the average Christian in any bookstore or even on the web that can help a person learn.

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings,

As usual Neb provided some excellent reference material which all of us should take heed of. That said, I would like to add my own 2 cents, but regarding the application for today.

As with ALL scripture it is good for the edification and building up of the faith of the believer and a stern warning to the unbeliever of what to expect if they continue in their own unbelief or rebellion against God.

In addition to the every day application of the first 3 chapters of Revelation, I see a prophetic significance which I believe is supported elsewhere in the scriptures. I see the 7 churches, first to those at the time of their writings, to those whom it was most applicable, namely the individual churches involved. But I see a "spiritual" application as well. Throughout the church's history thus far I believe we can correlate each church with a particular "age". I have seen this done, by others, but I myself cannot do this for lack of memory. (please forgive) That said, I see a direct correlation between the spewing out of the "Laodician church spirit" with:

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

which I believe also supports the "fulness of the gentiles":

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

which I believe tells us that even as the Jews rejected Christ, so will the latter day church of the gentiles. The Kingdom of God will have received its "fulness" of gentiles and then the only ones whose ears shall be opened to "hear the gospel" will be the Jews:

Romans 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

Romans 11:30-31 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

From Rev 3 onward, we see no reference to the "church" or "churches". All we see are the saints that go through the "great tribulation". So from cross to the "great tribulation" is the "church age", at which time, the beast will wage war against the "saints of God". No one will be able to buy or sell without the MoB. That means, the saints of God are going to be homeless, pennyless, wearing rags and living on the streets. There will be no church buildings for the true "saints of God". Those churches (so called) that remain will have completely bought into the "system" of the Beast and will have been "spewn" out of the mouth of God. This is going to be their (our?) motto:

Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

[nebula]

Lukewarm...Putting on a good show for others while the heart is filled with deceit.

Hey - if you put a face on it, our definitions of "lukewarm" come out to be pretty much the same.

It's just the definitions of "cold" and "hot" that we cross swords on!

I personally believe that these words being synonymous with the waters makes for a more challenging message. Cold and hot are both useful. Lukewarm is not - actually it's disgusting!

And recall, Jesus is speaking to Christians.

Look, I know being zealous for God is called being "on fire for God" based on this passage. This doesn't have to take away from that at all.

How about this? You know the church of Ephasus was rebuked for having lost it's first love. Do you know what happened to Ephasus? Ephasus used to be port. Now, there is a field where the harbor used to be! Silt from upriver kept depositing around the mouth of the river and filling up the harbor until the harbor kept getting further and further from the city. Eventually, there was no harbor and Ephasus as a city died.

See the correlation?

[Guest shiloh357]

Cold...He would rather have someone flatout deny Him than to have a church that only pays lip service.

Why? Why is that better than someone who pays Him lip service? Both are equally unacceptable. Can you demonstrate WHY the Lord would prefer someone to out and out deny Him?

Look at the church in general and tell me you don't see a lukewarm church.

If the message was only ment for the Laodiceans, why do we have it?

The point is not that it was just for the Laodiceans. No one said that. The point was that Jesus was saying something that would have impacted their minds. He was equating their attitudes and service with the sickening water they had to boil everyday just to survive. No doubt they had seen the effects of drinking the water, and seen people get violently ill from the bacteria and parasites, and Jesus is telling them that they are to Him what the lukewarm water is them. He is drawing a very effective comparison. One that would drive the point home.

Your "left field" remark. To someone who knows nothing about baseball or what a baseball field even looks like, the term "out of left field" means nothing.

But it would mean something to a person reading a document and trying to understand it, if they were several generations down the line, and baseball was a dead sport. It would be a figure of speech that they would have to become familiar with, along with other figures of speech, if they wanted insight and understanding where our culture and customs were concerned. Our figures of speech and idioms tell a lot about our culture, how we live and the things that are important to us.

What if someone runs along something like "that dog won't hunt." Or, "He looked at me like a dog with a new pan." There are figures of speech that are demographic and you will hear in one part of say, the U.S., but not in other parts. To a person hundreds of years from now, they would need to understand these things to accurately understand our culture and how we lived. We can't assume that everything he have and know today will be around 200 years from now.

People that hate or don't know God, don't preach His word. You know where that individual stands as far as God is concerned.

That is not a good reason for God to want someone to hate Him. That is just pure nonsense.

People that are Lukewarm try to live in both worlds. They preach one thing and do another. Look at all the different denominations out there. Thats a Lukewarm church. There are so many different messages out there, who's to know what to believe.

No, people who are lukewarm don't live in both worlds. They are not a mixture of commitment and apathy. They are simply apathetic. You cannot be partially committed and partially uncommitted. You are one or the other. Lukewarm people have absolutely nothing to contribute. If they were hot or cold at least they would have a healing soothing quality or they would be a refreshment, an edification, but as it is, they are neither.

[Gerioke]

Why don't you cut paste for us where someone said that gaining such knowledge was necessary for salvation?

This isn't a cut and paste , but I would assume that if the Lord would vomit you out of His mouth, that would lead me to believe that your salvation is in jeopardy.

Isn't it better to consider more, "What did you learn?" more than"What does it mean?"? God knows the true state of a man's heart, so He's saying make sure your heart is right. I see nothing wrong with Night Owls interpretation.

Isn't it better to have never to have heard the word than to have heard the word and rejecting it?