Hot, Cold or Lukewarm?

[Fiosh]

And, just from a natural viewpoint just from basic English, if I were to speak in an English lit class about hot and cold and lukewarm or a science class, I think the understanding would be clear that cold and hot were opposites and that lukewarm was in between.

That demonstrates what I mean. You are not in an English class, or a science class. You have to use the context and the metaphor being used in the passage in order to objectively understand what it being said to the Laodiceans. You cannot use your natural viewpoint to subjectively impose what YOU want hot and cold to mean.

I have a feeling that you had a particular direction you were headed, and if we apply this passage in light of the metaphor, it kinds puts a crimp in things.

Shiloh,

The purpose of this discussion was to hear what other people thought to help me in understanding the passage better, and to generate thought as to the meaning of the passage in hopes to get us to evaluate our own lives and relationships with the Lord in hopes to move those who are "lukewarm" out of their "lukewarmness" into God's wonderful light.

My discussions on here have not been from preconceived thoughts nor intentions. I am examining what everyone is bringing before me and I'm thinking it through. The above statement was my "thinking out loud." I do that a lot when I'm researching a particular subject. I think that many of the comments on here are with merit and I have learned from each person's contributions. But, I have to decide for myself ultimately what I believe God is saying to me through this passage.

I think there is a danger here in getting too caught up in the mechanics of interpretation and thus lose totally what God is trying to say. We can sit here and discuss our differences of interpretation until hell freezes over, but if we miss what God is saying to you and to me, then what did it profit? I believe there are many ways to interpret this passage and no one way is right or one way is wrong. They are just different ways of looking at the same truth.

Bottom line: God wants us to stop being lukewarm in our relationship with him if that is where we are. We need to examine our hearts before God and ask him to show us our hearts. We need to see where we need to change, so that we can live what we believe. I believe we are in the last days before the return of Christ. God is crying out to his Church to change, to repent, to turn from our sinful lifestyles and to be on fire for God, not only for our own sake, but the sake of His Church. The Church in America is in great need of revival. If we get on our knees before God in humility and repentance and make a decision to obey God instead of our own flesh, then we will see a harvest of souls in this nation unequalled to anything we have ever before witnessed in our lifetime. That should be our ultimate goal - the salvation of many lives!

Amen........ and Amen..... and Amen !

great thread, Sue!

[Christ's Free Servant]

I agree CFS.

I don't have any great ideas for how to change the situation, I think part of our problem is that we have a comfortable life in the West in the US, thus our whole emphasis is kind of on a lukewarm faith a compromise, because we compromise in so much in our culture in general.

The idea of sacrifice is not a terribly popular message in the US.

Yes, I know. But, I believe that is about to change. I believe that the Church in America is soon to get a taste of God's discipline and then we will call on God in repentance and will understand sacrifice versus personal comfort.

[Christ's Free Servant]

Some people need to be more correct than others. It appears to me that God in all His infinite wisdom has got His message across regardless of how our feeble minds interpret hot and cold. Give your life to the Lord in whole. what more need be said.

Gerioke,

You are so right! God bless you!

[Christ's Free Servant]

Several things come to mind while reading thru this thread. Many times the "learned" folks here have stated that the Bible is written so that it can be understood by any believer who reads it open to the Holy Spirit.

I've never actually studied this passage, though I have read it several times. "Cold" has always come across to me as not having any passion for Christ...not believing in Christ.

Well, I always pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance and wisdom before reading Scripture. Was I deceived --- or is this one possible interpretation?

After hearing all that's been said, I'm willing to admit that the alternate interpretation of "cold", as refreshing, makes sense also. It's not difficult for me to say that I may have been wrong, but I'm not convinced of that.

Why it is such an emotional issue for some ---to be right about this---I'm not sure. Obviously there are scholars, who also are fluent in Greek and ancient history, who hold both interpretations. So it really isn't all that clear, is it?

Like some here have said, "lukewarm" is the real concern. Why fight over "cold". Can't we discuss it, remembering that there are those more learned than ourselves who disagree? We don't need to come up with a definitive answer. There is joy and there are riches in the search for truth.

Peace,

Fiosh

Good job! I agree!!

[Fiosh]

But I don

[Christ's Free Servant]

But I don

[st. Worm]

Well I see you all are still at it!

Hopefully here is something we can agree upon no matter how you view hot, cold, and lukewarm pursuant to the passage in question and that is that all of Scripture from Genesis forward, including this passage in Revelation, clearly spells out the need for ongoing repentance in the life of the believer. And that the local church as a body, which I still contend is the overriding theme here, should also continually repent and acknowledge its spiritual poverty. Further, that repentance should not lead to some type of attempt at "Christian lifestyle" but an acknowledgment of what we are and a turning in faith to Christ. For as it is written, when all is said and done we are but unprofitable servants.

Peace.

SW

[apothanein kerdos]

Several things come to mind while reading thru this thread. Many times the "learned" folks here have stated that the Bible is written so that it can be understood by any believer who reads it open to the Holy Spirit.

I've never actually studied this passage, though I have read it several times. "Cold" has always come across to me as not having any passion for Christ...not believing in Christ.

Well, I always pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance and wisdom before reading Scripture. Was I deceived --- or is this one possible interpretation?

After hearing all that's been said, I'm willing to admit that the alternate interpretation of "cold", as refreshing, makes sense also. It's not difficult for me to say that I may have been wrong, but I'm not convinced of that.

Why it is such an emotional issue for some ---to be right about this---I'm not sure. Obviously there are scholars, who also are fluent in Greek and ancient history, who hold both interpretations. So it really isn't all that clear, is it?

Like some here have said, "lukewarm" is the real concern. Why fight over "cold". Can't we discuss it, remembering that there are those more learned than ourselves who disagree? We don't need to come up with a definitive answer. There is joy and there are riches in the search for truth.

Peace,

Fiosh

Good job! I agree!!

THe reason is that this shows many things:

1) It alters what Jesus was saying. By saying "cold=evil" you are saying that Jesus wishes people would be evil. This doesn't stand to logical reasoning or even Biblical reasoning. This actually contradicts what Paul says about God, that He wishes none should perish (be evil). The interpertation that "cold=evil" is a contradiction....THAT'S why it's a big issue. It's not, as Geri said, an issue about wanting to be right, or being emotional over being right. It's about preventing contradictions from emerging within the Bible.

2) It shows that people would rather hold to a traditional form of interpretation then looking at the most plausible evidence. This carries over into other beliefs on scripture where, no matter how much evidence is shown, people will not budge. If people are not willing to look at the evidence on "minimal" items in the Bible, then they surely will ignore the major ones.

3) It's frustrating to use proper exegesis, to study this issue, look at the context in every way, and have someone counter it with, "Well I believe..." It's okay to have personal beliefs, so long as they can be backed up and validated by proper exegesis. If this has been used, and you still come to the same conclusion, then wonderful (though I doubt anyone could because this would provide a source of a contradiction within scripture).

This isn't about us wanting to be "right" or trying to win a debate. If that's all it was about, this thread would have been over quite some time ago. It's about standing for truth and looking at the bigger picture. Sometimes we have no problem making compromises in our interpretation of scripture because we don't look at the bigger picture. This is what is occuring here. When we accept "cold=evil" we are providing a contradiction within the scriptures.

[MrSealedEternal]

All this arguing over hot and cold when it is luke warmness that is the issue.

One can't understand lukewarm until we understand what "hot" and "cold" are.

I live in Canada. I've dealt with both extremes on a yearly and sometimes daily basis. Everybody seems to agree for the most part on luke warm. What else is there to understand?

Let's say, for example, when I am sick with a flu, sometimes I am both hot and cold at the same time...like burning with a fever and shaking with the chills. My head is hot and my hands and feet are cold. I guess I am wondering right now, is if one understands it to mean both HOT & COLD, does one think it to mean that we, whether individually or collectively, should be that way simultaneously?

Mrs. SE

[Smalcald]

But I have never said cold=evil. We are all equally condemned before the Lord none of us is better than a cold person, a person who does not know the Lord is not more evil than we are, we are not more moral or more deserving of salvation than those people. The person who is cold does not know the Lord at least not yet, while the lukewarm thinks they know the Lord but in fact do not, which would Christ prefer? In the New Testament Christ preferred the lost sinners who knew they needed repentance to those who thought they knew God and thus felt no need for repentance. I think that is a reasonable explanation of this passage that provides no contradictions and is a very reasonable analysis, which sticks to the text. It does not have to reach, and the salvation of that church is indeed very much in doubt, spitting out is pretty specific, as is the fact that they have yet to put on white garments of Christ, but because of your tradition you must believe that that church is saved, so you must then force the cold idea, you see we all have traditions which impact our analysis.

But if you want to call cold refreshing and hot on fire, that would work also, it does not change the basic words of the passage which discusses what lukewarm means in a very specific way.

When someone disagrees with you AK it does not mean they are sticking to some sort of tradition and you somehow are pure, it just means that we disagree, and that is the case here. It would be better if you stuck to the text rather than to start impugning and guessing at motivations for those who disagree with you, when you do that I think it does show you are mainly interested in winning an argument. I have ceded that we can look at this in several different ways, as have most people here, you on the other hand seem to feel you have special insight that is untainted by the evils of tradition, I don't buy that and it is kind of annoying.