Cold or Hot

[exrockstar]

If I could comment, I just want to say, that I can most certainly understand exrock's concern. For me, especially after coming out of realizing that I had put too much stock in what "I've heard" regarding Scriptures, rather than just reading the Word for myself, and taking God's Word for what it says, I too, would rather regard Scriptures in light of what they say, with regard to "exactly what is said".

I'm not saying that this is not true, but if it is then why liken hot and cold to believers and unbelievers. NOWHERE in the Word does it allude to such a thing.

i dont think anyone (not me anyways) was suggesting that hot and cold were believers and unbelievers.

hot and cold can be an attitude. Christ is attacking their perception is He not?

So maybe hot and cold can be a perception?

Im not claiming but rather asking...

Look at this passage:

Rom 12:

10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;

11 Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord;

so look up fervent in greek and what do you get?

someone said earlier "The idea of "cold" and "hot" Christians as described in many churches today, would have been a foreign concept to the Laodecians ."

this concept or analogy of a "hot" attitude is here in the Romans passage; well the attitude is.

[EricH]

Dear shiloh and exrockstar,

If I could comment, I just want to say, that I can most certainly understand exrock's concern. For me, especially after coming out of realizing that I had put too much stock in what "I've heard" regarding Scriptures, rather than just reading the Word for myself, and taking God's Word for what it says, I too, would rather regard Scriptures in light of what they say, with regard to "exactly what is said". In other words, I don't put much stock into what was taking place historically, because then in essence we could do that with much of the text, rather than viewing the Scriptures as applicable for any time and any "place", or people. If you get into the subject of what that particular city was like geographically, then you are limiting the text, to ONLY that particular place and people, and I, like exrock, don't believe that the Word is designed to work that way. I believe it should read as applicable for any people, and any geography. When we limit it by saying what the water conditions were, then we're in essence limiting the meaning of the text for a world of people. I can appreciate exrock's need for Scriptural proof of the meaning, as I would prefer that as well. shiloh, I do think it is helpful to understand some historical background, but not always. For, me, this is not much different than applying different teachings with regard to women and culture (can o worms opening) because of the place, time and location. For, me I would rather take the teaching of the text as It says, rather than making assumptions based upon historical fact, and yes, I am sure what you are saying is "fact", but it still does not make it any easier for me to accept the hot and cold issue in the same manner that you do. But, I don't see it as an issue that should be divisive.

Just hoping that you could at least see what is troubling to me, (or exrockstar). It is not personal.

In His Love,

Suzanne

The problem with that approach is that other assumptions will then be read into the text. If we do not consider the original context, we will then read our historical context into it. The writers of scripture made references to historical places, events, people etc. If we do not understand those references, we will not understand the meaning God had in mind for us. If we approach the text with our own assumptions, we will read into it things the author did not intend, and then make bad applications (at least ones not supportable from the text itself).

The word of God is certainly applicable today. But any application is limited to the meaning the original author through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit intended, when they wrote it. In other words, a biblical text has one meaning (that intended by the author), but many applications (limited by the one meaning).

The passage we are talking about here is a clear example. A favorite interpretation is that God is saying He would prefer people to be either "on fire christians" or "dead christians", but not "luke warm christians". There are some problems with this interpretation:

1. In no place in scripture do we see God preferring people to be spiritually cold.

2. The references to the water sources in Revelation would have been understood by the readers at that time according to what Shiloh and I have suggested. Namely that there were 3 sources (one known for healing (hot), one know for refreshment (cold) and one known for being unusable (luke warm). Since the writer refers to those sources, we must understand them to understand what he is saying.

[exrockstar]

If you would have read the begining of the thread you would see why I say that. Question...how do you have and what is a "hot" attitude? What is a "cold" attitude? Notice: the Word says be fervert in spirit; not in your soul (mind, will and emotions). Why should one be hot is spirit? Brother I do understand that you do study, but it seems that you have no solid foundation concerning this so you cast your line to see what you can catch. Once again this is not for your emotional enjoyment, but for something much more....your spiritual refreshing. Be hot and/or cold, be of some benefit.

let me think about this for a sec.

i started looking up some words and reading a little about history that I may come in from a different angle.

it may be some time because I dont wanna rush with a thought.

I'll revisit this thread some other time.

[Guest shiloh357]

If I could comment, I just want to say, that I can most certainly understand exrock's concern. For me, especially after coming out of realizing that I had put too much stock in what "I've heard" regarding Scriptures, rather than just reading the Word for myself, and taking God's Word for what it says, I too, would rather regard Scriptures in light of what they say, with regard to "exactly what is said". In other words, I don't put much stock into what was taking place historically, because then in essence we could do that with much of the text, rather than viewing the Scriptures as applicable for any time and any "place", or people. If you get into the subject of what that particular city was like geographically, then you are limiting the text, to ONLY that particular place and people, and I, like exrock, don't believe that the Word is designed to work that way.

History or understanding the historical context does not limit the text to a certain local or time place, at least not from the standpoint of applicability. The interpretation IS limited because just like in any other piece of literature, the author is typically not trying to say several different things. He has ONE main idea that he is trying to get across. So the interpretation is limited to the intent of the author. No one has the right to take anyone's thoughts or ideas and subjectively decide on their own apart from the intent of the author what those words or ideas mean.

From the standpoint of applicability there are principles we can take from any given text and apply them to our lives. For example. I cannot find anywhere in the Bible that says it is wrong for me to snort Cocaine. However, I think any of us here could build a fairly good case from the Scriptures why such behavior is wrong. There are enough applicable principles extant in the Scriptures to make a pretty defensible case.

History is VERY important, because the Bible is among other things a history book. It is being able to link the Bible to history that makes such a good case for its reliability. When we can show that the Bible is relevant even as a history book, we are able to demonstrate to unbelievers the veracity of its claims. You SHOULD pay attention to what is going on historically. God took the time to inspire the Bible, and that inspiration did not include circumventing the history and culture of the time period(s) in which the Bible existed. The history occurring periphreally around the Bible flavors, to a large degree, the text of Scripture.

I believe it should read as applicable for any people, and any geography. When we limit it by saying what the water conditions were, then we're in essence limiting the meaning of the text for a world of people.

No we are not. Sure, those with an agenda-driven interpretation will find themselves limited and they won't be able to peddle their views, and they won't be able to mold the Bible around, or fit the Bible into their doctrines. They are the only ones who would find themselves, "limited."

Every text is ncessarily limited by the object the author has in view. By limiting the text to the water conditions, we are examining what the what the author was trying to get across. We are operating with the limited parameters that the author Himself (in this case, Jesus) has already pre-set.

I do think it is helpful to understand some historical background, but not always.

Honestly, it is not a matter of what any of us "think." Try approaching ANY other piece of literature the same way you approach the Bible. In fact, try apporach ANY other sphere of your existence with the same approach you are suggesting should be taken with the Bible. Try reading your bank statement or your automobile owner's manual with the same abandon for what the author is trying to tell you.

I am sure what you are saying is "fact", but it still does not make it any easier for me to accept the hot and cold issue in the same manner that you do.

Well the problem then is that to you fact doesn't line up with what YOU want the text to mean and if the author isn't saying what you want Him to say, then you have simply chosen disregard the author.

Tell you what Suzzanne... The next time I misunderstand you on something, or the next time I misrepresent something you say, I will remind you that it is I, and NOT YOU, that has the final say on what you really meant. I will not allow you to try and explain what you meant, because if it does not line up with the agenda I have for misrepresenting you, I will remind you that you do not have a right to rob me of my interpretation of your words.

[tsth]

Dear shiloh,

You are so harsh....I apologize if what I posted came across the "wrong" way, I was just trying to share/convey my thoughts on the matter. I can see that this is not an acceptable practice with you. I really was just trying to explain another view on the matter. Ruckb, you didn't help matters.

Just trying to discuss, I didn't realize that what I said was offensive, and that was not my intention.

I don't have anymore to contribute and I apologize for any hard feelings. Shame on me. I guess I felt comfortable enough to share here. And normally I keep it to the Scriptures and the study of, rather than just thinking out loud.

In His Love,

Suzanne

[Guest shiloh357]

Dear shiloh,

You are so harsh....I apologize if what I posted came across the "wrong" way, I was just trying to share/convey my thoughts on the matter. I can see that this is not an acceptable practice with you. I really was just trying to explain another view on the matter. Ruckb, you didn't help matters.

Just trying to discuss, I didn't realize that what I said was offensive, and that was not my intention.

I don't have anymore to contribute and I apologize for any hard feelings. Shame on me. I guess I felt comfortable enough to share here. And normally I keep it to the Scriptures and the study of, rather than just thinking out loud.

In His Love,

Suzanne

I am not being harsh. I am demonstrating an absurdity by using absurdity. My point is that YOU would not want to be on the receiving end of how you approach the Bible. You would not want your words and ideas at the mercy of the whims of someone else. You would want your position understood in the light of what you meant, not what someone else wants to make you appear to mean. I am simply saying that you should at least offer the same courtesy to the authors of the text of Scripture. Not only that, but I can also demonstrate that you don't use your method for approaching the Bible in any other context.

I am simply demonstrating what you, cannot, heretofore refute. Part of demonstrating why your position doesn't work is that it doesn't work in regular life.

[Motivated By Grace]

Also, with regard to the visitor I mentioned, I can respond to the man who openly claims to be without Christ, and for Satan, much easier than the man who claims to be of Christ, yet is truly of satan. The 2nd is much harder to contend with, as far as I am concerned, and the 2nd is much further into deception than the 1st.

In His Love,

Suzanne

Isn't THAT the truth!

[Motivated By Grace]

It's been my experience that this cyber-environment can be hard to properly communicate in, given we are absent voice tones and body language, which does about as much in the process of communication as the words themselves...

I haven't read this entire thread yet... Just my two cents is many times we may mis-understand each other even when we're saying the same thing...

Edited June 9, 2007 by Motivated By Grace

[tsth]

Suzanne,

Thanks for responding to my questions. I didn't think anybody would ever answer my questions since every reply to this topic got deleted.

Thanks again,

Laurie

You're very welcome. It looks like you got the hang of it!

In His Love,

Suzanne

[tsth]

It's been my experience that this cyber-environment can be hard to properly communicate in, given we are absent voice tones and body language, which does about as much in the process of communication as the words themselves...

I haven't read this entire thread yet... Just my two cents is many times we may mis-understand each other even when we're saying the same thing...

I agree MBG,

And then sometimes, you just start off on the wrong foot, or something?

(Thanks for your other response too.)

In His Love,

Suzanne