Lukewarm

bapmom, you believe Christ would rather someone be...

than...

?
I find this not only hard to believe, but nearly impossible as that would go against God's nature. The parable of the prodical son would most resemble God's relationship to the true Christian who has lost his zeal. Remember, the father did not "vomit" his son upon his return, but embraced him warmly.

 

You are comparing apples to oranges. I'm not the first, and definately won't be the last to "castigate" the calvinists' use, or rather, misuse of "all" and "world". Thanks for derailing the thread.

 

WELL WEB I'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION WHY WOULD JESUS VOMIT THIS CHURCH OUT OF HIS MOUTH?...WELL THE SAME REASON THAT HE THREATEN TO TAKE THE CANDLE STICK AWAY FROM THE CHURCH AT EPHESUS.....REV.2:5 IF THE DID NOT REPENT...OK THERES YOU ANSWER.

 

Sorry Squire Robertson. I didn't know this. thank you and it wont happen again.

 

yes webdog,

I believe Christ would rather have us act completely like the world and deny being a Christian at all, rather than dragging His Holy Name through the mud and mire by claiming to be a Christian while trying to live with "one foot in the world, and the other in the church."

Obviously Jesus would far rather have us be on-fire, zealous witnesses for Him, living holy separated lives as a testimony of Christ within us, and having a truly close relationship with Him as we go.

 

This would contradict 2 Peter 3:9

 

webdog,

Unless, of course, you have already misinterpreted 2 Peter 3:9...

 

Notice that removing the candle stick is not the same as "removing" the entire "church" forcibly from His body, as a true believer, and true church can never be removed from God. Removing the candle is referring to removing God's ordinances, and ministers, basically disbanding the church. The threatening here intimates that, if they did not repent, turn, etc., he would unchurch them. They would no longer have a pastor, no longer have the word, and no longer have the presence of the Lord Jesus. The presence of Jesus was most likely removed from Laodicea prior to these letters. This is entirely different situation, then, than the church at Laodicea.

 

Well Webdog if you desire to think this fine. But would like for you to look at Rev. 3:16.... you said "most likly the prenence of Jesus was most likely removed from Laodicea prior to these letters" Indicating that he had already spued them out.

Well explain what is said at the end of this verse "I will spue thee out of my mouth" future tense.....not "I have" past tense.

 

I see where you are coming from, but in verse 15 Jesus says "I know you works... and because you are lukewarm...I will vomit you out of My mouth." The "vomiting" is a result of the "works" (hearts) of those in Laodicea. I don't believe Christ would spue out true believers because their works were neither hot or cold, but lackadaisical.

I may have been mistaken when I posted this. It also could have been like many churches today (RC, etc.) who use the phrase "church" and falsely claim they are Christ based...but were founded on works, religion, deception and lies.

 

The fact that Christ is chastening the angel of the church shows it is indeed a church that has lost it's zeal for the Lord as arkie pastor has indicated.

The chastening hand of the Lord is indeed on His sons.

 

I see no chastening of the angel (pastor) of the church, but total rejection, "vomit". In 3:20 you have Jesus on the outside knocking to get inside. Even in a backslidden state, Christ is never on the "outside" of a true believer.

 

The lukewarm water in Laodicea was dirty, murky and disgusting. After tasting it, visitors to the city would spit it out. This does not seem like these "lukewarm" members of the church in Laodicea could be believers with this being the case.

 

I see no chastening of the angel (pastor) of the church, but total rejection, "vomit". In 3:20 you have Jesus on the outside knocking to get inside. Even in a backslidden state, Christ is never on the "outside" of a true believer. </font>[/QUOTE]It seems that Christ is on the outside of the church, not the individual believer. He is there pleading for some one on the inside to repent and allow him his rightful place at the head.

Max

 

I see no chastening of the angel (pastor) of the church, but total rejection, "vomit". In 3:20 you have Jesus on the outside knocking to get inside. Even in a backslidden state, Christ is never on the "outside" of a true believer. </font>[/QUOTE]It seems that Christ is on the outside of the church, not the individual believer. He is there pleading for some one on the inside to repent and allow him his rightful place at the head.

Max </font>[/QUOTE]I agree the church is the context. However, wouldn't logic dictate that since Christ is on the outside of this "church", that Christ is alson on the outside of the members? I believe 3:20 is a call to:
A. The church as a whole
B. The individuals who have fallen for the false doctrine being taught therein, meaning they are not true believers.

 

Christ was indeed chastening. He brought them their sins to light and then told them further down that they did not repent. When He stated, 'I will spew you out of my mouth', He was speaking of something that would happen, not that it already had. He then told them to repent in verse 19. And look at verse 20. He is talking to the same people He told to repent in verse 19, 'if you will open the door', ...'if you will hear my words, harden not your hearts as in the provocation, the writer of Hebrews said.

 

Most define lukewarm as "not being as warm as I am".

However, scripturally, I think being lukewarm is the result of lack of full commitment to what the Lord calls a person to do.

That being said, we must understand that the Lord does not call all people to do the same thing to the same extent. I was called lukewarm by a streetpreacher/doorknocker because I didn't streetpreach or doorknock. I was called lukewarm by someone because I don't regularly attend church on Wednesday evenings. I was called lukewarm by someone because I wasn't willing to hand out tracts.

Anyway, you get the picture. Use of the term "lukewarm" in the church is, more often than not, misused and misapplied. Labelleng someone lukewarm is often more a reflection of the person doing the labelling than the person labelled.

 

"I know your works... and because you are lukewarm...I will vomit you out of My mouth." This is only a future event in that they will stand before God to be judged. The "spewing" is a result of them being lukewarm. This only adds to the point that they could not have been believers, because no true believer will ever be "spewed" out after standing before God.

Exactly. From what? Their lives of sin, and following false teachings.
What does verse 18 say? Rev 3:18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see.
Christ was offering them the spiritual counterparts to their three major industries. Each item was a way to refer to genuine salvation. Again, verse 20 shows Christ on the outside. There is no way of getting around that Christ was not only on the outside of the church, making it something similar the the catholic church today, but the invitation goes out to both the church and the people within to answer the knock and let Him in.