• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Meet & Greet

Rolfe

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
He took the meaning of the name of the people in the church in Laodicea to be "the right of the people". I have no idea where he got that definition but anyway he has taken that unsubstantiated definition and applied it to the church in Laodicea and this to today's church.

Okay, now I see the connection a bit clearer.

Revmwc, is this accurate?
 

revmwc

Well-Known Member
Okay, now I see the connection a bit clearer.

Revmwc, is this accurate?
Yes I would need to go back to see who gave that definition. However several concordances state that Laodecia means "justice for the people."
 

revmwc

Well-Known Member
He took the meaning of the name of the people in the church in Laodicea to be "the right of the people". I have no idea where he got that definition but anyway he has taken that unsubstantiated definition and applied it to the church in Laodicea and this to today's church.
H.A. Ironsides states in his book on Revelation that Laodecia is a compound word meaning "the rights of the people."
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
H.A. Ironsides states in his book on Revelation that Laodecia is a compound word meaning "the rights of the people."

did you check any other source? Also, trying to tie the name to the attitude of the people in the church is weak at best. Then trying to tie it to people today is much more far fetched.
 

revmwc

Well-Known Member
did you check any other source? Also, trying to tie the name to the attitude of the people in the church is weak at best. Then trying to tie it to people today is much more far fetched.
Strong's states Laodecia is a combination of two words, Laos which it defines as "people" and dike which is defined by Strong's as "right" "judgment," "punish," and ""vengeance"
 
Last edited:

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Strings states Laodecia is a combination of two words, Laos which it defines as "people" and dike which is defined by Strong's as "right" "judgment," "punish," and ""vengeance"

Sigh, so what? Even if that is true (and I have looked at other sources to the contrary) it matters not. The church was not named "the church at Laodicea" because it held the attitude of that name. It was named that only, and I repeat only because it is in the town Laodicea.

Therefore, trying to tie the attitude of the people to the name Laodicea is a mistake. One does not lead to the other. This is an informal fallacy.

Further, the problem Jesus had with the church was that it had become ineffective. The hot and cold references that He used to describe the church are most likely a reference to the water that was piped into Laodicea. Two neighboring towns one of which had very cold springs and the other which had very hot springs. By the time the water arrived into Laodicea it lost its temp and benefits. in other words it had lost its effectiveness.

Calling the church luke warm is fine but it does not go far enough. The church was ineffective. Not doing what it was designed to do.

All this rights and judgment stuff is a distraction from the context.
 

revmwc

Well-Known Member
Sigh, so what? Even if that is true (and I have looked at other sources to the contrary) it matters not. The church was not named "the church at Laodicea" because it held the attitude of that name. It was named that only, and I repeat only because it is in the town Laodicea.

Therefore, trying to tie the attitude of the people to the name Laodicea is a mistake. One does not lead to the other. This is an informal fallacy.

Further, the problem Jesus had with the church was that it had become ineffective. The hot and cold references that He used to describe the church are most likely a reference to the water that was piped into Laodicea. Two neighboring towns one of which had very cold springs and the other which had very hot springs. By the time the water arrived into Laodicea it lost its temp and benefits. in other words it had lost its effectiveness.

Calling the church luke warm is fine but it does not go far enough. The church was ineffective. Not doing what it was designed to do.

All this rights and judgment stuff is a distraction from the context.
Many see it as the church of today because of the name that is the phases of church apostasy. Of which Laodecia was the last phase before the church is taken out. When theNride is taken out the Laodecian phase continues because the people in those churches have not the truth and are Lukewarm today. Some still hold the truth today but many are Lukewarm.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Many see it as the church of today because of the name that is the phases of church apostasy. Of which Laodecia was the last phase before the church is taken out. When theNride is taken out the Laodecian phase continues because the people in those churches have not the truth and are Lukewarm today. Some still hold the truth today but many are Lukewarm.

Again lukewarm does not go far enough. Not sure how people got stuck on that word but it is just wrong. Ineffective is far more accurate. We are not in complete apostasy. That cannot happen until the church is taken out.
 

revmwc

Well-Known Member
Again lukewarm does not go far enough. Not sure how people got stuck on that word but it is just wrong. Ineffective is far more accurate. We are not in complete apostasy. That cannot happen until the church is taken out.
The Laodician church had no zeal, no fervor the origanization is more important that is the organization of their religion is more important than dong the will of God and they aren't cold instead they are indifferent to the gospel of Chirst. They are neutral and tolerant churches. A church for all eve of they don't turn from sin. The pastor who says "Faith in Jesus" is not necessarily the means of salvation. That is what we see in many churches today, not all but a vast majority.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ok, you got to know, I have bad knees. I struggle to stand after I sit, I struggle to walk, and I can trip over a feather.

I think "meet and greet" should be done at the door, not from the seat. If I want to sit and be still before God while all around me is confusion, laughter, worldly noise and jesting before the service starts, then don't expect me to be "glad you came" latter in "the service."

If you want to jest, laugh, shake my hand, or whatever, do it at the entry of the church. And lets let the worship be worship, and the place of worship be that which one can spend time in earnest fellowship with the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit.

Btw, a strong handshake isn't how tight one squeezes. It is the earnestness behind that handshake, the understanding that tired bones don't often grasp very well, but the desires of the heart isn't in the muscular strength. Don't shake my hand and then be rude trying to get out of the parking lot or bully the waiters at the diner.
 

Berean

Member
Site Supporter
In another thread - about the order of worship - a couple people mentioned they have "meet & greet" time.

This is one of my pet peeves. Over the years, I find this to be a very hypocritical time.
The pastor announces - lets greet one another and especially our visitors! So the folks in my immediate vicinity will turn around and say "We are so glad to meet you and have you in our service"

BUT after the service - very infrequently do the members re-greet the visitors.
Sure the church officially says we are a friendly church - and they are very friendly - to those in their cliques.
Over the years, I visited scores of churches - and have found this to be true of the majority of churches I have visited. In fact, when I worked at a radio station - I had a show and this subject came up one night. I then ventured on a mission. I started to visit area churches incognito - and over 50 churches I attended - only 5 passed shows "Friendly Church Program". BTW - all 5 passing churches were liberal. What I found was that the bigger the church the less friendly it was. In these large churches (300+) it was not unusual for no more than one or two people to truly greet me (outside of the M&G time). BTW, I am not one to run out to the parking lot - actually, I like to read the bulletin board.
 

Berean

Member
Site Supporter
I have always judged how friendly a church is by how fast they empty after the 11:00 AM Service. My church is a large church and if You stop to speak to someone you will either get run over or meet with some stern stares On the other hand my son and his family attend a large church and the custodians almost have to ask them to leave to lock up.
 

Sapper Woody

Well-Known Member
I know that Babylonbee is satirical, but they actual brought up something valid. With my condition, I sit in the balcony. It's almost empty normally.

In my old church in Texas, we didn't have a balcony. I say in the car and had my wife text me when hand shaking was over. Then I'd slip in the back. Once the invitation began, I'd go out to the car and wait for her.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk
 
Top