Rev 3:15 traditional vs acceptible.

[prophet]

.

Face value is primary for interpretation.

God said:
Rev 3:15-16
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.

Despite a multitude of interpretations to the contrary, the text does not allow for any dispersions cast against "cold", or any exaltation of "hot".
It places them as equals.

2Pe 1:20
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Primacy established.

Please discontinue your claim to adhere to some "Protestant"(private) interpretation of this passage, it makes any salient point you have to offer to be of none effect.

The Protestant tradition is attested to by both Historicist and Futurists, i.e. many years, majority witness, etc. Your alternative view is an extremely minority (mainly Calvinist) and new view (i.e. post-1950s). If anyone has "private interpretation" it is those who changed the interpretation of the word "cold".

My "alternative view" is taking the Scripture at face value.

It is as old as when I read it, most recently a few minutes ago.

I could care less what some Protestant like Calvin thinks of the Scripture...

Any interpretation of "cold" as any other meaning than one of the acceptable temperature ranges of a beverage, fit for consumption, is private, by definition. It is not available in the text, therefore "private" to those in the know (Protestant tradition, in your mind, which I care not for, since many of these Protestants fail the John 16 test).

You are a modern Nicodemus, unable to grasp the earthly side of the parable...
A man picks up a mug of tea, expecting hot tea, but sadly, it has cooled to room temperature due to neglect...he spits it back out, disgusted.
The same man, fancying a quaffing of his thirst on a hot day, picks up his lemonade, only to find that it has set for hours and warmed to room temperature, and again, he spits it out.
Hot drinks refresh.
Cold drinks refresh.
Room temperature drinks disgust.

There is not one shred of a hint of a gleam of any inference to the contrary of this acceptable face value of this passage, in this passage.

Call on whichever dead Romish waif you may, to testify from the grave, still there is FIRST no private interpretation.

The wind blows through the trees, and you can't see it, but the evidence that it exists is plain, Nicky.


http://www.fundamentalforums.org/index.php?topic=5289.msg98660.msg#98660

 

[bibleprotector]

Tradition is not a sure guide. However, it is not acceptable to doubt the Scripture. Jesus pointed to the cold category in Revelation 3, which means folks who are indifferent and outside Him. The new interpretation of saying that cold means refreshing should not be rejected merely because it is new, but because it is not in line with the context and structure of the passage, and is unspiritual.

 

[bibleprotector]

"Most interpreters" is not the definition of "face value".
Most theologians that were published by 1611 were in line with Rome, and her children, so that they parrot one another brings no merit.

You are hiding from the actual discussion, obviously protecting some source that if shown to be in error, would pull down your throne.

I started a new thread, but am not savvy at copy/paste with this smart phone.

If you can decipher, or follow the link, please move the discussion there,

  Thanks.

So, you seem to have an anti-Protestant view. The fact is that I am referring to a classical Protestant view, which developed through time.

As for having some source, your conclusion is wrong.

In the discussion on Revelation 3, there are multitudes of sources (i.e. most say "cold = indifferent")

In the discussion on Revelation 10, there are plenty of sources (i.e. the Historicists tended to say it meant the Reformation and the Bible)

There is not some single, hidden one source.

 

[prophet]

"Most interpreters" is not the definition of "face value".
Most theologians that were published by 1611 were in line with Rome, and her children, so that they parrot one another brings no merit.

You are hiding from the actual discussion, obviously protecting some source that if shown to be in error, would pull down your throne.

I started a new thread, but am not savvy at copy/paste with this smart phone.

If you can decipher, or follow the link, please move the discussion there,

  Thanks.

So, you seem to have an anti-Protestant view. The fact is that I am referring to a classical Protestant view, which developed through time.

As for having some source, your conclusion is wrong.

In the discussion on Revelation 3, there are multitudes of sources (i.e. most say "cold = indifferent")

In the discussion on Revelation 10, there are plenty of sources (i.e. the Historicists tended to say it meant the Reformation and the Bible)

There is not some single, hidden one source.

You are either functionally illiterate (in possession of such poor grammar skills as to not recognize the equality of "hot" and "cold" in the passage), or purposefully deceptive, or helpless without some previous squawker to parrot...which refers back to F.I.


Either way, you didn't address the sentence structure, which appears in my Inerrant English Bible.

 

[bibleprotector]

Either way, you didn't address the sentence structure, which appears in my Inerrant English Bible.

Re 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

Their works were on the spectrum or scale: cold = none, lukewarm = halfhearted, hot = good.

Re 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Jesus does advocate either to be for or against Him, not in between. This is a common enough theme in the Bible. No man can serve two masters. And also Elijah saying they should choose between Baal or God.

Re 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Zealous = hot, clearly that is conceptually obvious. The opposite is cold.

 

[prophet]

Either way, you didn't address the sentence structure, which appears in my Inerrant English Bible.

Re 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

Their works were on the spectrum or scale: cold = none, lukewarm = halfhearted, hot = good.

Re 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Jesus does advocate either to be for or against Him, not in between. This is a common enough theme in the Bible. No man can serve two masters. And also Elijah saying they should choose between Baal or God.

Re 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Zealous = hot, clearly that is conceptually obvious. The opposite is cold.

Ok, functionally illiterate it is.

I addressed the sentence structure, you parroted flimsy interpretive methodology.

Our English Bible deserves better than shoddy mishandling, and grammatical blunders.

 

[subllibrm]

Either way, you didn't address the sentence structure, which appears in my Inerrant English Bible.

Re 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

Their works were on the spectrum or scale: cold = none, lukewarm = halfhearted, hot = good.

Re 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Jesus does advocate either to be for or against Him, not in between. This is a common enough theme in the Bible. No man can serve two masters. And also Elijah saying they should choose between Baal or God.

Re 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Zealous = hot, clearly that is conceptually obvious. The opposite is cold.

Okay, so let's go with your either/or options. If we are for or against God, for or against Baal why did those not offer a third option (lukewarm).

When Jesus says you are for me or against me where does He leave room for a third option (lukewarm)? The either/or of this warning does not leave room for gray in between black and white.

But to the point of what is said here: you are neither of these things which I would have you be but instead are what I would not have you be, lukewarm. Be cold or hot but not lukewarm.

 

[bibleprotector]

Okay, so let's go with your either/or options. If we are for or against God, for or against Baal why did those not offer a third option (lukewarm).

That is exactly what he addresses. The so-called "third option" is not an option, because it must be forced to the dichotomy of for or against. That's the whole point of the Baal scenario, the two masters (God v. Mammon), and the hot or cold choice.

When Jesus says you are for me or against me where does He leave room for a third option (lukewarm)? The either/or of this warning does not leave room for gray in between black and white.

He says you cannot serve two masters. That is exactly what he is addressing, the in-betweeners.

But to the point of what is said here: you are neither of these things which I would have you be but instead are what I would not have you be, lukewarm. Be cold or hot but not lukewarm.

When he says he would that they were cold, he means of the hell-bound category. His actual good will is for them to be hot.

 

[FSSL]

An in between state of "saved" and "unsaved?" Now THAT is interesting!

 

[bibleprotector]

An in between state of "saved" and "unsaved?" Now THAT is interesting!

Carnal brethren are in danger of backsliding, that's why He said He will spue them out.

 

[FSSL]

... believers will lose their salvation?

 

[bibleprotector]

... believers will lose their salvation?

Are they really believers? And of course, many have lost their salvation:

Ga 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Pr 14:14 The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways: and a good man shall be satisfied from himself.

 

[prophet]

... believers will lose their salvation?

Are they really believers? And of course, many have lost their salvation:

Ga 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Pr 14:14 The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways: and a good man shall be satisfied from himself.

Like I said before, you leave the door open for Armenian heresy.

You said "Penecostals aren't the only Armenians."

Ok, so we know that you also are a works salvation heretick.

A lot makes sense now.

 

[subllibrm]

An in between state of "saved" and "unsaved?" Now THAT is interesting!

Carnal brethren are in danger of backsliding, that's why He said He will spue them out.

Ah, a salvation is not secure kind of guy. Kind of Catlick thinking right there. Jesus didn't do quite enough and relies on us to make it across the finish line ourselves.

 

[subllibrm]

Ok, so we know that you also are a works salvation heretick.

A lot makes sense now.

Obviously the "work" assigned to him is the "apostolic" protection of the KJV. No wonder he takes the stance the way he does. His entire eternity rests on his KJV efforts.

Thankfully, mine rest upon the finished work of Christ.

 

[rsc2a]

Ah! The old "ignore the verses we don't like" hermeneutical approach. Based on one certain view of "salvation", it seems there are plenty of verses for those who would claim one cannot lose so precious a gift. Of course, there are plenty of other verses for those who think you can give it up.

The better answer: accept all the passages and ask where our understanding of salvation is wrong.

See also: God choosing vs man choosing, works vs faith, God will restore all things vs Hell's hot and forever, etc, etc...

 

[bgwilkinson]

... believers will lose their salvation?

Are they really believers? And of course, many have lost their salvation:

Ga 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Pr 14:14 The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways: and a good man shall be satisfied from himself.

So why not admit that your theology is Catholic?

Totally fits with having a non people interpretation in Psa. 12:7.

You cast doubt on God's promise of people preservation.



John Gill's comments on Psa. 12:7.


"Thou shall keep them, O Lord,.... Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine; not but God has wonderfully kept and preserved the sacred writings; and he keeps every word of promise which he has made; and the doctrines of the Gospel will always continue from one generation to another; but the sense is, that God will keep the poor and needy, and such as he sets in safety, as Kimchi rightly observes: they are not their own keepers, but God is the keeper of them; he keeps them by his power, and in his Son, in whose hands they are, and who is able to keep them from falling; they are kept by him from a total and final falling away; from the dominion and damning power of sin, and from being devoured by Satan, and from the evil of the world: and this the psalmist had good reason to believe, because of the love of God to them, his covenant with them, and the promises of safety and salvation he has made unto them;

thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever; or "thou shalt preserve him" (p); that is, everyone of the poor and needy, from the wicked generation of men in which they live, from being corrupted or intimidated by them; and who are described in the beginning of the psalm. Some take these words to be a prayer, "keep thou them, O Lord, and preserve them", &c. (q); and so the following words may be thought to be a reason or argument enforcing the request.

(p) תצרנו "custodies eum", Pagninus, Montanus, Gejerus, Michaelis; so Ainsworth. (q) "Custodi eum", Tigurine version, Vatablus, "custodito eorum quemque", Junius & Tremellius, Piscator."

 

[cubanito]

The fallacy here is using what is not clear to interpret what is clear.  :-[

Rev 3: 5 ‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. 16 So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. NASB

In this particular use, either cold or hot is Good.  Notice that Christ would like them to be either one or the other, and He accepts either. Clearly Christ Glorified will not abide sin, so whatever "cold" means, it is not a sinful state. This is not Christ as we have him in the Gospels, a man who set aside His power and privileges to walk the Earth like one of us. This is the ascended Master in judgement upon His Churches. He has been the lamb, this is a view of what the returning Lion will look and act like.

If you get that straight, then you can have long winded fanciful debates as to what is meant by hot and cold. Again, since Christ did NOT spit out hot nor cold, they are both acceptable to Him.

JR

 

[S.T.Ranger]

.

Face value is primary for interpretation.

God said:
Rev 3:15-16
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.

Despite a multitude of interpretations to the contrary, the text does not allow for any dispersions cast against "cold", or any exaltation of "hot".
It places them as equals.

2Pe 1:20
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Primacy established.

Please discontinue your claim to adhere to some "Protestant"(private) interpretation of this passage, it makes any salient point you have to offer to be of none effect.

The Protestant tradition is attested to by both Historicist and Futurists, i.e. many years, majority witness, etc. Your alternative view is an extremely minority (mainly Calvinist) and new view (i.e. post-1950s). If anyone has "private interpretation" it is those who changed the interpretation of the word "cold".

My "alternative view" is taking the Scripture at face value.

It is as old as when I read it, most recently a few minutes ago.

I could care less what some Protestant like Calvin thinks of the Scripture...

Any interpretation of "cold" as any other meaning than one of the acceptable temperature ranges of a beverage, fit for consumption, is private, by definition. It is not available in the text, therefore "private" to those in the know (Protestant tradition, in your mind, which I care not for, since many of these Protestants fail the John 16 test).

You are a modern Nicodemus, unable to grasp the earthly side of the parable...
A man picks up a mug of tea, expecting hot tea, but sadly, it has cooled to room temperature due to neglect...he spits it back out, disgusted.
The same man, fancying a quaffing of his thirst on a hot day, picks up his lemonade, only to find that it has set for hours and warmed to room temperature, and again, he spits it out.
Hot drinks refresh.
Cold drinks refresh.
Room temperature drinks disgust.

There is not one shred of a hint of a gleam of any inference to the contrary of this acceptable face value of this passage, in this passage.

Call on whichever dead Romish waif you may, to testify from the grave, still there is FIRST no private interpretation.

The wind blows through the trees, and you can't see it, but the evidence that it exists is plain, Nicky.


http://www.fundamentalforums.org/index.php?topic=5289.msg98660.msg#98660

I would agree that the imagery of disgust at the taste of something is given, and have often read the beverage in view would likely have been mineral water. Water that is cold is refreshing, and water that is hot has been cleansed. Water that is lukewarm (particularly if it is mineral water) is revolting.

But I view as more important to interpreting this verse is defining what it means to overcome. I take the position "overcoming" is synonymous with salvation itself.  So, in His address of the churches, in which He knows perfectly well are the tares and wheat He has taught about a great deal, His command is simply that those who have an association with the churches be saved. Their lack of genuine relationship is evidenced by their works, just as the lack of repentance was evidenced to John because their works were no meet with works that would show genuine repentance. And while we would not create doctrine that the Lord is here teaching salvation by works, just as He did not create this doctrine by telling a man to go and sell all he had and then follow Him, we do see the consistent teaching that works will no doubt be evidence of the condition of a person. Good works evidence salvation, evil works evidence one does not know Christ, nor is known of Him.


God bless.