I have a dumb question

Lik3 said:

Why are lukewarm Christians referred to as Christians when Jesus meant specifically that they are not truly Christians, but only professing? They are in the church, but they are either "Christians" in name only or they profess Christ, but have never been truly saved. That is just my take.

Revelation 3:16
16 So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Click to expand...

You have to study all of the letters in context. They are progressive and build upon each other. The rewards are scaled from least to greatest.

You have to look at the previous error they have already overcome which is the error in Philidelphia, a lack of strength. The Laodiceans have overcome that 'lack of strength' but instead of using the gifts of power among the spiritual gifts for the kingdom, they are using them for personal gain.

A good example I like to use is the Word of Faith movement often falls into this error. Trying to use scripture as you own personal spell book to speak blessings over yourself if a clear example of misusing spiritual authority.

hiphopopotomus said:

Saving faith was a bit hard to achieve for all those who lived before Jesus.

Click to expand...

Why's that? Certainly, saving faith in Jesus, the Saviour, was "a bit hard to achieve," for all those who lived before him, but saving faith in Jehovah was not. You can read of those pre-Christ saints whose faith was "counted to them for righteousness" by God in Hebrews 11.

hiphopopotomus said:

That remains the fundamental flaw in the saving faith argument.

Click to expand...

I see...

hiphopopotomus said:

Why would God deny salvation to the millions of good people who lived and died before Jesus ?

Click to expand...

Why indeed? I don't think Scripture teaches that He did, or that the notion of saving faith precludes God's OT redemption of the faithful. But, in any case, those "millions of good people" were no such thing. This is, in part, why sacrifices at the temple were necessary.

hiphopopotomus said:

There will always be this disconnect between this conversion propaganda as used by Paul and the underlying foundation of Judeo/Christian/Islamic belief that the final decision on who receives salvation lies with God.
There are no shortcuts.

Click to expand...

Well, obviously, I disagree. And I think the Bible disagrees with you, too. "Conversion propaganda" fills the New Testament and was preached by Christ, James, Peter and John, not just Paul.

Selah.

aiki said:

Why's that? Certainly, saving faith in Jesus, the Saviour, was "a bit hard to achieve," for all those who lived before him, but saving faith in Jehovah was not. You can read of those pre-Christ saints whose faith was "counted to them for righteousness" by God in Hebrews 11.



I see...




Why indeed? I don't think Scripture teaches that He did, or that the notion of saving faith precludes God's OT redemption of the faithful. But, in any case, those "millions of good people" were no such thing. This is, in part, why sacrifices at the temple were necessar



Well, obviously, I disagree. And I think the Bible disagrees with you, too. "Conversion propaganda" fills the New Testament and was preached by Christ, James, Peter and John, not just Paul.

Selah.

Click to expand...

A very Jewish perspective because only they worshiped Johavah.A bit hard on the millions of others that did not. If there is any consistency in Gods work then perhaps only the Jews are worthy of being saved after all ?

GirdYourLoins said:

Romans 10:9

The bible is full of warnings not to judge others and I recommend you dont judge them. How do you know what they believe in their heart and if they are in a church they probably do confess with their mouth. It is between them and God imo.

Click to expand...

The whole counsel of God GYL. The Jesus of the New Testament world would not be welcomed in today's' liberal churches where all is sweet and light (dark really).

Do you know why? he was too judgmental.

Yes, that is fact. Look at the way he dealt with people who had turned a house of prayer into a market.

Look at what he called those he considered as whitened sepulchers.

Look at his mastery of the metaphor when he said the religious rulers were a generation of vipers.

Look at how he dealt with those who wanted to stone the Samaritan woman.

And the biggest judgment of all? EXCEPT a man be born again, he CANNOT see the Kingdom of God. No ifs or buts on that one.

No. when you treat yourself to the whole counsel of God, you get a very different picture.

Lik3 said:

I am only curious. No ungodly judgment here on my part.

Click to expand...

Lik3 - Your question involves much more than can be easily answered. "Lukewarm" or not (that is, "normal" - zealous and alive in Christ) is only one variable. Another variable is the spiritual age of persons. There are radical differences among the three major "spiritual ages" possible for Christians - and each of these can be of any chronological age:
1) a "babe" in Christ - a "little one"
2) a "young man" in Christ
3) a mature Christian, in the stature of the fullness of Christ.

Those who are (1) or (2) will still have mixtures in their souls, of two contrary loves:
-- the lingering love of this world and the pleasures and concerns of this world,
and also
-- the love of God, of Christ, of His Holy Gospel and His will.

These two opposing loves still mixed in the one soul, result in weak and distracted "part-time" Christian life. This is not at all the same as "lukewarm", but also results in a poor witness, and a life of contradictions. Nevertheless, Christ does not abandon these still-growing Christians - as long as they do not fully abandon Him.