If Salvation is gift of God and not of works then why does Jesus say that I will spit you out ?

[chessman]

You say it's nothing to fear as far as salvation goes--that's it's just a temporal punishment.

I didn't say it, Jesus does.

Revelation 2:10 Do not be afraid of the things which you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison so that you may be tested, and you will experience affliction ten days.​

Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I reprove and discipline.​

 

[Jethro Bodine]

​

I didn't say it, Jesus does.

Revelation 2:10 Do not be afraid of the things which you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison so that you may be tested, and you will experience affliction ten days.​

Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I reprove and discipline.​

What sin is the Smyrna church in Revelation 2:10 guilty of that you can compare their suffering to the punishment of the disobedient Laodecean church in Revelation 3:19?

The church in Smyrna is not being punished for wrong doing. The Laodecean church is. But you think you can compare the encouragement of God given to the obedient church at Smyrna to the chastising warning for wrong doing given to the disobedient Laodeceans.

You've been doing this--mixing up the various messages to the churches to defend the argument that somehow hell fire does not await the Christian who does not repent. So try it again. Show me where God says to the disobedient to not be afraid of his warning to not refuse his warning of hell fire for unrepentant wrong doing, okay? You've already shown where he says not to be afraid of suffering for doing good and persevering in righteousness, to which I will add:

"14 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED" (1 Peter 3:14 NAS)

You can't take an encouragement to not be afraid given to those who are going to suffer for doing right and apply it to those who are going to suffer because of their wrong doing. No can do.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I don't want to get into this discussion but I do have a question that may be relevant.

Does being saved mean one's name is written in the book of life? If so, I wonder how revelation 3:5 works when it says one's name can be erased.

I think the only reason we question it in the first place is because we have been so saturated with OSAS doctrine in the church.

IMO, if we just went by the plain words of scripture without the influence of OSAS doctrine we'd see it for what it plainly says.

Retaining the promise of the kingdom is contingent on the exact same thing that is required to get it in the first place--faith in Jesus Christ. Stop having faith in Jesus Christ, as evidenced by a disobedient lifestyle, and you stop having the promise of what that faith secures.

As long as you have that faith, the promise is as good as done, God's Word being sure and unshakable. Lose that faith and God's sure Word no longer applies to you--except in regard to what happens to the disobedient.

 

[chessman]

Does being saved mean one's name is written in the book of life?

Depends on what "Book of Life" is being discussed. If it's the Lamb's book, kept in Heaven, then I'd say essentially yes. It's a way of saying you are a living resident of Heaven's city, never to be erased from His Book.

However, as with most figures of speech, the phrase derives it's meaning from common, everyday uses. Else, nobody would know what the phrase means.

The phrase derives from the citizenship rolls (books) kept by many Jewish cities. (As we still do today). When people in the city died, their names would be erased. Really, just that simple.

You can tell from the context that in Rev 3:5 and elsewhere that to "erase one's name from the Book of Life" was essentially to say they would be killed (i.e. erased from the living). Died (even being slaughtered by God) on Earth.

However, to conjecture about the final state of their name being in The Lamb's Book of Life, kept in Heaven, (from the foundation of the Earth, I might add) is just that, conjecture.

Notice that whenever The Lamb's Book is mentioned, it stipulates their names have been there from the foundation of the world. I find that significant. And the passages say their names will NOT be erased (tough some assume it implies they could be). I find that insulting to The Lamb's foresight, however. But my opinion matters little.

So to NOT be erased from the Book of Life (which is what Rev 3:5, actually says) is to not be killed/slaughtered on Earth, in my opinion given the context and that it does NOT say that it's the Lamb's Book which is kept in Heaven.

But frankly, who cares about a book of life? Death is not to be feared. On the other hand, to be erased from THE LAMB's BOOK OF LIFE, kept in Heaven, is something to fear indeed.

But again, even if one thinks they are the same book and Jesus just forgot to mention that it was The Lamb's Book, technically it says that they will NOT be erased from it.

Notice:

Revelation 13:8 And all those who live on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name is not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slaughtered. ​

Here (and in Rev 17:8) Jesus is saying that a true believer (a person that has been written in The Lamb's Book, His Book) will not be worshiping The Beast while living on Earth. In fact the only ones that will NOT be worshiping The Beast.

I don't think Jesus is just guessing this will be true either.

 

[WIP]

Depends on what "Book of Life" is being discussed. If it's the Lamb's book, kept in Heaven, then I'd say essentially yes. It's a way of saying you are a living resident of Heaven's city, never to be erased from His Book.

However, as with most figures of speech, the phrase derives it's meaning from common, everyday uses. Else, nobody would know what the phrase means.

The phrase derives from the citizenship rolls (books) kept by many Jewish cities. (As we still do today). When people in the city died, their names would be erased. Really, just that simple.

You can tell from the context that in Rev 3:5 and elsewhere that to "erase one's name from the Book of Life" was essentially to say they would be killed (i.e. erased from the living). Died (even being slaughtered by God) on Earth.

However, to conjecture about the final state of their name being in The Lamb's Book of Life, kept in Heaven, (from the foundation of the Earth, I might add) is just that, conjecture.

Notice that whenever The Lamb's Book is mentioned, it stipulates their names have been there from the foundation of the world. I find that significant. And the passages say their names will NOT be erased (tough some assume it implies they could be). I find that insulting to The Lamb's foresight, however. But my opinion matters little.

So to NOT be erased from the Book of Life (which is what Rev 3:5, actually says) is to not be killed/slaughtered on Earth, in my opinion given the context and that it does NOT say that it's the Lamb's Book which is kept in Heaven.

But frankly, who cares about a book of life? Death is not to be feared. On the other hand, to be erased from THE LAMB's BOOK OF LIFE, kept in Heaven, is something to fear indeed.

But again, even if one thinks they are the same book and Jesus just forgot to mention that it was The Lamb's Book, technically it says that they will NOT be erased from it.

Notice:

Revelation 13:8 And all those who live on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name is not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slaughtered. ​

Here (and in Rev 17:8) Jesus is saying that a true believer (a person that has been written in The Lamb's Book, His Book) will not be worshiping The Beast while living on Earth. In fact the only ones that will NOT be worshiping The Beast.

I don't think Jesus is just guessing this will be true either.

If I understand you correctly, it sounds like what you're saying is there are two books of life. Well, actually only one book but two stages of writing. There are names written into the book of life but they are only tentative until the book is ratified by Jesus at the judgment.

I searched the NKJV and found only one place that mentions the Lamb's Book of Life. The other seven results came up as The Book of Life. The question for me is whether both are referring to the same book. "The" book of life to me would imply something similar to how it is used in John 14:6. "I am the way, the truth, and the life." In this case it is obvious there is no other way, truth, or life.

So then how does one get his/her name in the first book?

 

[chessman]

There are names written into the book of life but they are only tentative until the book is ratified by Jesus at the judgment.

this would not be my view of Jesus' Book of Life. In fact, the Bible says His Book is anything but tentative.

If I understand you correctly, it sounds like what you're saying is there are two books of life.

I think both are figures of speech. Jesus may have a literal book of life, but I doubt it. But each city did.

Each major Jewish city had there own literal books. So there were many city's "books of life". One for each city. That's where they got this idiom from. I am told the archeologist know this. Thus it was a common saying among the people at that time that to have your name "erased from the book of life" was simply another way of saying "to die". Like we say to "bit the dust", "meet your maker", or "check out" or something like that.

Jesus and Paul and John used this figure of speech in this way at times.

When Jesus uses it and calls it His Book, however, He means His Life. I.e. Eternal life.

So then how does one get his/her name in the first book?

To get your name in a city's book is to be born (or move there) I suppose. To get it erased from the city's book is to either die or permanently move residence.

To get your name in "the book of life" is simply to be born. To get it erased is simply to die. So I think this is how it is used in Rev 3.

To get your name in The Lamb's Book, He wrote it there prior to the creation of the World and it is never erased. Amazing, when you think about it. But that's what it says.

And you will not find a reference to erasure from His book. That's my point.

 

[chessman]

What sin is the Smyrna church in Revelation 2:10 guilty of that you can compare their suffering to the punishment of the disobedient Laodecean church in Revelation 3:19?

If I had to guess, I'd guess that they were guilty if fearing persecution, slander and even death by the Jews for their faith in Christ. Probably doesn't make anyone's "top ten" list of sins but does go against God's will none the less. Similar to being fearful of that rotten church today.

Revelation 2:10 Do not be afraid of the things which you are about to suffer.

Revelation 2:9 ‘I know your affliction and ... the slander of those who call themselves Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
​

But my point was NOT about their sins or what you call 'punishment' but about all the similarities in what was said to each church. For example, if you think the Smyrna church had perfectly acceptable (overcoming) works, then what's up the phrase for hem getting "thrown in prison"? Doesn't that kind of sound like "loosing their salvation" if you didn't read the context? That's my point with the other churches, all seven.

They all have these similar phrases that can be misunderstood if one is not careful.

Again the text says "spiting you out of God's mouth" was for their discipline/reproof. It is NOT their punishment for sins' guilt but rather it was for their benefit. It says they were receiving reproof and discipline from their Lover (their God), for goodness sake.

And it says the suffering/affliction was for their testing in Smyrna. To see if they'd be afraid or not.

You are the one that thinks the phrase "spitting you out of God's mouth is a euphemisms for the punishment of the LoF received by the wicked people that God hates, not me.

There's a difference in discipline and punishment. There's a difference in love and hate A big difference.

God uses suffering for His purposes whether that purpose be for: 1 pride correction, 2 testing our faith, 3 recognition of our need for God during good and bad times or whatever His purposes might be.

But there's NADA in the context of being 'spit out of God's mouth' that implies LoF punishment via the text itself.

2 Timothy 1:8-9 Therefore, do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor me his prisoner, but suffer along with me for the gospel, according to the power of God, who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace that was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began, ​

Connect the dots:

• Unacceptable works means you're not an overcomer.

How's that first dot working out for you? Your works acceptable enough to God? How bout when you sleep at night, you doing enough "acceptable works" then or are your works rather lukewarm during your nap?

Isaiah 64:6-8 And we all have become like the unclean,and all our deeds of justice like a menstrual cloth,And we all wither like a leaf,and our iniquities take us away like the wind. And there is no one who calls on your name,who pulls himself up to keep hold of you,for you have hidden your face from us,and melted us into the hand of our iniquity. Yet now Yahweh, you are our father; we are the clay and you are our potter,and we all are the work of your hand. ​

Thyatira-“he will shepherd them with an iron rod; he will break them in pieces like jars made of clay,”

Same author, same points.

Essentially the same points were being made to each of the seven churched (that Jesus walked among):

Revelation 3:15, 17, 19

‘I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot!
[which puts a damper on "hot" being on fire for the Lord and "cold" being the opposite, if you think it thru.]

you do not know that you are wretched and pitiable and poor and blind and naked, [Their sin! And mine, at times AND all other Christians too!]

As many as I love, I reprove and discipline. [thank God]​

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If I had to guess, I'd guess that they were guilty if fearing persecution, slander and even death by the Jews for their faith in Christ. Probably doesn't make anyone's "top ten" list of sins but does go against God's will none the less.

There is no guessing, chessman. The church of Smyrna is not being put in prison because of some sin they're committing. The text plainly says they are being put there to be tested. Unlike the Laodiceans who will suffer for their sin if they do not repent. BIG difference.

Similar to being fearful of that rotten church today.

Revelation 2:10 Do not be afraid of the things which you are about to suffer.

Revelation 2:9 ‘I know your affliction and ... the slander of those who call themselves Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. ​

God wants us to be afraid of and avoid the leaven in the church. That's a good fear, not a sinful fear. That is hardly the fear Christ is telling the Christians at Smyrna to avoid. Sinful fear would be to cave into the blasphemy of the false brothers when they suffer for resisting it and are put into prison. If you read the passage you'll see that if they are not faithful to stay true in their imprisonment THAT is when they will no longer be overcomers and risk losing their place in the book of life: "Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life." (Revelation 2:10 NAS). (Note: Being faithful to the point of having your name erased from the 'book of life', as you define that? I don't think so.)

​

But my point was NOT about their sins or what you call 'punishment' but about all the similarities in what was said to each church. For example, if you think the Smyrna church had perfectly acceptable (overcoming) works, then what's up the phrase for hem getting "thrown in prison"?

What's up with that phrase, you ask? Their faithfulness to what is true is going to be tested by being put into prison. Unlike the Laodiceans who are going to suffer for their UNfaithfulness to the truth. BIG difference. A difference I pointed out in the 1 Peter 3:14 NAS verse. Did you read it?

It's impossible to compare the sufferings of the two churches--one who's faithfulness is going to be tested, and one who's UNfaithfulness will bring suffering if they don't repent. Those who die at the church at Smyrna will continue to have their names written in the book of life because they were faithful unto death (so much for the 'book of life' being a book of who is still alive and who is not).

Doesn't that kind of sound like "loosing their salvation" if you didn't read the context? That's my point with the other churches, all seven.

Uh..........no.

The faithfulness of the church at Smyrna is being tested. The UNfaithfulness of the church at Laodicea will be punished if they don't repent. HUGE difference. Being put in prison for your faith in any context can hardly be understood as 'loosing your salvation'. You are way off on this one. Way off.

You are the one that thinks the phrase "spitting you out of God's mouth is a euphemisms for the punishment of the LoF received by the wicked people that God hates, not me.

The lake of fire is the ultimate fate of the one's God spews out of his mouth if they do not repent of what he is reproving them about. Understand the argument? You don't seem to.

There's a difference in discipline and punishment. There's a difference in love and hate A big difference.

Surely. But why do you ignore that those who do not repent at Laodicea are not overcomers? People who do not overcome will have their name erased from the book of life. And if you think that simply means not being alive anymore consider then that martyrs also have their names erased from the book of life according to that definition. But being erased from the book of life is for NON overcomers, not for overcomers who persevere to the end, even unto death.

But there's NADA in the context of being 'spit out of God's mouth' that implies LoF punishment via the text itself.

But I showed you twice that much more than an implication is there. Do we simply close our eyes to that plain teaching in the scriptures I shared and tell people it means something it obviously does not and which has no Biblical support? Is that right to do? What does the author of Revelation warn those who do that?

"18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book (the book of Revelation); 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19 NAS)

Having no part of the holy city is not a temporal punishment for the purpose of cleansing. It is the damnation of the unbelieving and hypocritical. But I suppose you'll try to make it much less than losing the promise of entering into the kingdom in the end.

How's that first dot working out for you ("Unacceptable works means you're not an overcomer.")? Your works acceptable enough to God? How bout when you sleep at night, you doing enough "acceptable works" then or are your works rather lukewarm during your nap?

I'm not surprised that you can only see the argument as a works salvation argument. Non-OSAS can only be heard as a works salvation (actually works justification) argument by so many because the church has become so uneducated about the role of works in faith, not knowing that the faith that justifies all by itself apart from works is measured and confirmed by the work it does.

That hardly means those works do the justifying, but the church, in general, is only able to understand works in regard to trying to be justified by them. It's a curious phenomenon. It's like talking to brick wall explaining to them that the faith that justifies is the faith that works, and that the faith that does not work can not save. I didn't invent that. James PLAINLY says that in his letter to the church. But it's amazing how many Christians will argue the point with him. Amazing.

 

[chessman]

There is no guessing, chessman. The church of Smyrna is not being put in prison because of some sin they're committing.

I didn't say they were. In fact, that's my point. I'm glad you agree with it. You asked about their sin, I answered.

The text plainly says they are being put there to be tested.

I know. I pointed this out. They were being put to the test by being put "in prison". Just as the Laocidean text says they were being disciplined (not cast into the LoF) by being "spit out". You are the one that asked what sin they were committing. So, in an attempt to answer, I pointed out God told them not to be afraid of the Jewish persecution they were facing. I also pointed out thusly, if they were afraid, it would be sinful behavior (which is true). You do realize that tests have both passing evaluation grades that overcome the norm (A's B's) and failing grades that come in under what's considered normal (E's F's) and some mediocre/average/(lukewarm) grades in the middle, right?

Here's my argument in simpler words:
1. Smyrna was going to be tested by "imprisonment and death". Some could pass the test and face it without fear, some could fail the test and some could perform average on the test. None of that implies the LoF for any group however, even for the ones that were afraid and failed (sinned). Why, they were Christians who believed in Jesus. (Maybe you disagree with the last point? you were to busy talking about James and Peter's "plainly saying" things and how bad the church is indoctrinated in OSAS and accusing me of adding to the book of Rev to actually respond to my OP points).

2. Laocidea was going to be disciplined for being neither hot or cold. God was going to "spit them out of His mouth" because He desired for them to be either hot or cold, not lukewarm. They could learn from this discipline and reprove their temperatures or not. Indeed they could "overcome" their lukewarmness through this discipline. However, your argument assumes they can overcome being "spit out" which is NOT what the text says. The text actually precludes the LoF curse for their lukewarmness. Why, because they believed in Jesus and He loved them for it.That doesn't mean He didn't see their lukewarm works, however.

God was using these phrases (and the other five churches as well) as a discipling/testing phrases, not LoF cursing phrases. Why? Because Jesus said he was lovingingly disciplining/reproving the Laocidean church and lovingly testing the Smyrna church. Both DID get these phrases administered. They didn't avoid them.

Your argument pulls in the LoF to the church of Laocidea's non-overcomers, not mine. And furthermore, it ignores that the ones who were afraid in the Smyrna church didn't also suffer the LoF curse as you claim the Laocideans do. And furthermore, it ignores the very facts within the text to Laocidea (see how below).

You can either accept my argument or not. Frankly, I really don't care if you do or not. But how about not misrepresenting my argument. How about not accusing me of claiming the Smyrna church was being imprisoned as a sin punishment akin to the LoF punishment, as I was clearly not. It's actually counter to my point about that church. It actually goes against the text. They WERE going to receive affliction. Just as the Laocideans WERE going to be "spit out". The question is how did they respond to those occurrences, not how did they avoid them.

If you cannot see the parallels/similarities between all these seven churches and think Smyrna was demonstrating superior behavior and Laocidea was demonstrating LoF behavior then go for it, as you have. I simply don't buy it and have presented a case against it. Oh, and I do (always have) understand your argument. I just don't think it has any Biblical support. It really simply comes down to; you think the phrase "spit you out of God's mouth" kinda sounds like loosing your salvation. As far as hard, in context evidence from the messages to these churches goes, there is much proof against that phrase meaning what you say. Which is why many, many commentaries point this out.

Unlike the Laodiceans who will suffer for their sin if they do not repent...

First, I have never said people do not suffer for sins. Second, the topic is precisely the meaning of the phrase "spit you out of God's mouth" and what it means. It's not about the LoF, James , Peter or even the broader evidences for or against OSAS. But in your statement above, one can clearly see one of your errors in how you've arrived at your conclusion about what this phrase means. Here's why (if you're still reading):

Revelation 3:15-16 ‘I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! Thus, because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am about to vomit you out of my mouth! ​

Get it? Because they were lukewarm, they WERE about to be spit out and WERE spit out. There is no IF then clause in Jesus' message that if they repented, they could avoid being "spit out". They were about to be "spit out" for discipline reasons, period. This phrase is not the punishment for not repenting, as you are claiming. All of them were about to be "spit out" as they were already lukewarm (yet still loved). Thus, the phrase is not the punishment/result of not repenting (even if they don't repent), but rather the method Jesus was using for their discipline (just as the passage says it is). Just as the affliction (imprisonment/death) Smyrna was about to suffer was their method for their testing. You are blinded to this truth for some reason. Probably because you've repeated it so many times now that it's a little difficult to be corrected.

He knows they ARE lukewarm already and tells them He is about to spit them out for it. He DOES NOT tell them that if they repent, they will not be "spit out". If you could possibly just think that thru and allow yourself to be wrong, it's plain language.

Bottom line is the phrase "spit you out" is NOT a threat of the LoF (as you say it is). It cannot be since:
1. God loves them even though they are lukewarm already.
2. They are known by God to be "lukewarm" already.
3. They all get "spit out" whether they repent or not.
4. When they get that discipline they can either repent or not but they WERE NOT given the chance of avoiding being "spit out".
5. The LoF is not even in context to theses churches.

The lake of fire is the ultimate fate of the one's God spews out of his mouth if they do not repent of what he is reproving them about.

. Bull! They all got "spit out" as it is a phrase representing their discipline from their Father that loved them.

Understand the argument? You don't seem to.

Yes, I understand your argument. Always have from your first post here in this thread. I just think it's not valid for many, many reasons.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Here's my argument in simpler words:
1. Smyrna was going to be tested by "imprisonment and death". Some could pass the test and face it without fear, some could fail the test and some could perform average on the test. None of that implies the LoF for any group however, even for the ones that were afraid and failed (sinned). Why, they were Christians who believed in Jesus.

It's amazing that you can't see the circular reasoning: They are Christians who believe in Jesus, therefore, they can not be cast into the lake of fire. But that is the exact point we're debating, lol!

Now, for your assertion that "none of that implies the LoF for any group...even for the ones that were afraid and failed..." Here is the implication (actually, it's much more than that):

"10 'Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, sothat you will be tested, and you will have tribulation for ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life. 11 'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.'" (Revelation 2:10-11 NAS)

See, you have to be faithful, even unto death to be the overcomer that Jesus says will not be hurt by the second death (the LoF, Revelation 20:14 NAS). Where does it say average, lukewarm believers (sometimes they overcome, sometimes they don't, la la la la la...) will not be hurt by the second death?

Let's not be adding to the book of Revelation because we can't see past the lenses of a popular teaching in the church that blinds the eyes to the plain teaching above. John the revelator says doing that that has very serious consequences. This isn't just a game to see who can win an argument.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Here's my argument in simpler words:
[...]
2. Laocidea was going to be disciplined for being neither hot or cold. God was going to "spit them out of His mouth" because He desired for them to be either hot or cold, not lukewarm.

Yes, the invitation is for them to repent of their lukewarmedness. It's what happens if they don't repent that we are debating here. The book of Revelation plainly teaches us that the fate of those in the church who do not respond to correction and discipline and overcome (repent) is the lake of fire. But OSAS argues that since they are Christians they can't go there--using their own opinion of why they can't go there as the evidence for why they can't go there. That's called circular reasoning.

They could learn from this discipline and reprove their temperatures or not. Indeed they could "overcome" their lukewarmness through this discipline. However, your argument assumes they can overcome being "spit out" which is NOT what the text says.

My point exactly, lol! The spewing out seems to be a final judgment. A judgment that seals their fate in the lake of fire.

The text actually precludes the LoF curse for their lukewarmness. Why, because they believed in Jesus and He loved them for it.That doesn't mean He didn't see their lukewarm works, however.

You have once again presented the circular argument of the OSAS church. They are quick to debate the question that asks if Christians, whom God loves, can become unsaved by arguing that 'they are Christians, how can they be cast into the lake of fire?' The assumption being that Christians, by virtue of being Christians, are irreversibly saved forever, so, therefore, they can not become unsaved. But I know how dogmatic, misguided doctrines work on people's minds. I'm human, too.



Circular reasoning
(Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as paradoxical thinking or circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. from here ...

Academic Douglas Walton used the following example of a fallacious circular argument:
Wellington is in New Zealand.
Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

 

[chessman]

They are Christians who believe in Jesus, therefore, they can not be cast into the lake of fire. But that is the exact point we're debating, lol!

No it's not. It's supposed to be about debating why Jesus says "spit you out of God's mouth" to a group of Christ believers. OSAS could be true or not, and it still be obvious that you are misrepresenting what that phrase means. Which is why you'd rather talk about James, Peter or "the church" and it's OSAS doctrine than the fact that the phrase says they WILL BE spit out and then they can either repent or not. Thus It cannot possibly be a phrase that represents their final judgment (as you claim).

That's called a Red Herring. It has nothing to do with what this phrase means whether OSAS is true or not (unless you circularly assume that's what it means).

You say it was meant to be a warning about what could happen to them if they didn't repent and that it means the LoF (lose of salvation) if they don't overcome and are thus not "spit out".

I say it was what did happen to them (not what could) for their discipline and reproof and by their God that loved them and thus has nothing to do with the LoF or their salvation. (notice OSAS could be true or not, it doesn't really matter to my point)

Now this point of evidence is posted for others to evaluate the Biblical weight for each side.

But thanks for accusing me of adding to Revelation 3. That's funny coming from someone that reads the LoF into Rev 3.

I am fully aware of what a circular argument looks like. When you say to be "spit out of God's mouth" is to become "unsaved" you are making one.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But thanks for accusing me of adding to Revelation 3. That's funny coming from someone that reads the LoF into Rev 3.

Overcoming is how you evade the second death, the lake of fire:
"He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death." (Revelation 2:11 NAS)

The warning to the church at Laodicea is to be overcomers:
"16'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth." (Revelation 3:16 NAS)
19'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent." (Revelation 3:19 NAS)
21'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne." (Revelation 3:21 NAS)

But for some reason you insist that not overcoming here doesn't mean what it means in Revelation 2:11. So, is it my doctrine that adds/subtracts from these plain words of scripture, or is it the popular OSAS teaching of the church that is doing that?

I am fully aware of what a circular argument looks like. When you say to be "spit out of God's mouth" is to become "unsaved" you are making one.

Draw out the circle of reasoning you say my argument has so I can see it, just as I did for your argument.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So, as we can see from plain scripture:

• The Laodiceans are Christians.
• The Laodiceans are not overcoming.
• Non-overcomers will be cast into the lake of fire.
• These Christian Laodiceans are being exhorted to repent in order to avoid that outcome.

It's amazing that this is even in debate in the church.


As to the OP.... We see Christians will be spit out because they refuse to repentant. By the nature of what faith in Christ is, repentance is the expected and obligatory outcome of the faith in Christ that justifies. Peter explains how not having the expected qualities of the Spirit shows that you have forgotten the forgiveness of sins you have received:

"9 For he who lacks these qualities (of the Spirit, see text) is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins. " (2 Peter 1:9 NAS)

Now compare that to the accusation being leveled against the Laodiceans:

"...you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked..." (Revelation 3:17 NAS)

You can't 'forget' about the forgiveness of sins you have received and still expect to be saved on the Day of Wrath. 'Taint gonna happen. Obedience is so deeply rooted in the conscious fact that you've had your own sins forgiven that it is impossible to forget about, neglect, or show contempt for that forgiveness without falling back into your old unrepentant lifestyle...the lifestyle that condemns a person to the lake of fire.

 

[chessman]

Draw out the circle of reasoning you say my argument has so I can see it, just as I did for your argument.

Whether you 'see it' or not is up to you. but Here's the circular points that you are making:

We can see from the text that the one's whom God will not spew from his mouth are the one's who overcome:

Wrong and must be assumed to be true for your 'argument' to be valid. It's wrong however, because the text literally says the Laocideans were already lukewarm and they would be spewed out for it. There were none that were NOT spewed out if you actually read the text.

People who are spewed from the mouth of God are not overcomers.

Wrong and circularly assumed to be true because it must be true for your argument to be valid. How in the world do you even have any evidence that the Laocideans are not overcomers in the first place? Maybe they all did repent after they were spewed from God's mouth. But anyway, the point is they all were spewed from the mouth of God (not if they were people that are spewed from His mouth), yet they also all were loved by Him and were being disciplined by Him (not being sent to the LoF as none overcomers. He already knew they were lukewarm, yet He loved them anyway. He was reproving them (via the text), not sentencing them to the LoF. you are circularly assuming the LoF into that phrase of Rev 3.

 

[chessman]

But for some reason you insist that not overcoming here doesn't mean what it means in Revelation 2:11.

no I don't nor have I insisted this. You realize that I can agree with some of your points, yet disagree with others, right? I do see that the warning to not overcome means essentially the same thing in Rev 2 as it means in Rev 3. But that says nothing about what the phrase "spit you out" meant. To assume that it does is simply that, an assumption. Plus, this text actually precludes that to not overcome is essentially the same as to be "spit out" as it's meaning if you think it thru logically.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...the topic is precisely the meaning of the phrase "spit you out of God's mouth" and what it means.

Look again. The OP is not asking what the phrase means. Even he is equating being spit out of the mouth of God with salvation itself. He's asking why God delivers that punishment (losing salvation) if salvation is not by works. Your answer has been that being spit out of the mouth of God is not a reference to losing salvation to begin with. I've shown that being spit out of the mouth of God is what God does to lukewarm believers who do not overcome, that is repent. And then I showed that to not overcome is to choose the fate of being cast into the lake of fire. All I did was use the plain words of the Bible to show that.

It's not about the LoF, James , Peter or even the broader evidences for or against OSAS. But in your statement above, one can clearly see one of your errors in how you've arrived at your conclusion about what this phrase means. Here's why (if you're still reading):

Revelation 3:15-16 ‘I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! Thus, because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am about to vomit you out of my mouth! ​

Get it? Because they were lukewarm, they WERE about to be spit out and WERE spit out. There is no IF then clause in Jesus' message that if they repented, they could avoid being "spit out".

The plain words of the passage show us that the punishment is being delivered to them BECAUSE they are lukewarm. If the Laodiceans repent and are no longer lukewarm, the reason for the BECAUSE no longer stands and God obviously will not have to spit them out of his mouth. In fact, his invitation is for them to repent, because repentant, on fire overcomers aren't the ones that God spits out of his mouth (remember, it is BECAUSE they are lukewarm he is going to spit them out of his mouth):

16 '...because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.
19 'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.
21 'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne...
(NAS)

They were about to be "spit out" for discipline reasons, period. This phrase is not the punishment for not repenting, as you are claiming.

Are you saying that if they stop being lukewarm they will still be spit out of the mouth of God, even though he plainly said it is BECAUSE they are lukewarm that he is going to do that?

16 '...because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. (NAS)

Just as the affliction (imprisonment/death) Smyrna was about to suffer was their method for their testing. You are blinded to this truth for some reason. Probably because you've repeated it so many times now that it's a little difficult to be corrected.

Actually the reason I don't buy your doctrine is because the plain words of the passage simply don't support what you're saying. I'm more than showing this to be the case. But the church has been programmed by OSAS teaching so that they instantly interpret these plain words to not contradict what they've been taught about OSAS.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...this text actually precludes that to not overcome is essentially the same as to be "spit out" as it's meaning if you think it thru logically.

The passage plainly says that BECAUSE you are lukewarm you will be spit out of the mouth of God, THEREFORE, be ZEALOUS (that is, hot) and repent. It is the OVERCOMERS who will inherit the kingdom, not those who don't overcome (that is, don't repent):

16 '...because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.
19 'Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.
21 'He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne...
(NAS)

The connection between repenting and being an overcomer is unmistakable. And we know that those who do not overcome are the ones who will be hurt by the second death (that is, the lake of fire):

"He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death." (Revelation 2:11 NAS)

 

[chessman]

Are you saying that if they stop being lukewarm they will still be spit out of the mouth of God, even though he plainly said it is BECAUSE they are lukewarm that he is going to do that?

Plainly Jesus says they already are lukewarm (not if they are or even what He will do if they become Hot or Cold prior to Him getting around to disciplining them, i.e. spitting them out).

Revelation 3:16 Thus, because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am about to vomit you out of my mouth! ​

As compared to JB's version: " If the Laodiceans repent and are no longer lukewarm, the reason for the BECAUSE no longer stands and God obviously will not have to spit them out of his mouth."

Plainly the message delivered to them is they WILL BE "spit out" because plainly God knows they already are plainly lukewarm and that it is plainly for their loving discipline and benefit that they are going to be "spit out". Plainly!

Plainly it will not change your mind on this phrase to point out that given your plain misunderstanding of Jesus' plain words, the Laocideans that were already plainly lukewarm needed discipline. Even though that's plainly Jesus' point.

Your take is plainly making God's purpose statement to them; that God disciplines the ones He plainly loves, untrue. All so JB can tell people that God "spits out" lukewarm christians into the LoF.

You've posted your case, the best shot you can for it. I reject it.

Plainly the text doesn't say "if you repent I will not spit you out". Sadly for your case, those are your words not Jesus'. If He did say people's works are 'hot stuff', you've have a case for your view of this phrase and for your works.

As it stands, the text is Jesus telling them that they will be spit out because God loves them (not because He hates them) even as He knows their works are lukewarm. You are the one changing this passage to suit your doctrine.

It is outside of God's nature to lie to them. He tells them to repent, sure. Buy He also tells them they will be spit out (not if they are). Why? (The OP question)

Hebrews 12:6-8 For the Lord disciplines the one whom he loves,and punishes every son whom he accepts.” Endure it for discipline. God is dealing with you as sons. For what son is there whom a father does not discipline?
[JB's, Laodiceans, I guess. Even though the passage itself tells us this same message: Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I reprove and discipline. Be zealous, therefore, and repent! as I pointed out to you a long time ago.]

But if you are without discipline, in which all legitimate sons have become participants, then you are illegitimate and not sons.

... but he does so for our benefit, in order that we can have a share in his holiness.
​

[more "spitting out" means more (not less) peace and holiness. Thank you for leading me to this conclusion.]

Now all discipline seems for the moment not to be joyful but painful, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness for those who are trained by it. ​

[The Laocideans came out of their discipline more peaceful, not less]

Oh, and read the OP again:

"If Salvation is gift of God and not of works then why does Jesus say that I will spit you out ?"

Because God disciplines the ones He loves, that's why. Read Rev 3:19

God knows our works are lukewarm. Read Rev 3:15

Some people think their works are 'hot stuff', not Him though.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

All so JB can tell people that God "spits out" lukewarm christians into the LoF.

....if they do not repent. The passage plainly says that.

22 'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.' (Revelation 3:22 NAS)

Plainly the text doesn't say "if you repent I will not spit you out".

Oh, I see. If he says he will spit me out because my works are lukewarm, and I then repent of those lukewarm works, he will still spit me out. That makes the whole warning and it's connection to their lukewarmedness meaningless. Completely and totally meaningless.

Sadly for your case, those are your words not Jesus'. If He did say people's works are 'hot stuff', you've have a case for your view of this phrase and for your works.

Good grief, chessman, then what in heaven and earth are the on fire works God requires? Oh, that's right. Salvation is so utterly not of us and of works that even the requirement for on fire works is non-existent in the Christian's life. 'Work' is that four letter word that is to never be uttered in the church because salvation is so utterly not of works.

As it stands, the text is Jesus telling them that they will be spit out because God loves them (not because He hates them) even as He knows their works are lukewarm.

He's telling them that they will be spit out because they are lukewarm. He is warning them that he is going to do that because he loves them. The passage plainly says that.

Have you raised any children? Did you tell them they will be grounded for not taking out the trash, and when they did you still grounded them--and you told them you did that because you love them? I bet not. Does that mean you never administered any loving discipline in their lives in some other form or another? Of course not!

You are the one changing this passage to suit your doctrine.

It is outside of God's nature to lie to them. He tells them to repent, sure. Buy He also tells them they will be spit out (not if they are). Why? (The OP question)

Stop ignoring the text. He plainly said it is BECAUSE they are lukewarm. The 'if' of whether or not they will be spit out is the REASON is going to do that. Why is this so hard for you see? If you've ever done any witnessing to stubborn unbelievers you'll know that it is this insane 'the Bible doesn't really mean what it plainly says' that agitates them all the more about the Christian faith. The church is better at repelling people from the truths of God than it is leading them to it. This insane way of interpreting scripture away from what it plainly says is one of the ways they do that. Please, let's stop the insanity!

Hebrews 12:6-8 For the Lord disciplines the one whom he loves,and punishes every son whom he accepts.” Endure it for discipline. God is dealing with you as sons. For what son is there whom a father does not discipline?
[JB's, Laodiceans, I guess. Even though the passage itself tells us this same message: Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I reprove and discipline. Be zealous, therefore, and repent! as I pointed out to you a long time ago.]

But if you are without discipline, in which all legitimate sons have become participants, then you are illegitimate and not sons.

... but he does so for our benefit, in order that we can have a share in his holiness.
​

[more "spitting out" means more (not less) peace and holiness. Thank you for leading me to this conclusion.]

But it is the non-overcomers--non-overcomers that will go to the lake of fire--that are spit out. How in heaven and earth does that equate to 'more (not less) peace and holiness'? You're kidding, right?

Now all discipline seems for the moment not to be joyful but painful, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness for those who are trained by it. ​

Yes, if you are trained by it, that is, you repent. But why does God punish wayward Christians for something they've repented of? That doesn't mean he's not disciplining them and causing them to hemmed in by other adverse conditions that force them to walk the straight and narrow. What it means is you are not going to be punished for something you have repented of.