So, someday God may spew me out of his mouth just to test me, not necessarily for any wrong doing I'm actually doing and not repenting of, but because spewing out of the mouth only means constructive chastisement? Where can I 'read this in what's there'?
I see you're still are not really understanding the text within Rev 3, itself. There is not "may spew" them out in the text.
First, the text doesn’t say that God “may” spew them out (as your scenario above implies). It quite literally says that God will (not may) vomit them out. It’s not an “IF, THEN, ELSE” phrase.
Second, the Laocideans were not being tested (God already knew they’d failed the ‘test’). They were being loved, disciplined and reproved (corrected and refined) as the text shows.
Thirdly, if you truly had a question, you’d look at the evidence within and around the context of the passage itself (or even how the phrase is used elsewhere) and not just assume circularly that it’s about their loss of salvation.
I've shown you where it plainly says he will do that if I have lukewarm works and I do not repent of them.
Do what, toss them into the LoF? You’ve done nothing of the sort.
You’ve said that the text might or might not allow for God to “spewing them out”, depending on whether they repent or not. Which is quite literally contrary to what the text actually says that He will be doing to them (and did do to them)!
God knows already that you do have lukewarm works, like Peter Paul did at times and were discipined for them.
It's your turn to show me where it says 'right there' that he does that any time he wants to any believer he wants for any or no reason of what we've been doing right or wrong, and surely not for reason of losing one's salvation, okay?
How could I possibly show you what the text there DOES NOT say. Once again, the text tells us they had lukewarm works already, thus their need for discipline and reproof was already there.
You’ve set up a hypothetical/leading situation that goes beyond what the text says. The reason they were “vomited out” was because they were working wrongly/lukewarm (not rightly). And it tells us exactly what God actually meant by the phrase “lukewarm” (they thought they were rich and had need of nothing and did not recognize they were actually wretched and pitiable and poor and blind and naked). Which is a huge issue for modern-day ‘law-keepers’ as well.
They needed to be “vomited out” and they needed some of His “eye salve, spit” smeared on their eyes by Him). He was their refiner (purifier by fire) and their laundrier!
Ever thought about why God required refined Gold (not mere un-refined Gold ore) in the instructions for the creation of His ‘lampstands’ for Solomon’s Temple? (see 1 Cor 28-29 and compare it to Rev 2-3)
Your opinion about what it means is one thing, and you're certainly entitled to it, but to say it's 'right there' is quite another.
“Plainly” that’s true.
You still have not resolved the circular reasoning of your argument which says, "See?, they are Christians and he loves them, therefore, the spewing out can not mean that they will lose their salvation, because beloved Christians cannot lose their salvation." Help us out here, chessman. Show us in the Bible that Christians whom God loves can not lose their salvation, because he loves them, then we'll know that the spewing out can in no way be a loss of salvation, okay?
The OP is about what the phrase means, not about OSAS. I’ve made no circular points/premises nor is my conclusion about this phrase circular.
As I pointed out to you a long time ago and that I’m stating now for a third time, OSAS could be true or not as far as this passage goes. It really doesn’t matter toward the exegesis of the passage which says “God will vomit them out of His mouth”. I matters only if you first assume what the phrase means, going into the analysis of the passage. I’ve not made one assertion about OSAS in my analysis of the text. I’ve simply pointed out these facts within the text:
1. God loved them and is faithful to them. (v14,19)
2. God was aware of their lukewarm works even as He loved them. (v15)
3. God desired that they stop their lukewarm works and repent of them. (v15,19)
4. God said He would “vomit them out” because of their lukewarm works. (v16)
5. God reproves and disciplines as many as He loves. (v19)
If you find OSAS in those facts, that’s on you (not me). I’m merely pointing out what the phrase means and what God
was doing to the Laocideans. Which was disciplining and refining/purifying their lukewarm works, not taking away their salvation. You’re the one that keeps bringing up their salvation (or lack thereof).
What do you do when you’ve eaten something that makes you sick? You vomit it out, right?
As for discussing the broader issue with you about OSAS, maybe in another Thread or something, it would be very, very much a waste of both of our time since you cannot even see that one little phrase “spew you out” is a phrase of God’s loving discipline and reprove here. I doubt much else would be of value to either of us.
The grace given is the opportunity to repent!
I typically don’t thumbs up (or even debate for that matter) comments/points that I agree with. But here I agree.
I’m not quite sure how you reconcile your observation here that they really did need to repent of already having lukewarm works and were already thusly “spewed out” because of it, and your earlier statement that the phrase means their loss of salvation, but whatever.
I have a resolution of the conflict you have, by the fact that I recognize the phrase is a disciplining (gracefully/fatherly) phrase, not a condemnation/loss of salvation phrase.
And how does us being made a kingdom of priests, now, mean it can't be reversed for any one of us?
It doesn’t mean that it cannot be reversed for us (or them for that matter). It is interesting, however, that you would assume that’s why I posted it.
But that’s not even why I did post it. And I’m not even applying any of this to “us” in my argument for what the phrase meant to them. The reason it’s relevant to the Rev 3 passage,
to the church at Laodicea, however, is that in John’s writings to these seven churches, He is specifically told to tell
these lukewarm workers, they are made
His priests in the here and now for them, even though Jesus knew they had lukewarm works, already! That’s relevant, in my opinion. You might recall all the special and extra purification and re-occurring technics that were absolutely necessary for His OT “priests” to enter the Holy of Holy’s. I thought you might get the point without comment.
And again, you simply can't use the argument that 'they are Christians whom he loves' to define the punishment he says he will give to those who are lukewarm.
I thought we’d gotten past (and you’d agreed) to the fact that it’s not said to be “punishment” but rather “discipline” and “reproof”. But whatever, I’ve made my case.
Some fess up to them and recognize them as lukewarm works, some think all their works are hot stuff.
And this has what to do with the argument? I can only guess that you are simply showing that individual Laodiceans may or may not respond to God's correction before he spews them out, after which they may or may not still have the opportunity to repent and be saved(?)
That’s funny. You guessed wrong. It has everything to do with my argument and demonstrates that you’re not really reading or understanding my points or more importantly the text itself. (Or you are deliberately misrepresenting my points.)
Hint, they thought they were rich and had need of nothing and did not recognize they were actually wretched and pitiable and poor and blind and naked.
John’s message to them was NOT about how to avoid being “spewed out”. One way or the other, these folks were going to be “spewed out of God’s mouth”. I mean, that’s what it says and I don't mind pointing that out over and over. You can suggest that it's my "opinion", but the fact is, that's what the text says.
His message was the explanation of why God was going to “spew them out”, not “if” God was going to do it.
This is going nowhere slowly, so I’ll just leave the discussion where it is.
However, if you do decide to reply, please just use the quote features of the message board, when quoting me (rather than putting your words in quotation marks, as if it’s a quote of mine). As I’ve never said some of the things you say that I’ve said in the rest of your reply. For example:
You say, "they are Christians whom God loves, therefore, he can't withdraw the promise of salvation from them, because they are Christians whom he loves."
I never said that, you did.
