Meaning of Rev. 3:20

By Lee Thu, 10/20/2011 - 12:07pm
17 replies [Last post]
Login or register to post comments
Lee
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 14 2011
Posts: 158

In a thread discussing a sifilings about a month ago ("Whoever believes…that’s it. It’s not whoever turns, tries, seeks, surrenders, stops, starts or anything else!"[Sept.27]), a member authoritatively stated: "Revelation 3:14-22 has nothing to do with salvation and never mentions "inviting Christ into your heart." ..."

I asked for a clarification at that time and am still seeking one. I have heard this sentiment quite often in recent years. However, being raised with the traditional understanding (particularly of vs. 20--I can still see the artist's rendering of a crucified Savior knocking on a closed hearts' door from my Sunday School flannel graph days) it is difficult for me to simply leap from this well established paradigm into a new one. I would still dearly love a very succinct clarification as to why this must be seen as something other than a Savior providing an opportunity for response.

Responses invited. Thanks.

__________________

Lee

Top
Fri, 10/21/2011 - 4:08pm
#1 permalink
RMSprung
RMSprung's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Fri, Nov 26 2010
Posts: 24
Laodicea and "Who's At My Door?"

@ Lee -- If you want a succinct clarification, here is the first, repeat, the first rule in reading Scripture: CONTEXT!!!!! Laodicea is the 7th church directly addressed by the

Quote:

...Amen, the faithful and true witness....

and he (Jesus the Resurrected Christ) plainly reveals to each church that he knows their works. Thus, he is speaking to an assembly, not a particular individual (unless the

Quote:

angel of the church

represents the church). The pronouns

Quote:

your, you

are singular; however, these words represent the whole assembly (for each is addressed the church of.

But verse 19 implies the whole body of true believers are called

Quote:

Those....

The same formula for each church is repeated and the closing word to Laodicea emphasizes the knocking is to arouse that church to repent (vs 18-19). No mention of salvation, but rather of loving discipline. And all churches today, whether rural, mega-, or any size in-between, faces the same chastisement; however, American churches are not really any different for

Quote:

I need nothing....

is a mantra often unspoken, but outwardly demonstrated.

So, for me, to allow 3:20 to be a heart wrenching plea from the Savior to lost sinners (not in the church) and imagining a weeping Jesus just wringing his hands over their lost estate of hoping, somehow, they will exercise that spark of free will,

Quote:

NOT!!!!

, is a totally fabrication of John's words and a significant misrepresentation of salvation itself. The terror many pastors or elders should fear is leaving the true worship of the Father (1 Peter 1:17) outside the holy sanctum we call church by not preaching the Gospel, the purpose and work of Christ, and the meaning of true repentance. Yes, ICHABOD is the middle name of way too many Baptist churches today. Peace.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it (but open to any constructive criticism).

__________________

Bob

Top
Sat, 10/22/2011 - 8:30pm
#2 permalink
Lee
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 14 2011
Posts: 158
Thanks. Will look into it

Thanks. Will look into it more as time allows.

__________________

Lee

Top
Thu, 10/27/2011 - 7:07am
#3 permalink
Lee
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 14 2011
Posts: 158
Upon further review...

I appreciate your input and fully agree that context is your friend in this, and every, passage. But the context has a few anomalies that do not fit with your scenario.

This is the last of 7 messages to 7 messengers representing 7 specific churches. Each message follows a distinct pattern:
1) Introduction of Christ's perspective concerning Himself--"These things saith [he/the...]..."
2) Four simple words--"I know thy works..."
3) The message
4) Personalization--generally wrapped around the phrase "To him that overcometh..."

While that personalization generally follows the aforementioned phrase, in the messages to the churches of Thyatira and Sardis the emphasis is clearly moved from the assembly proper to individuals within the assembly (and in Thyatira possibly those without the assembly ["...to the rest in Thyatira...which have not known the depths of Satan..."]) prior to the normal phraseology. In my mind that leaves the door open for a similar shift in this last message to Laodicea.

You stated "The same formula for each church is repeated and the closing word to Laodicea emphasizes the knocking is to arouse that church to repent (vs 18-19). No mention of salvation, but rather of loving discipline."

However, on the surface the message apparently veers from a disciplinary communique' ("...I rebuke and chastise...") to a relational communique' ("...I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me"). That relationship is completely based on what takes place at that door. Furthermore, the very pointed reference "...if any man..." certainly gives every indication that the speaker has moved beyond addressing an entire assembly through an individual representative ("...the angel of the church of the Laodiceans...") to addressing individuals associated with that assembly via that same representative.

I think you have well stated your perspective on what this passage does not mean. I would greatly appreciate your further input on exactly what is being communicated to this assembly that requires this particular picture as the most perfect illustration of the message of discipline that you feel is the point of this illustration.

Thanking you in advance.....

__________________

Lee

Top
Thu, 10/27/2011 - 11:35pm
#4 permalink
RMSprung
RMSprung's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Fri, Nov 26 2010
Posts: 24
What Sayest Thou?

Please read Dan Wallace link for he is much more well versed in the issue. It's very much worth your while. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/09/inviting-jesus-into-your-heart/]Rev 3:20[/url]

__________________

Bob

Top
Sat, 10/29/2011 - 9:25am
#5 permalink
Lee
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 14 2011
Posts: 158
From the blog you recommended

From the blog you recommended (Emphases mine):

"What, then, is this verse is affirming? First, it is not an offering of salvation. The implications of this are manifold. Among other things, to use this text as a salvation verse is a perversion of the simplicity of the gospel. Many people have allegedly 'received Christ into their hearts' without understanding what that means or what the gospel means. Although this verse is picturesque, it actually muddies the waters of the truth of salvation. Reception of Christ is a consequence, not a condition, of salvation. Second, as far as the positive meaning of this verse, it may refer to Christ having supremacy in the assembly or [it may] even [refer] to an invitation (and, consequently, a reminder) to believers to share with him in the coming kingdom. Either way, it is not a verse about salvation at all, for the Laodiceans were already saved."

I took from this blog basically what I've been taking from your comments thus far: i.e., we don't know what it is actually communicating, but we know it isn't communicating anything about salvation. Pardon my cynicism, but that approach typically smacks of bolstering a paradigm over developing a clear understanding about the message being communicated.

As one of my mentors would gently chide: "Lee, if the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense."

"Inviting Jesus into your heart" is obviously a hot-button issue with Dr. Wallace, for which I cannot fault him. While most likely coined a generation or so ago by some well-meaning soul in the fervor of evangelistic outreach to children, this particular phraseology has wrought significant misunderstanding about the meaning of salvation in child and adult alike over a number of years now. Don't know if it is a hill to die on, but it is certainly worthy of a good wound or two.

However, in his quest to eradicate this concept from our theological spectrum this blogger has done an end-run around what is the apparent plain sense of this particular passage. What is plain from this passage is--
1) Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, is on one side of a door;
2) an unidentified "any man" is on the other;
3) Christ desires to pass through that door to join this "any man" as exhibited in knocking;
4) the need is for the door to be opened by this "any man," implying an invitation to enter;
5) the promise of the Savior that, upon that invitation, He will, indeed, enter, forming a relationship with "any man" as pictured in the promise of "I will sup with him, and he with me;"
6) that the status quo of Christ without, desirous in knocking, will not change until "any man" opens the door.

I don't find it beyond credibility that untold thousands of believing, godly, Spirit-controlled, Scripture-driven individuals have completely misunderstood this inspired illustration for 2000 years based only what they have perceived as the apparent or plain communication of Scripture.

What I do find beyond credibility is that Christ Himself would provide this apparently illustration, recorded and preserved under Holy Spirit inspiration, in the context of The Revelation of Jesus Christ with the only understanding available after 2000 years of theological scrutiny being something akin to "we don't know exactly what it is communicating but we know it is not about salvation" in spite of the fact that salvation has been commonly regarded as the intended message by a plethora of good men for centuries.

Which brings us back to the top of this discussion: if the widely accepted understanding of this illustration has been wrong for all these years, what is this illustration definitively communicating?

__________________

Lee

Top
Sat, 10/29/2011 - 11:34am
#6 permalink
JohnBrian
JohnBrian's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 453
not a widely accepted understanding
Lee wrote:

I don't find it beyond credibility that untold thousands of believing, godly, Spirit-controlled, Scripture-driven individuals have completely misunderstood this inspired illustration for 2000 years based only what they have perceived as the apparent or plain communication of Scripture.

...but we know it is not about salvation" in spite of the fact that salvation has been commonly regarded as the intended message by a plethora of good men for centuries.

Which brings us back to the top of this discussion: if the widely accepted understanding of this illustration has been wrong for all these years, what is this illustration definitively communicating?

Your error here is assuming that for thousands of years salvation has been commonly regarded as being dependent on man opening the door of his heart to Jesus who is patiently waiting outside. The notion that man is the ultimate determiner of whether he is saved or not is actually a relatively new idea in the church. The idea that God stands at the hearts door of "all men everywhere" and is in most cases disappointed by their rejection of Him, may be 'widely accepted' in our present age, but it most certainly has not been held 'by a plethora of good men for centuries.'

__________________

j...@g...l.com - my email
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter

Top
Sat, 10/29/2011 - 1:00pm
#7 permalink
RMSprung
RMSprung's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Fri, Nov 26 2010
Posts: 24
Our Salvation -- what is our role?

I partially quote my first post for clarity:

o, for me, to allow 3:20 to be a heart wrenching plea from the Savior to lost sinners (not in the church) and imagining a weeping Jesus just wringing his hands over their lost estate of hoping, somehow, they will exercise that spark of free will,
Quote:

NOT!!!!

, is a totally fabrication of John's words and a significant misrepresentation of salvation itself. wrote:

We come to Christ not because of mere mental assent, but because the Gospel has broken our natural rebellion against God. The Spirit regenerates and the gifts of repentance, faith, and grace are what brings us to our senses (not unlike the Prodigal Son). With that being said, it is an absolute truth that man, in his lost estate, cannot believe in Christ when he wants or thinks he wills it so. With great respect from your prof, whom I quote here: "As one of my mentors would gently chide: "Lee, if the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense." is a dangerous methodology of interpretation. Yes, the Gospel is to be accepted LIKE a child meaning with the trust a young one saying "catch me Daddy!!" knowing that a father will do it.

But no one comes to that place until a sense of sin and guilt overwhelm the stubborn natural man and now is not one of the blind leading the blind. In our view (at that moment) we think we are exercising our choice by a free determination. But in fact, the will is subject to the nature and therefore, is unable to come to that conclusion. The responsibility remains but the ability is not there.

My point is that the Laodecians were a CHURCH, a called out assembly, that had become so self-sufficient, so insulated, so like our churches today that God is not worshiped nor is His grace preached. The cross is of none effect for many preachers have failed to grasp the whole purpose of why Christ came Incarnate, impeccable, humiliated, rejected by His own, felt the communion with the Father severed for the dark hours on Calvary (the bitter cup of Gethsemane), but was raised by the Spirit to satisfy (propitiation) the justice of our Holy God. It is the ONLY WAY to go to the Father. Yes, why not preach the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world to all hearers--shout it from the housetops!! Then, we obey His command and man is without excuse--but do not use Rev 3:20 as a verse that may appear "to make sense" when, in fact, it is dealing with a church in need of a whooping. Peace

__________________

Bob

Top
Mon, 10/31/2011 - 10:24am
#8 permalink
Lee
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 14 2011
Posts: 158
Focus, gentlemen, focus! The

Focus, gentlemen, focus! The crux of this discussion is not whether or not men can or are expected to invite Jesus into their heart/life or whatever. That is for another debate on another thread. The crux of this discussion is (or, at least, was intended to be) identifying the message of this illustration since it is not communicating something salvific.

I know my perspective is somewhat limited, as I am only 50 something years old, and my reading is not as extensive as many. However, the Lord privileged me to be in church since I can remember remembering, raised in a pastor's home, Christian school since kindergarten, Bible college degree, and in vocational ministry for more than 30 years. Thus, I have heard, read thousands of messages from practically every angle of the theological spectrum on practically every subject imaginable. The nature of my vocation provides me with as big a "tent" as can be reasonably imagined accommodating practically all the theological realm. In all those years and messages I have never heard or read a positive affirmation of what this passage is illustrating that has not been what I consider the traditional interpretation. In fact, it has only been in relatively recent years that I have heard such positive declarations of what it absolutely doesn't mean.

What I'm looking for is clarification. If it is not speaking salvifically it is illustrating some very important Scripture point. If it does not illustrate salvation, which you affirm it doesn't, what do we know that it does illustrate? What message is Christ communicating through this illustration that is best and positively communicated through this illustration?

__________________

Lee

Top
Tue, 11/01/2011 - 2:39am
#9 permalink
JohnBrian
JohnBrian's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 453
trying to focus
Quote:

Focus, gentlemen, focus! The crux of this discussion is not whether or not men can or are expected to invite Jesus into their heart/life or whatever.

I thought that WAS what the discussion was about!

Quote:

I know my perspective is somewhat limited, as I am only 50 something years old, and my reading is not as extensive as many.

...In all those years and messages I have never heard or read a positive affirmation of what this passage is illustrating that has not been what I consider the traditional interpretation.

50 years is significantly less than your previous number of 2000 years!

Quote:

What I'm looking for is clarification. If it is not speaking salvifically it is illustrating some very important Scripture point. If it does not illustrate salvation, which you affirm it doesn't, what do we know that it does illustrate?

From the Wallace article Bob linked to in post 4: Inviting Jesus Into Your Heart

Quote:

What, then, is this verse is affirming? First, it is not an offering of salvation. The implications of this are manifold. Among other things, to use this text as a salvation verse is a perversion of the simplicity of the gospel. Many people have allegedly “received Christ into their hearts” without understanding what that means or what the gospel means. Although this verse is picturesque, it actually muddies the waters of the truth of salvation. Reception of Christ is a consequence, not a condition, of salvation. Second, as far as the positive meaning of this verse, it may refer to Christ having supremacy in the assembly or even to an invitation (and, consequently, a reminder) to believers to share with him in the coming kingdom. Either way, it is not a verse about salvation at all, for the Laodiceans were already saved.

__________________

j...@g...l.com - my email
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter

Top
Tue, 11/01/2011 - 8:10am
#10 permalink
Lee
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 14 2011
Posts: 158
"Second, as far as the

"Second, as far as the positive meaning of this verse, it may refer to Christ having supremacy in the assembly or [it may] even [refer] to an invitation (and, consequently, a reminder) to believers to share with him in the coming kingdom."

Is it just me or does this come across as being completely in a fog as to the what is being communicated? And the concluding statement--"Either way, it is not a verse about salvation at all...."--translates remarkably close to the current don't know/don't care catch phrase of choice: "Whatever............"

One of the most recognized illustrations in all of inspired Scripture picturing a personal involvement of the Savior in soliciting "any man" to respond and do something, and after two thousand years the best we can come up with is whatever?

I think I understand a little about mystery truth; I just never pictured this illustration as being the mystery.

__________________

Lee

Top
Wed, 12/28/2011 - 3:50am
#11 permalink
Richard Pajak
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 98
I am in agreement with you

I am in agreement with you Lee. Personally I think it does no harm to see this as referring to an invitation to let Jesus into your life.
If someone given this verse and this meaning responded by committing their life to Jesus then what is the big deal?
Is this not straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
I can't imagine the Lord being offended because the person accepted Jesus on the understanding of a verse which was a different understanding to that proposed by RM and which he claims is not a legitimate use of the verse.
The Holy Spirit as I understand Him can use anything to convict someone.

__________________

Richard Pajak

Top
Wed, 12/28/2011 - 4:00pm
#12 permalink
RMSprung
RMSprung's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Fri, Nov 26 2010
Posts: 24
Errant Preaching

Both Lee and Richard conclude that using Rev 3:20 as an open invitation for the lost is a very common practice. I agree that the Holy Spirit can use any text, thing, person, circumstance, alliance, et al., to bring the lost to Christ. However, using your touchy-feely techniques and/or excusing them as if the truth of a text is secondary is responsible for more lost pew sitters in our churches!!!! Expository preaching does not exclude evangelistic appeal, in fact, it should actually be the heart throb of the messenger.

But to accept our current text under discussion as an either/or does an injustice to biblical interpretation and the right meaning of the original writer. Moreover, why not just use other texts at random and get your (i.e., anybody) point across. Why is the prosperity gospel so popular or why do charismatics advance their cause? Because they disregard the plain meaning and substitute what is appealing.

My brothers, with all respect -- you are doing a disservice to the Spirit, your people, and the Gospel by allowing such verses to be rendered whatever so someone can "make a decision." Let's get real--AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY is almost a joke and the few who are attempting to revive doctrinal and textual understanding are not popular. I left fundamentalism for exactly these reasons. Topical nonsense, rabbit trails, no sense of meaning except what a "do not touch God's anointed" says just expands the spiritual void and allows our version of North Korea's "Dear Leader" (excuse me as I puke) to fester spiritual viruses that take the soft heart we received at salvation and make it vicious, calloused, and rancid.

Please reconsider your hermeneutics.

__________________

Bob

Top
Thu, 12/29/2011 - 2:09am
#13 permalink
Richard Pajak
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 98
RMSprung wrote:"Both Lee and

RMSprung wrote:
"Both Lee and Richard conclude that using Rev 3:20 as an open invitation for the lost is a very common practice. I agree that the Holy Spirit can use any text, thing, person, circumstance, alliance, et al., to bring the lost to Christ. However, using your touchy-feely techniques and/or excusing them as if the truth of a text is secondary is responsible for more lost pew sitters in our churches!!!! Expository preaching does not exclude evangelistic appeal, in fact, it should actually be the heart throb of the messenger"

There is nothing touchy feely about Rev 3:20 and you misrepresent our view by claiming that we hold truth of a text to be secondary.

"But to accept our current text under discussion as an either/or does an injustice to biblical interpretation and the right meaning of the original writer. Moreover, why not just use other texts at random and get your (i.e., anybody) point across. Why is the prosperity gospel so popular or why do charismatics advance their cause? Because they disregard the plain meaning and substitute what is appealing"

Again you misrepresent the charismatic(Biblical Christians) view by implying that they maintain their view by misapplication of Scripture. The Charismatic view is completely in line with Scripture as opposed to the cessationist view which itself disregards plain Scriptural teaching.

"My brothers, with all respect -- you are doing a disservice to the Spirit, your people, and the Gospel by allowing such verses to be rendered whatever so someone can "make a decision." Let's get real--AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY is almost a joke and the few who are attempting to revive doctrinal and textual understanding are not popular. I left fundamentalism for exactly these reasons. Topical nonsense, rabbit trails, no sense of meaning except what a "do not touch God's anointed" says just expands the spiritual void and allows our version of North Korea's "Dear Leader" (excuse me as I puke) to fester spiritual viruses that take the soft heart we received at salvation and make it vicious, calloused, and rancid."

How can you honestly say,"with all respect" and then go on to trash us with vicious allusions to North Kore's leader and the spreading of spiritual viruses.

__________________

Richard Pajak

Top
Thu, 12/29/2011 - 11:51am
#14 permalink
RMSprung
RMSprung's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Fri, Nov 26 2010
Posts: 24
Two Points In Response to Post #13

Richard (and others), when I post a comment it is never with ill will toward anyone. And if a person reads my statements clearly, that should be understood. Now, when I "rant" a bit, it is in broad strokes at the bombastic and pompous self-appointed preachers who are a part of the whole of America's version of Christianity. So, please note that a direct retort is not without a motive of love and correction.

Now, two responses above bring umbrage to me!!

Quote:

misapplication of Scripture. The Charismatic view is completely in line with Scripture as opposed to the cessationist view which itself disregards plain Scriptural teaching.

There are evangelicals who may agree with your statement in part but not in whole. Just consider the gift of tongues and we can easily see it is misunderstood today. Paul's rhetorical questions in 1 Cor 12:29-30 are meant to be answered NO.[b] Moreover, 1 Cor 14 (esp 26-40) explain the orderly worship, I said [b]orderly worship. Maybe some gifts are still present; however, they would be the exception and not the norm or needed as a sign/proof/affirmation.

Quote:

"My brothers, with all respect -- you are doing a disservice to the Spirit, your people, and the Gospel by allowing such verses to be rendered whatever so someone can "make a decision." Let's get real--AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY is almost a joke and the few who are attempting to revive doctrinal and textual understanding are not popular. I left fundamentalism for exactly these reasons. Topical nonsense, rabbit trails, no sense of meaning except what a "do not touch God's anointed" says just expands the spiritual void and allows our version of North Korea's "Dear Leader" (excuse me as I puke) to fester spiritual viruses that take the soft heart we received at salvation and make it vicious, calloused, and rancid."

How can you honestly say,"with all respect" and then go on to trash us with vicious allusions to North Kore's leader and the spreading of spiritual viruses.

A mea cupla may be in order here for my using "you" [referring to the 2 respondents] in the first sentence as I truly do not know how you each handle the Word in your teaching/preaching/philosophy of ministry, etc. Please accept my sincere apology. But the remainder of my statement is not without weight nor is it directed at either of you!! Are you not sick of the anemic Baptist churches today? Just look at the cultural and societal demise within the walls of our assemblies. The statistics never match the reality. And my North Korean zinger is hyperbole but not without merit.

The use of "spiritual viruses" is my way of relating the pluralistic and relativistic trend to dismissing the meaning of words instead of pressing the truth of doctrine and exhortation with a view stopping the infection into another generation. Internal wars and power plays for leadership display ministerial humility and good judgement. So, if a preacher wants to toy around with Rev 3:20 or others texts, just be prepared for a church membership who has a diminished capacity for meat (Heb 5:11-14). Peace

__________________

Bob

Top
Thu, 12/29/2011 - 1:00pm
#15 permalink
Lee
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 14 2011
Posts: 158
RMSprung wrote:Both Lee and
RMSprung wrote:

Both Lee and Richard conclude that using Rev 3:20 as an open invitation for the lost is a very common practice. ...

I've asked several times and have not received clarity as yet. In a previous response I wrote:
"However, in his (Dr. Wallace) quest to eradicate this concept from our theological spectrum this blogger has done an end-run around what is the apparent plain sense of this particular passage. What is plain from this passage is--
1) Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, is on one side of a door;
2) an unidentified "any man" is on the other;
3) Christ desires to pass through that door to join this "any man" as exhibited in knocking;
4) the need is for the door to be opened by this "any man," implying an invitation to enter;
5) the promise of the Savior that, upon that invitation, He will, indeed, enter, forming a relationship with "any man" as pictured in the promise of "I will sup with him, and he with me;"
6) that the status quo of Christ without, desirous in knocking, will not change until "any man" opens the door.

I don't find it beyond credibility that untold thousands of believing, godly, Spirit-controlled, Scripture-driven individuals have completely misunderstood this inspired illustration for 2000 years based only what they have perceived as the apparent or plain communication of Scripture.

[i]What I do find beyond credibility is that Christ Himself would provide this apparently [plain] illustration, recorded and preserved under Holy Spirit inspiration, in the context of The Revelation of Jesus Christ with the only understanding available after 2000 years of theological scrutiny being something akin to "we don't know exactly what it is communicating but we know it is not about salvation" in spite of the fact that salvation has been commonly regarded as the intended message by a plethora of good men for centuries.

Which brings us back to the top of this discussion: if the widely accepted understanding of this illustration has been wrong for all these years, what is this illustration definitively communicating?"

From that response it is plain that, yes, I do recognize that the common understanding of this illustration for many years has been an invitation to the lost. But it is also plain that I am willing to be wrong and to count 2000 years of hermeneutics wrong if it can be conclusively shown that this is illustrating something other than salvation in as equally plain a manner as the apparent understanding has been for centuries.

Unless I've missed something in this discussion, I have yet to see what the plain truth is that this illustration communicates in relation to the church at Laodicea and the whole of the Revelation of Jesus Christ that is not referencing some aspect of salvation.

__________________

Lee

Top
Thu, 12/29/2011 - 6:23pm
#16 permalink
Richard Pajak
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 98
My disagreement is not on the

My disagreement is not on the interpretation of the passage in context but simply that the picture of Jesus knocking at the door is an allowable picture. He calls the Laodicean church to repent.
He calls the unbeliever likewise to repent. Whether it is a Christian who is not right with the Lord or an unbeliever the call to repentance is made.
The unbeliever is outside of Christ. The Spirit convicts the unbeliever and calls to repentance, the sinner responds by repenting and letting Jesus into their life.
I don't think it is a matter of being "wrong". I think one is right and the other an allowable picture.

__________________

Richard Pajak

Top
Sat, 12/31/2011 - 2:32pm
#17 permalink
JohnBrian
JohnBrian's picture
Offline
User
Joined: Tue, Jun 2 2009
Posts: 453
clash of presuppositions
Lee in post 15 wrote:

What I do find beyond credibility is that Christ Himself would provide this apparently [plain] illustration, recorded and preserved under Holy Spirit inspiration, in the context of The Revelation of Jesus Christ with the only understanding available after 2000 years of theological scrutiny being something akin to "we don't know exactly what it is communicating but we know it is not about salvation" in spite of the fact that salvation has been commonly regarded as the intended message by a plethora of good men for centuries.

Lee in post 15 wrote:

Which brings us back to the top of this discussion: if the widely accepted understanding of this illustration has been wrong for all these years, what is this illustration definitively communicating?"

Continuing to repeat an argument that was responded to in post 6 does not make the argument any better. Your view is the NEW view!

Richard Pajak in post 16 wrote:

My disagreement is not on the interpretation of the passage in context but simply that the picture of Jesus knocking at the door is an allowable picture. He calls the Laodicean church to repent.

It is not good exegesis to make the text refer to something other than what it refers to. After a sermon my favorite father-in-law was challenged by another preacher on his misuse of a particular text. His response was that he knew he was misusing it, but it “made for good preaching.” Actually it didn’t!

The real problem is a clash of presuppositions; monergistic vs. synergistic. The striking difference between the views, centers on the lost condition of man. Monergism posits that mankind is spiritually dead and thus incapable of “opening the door.” Synergism posits that man is only mostly dead, and is thus able to “open the door.”

In monergism, man is a decaying corpse, and it is only the command of God that can restore life. In synergism, man is very near to death, yet the doctor may only set the life giving medicine on the nightstand, and it is up to the man to reach for the medicine with what may be his last ounce of strength.

In monergism God stands outside the tomb of the dead and commands him to come forth. In synergism, God stands by the bed of the sick and begs him to drink the medicine.

With that stark a contrast between the views, it is not surprising that synergists see salvation as the intended message of this passage, even when Christ is here addressing the church.

Spurgeon, in his 1874 sermon on this passage said:

Quote:

The last remedy, however, is the best of all, in my mind. I love it best and desire to make it my food when it is not my medicine. The best remedy for backsliding Churches, is more communion with Christ. “Behold,” He says, “I stand at the door and knock.” I have known this text preached upon to sinners numbers of times as though Christ knocked at their door and they had to open it, and so on. The preacher has never managed to keep to Free Grace for this reason—that the text was not meant to be so used—and if men will ride a text the wrong way, it will not go! This text belongs to the Church of God, not to the unconverted! It is addressed to the Laodicean Church!

__________________

j...@g...l.com - my email
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter

Top