Two years ago I wrote an article that clarified the easily misunderstood passage about what it means to be a “lukewarm Christian” (you can read it here). I still stand by the interpretation of what lukewarm truly means in the context. However, one thing I have always stood behind is the idea that Christ is writing to a church that wasn’t saved. They were lukewarm, worthless, because they weren’t a true church. I was certain Christ was condemning them for their lack of faith and calling them to repent of their sin.
Except, I recently realized, He wasn’t. And I want to briefly share how I came to that discovery and why I’m happy to acknowledge my mistake.
Last month, two elders of my church finished a sermon series on the 7 churches in Revelation chapters 2 and 3. When we got to Laodicea, I was curious what direction the pastor would take it. He said the church was a believing church, which didn’t surprise me based on previous conversations. Afterward, he even said something to the effect of “I was curious what you’d think since I know you don’t agree.”
But he was wrong. Between the opening and closing prayer, I realized something as I was reading the passage. The pastor didn’t really mention it in his sermon, but it stood out to me and, admittedly, made me miss a chunk of the actual sermon as I started digging and rethinking what I originally thought. It was what Christ was really calling out, and especially what He wasn’t saying to a church full of people who weren’t actually Christians.
I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! (Revelation 3:15)
Did you catch it? Because it took me years before I did.
What is Christ calling them out on? What is He condemning? Where are they wrong?
Their works. He’s saying their works are wrong, their works need to be rebuked, and that their works need to change so that they will stop being lukewarm.
But…
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
We aren’t saved by works, and neither was this church in Laodicea. If Christ was telling them to repent and call upon His name, He would start with that and not changing their works. Yet I was being wildly inconsistent by saying that this church was full of unsaved individuals, and Christ was calling for them to modify their behavior.
Rather, as I finally realized, Christ is calling out a believing church that was sitting and doing nothing. Their works, not their faith, were the problem. Christ called them to change their works because they were redeemed people who were living like the world, trusting in their riches and comfort for their identity and satisfaction. Their lives didn’t show that they were true followers of Christ, even though they were.
So I admit a total misreading of the text on my part. The major point of my article is still true, but I’ll still be modifying it in the future to more accurately reflect the spiritual health of this church. I probably could have quietly edited it without anyone having to know, but I hope it’s encouraging for regular readers to see that, whatever impression I may leave through my blogs and podcast episodes, I’m still striving for a deeper understanding of God’s word. If nothing else, I hope you can learn from my example and always be willing to put God’s word above all other ideas or beliefs we may have.
Ray, you may not want to see this, but you highlight something relevant to your comment on your prior post.
Of course you are exactly right here: in Rev 3 Christ is unhappy with the members of this church because of their behavior. As you point out, Eph 2:8-9 specifies that Christians are saved through faith, not works.
The problem is that Ephesians does not address the eternal fate of those who have not exercised saving faith. Eph 2:8-9 applies to Christians only: it references what Christians have done in the past. Ephesians says nothing at all about non-Christians, or about what happens to non-Christians after they die.
According to the plain meaning of passages like Rom 13:10, it is not within God’s character to end the existence of human beings with torture just because they do not accept Christ. The Bible never, never advocates or condones punishing people with torture, and torture for the kinds of sins that most people commit is the polar opposite of “love does no harm to a neighbor.” Whether or not this is a human idea of what a loving God should be, it is a clear biblical principle. The Bible has a lot to say about God’s love and justice, so it is a big mistake to say, “we can’t understand it (although we know for sure who will not receive God’s mercy and grace).”
If you are truly serious about putting God’s word ahead of other beliefs, then I hope you will carefully check it to see what it says (and does not say) about the eternal destiny of people who do not accept Christ. I appreciate that re-thinking what may be a core belief might be very difficult, but getting this wrong can have serious implications for Christian behavior.
If I’m reading your criticism correctly, both now and in previous comments, you seem to be implying that:
-passages about salvation talk about how those we would identify as “Christians” are justified through Christ and gain eternal life
-these passages are silent about the fate of those who aren’t justified by faith
-therefore, we shouldn’t assume they don’t also gain eternal life by other means
Is that right? Because while that logic makes sense when reading individual passages, I think it falls short when we apply the Analogy of Scripture, exegesis, and systematic theology.
The problem with making an argument from silence is that it ignores what is implied by making the unreasonable demand that every case must be addressed every time salvation is discussed, otherwise we can’t know what it means for everything not said. Taking the Bible as a whole, statements like 1 John 5:11-13 show why it’s implied that when the biblical writers talk explicitly about what happened to Christians in Ephesians 2:8-9, there’s an implicitness about those who don’t have faith in Christ.
I’ll be honest, I’m not really sure what exactly you believe or where you hope to convince me to land. So rather than pointing out all the errors you see, I’m honestly interested to hear what you believe the Bible reveals about salvation. I’m not expecting a full essay, but even a few sentences or giving me a theological tradition you fall under would help me better understand where you’re coming from. If it’s easier, you reach me at Contact[at]OnwardintheFaith.com ( replacing [at] with @ )
Your three bullet points have my position exactly right.
However, since those passages say nothing about the fate of non-Christians, it is you who is making an argument from silence. My argument comes from biblical teaching about the nature of God, humans, and love.
I most certainly do not make the demand that every case must be addressed every time. Instead, I am pointing out that the verses you cite to insist that God tortures billions of humans say no such thing.
1 John 5:11-13 is an excellent example. It talks about present tense: folks who are not Christians at the moment do not have life. It says nothing at all about the future. I suppose it “might” imply something, but “Love does no harm to a neighbor” is a much more definitive statement.
I am writing from the “theological tradition” of the plain meaning of scripture.
I do not think that it is wise for you to write about a theological tradition, or analogy of scripture, or systematic theology, since you claim to hold the plain meaning of scripture on the highest regard. Bringing in these other things suggests that you’re more informed by a tradition than you’ve implied. And it is inconsistent to talk about individual verses sometimes, then suddenly bring in analogy, systematic theology, and others when individual verses don’t say what you want them to say.
When a person dies, he or she faces God. There is a personal interaction with a just, loving judge. That just, loving God looks at all the evidence, then makes a decision about that person’s fate, giving mercy and grace as God pleases, according to God’s nature. The Bible says a lot about justice, love, and God’s character; so far, you can’t find anything definitive about the fate of those who do not accept Christ. So it seems wise to rely on what the Bible says, than on what it does not say.
The tone and content of your reply gave me a much better picture, so thank you for the clarification.
Some things worth clarifying on my own end:
1. You keep insisting I claim that God will “torture people for eternity” when I’ve said no such thing. For as much as you’ve spoken about me not making assumptions on your beliefs, it keeps surprising me that this is the stance you keep taking.
2. You seem upset that I talked about the Analogy of Scripture, exegesis, systematic theology, and theological traditions. I had assumed those terms were innocent enough, but perhaps I should better explain my meaning:
-Analogy of Scripture: We use the Bible to interpret itself because it was all inspired by the Holy Spirit. If there’s a question we have about one passage, we find further clarity in another because the Bible cannot contradict itself.
-Exegesis: Reading the Bible in its context (such as your previous comment with Romans 9) and understanding the meaning of verses based on their context within a paragraph, book content, genre, author, and the entire Bible. This is different than eisegesis, which involves taking individual verses and adding our own meaning to what we think they mean (i.e. the popular idea of “what does this verse mean to you?”).
-Systematic Theology: Making sure that what we believe about one aspect of theology works in harmony with other things we believe. It’s like our beliefs are a series of gears, and we’re making sure all of our gears are working together to create a consistent system of belief.
-Theological Traditions: I only asked about that because everyone’s beliefs tend to line up with one bigger style of thought, though rarely are they a 1:1 match. If someone said to you “I tend to agree with Reformed theology” or “I tend to agree with Armstrongism,” you’d have a broad picture of what a person’s beliefs are, though they may add some caveats about individual things that may differ from those theological traditions. So I asked in case that would have been easier than to articulate each individual belief.
All that being said, I assume it’s evident that we’re coming from two very different religious traditions (or however you’d like to define it). I’ll continue to read and think about your past, present, and future criticisms because I know they’re made both with reason and a desire to see God’s truth elevated, thus there’s little value in dismissing things you say just because we have disagreements.
However, internet debates are rarely fruitful, and I’m frequently playing “catch up” on many of my responsibilities as it is, so please don’t take offense if I don’t always take time to respond to future discussions. You may read that as me being afraid to engage because I don’t want to be wrong, but I hope you’ll see it for what it is: me respectfully considering what you say, analyzing it, and changing what’s necessary if I’m convinced there’s a more correct approach than what I previously believed… even if I appear to be silent.
Have a good day John, and thank you for all the thoughtful and thought-provoking comments so far.
Ray, I’m glad that you find this to be thought-provoking. I agree that internet debates often are unproductive. You have my email address, so you can contact me there, if it is useful. I’m trying to post things that can help others.
Can you clarify what you believe happens to those who do not go to heaven after they die? I imagine that many of your readers think that you believe that they suffer eternal torment in hell.
I was not upset that you mentioned Analogy of Scripture, etc. I agree that “Analogy of Scripture” and exegesis are appropriate here (I did not object to exegesis, and I’ve never heard that definition of “Analogy of Scripture”). But the others distract from the issue.
Systematic theology is a problem because it is tempting to use it only when we do not get the results we want from biblical theology. You seem to be drifting in that direction, as you seem to suggest that you are trying to argue from the Bible only, without recourse to ST. I have to note that you made what sounded like a significant concession in your previous response to me, that my logic holds up if we read “individual passages.” Since I think that you’ve only discussed individual passages thus far, it feels a little like you want to change the rules of the game midway! But if you think that you can support your position using ST, go ahead.
While I am very open about my theological tradition, it is not helpful here. It can only distract from the point, which is what the Bible says (perhaps with help from ST). The Bible teaches the same thing whether you and I are Baptist, Assembly of God, Catholic, Buddhist, or atheist.
I’m happy to share relevant individual beliefs, as needed, but I’m not posting here to defend my tradition.
The issue of what happens to non-Christians when they die has very serious implications for Christian behavior. The idea that God created 5 billion human beings living today, knowing that they will be sent to hell, says something awful about God, and about what God expects of us. If nothing else, I hope that you at least post something about what you think happens to non-Christians when they die.
Have a good evening, Ray.
(I’m replying to a previous comment because the “reply” button isn’t showing up on your recent comment asking for my belief about the afterlife. Apologies for the confusion.)
Regarding those who don’t go to Heaven, I hold to a classic understanding of Hell as a righteous punishment for breaking God’s law (note that punishment is a consequence of willful actions while torture is the result of sadism, just like we see in the world today). Christ’s words are fairly descriptive about what Hell will be like while souls are there.
I also believe what Revelation 20:11-15 says about the final judgment. All people will be resurrected and judged according to their deeds (not weighed like a balancing scale of good and bad, but having their crimes examined as a good judge should do), and those whose names aren’t written in the Lamb’s Book of Life will be thrown into the Lake of Fire along with Death and Hell. Whether the Lake of Fire is another unending punishment or utter annihilation is something people will likely debate until we see it for ourselves. The Bible speaks of eternal death in the same way as eternal life, so I lean away from annihilationism, but I have heard good arguments for the punishment of Hell being finite and the Lake being total destruction.
—
I’m afraid you misunderstood my meaning when I said your argument made sense when looking only at a specific verse or passage. I would say that same thing to a teacher of the Prosperity Gospel who says James 4:2 teaches we’re poor or sick because we don’t ask God for money or health. I’d also say it to someone who uses Philippians 4:13 to claim victory over a sports competition. Eisegesis allows any verse to make sense when we look at it on its own without regard to context or how other parts of Scripture may contradict it. The fact that you saw it as a victory by ignoring the rest of what I said should be noted.
—
I think I’ve addressed what was needed, so I’d like you to have the last word on this conversation. It’s clearly going nowhere and I don’t have the time or energy to go in circles or keep defending against silly accusations made in the name of helping others. If you find the use of Systematic Theology to be “changing the rules,” my way to force the Bible to say what I want it to say, or whatever else I have been or will be accused of, then it’s apparent that one or both of us have resorted to pettiness and a desire to “win” more than seek the truth.
Ray, I’m saddened by what I see as a change in tone. Although the medium is suboptimal, you have always had, and still have, the option of changing it. The medium has been a big part of some of our confusion.
You’ve asked me to have the last word, so I will do so.
On the topic at hand, your description of hell meets the dictionary definition of torture. Per the dictionary, the motive of the torturer or the one prescribing the punishment has no impact on whether the punishment qualifies as torture. Whatever else you may believe about the fate of non-Christians, I do not see any way to fairly describe being thrown into a lake of fire as anything other than torture.
Calling my comments “silly” is insulting, and really inappropriate. Saying that I have a desire to “win” or claimed “victory” is also uncalled for; it is not remotely true, and does not even reflect what I wrote. I was only trying to point out that the verses you cited do not prove what you claimed they prove, and that you did not made much of an argument otherwise.
You’ve insinuated repeatedly that I prefer eisegesis to exegesis, that I prefer worldly ideas to biblical teaching, and that I am unwilling to glorify the God of the Bible. I could have been offended, but I’ve taken pains to not be so. I’ve tried hard to answer all you’ve asked of me, so it’s troubling that you now seem so put off.
If I write something that disturbs you and you prefer not to seek clarification, whatever the reason, you have many options. One is to simply write nothing, as you suggested in the earlier post. I’m very sorry about the option you are choosing.