Would being spiritually “hot n’ cold”, like the guy in the Katy Perry video, be classified as “lukewarm”? Or is it some other condition?
“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot.
So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."
In Revelation 3, beginning with verse 14, Jesus says to the church at Laodicea that because they are neither hot or cold but lukewarm he will cast them out of his mouth. The state of this church could be described as complacent, content to the point of inaction, aware of the Christ but sleepy with regard to responsibility. I’ll leave it for you to take from there.
My initial question aside, I have never understood why Jesus would prefer cold over lukewarm. Lukewarm is at least halfway there.
Personally I’ve never really been there. Discontent to the point of inaction, yes.
I suspect it has to do with cowardice. Unwilling to take a position, playing both sides of the fence… seeking a middle ground to avoid taking a stance.
I think this would be the right understanding. When St Paul was cold towards the Christian faith he nevertheless possessed lots of zeal in persecuting it, and God could later use that same zeal when he converted.
I can see that. It also occurs to me that a righteous position set on a middle ground risks getting muddled with ambiguity. The danger of others being lead astray as a result seems a reasonable concern.
That kind of helps me re-frame what “cold” means. Worth meditating on. I get hung up on the semantics of temperature…
And so, the Church of England.
What I am getting from the discussion thus far is that there is no such thing as spiritually “hot n cold” because no one goes alternately from persecutor of the church (Saul) to apostle (Paul).
One can go from being lukewarm to being hot, and then back to lukewarm and so forth.
Or The United Church of Canada
… or political correctness, and so forth.
Luke warm = they really don’t care one way or the other. They are completely indifferent.
NOT A GOOD position to TAKE
Given, that God is requiring us to make decisions
I’m not saying one ought to go between lukewarm and hot. I am saying it is possible to go from lukewarm to hot and to lukewarm again.
On the other hand it is impossible to go from cold to hot and back to cold and so forth. Unless one is really bi-polar maybe.
People who are aggressively opposed to the faith often demonstrate a kind of conviction, firmness, consistency, courage, and passion that can be transformed towards great good, with God’s help.
Lukewarmness is pretty much useless, and it means a person’s reasons for associating with the faith may be purely selfish in nature. So it’s not necessary halfway there. Lukewarmness can be further from God than coldness.
I prefer Icy-Hot…
That sounds super Catholic.
Making this a more specific example
Luke warm and cold can bring about the same consequences.
Georgetown Univ a Jesuit run univ, did a survey/poll on Catholics and mass attendance.
They found 22% of Catholics attend mass faithfully on Sunday … vs … 78% don’t.
Maybe within the 78%, are those who are the C&E Catholic, (Christmas and Easter) variety, that go to mass 2 days in the year.
One could say, In that group are cold and luke warm varieties… true?
BOTH are in mortal sin.
neither goes to confession, reconciling their offense, and die in mortal sin, they go to the same place in the end… NOT HEAVEN … YIKES!!!
A dreadful reprehension, whatever exposition we follow. According to the common interpretation, by the cold are meant those who are guilty of great sins; by the hot, such as are zealous and fervent in piety and the service of God; by the lukewarm or tepid, they who are slothful, negligent, indolent, as to what regards Christian perfection, the practice of virtue, and an exact observance of what regards the service of God.