THE SEVEN CHURCHES IN TIME AGES OF PROPHECY FULFILLMENT: CHURCH CANDLE 7 – THE AGE OF LAODICEA

“And unto the angel of the church of Laodicea write …” (Revelation 3:14).

In these studies of the Seven Churches of Revelation 2 & 3, we have learned that the Apostle John picks up certain types and symbols that lie scattered throughout the Old Testament and traces them to their final conclusion. This series is currently exploring these metaphoric threads in the tapestry of time in order to give you a more comprehensive view of the Savior’s crowning achievement and ultimate victory.

As noted earlier, these letters to the seven churches set forth a pattern of church history, written in advance, a prophecy to guide us into the throne room of the omniscient (all knowing) creator – the one who declares “the end from the beginning” (Isaiah 46:10).

At this point, it seems that we have only entered the foyer of a heavenly castle and are now observing the paintings that adorn the hallway leading to the throne room. We have met our guide at the entrance. Seven lamps illuminate our steps.

Before us lies a series of seven portraits, each illuminated by a lamp. However, these are not set in oil and draped in gilded frames as one would expect. Instead, they take on the air of a motion picture – seven portraits that allow us to see two thousand years of Church history, with each of the seven portraits accurately portraying a certain time frame of history within seven individual time eras and their events, or historic theme, within the two thousand year history of the Church.

The first pictures is entitled, “Ephesus: The Bride whose Love Has Grown Cold in the Absence of Her Groom.” It is observable that this bride longs for the one who promised to return for her, but the years of waiting have taken their toll upon her heart. She waits, dressed in her white gown and flowing veil, but the flowers in her hand seem to be wilting. She waits, but her countenance is showing a bit of frustration.

The second picture is filled with suffering and persecution. Below it’s presentation is the title, “Smyrna: The Centuries of Suffering.” The scene is filled with martyrs who refused to deny their faith before government prosecutors (A.D. 33-313). We watch in horror as men are burned at the stake; as women are tortured and fed to wild animals; as children are beaten to death before the eyes of their helpless parents.

The third setting is quite different from the others. It’s title is “Pergamos: The Church Under Imperial Favor.” Instead of government persecution, we see ministers and theologians fighting each other. Theologians seem to lend a blend of their own corrupted theology into the mix. Heresies abound. The Roman government has befriended the Church and what the government could not force the Christians to do earlier, the Christians now gladly oblige. We see ministers lured with a false sense of security, forsaking the faith and compromising foundational principles with pagan practices. This portrayal covers about two centuries of Church history – from A.D. 313 to 500.

The fourth portrait is entitled, “Thyatira, the Church of the Dark Ages.” It sets forth the most evil period of Church history, spanning over a thousand years – from A.D. 500 to 1500, and then, unfortunately, beyond the years of Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea to this very day. The scene is that of an expensive ornate gothic sanctuary, built with government tax money, made of black stone, surrounded by gargoyles – demons of the most hideous appearance – decorating it’s towers and doorways. The Roman institution suppressed the freedom of religious thought, chained the Bible to their pulpits, invented new extra-biblical doctrines and indiscriminately slaughtered any groups whom they considered heretics – Moslems, Jews and even the Christians of the Reform movement.

The fifth portrait presents the dawning of a new day. It is Sardis, the Church of the Reformation.” A reform movement throughout Europe that had led Martin Luther to nail his Ninety-five Theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg, Germany, and challenge the heretical doctrines of the Roman institution. With the invention of the printing press in the 1530s, Bibles became available to every family in their own language. A spiritual thirst for the word of God sparked the return to a literal interpretation.

In the sixth portrait, we observe “Philadelphia, the Church of the Open Door,” which we discussed in the previous post. It is the age to which the door of evangelism was opened about three centuries ago with the “Great Awakening” of 1727. In it, we see great missionaries and evangelists – among them, William Carey preaching in India; Hudson Taylor laboring in China; David Livingston taking the Gospel across Africa; George Whitefield and John Wesley preaching great outdoor revivals in England and America; D.L. Moody; Billy Sunday; Billy Graham and others. We observe the development of a loving, caring church preaching the Gospel to the world as it was in the first century. This church continues to this day. It is the congregation whom Christ has promised to save from “… the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth” (Revelation 3:10). Currently, we await the promised rapture and resurrection.

Now, we come to the seventh and final portrait that adorns the great hall that leads to the throne room. It is “Laodicea, the Church of the Final Apostasy.” Like Philadelphia, it too started in the 1700s with the development of the “Age of Reason” across Europe. It seems to be Lucifer’s counterfeit of Philadelphia. While the masses were being converted through evangelism, the “intellectual” religious community was questioning the very existence of God. And that is where we find ourselves in this study.

The Text of the Letter

Before reviewing the histories of Laodicea and it’s resulting development of liberal theology, let us familiarize ourselves with the text of the letter …

“And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Revelation 3:14-22).

The History of Laodicea

The ruins of Laodicea lay inland about forty miles east of Ephesus and the coast of the Aegean Sea. It was situated near the cities of Colosse and Hierapolis in the southern plains of Phrygia, near the junction of two small rivers – Asopus and Carpus. Laodicea, once a large city, was long ago demolished by earthquakes and now lies in ruins. Today, the Turks call the place Eskihissar (Old Castle). In the mid-19th century, a traveler visiting the ruins came upon a neighboring village of 50 or 60 people and found only two nominal Christians. It is said that there are few ancient sites more likely to “preserve many curious remains of antiquity beneath the surface of the soil; it’s opulence, and the earthquakes to which it was subject; rendering it probable that valuable works of art were buried …” beneath it’s ruins.

Emerson once wrote …

“The name of Christianity is forgotten, and the only sounds that disturb the silence of it’s desertion are the tones of the Muezzin, whose voice from the distant village proclaims the ascendancy of Muhammed. Laodicea is even more solitary than Ephesus; for the latter has the prospect of the rolling sea or of a whitening sail to enliven it’s decay; while the former sits in widowed lonliness, it’s walls are grass-grown, it’s temples desolate, it’s very name has perished.”

Neither Hot Nor Cold

“I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Revelation 3:15-16).

Laodicea was characterized by being “lukewarm,” with the warning that Christ would “spue” them out of his mouth. Historically speaking, it appears that the Savior kept his promise. The description of the church that was “neither hot nor cold” alludes to a basic insincerity on the part of that congregation. Had the church simply been “cold,” we could say that they had no pretension to being religious and were honest enough to admit their unbelief and disband. The word “hot” would represent the opposite – a warm and zealous love for serving God. The fact that they were “neither hot nor cold” reveals a dishonesty or hypocrisy on their part. They claim to be faithful while undermining the faith of others. The Savior had a right to expect either an open and honest opposition or a warmhearted love, but found only an indifference to him and his cause. He found a church where love was professed but did not exist; where vows had been assumed but not fulfilled. Their is an essential meanness in such a character trait.

Jesus once told the story of a man who had two sons; both were asked to work in his fields. One said that he would and failed to do so, while the other said that he would not, but later repented and obeyed. The son that was honest enough to declare his state of mind had the admiration of his father over the one who covered his contempt.

The man who openly opposes, who takes his stand publicly with honest zeal, though he may be wrong, shows elements of true greatness. But the man who privately opposes and covertly works to stab his opponent in the back is nothing more than a traitor. In the character of Saul of Tarsus, Christ saw elements of true worth, but in Judas Iscariot, there was no redeeming value. Saul openly declared his position while Judas betrayed his position within the inner circle of the Savior’s associates.

A Laodicean never sees himself in need of salvation. He does not consider himself in the pitiful position of a fallen man. He may even be a member of the church and is therefore “safe.” He will resist all efforts to convert him because he feels that he does not need to be. Anyone who doubts his sincerity is meddlesome and judgmental. No one has the right to assume that he is insincere. Consequently, there are more converts among the outcasts of society than there are among the so-called “upper class.”

Just as lukewarm water tends to produce a sickness of the stomach and an inclination to vomit, Jesus uses this intensely strong image to represent his deep disgust and loathing at the indifference and hypocrisy that prevailed at Laodicea. We can only assume that between those who are openly wrong and those who are privately opposed to the Savior, the hypocrite will receive the greater damnation.

The Age of Laodicea

Laodicea has become synonymous with liberal theology, commonly called Modernism. The movement began in the early 1700s, taking root in Europe during the “Age of Reason.”

German theologians were the most notorious in their use of rationalistic techniques in dealing with the text of the scriptures. They worked under the assumption that all evidence must be regarded as suspect until proven valid. Two areas of the Bible were particularly targeted – miracles and prophecies. Both were rejected as impossible in the course of human experience.

It seems as if Lucifer deliberately raised up the “Age of Reason” as a counter movement to the “Great Awakening.” As I’ve noted before in a previous article, some remnants and characteristics of each Church Age bleed over into the next one and exist in all of them even as the overall scheme and dominating characteristic of each age changes. Incidentley, the latter is why the argument that the seven churches do not display prophecies of specific time ages of church history falls flat on it’s face. The instituted and dominant characteristic of each church age changes, giving the time age prophecy aspect of the seven churches legitimacy, while some of each preceding church age carries over into the next. The carry-over effect is a rather weak argument for the non-existence of the time-age aspect of the seven churches prophecies because the carry-over effect and characteristics within the effect isn’t the dominant feature of that particular Church Age . The fact that it appears that the “Great Awakening” of the Philadelphian Age rose while the Laodicean “Age of Reason” arose simultaneously fits perfectly with what Jesus already told us in Matthew 13 …

“Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn” (Matthew 13:24-30).

The era of missionary activity and evangelism flourished among the poor, while the era of Modernism was developed within wealthy, yet staid Protestant denominations. Liberal theology took root among the clergy who enjoyed the wealth and comfort of preexisting congregations.

Most of the liberal ministers of the eighteenth century were second and third generation theologians who did not have to struggle with fledgling congregations. They became enamored with questioning the inspiration and authority of the scriptures, the deity of Christ, and even the very existence of God. With such a blatant spirit of unbelief, one would think that they would renounce their pulpits. But they did not do so. These spiritual agnostics and atheists covered their hypocrisy under the garments of the clergy. They were the ultimate deceivers.

Another influence upon Modernism was evolutionary philosophy espoused by the British nationalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882). After returning from a science expedition around the world (1831-1836) aboard the H.M.S. Beagle, Darwin concluded that his collection of plants and animals proved that all life evolved over millions of years rather than being designed and created by God.

As his theories gained attention and acceptance, liberal theologians were all too quick to radically altar their thoughts on the Genesis account of Creation. The modernists failed to examine the validity of the evolutionary theory as a basis for historical and literary biblical studies. They had rather believe a lie.

The Rich and Worldly

“Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked …” (Revelation 3:15-17).

The Apostle Paul mentions the near-by city of Laodicea and a man named Nymphas, who hosted “the church which is in his house” (Colossians 4:15) in his epistle to Colosse. Nymphas must have been a wealthy man in order to have a house large enough to accommodate a growing congregation. So, was there something about the wealth of Nymphas that prompted this admonition of Christ? Did the Apostle John’s letter to Laodicea reflect a fundamental problem with the very man who welcomed the church into his home? Of Nymphas we can only speculate, but there is something to learn here. Wealth can be a detriment to the spiritual needs of a man.

A man can only be forgiven if he feels the need to be. Conviction usually comes in moments of despair and wealth tends to induce a false sense of security – to allay one’s conviction – to dull one’s spiritual perception of eternal prospects. A wealthy person has no concept of the lost and condemned state of his soul that every man and woman inherited from the fall of Adam. They are oblivious to the fact that he or she is spiritually poor and blind to eternal truths.

The Spiritually Blind

Laodicea was known throughout the Mediterranean world for it’s “eye salve,” a substance called kollourion produced in the area. Using the term in the spiritual sense, the Lord councils the Laodiceans to seek spiritual perception – something they woefully lacked.

They may have read the scriptures, but had no understanding of God’s overall plan for the future of the human race. Frankly, they refused to believe the prophetic aspects of God’s word. They saw only the Bible’s philosophical and practical aspects. There was no real connection with the metaphysical realities that the Apostle John was about to introduce in Revelation 4.

Such is the case with modernism and liberal theology. Modernism flourished in the universities, funded by wealthy pragmatists, and nurtured by professors whose ideals did not reflect real-world values. Many of the so-called “great minds” of the “Age of Reason” were themselves lost and devoid of spiritual life.

One cannot help but see the “church Christians” of today who are merely a member of the institution. Christ certainly cut down deep and accurately described and prophesied of today’s institution of Christianity and it’s “members.” Personally, I cannot help but think of the Catholic Church and it’s massive number of members. Don’t misunderstand, I do not “hate” or “dislike” someone because they are Catholic. Nor am I trying to bash Catholics, but at the same time, we must rip the facade off of this spiritually damaging and soul-damning doctrine for the sake of it’s followers.

It is a wealthy and rich pagan institution that masquerades and poses as “Christianity.” It is firmly connected to, and many say, control, much of the world (if not all) through Rome. It’s members and it’s institution think that they have need of nothing. But Jesus says that they are blind, naked, poor, miserable and increased with goods. Christ stands outside the door knocking waiting for anyone to let him in while admonishing them to buy of him gold tried in the fire. Picture the Catholic Church and all state affiliated churches with all it’s many gold apparatuses and buildings.

It is a church whose members do not have a saving faith and are destined for damnation:

“I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me” (verses 18-20).

In looking at this cultic institution with it’s gold decorated structures, it should raise an eyebrow or two that Christ should admonish the Laodicean church of today to “buy of him gold tried in the fire.” But certainly, this doesn’t just apply to the cult of Catholicism. This is the case with many institutionalized churches. It’s members are totally satisfied with themselves. They have a prestigious membership. They have the sacred “trinity” of buildings, budgets and baptisms. They have prestigious counseling programs that help them feel good without ever being informed of the lost and damnation-bound destination of their soul. They were/are proud and pompous. They were/are the church of the frozen chosen who did it very coolly every Sunday. But look at what God’s opinion of them is once again …

“… thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked …” (verse 17).

By blind, Jesus meant “spiritually blind.” In other words, you have no concept of what or who I really am and are totally ignorant of your precarious situation in your standing with me. By naked, Jesus reveals they have no covering for the sin stain still on their record. It is a stain that is unwashed and uncovered by the blood of the Lamb Jesus, thus, they are eternally lost …

“Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile” (Psalm 32:1-3).

In short, the Laodicean church is saying, “We Need Nothing.” God here thunders back and says “You Need Everything!” One is certainly not going to send for a physician if they do not know that they are sick and headed for death, which is the point that Jesus is thundering at them in love.

Even for those who may not be in the Catholic faith but may adhere to a form of Christian belief is likely influenced by it’s massive doctrinal reach and presentation of what they present Christianity to be. For more about this specific topic, see the article titled “THE SEVEN-FOLD DEATH OF MEGALOPOLIS: GOD’S HIDDEN SIGN” in the “Recommended Reading” section at the end of this article. It is a continual temptation and action to fall away from the pure and (in their eyes) demanding doctrine of the Apostles. As conscience fails, paganism and dependence on the state await. This step having been taken, it is easy to see human government as their “savior.”

The first step from stepping out of the “lukewarm” institution of the Laodicean church is to let Christ into the Church. Think of it, Christ is standing outside the doors of the Laodicean church knocking to get in! Jesus Christ died for the Church, he is the foundation of the church, but yet, he stands outside of this church because he is not allowed inside the church …

“Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me” (verse 20).

This is the cold hard fact of the modern Laodicean “church.” Who wants Jesus in the church? After all, Jesus is the one who made the sobering warning …

“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:21-23).

Who wants a shepherd like that for God’s sake? Right? Certainly, as we can plainly see, the Laodicean church does not.

David Hume

David Hume (1711-1776) was notorious for his published works that included attacks on the existence of God, the immorality of the soul and the miracles and prophecies of the Bible. Having convinced himself of his liberal theories, he even published an essay advocating suicide as morally permissable.

His mother came from a family of lawyers and encouraged him to follow the family tradition. In 1723, after an early education at home, he entered Edinburg University to study law. After three years, he decided that his views lay in a less structured environment. Law is based upon God as it’s origin and Hume could not allow himself to agree to the existence of One before whom he must someday stand in judgment and give an account of his life.

In 1734, he was diagnosed as a hypochondriac, whereupon he moved to France and pursued his tirade against God in a more “enlightened” environment. The philosophy that he espoused was to eventually lead to the French revolution and the period known as the “Age of Enlightenment.”

Hume never married. However, he financed the careers of several noted writers of the “Age of Reason” such as Thomas Blackwell, Tobias Smallet and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

The French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was the product of a dysfunctional home. His mother died at childbirth, and his father was a violent-tempered man who paid little attention to his son’s training.

His father soon deserted him, leaving him to live with his mother’s family in Geneva, Switzerland. He was first apprenticed to an uncle who was a lawyer, then with a coppersmith, but ran away when he was sixteen years old to escape the rigid discipline.

After wandering for several weeks in Switzerland, France and Italy, he was given shelter by Madame de Warens of Annecy. She sent him to an educational institution at Turin. There, he served in various households, in one of which he was charged with theft.

In 1731, he found Madame de Warens in her new home at Chambery and spent the next eight years living with her. In 1733, she became his mistress. In 1738, he had an affair with a Madame de Larange in Montpellier and lost his relationship with Madame de Warens. In 1741, he moved to Paris where his “gifts of entertainment, reckless manner and boundless vanity” attracted attention. In 1743, he met Theresa le Vasseur who became his mistress and bore him five children out of wedlock. He finally married her near the end of his life.

The next several years were filled with one arrest after another while the French Parliament ordered his works to be burned. He finally fled to England where he was offered asylum in the home of David Hume.

In time, his morbid paranoia of being persecuted made him even more suspicious of plots against him and led him to quarrel with his friends for not making his opponents their own enemies.

In 1767, Rousseau left David Hume and moved to France where he published a book titled “The Social Contract” that eventually became the textbook of the French Revolution. It was said that Rousseau was the first to use the term “Modernist” in the sense of a radical transformation of human thought in relation to God. Rousseau defined Modernism as “the ambition to eliminate God from all social life.”

Modernism, prepared by humanism and eighteenth-century philosophy, set the course of political and religious thought for the French Revolution.

Emmanuel Kant

Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804), a German philosopher of the “Enlightenment” was a stooped man barely five feet tall. He was born with a badly deformed chest and suffered ill health all of his life. Still, his writings and philosophical theories inspired the transcendentalist movement. He grew up in the Pietist branch of the German Lutheran Church, entered a Pietist school at the age of eight, and was allowed to join the University of Konigsberg in 1740 as a theological student.

The “Great Awakening” that led to great missionary activity and evangelism was sparked by the Pietist movement in 1727, but Kant moved in the direction of liberal theology. He became embroiled in a feud with the Liebnitzians, a group of German philosophers who believed it was possible to define spacial relationships in conceptual terms and to prove the existence of God by simply using logic. Kant argued against this viewpoint, claiming that the Liebnitzians confused existential and attributive statements in their logic.

In 1781, he produced his Critique of Pure Reason and later, his Critique of Practical Reason, in which he set forth several key transcendental doctrines pertaining to the human condition, prevalent societal and religious theories of the time, and man’s relationship with deity. His work profoundly affected the prevailing views of his time.

George Wilhelm Freiderich Hegel

George Wilhelm Freiderich Hegel (1770-1831) once planned to become a minister. In 1788, he entered a theological seminary at the University of Tubingen. His burning interest in Rousseau and political matters left him with little concern for religious theories. Before graduating with a master’s degree in 1790, Hegel had changed his mind about becoming a minister. His interest was stirred by Kant’s moral, legal and ethical philosophy – especially Kant’s belief on the separation of church and state. Hegel disagreed and later wrote, “A human being must not be split into a discrete political and discrete religious being.”

At age 31, in August 1801, after presenting a dissertation criticizing Kepler’s and Newton’s scientific methods, Hegel accepted a position of lecturer at a German university. In 1807, his landlord’s wife, Christina Burkhardt (whom he at one time considered marrying), bore him an illegitimate son. Ludwig, although accepted into his father’s house, may have felt somewhat estranged and later, at the young age of 24, died in the military in August 1831, only a few months before Hegel himself was to suddenly pass away.

After his death in a Cholera epidemic, students of Hegelianism divided into opposing sides, the conservative right wing defending the historical tradition in politics, philosophy and theology, and the radical left wing turning the dialectical method into a principle of revolution. By 1845, Karl Marx interpreted Hegel’s views of man and nature as the subject of dialectical development, rather than the absolute idea.

Julius Welhausen

The German Lutheran, Julius Welhausen (1844-1910), was a Greek and Hebrew scholar who became so famous that students from all over the world came to hear him lecture. But he began to trust in his own intellect rather than the authority of the scriptures. He was profoundly influenced by the theories of Charles Darwin and, by the end of his life, Welhausen had rejected miracles as impossible, and he believed that Christ probably faked his death. He saw the resurrection as a myth (clearly, he was severely myth-taken, if only he could have seen the evidence we have today thanks to modern technology).

He claimed that the Hebrew faith developed “from primitive stories into institutional rituals.” In 1895, he proposed the theory that the first five books of the Bible were written, not by Moses, but by unknown authors and pieced together. He claimed that Genesis was written a thousand years after Moses and that the miracles were mere fabrications.

Both Welhausen and Graf led the attack on the scriptures by using a type of “Form Criticism” in which they denied Moses as the human writer of the Pentateuch. Claiming that the people in Moses’ time could not write, they contended that the Levitical priests of the eighth century B.C. wrote the Pentateuch after Judaism had evolved.

Their view about the composition of the Pentateuch became known as the JEDP theory. They claimed that “J” stood for a portion of the Pentateuch written around 850 B.C., in which God is referred to as Jehova. They also had a “E” section using Elohim, which, they claimed, was written around 750 B.C. The “D” section referred to Deuteronomy and stood for the section found by Hilkaiah during the reign of Josiah. Finally, the “P” section stood for a “priestly document” believed to be written around 450 B.C., containing genealogies and regulations about sacrifices.

Laodicea in Full Bloom

The following list is from the Moody Handbook of Theology by Paul Ennis (Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1989):

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1763-1834) is regarded as the “father of modern religious liberalism.” He stressed feeling and experience, rejected the historical doctrines of the virgin birth of Christ, substitutionary atonement and deity of Jesus Christ. He believed that Christ was not the redeemer but merely an example of God-consciousness. He claimed that there is no external authority, and rejected the authority of the scriptures.

Albrecht Ritschl (1822-1889) rejected the doctrine of original sin, the incarnation, resurrection and deity of Christ, his vicarious substitutionary atonement and the miracles recorded in the Bible. His work laid the foundation for the “social gospel.”

Adolph Von Harnack (1851-1930 denied that Jesus ever claimed deity. Further, he did not believe in the recorded miracles and claimed that the Apostle Paul corrupted the “simple religion” of Jesus.

F.C. Bauer (1792-1860 rejected historical Christian doctrines and used Hegel’s principle of dialects in Christianity. He claimed that the dialect between Peter’s Jewish concepts and Paul’s Gentile theology produced synthesis.

David Strauss (1808-1874 was a student of F.C. Bauer. He denied the historical accuracy of biblical accounts and viewed the Bible as a myth. He believed that Jesus was only a symbol of an “absolute idea.” He taught that the “God-man” is the human race. Further, he claimed that Moses did not write the five books of the Pentateuch.

Horace Bushnell (1802-1876), father of American theological liberalism, rejected the doctrines of original sin and the divine inspiration of the scriptures.

Rudolph Bultmann (1884-1976) developed “Form Criticism,” arguing that very little could be traced to Jesus himself. He embraced the dialectic theology of Karl Barth. He “demythologized” the New Testament, denying Jesus’ physical resurrection. He claimed that the “how and why of Jesus death are unimportant.” He attempted to fit the Gospel into an existential framework and claimed that the Gospel of John was highly influenced by Gnosticism.

Paul Tillich (1886-1965) approached an understanding of God philosophically rather than theologically, and believed that God is not a personal being. Rather, he is the “power of being.” He did not believe that the “fall” of mankind in the Garden of Eden through Adam and Eve was an historical event. Salvation is the “ultimate concern” for the kind of life seen in Christ. Christ becomes merely a symbol of the “new being.” He rejected belief in Jesus’ incarnation and physical resurrection.

Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969) is considered to be the “father of neo-liberalism.” He was educated at Union Theological Seminary. Most of his writings were involved in attacking fundamentalism.

Walter Horton is also identified as “neo-liberal,” viewing man as basically good. He acknowledged Christ as divine, but he rejected his virgin birth and denied the necessity of a vicarious blood atonement for man’s fallen sin nature.

Then, there are the theologians of the “God is dead” movement. During the 1960s, several former students influenced by Modernism began teaching that God is irrelevant; that the Bible is a myth; and that secular man must find meaning in Jesus from a new freedom to love. They taught a form of secular Christianity that placed man, not God, at the center of human concern. The orthodox view of God was rejected. They taught that secular man must seek his answers through science and technology, not through a primitive belief in prayer to God.

Among the “God is dead” theologians are men like Thomas Altizer (b. 1927), an Episcopalian who taught at Emory. Altizer believed that God actually died in history. He was influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche; Rudolph Bultmann’s belief that the Bible is a myth; and Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s idea that man must learn to live without reliance on a personal God.

Although such liberal thinking has been denounced as heretical by several prominent theologians, the students of Modernism merely took the teachings of their apostate teachers to their logical conclusions.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) was a Jesuit anthropologist who attempted to reconcile Christianity with evolution. He claimed that the world was an “evolving cosmogenesis” moving towards the “Omega point” – Christ. Pierre de Chardin’s teachings were originally rejected by the Roman Catholic Church but have gained acceptance since Vatican 2. His teachings are popular in the New Age movement.

The following is a summary of major Roman Catholic theological thought over the last 50 years contained in the teachings of three of it’s leading figures.

Hans Kung b. 1928), a Roman Catholic theologian and professor at Tubingen attacked the infallibility of the scriptures. He believes that Jesus did not assume the title of “Messiah” and that “Son of God” has nothing to do with his nature. He denies the deity of Jesus Christ. Kung has been disciplined by the Roman Catholic Church for some of his teachings, which include attacks on papal infallibility.

Karl Rahner (1904-1984) was a Roman Catholic theologian and major promoter of Vatican 2. He taught at Innsbruck and Munster, where he developed “Thomasism,” claiming that a human being, by the very nature of his intellect, is pre-disposed to the knowledge of God. He did not recognize man’s fallen nature, but taught an anthropomorphic theology that perceived Christ as the pinnacle of human evolution.

During the twentieth century, Modernism affected most mainline denominations by infiltrating their colleges and seminaries. There is hardly a church that has been spared from some form of it’s insidious system of disbelief. The very foundational principals of biblical authority have been undermined. The two biblical themes liberal theologians have focused on for their attacks are “miracles” and “prophecy.”

If they could not convince the body of believers that the miracles of the Bible were mere fabrications, then they led many good people to think that they are not available today. The dishonesty with which Modernism has corrupted the spiritual aspects of Christianity is appalling.

If they could not convince the church that God does not know, nor does he care, about the future, then they attacked the study of prophecy by dividing the camp into various factions. They undermined the biblical promise that Christ would return to establish a thousand-year utopia by teaching that mankind was evolving into a utopian state of it’s own. This led to postmillennial and amillennial views. All in all, liberal theology teaches that man does not really need God, but can solve the problems that beset mankind on it’s own.

The Invitation to Liberal Theology

Our Savior stands on the outside of mainstream liberal theology. He is not welcome on the platform nor in the pew. Yet, he continues to knock, hoping that those who claim to espouse his views will own up to their hypocrisy and repent. He says …

“Behold, I stand at the door, and knock” (Revelation 3:20).

To appreciate the real force of this loving invitation, we must remember how disgusting and offensive their way has been to him. He is still willing to forgive. From a practical view, Christ stands at the heart’s door of every lost and damned person and seeks admittance. He is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

The menorah design links Laodicea with Ephesus and demonstrates the contrasts between the two. Ephesus represents a church at the beginning of the dispensation while Laodicea demonstrates the conclusion of the age. Ephesus still has an abhorrence for liberal theology, but is in danger of her love growing cold, whereas Laodicea has no love left and has adopted all the lies of Liberalism.

Today, seven church ages are nearing their end. Some have been commended, while others have been condemned. Only of Laodicea does the Savior threaten to vomit them out of his mouth – the strongest term of condemnation. Of the final two church ages that seem to run concurrently with each other, the Savior promises to spare Philadelphia while he condemns Laodicea. Historically speaking, those seven cities of Asia attest to the validity of these prophetic epistles. In his book “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” Edward Gibbon records the fates of the seven, but especially of Philadelphia and Laodicea …

“Two Turkish chieftains, Sarukhan and Aidin, left there names to their conquests, and their conquests to their posterity. The captivity or ruin of the seven churches of Asia was consummated; and the barbarous lords of Iona and Lydia still trample on the monuments of classic and Christian antiquity. In the loss of Ephesus, the Christians deplored the fall of the first angel, the extinction of the first candlestick of Revelation: the desolation is complete; and the temple of Diana, or the church of Mary, will equally elude the search of the curious traveler. The circus and three stately theaters of Laodicea are now populated with wolves and foxes; Sardis is reduced to a miserable village; the God of Muhammed, without a rival or a son, is invoked in the mosques of Thyatira and Pergamos; and the populousness of Smyrna is supported by the foreign trade of Franks and Armenians.

“Philadelphia alone has been saved by prophecy or courage. At a distance from the sea, forgotten by the emperors, encompassed on all sides by the Turks, her valiant citizens defended their religion and freedom above fourscore years, and at length capitulated with the proudest of the Ottomans. Among the Greek colonies and churches of Asia, Philadelphia is still erect, a column in a scene of ruins; a pleasing example that the paths of honor and safety may sometimes be the same.”

The Overcomer

Finally, the Savior has a promise for the overcomer in Laodicea …

“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne” (Revelation 3:21).

This promise indicates that the church age is ending and the long-awaited kingdom is about to appear. Note that, beginning with Ephesus, the Savior takes us on a journey through six-thousand years of human history.

In the promise to Ephesus, Christ takes us back to the Garden of Eden and allows the overcomer to “eat of the tree of life” (Revelation 2:7), a reference to the beginning of history.

In the promise to Smyrna, Christ takes us back to the fall of Adam and the aweful consequences wrought upon humanity thereafter as a result of man’s fallen nature inherited from Adam. It also shows us God’s great purpose in his plan of the ages – mainly, to redeem the overcomer from the “second death” (Revelation 2:11).

In the promise to Pergamos, Christ takes us back to the days of the Exodus and feeds the overcomer with heavenly provisions – the “hidden manna” (Revelation 2:17). He also provides the overcomer with a “white stone,” and a “new name,” symbols of the Rock that cared for his people – God’s new wife in the wilderness.

In the promise to Thyatira, Christ takes us back to Joshua and David – to the establishment of the kingdom in the Promised Land. This is a foreview that both Israel and the Church will be given the kingdom in the future 1,000-year millennial reign of Christ’s Kingdom on Earth – “power over the nations” (Revelation 2:26) – at the end of the Church Age and the Tribulation period thereafter. Christ will return in triumph at the Battle of Armageddon as depicted in the description, “he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers” (verse 27). The “morning star” (verse 28) refers to Christ who is the fulfillment of every detail in the prophecies of the Bible. All of this is promised to the overcomer.

In the promise to Sardis, Christ takes us back to his crucifixion at Calvary and the establishment of the Abrahamic covenant – a covenant of grace offering eternal life. The overcomer is promised “white raiment” and a place in “the book of life” (Revelation 3:5).

In the promise to Philadelphia, Christ takes us to the end of the Church Age, just as he did in the letter to Laodicea, and refers to the “temple of my God,” to the ineffable and the heretofore unknowable “name of my God,” and to the “city of my God” (Revelation 3:12), which is New Jerusalem.

All of these promises to overcomers in every church age extend beyond the seven-thousand years of history into eternity. All that is here right now is temporal. Our ultimate promise is that we shall live with Christ throughout the cycles of eternity – that we are blessed beyond measure for having trusted in him by receiving him personally as our substitutionary sacrifice for our entrance into his kingdom – into Heaven itself.

Escaping The Big Vomit

Seeking and saving the lost was, and still is, the mission of Christ. It is still the mission of the true body of Christ, or the true Church. He stands on the outside knocking at the door of each and every individual’s heart and saying … “Let me in.” I will show you the way to eternal peace. But understand, Jesus is not a gate crasher. He will not come in unless you open the door. He knocks. How does he knock? He knocks through our failure and suffering. He knocks through the personal turmoil and pain that resides in our hearts. It’s pretty accurate to say that very few people seek out the truth of who Christ is and what he offers when there’s money in the bank, all the bills are paid and they are in perfect health. They come when the skies grow dark and cloudy and the lightning strikes. Let a family member become sick or some other personal tragedy, and then suddenly, you hear the savior knocking on the door of your heart. If one insists on ignoring that knock when things are good, God can, and does, allow personal pain to get an individual’s attention. Why? So that you can get your priorities right …

“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matthew 6:33).

See that?, “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness …” not who you think you are becoming or who you want to be, but who you ought to be in him. What if you refuse to answer the knock and open the door? The answer is not a comforting one. This is what the Bible calls the “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost” …

“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come” (Matthew 12:31-32)

If one refuses to answer, soon that knock becomes faint, and more faint, and more faint … until finally, you do not hear it anymore. At this point, God will let you go because your heart has become hardened and God cannot reach you. Thus, one is put into the unenviable position of soul damnation. However, if one chooses to let him in, the Holy Spirit can, and will, expose said person to peace like has never been known before. If one fails to heed God’s promises, only the consolation of Law awaits. And by the authority of God’s word, the Law guarantees condemnation. But Grace always awaits to bring one into a true and real saving relationship with the savior Jesus Christ. At that point, the spiritual man has a choice before him: he will either choose the love of the Lord or the love of the world. If he chooses the latter, he will go the way of Laodicea and the kingdom of this world. As Christ warns, he or she will be vomited out of the mouth of Christ himself into an abysmal afterlife. This is certainly the characteristic being displayed among the majority of the world’s population today in the Laodicean age. It is one alienated from the faith in the savior and directed to the practice of paganism and faith in the state, or world system. It is confident that it will bring in the world “kingdom.”

The Bible promises that only those who are “overcomers” will not be spewed from the mouth of Christ when the Philadelphia Church is raptured off the earth and into Heaven when the time finally comes. The rest have the unenviable position of being left behind to endure the horrific judgment set to overtake the world. The rapture is promised only to a certain category of people. The promise of escape is only to those who are “born again” in Christ. This is why it is crucial to understand what Christ meant when he declared in no uncertain terms that only those who are “born again” in him will enter the Kingdom of God. For the explanation of this, keep reading below.

In order to accept the offer of God’s grace and his salvation, you must take the crucial three steps of …

1. Agreeing – A belief and agreeing with God in all that he says in his word, the Bible, about the fact that you are separated from God, as every man and woman on the face of the earth are before accepting his salvation. The Bible reveals that all are separated from him in a spiritual state of death, or said another way that the Bible reveals it, in a state of sin, that will result in damnation in the afterlife. Agreeing with God in your heart that you are in need of his salvation. The Bible reveals that God looks upon the heart of a man or woman, and thus, responds accordingly to the person who comes to him for salvation in recognition of his inability to save himself. The Bible makes these facts very clear – “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23). The Bible describes these three kinds of death:

physical death (the state experienced when life leaves our bodies).

spiritual death (spiritual separation from God caused by our state of spiritual death inherited from the first man Adam – the state of sin that results in our daily outward acts of sin, whether deliberate or not, whether omissive or not; and finally …

the second death (the fixed state entered into by the individual who dies physically while he or she is dead spiritually). This state is entered into after the death of the body which results in punishment in the afterlife until the event of the Great White Throne Judgment occurs wherein the damned are resurrected from Hades, or Hell, and are judged according to their works and finally destroyed and cease to exist after being cast into the Lake of Fire. Revelation 14 refers to this tragic end of the unsaved as the “Second Death” (verse 14). It is this state of suffering entered into after physical death and then final destruction at the Great White Throne Judgment in particular which is the horrible result of receiving the wages of sin (unforgiven due to unbelief and rejection of Christ). The Lord Jesus Christ frequently described such a death as being irrevocable in a destiny which he called Hell. He described Hell as a literal place of judgment (Matthew 13:42); a place of everlasting fire (Matthew 18:8); a place of torment (Luke 16:24,28); a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:50); a place of remorse (Mark 9:44-48); of bitter memory (Luke 16:25), and a place originally prepared for the Devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41). In fact, Jesus more often warned about Hell than he spoke about Heaven.

It is not God’s will or desire that any person should be consigned to perish in Hell (2 Peter 3:9), but rather that all should come to repentance of unbelief toward him and believe on him for the salvation of the individual’s soul. But God’s justice requires that the “soul who sins” (remains in it’s state of death or state of sin) is the one who will die a second time after a long period of torment (Ezekiel 18:4). So, agree with God, admitting that you are unable to save yourself and in a state of sin under God’s just condemnation for that sin and that you are in need of his salvation.

2. Believing – Then, believe that God does not want you to perish eternally in the torment of Hell because of your sin. Believe that God loves you so much that he provided a way whereby he could still be a just, holy and righteous God, and yet pardon you. Believe that God did not just overlook sin, but that he sent his only begotten son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to provide salvation by personally paying the penalty for sin. Believe that Jesus Christ, whose life, death, burial and resurrection is the best-attested fact of antiquity, did come to earth to live, die, rise again and ascend to Heaven in order to provide justification and salvation for all who trust him. Believe that he, and he alone, can save you because he has fully satisfied the just demands of God. Believe that you can’t become righteous in God’s sight by your own effort. Believe that he wants to save you and that he will save you. The Bible provides a solid basis for such belief …

“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved” (John 3:16-17).

“But God demonstrates his love toward us in this: while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8).

God presented him (Jesus Christ) as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished – he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies the man or woman who has faith in Jesus (Romans 3:25-26).

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures … ” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

“Jesus answered, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28).

“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out [drive away]” (John 6:37).

“Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me” (Revelation 3:20).

3. Calling – It is not enough to agree with God, admit your need, and believe that Christ can and will save you. You must act upon those facts. God’s requirement is that you repent of your unbelief toward him and actively call upon him for the salvation of your soul based on the fact that you cannot save yourself. It is unbelief in particular that damns the soul to its horrible fate …

“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18).

You must be willing to completely turn from your own efforts to save yourself or from any other hope. You must come to Christ, calling upon him for salvation and counting on the fact that he will do what he has promised. This means simply taking the gift of pardon and eternal life which he offers. Merely believing about Jesus Christ without coming to him makes as much sense and is as effective as believing that a medication can successfully treat a fatal disease, but failing to take it. Yet again, the Bible emphatically and authoritatively provides the basis for such statements.

The word translated “believe” here means to “rest one’s entire weight and trust on the object or person in which the belief is placed.” It requires action in keeping with the intellectual assent of that belief.

“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13).

” … but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

The logical question you may be asking at this point is: “how do I come to Christ and call upon him?” The answer is that “calling upon the Lord” is just another term for praying, or talking to God. To talk to God is not a complicated process, dependent upon some special rituals. God has invited people to approach him through his Son in simple, straightforward terms. In fact, Jesus approved of the dishonest, despised tax collector who simply prayed, “God be merciful to me, a sinner.” While the exact words of your prayer to God are not of vital importance (since God sees and knows the attitude of your heart), the following is the kind of prayer that you could pray in calling upon God for salvation …

“Dear Lord Jesus: I realize that I need you. I admit that I have sinned and that I deserve your just, eternal punishment for that sin. But I am sorry for my sin and I am turning to you and asking for forgiveness. I believe that you died and rose again to pay sin’s penalty on my behalf. I come to you and open my heart to you. I ask you to come into my life, forgive me for all of my sin and make me your child. I invite you to take control of my life and to cause me to be the kind of person you would have me to be. I thank you for doing this because you have promised that whosoever calls upon you, as I am doing now, shall be saved. I pray this in the name of your Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.”

If this prayer expresses the desire of your heart, I urge you to sincerely and genuinely express it to God as your prayer. The Bible makes clear that when we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in our heart, God forgives our sins and counts us righteous, and that when we openly confess with our mouth what we have done in our heart, God gives us assurance of that salvation (Romans 10:9-10).

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again” (John 3:3-7).

Questions and comments can be left in the comment section below (sometimes comments end up in my spam box – will approve them as soon as I check it every day).