Human Effort In Salvation?

[crakjak]

My journey, took a turn when I was began to see the "lost" as tradition teaches, every person I met or saw, was in danger of everlasting torment in literal fire.
I cried and prayed for people in cars that I passed on the highway, folks that I crossed paths in the mall, my heart was broken. Why was truth so elusive, and the masses on unabated paths to eternal damnation?? Why did evil thrive, and truth continue to be a journey too far for the majority. God why don't you raise up a voice, a church, to make truth and righteousness clear, why do you hide yourself, and allow your creation to be destroyed???
Then in the Spirit, He began to speak to me, "I have done something about them, all of them!" "If you really knew me, you would know that, I never, very had such a thought."
It has been a long journey, but one of freedom and joy, what an awesome God He really is!!

[stephenroehm]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Good response. But it is not all peaches and cream, everyone must give up their deceptions, and that is very hard for folks. The refiner's fire while not literal fire, does do a work of refining, and that is not necessarily a walk in the park.

But it is more becoming of the all mighty, who never gives up, whose mercy never fails.

Man has distorted and literalized the symbolic language of the Hebrew and Greek, that was very common and easily understood for those in whose day it was written.

The Word of God, while still containing the revelation of Jesus Christ, has been filter thru centuries of the Roman state church and Western Christianity.

Eternal life is knowing the Son of God and the Father who sent him, first relationship with him thru the Spirit, then He opens our eyes and ears to see and to hear.

I thought we may get here. This is where our disagreement would begin, at the very foundation of how we understand Scripture. You perceive it to be understood symbolically and I perceive it to be understood literally, albeit through scenes of "worldly" (for a lack of a better term) stories and through Spiritual ones.

Is it your belief that the Scripture was meant to be understood symbollically or allegorically and that the Roman Catholic Church changed it into a literal interpretation? I feel the exact opposite, that the Scripture was intended to be taken literally so that any could read and understand it but the RCC perverted it it to be interpreted allegorically, largely to create dependence upon the Catholic church "fathers" for understanding. I am asking because I want to make sure I'm following you.

I tend to see the Word through the lense of dispensationalism and through the identification and extraction of principles that God has shown His people, both principles that He operates by and, especially, those principles He wants His people to live by.

[stephenroehm]

Originally Posted by crakjak

My journey, took a turn when I was began to see the "lost" as tradition teaches, every person I met or saw, was in danger of everlasting torment in literal fire.
I cried and prayed for people in cars that I passed on the highway, folks that I crossed paths in the mall, my heart was broken. Why was truth so elusive, and the masses on unabated paths to eternal damnation?? Why did evil thrive, and truth continue to be a journey too far for the majority. God why don't you raise up a voice, a church, to make truth and righteousness clear, why do you hide yourself, and allow your creation to be destroyed???
Then in the Spirit, He began to speak to me, "I have done something about them, all of them!" "If you really knew me, you would know that, I never, very had such a thought."
It has been a long journey, but one of freedom and joy, what an awesome God He really is!!

So your entire belief system on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Word of God is based on God speaking to you, one of which sentences contradicts a plethora of Scriptures that were inspired by Him? Am I understanding this correctly?

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by stephenroehm

So your entire belief system on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Word of God is based on God speaking to you, one of which sentences contradicts a plethora of Scriptures that were inspired by Him? Am I understanding this correctly?

No, you are not understanding this correctly. I have carefully studied the scriptures, and thru years of study, searching and prayer, I came to understand what I believe today.

It only contradicts tradition interpretation of scripture, interpretation that is heavily influenced by RCC doctrines. Doctrines that were used to control the masses thru fear and intimidation.

[stephenroehm]

Originally Posted by crakjak

No, you are not understanding this correctly. I have carefully studied the scriptures, and thru years of study, searching and prayer, I came to understand what I believe today.

It only contradicts tradition interpretation of scripture, interpretation that is heavily influenced by RCC doctrines. Doctrines that were used to control the masses thru fear and intimidation.

I didn't mean that last question to sound the way it did, it was worded poorly. I apologize, after I re-read it it I could see how it could be interpreted as disrespectful. Didn't mean for it to come across that way, if it did. You answered the question the way I intended to ask it, though.

It sounds to me like your beliefs contradict both the traditional interpretation of Scripture as taught by the RCC (allegorically or symbolically) as well as hermaneutical or dispensationalist teaching (literal). Would you agree with that? How would you classify that teaching? I've never heard anybody teach that it's possible even for Satan to be pulled out of the Lake of Fire and that is an arena for God's creation to be purified. I was reading today and came across this,

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

What do you understand that to mean?

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by stephenroehm

I didn't mean that last question to sound the way it did, it was worded poorly. I apologize, after I re-read it it I could see how it could be interpreted as disrespectful. Didn't mean for it to come across that way, if it did. You answered the question the way I intended to ask it, though.

It sounds to me like your beliefs contradict both the traditional interpretation of Scripture as taught by the RCC (allegorically or symbolically) as well as hermaneutical or dispensationalist teaching (literal). Would you agree with that? How would you classify that teaching? I've never heard anybody teach that it's possible even for Satan to be pulled out of the Lake of Fire and that is an arena for God's creation to be purified. I was reading today and came across this,

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.



What do you understand that to mean?

According to my study neither the Greek nor the Hebrew scriptures refer to any time that would be "forever" or "eternity", these are completely "Latin" interpretations. As for Rev. 20:10 it is literally interpreted, "for the age of the ages".

Logically what is "forever and ever"? Can there literally be eternity and eternity? There are scholars that have come to these conclusions, I am not a scholar, but I can study and learn. And I have. I am not so arrogant to believe that I could not be missing it in some areas, but I believe scripture fully and strongly support the basic truths that I am sharing.

These were bad guys and they will be in corrective punishment for age or more. Likewise, there will be some evil persons join them for their "part" in the lake of fire. Remember God is a refining fire, his very presence will be fire to all evil, purging HIS creation of death and evil. God apparently is dealing with the redemption of the creation thru a series of ages, in which He accomplishes portions of His purpose in each age. The creation is His workmanship, His masterpiece, His hasn't accomplished His purpose magically, He is working to bring it to pass.

[stephenroehm]

Originally Posted by crakjak

According to my study neither the Greek nor the Hebrew scriptures refer to any time that would be "forever" or "eternity", these are completely "Latin" interpretations. As for Rev. 20:10 it is literally interpreted, "for the age of the ages".

Logically what is "forever and ever"? Can there literally be eternity and eternity? There are scholars that have come to these conclusions, I am not a scholar, but I can study and learn. And I have. I am not so arrogant to believe that I could not be missing it in some areas, but I believe scripture fully and strongly support the basic truths that I am sharing.

These were bad guys and they will be in corrective punishment for age or more. Likewise, there will be some evil persons join them for their "part" in the lake of fire. Remember God is a refining fire, his very presence will be fire to all evil, purging HIS creation of death and evil. God apparently is dealing with the redemption of the creation thru a series of ages, in which He accomplishes portions of His purpose in each age. The creation is His workmanship, His masterpiece, His hasn't accomplished His purpose magically, He is working to bring it to pass.

Rev 20:10 could be "ages and ages" but it could also be "perpetuity and perpetuity", in either case the word "aion" was used twice to reinforce the seriousness, as when Jesus would say, "Verily, verily". I've always understood that to be "perpetually" in the Lake of Fire because, and this is falling back on principal-based study, Amos 3:7 says, "Surely, the LORD God will do nothing without revealing His secret to the prophets".

Depending on how you look at the "ages" or dispensations, at that point in the Scriptural timeline, time would either be in the "Kingdom Age" or the "Heavenly Age", depending on if you want to separate those two or not. I see them as the same age at this point because it's during the Millenial Reign that all things are made subject to King Jesus and His Kingship continues into the time where Holy Jerusalem is manifest. The point is, God has not disclosed more than one age beyond the Kingdom Age (if any, depending on interpretation) and, if God esteems His Word higher than His Name and cannot lie, as the Scripture says, there wouldn't be "ages and ages" after Rev. 20:10. This is what got me stuck on this verse yesterday and why I feel the extensive definition of "axion", perpetuity, is more fitting.

That being said, what do you think of this earlier question I asked,

It sounds to me like your beliefs contradict both the traditional interpretation of Scripture as taught by the RCC (allegorically or symbolically) as well as hermaneutical or dispensationalist teaching (literal). Would you agree with that? How would you classify that teaching?

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by stephenroehm

That being said, what do you think of this earlier question I asked,

Originally Posted by stephenroehm

It sounds to me like your beliefs contradict both the traditional interpretation of Scripture as taught by the RCC (allegorically or symbolically) as well as hermeneutical or dispensationalist teaching (literal). Would you agree with that? How would you classify that teaching?

Yes, my beliefs contradict traditional interpretation as taught by the RCC, and dispensationalist teaching, however I do not believe it contradicts hermeneutical teaching, of the Scriptures. And I am quite comfortable with that position.

A study of the writings of George MacDonald (1824-1905), helped give me the courage to question traditional interpretation, such exhortations as these:

"Let no one persuade you that there is in Him a little darkness, because of something He has said which His creature interprets into darkness...Neither let your cowardly conscience receive any word as light because another calls it light, while it looks to you dark. Say either the thing in not what it seems or God never said or did it. But, of all evils, to misinterpret what God does, and then say the thing as interpreted must be right because God does it, is of the devil."

[crakjak]

Another from George MacDonald:

"...How terribly, then, have the theologians misrepresented God! Nearly all of them represent Him as a great King on a grand throne, thinking how grand He is, and making it the business of His and the end of His universe to keep up His glory, wielding the bolts of Jupiter against them that take His name in vain. They would not allow this, but follow out what they say, and comes much to this.

....Brothers, have you found our king? There He is kissing little children and saying they are like God...The simplest peasant who loves his children and his sheep were--no, not a truer, for the other is false, but--a true type of our God beside that monstrosity of a monarch.

...the notion that a creature born imperfect, nay, born with impulses to evil not of his own generating, and which he could not help having, a creature to whom the true face of God was never presented, and by whom it never could have been seen, should be thus condemned [to everlasting torment] is as loathsome a lie against God as could find place in a heart too undeveloped to understand what justice is, and too low to look up into the face of Jesus. It never in truth found place in any heart, though in many a pettifogging brain."

Tradition is evil, in it presentation of God.

[stephenroehm]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Another from George MacDonald:

"...How terribly, then, have the theologians misrepresented God! Nearly all of them represent Him as a great King on a grand throne, thinking how grand He is, and making it the business of His and the end of His universe to keep up His glory, wielding the bolts of Jupiter against them that take His name in vain. They would not allow this, but follow out what they say, and comes much to this.

....Brothers, have you found our king? There He is kissing little children and saying they are like God...The simplest peasant who loves his children and his sheep were--no, not a truer, for the other is false, but--a true type of our God beside that monstrosity of a monarch.

...the notion that a creature born imperfect, nay, born with impulses to evil not of his own generating, and which he could not help having, a creature to whom the true face of God was never presented, and by whom it never could have been seen, should be thus condemned [to everlasting torment] is as loathsome a lie against God as could find place in a heart too undeveloped to understand what justice is, and too low to look up into the face of Jesus. It never in truth found place in any heart, though in many a pettifogging brain."

Tradition is evil, in it presentation of God.

Regarding the first paragraph,

According to every Scripture that displays the character of God after the ascension, He IS a King, seated on throne, waiting for all things to be made subject to Him. There are too many Scriptural references that support this to list here. It doesn't mean that He is a King who wants His people to "wield the bolts of Jupiter against those who take His name in vain", but He is the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and God of Gods who will reign in true righteousness and holiness. He is a loving King but also displays His wrath for all the world to see during the Great Tribulation and coming battle of Armaggedon. This King expects His people, who have been translated into His Kingdom, to live on this earth as He expects them to live during the Millennial Reign, in the same righteousness and holiness as He, Himself, reigns in. I'd like to get into what I call the "eternal perspective" of Christians, but I don't know if we have the space or the time.

Regarding the second paragraph,

Paul mentioned the wrath (violent passion, punishment) of God 17 times. It is wise to see the character that Jesus exhibited in His earthly ministry as He wants us to display the same character. Paul said, "Be imitators of me as I am an imitator of Christ". In my opinion, it is very unwise to dismiss the anger and wrath of God. To do so is willfully ignoring the Scripture, whether looking at a literal dispensationalist or hermaneutical approach to study. Both methods of study, in my opinion, support the display of a portion of the character of God that was shown in Noah's day, to Sodom and Gomorrah, and will be shown again in the coming Tribulation and Armaggedon.

Regarding the last paragraph,

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey..." 1 Peter 3:18-20

I believe that, through the mercy and love of God, He preached (and continues to preach) the redemptive work of God through the sacrifice of the cross to the spirits of those who weren't able to hear the Gospel preached to them before their physical death. I believe this Scripture clearly states that God allows all men to hear the Gospel, whether in the body or out of the body.

I also find it interesting that you feel your beliefs line up with hermaneutical study of the Scripture but you are using outside sources of material in order to support your beliefs.