AssemblyBoard

What does the Bible teach about the Christian doctrine of  Justification?
It really helps one's thinking in these matters to start with the well known interrogatives of Who?
What? When? Where? How? and Why?
Verne

J-U-S-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N is arguably the most foundational of all Chrstian doctrines. It is a teaching loaded with power, and absolutely necessary to a correct understanding of the Christian faith.

Get this one wrong, and you are not likely to get anything else right!

Without being overly dramatic, I would contend that had we a correct understanding of the Biblical teaching on this topic, far fewer of us would have fallen victim to the apostate George Geftakys.
Let's get busy... :)
Verne

A quick search in an online dictionary:

justification

n 1: something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary; "he considered misrule a justification for revolution" 2: a statement in explanation of some action or belief 3: the act of defending or explaining or making excuses for by reasoning; "the justification of barbarous means by holy ends"- H.J.Muller


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


justification
a forensic term, opposed to condemnation. As regards its nature, it is the
judicial act of God, by which he pardons all the sins of those who believe in
Christ, and accounts, accepts, and treats them as righteous in the eye of the
law, i.e., as conformed to all its demands. In addition to the pardon (q.v.) of
sin, justification declares that all the claims of the law are satisfied in
respect of the justified. It is the act of a judge and not of a sovereign. The
law is not relaxed or set aside, but is declared to be fulfilled in the
strictest sense; and so the person justified is declared to be entitled to all
the advantages and rewards arising from perfect obedience to the law (Rom.
5:1-10). It proceeds on the imputing or crediting to the believer by God
himself of the perfect righteousness, active and passive, of his Representative
and Surety, Jesus Christ (Rom. 10:3-9). Justification is not the forgiveness of
a man without righteousness, but a declaration that he possesses a
righteousness which perfectly and for ever satisfies the law, namely, Christ's
righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 4:6-8). The sole condition on which this
righteousness is imputed or credited to the believer is faith in or on the Lord
Jesus Christ. Faith is called a "condition," not because it possesses any merit,
but only because it is the instrument, the only instrument by which the soul
appropriates or apprehends Christ and his righteousness (Rom. 1:17; 3:25, 26;
4:20, 22; Phil. 3:8-11; Gal. 2:16). The act of faith which thus secures our
justification secures also at the same time our sanctification (q.v.); and thus
the doctrine of justification by faith does not lead to licentiousness (Rom.
6:2-7). Good works, while not the ground, are the certain consequence of
justification (6:14; 7:6). (See GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO.)


Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

This is very rich!

SMOOOOKKKKINNNNNG!!!

Verne
p.s. incredible that your reference distinguishes justification and forgiveness...I was gonna do that!!!! Beautiful!

Carry on!

 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. Matt 11:19


Isn't it interesting that the first NT ocurrence of the word is in this passage?
There seems to be a subtle message here regarding the danger of judging based on appearances.
When it comes to the matter of who is justified, we all have a tendency to jump to conclusions!.
I think the key point here is that justification is God's business, not ours, and ultimately He will be vindicated.
The practical significance is the need to be extremely careful, either in considering our own lives of the lives of others, in sticking our noses where they don't belong.
Do you ever try to justify yourself, or other people for that matter?


But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? Luke 10:29

Verne

I was going to be a smart-aleck & say "only when I'm awake," but I don't think even that would be true-- I have a strong hunch that I even make excuses for myself in my dreams.  It's part of our human nature's basic self-protection mode-- the practice of erecting elaborate facades (magnificent edifices constructed of fig leaves) to disguise our nakedness.  Is it any wonder that we must be born again from above?

What blessed assurance there is in Romans 8:33, Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?  It is God who justifies. (ESV)

al

Ah! my friend, if only this were indeed a problem only with the unregenerate...!
Being transparent before the Almighty is the first real step toward true holiness...as if He did not know what rascals we are already.
This is what understanding justification by faith alone helps us to to experience.
Now you know why anyone proclaiming their own holiness is a contemptible fraud. Nothing makes us more keenly aware of our natural sinful state. People flaunting their own holiness (or their  own "annointing") don't need any justification.


Yep!

Verne

p.s thanks to Moonflower for the excellent job on the WHAT of justification.  Good progress so far on the who.
Remember the ignoramus who once tried to tell us that the elect were not all the saved? I guess from Al's quote of Romans 8 above we would have to conclude that some of the saved were not justified!
See what I meant about fundamentals and error? Think about it...

Verne,

You said,

Actually, this isn't the first NT ocurrence of the word.  The use of the word in the NT is in James 2:21, where it says, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works...?"

The most conservative dating for Matthew is 50-60AD, and many would add a decade or so.  James is dated at about 45AD, and therefore came "first".  The order of the books is traditional, but not inspired.

It is, however, of little consequence.  Although the idea that the "first ocurrence" of a word in scripture is of much importance in determining its meaning is popular in some circles, it is not really a legitimate linguistic or hermeneutical principle.

George Geftakys taught it, as do some others.  But it just ain't so.


Can't say as I do.  Refresh my memory if you would.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Two quick questions Tom.
1. Are you saying that there is no significance to the order of the canon of Scripture?
2. If there is significance, are you saying that God had nothing to do with it?



You sound like you are repeating a dogmatic statemment you heard somewhere and not like someone who has spent time studying the Scripture. Please tell me you are joking by that comment.
George learned this principle from men far better than he I am afraid.
More importantly, anyone who has ever done any kind of serious word study in the Scripture very quickly learns to check and see how a contested word or expression first appears. This is elementary Tom.
I would take the time to give you a few examples of the principle at work Tom, but I don't want to get off topic. I am quite surprised to hear a student of Scripture such as you pooh pooh such a fundamental tenet. There are quite a few instances in which contextual ambiguity is resolved by carefully examining how Scripture itself defines a particular word.
A very useful excercise is obviously to look at each instance it is used in the Scripture. If you reject this principle, you will entirely miss the fact that the book of Genesis is the seed-plot of the entire Scripture, but I digress. We can agree to disagree on this one.


One would-be-teacher-of-the-uninstructed has solemnly informed us that the elect are chosen out of the church body at large.
Hardly worth mentioning here and only adduced for the sake of showing how a grasp of fundamentals can keep one from high doctrinal folly.
Let us stick with justification shall we?
I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject Tom.
Verne

p.s your chronological reference to James was really interesting. Using the same logic I should have first checked the Hebrew equivalent or its cognate in the book of Job (which I did by the way) but rather I checked Genesis instead and was delighted with the reference to Noah in Genesis six...but you already knew that... :)

Here is a quick non-technical illustration of the weakness of the above contention.
The translators of the NIV have sytematically excised Paul's explicit language condemning sodomy.
Even the most obtuse will immediately tell you that the etymology of that word can be traced by reading the account of the incident surrounding Lot and the angels in Genesis.
Now it is interesting that some of the NIV translators have tried to justify the decision by arguing that the word does not mean  what some of us think it does.(They claim Paul was only condemning homosexual prostititues!)
Using your liine of reasoning, one would have to conclude that there woudl be no "legitimate linguistic or hermenuetcal" value to properly examining and understanding the Genesis account.
Sounds good, but clearly quite silly.  :)
Verne

Verne,


You are forgetting something.  The Bible was written in the language of the writer and audience.  The word sodomy was already understood by the readers of Genesis prior to the writing of the book.  Moses used a vocabulary that was determined by the culture(s) in which he lived.

One does not need to "trace the etymology" of the word "sheep" to its first usage in the scriptures in order to understand its meaning.  It is a cross cultural understanding that we still understand today. 
In fact, we understand the metaphorical application of the term to people as in "all we like sheep" from common cultural understandings.


I didn't say, "value" I said that the "first ocurrance" idea was not based on any legitimate linguistic or herneneutical principles.

There is plenty of value in examining the passage...theological value.


1. The order of the canon is a custom, and one that has not always been followed by all people.  Some books are arranged chronologically, not by date of writing but by the chronology of the story developed.  Others are arranged thematically.

In the oldest Hebrew canonical tradition, The Minor Prophets are followed by Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra-Nehimiah, (seen as one book), and I and II Chronicles, (again, seen as one book).  Very different from the KJV bible, what?

So, who is right?  How does one determine this?  Beats me.

If the OT were arranged completely by chronology Job would probably be the first book.  On the basis of "first ocurrance" prinicple, you would have to understand Genesis, which you correctly call the seed bed of the Bible, by studying word meanings from Job.  Genesis is the theological seed bed of the Bible. 

2. Did God decide the current order of the canon?  That's more than I know.

How does one find out?

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

The point Tom makes about the oldest books of the Bible not necessarily being the first in canonical sequence is valid. Nonetheless, no infomed student of Scripture will argue that there is not remarkable order and symmetry in the Word of God as we have received it. It does not have the same layout as the original Jewish Scriptures, true, but that what we have has order and symmetry is undeniable.
Coincidence?
Perhaps. I am inclined to think that the sovereign hand of God played a role.
I want to keep an open mind howerver, and so diligently took a look at the book of Job to see what, if any insights I might glean on the matter of justification.
It was worth the excercise, and the book does speak to the current consideration of who can be justified.

If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse Job 9:20.







If I did not know better, I would think some of  my conversations with you were with a dyed-in-the-wool sceptic   :)
Kant's ideas about a priori knowledge notwithstanding, it seems to me as Christians there are certain things we can safely conclude.
We know for example that the two modes of God's revelation of Himself are general and special revelation. In general revelation, namely the physical creation around us, we everywhere see order and structure.
Arguably, special revelation, of which Scripture clearly is, is of far greater significance and import.
You mean to tell me that you can accept in the general revelation of God He imposes order and structure, but in His special revelaton He does not?
Sometimes I think you are really pulling my leg my friend...



Any more thoughts on who can be justified?
Verne

Before I offer a few general comments, I want to post this quote which appears at the top of my screen:


...because it pertains (not by chance, I trust) to what I have to say:

The discussions between Tom and Verne are always entertaining and almost always illuminating (notwithstanding that many of their literary references are beyond the range of my education) but, as Verne points out, they distract from the theme of the thread.  This is not "wrong," as has been implied by some, but it is inconvenient as it detracts from one's focus on the topic at hand.

I have often made such distractional posts in the past, for which I do not apologize (nor apologise, Verne ;D), but for which I would like to suggest a remedy:

Any thread can fairly be considered primarily the domain, or responsibilty, of its originator.  As such, it seems both logical and proper that the originator should be the one to keep it on-track, although what I recommend could certainly be implemented by anyone else as well.

Tom's objections to Verne's statements, in this case, seem to have no direct bearing upon Verne's primary ideas about "Basic Doctrines" or "Justification," therefore warranting assessment as to their value to this thread.  I find this particular discussion not only interesting, but calling for further inspection, and so recommend that it be transferred to a thread of its own, entitled something like "Legitimate Linguistic and/or Herneneutical Principles."  That way, the study of Basic Doctrines/Justification may flow uninterrupted, while the discussion of linguistics and hermaneutics can be continued elsewhere.

Now, I realized that all parties concerned have busy lives that cannot afford to be spread too thinly, so I won't start another thread, but leave it to the two main protagonists in the present conversation to evaluate my suggetsion and decide.

God bless all here,
al

This is a difficult question, and some might argue one that we have no right to ask.
It has been helpful to me to tackle the question by considering it from two perspectives - ours, and God's.
The message of the gospel of Jesus Christ has been robbed of much of its power and prerogatives because of the the way it has been distorted in the minds of so many of its proclaimers.
We seem to have forgotten that it is a message of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
We are no longer telling men and women of the fearful consequences of a soul facing the wrath of God for sin and rebellion, but propagating a tepid, tame, and tiresome "invitation" to "accept"  Christ.
Are we to have a desire to see the lost come to Christ?
Absolutely!
Does the Bible teach us that everyone who hears the gospel message will respond?
More critically, does the Bible teach us that it is God's purpose that everyone that hears the gospel message respond?
Here is where much of the confusion we see today begins.

For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

The proclamation of the Word of God, which the gospel message is, NEVER fails to accomplish God's purpose - NEVER!

Who then can be justified???

Next, our perspective....
Verne

There is not a man alive (or dead) who can look into a mirror and proclaim himself righteous. The words for righteous and justification come from the same root. To be justified indeed means precisely that –  that you are righteous, and this is not the same as innocent (which was the case with Adam) but more on that later.
If you are foolish enough to deny the stentorian witness of your own conscience in this regard, the Word of God bears powerful and irrefutable witness against  you.


The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.  They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

In fact one of the few men whom God commends, had absolutely no illusion about his standing:

If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse. Job 9:20

Scripture repeatedly hammers the fact that there is none righteous!
The witness of the conscience of every man confirms this.
In fact this is the basis on which Scripture declares that God will judge the secrets of men.

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Romans 2:16

You may protest that you are a moral and upright individual.

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; Isaiah 64:6

The only way to describe what the above verse is saying is that your righteousness is an obscenity to God. Some of you understand what I am saying here.

From our perspective, who can be justified?

Clearly, NO ONE!

Verne

p.s Am I the only one interested in talking about the basics...?

Verne----

Thanks for what you have been sharing on this thread. Your comments below reminded
me that often I have heard that verse resounding in my head "There is none righteous,
no, not one". Often, I've heard it after stating "I've tried so hard to overcome this sin" or
"I've tried so hard to be good"---which is in reality going about to establish my own right-
eousness---"If I could only be good enough, then God would accept me".

Thank God it is He who justifies the ungodly--He accepts us as we are, and justifies us through
what Jesus Christ has done on the cross. "If God be for us, who can be against us?"

--Joe

Verne, the points of your last post are right on, and I don't want to seem to dispute them, but I want to clarify for the sake of those who witness of our redemption before the unredeemed:

There are peolple who can look in the mirror and proclaim their own righteousness.  They cannot do so honestly, and their self-assessment is blatantly wrong, but they have hardened their hearts toward God and become dedicated liars and self-deceivers.  God allows this, granting them the desires of their hearts and, ultimately, surrendering them to their own reprobations.  This is the frightening reward earned by and granted to those who refuse to recognize God's holiness, His right to require righteousness of us, and His provision for our redemption through the broken body and shed blood of His Son.  It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God.

The initial realization that our justification before God was utterly beyond our means to obtain, that we were on a one-way express train to eternal damnation, but that God Himself has justified in Christ all who will accept Him by faith, can only be responded to with utter awe, amazement and gratitude with thanksgiving and praise.  If there seems to be a deadness about the church today, it is because we have let slip from our consciousness the incomprehensible wonder of God's gift.

al

This is indeed an astonishing thing. Remarkably, some professing Christians go so far as to claim their "own annointing", which is heresy run amok. We are living in dangerous times.
It is a difficult thing for some people to accept that the proclamation of the gospel has a two-fold purpose - justification of the repentant, and judgment of the unrepentant.
This is true of the gospel as seen in God's general revelation:

 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;   Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up...!  Romans 1: 18-23

This is true of God's special revelation:

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2:11

Some folk will strongly disagree with me on this point, but it seems to me that each person has a unique opportunity to receive God's truth. Knowing rejection of the truth seals one's fate....
Verne

p.s. I know I know...some of you are thinking that many people hear the gospel numerous times in their lives, so why the idea of a unique opportunity?
Think about it, the last time you hear the gospel and reject it before God hardens your heart in intransigence is the only one that counts...your fate is then irrevocably determined! Quite a risk to roll the dice doncha think..?

God the Father surveyed the utter ruin of humanity and of creation, both of which He had formed perfect. It is a reasonable presumption that the consequences of sin extended to the entire material realm. God cursed the ground because of Adam. The cosmos is a remarkably violent place. The earth is becoming increasingly so apparently.
What an enormity, for God to behold the creature created in His very image, now hopelessly despoiled and marred, no longer capable of fulfilling the very purpose for which he existed in the first place- fellowship with and reflection of the glory of God Himself. The Genesis text, beginning with the untold possibilities of  “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…”,  ends with the somber punctuation- “…in a coffin in Egypt”.
What is God’s perspective regarding the matter of those He justifies?
The doctrine of justification by faith alone, has got to be the most stupefying, irrational, incomprehensible, unfathomable, unfair, and unthinkable proposition to every reach the ears of human-kind. Just take a gander at some of the more powerful Scriptures that speak to this fact.:

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;  Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Romans 3:21-24


To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Romans 3:26-28


How is this possible? That indeed transgressors of the law, find declaration of righteousness at the hand of the Judge of all the earth?
 Does the Almighty excuse sin?
Will He by any means clear the guilty?
Romans tells us that the act of justifying the guilty declares His rightousness, id est. that He is both just AND the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. How can this be??!!
Next, the HOW of justification…
Verne

A familiar tale from Luke 18:  In Jesus' parable, two men stand in the temple, one proclaiming his own righteousness to anyone within earshot.  The second man, eyes cast downward in shame, beats upon his breast in agonized helplessness, pleading to God for mercy for his sinfulness (an act defined in Scripture as "repentance").

Jesus said that the second man was justified, while the first man was not.  In fact, Jesus said that man was, "justified rather than the other," demonstrating that God honors repentance, while rejecting attempted self-justification by "good" performance.

The key to understanding this illustration is the realization that justification does not come to the sinner by virtue of his repentance.  Instead, his repentance itself is the act of submissive admission that there is nothing he can do that is worthy of purchasing his justification.  His repentance is his confession that justification can come to him only by God's merciful redemption of him, as a gift given to him by grace (i.e., altogether undeservedly).

al

P.S.-- The means of redemption, and its cost (to God) are separate discussions, to be addressed soon.  Stay tuned...

Meanwhile, compare and contrast:

The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation. (Ex.34:6-7 ESV)

For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself. (Ac.2:39 ESV)

Verne,

You said

Say what?

Presumption, yes.  But reasonable?

The Bible tells us that God cursed the ground for man's sake.  The result of the curse was that it would be more difficult to grow crops, and that there would be thorns and thistles.

Eve's consequences were increased fertiltiy and subjection to Adam.

So, what does all this have to do with quasars? 

It seems to me that such a conclusion as you have made is not warranted by the Biblical evidence.  I have asked a number of scholars about this.  It seems to be a widely believed idea.  But, it is clear that little thought has been given to it.

Romans 8 is usually brought up.  However, there is nothing in that passage to indicate that the creation's bondage to decay began as a result of the fall. Thermodynamics was clearly part of the original creation.

In addition, the Genesis text says the creation was "very good", not perfect.  There is a Hebrew word for perfect, but it does not appear in this text.

Very good can well mean well adjusted to God's purpose, not the best God is capable of.

Sorry for the "thread creep".

Blessings,


Thomas Maddux

Tom, your latest post is the kind of thing I was addressing in my post of Aug.29th:  interesting, informative, and completely off-topic for this thread.  Good material for which to begin another thread called, say, "Reasonable Presumptions?"

What do you have to say about justification?  I'd really like to know...

al

P.S.-- displaying my ignorance:  What is "thread creep?"

Hi Tom.
We have had this discussion before and have a bit of a different perspective.
As I have pointed out to you previously, your contention that the Bible does not describe a transition from cosmological order into chaos is not accurate. There are several verses in the Bible that hint strongly at this.
While the Genesis account is focused on man and the earth, the Bible also decribes a cosmic catastrophe occasioned by Lucifer's rebellion.
Don't just talk to shcolars Tom.
Also read your Bible carefully.
On general principles, your apparent idea that the conduct of God's created beings have no repercussive effect in the environment, both physical and spiritual, in which they exist, is very hard to fathom. Things that are seen, were not made by things apparent.
In fact I get the impression that the work of God in the physical creation being  a type of metaphor for the redemptive work in the soul is comething that is completely foreign to your thinking.
Perhaps we can take another look at this on a new thread sometime. You should check out some of the material about  chaos theory...your reference to thermodynamics is interesting. Did you kow that Peter tells us that God is going to dissolve the very building blocks  ( "melting the elements") of the cosmos and start over? I wonder why...?
Verne

Brent, Verne, et al

If you are so inclined to post here, this is interesting because George taught that Christ went down to hell and preached the gospel to the souls who had not heard it preached to them because they had died before His time.

So there's actually 2 questions, the one about George's teaching, and the second about Meyer's teaching below.

Marcia

www.geftakysassembly.com/Reflections/Home.htm#whatsnew (http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Reflections/Home.htm#whatsnew)

November 6  We previously recommended Joyce Meyer's book on tape, Approval Addiction. However, as helpful as it might be, we can no longer recommend it because of serious doctrinal deviations. An excerpt from the Christian Research Institute statement [see www.equip.org/free/DM472.htm (http://www.equip.org/free/DM472.htm) ] about Joyce Meyer says, "Meyer asserts that salvation is impossible without believing Jesus suffered in hell as the believer’s substitute...No orthodox believer ever held to the belief that Christ suffered and atoned for our sins in hell, rather than on the cross. Yet, Word of Faith teachers, including Joyce Meyer, teach the necessity of Jesus having to pay for our sins in hell, under the torment of Satan and his angels - a teaching both unsubstantiated by and contrary to Scripture. The entirety of Christ’s atoning work (i.e., His suffering and death in our place) occurred on the cross (e.g., 1 Peter 2:24), ending with His proclamation, 'It is finished' (John 19:30)."

As the "al" in "et al" ;), let me get the ball rolling:

Inasmuch as this thread is for discussion of Basic Doctrines, we should consider that the debate among theologians about whether Jesus visited hell after His death and, if so, His purpose for so doing, is not over a basic doctrine.  An exception to this would be the acceptance of Meyers' alleged teaching, as explained below.  (George's teaching regarding this was not original, nor is it fundamental to the faith of believers today.)

The completion of the atonement for sins upon Christ's death on the cross, however, is a basic doctrine.  "Finished" means finished. The full payment for our redemption was concluded through the shedding of His blood when He died at Calvary, not through His subsequent torture.  Believing this is a fundamental of Christian faith.

If Meyer has indeed extended the act of atonement beyond the cross, there can be no question about her teaching-- it is false.

Respectfully,
al

A few quick points Marcia.
Matthew 25:41 tells us that hell has been prepared for the devil and his angels.
It is an unspeakable tragedy that any man should choose that as his fate.
The price that Christ paid for our sin was the unmitigated stroke of divine wrath - His Father's wrath.
What all that means, no human can ever begin to fathom.
To try and explain and define it is to tread on treacherous ground in my view...the reasons are obvious.
Verne

p.s. Hell has not yet been opened up for business so far as I know. Hell is the second death and that determination will be made at the great white throne adjudication. George's notion comes from a common misunderstanding of an O.T reference to Christ's post crucifixion ministry...

I searched the NT only, which would explain why I could not find the passage.  Which one is it??

Marcia

Donald Grey Barnhouse has the opinion that when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane,
and prayed "Father, Let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not my will, but thy will be done",
he was not asking to avoid the cross. What he was asking is to not let his soul suffer the corruption
of the grave--in other words to avoid hell itself. This prayer was answered. "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption"(Ps. 16:10)

According to the Bible there were two parts to Hades--Paradise and Hell. In the story of Lazarus and the rich man, the rich man looks across a gulf that is fixed between the two sections and sees Lazarus in paradise. Jesus said to the thief on the cross "Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise".

When Jesus descended into "Hades" and preached, he was preaching the good news to the souls of the redeemed in Paradise, whom he then led upwards into heaven, emptying that section of Hades forever. "He led captivity captive"---but Jesus never descended into hell for torment after the cross. He suffered all the torments of wrath and rejection of the Father while on the cross. To teach that Jesus suffered in hell, or preached to the damned, is not scriptural.

Barnhouse's opinion about Jesus' prayer is just an opinion of course, and wasn't something he held or taught as "doctrine".

--Joe

Wasn't it also a quote from the Psalmist (an OT person), who was referring to the possibility of being temporarily in a place of the dead, sheol, himself? So there are two of them, at least, referring to being left or not left in the place of the dead.
It seems that the rich man, who gefjack said was a Christian (??), was already suffering in the place of the dead.  It is an interesting thing that immediately after death, this man was already in torment, so Verne's statement that hell (the permanent place) will not have it's permanent guests until after the GW Throne judgement seems to indicate that the permanent dwelling of this man will be suffering beyond our comprehension.
Yeah, I heard this too, that when Jesus rose, the gates of sheol, hell, the place of the dead, were opened, and the saved souls were released.

Imagine how Jesus presence (and preaching?) would have caused even more suffering to those on the horror side of the gulf, since they knew that it wouldn't include them!

That's the way some interpret Peter's comments in 1 Peter 3

  For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the spirit:
 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah,

The view that the preaching was actually done to those in the time of Noah is more suported by the text in my view.
The use of "hell" in Acts 2 in in the KJV with reference to David's statemenet in Psalm 16 is unfortunate...
Verne