Posted on 09/21/2009 10:14:12 AM PDT by NYer
Years ago while listening to Hank Hanegraaff’s Bible Answer Man radio program, a caller called in about “Christ suffering in Hell.” Hank rightly explained that “Christ suffering in Hell” is not a biblical doctrine, but noted that the doctrine was held by John Calvin. Hank respectfully disagreed with Calvin.
We can argue back and forth over Calvin’s doctrine of baptism or predestination, but Calvin is a manifest heretic regarding Christ’s descent into hell. He breaks with Scripture and all the Fathers in this regard, and his error deserves more attention, because it shows the cracks in his systematic theology. During my three years at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, nobody wanted to touch this with a ten-foot pole.
So that you can get Calvin in context, I’ve provided the full section from Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion Book II, Chapter 16, 10 in full. The red inserts are mine.
But, apart from the Creed, we must seek for a surer exposition of Christ’s descent to hell: and the word of God furnishes us with one not only pious and holy, but replete with excellent consolation. Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God’s anger, and satisfy his righteous judgement, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death [What!!! Christ suffered eternal death and the pains the hell!].
We lately quoted from the Prophet, that the “chastisement of our peace was laid upon him” that he “was bruised for our iniquities” that he “bore our infirmities;” [ [the authors of Scripture and the Fathers apply these prophecies to the crucifixion--not to any penal condemnation in hell] expressions which intimate, that, like a sponsor and surety for the guilty, and, as it were, subjected to condemnation, he undertook and paid all the penalties which must have been exacted from them, the only exception being, that the pains of death could not hold him. Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it. But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgement [ [so the cross as visible judgment was not enough. Christ suffered in hell...] which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price – that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man. [ [So after suffering in the body on the cross, Christ's soul suffered tortures of the condemned in hell.]
What do we make of this? Essentially, Calvin’s doctrine of penal substitution is the problem (something Catholicism rejects, by the way). If we understand atonement as “substitution,” we run into the error that Calvin has committed. Since sinners deserve both physical death and spiritual torment in hell we should also expect that Christ as our redeemer must also experience both physical death and hell. This logic only makes sense–except that it contradicts everything said in the New Testament about Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice. The descent into hell was not punitive in anyway, but rather triumphant as described by the Apostles and illustrated in thousands of churches, both East and West (see picture below).
This descent into Hell as Christ’s victory corresponds to the teaching of our first Pope Saint Peter: Christ “proclaimed the Gospel even to the dead” (εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη, 1 Pet 4:6). Jesus wasn’t burning in the flames! He was dashing the gates of Hell, proclaiming His victory, and delivering the righteous of the Old Testament! That’s the holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith in all its beauty.
The “penal substitution” theory of the atonement is patently false. Christ died for us, but it wasn’t a simple swap. Christ uses the language of participation. We are to be “in Him” and we are to also carry the cross. Christ doesn’t take up the cross so that we don’t have to take up the cross. He repeatedly calls us to carry the cross. Our lives are to become “cruciform.” The New Testament constantly calls us to suffer in the likeness of Christ. Again, it’s not a clean exchange. It’s not: “Jesus suffers so that we don’t have to.” Rather we participate in His redemption. This is also the language of Saint Paul:
For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake (Phil 1:29).
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church (Col 1:24).
I would challenge all Reformed readers to slowly flip through the epistles of Paul and note the occurance of “in Him” and “in Christ”. Better yet, use BibleWorks or another Bible program and run a search. You will quickly see that “in Him” and “in Christ” is the universal soteriological category for Saint Paul–not justification or regeneration.
According to Catholic Christianity, Christian salvation involves the vindication of Christ’s unjust death on the cross. God does not “hate” His Son. This is impossible. God does not “turn away” from His Son. Luther introduced this false tension and it has led to Calvin’s grievous heresy. Saint Paul speaks of “overcoming death” as the true victory of Christ – not His being the whipping boy of the Father.
I should stop there and open up the comments:
Psalm 22
24 For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.
I’m just trying to establish that Calvin says Christ went to hell.
I’m not confused about the meanings. We do have a difference of religions as to what the meanings are, but I’m quite clear.
From Calvin’s words Christ went not as Victor but as slave.
Really? Here are 13 quick Biblical references from the Gospels and Acts to the brothers and sisters of Christ.
I know the Catholic position is that each and every one of these references - in the early Greek the references are to brother - means "cousins", yet we find elsewhere in the New Testament where the writers USE the Greek words for cousins.
It's a point of dogma of the Catholic Church, and that is fine; however, to deny that the Bible does NOT suggest Mary had other children is simply denying the Word of God.
“I would say ALL dead before the death and descent of Christ to hades and all those who died without Christ after Christ’s resurrection.”
I think the Old Testament saints are in the “bosom of Abraham” awaiting their resurrection Dan. 12:1-2, “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”
I think you are right about hell being populated by unbelievers since Paul says about believers;
2Cr 5:8, “We are confident, [I say], and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.”
Phil. 1:23, “For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:”
Thanks. I knew you knew...I just felt I could help the thread along a bit by providing some more.
“Traditionally, Christ’s descent has been seen as the beginning of the manifestation of his triumph over death and the first application of the fruits of redemption. Gloriously descending to the souls of the holy men and women who had died before him, Christ bestowed on them the glory of heaven and the fullness of freedom.
He did not suffer in hell; rather, in virtue of his redemptive death on the cross, he opened to the holy souls the gates of heaven that had been closed due to sin. Notable for its ancient origin and the unusual consistency of its profession, this doctrine of a triumphal descent is part of the heritage of all Christians.
It was held universally in both Christian East and West until the Protestant Reformation; the Catholic Church and the Orthodox have continued to profess it without interruption.”
Hans Urs von Balthasar
Victor, not slave.
“So, if I understand you correctly, you are a Cafeteria Calvinist;”
No, I think you are not assessing me fairly.
I agree with Calvin’s theology. I don’t pick and choose.
That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he ever said or did.
You are a Roman Catholic, you agree with the Pope. But I am sure that over the centuries there are some things Popes said or did, apart from doctrinal teaching, that you don’t necessarily agree with. For example, I assume you don’t approve of the burning of people by papal Bull. But that doesn’t mean you disagree with standard Roman Catholic doctrine.
Oh, I’ll take your word for Hades, but you haven’t answered my question:
YOU: “In the example you gave, the correct translation is: “The rich man also died, and was buried: and in HADES he lifted up his eyes, being in torments,”
My question is this: Have we established that being in Hades is being in torments?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Bible divides Hades into two compartments. One for the righteous and one for the unrighteous. The unrighteous do experience torment in Hades. The righteous do not (or did not, because the righteous went from Hades to Heaven after Christ’s death and ressurection.
The question is which compartment did Jesus visit and why? Did he visit the Hades that held the righteous (where there is no torment) to preach the gospel to them, or did he visit the Hades compartment holding the unrighteous to bear punishment?
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom[d] also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. 1 Pet 3:18-20
But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit. 1 Pet 4:5-6
This is why it[a] says:
“When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men.”[b] (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions[c]? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) Eph 4:8-10
It seems evident that Christ descended into Hades (”the lower, earthly regions”) but why did he descend. The two passages for 1 Peter talk about preaching, not Christ suffering. Unless you can find some scripture I’m missing, it seems clear to me at least that Christ descended to preach to the captives in Hades, not to suffer.
***Swedenborg interrogated Calvin in the spiritual world.***
This is a fantastic claim. What manner of flying carpet did he employ?
I enquired of the Catholic Encyclopedia what it had involving Swedenborg:
Swedenborg and his followers hold that as the Christian religion succeeded the Jewish so the Swedenborgian teaching supplemented the Christian. This new dispensation promulgated by Swedenborg is, according to them, based on a Divinely revealed interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. Some of the characteristic features of this new religious system are presented in the following outline.
•God is Love Itself and Wisdom Itself. His Power is from and according to these as they flow forth into creative act.
•The Trinity does not consist of three distinct Divine persons as Catholics maintain; but is understood in the sense that in the Incarnation the Father or Jehovah is essentially the Divine Being, while the Son is the human (or sub-spiritual) element assumed by the Godhead in order to become present among men. The Holy Spirit is the Divine Presence and Power consequent upon this assumption and resultant transfiguration (glorification in Swedenborgian language) of the human element which thus became “a Divine Human” with all power in heaven and on earth. Jesus Christ is, therefore, not the incarnation of a second Divine person, but of the Divine as a whole; he includes the Father (Godhead), the Son (assumed humanity), and the Holy Spirit (Divine-human power).
•Life does not exist except in Him or from Him, and cannot be created. Its presence in created forms is accounted for by continuous Divine influx.
•On this earth man enjoys the highest participation of life, but he is greatly inferior, in this respect, to the races undoubtedly inhabiting other planets, e.g. Jupiter, Mercury.
•His three constituent elements are soul, body, and power.
•Originally granted full freedom in the use of his faculties, he erroneously concluded that he held them from no one but himself and fell away from God.
•The Lord, after the fall, did not abandon the sinner, but appeared to him in the form of an angel and gave him the law to reclaim him from his evil ways. These efforts were useless, and God clothed Himself with a human organism and redeemed man, opening anew his faculties to the influx of Divine life.
•Men are admitted into the New Church through baptism; they are strengthened in the spiritual life by the reception of the Eucharist.
•Justification cannot be obtained by faith alone; good works are likewise necessary.
•The seclusion of the cloister is not a help but a hindrance to spiritual growth; the healthiest condition for the latter is a life of action in the world.
•Miracles and visions produce no real spiritual change because they destroy the requisite liberty.
•The hope of reward is not to be recommended as an incentive to virtue, for good actions are vitiated when prompted by motives of self-interest.
•Death is the casting off by man of his material body which has no share in the resurrection.
•Immediately after death all human souls enter into the intermediate state known as the world of spirits, where they are instructed and prepared for their final abodes, heaven or hell.
•We need not expect the Last Judgment for it has already taken place; it was held in 1757 in Swedenborg’s presence.
•No pure spirits exist; both angels and devils are former members of the human race, have organic forms, and experience sensation.
The liturgy of the New Church is is modelled on the Anglican service. The Church organization in Great Britain is congregational; in the United States most of the various religious societies are grouped in state associations under the charge of general pastors, while the “General Church” (see below) is avowedly episcopal in government.
May I ask, sir, aside from the use of seeing stones and a hat, what sets Swedenborg apart from Joseph Smith?
***I have no idea what you are talking about.***
On a rather frequent basis, it seems, neither does he.
“Unless you can find some scripture I’m missing, it seems clear to me at least that Christ descended to preach to the captives in Hades, not to suffer.”
I agree, as Victor not as slave.
The Cross is sufficient, not some continual punishment as envisioned by Calvin.
Christ words on the Cross, “It is finished” mean exactly that.
I have to wonder if Calvin actually saw the Cross as sufficient. From his words, it doesn’t appear so.
I agree with you. Any Jew would have known He was quoting Psalm 22.
But I take it a little further: Christ sanctified every aspect of human life by living it fully with us. He was an embryo, a fetus, an infant, a child, a son, an adult, a sufferer, lonely, forlorn, forsaken, happy, despairing, joyful, injured, broken, and tempted. He showed us how to live in every situation. By doing that, He blessed each situation we humans find ourselves in and elevated it to experiencing it in union with Him. He sanctified humanity.
During the three days He was entombed, He went to Limbo to gather up all those who had been waiting for the salvation He brought. Imagine their joy to finally see their Messiah!
>>The discussion is Ray’s opinion and not one I hold.<<
K.
Here are a few other quotes from Calvin...I think you’ve missed what he teaches.
Col 1:24 -
24. I now rejoice. He has previously claimed for himself authority on the ground of his calling. Now, however, he provides against the honor of his apostleship being detracted from by the bonds and persecutions, which he endured for the sake of the gospel. For Satan, also, perversely turns these things into occasions of rendering the servants of God the more contemptible. Farther, he encourages them by his example not to be intimidated by persecutions, and he sets forth to their view his zeal, that he may have greater weight. Nay more, he gives proof of his affection towards them by no common pledge, when he declares that he willingly bears for their sake the afflictions which he endures. “But whence,” some one will ask, “arises this joy?” From his seeing the fruit that springs from it. “The affliction that I endure on your account is pleasant to me, because I do not suffer it in vain.”
And fill up what is wanting. The particle and I understand as meaning for, for he assigns a reason why he is joyful in his sufferings, because he is in this thing a partner with Christ, and nothing happier can be desired than this partnership. Nay more, he declares that there is thus filled up what is wanting in the affliction of Christ. For as he speaks in Romans 8:29,
Whom God elected, he also hath predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ, that he may be the first-born among the brethren.
Farther, we know that there is so great a unity between Christ and his members, that the name of Christ sometimes includes the whole body, as in 1 Corinthians. 12:12, for while discoursing there respecting the Church, he comes at length to the conclusion, that in Christ the same thing holds as in the human body. As, therefore, Christ has suffered once in his own person, so he suffers daily in his members, and in this way there are filled up those sufferings which the Father hath appointed for his body by his decree.
He adds, also, a third reason — that his sufferings are advantageous, and that not merely to a few, but to the whole Church. He had previously stated that he suffered in behalf of the Colossians, and he now declares still farther, that the advantage extends to the whole Church. This advantage has been spoken of in Philippians 1:12. What could be clearer, less forced, or more simple, than this exposition, that Paul is joyful in persecution, because he considers, in accordance with what he writes elsewhere, that we must carry about with us in our body the mortification of Christ, that his life may be manifested in us? (2 Corinthians 4 10.)
He says also in Timothy,
If we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him: if we die with him, we shall also live with him, (2 Timothy 2:11-12)
and thus the issue will be blessed and glorious. Farther, he considers that we must not refuse the condition which God has appointed for his Church, that the members of Christ may have a suitable correspondence with the head; and, thirdly, that afflictions must be cheerfully endured, inasmuch as they are profitable to all the pious, and promote the welfare of the whole Church, by adorning the doctrine of the gospel.
Papists, however, disregarding and setting aside all these things, have struck out a new contrivance in order that they may establish their system of indulgences. They give the name of indulgences to a remission of punishments, obtained by us through the merits of the martyrs. For, as they deny that there is a gratuitous remission of sins, and allege that they are redeemed by satisfactory deeds, when the satisfactions do not fill up the right measure, they call into their help the blood of the martyrs, that it may, along with the blood of Christ, serve as an expiation in the judgment of God. And this mixture they call the treasure of the Church, the keys of which they afterwards entrust to whom they think fit. Nor are they ashamed to wrest this passage, with the view of supporting so execrable a blasphemy, as if Paul here affirmed that his sufferings are of avail for expiating the sins of men.
They urge in their support the term (things wanting,) as if Paul meant to say, that the sufferings which Christ has endured for the redemption of men were insufficient. There is no one, however, that does not see that Paul speaks in this manner, because it is necessary, that by the afflictions of the pious, the body of the Church should be brought to its perfection, inasmuch as the members are conformed to their head. I should also be afraid of being suspected of calumny in repeating things so monstrous, if their books did not bear witness that I impute nothing to them groundlessly. They urge, also, what Paul says, that he suffers for the Church. It is surprising that this refined interpretation had not occurred to any of the ancients, for they all interpret it as we do, to mean, that the saints suffer for the Church, inasmuch as they confirm the faith of the Church. Papists, however, gather from this that the saints are redeemers, because they shed their blood for the expiation of sins.
That my readers, however, may perceive more clearly their impudence, allow that the martyrs, as well as Christ, suffered for the Church, but in different ways, as I am inclined to express in Augustine’s words rather than in my own. For he writes thus in his 84th treatise on John: “Though we brethren die for brethren, yet there is no blood of any martyr that is poured out for the remission of sins. This Christ did for us. Nor has he in this conferred upon us matter of imitation, but ground of thanksgiving.”
Also, in the fourth book to Bonifacius: “As the only Son of God became the Son of man, that he might make us sons of God, so he has alone, without offense, endured punishment for us, that we may through him, without merit, obtain undeserved favor.” Similar to these is the statement of Leo Bishop of Rome; “The righteous received crowns, did not give them; and for the fortitude of believers there have come forth examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness. For their deaths were for themselves, and no one by his latter end paid the debt of another.”
Now, that this is the meaning of Paul’s words is abundantly manifest from the context, for he adds, that he suffers according to the dispensation that was given to him. And we know that the ministry was committed to him, not of redeeming the Church, but of edifying it; and he himself immediately afterwards expressly acknowledges this. This is also what he writes to Timothy, that he endures all things for the sake of the elect, that they may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus.
(2 Timothy 2:10.)
Also, in 2 Corinthians 1:4, that he willingly endures all things for their consolation and salvation.
Let, therefore, pious readers learn to hate and detest those profane sophists, who thus deliberately corrupt and adulterate the Scriptures, in order that they may give some color to their delusions.
And the Philippians passage mentioned:
29. To believe. He wisely conjoins faith with the cross by an inseparable connection, that the Philippians may know that they have been called to the faith of Christ on this condition — that they endure persecutions on his account, as though he had said that their adoption can no more be separated from the cross, than Christ can be torn asunder from himself. Here Paul clearly testifies, that faith, as well as constancy in enduring persecutions, is an unmerited gift of God. And certainly the knowledge of God is a wisdom that is too high for our attaining it by our own acuteness, and our weakness shews itself in daily instances in our own experience, when God withdraws his hand for a little while. That he may intimate the more distinctly that both are unmerited, he says expressly — for Christ’s sake, or at least that they are given to us on the ground of Christ’s grace; by which he excludes every idea of merit.
This passage is also at variance with the doctrine of the schoolmen, in maintaining that gifts of grace latterly conferred are rewards of our merit, on the ground of our having made a right use of those which had been previously bestowed. I do not deny, indeed, that God rewards the right use of his gifts of grace by bestowing grace more largely upon us, provided only you do not place merit, as they do, in opposition to his unmerited liberality and the merit of Christ.
The Pope speaks ex-cathedra whenever the Spirit moves him to do so. There’s no time frame involved.
You can disagree with him any time you want. Just remember Christ promised the Spirit would guide His Church until the end. Obviously, things were going to come up in the future that the Apostles could never have even dreamed of: like in vitro fertilization, birth control, and cloning. The Holy Spirit, by necessity, continues to address the many new ways to sin that man devises. It makes sense that we would need an update from the Holy Spirit once in a while, don’t you think?
Here and there, yes, but like I said, “how many people that lived during that time could?”
You are discussing things from our side. A time of much clearer knowledge, and yet we still see as though through a glass darkly. It was all over what we now call the old testament and very clear, as any prophesy is AFTER it has been fulfilled. They were, to the revelation of Christ what we are to the revelation of the end times prophesy, maybe even less so. There is much we are warned about but much that we simply cannot divine until it actually happens.
Most bible prophesy (and that is what Jesus is in the old testament) is along the lines of “you’ll know it when you see it”.
You must remember that he reclines on Sundays in his LaZBoy chair being his own Pope and creating theology. He has his own personal god on his hall stand and rubs his head for luck when he walks by.
I suspect that adult beverages or perhaps peyote are part of the proceedings.
***Most bible prophesy (and that is what Jesus is in the old testament) is along the lines of “you’ll know it when you see it”.***
Agreed. But you notice that that approach didn’t work. The entire OT was God trying to get the Jews to pay attention for longer than a couple of days. Therefore it was required that Jesus Incarnate and even then, the Jews didn’t get it for the most part. It was Peter (and then Paul) selling it to the Gentiles that saved the fledgling Church.
(Mary) reconciled humanity with God through the sacrificial offering consummated on Calvary; and after Calvary she continues unceasingly to reconcile man to God with her Mediation and Distribution of all the graces of Redemption. Consequently, she is proclaimed the Mother of universal reconciliation... She co-redeemed humanity by offering the divine Victim, her Son Jesus, in the bloody immolation of the Cross, and co-immolating herself with Him in order to "restore supernatural life to souls" (LG 61), became in this way our "Mother in the order of grace" (LG 1.c.)... we should be eternally grateful to "our dear Coredemptrix" and to our "Mediatrix and Dispensatrix of all graces.""...(Mary) Mother Coredemptrix who immolates herself with the Son on the Cross in order to bring to pass the universal Redemption...
Read the comments to see how many Roman Catholics disagree with this (blasphemous) view of Mary.
"(Mary) reconciled humanity with God..."our dear Coredemptrix" and to our "Mediatrix and Dispensatrix of all graces."
"Flee from idolatry."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.