John Calvin’s Worst Heresy: That Christ Suffered in Hell

Called to Communion ^ | September 15, 2009 | Taylor Marshall

[Claud]

Heresy is the obstinate post-Baptismal denial of an revealed truth of the Christian faith. I suppose you could distinguish it from plain old error by saying a person is in error first. If he is obstinate in his views even after he is corrected by competent ecclesiastical authority, he becomes a heretic.

To be a formal heretic is a willful sin. One can be in error or teach aberrant doctrine and not know it.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It’s EVERYWHERE!

[Revelation 911]

http://www.catholic-pages.com/DIR/coredemptrix.asp

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Swedenborg has nothing to do with Calvinism.

Actually, he's closer to the papacy because Swedenborg was a mystic...like your popes.

[Claud]

For my argument's sake I don't think it matters *where* I got the interpretation. The point is that if my exegesis gets me to where John 6 or the Institution Narratives teach transubstantiation, then how can you contradict me? You say "if it's handled well hermeneutically", but that is a notoriously subjective criteria and in this case means little more than "according to my own Calvinist presuppositions."

Now if you're telling me that a few Genevans and Scotsmen--who didn't even make up the majority of Reformation theology--were competent to pronounce the rest of Christendom from the Apostles to Trent, from India to Ireland in heresy I will have a nice good laugh about it.

So it is your position, then, that Calvin's belief about the harrowing of hell could theoretically be incorrect exegesis but is not heretical per se because it does not involve a significant misunderstanding about God?

[RobRoy]

‘Zactly.

[terycarl]

Catholocism is not a denomination...it is the true Christian religion founded by Christ....the various Protestant groups are “denominations” thank you

[SoDak]

Indeed

[kosta50]

If Calvin was a sola scriputra Christian, where in the Bible did he find that Christ descended into hell?

[joe fonebone]

see my post #50....this is not official doctorine of the catholic church.....just a tool that catholic bashers use, and use often

[Revelation 911]

oh please - there are enough branches of nonsensical doctrine within the church to be called enominations -

ps - the orthodox Christians might disagree with your pompous assertion

[wagglebee]

Really? Here are 13 quick Biblical references from the Gospels and Acts to the brothers and sisters of Christ.

And how many refer to children of Mary? ZERO.

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.

No, they could be children of Joseph.

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.

Except that the Bible DOES NOT suggest this.

Here are a few things to consider:

Where were these younger children when our Lord was left at the Temple?

It would have been unheard of in Jewish tradition for a younger sibling to question their oldest brother (read Genesis 27:29-40).

Why did He need to entrust His mother to John? Jewish custom was that the next oldest son would care for her.

Keep in mind that the major Reformers not only didn't question the perpetual virginity of Mary, they openly supported it.

[1010RD]

The word eternal in the Christian context means more than just starting here and going on forever forward. Infinite is a better term and mathematically more accurate; accounting for both time and volume.

[aruanan]

a. Where were these younger children when our Lord was left at the Temple?

b. It would have been unheard of in Jewish tradition for a younger sibling to question their oldest brother (read Genesis 27:29-40).

c. Why did He need to entrust His mother to John? Jewish custom was that the next oldest son would care for her.

You're hand waving. And you're using really ludicrous methods of doing so.

a. What did Mary and Joseph have to eat for lunch that day? Does the fact that no one was mentioned as performing excretory functions mean that back in that day no one took a dump? Where were the other kids? Uh, with the rest of the relatives? Why weren't they mentioned then as opposed to later many times in both gospel and epistles? They weren't relevant to the story.

b. And it would have been unheard of for Jewish people to set aside God's laws about caring for their parents by setting up their own rules to make God's rules of none effect. Oh, wait, according to Jesus, they did. And it was probably more unheard of then for someone to use a plural pronoun with a singular noun.

c. Um, let's see. He did do that. That doesn't mean that Jesus didn't have brothers and sisters or that Mary had had no other children. It could have meant that at the crucifixion Jesus's brothers had not yet accepted his position as Messiah (they were described earlier as not being believers) and weren't present with his mother as John was but were hiding out like other disciples out of fear.

Your exceptions are studies in misdirection and irrelevancy.

[dangus]

My point was to contrast infinite (of an endless amount of time) with eternal (outside of time). Infinite is what most people think of when they hear eternal, but the sacrifice of Christ is not of an infinite duration.

[wagglebee]

Your response says NOTHING.

[starlifter]

Interesting, but it's like saying Dan Brown has it right in his novels.

Again, can you site Church source documents? None of the citations provided speak for the Church.

[aruanan]

Your response says NOTHING.

There is none so blind as he who refuses to see. Jesus spoke to that, too.

[wagglebee]

Read Genesis 27:29-40 and get back to me.

Your assumptions are based on modern ideas, not historical Jewish custom.

I will gladly accept two thousand years of Church teaching over the modern-day assumptions of those who despise the Blessed Mother because Catholics love her.

[Revelation 911]

church doctrine or otherwise - the doody piles are in the house and theyre drawing flies.......and frankly doody piles and flies can ruin a good gnoshing of flesh and blood