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:
no rewrite needed here...in no place in your post has anyone stated that mary is elevated to the level of christ. Jesus is the one and only redeemer, period. If you read my post #50, you will get clarification on this issue...unless your goal is the destruction of the catholic church, in which case i will ignore you......
But that isn't the question, and words count. Do you believe Mary is your "Co-Redeemer?"
Forgot to ping you to 198. Morning, DB. 8~)
Forgot to ping you to 198. Morning, DB. 8~)
Do YOU believe that the Blessed Mother of God was with our Lord as He was being crucified?
read post #50 and then talk to me
Here is the problem with your post. You wrote, or quoted:
It is very necessary to understand what the Church means by such doctrines and what it does not mean. First of all the Church recognizes Jesus as our only redeemer—plain and simple. Only God could make up for an offense against His divinity. When Jesus, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, became man, He used the services of several human beings. He used prophets, the last of whom was His cousin, John the Baptist. He used St. Joseph as His foster father to protect Him and be a father to Him in his formative years. Most of all, He used Mary as His mother who gave birth to Him, nursed Him, and nurtured Him as a child. All of these people co-operated with Him and His mission of salvation. He alone was the redeemer, but they co-operated with Him in His work of redemption. In varying degrees they all could be called co-redeemers because of such co-operation. But because of her unique role and the degree of her co-operation, Mary is singled out. In all of humanity, God singled her out for a truly sublime role. Nursing almighty God at her breast is beyond our ability to fully appreciate. Yet thousands of Christians since the Protestant reformation have completely ignored such sublimity.
What is said of co-redemptrix is also true of co-mediatrix. Because these terms can be highly mis-leading, the Church has not formalized them in any official doctrinal way. (See artical: http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/ORMARIA2.HTM) Nevertheless, God is the one who singled Mary out for the unique role in salvation that she has. She did not seek out such distinction. It is important to remember the high praise Jesus lavished on St. John the Baptist. Yet his mission was not nearly so exalted as Mary’s. Jesus worked His first miracle at her request. All she needed to say was: “They have no wine.” He understood exactly what she wanted. He could have taken care of the matter on His own. But He chose to have His mother’s intercession be a part of the mix. The miracle wasn’t any less significant because of her part in it. On the contrary, she shows us how accessible He is to our needs. To truly appreciate Mary is to appreciate her Son all the more.
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
But this is contradicted in scripture.
You say “All of these people co-operated with Him and His mission of salvation. He alone was the redeemer, but they co-operated with Him in His work of redemption. In varying degrees they all could be called co-redeemers...”
When the Catholic Church starts referring to darn near everyone Jesus knew as “co-redeemers”, this argument will make sense. Until then, it exalts Mary.
You recognize this in writing, “But because of her unique role and the degree of her co-operation, Mary is singled out...Nursing almighty God at her breast is beyond our ability to fully appreciate.”
But when a woman told that to Jesus (””Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!”), Jesus replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
Your claim in contrary to the clear teaching of Jesus in the Scriptures. “Yet thousands of Christians since the Protestant reformation have completely ignored such sublimity” - as Jesus taught us!
You write, “It is important to remember the high praise Jesus lavished on St. John the Baptist. Yet his mission was not nearly so exalted as Mary’s.”
Yet Jesus DID praise John the Baptist, and specifically diverted praise AWAY from Mary. Indeed, there is no account of Jesus calling Mary “Mother”. He always addresses her as “Woman”. If we follow the example of Christ, we WILL praise John the Baptist, and refrain from praising Mary.
You write “ All she needed to say was: “They have no wine.” He understood exactly what she wanted. He could have taken care of the matter on His own. But He chose to have His mother’s intercession be a part of the mix.”
Actually, Jesus replied, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” IOW, Jesus tells her NOT to direct him.
The footnote in the New American Bible says, “[4] This verse may seek to show that Jesus did not work miracles to help his family and friends, as in the apocryphal gospels. Woman: a normal, polite form of address, but unattested in reference to one’s mother. Cf also John 19:26. How does your concern affect me?: literally, “What is this to me and to you?”—a Hebrew expression of either hostility (Judges 11:12; 2 Chron 35:21; 1 Kings 17:18) or denial of common interest (Hosea 14:9; 2 Kings 3:13). Cf Mark 1:24; 5:7 used by demons to Jesus. My hour has not yet come: the translation as a question (”Has not my hour now come?”), while preferable grammatically and supported by Greek Fathers, seems unlikely from a comparison with John 7:6, 30. The “hour” is that of Jesus’ passion, death, resurrection, and ascension (John 13:1).”
Far from CHOOSING his mother’s intercession, he specifically REJECTS it!
The problem isn’t that Protestants hate Mary. We don’t. The problem is that Catholics give Mary a role Jesus himself rejected, as recorded in Scripture.
"Dogmatic purity?"
Presbyterians don't believe they are the "only" true church on earth.
The RCC believes it is the only "true" church on earth.
Presbyterians don't believe their church (or any church) is without error.
The RCC believes its magisterium is without error.
Presbyterians don't believe their pastors are "infallible."
The RCC believes its papacy is "infallible" in matters of religion.
Presbyterians know there is only one Savior, Jesus Christ, our only mediator.
The RCC believes its priestcraft all to be "another Christ."
Repent.
Breath.
Find a happy place.
LOL!
The problem isn’t that Protestants hate Mary. We don’t. The problem is that Catholics give Mary a role Jesus himself rejected, as recorded in Scripture
AMEN!
Why, thanks. I have. Safe and secure in God's free gift of faith alone in Christ alone by His grace alone for His glory alone and made known to me and all believers through the holy word of God alone, our only infallible rule of faith and practice.
Would that the RCC could know such a "happy place." I'll pray for it.
I have read post #50. Yet who to believe?
Fr. Vincent Serpa and his meandering defense of the indefensible or your pope John Paul II, 500 bishops and assorted cardinals and most every Roman Catholic on these threads who whole-heartedly look to Mary as their “Co-Redemptrix and Dispensatrix of all Grace?”
Because I don’t see any disagreement with calling Mary the “Co-Redemptrix and Dispensatrix of all Grace” on the following FR RC thread...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1893917/posts
Maybe you would do better to school them in the truth.
Roman Catholics are indeed most unworthy of your kindness since they are willfully blasphemous! Nay, apostates and pagans! For there can be no interpretation of scripture other than yours.
To pray for them, you must divert yourself from basking in the brilliant reflection and consideration of your own purity and wisdom. You are much too kind.
Are you suggesting YOU can interpret Scripture infallibly?
No.
What use is infallible Scripture with flawed interpretations?
If that's all you got, that's all you got.
Why on earth would you subscribe to a faith unless you believed it were the right one?
Your position is absolutely illogical from every standpoint.
If there is no single entity without error, whither the Holy Spirit?
You don’t even know the definition of “mediator”.
Everything that stems from that argument is made lame at the starting gate.
You refer to “priestcraft” as if with the implication that it’s tantamount to “witchcraft”. I take grave offense at that calumny, and I’ve had it up to here with this disgusting bigotry.
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.