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:
I know, I’m well aware of what it means.
Whimsy? I’ve got whimsy for you, this thread is about John Calvin’s HERESY, Calvinists have made the thread about the Blessed Mother of God to avoid addressing their heretical roots.
It is also "making it personal" to make a thread "about" individual Freepers.
Enough with the he said/she said.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
No problem.
Then why would you make such ridiculous statments?
It seems you’re more interested in stirring the sh*t than actually saying anything productive.
What ridiculous statements have I made? I am a lifelong Catholic, I am simply trying to refute the hateful things said about the Church and the Blessed Mother.
OOOOOPS!!!
Those two posts should have been directed to mr. ecklesburry or whatever...hahah
sorry dude.
maybe you can pass them along to him :)
your pffffhhht is decidedly more pungent
wordspeak -
Not sure how this remark rebuts my claim, but let me say clearly...I am not claiming that John 6 says, "Repent Rome". I am stating that Rome's claim that John 6 supports transubstantiation by a priest is utterly without merit. For Rome's wrongheaded claim I am calling for their repentance.
The "we" are the believers in Christ, typically arguing from the perspective of the reformation, that fully and completely repudiate the Catholic Church as a misguided group teaching errant theology sufficient to be called "heretical". We do not have popes and we don't have "S"aints.
"I'm startin' with the man in the mirror!"
You are welcome to begin with anybody you wish.
I'm guessing, ex-Catholic? This kind of invective is usually associated with exorcisms and ex-Catholics with an immovable chip on their shoulders.
No, never been in the group. I've attended masses with friends enslaved to the cult, but God's grace has poured on me sufficient to escape the clutches of Rome. And, if an exorcism is needed, it is needed to remove the demonic influence of the self-righteous, self-aggrandizing, man-centered theology of the Vatican. Error is the problem we find with the RCC, not some kind of personality problem. Many Catholics are very nice people, but this is not about the people, but the doctrines. Focus, my FRiend.
Afternoon, Doc.
Was gone this AM, so just now got in on the action. Great, no absolutely fantastic, evidence of the idolotrous worship of Mary that has captured the RCC. Several of my Catholic friends are more familiar with Mary, Medjegorje, and Cheetos in the shape of the “dear virgin”, than they are with the basic truths of justification by faith.
Thank you for your tireless efforts to call them to the light of Christ, alone.
uhhhh????
is that a good thing? :)
its means fancy excuse by changing the meaning of words
Infinite doesn't refer to time at all. It simply means not measurable or outside measurable limits. You can use it to refer to a measure of time, but time is a human construct.
The Atonement is infinite by time and volume.
Here’s why “eternal” is a better word: Was Christ’s sacrifice ongoing in 4000 BC? No, it hadn’t happened yet. Is it on-going now? No, it is finished. Yet it still persists. It’s not that does or does not happen now; it happened in eternity; it is not temporal. It is not limited by time, even though it is completed.
***Oh please.....that is indeed a ridiculous argument. So now the Church is responsible for the blathering of anyone?
when those blathering are in high leadership positions, simply, yes***
And when those in high leadership positions utter bad doctrine or heresy and are removed? We regard Origen as a great early theologian and would have been recognized as a great Doctor of the Church but he took it upon himself to supercede the Church and was banished in disgrace. Where is Tertullian? Even Augustine was removed for a time. Augustine wrote his Retractions, as well.
Nestorius was a great bishop and now his name stands for a horrible heresy. The Church has a consensus patrum, not individuals, declare doctrine.
Eternal refers to time.
e·ter·nal [ i túrn'l ]
adjective Definition:
1. existing through all time: lasting for all time without beginning or end eternal life
2. unchanging: unaffected by the passage of time eternal truths
3. seemingly everlasting: seeming to go on forever or recur incessantly an eternal student
Although, I could accept an argument that Christ's Atonement is eternal. At the very least it is infinite.
in·fi·nite [ ínfənit ]
adjective Definition:
1. not measurable: without any finite or measurable limits
2. exceedingly great: very great in size, number, degree, or extent He took infinite pains over it.
3. mathematics greater than any assigned value: greater in number, size, or scope than any arbitrarily assigned value
4. mathematics with unlimited spatial extent: having unlimited spatial extent
5. mathematics with indefinitely many elements: having an indefinitely extendable number of terms or elements
6. mathematics supporting one-to-one relationship: describes a set able to be put into a one-to-one mathematical correspondence with a subset of itself
Therefore Christ's Atonement is infinite.
Not being Roman Catholic, I don't keep track of which Pope says what actually.
oh. i was merely phhthhhhing in the general direction of the fellow that phhthhhhed first.
a phhllllthhhh war of sorts.
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.