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:
Ha! Ok, let's just dial back on the condescension a smidge and come to terms with a couple of things here.
It's interesting to me that you think that just because I radically disagree with your interpretation I haven't read it (or at least not read it carefully.) I don't see Reformation theology in it, so therefore *I must just not be reading it right*.
When actually, not only have I read it, I read it closely *in the Greek* and made a word-for-word study of it with my old Liddell-Scott lexicon. And here's the kick in the knickers--I am even MORE convinced now that the doctrine of the Eucharist is taught in it explictly and unambiguously. Which, actually, is the same conclusion of the Church Fathers who spoke Greek natively, and the Greek Orthodox who still speak the same language today.
Which is why I say again that neither you nor Calvin have any standing to accuse anyone of heresy on this or any other matter--*by the tenets of your own theology*. If you really believe Sola Scriptura and the perspicuity of the text, I have just as much right to my informed interpretation as you do yours, and *neither of us* can claim to be infallibly inspired on it. The most you can say is "I don't see it" and leave it at that.
No it doesn't...It means that those in the church will not have to go to Paradise, Abraham's Bosom like the OT saints had to til the one with the Keys, Jesus Christ, opened the gates, in Hell...We go directly to Heaven...
It has nothing to with any church being in error...Don't you guys ever read the scriptures???
***It means that those in the church will not have to go to Paradise, Abraham’s Bosom like the OT saints had to til the one with the Keys, Jesus Christ, opened the gates, in Hell...We go directly to Heaven...
It has nothing to with any church being in error...Don’t you guys ever read the scriptures???***
We sure do. Who’s got the keys? Who gave them to him? Don’t you guys ever read the scriptures???
If Christ is coming to judge the quick and the dead then how can anyone be in hell, yet? Are spirits held elsewhere until the judgment?
No condescension intended. I repeat, check this out alongside the Catholic required interpretation. Your interpretation cannot be anything other than the party line, so don’t refer to an interpretation that “you” might hold. Catholics cannot hold any interpretations other than headquarter’s approved version. You are compelled to hold the party line.
My point. Go read it and ask yourself if the party line is really what you think is taught there. This isn’t a Reformed theology thing or any other kind of “thing”. I am just asking you, without being disingenuous, is the Catholic party line (which you are ordered to hold) really being taught there? Party line = a man in a robe called a priest will say latin words over some wafers and wine and the Holy Spirit will actually, not figuratively, not allegorically, not representatively, but actually change them into the Body of Christ and Blood of Christ for you to eat and drink, again and again. There is not one word there about “transubstantiation”. The Catholic Church claims that its inspired interpretation is infallible. We claim that it has manufactured this interpretation to fit its sacerdotal paradigm. For that it should repent.
And, most everyone who has studied Koine Greek can read it in the original language. You still won’t find transubstantiation in there, anywhere. And the Greek today is not Koine, but it could not find it either.
>> I think you are mixing up your definitions. Eternal refers to time. <<
This is my point: the recent definition of “eternal,” as a measure of lasting for an infinite time, is problematic to understanding the concept of eternal. That which is eternal doesn’t last for a length of time which is eternal, it is outside of time; something which is eternal can last but for a moment (i.e., the sacrifice of Christ), yet be present throughout time.
Contrarily, “infinite” can refer to something which has one or more measurements with no limit.
Is Christ’s atonement infinite? It certainly is perfect, but is there any means of measuring atonement that it might be limitless in?
they can disagree all they want....it does not change one fact....none
Interesting article.
Unfortunately the thread just repeats previous BVM threads.
I guess I should give up expecting a rebuttal or explanation from a Calvinist.
Yet there is ZERO Biblical basis for the belief that Mary DIDN’T have more children. Or that the brothers and sisters that Matthew clearly reference - calling James and Joses DIRECTLY the sons of Mary (in Mt 27:56) - are from a previous marriage of Joseph.
The belief that Mary was ever-virgin is simply based on tradition - not Scripture. That’s fine, if you want to believe it. But you simply cannot state - as you have - that there are NO suggestions that Mary had other children. To do so is to literally deny the Word of God. See the link in 143 - it’s quite detailed and very enlightening, and at least shows there is a VERY strong suggestion that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
Is your contention truly that a "co-redeemer" worthy of adulation was someone with Christ when he died? Really?
Then we should pray to the co-redeeming Roman soldiers that pierced Christ's side, or the co-redeeming thieves that were crucified with Christ, or to any of the people in the crowd, or the Pharisees who watched Christ die, or...
Well, I tried to posit - I believe, scripturally - that Jesus was in spiritual Hell when He was foresaken by God, and took all the judgment for our sins upon Himself. Hell is not a physical place, but a spiritual place where you are isolated from God and love.
Christ’s words were indicative that He was in that Hell - He was foresaken by God because of the sin and judgment He bore for us.
But we’ve ignored that, here, and are firmly onto other “heretical” things...
Thanks for your reply.
I would posit that your view is not in accord with Calvin’s as described in the article.
Do you reject the view of Christ descent into Hell as triumphant? Did he suffer two hells - the one you describe and a second as described either by Calvin or the Orthodox?
Yummm...Cheetos. Lol.
I think some RCs believe it is enough that they belong to the mother church, and so their spot is reserved in heaven. The rest of it, all those Bible passages and Scriptural doctrines don't have to be understood. They attend mass and consume the eucharist, and that's all there is to faith.
Thus, since they aren't grounded in the solid truth of God's word, they tend to believe whatever superstition or fable or lie wafts through their vicinity. Whatever catches their fancy. And the RCC, with its rituals and Mariology and wizardly priestcraft dressed like women, is very fancy indeed.
Virgin Mary Grilled Cheese Sandwich
Amen!
No, I believe He was in Hell once, and His victory was that Hell could not hold Him. That He came back. He was cut off from God, and yet came back to be reconnected with the Father.
He felt the pain of all our sins on Him, and how that made Him unsightly to God. THAT was the pain and torment He bore. And His shed blood cleansed that sin away, so that He could be reunited with God.
IMHO, many Christian teachings get it wrong (not heresy, just wrong); Hell is not a physical place, it’s a spiritual state. Hell is separation from God, and it can be likened to being in a lake of fire - it is that painful. It isn’t spiky gates, and devils with pitchforks flogging you as your walk in a lake of molten rock; it is being cut off from God, and knowing it is because of what we did, and what we rejected from him. Living in our shame and sin, without the presence of God, is Hell.
I know many here will say it’s wrong, but the picture we have of Hell is from the Revelation of John, which is heavily ladened with symbolism. The message Revelations conveys is truth, but it does so with symbolism and metaphor, it is not - IMHO, based upon my understanding of prophecy - a 100% factual record of all the details that will happen.
There won’t be 4 literal “horsemen” coming to dispense pain and judgment; there WILL be 4 huge events caused by man or some institution of man that WILL cause mass death, disease, famine, and war. Symbolism is strewn throughout Revelations; thus we should not say that the images of Hell are 100% factual. They, too, are symbolic and metaphorical.
Sorry, I could have been more clear:
Are you saying that your view is what Calvin really meant? Or that Calvin’s view is in error?
I will agree that Revelation is not a place for literalists.
:)
I never heard Christ went to Hell....did I miss something as a mere Southern baptist boy?
When the Reformers faced this issue in connection with their controversy with the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutherans they asked too, "Is there anything more in that expression?" And they answered, "Yes, there is. We believe that we may talk about a spiritual descent of our Lord Jesus Christ into the suffering of the torments of hell." That is what Calvin, for example, taught. You can look that up in his Institutes and discover that. Jesus descended into hell in this sense, that He entered into the suffering of the torments of hell, in body and soul, in His lifetime, but especially at the end on the cross. It is that view of Calvin and other Reformers that is carried over into our Heidelberg Catechism. That is why it explains the expression in the way it does. "Why is there added, He descended into hell? That in my greatest temptations I may be assured and wholly comfort myself in this, that my Lord Jesus Christ, by His inexpressible anguish, pains, terrors, and hellish agonies in which He was plunged during all of His sufferings, but especially on the cross, hath delivered me from the anguish and torments of hell." It explains the expression, notice, spiritually. Jesus suffered the anguish, the pains, the terrors, hellish agonies, in all of His sufferings, but especially on the cross. There is no talk of a literal descent into the place of hell..."...At the time of the Reformation there was controversy concerning this expression too. The Roman Catholic Church and the Lutherans both taught a literal descent of Christ into hell, while the Reformers spiritualized the expression. That is why we have the explanation that we do in our own Heidelberg Catechism..."
This article has it completely backwards. And its real aim is to deny the penal substitution of Christ for our sins which erodes the Scriptural doctrine of Justification by Christ's work on the cross alone and not through our own good works.
It always gets back to that, doesn't it?
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.