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:
It’s in the Apostles’ Creed.
I see that thanks...looked it up.
Was never used by my Southern Baptist church ..at least not to me.
We did go over Satan’s taunts of Christ though..
The issue touches upon a number of basic doctrines which are highly divergent between denominations.
In order to understand a Protestant perspective, a review of the doctrine of Imputations is appropriate.
It also touches upon the anthropology of man, being either monotomous, dichotomous or trichotomous.
It touches upon God’s Holiness, comprised of Perfect Justice and Perfect Righteousness.
I concur that all sin was paid for on the Cross. It was all judged from the Divine perspective in regards to mankind.
Once this occurred, God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, have satisfied their perfect righteousness and perfect justice to have fellowship with man by grace through faith in Christ.
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.
The "robe"--by which you mean the chasuble I assume--is of course theologically inconsequential. Doesn't affect the validity of the thing whatsoever. And neither does the Latin, particularly since the earliest liturgies were said in Greek and there are 20-some other rites in the Catholic Church that use completely different languages. Now only your last point gets to the nub of the issue, and to that I respond as follows. We are only doing what we are commanded to do...because it was Christ who said that the elements become His Body and Blood not figuratively, not allegorically, not representatively. As Luther so ably said: whoever got the idea that "this is my body" actually means "this represents my body."? You claim that we manufactured this idea to fit a sacerdotal paradigm. I claim the exact opposite--that the Reformers destroyed the idea to fit an anti-sacerdotal paradigm. And, moreover, I can point to clear historical evidence to support that view. Find me one Church Father that echoed the sentiments of the Black Rubric of the Book of Common Prayer.....you can't do it.
Anyway, we have veered off topic. My point again is this. You keep coming back to the notion that I simply adopt a party line. But is my party line of Rome any different than your party line of Calvin and Sproul? Why are the giants of Christian theology whom I depend on for sound analysis any worse than than the Synods and confessions you depend on? Why am I a mindless automaton for seeing transubstantiation in the text and you are filled with independent Spirit-breathed enlightenment for not seeing it?
Because it's "obvious"? Really? I don't find your view obvious at all--and as I said, it ain't for want of looking.
Then ask yourself this, why do you NEVER hear Protestants on these threads call her "blessed" (unless it is pointed out to them? The Bible clearly tells us that we SHALL.
Actually this article quotes Calvin's "Institutes", your "proof" to the contrary is a sermon from ten years ago.
Are you now suggesting that we should disregard what Calvin actually wrote in favor of a contemporary opinion of what he meant?
This is the "other" Mary, not the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Why was Mary "blessed"? Mary is not the only person that it was Written to be blessed. Should not each individual that was said to be blessed be adored and reverenced in like manner? And exactly where is that commandment to be found?
Would not the appearance of Mary on this earth at that appointed time say that it is literally impossible for evolution to have occurred in the manner in which your church blesses?
She IS the only person of whom it is written, “from henceforth all generations SHALL call me blessed.”
Also, she is told by Gabriel that she is blessed AMONG women, this is coming DIRECTLY FROM GOD. If God is saying that she is blessed among women does that not mean that she is more blessed than ANY woman EVER?
The Latin and French roots of eternal both support the meaning of time. The reference to time is human. That is we measure time and it has meaning to us. Therefore something that is eternal goes on and on and always existed as referenced by human time. Obviously, God by definition is “outside” of human time. Time as we understand it is a human concept and limited to our place in the physical universe, the Earth.
Websters 1828 dictionary supports the definitions of eternal and infinite as I have stated them. Furthermore, eternal in Hebrew and Greek support the meaning of time and are referencing it from the human perspective not God's. The Hebrew supports the interpretation of infinite as without limit as I have explained.
You state: “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.”
The fact is that the physical and spiritual acts of sacrifice by Christ (first in Gethsemane and then on the cross) occurred in earthly physical time and within limits is true. It is presumed that things occurring on earth happen in time or at some time certain, no?
The important part to us isn't the act per se, but the effect of the act. The effect is the Atonement. Christ's Atonement must be infinite, that is without measure. If it were a finite Atonement it would lack sufficiency, God would be a respecter of persons, and not a God of love.
“basic doctrines which are highly divergent between denominations.”
Which denomination are you? That would be helpful.
This is a good interpretation and accurate IMO, but isn't there some physical aspect to it as well? Eventually, we get the resurrection; the rejoining of the physical (in some new immortal (non-mortal) state) and the spirit.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried;
He descended into hell. [See Calvin]
The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting.
Amen.
Ah Mary spoke these words. Luke 1:46 And Mary said, "My soul doth magnify the LORD, 47 And my spirit had rejoiced in God my Saviour. 48 For He hath regarded the low estate of His handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.. 49 For HE that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His name. 50 And His mercy is on them that fear Him from generation to generation. 51 He hath shewed strength with His arm; He hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich He hath sent empty away. 54 He hath holpen His servant ISRAEL, in remembrance of His mercy; 55 As He spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever."
Do you have any idea how many OT scriptures Mary just referenced? Why only take a few words of what Mary said and make a whole religion out of it and ignore the rest?
Um...one question - did Peter identify himself or the first century church as Catholic?
Non-denominational.
Heaven and Hades are definitely locative as used in Scriptural language. They aren’t simply describing frustration or joy.
Of course the Blessed Mother reference Old Testament prophesy, she was the Ark of the New Covenant.
Actually, it says what we SHALL call her, “from henceforth all generations SHALL call me blessed.”
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.