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:
You couldn’t address my arguments if you tried. In fact, you haven’t.
As I said, Koresh and Manson both thought they had the indwelling of Christ, just like your brand of self-idolatry, but without the followers.
“An eternal being moves through time differently than a mortal, furthermore by default being all powerful implies power of time, no?”
Here is my problem - I have no way of knowing, by reason, if time exists separate from God or not. I was always taught that God is outside time.
However, when I turn to revelation, I find God’s word indicates that God is eternal...but time is integral to His being.
In Hebrews, we find, “12But when Christ had offered [past tense] for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down [past tense] at the right hand of God, 13 waiting [present tense] from that time until his enemies should be made [future tense] a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected [past tense] for all time those who are being sanctified.”
Ancient people were not stupid. If God exists outside of time, He could have revealed, “What is time to God? Both past and present are always before me!”
But He doesn’t.
I grant an eternal, infinite being views time differently than we do. For someone with no beginning and no end, a thousand years IS like a day (or a second), and for an infinite being, a day is like a thousand years.
I freely grant I could be wrong, but I haven’t found any verses that indicate God is outside of time. If you can think of any, please share them with me...I’m looking, but not finding.
Is Judas not in any of your Gospel translations?
The ignorance is delicious. Do you know where the word "animal" comes from? Do you know what the word "animated" means? Have you ever read Thomas Aquinas? Do you understand that man has a rational soul that animals and plant-life do not?
Anything that is animated - man, animals, plants - have a soul. Only man has a rational soul, and hence, the image of God. Only man can strive for the ultimate Good because of this. And for this reason, only man can have salvation.
Seriously, do I have to spoon-feed everything to you guys?
“”Here. Someone’s done your homework for you regarding the early church fathers and the error of transubstantiation...””
What a joke,Dr E! The person who wrote the article took only the writings he thought he could twist it into saying the Church fathers did not believe the Eucharist is the True Presence of Christ- Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
The author of your article purposely left out the writings from the Church fathers that completely debunk his idea
Here is an example that completely debunks your source
The author uses the following writing from Saint Ignatius and tries to twist it into saying Ignatius did not literally teach the Bread of Eucharist is actually the flesh of Christ
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.”
Here is another writing from Saint Ignatius that is very clear and PROVES your source is wrong ....
“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.” Igantius of Antioch-”Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.
The author of your foolish article can not twist this writing and neglected to use it. The same can be said for the rest of the article and the other Church fathers
Nice try using lying sources ,dear sister!
When Luke 1 and Genesis 3 are read together and properly understood it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to deny the Immaculate Conception.
To be "blessed among women", Mary MUST have enjoyed blessings that NO OTHER WOMEN have enjoyed and Eve DID exist for a time in an sinless state and Eve WAS created free from sin. The mother of God MUST be superior in ALL WAYS to the mother of Cain. In Genesis 3:15, God tells Satan, "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed." The enmities between Jesus Christ and Satan ARE absolute and eternal and because there is no differentiation between these enmities and those between Satan and "the woman" (Mary), these must be absolute and eternal as well.
The Assumption not only makes complete sense in light of the Immaculate Conception, it is supported by very early writings.
It needs to be remembered that neither the Immaculate Conception nor the Assumption imply that the Blessed Mother had ANY divine powers, but to deny them implies that God also doesn't have any Divine Powers.
I freely grant I could be wrong, but I haven’t found any verses that indicate God is outside of time. If you can think of any, please share them with me...I’m looking, but not finding.
To wit: Apocalypse 5:1-6 1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne, a book written within and without, sealed with seven seals. 2 And I saw a strong angel, proclaiming with a loud voice: Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? 3 And no man was able, neither in heaven, nor on earth, nor under the earth, to open the book, nor to look on it. 4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open the book, nor to see it. 5 And one of the ancients said to me: Weep not; behold the lion of the tribe of Juda, the root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
6 And I saw: and behold in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the ancients, a Lamb standing as it were slain, having seven horns and seven eyes: which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth.
So... we have Jesus on the throne of heaven, and at the same time, Jesus the Lamb of God being sacrificed on Calvary. But Jesus didn't sit upon that throne until the Ascension, and now He's being sacrificed again and again and again in heaven? Sounds like the Mass to me...
Specifically, this does two things:
1) Turns any notion of time in heaven upside down.
2) Disproves the calumny that the Catholic Church is re-sacrificing Christ at every Mass, when it is simply joining the eternal Mass occurring in heaven right now as proved by Christ's simultaneous role as Judge, Priest, and Sacrifice.
Jesus said DO THIS in memory of me.
Agree entirely.
I'm certain that Hell means what I think it means...
Hell was prevailing against all mankind by definition of Salvation, no?
Apparently not...The souls that Jesus preached to in Hell were in Abraham's Bosom...A compartment separate from the torment of Hell but in Hell nonetheless...That's explained with the discourse about the rich man and Lazarus...
I think the order is descended into Hell first and then was resurrected, that is got a perfect body. Hell is a holding place for spirits.
Spirits AND souls...But yes, Hell is a holding place for unsaved spirits and souls which are waiting for the judgment of the White Throne which is the 2nd resurrection, prior to being cast into outer darkness, the bottomless pit...
Hell also contains another compartment called Abraham's Bosom...Which is now empty...
NOW, no saints go to Hell since Jesus descended from Heaven and then ascended...Now we all go to heaven...Even if we went to Hell, it couldn't hold us as Christians...The gates are wide open...
Can you explain this more? I don't understand what you are getting at.
Prior to Jesus going to heaven, the souls of people went to Hell, either in the compartment of fire and torment or the other compartment where the good guys go called Abraham's Bosom...
The good guys couldn't get out...They were locked in...
Jesus went to Hell...
Eph 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
Jesus dropped off our sins that He collected and unlocked the gates to Abraham's Bosom that held the good guys' souls captive...
Eph 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
After the Resurrection of Jesus, the souls of Christians go to heaven...If they went to Hell to Abraham's Bosom, they wouldn't have to stay...The Gates of that part of Hell are wide open...Therefore, although the gates of Hell prevailed against the OT saints, they will not prevail against the church...
You seem to not have finished your thought here. Christ is referring to a specific church, His Church. As in Eph 4:5 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism"
The One church is the body...The body is made up of many members, ie, churches...
1Co 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
Gal 1:2 And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:
Churches...
The Holy Spirit came after Christ was crucified. Don’t you have that in YOUR Bible?
God knows those who are His, Rutles. I trust you are one of them.
Yada, dear
Well, keep believing it and keep depending on it for your salvation.
No, the Magesterium says otherwise.
A body works off one central nervous system. A body can't be divided in its purpose or belief. That's called "schizophrenia", also called "schism" (from the same root as "schizophrenia").
The many members are churches united in the same beliefs - i.e., catholic, or properly, "Catholic". A body of contrary beliefs (the numerous Protestant sects) cannot, by definition, be One of anything.
Either Ignatius was not being literal, or he died shortly after his conversion due to starvation or dehydration...Which one do you think it is???
I trust you are, too, Marysecretary, which is what makes all of this division among us so saddening.
Thank you, Rutles. I appreciate that.
What it says in Revelations is: “And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. And he went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who was seated on the throne. And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb”
From which I notice that unless Jesus is a sheep with 7 horns and 7 eyes, then this is figurative language. To quote Barnes:
“That is, in some way having the appearance of having been slain; having some marks or indications about it that it had been slain. What those were the writer does not specify. If it were covered with blood, or there were marks of mortal wounds, it would be all that the representation demands. The great work which the Redeemer performed—that of making an atonement for sin—was thus represented to John in such a way that he at once recognised him, and saw the reason why the office of breaking the seals was entrusted to him. It should be remarked that this representation is merely symbolic, and we are not to suppose that the Redeemer really assumed this form, or that he appears in this form in heaven. We should no more suppose that the Redeemer appears literally as a lamb in heaven with numerous eyes and horns, than that there is a literal throne and a sea of glass there; that there are “seats” there, and “elders,” and “crowns of gold.”
I would also note:
1) “I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain” - present tense, but the Lamb looks as if it had been [past tense] slain. This would be consistent with Jesus, the Lamb of God, who died for our sins but rose again.
2) “as though it had been slain” - references a PAST sacrifice. It doesn’t say, “as one being slayed”, but ‘had been slain”. Slain is the past participle of slay.
You wrote: “So... we have Jesus on the throne of heaven, and at the same time, Jesus the Lamb of God being sacrificed on Calvary. But Jesus didn’t sit upon that throne until the Ascension, and now He’s being sacrificed again and again and again in heaven? Sounds like the Mass to me...”
Sounds to me like it is time to read it again! You have Jesus in heaven, bearing the marks of having “BEEN SLAIN” - past tense! This passage teaches the OPPOSITE of what you claim!
“now He’s being sacrificed again and again and again in heaven?” - NO! This passage, like Hebrews, refers to a PAST EVENT. You view is blatantly contrary to scripture! There is NO ongoing sacrifice, which is why the past tense is used!
You could very well be right, wardaddy. I never heard any teachings on that particular subject, only that as a former Methodist we repeated that creed in our services.
I love our spirit-filled church. We have good worship music and good sermons. And it keeps growing. Good sign.
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.