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:
Who the hell cares what this Cardinal says......we DON’T WORSHIP MARY...PERIOD....END of ARGUMENT.
You beat me to it. See my post 60...
Regarding your comments on Hell, there was a very interesting thread on this a few months ago:
HELL: Eternal Torment or Complete Annihilation?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2240648/posts
A VERY compelling argument for annihilation is made there.
Thanks.
I was on a discussion here with some guys who claimed to be Catholic that said they believed that the bible teaches that Mary, in essence, died a virgin. My wife, who was Catholic for decades, never heard such a thing. Her take is that Mary was a Virgin until the birth of Christ.
Yes an yes.
Surely you know the old canard..."the Catholic Church is not a 'denomination'." What you may not know is that if one accepts the claim that there are 33,000 Protestant denominations, one must also accept that there are "242 Catholic denominations", as both claims are made within and by the same source.
It bears calling out that, according to the only source they can cite, the "33,000" number makes no mention of "Protestants" or even "denominations", but rather is the number of all "Christian" organizations, including Catholic organizations. So if Catholics are going to claim there are 33,000 "Protestant denominations", make sure you hold them accountable for their own 242 separate Catholic denominations. That is, if you decide to trust the source at all, which I wouldn't recommend.
Yes and yes.
Wow...thanks for hooking me up with that.
“Jesus descended into Hades, but not Hell.
And what is the difference?
Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Act 2:31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
This sentence ought to convince you, Alex, that the English word "worship" carves out a wider semantic space than that that is properly differentiated between dulia and latria. In previous ages, bishops were called "Your Worship", and I don't think they were deified.
I've made this point many times, but I think Protestant-minded folks have a hard time accepting the latria/dulia distinction because of the theological de-emphasizing of Christian "sacrifice" as ONLY a sacrifice of prayer and devotion. Thus they see no practical difference between what Mary gets and what God gets.
HOWEVER, to the Catholic there is a huge--nay, infinite--gulf between what we offer Mary and what we offer God. The highest form of our sacrifice is not mere devotion but the Mass, and it is ALWAYS offered to God. Never to a saint, never to an angel, never to Mary. Read the text of any liturgy you like--even the ones specifically in honor of our Lady. You'll see that's invariably the case.
I concur with the latter statement, but not the former. Now, was he forsaken? He cried out that he was...do we believe His words on the cross? I think we do.
Where in either verse does it say God hasn't attempted to draw every man? It says no man can come to the Jesus unless the Father draws him, but it says nothing about the number of people the Father is drawing. It could be 1%, 5%, or 100%. The verse is MUTE about the actual number. Trying to say these verses argue a percentage (less than 100% or 100%) is reading something into the verses they don't say. The verses are mute about the actual percentage of men God is drawing. Mute.
Oh, and you ignored Jesus's words to the Pharisees and my question. How did the Pharisees sins jump back onto him if Christ paid for every-ones sins on the cross?
I'm not arguing universal salvation. I'm saying Christ's sacrifice was big enough to cover everyone's sin (not that it automaticly did.) Christ's sacrifice was big enough to cover 1,000 times every sin in history and then some.
Say I went to traffic court and gave the judge one million dollars and said "This is to cover the fines of everyone in here, but only if they ask for it, if they don't ask for it, don't use it to pay their fine." Will all their fines be paid? No, only the fines of those that ask for it. If someone comes up and says "I don't want your money, I'll pay my own fine" then that is exactly what will happen. They will pay their own fine (even though there is more than enough money available to pay their fine, IF they would accept it.)
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me. - John 12:32
All is pretty inclusive. It means every single one. Notice though, it doesn't say "save all", it says "draw all". Jesus here is clearly saying all men will be "drawn" to him. It does not say they will respond positivly to being drawn.
From there verses you posted, we know it is the Father that draws men to Jesus. Those verses don't say how many men the Father will draw to Jesus (10%, 50%, 100%, the verses are mute about the number.) Jesus himself tells us how many: "all".
None of this supports universal salvation, and if you think it does you are reading something into it that isn't there. The words "draw" does not equal "save". They have different meanings.
Ouch...awesome reply. Thanks!
Why is it that anytime one of Protestantism’s heresies is exposed the anti-Catholics immediately shift the focus to the Blessed Virgin Mary?
Now hang on there my friend. If he wasn't infallible, then what assurance do you have he didn't insert his own bodacious monstrosities of error in place of whatever alleged ones came from Rome?
Or is he only fallible when you DISAGREE with him?
NOBODY believed otherwise until well into the Reformation. I will acknowledge that there was some debate about her Immaculate Conception even before the Reformation, but there was no debate about her perpetual virginity.
Luther, Calvin, Swingli, and others ALL believed that the Blessed Mother was ever virgin.
There is NOTHING in the Bible to suggest that she had other children and our Lord's words to the Apostle John on the Cross clearly suggest that she had no other children.
Christ did not consider himself forsaken nor was he pleading or begging for his life. He was reciting scripture on the cross. He was educating. He was holding court. He was providing his last sermon.
There is no phrase in the Apostles' Creed that has caused so much difficulty as this: 'He descended into hell.' Also, there is disagreement as to what the ancient church meant when it included these words in this earliest Christian confession. Yet in spite of the difficulty, the church has never been willing to remove these words.
How then shall we understand them? We cannot possibly take these words to mean that Christ, after he died, went to the place where lost men go to suffer forever. We know he did not go there because he told the believing thief who died at his side that he would be with him that very day in paradise (Luke 23:43).
The biblical meaning must be that what Christ suffered on the cross was itself a descent into hell. Now at first sight it might seem ridiculous to say that Jesus, in a few hours of suffering, could have experienced hell to the fullest. But remember, he was divine as well as human. Remember, too, that his human nature was sinless. Just imagine how great the suffering must have been for him when he was forsaken by God. Yes, because of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, it was possible for him to suffer the full measure of the infinite wrath and curse of Godwhat damnation is for the wicked. And because he did, you and I can be sure that God's justice is fully satisfied, so that we shall escape that damnation. Here is the Christian's solid basis for hope.
Interesting. You believe God has picked who He has saved, and that not everyone can be saved?
Where is our choice in the matter?
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.