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:
So a better way of saying it is that hades and hell are the same thing, but the lake of fire is different.
My take, after reading the bible and the sources various posters included, is that hell and hade’s is the place where the dead go before the great white throne judgement. Which dead? I would say ALL dead before the death and descent of Christ to hades and all those who died without Christ after Christ’s resurrection.
It is interesting that while accusing a Church Father of heresy is often par for the course, accusing a Reformer of it elicits some pretty visceral gut reactions.
It’s a simple question, really.
Was Jean Calvin a heretic on this issue? I think the author makes a good case....his rabid insistence on the penal aspect of Redemption cause him to adopt a rather morbid and frankly vile theological premise.
They can protest, and say it isn't so ...
But I'm from Missouri.
SHOW ME.
k.
but I strongly disagree.
I will add that there is nothing in the Bible to suggest she ever had a bowel movement either, but, well, being human, I’ll bet she did.
“Interesting. You believe God has picked who He has saved, and that not everyone can be saved?”
Yes, although everyone is responsible before God to repent, I believe we can only repent if He enables us. I believe this because the Bible frequently, throughout the Old and New Testaments, refers to fallen men as “dead.”
A dead person cannot help himself, at all, not even reach out for help. So, a Calvinist believes that God mercifully enables us to put our trust in Christ.
Many think that means that we don’t think you should spread the gospel or urge sinners to repent. That is not true. Read the theology of any prominent Calvinist, or just look at the history of any Calvinist church or denomination. We are fantastic missionaries and will continue to be.
Some verses to ponder on the idea of predestination, that is, God’s having sovereignly ordained who it is who will trust in Him:
Ephesians 2:1 “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins.”
Romans 8:28-30: “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined, to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”
The valley of dry bones in Ezekiel 37 is illustrative. The bones don’t reassemble themselves and come alive. God must make them so.
Philipians 2:13 “For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.”
And the one that frustrates us so, Pharoah in Exodus, where it is said repeatedly God hardened Pharoah’s heart; and yet it also says Pharoah hardened his heart.
It is not natural to us, but it is what God presents in Scripture, so I accept it as truth.
Oh yes, G.I. Williamson. I have had the pleasure of meeting him and he is a delightful man. A very gifted pastor.
Well, upon that logic, Catholics should believe the pope would be suspect for most of what he says, because he speaks infallible ex-cathedra only about once every 5 years. Correct?
And, the measuring stick against which everyone is held is the Scripture. And, if I, or any believer reading the Scriptures, understands him to make a mis-statement of what the Scriptures report, then we are free to disagree with him. Too bad that the Catholic Church has its own imaginery movable lock on “interpretation” which you may only disagree with if you are a Kennedy, a Pelosi, a Biden...
“how many otherlinks you want?”
Only one, the one that matters.
Find it in the Dogma of the Church, not what someone thinks or anyone would like or wish, but in the dogma. Anyone, including a pope can voice opinion, but until it is ex cathedra, it isn’t dogma.
It ain’t there, bud.
So Calvin simply divorces the Divine from the human and creates this myth that Jesus suffered the pains of hell?
That must have given Lucifer a good yuk.
Yuk to Calvin and his heresy.
Not correct. He speaks infallibly only when he is expressly teaching in the name of the entire Church on issues of doctrine or morals. Usually there is an anathema attached to it.
And falling back on the Scriptures is a nice theoretical but it never works that way in real life. Because for some reason I can't quite fathom, my Scripture interpretation as a Catholic seems to always be the wrong interpretation for the people who toe that line, despite it having the most Patristic and exegetical support IMHO. I'm not sure why the Holy Ghost fails me as a believer coming to the Bible, yet somehow Calvin and Sproul are always on target!
So back to the question of the thread. Is Calvin's position here heretical or not?
lol
The righteous went to Paradise (those who trusted in the coming Messiah, the Lamb of God who will take away the sins of the world). The wicked went to Sheol. Before the final sacrifice of Christ, sin was only covered (expiated) and God would never even look upon sin nor allow it to defile Heaven. When Christ died on the cross, the “veil of the Temple was torn” remember? Scripture says Jesus descended into Hades and “led captivity captive.”
1.Psalm 68:18
Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.
2.Ephesians 4:8
Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
He brought those souls in Paradise to Heaven with him. They will receive their glorified bodies when the Rapture happens. “We will not all die, but we will all be changed” I Thess 4.
Jesus’ resurrection proves that sin has been paid for (propitiation) not just covered.
Those who were in Sheol are still there and will be until Hell is created for Satan, his demons, the anti-christ, the false prophet, at the end of the Millennial reign of Christ. At the “Second Judgment” the “Great White Throne Judgment) those in Sheol will be judged - their names will not be found in the Lamb's book of life and they will be cast into Hell for eternity. I have lots more Scripture passages to show this if you'd like.
“Why is it that anytime one of Protestantism’s heresies is exposed the anti-Catholics immediately shift the focus to the Blessed Virgin Mary?”
LOL!
Time to count the Strawmen raised:
2 so far.
This should be good.
I’ll bet 25 before this is over.
Thanks
*******************
Because it's often a very effective diversion. First, because we have a responsibility to those who are "lurking" that misinformation does not go unchallenged. Second, because we take our Church very seriously and believe that is it worthy of defending. Because of this we are vulnerable to manipulation.
Was he forsaken?
>>That must have given Lucifer a good yuk.<<
Like seeing Him crucified gave Lucifer a good yuk? It says he descended, not that he suffered pains. And this is not the lake of fire we’re talking about.
>>The righteous went to Paradise (those who trusted in the coming Messiah, the Lamb of God who will take away the sins of the world).<<
That one confuses me. The blood of Christ is a concept understood only by post Resurrection Christians, to the best of my knowledge. And the OT is very clear that nobody was/is righteous. I also see Lazarus and the rich man as a parable.
Here is an interesting diatribe on the subject:
http://www.jeremyandchristine.com/articles/lazarus.html
Calvin:
“...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...”
Calvin states Christ engaged in the horrors of eternal death.
Of course, Christ descended to the dead, not hell. But according to Calvin he went to hell and suffered the full horrors.
My flippant remark about Lucifer was meant to be just that, flippant regarding Calvin.
The second paragraph is unintelligible. Catholics around here have noted that you cannot have an opinion of the Scripture that is other than the headquarter’s approved version. Otherwise you are a despicable YPIOS (like me) or somthing like that (Your private interpretation of Scriptures?). So, your you really cannot have a view of your own or it would would be abhorrent to the Catholic Church. Calvin or Sproul notwithstanding.
But, if your view was handled well hermeneutically and was consistent with the argument of the biblical writer, I might even prefer yours over theirs.
For those of us not beholden to the Vatican monster, we have the freedom, no the obligation, to search the Scriptures and see if these things be so.
As to the heretical nature of Calvin’s view of Jesus suffering in hell...think of it like this:
A heresy is something which radically affects the Gospel so much so that the reader would misunderstand salvation or a significant characteristic about God. The Catholic Church routinely teaches heresy because it leads people to believe that the seven sacraments and absolution of sin by priests will produce salvation. This is why the Catholic on the street is so concerned about final unction, confessional booths, and other such extra-biblical behaviors far more than justification by faith as taught by Paul. Rome therefore is guilty of heresy.
If, OTOH, the Catholic Church taught that Peter had a 45 foot steel fishing boat, that would be incorrect, but NOT heretical. Catch the difference?
If Calvin thought Jesus suffered in hell, the fact of the matter is that no one knows exactly what went on in the life of Jesus between the cross and Sunday morning. We do know that His propitiation brought redemption to the elect.
Calvin’s speculation is not critical to salvation, nor does it represent a potential misunderstanding about God. We know from Scripture that He was not abandoned to hell, but beyond that it is not determinable. Thus, this is not heresy.
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.