Replies

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.

“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.”

I don’t know about that. It very well could be a potential misunderstanding about God. To me, at any rate, it appears that Calvin has separated the Divine Christ from the human Christ with this doctrine creating a human who becomes Divine upon Resurrection.

For my argument's sake I don't think it matters *where* I got the interpretation. The point is that if my exegesis gets me to where John 6 or the Institution Narratives teach transubstantiation, then how can you contradict me? You say "if it's handled well hermeneutically", but that is a notoriously subjective criteria and in this case means little more than "according to my own Calvinist presuppositions."

Now if you're telling me that a few Genevans and Scotsmen--who didn't even make up the majority of Reformation theology--were competent to pronounce the rest of Christendom from the Apostles to Trent, from India to Ireland in heresy I will have a nice good laugh about it.

So it is your position, then, that Calvin's belief about the harrowing of hell could theoretically be incorrect exegesis but is not heretical per se because it does not involve a significant misunderstanding about God?