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:
Christ was not crying out in vain - he was citing Psalm 22 as a reference to verses 16 through 18: “They pierced My hands and My feet; I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me. They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.” http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+22
that is a lie.
Yes, I know.
He was also praying to his Father.
So...was he forsaken?
That said - Calvin was merely taking the Catholic position on the Apostles creed and likewise held similar positions on infant baptism as well.
hanegraff is a tool
Clearly, you do not know. He was not praying in this case. He was reciting prophetic scripture. He was saying he has carried out the prophesy.
Just because a Pope....any Pope says something, doesn’t make it so. ONLY when they are speaking for the CHURCH is it Infallible. PJPII had a very deep love and devotion to Mary.....he did not IDOLIZE her or WORSHIP her.
Chrit’s suffering was big enough to pay for everyone’s sin, but the payment isn’t made for you unless you accept it.
How many ants would have to die to equal the death of a single human being? IMHO, the value of the lives of all the ants that have ever existed don’t equal the value of a single human being’s life.
The penalty for sin against God is death, and we are all sinners. How many human beings would have to die to equal in value God’s life? IMHO, if you added up all the lives of every human that ever lived, they still wouldn’t come close to equaling the life of God. Hence, when Jesus died on the cross, his death (since he was God) was more than enough to pay for the death penalty of every human being.
That doesn’t mean the payment is automatic. Each person still has to accept the payment. The offer is there if you want it, but God isn’t forcing anying to take it.
God the Father does not force, He draws: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" John 6:44 and "And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father" John 6:65
What does "No Man" mean to you?
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??
Take time to think before responding and reply with Scripture to the Scripture presented.
Philippians 3:9 (New King James Version)
and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;
Here ya go.......
It is very necessary to understand what the Church means by such doctrines and what it does not mean. First of all the Church recognizes Jesus as our only redeemer—plain and simple. Only God could make up for an offense against His divinity. When Jesus, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, became man, He used the services of several human beings. He used prophets, the last of whom was His cousin, John the Baptist. He used St. Joseph as His foster father to protect Him and be a father to Him in his formative years. Most of all, He used Mary as His mother who gave birth to Him, nursed Him, and nurtured Him as a child. All of these people co-operated with Him and His mission of salvation. He alone was the redeemer, but they co-operated with Him in His work of redemption. In varying degrees they all could be called co-redeemers because of such co-operation. But because of her unique role and the degree of her co-operation, Mary is singled out. In all of humanity, God singled her out for a truly sublime role. Nursing almighty God at her breast is beyond our ability to fully appreciate. Yet thousands of Christians since the Protestant reformation have completely ignored such sublimity.
What is said of co-redemptrix is also true of co-mediatrix. Because these terms can be highly mis-leading, the Church has not formalized them in any official doctrinal way. (See artical: http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/ORMARIA2.HTM) Nevertheless, God is the one who singled Mary out for the unique role in salvation that she has. She did not seek out such distinction. It is important to remember the high praise Jesus lavished on St. John the Baptist. Yet his mission was not nearly so exalted as Mary’s. Jesus worked His first miracle at her request. All she needed to say was: “They have no wine.” He understood exactly what she wanted. He could have taken care of the matter on His own. But He chose to have His mother’s intercession be a part of the mix. The miracle wasn’t any less significant because of her part in it. On the contrary, she shows us how accessible He is to our needs. To truly appreciate Mary is to appreciate her Son all the more.
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
“•If you’re Reformed, do you agree with Calvin? If so, how does his view not denigrate the cross?”
I am not “Reformed” however:
Scripture teaches that all humanity is tainted and corrupted by sin, both because of the sin of our forefather Adam (Rom. 5:12-21) and because we ourselves are all sinners (Eph. 2:l3). God, as the righteous Judge, cannot and will not simply overlook sin, since sin violates His nature and brings destruction to the perfect world He created. God would be unjust simply to say, “Oh well, boys will be boys.” Instead, sin must be punished, and since all of us have broken God’s law, we rightly deserve full punishment. Yet, amazingly, Jesus came to take our punishment upon Himself.
The NT speaks of Jesus’ death providing forgiveness in at least three ways:
First, Jesus’ death was a sacrifice for our sins. Christ fulfills the OT sacrificial system in being both high priest and sacrifice (Heb 5 10). On the Day of Atonement, animals were killed before the altar and the blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat in the most holy place. Under that seat were tablets of stone upon which had been written the Ten Commandments. Looking down from heaven God could see the law, but when the sacrificial blood was sprinkled, the law as reminder of the people’s sin was covered. Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin (Heb 9:22).
Second, the NT speaks of Christ’s death as a “propitiation” for our sin (Rom. 3:21-26). This word, “hilasmos”, carries the meaning of “an offering satisfying God’s wrath toward sin,” yet remarkably God Himself provides this offering. When Jesus died on the cross, He cried out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Mt 27:46). The Father was pouring out His wrath because “He made the One who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2Cor. 5:21).
Third, and related to both points already made, the Bible speaks of Christ’s death as a substitution. Jesus did not come to be served but to serve and “to give His life a ransom for many” (Mk 10:45). Jesus “gave Himself for our sins to rescue us from this present evil age” (Gal. 1:4). Isaiah’s predictions of a coming Suffering Servant are fulfilled in the death of Jesus, who “was pierced because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities and the Lord has punished Him for the iniquity of us all” (Is 53:5-6). He died in our place.
By faith, and faith alone, we receive the forgiveness Christ provides through His humiliating and painful death. The result? Eternal life (Eph. 2:3-10).
The phrases “In Christ” and “fellowship of His sufferings” refer to a believer’s union in Christ, not to the believer’s suffering for his sin. That was taken care of in the death of Christ.
The informed reader of the New Testament realizes at once that Jesus, through concrete acts and explicit teachings, aimed at the most intimate union of His followers with Himself and God the Father. It is Jesus Who calls, commissions, and sanctifies His disciples. Under various metaphors and pictures, Christ illustrates the depth and scope of His relationship to His own. In Luke 12 and 14, as in Matthew 10 and numerous other passages, Jesus describe the strong bond between His disciples and Himself in terms of the cost of discipleship. For His sake, men are to forsake all—father, mother, brother, sister, house, and home! For His sake, they must be willing to endure the crucifixion of self to the point of martyrdom. And the Apostles and early disciples forsook all and followed the divine Master. In fact, Jesus so completely identified Himself with His disciples that He could say, “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will the Father give unto you.” When Christ’s followers herald the gospel of grace and judgment, they do so with the assurance that “he that heareth you heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me and him that sent me.” Luke 10:3-16.
Whether Jesus speaks of following in His steps, of enduring in affliction, of speaking in His name, of suffering for His sake, of sharing in His glory, or of always abiding in Him, this intimate, personal, indestructible union of the believer with Christ is in evidence. Jesus is the light of the world: His disciples, in turn, are to be the light shining in darkness. Jesus is the vine; and we are the branches. He is the shepherd; we are His sheep. He is the Master; we are His servants. As our elder brother, He is not ashamed to call us His brethren. As Christ is in the Father, so are we in Him. His glorification, through cross and death, involves our own glorification and ultimate salvation. What could be more holy than Jesus through his bloody passion purchasing our redemption and through His glorious resurrection making us eternally His own? In the explicit teachings of our Lord, there is the joy of salvation, the gift of eternal life, fortitude in trial, and the promise of ultimate, culminating fellowship with God through the grace and power of His Son and our Savior Jesus Christ.
With regard to mystical union of the believer with Christ, Paul is explicit. The extreme importance of the Pauline formula “in Christ Jesus.” is demonstrated by the formula, which occurs over 64 times in his writings, where Paul sought to express the intimate, mystical union between Christ and himself and every true believer.
In Christ, thus Paul teaches, we were chosen, (Rom. 16:13), called, (Rom. 3:24), foreordained, (Eph. 1:11), created unto good works, (Eph. 2:10), have obtained an inheritance, (Eph. 1:11), “being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will, that we should be to the praise of his glory.
In Christ, each believer is justified, (Gal. 2:17), sanctified, (1Cor. 1:2), but also crucified, as attested through the symbolism of our baptism into Christ’s death,” and enriched in all utterance and knowledge.’(1Cor. 1:5). We are declared to be one in our relationship with men of all races and tongues. (Gal. 3:28, 29).
The Apostle is deeply convinced that in Christ and in Him alone we have redemption,’ eternal life,’ Rom. (6:23), righteousness,’ wisdom for our folly,’ (1 Cor. 4:10), liberty from the law;’ (1 Cor. 7:22), and in Christ, God, the Father, “has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places.” (Eph. 1:3). Paul is sure that God causes us to triumph in Christ, and that always, without failure. (2 Co. 2:14).
I am a Calvinist, a member of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
I think you err when you assume that someone who uses the shorthand of “Calvinist” must believe everything Calvin said or did was right.
I think he did a lot of things right. I think he called out a lot of serious errors in the Roman Catholic Church of the time. But you know, he was just a man.
Some call themselves Wesleyan in theology. I don’t think that means they believe everything the Wesleys did was perfect. It’s shorthand, to describe a particular application of what they see as biblical teaching.
A Calvinist essentially agrees with the 5 points (TULIP):
1. The total depravity of man
2. Unconditional election (we don’t get picked because we are specially good in some way)
3. Limited atonement (Jesus died for His people, not the lost)
4. Irresistable grace (You can’t stop God from saving you if He has decided to)
5. Perseverance of the Saints (if you are truly saved, God will not let you go).
There are varieties on the themes above, but when someone says they are a Calvinist, it is just shorthand, usually, for saying they basically agree with the above points.
As for suffering in hell, the Apostle’s Creed reads:
1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and the life everlasting.
Amen.
So I am not sure why you say traditional Christianity does not believe that Jesus, in some way, “went to hell.”
I beg to differ. Cardinal Antonio Bacci, in his devotional material, specifically equates "veneration" with "worship". Although "worship" is further parsed into dulia and latria (veneration vs adoration), Cardinal Bacci clearly uses the word worship to define the veneration acts of bowing and praying to saints:
....The literature of the Saints is a practical complement to the Gospel, because it shows us how the Gospel should be lived.The worship of the Saints is an act of veneration (dulia), not of adoration (latria), which can be given only to God. It is wrong to imagine, as many Protestants do, that by praying to and venerating the Saints we subtract something from the homage we owe to God. The veneration of the Saints and the adoration of God are entirely distinct activities. Moreover, the Saints are the faithful servants of God and intercede with Him on our behalf. By venerating and invoking them, we honour the Giver of all holiness. If anyone, on the other hand, were to disregard the worship of God in favour of devotion to the Saints, he would be making a serious mistake. A person who goes into a church and rushes over to a statue of the Blessed Virgin or of one of the Saints, without giving a thought to the living and real presence of Jesus in the Blessed Eucharist, is developing a false and sentimental piety.
Jesus did both, “He took our sins, and gave us righteousness.”
“For He (God) hath made Him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23)
I have just recently did a study on Calvinism and Arminism.
One of the best is titled: “Born By The Railroad Tracts” as; A “Confession of a zero-point Calvinist.”
I loved it, and have it availible to send anyone a copy by e-mail, if they would like.
He assumes in Hell. We say it is on the Cross
Are those two different places? Jesus cried out that God had forsaken Him; for the Son of God that would be pure torture, Hell on Earth, so to speak. Protestantism generally holds that Hell is a spiritual place; why not on the Cross?
I think the core confusion here is people confuse Hell and Hades (Sheol in OT).
Nobody is in Hell at the moment. Nobody. When people die they go to Hades, not Hell. At the last judgement those in Hades will be cast into Hell. 1 Peter 4:6 speaks of “preaching the gospel to the dead”. Where are the dead? Not Hell, but Hades.
As far as Hell being seperation from God, I think you can make a good Biblical case (but not prove 100%) that the ultimate punishment in Hell is total seperation from God. So you can make the case (but again, not prove it 100%) that when Jesus said “Father, why have you forsaken me” he was seperated from God, and thus suffering the punishment those condemned to Hell will one day suffer.
You can prove that Jesus’ suffering on the cross and death was sufficient to cover all sin. The Bible does make that clear.
It is well worth you time to do a Bible study on Hades/Sheol and Hell. A lot of misconceptions float around because people confuse the two (unfortuanly, the KJV translates everything as Hell, but with the help of a Strong’s concordance you can diffentiate the two even using a KJV.)
Yes, the Apostles Creed says, “He descended into hell.”
I’ve never really understood what that meant, or where such a position is substantiated in Scripture. That said, it is a fairly standard creed that has withstood centuries; I’m inclined to trust it more than my questions.
Does Psalm 22:24 refer specifically to Jesus’ unique affliction, or just to those who are commonly afflicted?
Here is a simple clarification. Hell and Hades are not the same place. Jesus descended into Hades, but not Hell.
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/did-jesus-go-to-hell-faq.htm
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.