Protestants: Was Jesus in Hell?

[jdavidb]

This is SERIOUS business, I hope this was more that just “clearing things up”…that is a damnable heresy and you should have nothing to do with it.
Now that you know better, I pray you reconsider your theology.

Excuse me. If you’ll reread my post, you’ll find that this was never a part of my theology. I resent the implication that it was. I said I was glad to find out it was not a part of YOUR theology.

I assume you don’t like people to go around misrepresenting what Catholics believe. Thus, please don’t misrepresent my beliefs.

 

[jdavidb]

I was trying to stay calm through that passage yet it was so evil and heretical I cant keep silence.

Maybe you should learn to stay calm when reading beliefs that differ from yours. It might make it easier to follow what people are saying so you don’t misunderstand and lay incorrect charges at someone’s feet.

I honestly wonder how many Protestants would remain so after reading the above passage.

Not all Protestants follow Calvin. I sure don’t.

 

[RobNY]

It is indeed a position which Calvin put foward in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. The Catholic Church denies his view inasmuch as it holds that, “Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned” (CCC 603).

But, it continues:

But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, **he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”**406 Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all”, so that we might be “reconciled to God by the death of his Son”.407

Which is to say that we cannot discount the theological question raised by Christ’s cry of dereliction. To reduce His cry merely to the level of quoting a passage of Scripture is to empty Scripture and Christ’s passion of its force-- Christ really did assume a solidarity with sinners to the point where He could authentically say, “My God… why have you forsaken me?”

It does present a genuine theological question as to what this really means. In what sense could the Son have been abandoned? There are obvious negations to this, but further understanding it is something we still have to do. If I remember correctly, Joseph Ratzinger had some interesting views on it in his Introduction to Christianity.

-Rob

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Excuse me. If you’ll reread my post, you’ll find that this was never a part of my theology. I resent the implication that it was. I said I was glad to find out it was not a part of YOUR theology.

I assume you don’t like people to go around misrepresenting what Catholics believe. Thus, please don’t misrepresent my beliefs.

I meant no offense to you and did NOT imply that you ACTIVELY believed that. Many people might not realize that that is what their theology teaches.

What I meant to get across to you was now that you know the facts about this issue and that Protestant theology (eg penal substitution atonement) is set up such as to lead to those conclusions you should distance yourself from it.

Not all Protestants follow Calvin. I sure don’t.

I have been told that other protestants like Luther had similar comments. All Im waiting for is for people to list those quotes.

Thank God you reject that teaching.

 

[jdavidb]

I meant no offense to you and did NOT imply that you ACTIVELY believed that.

Thank you for your understanding.

Many people might not realize that that is what their theology teaches.

Ours doesn’t. As far as I know, noone in my church believes that. As I said, I’ve always viewed it as a strange doctrine. I thought it’s source was in Catholicism, although I knew it existed in some Protestant churches as well.

What I meant to get across to you was now that you know the facts about this issue and that Protestant theology (eg penal substitution atonement) is set up such as to lead to those conclusions you should distance yourself from it.

Okay, I’ve been distanced from it my entire life. Nobody in my church believes this. Our theology doesn’t lead to it or even come close.

Let me try to explain by taking another issue, hopefully one that is less emotionally charged: premillenialism. It isn’t true, and to me makes zero sense. Noone in my church teaches it. It is not a part of our theology. We vehemently reject it. Teachers in our church write long treatises about why it is wrong, probably sometimes going too far and being a little too strong about it. I am presuming since you are Catholic you reject premillenialism as well.

It would make no sense to tell me to “distance” myself from premillenialism. I can’t get any more “distanced” from it, unless you want me to start actively persecuting people who believe it. The same is true about this teaching. It’s not a matter of me not knowing what my church teaches, and suddenly finding out today. It’s that my church doesn’t teach this.

I have been told that other protestants like Luther had similar comments. All Im waiting for is for people to list those quotes.

That may be so, but we don’t follow Luther, either.

I grew up learning what Calvin and Luther taught and why it was wrong. We may never have touched on this particular issue, but my point is that you can’t establish what every Protestant’s theology is by taking the leaders of some Protestant movements and examining what they said. There are a lot of movements. The fact that Luther or Calvin said something has no more bearing on my theology than what an Orthodox hierarch says has on yours.

Thank God you reject that teaching.

Thank you. That’s kind of how I felt today when I found out Catholics didn’t teach this, either.

 

[dbacks5439]

Note that Abraham says The chasm cannot be crossed. You imply that the souls with Abraham have crossed it. ??

Jesus is able to carry the souls across the chasm. He is the bridge.
Why did the rich man asked to warn his friends and family, that they may not go through what he is going through? The rich man shows compassion towards his relatives and friends. He worries for them. Compassion and hoping the best of others are both graces from God. Souls in Hell do not have God's grace, it is forever withheld from them. So where is the rich man? Purgatory of course.:thumbsup:

 

[lak611]

Jesus is able to carry the souls across the chasm. He is the bridge.

Why did the rich man asked to warn his friends and family, that they may not go through what he is going through? The rich man shows compassion towards his relatives and friends. He worries for them. Compassion and hoping the best of others are both graces from God. Souls in Hell do not have God's grace, it is forever withheld from them. So where is the rich man? Purgatory of course.:thumbsup:

From the Haydock Commentary: “In this parable, which St. Ambrose takes to be a real fact, we have the name of the poor mendicant; but our Lord suppresses the name of the rich man, to signify that his name is blotted out of the book of life: besides, the rich man tells Abraham, that he has five brothers, who were probably still living; wherefore, to save their honour, our Lord named not their reprobated brother.”

 

[Evan]

From the Haydock Commentary: “In this parable, which St. Ambrose takes to be a real fact, we have the name of the poor mendicant; but our Lord suppresses the name of the rich man, to signify that his name is blotted out of the book of life: besides, the rich man tells Abraham, that he has five brothers, who were probably still living; wherefore, to save their honour, our Lord named not their reprobated brother.”

So we can see from this that St Ambrose had not considered fully the condition of the Rich Man. For he had pity on his brothers; he was given the knowledge of who Abraham was; and he was able to call him father. So, he was not completely sundered from him. All this implies that his position was not one of utter dispair and self absorption as those who are eternally damned nor one who had cut himself off from all others. He was still counted among those who cared for others. Still in loving communion with others.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Ours doesn’t. As far as I know, noone in my church believes that. As I said, I’ve always viewed it as a strange doctrine. I thought it’s source was in Catholicism, although I knew it existed in some Protestant churches as well.

That may be so, but we don’t follow Luther, either.

I grew up learning what Calvin and Luther taught and why it was wrong. We may never have touched on this particular issue, but my point is that you can’t establish what every Protestant’s theology is by taking the leaders of some Protestant movements and examining what they said. There are a lot of movements. The fact that Luther or Calvin said something has no more bearing on my theology than what an Orthodox hierarch says has on yours.

I checked your profile and it says Church of Christ, I didnt know they taught Calvin and Luther were wrong . I dont know much about Church of Christ. If the original “reformers” were wrong then Protestantism cant work.

 

[lak611]

From the Haydock Commentary: “In this parable, which St. Ambrose takes to be a real fact, we have the name of the poor mendicant; but our Lord suppresses the name of the rich man, to signify that his name is blotted out of the book of life: besides, the rich man tells Abraham, that he has five brothers, who were probably still living; wherefore, to save their honour, our Lord named not their reprobated brother.”

So we can see from this that St Ambrose had not considered fully the condition of the Rich Man. For he had pity on his brothers; he was given the knowledge of who Abraham was; and he was able to call him father. So, he was not completely sundered from him. All this implies that his position was not one of utter dispair and self absorption as those who are eternally damned nor one who had cut himself off from all others. He was still counted among those who cared for others. Still in loving communion with others.

Blotted out of the book of life would be hell not purgatory.

 

[Truthstalker]

If the original “reformers” were wrong then Protestantism cant work.

Here’s a logical fallacy. Each reformer will argue the others are wrong and he is right. You see this in Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and Menno; the list goes on and on. Each must be refuted individually. And Protestant thought is protean and adaptable, rather than rigid. It works, but in a way that is maddening to Catholics who are used to objective standards. Today’s descendents of the reformers generally admit that the reformers erred. But generally, they will not admit that their particular reformer erred about the Catholic Church.

And there’s another one: until this thread, I never really thought about the descent into hell and the implications of the idea that He went to the place of damnation rather than the place of waiting. Many Protestants simply disregard much theology past “Jesus saves me.” So it doesn’t bother them one way or another whether He went to hell or Hades. “Whatever. It’s irrelevant.” Intellectual laziness. Emotion-based spirituality. Poverty of the soul and mind. Who is Jesus? What is hell? Someone saying that He could go there tells you a lot about their Christology. Likewise someone telling you He could not.

 

[Syele]

And there’s another one: until this thread, I never really thought about the descent into hell and the implications of the idea that He went to the place of damnation rather than the place of waiting. Many Protestants simply disregard much theology past “Jesus saves me.” So it doesn’t bother them one way or another whether He went to hell or Hades. “Whatever. It’s irrelevant.” Intellectual laziness. Emotion-based spirituality. Poverty of the soul and mind. Who is Jesus? What is hell? Someone saying that He could go there tells you a lot about their Christology. Likewise someone telling you He could not.

I agree with this, I kind of blurted out my initial thoughts on the subject when I read the thread… I wanted to delete it about 45 min later, mainly because it wasn’t well thought out. I’m not sure about it now… my definition of “hell” and my understanding of “Jesus bing fully God and Fully Man” make it logically impossible for Jesus to be in Hell.

 

[Truthstalker]

I agree with this, I kind of blurted out my initial thoughts on the subject when I read the thread… I wanted to delete it about 45 min later, mainly because it wasn’t well thought out. I’m not sure about it now… my definition of “hell” and my understanding of “Jesus bing fully God and Fully Man” make it logically impossible for Jesus to be in Hell.

Well, I agree with what you wrote earlier. It was your post that really made me realize the impossibility. I’m not sure it reaches the level of blasphemy to say Jesus went to the place of the damned. It’s more like saying I am where I am not. If hell is where God is not, and Jesus is God, then He cannot have gone to hell. If you say His human soul went but His divine nature didn’t, you just denied the hypostasis. So the statement that Jesus went to the place of the damned is nonsense, which is below the level of blasphemy.

Aquinas discusses this in Summa Part 3 Question 52. Article 2 discusses this very question. Calvin was acquainted with this, but simply dismisses the waiting of the fathers as a fable, without any argument. A footnote in the Battle’s translation I own indicates Luther was of the same opinion. It also states that the Catechism of Trent stated the position the Catholic Church holds, apparently to clarify its opposition to the reformers’ concept. Trent and Aquinas are in agreement. I haven’t really looked at Calvin’s argument in depth, but it looks problematic, to say the least. He attempts a defense of his position from Scripture. It may be that a number of reformers besides Luther and Calvin adopted it on the grounds that both limbo and Purgatory were “Romish inventions”, and since Christ descended, He had to go somewhere. Without anywhere else to go, it had to be the hell of the damned. Too bad for them that it simply doesn’t work theologically.

Another argument for Catholicism.

Calvin’s claim that Christ was effeminate if He only feared death of the body? Now that IS blasphemous. He had a human nature, which desired to live, meaning it did not desire to die. Nor did it desire to endure all that it endured on the cross, but He submitted to the Father’s will. We did a thread on this somewhere.

 

[Atemi]

Maybe you should learn to stay calm when reading beliefs that differ from yours. It might make it easier to follow what people are saying so you don’t misunderstand and lay incorrect charges at someone’s feet.

He seeks to pretend that since one non-Catholic expressed an error, all of non-Catholic theology is incorrect.

Catholics don’t like it when we do the same to them, so I would hope that they would show the same restraint they expect from others.

But if the apologetic sounds good…

 

[Techno2000]

The soul of our Lord then wended its way to the right, towards that part which really constituted Limbo; and there he met the soul of the good thief which angels were carrying to Abraham’s bosom, as also that of the bad thief being dragged by demons into Hell. Our Lord addressed a few words to both, and then entered Abraham’s bosom, accompanied by numerous angels and holy souls, and also by those demons who had been chained and expelled from the compartment.
jesus-passion.com/THE_PASSION6.htm#CHAPTER%20LIX

THE
DOLOROUS
(SORROWFUL)
PASSION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST

FROM THE MEDITATIONS OF

ANNE CATHERINE EMMERICH

One can read this Mystic account for enlightenment from
Sr.Emmerich

 

[Syele]

Well, I agree with what you wrote earlier. It was your post that really made me realize the impossibility. I’m not sure it reaches the level of blasphemy to say Jesus went to the place of the damned. It’s more like saying I am where I am not. If hell is where God is not, and Jesus is God, then He cannot have gone to hell. If you say His human soul went but His divine nature didn’t, you just denied the hypostasis. So the statement that Jesus went to the place of the damned is nonsense, which is below the level of blasphemy.

Aquinas discusses this in Summa Part 3 Question 52. Article 2 discusses this very question. Calvin was acquainted with this, but simply dismisses the waiting of the fathers as a fable, without any argument. A footnote in the Battle’s translation I own indicates Luther was of the same opinion. It also states that the Catechism of Trent stated the position the Catholic Church holds, apparently to clarify its opposition to the reformers’ concept. Trent and Aquinas are in agreement. I haven’t really looked at Calvin’s argument in depth, but it looks problematic, to say the least. He attempts a defense of his position from Scripture. It may be that a number of reformers besides Luther and Calvin adopted it on the grounds that both limbo and Purgatory were “Romish inventions”, and since Christ descended, He had to go somewhere. Without anywhere else to go, it had to be the hell of the damned. Too bad for them that it simply doesn’t work theologically.

Another argument for Catholicism.

Calvin’s claim that Christ was effeminate if He only feared death of the body? Now that IS blasphemous. He had a human nature, which desired to live, meaning it did not desire to die. Nor did it desire to endure all that it endured on the cross, but He submitted to the Father’s will. We did a thread on this somewhere.

Thank you, this was interesting, I need to study more on the subject.

 

[Michael_Francis]

This thread has just been pruned of several off-topic posts that were directed to or about other posters, or were leading the thread off-topic into discussions of other topics.

As per the Forum Rules, please keep all posts on topic in order to have a productive and coherent discussion thread.
MF

 

[Truthstalker]

Thank you, this was interesting, I need to study more on the subject.

It is interesting. I had not realized its significance.

 

[havemercy]

Yes. Calvinists especially will tell you that when Jesus died upon the cross, God the Father truly abandoned Him, turning his face away from him; and that indeed Jesus suffered torment in hell.

 

[seremina]

But I thought I read somewhere that the Church is reconsidering the concept of Limbo? From what I understood of what Limbo is, its a separate thing from Purgatory.

I have gleaned a few thoughts after reading this entire thread thus far…

In the Apostle’s Creed [in older books], it says “…He descended into Hell. On the 3rd day, He arose again.”

In the Apostle’s Creed [in newer books], it says “He descended to the dead. On the 3rd day, He arose again.”

So…it seems like a lot of difference, considering I don’t know what “to the dead” refers to. Does it mean to the spiritually dead/those in Hell; or if it refers to Purgatory, then why is “to the dead” used?

The only thing I am certain of, is that Heaven wasn’t open to people before Jesus’ death. Yet, I don’t know what happened to those that died before Jesus’ crucifixion.

Can anybody clear me up, in a simple way? I just can’t seem to find the answers and the OP is asking such a similar question.