S
scarlettstara
Guest
Some of you have mentioned that Jesus had gone to limbo. What is limbo? Is it a part of hell and therefore different from purgatory, which is part of heaven?
- Status
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Sheol can be found throughout the OT as the place the dead go that is neither heaven nor hell. Here’s Ps 139:8-9
It is utterly reasonable to assume that when Jesus descended into hell, the proper word is Sheol. One problem is that translators and usage have been kind of loose with the differences between Hades, Sheol and hell.
I might go so far as to speculate that the idea that there are only two places, heaven and hell, correspond more to Greek and pagan thought than to accurate Biblical understanding. I am tempted then to accuse Protestants of pagan influences creeping into their theology.
Man, I feel Catholic this morning.
Here, then we see a place contrasted with heaven, but not a place apart from God. Sheol is considered the place of the dead, but not the condemned dead. Where the condemned dead are, the “outer darkness” Jesus spoke of, God is not. So there is a place where dead people are that is neither heaven or hell. There are other OT passages that back this up, and I think a few NT as well.
It is utterly reasonable to assume that when Jesus descended into hell, the proper word is Sheol. One problem is that translators and usage have been kind of loose with the differences between Hades, Sheol and hell.
I might go so far as to speculate that the idea that there are only two places, heaven and hell, correspond more to Greek and pagan thought than to accurate Biblical understanding. I am tempted then to accuse Protestants of pagan influences creeping into their theology.
Man, I feel Catholic this morning.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
You might look up limbo in New Advent.
T
Tonks40
Guest
I believe Christ referred to the place of the damned as Gehenna in Matt 18:8-9: If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.
C
crisco
Guest
You’re absolutely correct CatholicDude - I agree that the question of whether or not Christ actually descended to the Hell of the damned is an essential theological question.
It’s really part and parcel of a key piece of most Protestants theology - namely the notion of penal substitution. Because of the theory of imputed righteousness (Christ’s righteousness transferred to the believer) and imputed guilt/sin (the sinner’s transferred to Christ) - Christ is now treated as if he is the sinner (in fact every sinner that will eventually believe). This necessitates that he suffer the exact penalty for sin that the sinner would have had to suffer. And what is that penatly? Well, it is not just physical death, but a spiritual ‘death’ - namely separation from God ETERNALLY. We know that this means Hell and all the torture and gnashing of teeth that goes along with it. Ok, some of the way I’ve explained it is of course based on my understanding and may or may not be an accurate reflection of the theology.
Of course, there are huge problems with all of this - as discussed in some of the replies in this thread.
At any rate - and here’s the kicker - I was raised Catholic and to make a long story short, attend an evangelical church (my wife’s family is evangelical). I’ve never really investigated fully these types of positions (either Catholic / Protestant etc). But I’ve really begun to question things lately…especially when things like this come up. I’m really having a hard time accepting penal substitution and all that goes along with it…
At any rate, very interesting thread.
I’ve been meaning to buy the Pitstick book. I think I’ll have to take the plunge.
It’s really part and parcel of a key piece of most Protestants theology - namely the notion of penal substitution. Because of the theory of imputed righteousness (Christ’s righteousness transferred to the believer) and imputed guilt/sin (the sinner’s transferred to Christ) - Christ is now treated as if he is the sinner (in fact every sinner that will eventually believe). This necessitates that he suffer the exact penalty for sin that the sinner would have had to suffer. And what is that penatly? Well, it is not just physical death, but a spiritual ‘death’ - namely separation from God ETERNALLY. We know that this means Hell and all the torture and gnashing of teeth that goes along with it. Ok, some of the way I’ve explained it is of course based on my understanding and may or may not be an accurate reflection of the theology.
Of course, there are huge problems with all of this - as discussed in some of the replies in this thread.
At any rate - and here’s the kicker - I was raised Catholic and to make a long story short, attend an evangelical church (my wife’s family is evangelical). I’ve never really investigated fully these types of positions (either Catholic / Protestant etc). But I’ve really begun to question things lately…especially when things like this come up. I’m really having a hard time accepting penal substitution and all that goes along with it…
At any rate, very interesting thread.
I’ve been meaning to buy the Pitstick book. I think I’ll have to take the plunge.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
As far as I can tell the Protestant “penal substitution” idea of the atonement does make it necessary for the soul of Jesus to be guilty of sin. The way Calvin was talking in that passage he seemed very sure that unless the soul of Christ underwent suffering then no atonement would have taken place. I agree this is only one part of the whole imputation theology where it appears they have to come to these absurd conclusions in order to salvage their theology.
C
crisco
Guest
yes, I agree. The other part of this is that some of the Calvin persuasion argue that Jesus was somehow in Hell during the crucifixion - thereby suffering an eternity’s worth of punishment on behalf of the sinner (also notice that its only for the elect and not the ‘whole world’ since this would create a double-jeopardy situation for those who don’t repent/not elected - as their sins would have been punished twice (once by Jesus, once by the sinner). At any rate, I can’t buy into this thinking due to the obvious problems (i.e., Jesus is alive and in Heaven - and doesn’t remain in a state of eternal punishment in my place; Christ cannot be spiritually separated from God the Father, etc).
I’m wondering if the sacrifices of the OT were ever meant to convey any aspect of penal substitution - this is important since they point to the True sacrifice offered by Christ on the Cross. I found this from the online Jewish Encyclopedia:
"the idea of Atonement in the priestly Torah is based upon a realizing sense of sin as a breaking-away from God, and of the need of reconciliation with Him of the soul that has sinned. Every sin—whether it be “ḥeṭ.” a straying away from the path of right, or “'avon,” crookedness of conduct, or “pesha’,”—rebellious transgression—is aseverance of the bond of life which unites the soul with its Maker. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die,” says Ezek. xviii. 20 (compare Deut. xxx. 15-19; Ps. i. 6; Jer. ii. 13). It is the feeling of estrangement from God that prompts the sinner to offer expiatory sacrifices—not only to appease God’s anger by a propitiatory gift, but also to place his soul in a different relation to Him. For this reason the blood, which to the ancients was the life-power or soul, forms the essential part of the sacrificial Atonement (see Lev. xvii. 11). This is the interpretation given by all the Jewish commentators, ancient and modern, on the passage; compare also Yoma 5a; Zeb. 6a, = “There is no Atonement except with blood,” with the identical words in Heb. ix. 22, R. V.: “Apart from shedding of blood there is no remission [of sins].” **The ******life of the victim was offered, not, as has been said, as a penalty in a juridical sense to avert Heaven’s punishment, not to have man’s sins laid upon it as upon the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement, and thus to have the animal die in his place, as Ewald thinks (“Alterthümer,” p. 68), but as a typical ransom of “life by life”; the blood sprinkled by the priest upon the altar serving as the means of a renewal of man’s covenant of life with God (see Trumbull, “The Blood Covenant,” p. 247). In Mosaic ritualism the atoning blood thus actually meant the bringing about of a reunion with God, the restoration of peace between the soul and its Maker.
And finally, if one rejects penal substitution as the mechanism of atonement - this begins to have a domino effect on other aspects of salvation. For example - justification - by denying penal sub, it frees up the possibility for ontological (real) justification and not simply imputed/legal justification for the believer. Personally, I prefer the former - much more exciting for me (and everyone else for that matter!
LOL, I feel like I’m working my way backwards in history to arrive at the truth…
T
Truthstalker
Guest
You get into the hypostasis, as I touched on and into the nature of the Incarnation, when you ask this question. I’m going to stop there, because someone would have to understand both of these doctines a lot more than I do to expound on it.
And some relevant questions:
Does God suffer? From what I have read of Theodoret, He is impassible, meaning He does not. I could be way off base on the following. If so, I am learning.
Was what Jesus suffered on the cross sufficient for redemption?
If not, why should His going to hell be adequate? How could He, being only one human, have atoned for more than one sinner if this is true, since God does not suffer?
What does it mean that He became sin for us? How can the Holy God become unholy?
How could God, who is impassible and immutable, suffer in hell? Did the God part of Jesus’ dual nature “take a holiday” and only allow the human part of Himself to suffer the consequences of eternal damnation for all the elect - and to do that without supernatural aid or assistance? What kind of a God would do that to someone, even to Himself?
And some relevant questions:
Does God suffer? From what I have read of Theodoret, He is impassible, meaning He does not. I could be way off base on the following. If so, I am learning.
Was what Jesus suffered on the cross sufficient for redemption?
If not, why should His going to hell be adequate? How could He, being only one human, have atoned for more than one sinner if this is true, since God does not suffer?
What does it mean that He became sin for us? How can the Holy God become unholy?
How could God, who is impassible and immutable, suffer in hell? Did the God part of Jesus’ dual nature “take a holiday” and only allow the human part of Himself to suffer the consequences of eternal damnation for all the elect - and to do that without supernatural aid or assistance? What kind of a God would do that to someone, even to Himself?
S
Sixtus
Guest
Depends upon your conception of hell.
I think the Canticle from Morning Prayer of Tuesday week 2 of the Psalter taken from Is 38: 10 -14, 17-20 explains it rather well.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
You mean:
T
Truthstalker
Guest
This is the results of a search on Sheol:
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Thinking this over…
Baptism…symbolic… water can’t save…spiritual is where it counts
Communion…symbolic…only bread and wine…spirit is what counts
Sacramentals…fables, myths and superstition…spiritual blessings are separated from physical items…
Death on the cross…ineffective…real work in the spiritual realm
of hell…
Grace carried by physical items or acts…no…only the spiritual matters…
God works through the spoken word to the hearing, because it is faith, faith comes by hearing, and grace is excluded from all other means, such as physical, because it is the spiritual that counts…
I haven’t had enough time to dig into nominalism, but I think Calvin’s disdain of God’s physical creation, which HE called good, is showing.
Nobody can beat up on Calvin like a Presbyterian.
In contrast, Jesus took on real flesh, really unites people in baptism, provides His real body and blood in the Eucharist, really works through sacramentals, said “It is finished” on the cross, not after rising from the dead, and uses real people in real ways to proclaim a real gospel.
Baptism…symbolic… water can’t save…spiritual is where it counts
Communion…symbolic…only bread and wine…spirit is what counts
Sacramentals…fables, myths and superstition…spiritual blessings are separated from physical items…
Death on the cross…ineffective…real work in the spiritual realm
of hell…
Grace carried by physical items or acts…no…only the spiritual matters…
God works through the spoken word to the hearing, because it is faith, faith comes by hearing, and grace is excluded from all other means, such as physical, because it is the spiritual that counts…
I haven’t had enough time to dig into nominalism, but I think Calvin’s disdain of God’s physical creation, which HE called good, is showing.
Nobody can beat up on Calvin like a Presbyterian.
In contrast, Jesus took on real flesh, really unites people in baptism, provides His real body and blood in the Eucharist, really works through sacramentals, said “It is finished” on the cross, not after rising from the dead, and uses real people in real ways to proclaim a real gospel.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
It doesnt sound like your in the Tiber anymore…Thinking this over…
Baptism…symbolic… water can’t save…spiritual is where it counts
Communion…symbolic…only bread and wine…spirit is what counts
Sacramentals…fables, myths and superstition…spiritual blessings are separated from physical items…
Death on the cross…ineffective…real work in the spiritual realm
of hell…
Grace carried by physical items or acts…no…only the spiritual matters…
God works through the spoken word to the hearing, because it is faith, faith comes by hearing, and grace is excluded from all other means, such as physical, because it is the spiritual that counts…
I haven’t had enough time to dig into nominalism, but I think Calvin’s disdain of God’s physical creation, which HE called good, is showing.
Nobody can beat up on Calvin like a Presbyterian.
In contrast, Jesus took on real flesh, really unites people in baptism, provides His real body and blood in the Eucharist, really works through sacramentals, said “It is finished” on the cross, not after rising from the dead, and uses real people in real ways to proclaim a real gospel.
A
Angainor
Guest
FYI: Here is what the Lutheran Confessions say:
IX. The Descent of Christ Into Hell.
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.
Chief Controversy concerning This Article.
IX. The Descent of Christ Into Hell.
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.
Chief Controversy concerning This Article.
*]It has also been disputed among some theologians who have subscribed to the Augsburg Confession concerning this article: When and in what manner the Lord Christ, according to our simple Christian faith, descended to hell: whether this was done before or after His death; also, whether it occurred according to the soul alone, or according to the divinity alone, or with body and soul, spiritually or bodily; also, whether this article belongs to the passion or to the glorious victory and triumph of Christ.
*]But since this article, as also the preceding, cannot be comprehended by the senses or by our reason, but must be grasped by faith alone, it is our unanimous opinion that there should be no disputation concerning it, but that it should be believed
*] and taught only in the simplest manner; according as Dr. Luther, of blessed memory, in his sermon at Torgau in the year 1533 has explained this article in an altogether Christian manner, separated from it all useless, unnecessary questions, and admonished all godly Christians to Christian simplicity of faith.
*] For it is sufficient that we know that Christ descended into hell, destroyed hell for all believers, and delivered them from the power of death and of the devil, from eternal condemnation and the jaws of hell. But how this occurred we should [not curiously investigate, but] reserve until the other world, where not only this point [mystery], but also still others will be revealed, which we here simply believe, and cannot comprehend with our blind reason.
A
Angainor
Guest
My belief is that “hell” in the apostle’s creed is a translation of something in Greek (I don’t know what).
I think the idea that they were trying to get across is that Jesus entered the realm of the dead. They wanted to make it clear, beyond any chance of misunderstanding, that Jesus was completely dead.
I think the idea that they were trying to get across is that Jesus entered the realm of the dead. They wanted to make it clear, beyond any chance of misunderstanding, that Jesus was completely dead.
T
Truthstalker
Guest
This, beyond a shadow of a doubt, shows Luther to be wrong:
Reason isn’t blind. In contrast, Aquinas. Paul reasoned. We learn about the world through reason. Jesus reasoned. The abandonment of reason is the embracing of despair.
We don’t know everything. But we know enough.
Rant, rant, rant.
Jesus is the Word. Greek
, from which we get “logical”. Reason is throughout Scripture. God gave us reason. On this forum we debate, because we believe reason can lead us to the correct conclusions, to truth. In contrast Luther seems to anticipate and invite in existential despair.
Reason isn’t blind. In contrast, Aquinas. Paul reasoned. We learn about the world through reason. Jesus reasoned. The abandonment of reason is the embracing of despair.
We don’t know everything. But we know enough.
Rant, rant, rant.
B
Bishopite
Guest
Great point. It is difficult at times for us Catholic Christians to dialogue with Protestant Christians especially on this forum, being many of them have their “personal view” of what Scripture says. We have to deal with a plethora of differing beliefs, yet if we quote a well known Protestant theologian who is of the same denomination as they are, that matters not to them since they see (as I once did) sola Scriptura as giving them the freedom to believe what they deem Scripture means through the Holy Spirit leading them.
A Protestant Christian can be a Calvinist or Lutheran yet still argue for the rapture (something Calvin nor Luther taught). Protestant Christians know that Catholicism is wrong as you mentioned, yet can’t agree with one another with which mixture of beliefs within the sola Scriptura community are actually the correct formula.
Some charge that Jesus actually went to hell for us, which is absurd, being He IS without sin so going to hell wouldn’t have been possible since He didn’t have sin and God can’t go to hell.
I think what happened is someone somehow got a hold of the Apostles creed, then garbled its meaning and applied it their own theology.
Or perhaps they read of heard it in a Reformed Protestant Church or a Methodist Church. After leaving my Baptist Church, I breifly visited a Methodist Church before becoming Catholic; it was filled with many wonderful Christian people and sometimes we would recite the Apostles creed, which I thought was wonderful.
I have a pastor friend who is a Reformed Christian who says they also recite it during their services.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Here are some parts worth talking about:When and in what manner the Lord Christ, according to our simple Christian faith, descended to hell: whether this was done before or after His death
The Apostles Creed says clearly: “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; He descended into hell”. This shows this “descent” took place after His death.whether it occurred according to the soul alone, or according to the divinity alone, or with body and soul, spiritually or bodily
Concerning the part in bold above, rather than “clear up” anything such talk actually demonstrates a confusion, possibly even heresy of destroying the hypostatic union. also, whether this article belongs to the passion or to the glorious victory and triumph of Christ.
This is very interesting and in my opinion is fair game in demonstrating that at least some of the Lutherans present believed this was related to the passion (ie Jesus suffered torments of hell). But since this article, as also the preceding, cannot be comprehended by the senses or by our reason, but must be grasped by faith alone…
…But how this occurred we should [not curiously investigate, but] reserve until the other world, where not only this point [mystery], but also still others will be revealed, which we here simply believe, and cannot comprehend with our blind reason.This is uncalled for in my opinion because clearly some of the views presented would not be orthodox and that should be made clear.
C
Contarini
Guest
Here’s the exposition of the Calvin passages you asked for on the other thread.
Furthermore, Calvin clarifies that this language of God’s anger is not itself literal:
You described this passage as contradictory, but that’s because you can’t be bothered to try to understand it. What Calvin is saying is quite clear–God was not actually angry with Jesus, but Jesus bore the consequences of our sin, which is to say, death together with all the manifestations of God’s wrath.
Note the “as it were”–Calvin is avoiding an overly literal or “mythological” way of speaking, while affirming that Christ suffered the torments of abandonment by God on the Cross.
Note this precise language. There is nothing strange in saying that he descended into hell–which is to say that Calvin does not literally think Jesus descended into hell. Rather, he treats this an appropriate metaphor for what follows–that Jesus “endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God.” Again, he is talking about the Crucifixion not a literal descent *following *Jesus’ death.
Calvin is saying that the “descent into hell” came before Jesus’ burial, even though the Creed places it afterward. He knows that people can object htat he is “perverting the order” of the Creed, but he rejects this objection as “frivolous and ridiculous.” To make things clearer, he adds this explanation of the Creed’s order:
Can you see that all of this is speaking about Christ’s death on the Cross, when He cried “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”
Furthermore, Calvin clarifies that this language of God’s anger is not itself literal:
(Emphasis mine)
You described this passage as contradictory, but that’s because you can’t be bothered to try to understand it. What Calvin is saying is quite clear–God was not actually angry with Jesus, but Jesus bore the consequences of our sin, which is to say, death together with all the manifestations of God’s wrath.
Yes, horrifying heresy, isn’t it. . . .
C
Contarini
Guest
You are right in saying that this indicates that Jesus underwent the sufferings of abandonment by God. It does not indicate a literal descent into hell *after *death. You are reading this into the text.
Note this again:
So Christ’s “descent into the dead” began in Gethsemane and reached its climax in the cry of desolation on the Cross.
Is it clearer now? You don’t have to agree (though I find your expressions of orthodox horror wildly overdone–but that’s another issue). You may think that this is a distinction without a difference. But Calvin clearly places the “descent into hell” at the time of the Passion rather than during the “three days” between the Passion and the Resurrection. It is a psychological “descent into hell” rather than a literal one.
Edwin
- Status