Protestants: Was Jesus in Hell?

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

Your objection “as it were” I take as a indication Calvin cant quite explain how Christ (whos “corporeal death” was insufficient according to Calvin) can “feel the weight of divine vengeance” and “engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death” and yet not be suffering the torments of hell. Whether this is hell itself or some invented equivalent I see and conclude the same level of heresy and blasphemy.

However, before we put all our focus on one quote, I believe taking it all together demonstrates my claims are accurate.

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.

I disagree with your conclusions.
First off, there IS something strange about saying He descended into hell if your not talking about freeing the OT saints. Given Calvin rejects that view supports the claim that the soul of Jesus had to undergo the torments of hell, or if you insist some equivalent.
Second about the “he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God” this is not a metaphor, the death inflicted on the wicked by an angry God is defined as hell, not just physical death. Further your quote includes “paid all the penalties which must have been exacted from them” All the penalties goes beyond a the penalty of physical death.

As for the “not a literal descent following Jesus’ death” from what I can tell Calvin is saying this torture took place concurrently…I will continue on this with what I think you just revealed as a key detail:

Contarini:

Calvin:

It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event [ie descended into hell] which preceded burial should be placed after it.

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:

Wow, this is evidence for me not you. The fact the descent clause is placed after death and burial supports the Catholic notion that this was not part of the suffering and atonement yet Calvin notices this and instead brushes it off as “frivolous and ridiculous.”

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?”

I dont know if you meant this, but your response here virtually brushed off the passage I highlighted:But** after explaining** what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment 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.
**The Creed “appropriately adds”? This is very clear evidence of Calvin’s interpretation that the “descended into hell” clause was in references to the tortures the soul of Jesus had to undergo by God. The only time this occurs to souls is in hell, whether you argue this was an equivalent hell doesnt make much difference. Calvin is very clear here, the suffering Jesus endured before men (ie the physical torture) was NOTHING compared to the tortures His soul underwent via divine punishment.

As for your insistence that this was strictly in regards to death on a cross misses the point. The point is that his physical sufferings were NOTHING compared to torture His soul had to go through.
The traditional understanding of Christ’s death is that wicked men killed Jesus and His pain and suffering was due to the physical violence inflicted, not divine wrath.

(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)

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.

Think about what your saying, God is not angry YET He carries out the worst tortures on the soul of Jesus? This is a conflict of interests and shows the error of putting God against Himself and the error of Protestant thought regarding the atonement. That defiles the very union of Father and Son which as God cannot do.

Yes, horrifying heresy, isn’t it. . . .

Calvin’s understanding is heretical.

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.

Here is exactly how I responded to the quote you just commented on:Calvin seems to think every time suffering is talked about in the Bible the real suffering had to do with the torture the soul of Jesus would have to put up with. I see the last sentence as clearly teaching that the soul of Jesus went through a torture either that of hell or an equivalent (if there is such a thing).
You seem to be arguing there is an equivalent torture to hell. At the end of the day though you still have to explain the invented difference. When the soul undergoes torments where does this occur, hell? When someone is “abandoned” by God where does this occur, hell?

Note this again:

Again, Im not sure if you brushed this off or what but you skipped another quote:**How shamefully effeminate would it have been (as I have observed) to be so excruciated by the fear of an ordinary death as to sweat drops of blood, and not even be revived by the presence of angels?
**Here it is clear Calvin says that if this was all fear over physical death then Christ was a wuss. The clear implication is the tortures His soul would have to undergo is where the real fear rests.

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.

You have missed my main point, that is Jesus had to undergo the torments of someone condemned to suffer divine wrath, there are various problems with this understanding. I dont recall insisting this torture took place after He died, what Im focusing on is the claim such torture too place and the real question though is how you explain this equivalent of hell punishment took place concurrently without infringing on central doctrines like the hypostatic union and the relationship between God as Father and Son.

It is a psychological “descent into hell” rather than a literal one.

No, it was NOT a psychological event, I never made that claim and you would be in error to make that claim. According to Calvin the torture was real and went far beyond the physical pain resulting from physical violence.

 

[Contarini]

Your objection “as it were” I take as a indication Calvin cant quite explain how Christ (whos “corporeal death” was insufficient according to Calvin) can “feel the weight of divine vengeance” and “engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death” and yet not be suffering the torments of hell. Whether this is hell itself or some invented equivalent I see and conclude the same level of heresy and blasphemy.

I really don’t care about what you think about Calvin. I care that you understand Calvin. I have demonstrated clearly that Calvin thought Jesus suffered the psychological torment of abandonment by God on the Cross and that this is what he is talking about. When you agree that this is true, *then *we can discuss whether it is heretical and blasphemous. I’m not convinced it is, but that’s not my concern here. I’m a church historian and it’s my job to help people understand these texts.

I believe taking it all together demonstrates my claims are accurate.

If your claims are that Calvin thought Jesus went to hell after His death, then I have already shown that this is not the case and I am not going to keep going over it.

First off, there IS something strange about saying He descended into hell if your not talking about freeing the OT saints.

Certainly, which is why Calvin uses language like “as it were.” He knows he’s giving the traditional teaching a new and rather metaphorical twist.

Given Calvin rejects that view supports the claim that the soul of Jesus had to undergo the torments of hell, or if you insist some equivalent.

I have not disagreed with this. I have said several times that Calvin thought Jesus endured the *psychological *torment of abandonment by God, which is traditionally understood to be the principal part of the pains of hell. Therefore, Calvin can say that Jesus underwent the pains of hell. In his discussion of hell in 3.25.12 he seems to be saying that the fires of hell are imagery used to describe the torment of being separated from God and alienated from God’s creation. So it would appear that he thought Jesus did experience the torments of hell. I have no problem with you saying this, as long as we are clear that this is something that happened before Jesus’ death.

Second about the “he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God” this is not a metaphor, the death inflicted on the wicked by an angry God is defined as hell, not just physical death.

Again, see 3.25.12. I think you are right, as long as you are not thinking of hell as a literal place with literal flames (which it appears from this passage Calvin didn’t). I repeat: Jesus experienced separation from God (even though in reality He was never separated from God), and this for Calvin *is *the torment of hell.

Further your quote includes “paid all the penalties which must have been exacted from them” All the penalties goes beyond a the penalty of physical death.

No disagreement there.

As for the “not a literal descent following Jesus’ death” from what I can tell Calvin is saying this torture took place concurrently

I don’t know what you mean by this. Calvin says that the torment began in Gethsamane and culminated on the Cross. It took place concurrently with Jesus’ Passion but it preceded the separation of soul from body. As far as I can see, Calvin thought Jesus’ physical death *ended *His sufferings.

Wow, this is evidence for me not you.

If it’s not evidence for you, it’s because you are not reading carefully (or because you think we are debating the truth of Calvin’s doctrine, which we are not–we are debating what Calvin thought.)

The fact the descent clause is placed after death and burial supports the Catholic notion that this was not part of the suffering and atonement yet Calvin notices this and instead brushes it off as “frivolous and ridiculous.”

Exactly–no disagreement there. Calvin always gets very contemptuous when he is dealing with a serious objection–it’s one of his most annoying rhetorical habits! My point in quoting this was simply that Calvin *is *reordering the order of events to place the descent into hell concurrently with Jesus’ physical sufferings and *before *His burial.

 

[Contarini]

(cont 2 of 2)

I dont know if you meant this, but your response here virtually brushed off the passage I highlighted:

 

[Contarini]

Think about what your saying, God is not angry YET He carries out the worst tortures on the soul of Jesus?

That is what Calvin is saying, because Jesus bore our sins. I am not defending the view–I am telling you what Calvin thought.

Calvin seems to think every time suffering is talked about in the Bible the real suffering had to do with the torture the soul of Jesus would have to put up with. I see the last sentence as clearly teaching that the soul of Jesus went through a torture either that of hell or an equivalent (if there is such a thing).

You seem to be arguing there is an equivalent torture to hell. At the end of the day though you still have to explain the invented difference. When the soul undergoes torments where does this occur, hell? When someone is “abandoned” by God where does this occur, hell?

For Calvin it occurs on the Cross. I have never disagreed with your claim that Calvin thought Jesus endured the (psychological) torments of hell).

Again, Im not sure if you brushed this off or what but you skipped another quote

Because it doesn’t affect the point on which we disagree.

You have missed my main point

I haven’t missed it–I don’t challenge it.

I dont recall insisting this torture took place after He died, what Im focusing on is the claim such torture too place and the real question though is how you explain this equivalent of hell punishment took place concurrently without infringing on central doctrines like the hypostatic union and the relationship between God as Father and Son.

Then we have no reason to continue the argument, because I don’t dispute that the torture took place (in Calvin’s view), and I find the question of the hypostatic union to be way above my pay grade! I agree that this is a valid concern that defenders of Calvin’s theology need to address. I am not acting as a defender of Calvin’s theology, but as a scholar of Reformation theology who is trying to clarify what Calvin actually taught.

You originally used language such as “went to hell” and “place of Hellfire.” I was clarifying that Calvin is talking about what Jesus experienced on the Cross (and earlier in Gethsemane), but not about something that happened to His soul after death. If you don’t care about this, then just use precise language and I have no quarrel with you.

No, it was NOT a psychological event, I never made that claim and you would be in error to make that claim.

That Calvin thought it was? Well, if it’s not psychological, how would you describe it (i.e., Calvin’s view of it)? Of course it wasn’t purely psychological since it involved physical pain as well. But the language Calvin uses is psychological language describing what Jesus felt and experienced due to the fact that He was bearing our sins.

According to Calvin the torture was real and went far beyond the physical pain resulting from physical violence.

Psychological torment is real torment. If you had ever experienced real psychological torment you would know that. Jesus’ sufferings were not “real” (in Calvin’s view) in the sense that they did not correspond to the ontological condition of His soul, which in reality was never separated from God. But Jesus experienced separation from God because He was bearing our sins. What He felt was real, but the reality to which they corresponded was the reality of our existence rather than His.

However, this is perhaps an overly abstruse point.

If we can agree on the following statement, then this debate is over:

John Calvin believed that Jesus suffered the torments of hell (defined as separation from God) during His Passion on the Cross, even though God was not in fact angry with Jesus and the hypostatic union was not affected by this experience.

If you disagree with this statement, which part do you disagree with? I am not arguing that this is theologically correct–I am simply pointing out that this is what Calvin thought.

One reason this is important is that Calvin’s view is actually quite different from von Balthasar’s. Von Balthasar put the descent into hell after Jesus’ death and saw its purpose as the deliverance of those in hell. Calvin put it before Jesus’ death (indeed he saw it as the principal part of Jesus’ Passion, going along with and immeasurably deepening the effect of His physical sufferings) and believed it was effective only for those whom God had chosen and would regenerate during their life on earth.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

P.S.

Rereading my initial posts, I can see where you got the impression that I thought Calvin was only talking about Jesus’ physical death (though I did say right away that Calvin thought Jesus suffered the torment of abandonment by God). When I said that Calvin was talking about “the Crucifixion,” I did not mean that he was only talking about the physical pain of the crucifixion.

I think one of the reasons we are miscommunicating is that I grew up with something like Calvin’s view, so I always took for granted that a principal part of Jesus’ sufferings was a sense of abandonment by God. (I continue to think that this must be true in some sense, given Jesus’ cry on the Cross–but that’s another debate.)

Edwin

 

[Catholic_Dude]

If we can agree on the following statement, then this debate is over:

John Calvin believed that Jesus suffered the torments of hell (defined as separation from God) during His Passion on the Cross, even though God was not in fact angry with Jesus and the hypostatic union was not affected by this experience.

If you disagree with this statement, which part do you disagree with? I am not arguing that this is theologically correct–I am simply pointing out that this is what Calvin thought.

I think we have been talking past each other here…

I agree Calvin believed Jesus had to suffer the torments of hell concurrently with His Passion. I say concurrently because Calvin is clear the physical torments of hell were nothing compared to the spiritual ones His soul had to endure. This didnt go beyond His physical death.

I mentioned above how on one hand Calvin says God is not angry and on the other how Jesus must undergo divine punishment, I disagree with this because it is essentially a conflict of God’s interests. Further, there is no way to explain how Jesus can be separated from God without falling into heresy, thus Calvin’s claims are incorrect and heretical.

One reason this is important is that Calvin’s view is actually quite different from von Balthasar’s. Von Balthasar put the descent into hell after Jesus’ death and saw its purpose as the deliverance of those in hell. Calvin put it before Jesus’ death (indeed he saw it as the principal part of Jesus’ Passion, going along with and immeasurably deepening the effect of His physical sufferings) and believed it was effective only for those whom God had chosen and would regenerate during their life on earth.

I dont know the details on this so I cant really comment. The way the First Things article was putting it, Bal was taking on the classical protestant understanding of the atonement.

 

[Sixtus]

seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God.

By the grace of the same God we do not know the extent of our disobedience, nor the measure of the offence.

Christ did and while we were still in our sins, said ‘sorry’ on our behalf to His glorious Father, then paid the ultimate price that we deserved.

I do not know how we can ever say ‘thankyou’ that is worthy of the gift