# Did Calvin Hold to Jesus Having a Spiritual Death?



## Dachaser (Oct 11, 2017)

As he seemed to see the necessity of Jesus going into Hell as the means to completing the salvation work?


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 11, 2017)

What is a spiritual death?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Steve Curtis (Oct 11, 2017)

If Jesus died spiritually, then God died. So, no.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 11, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> If Jesus died spiritually, then God died. So, no.


Remember, brother, that Christ has a human spirit.

I'm just wondering what spiritual death is. Our souls are immortal.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Oct 11, 2017)

I was referring to the common heresy: see
https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/2231
word-faith
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...orn-again-Jesus-doctrine-of-word-faith.32601/
etc.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 11, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> I was referring to the common heresy: see
> https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/2231
> word-faith
> https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...orn-again-Jesus-doctrine-of-word-faith.32601/
> etc.


I see. That's downright bizarre. When I read "spiritual death," I thought it was referring to the death of his spirit (i.e., his soul). Thankfully, I haven't had to deal with nuts like that very much.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 11, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Remember, brother, that Christ has a human spirit.
> 
> I'm just wondering what spiritual death is. Our souls are immortal.


Those holding to that view, especially in word of faith teachers, see Jesus becoming spiritual dead and being a real sinner at the end, and had to go to hell and be born again by God in order to get raised.
Calvin did not hold to that, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 11, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> If Jesus died spiritually, then God died. So, no.


So what did Jesus have to accomplish in hell to complete atonement, as per Calvin then?


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 11, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Those holding to that view, especially in word of faith teachers, see Jesus becoming spiritual dead and being a real sinner at the end, and had to go to hell and be born again by God in order to get raised.
> Calvin did not hold to that, correct?


Absolutely not. That's a damnable heresy.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 11, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So what did Jesus have to accomplish in hell to complete atonement, as per Calvin then?


Can you give us the quote from Calvin?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 11, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Can you give us the quote from Calvin?


https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/christdecended.html


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 11, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Absolutely not. That's a damnable heresy.


Agreed


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 11, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/christdecended.html


First, note that Calvin is expounding the Apostles' Creed. The words, "He descended into hell," are not Calvin's words, but the Creed' s.

Second, he explains the words as describing Christ's spiritual torments on the cross, not as him going to the place of the damned. Christ's _hell _was the wrath of God poured out on him on the cross.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## chuckd (Oct 11, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> First, note that Calvin is expounding the Apostles' Creed. The words, "He descended into hell," are not Calvin's words, but the Creed' s.
> 
> Second, he explains the words as describing Christ's spiritual torments on the cross, not as him going to the place of the damned. Christ's _hell _was the wrath of God poured out on him on the cross.



Seems to disagree with the catechism.

Q. 50. Wherein consisted Christ's humiliation after his death?

A. Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day; which hath been otherwise expressed in these words, He descended into hell.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 11, 2017)

chuckd said:


> Seems to disagree with the catechism.
> 
> Q. 50. Wherein consisted Christ's humiliation after his death?
> 
> A. Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day; which hath been otherwise expressed in these words, He descended into hell.


Jesus was alive in paradise during that time though, correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 11, 2017)

If that was what he meant, I fully agree with him on this, as also do see Jesus experiencing hell in the fashion lost sinners do while upon that Cross those 3 hours. as the very wrath of the father was placed upon Him as the sin bearer.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 11, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> If that was what he meant, I fully agree with him on this, as also do see Jesus experiencing hell in the fashion lost sinners do while upon that Cross those 3 hours. as the very wrath of the father was placed upon Him as the sin bearer.


OK.

It is one of my ongoing areas of interest in that this is the only place in Scripture that may or may not hint that the earthly time required for the propitiation of the wrath of our infinite God requires around three hours when said wrath is visited upon the the fully God and fully man Person of Our Lord. Of course, our Lord is _suis generis_, so extrapolating that any further is a fool's errand. Don't try thinking about this at home.


----------



## Gforce9 (Oct 11, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> First, note that Calvin is expounding the Apostles' Creed. The words, "He descended into hell," are not Calvin's words, but the Creed' s.
> 
> Second, he explains the words as describing Christ's spiritual torments on the cross, not as him going to the place of the damned. Christ's _hell _was the wrath of God poured out on him on the cross.



I heard Ligon Duncan and Sinclair Ferguson (if memory serves me) discussing the Descensus Clause. One commented that, while united to a corpse (in hypostasis), the Divine nature was upholding the universe by the power of His word. This is why the tenets of Chalcedon are oh so important.......they alleviate all kinds of odd speculations......


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 11, 2017)

It seems Westminster tried to change the original of the Apostles Creed when it says descended into hell. Isn't it true that the early church took that literally, that after death Christ descended to those in hell to proclaim victory? The Reformers seemed embarrassed by that and, while they did not erase this phrase, they watered it down from its original intent.

?


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 11, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> I heard Ligon Duncan and Sinclair Ferguson (if memory serves me) discussing the Descensus Clause. One commented that, while united to a corpse (in hypostasis), the Divine nature was upholding the universe by the power of His word. This is why the tenets of Chalcedon are oh so important.......they alleviate all kinds of odd speculations......


Remember that the divine nature was united to a whole human nature, body and soul. Christ suffered in the whole man on the cross. In the passage in question, Calvin asserts that the importance of the clause, "he descended into hell," is that it points out the spiritual sufferings of Christ, as opposed to his bodily torments that are described just beforehand. True, after his divine nature, he was unaffected--the cross put no strain on the relations of the persons of the Trinity, and Christ continued to uphold all things.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 11, 2017)

@Gforce9, I just re-read your post, and I see that I didn't get the full drift of it before. It is indeed wonderful to think that while Christ's body was in the grave, and his soul was in paradise, while he remained under the power of death, he was still the great Sovereign of the universe.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 11, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> It seems Westminster tried to change the original of the Apostles Creed when it says descended into hell. Isn't it true that the early church took that literally, that after death Christ descended to those in hell to proclaim victory? The Reformers seemed embarrassed by that and, while they did not erase this phrase, they watered it down from its original intent.
> 
> ?


The Apostles' creed, at this point, is unclear. The language allows for a number of interpretations. The WCF, on the other hand, is very clear and plain.

I, for one, am grateful that our churches don't have to debate nebulous statements like the one in the Apostles' Creed. We have better creeds. They agree with the doctrine of the AC in every point, but are much better expressions of it.


----------



## Gforce9 (Oct 11, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> @Gforce9, I just re-read your post, and I see that I didn't get the full drift of it before. It is indeed wonderful to think that while Christ's body was in the grave, and his soul was in paradise, while he remained under the power of death, he was still the great Sovereign of the universe.



No worries, Tyler. We are in agreement. I brought up the Chalcedonian Creed as it so clearly lays out a path that avoids Patripassianism and Theopaschitism and gives such a clear, albeit narrow, safe path to walk as we think of the excellencies of our God. I believe Calvin's view is in harmony with it. I wish Wesley would have read it before he penned "And Can It Be".........


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 11, 2017)

"In 1 Peter 3:19, Peter talks about “this Jesus, who by the same spirit by which he is raised from the dead goes and preaches to the lost spirits in prison.” That text has been used as the principal proof text to say that Jesus, at some point after his death, generally believed to be between his death and his resurrection, went to hell. Some people say that he went into hell to experience the fullness of the magnitude of suffering—the full penalty for human sin—in order to give complete atonement for sin. That is regarded by some as a necessary element of Christ’s passion.

But most churches that believe in an actual descent of Jesus into hell do not see him going to hell for further suffering because Jesus declares on the cross, “It is finished.” Rather, he goes to hell to liberate those spirits who, from antiquity, have been held in prison. His task in hell then is one of triumph, liberating Old Testament saints."

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/what-does-apostles-creed-mean-when-it-says-Jesus-d/

It seems that many in the ancient church believed in the "harrowing of hell" or of Christ announcing liberation or victory to the realm of the dead after His work on the Cross.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 12, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> I heard Ligon Duncan and Sinclair Ferguson (if memory serves me) discussing the Descensus Clause. One commented that, while united to a corpse (in hypostasis), the Divine nature was upholding the universe by the power of His word. This is why the tenets of Chalcedon are oh so important.......they alleviate all kinds of odd speculations......



Jesus was still alive in paradise right after physical death. correct?


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 12, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> "In 1 Peter 3:19, Peter talks about “this Jesus, who by the same spirit by which he is raised from the dead goes and preaches to the lost spirits in prison.” That text has been used as the principal proof text to say that Jesus, at some point after his death, generally believed to be between his death and his resurrection, went to hell. Some people say that he went into hell to experience the fullness of the magnitude of suffering—the full penalty for human sin—in order to give complete atonement for sin. That is regarded by some as a necessary element of Christ’s passion.
> 
> But most churches that believe in an actual descent of Jesus into hell do not see him going to hell for further suffering because Jesus declares on the cross, “It is finished.” Rather, he goes to hell to liberate those spirits who, from antiquity, have been held in prison. His task in hell then is one of triumph, liberating Old Testament saints."
> 
> ...


That would be my understanding, as Jesus went to Hades to proclaim he was the risen Lord, and took back to heaven with Him the saved that were waiting upon Him to come and do His atonement on their behalf.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 12, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Remember that the divine nature was United to a whole human nature, body and soul. Christ suffered in the whole man on the cross. In the passage in question, Calvin asserts that the importance of the clause, "he descended into hell," is that it points out the spiritual sufferings of Christ, as opposed to his bodily torments that are described just beforehand. True, after his divine nature, he was unaffected--the cross put no strain on the relations of the persons of the Trinity, and Christ continued to uphold all things.


the father did actually forsake his own Son for a time when he was the Sin bearer though, as God treated Jesus at that time as if he was sin.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 12, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> the father did actually forsake his own Son for a time when he was the Sin bearer though, as God treated Jesus at that time as if he was sin.


He forsook him as a man, not as the Divine Son. That would imply mutability and passibility within the godhead.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 12, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> He forsook him as a man, not as the Divine Son. That would imply mutability and passibility within the godhead.


Yes,as God cannot forsake Himself, but did forsake the man Christ Jesus while upon the Cross.


----------



## timfost (Oct 12, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> That would be my understanding, as Jesus went to Hades to proclaim he was the risen Lord, and took back to heaven with Him the saved that were waiting upon Him to come and do His atonement on their behalf.



Here is a discussion from the recent past on this passage. I hope you find it helpful.

https://puritanboard.com/threads/exegetical-help-on-1-Peter-3-18-22.89728/#post-1105571


----------



## timfost (Oct 12, 2017)

Also, Heidelberg:

"44. Why is it added: “He descended into hell”? That in my greatest temptations I may be assured that Christ my Lord, by His inexpressible anguish, pains, and terrors, *which He suffered in His soul on the cross and before*, has redeemed me from the anguish and torment of hell. 1"

[1] Isa. 53: 10; Matt. 27: 46; *Ps. 18: 5; 116: 3.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 12, 2017)

timfost said:


> Here is a discussion from the recent past on this passage. I hope you find it helpful.
> 
> https://puritanboard.com/threads/exegetical-help-on-1-Peter-3-18-22.89728/#post-1105571


Very helpful, as however one understands that passage to be meaning, cannot be that Jesus literally had to go to hell in order to somehow complete His sufferings, or else His "it is accomplished", meant not really.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 15, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> First, note that Calvin is expounding the Apostles' Creed. The words, "He descended into hell," are not Calvin's words, but the Creed' s.
> 
> Second, he explains the words as describing Christ's spiritual torments on the cross, not as him going to the place of the damned. Christ's _hell _was the wrath of God poured out on him on the cross.





chuckd said:


> Seems to disagree with the catechism.
> 
> Q. 50. Wherein consisted Christ's humiliation after his death?
> 
> A. Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day; which hath been otherwise expressed in these words, He descended into hell.


The catechism notes it to be an expression describing the torment Our Lord underwent, not a literal statement that He actually went to Hell.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 15, 2017)

The early church affirmed the harrowing of hell. We can re-interpet the Apostles' Creed and try to correct it according to our understanding, but I believe the original church audience that first heard it and began to recite it would have actually believed that, yes, Christ did descend into hell.

Cyril of Alexandria, “When the gatekeepers of hell saw him, they fled; the bronze gates were broken open, and the iron chains were undone” (_Ancient Commentary on Scripture_ 11.107).

Melito of Sardis, late second century:
“It is I,” says Christ,
“I am he who destroys death,
and triumphs over the enemy,
and crushes Hades,
and binds the strong man,
and bears humanity off to the heavenly heights.”
(_On Pascha_ 102)


He that was taken by death has annihilated it!
He descended into Hades and took Hades captive!
He embittered it when it tasted His flesh! And anticipating this, Isaiah exclaimed: “_Hades was embittered when it encountered Thee in the lower regions_“.
It was embittered, for it was abolished!
It was embittered, for it was mocked!
It was embittered, for it was purged!
It was embittered, for it was despoiled!
It was embittered, for it was bound in chains!
It took a body and came upon God!
It took earth and encountered Î—eaven!
It took what it saw, but crumbled before what can not seen!
_ ---- (St. John Chrysostom, Paschal Homily)


"Luther, especially in a sermon delivered 1533 at Torgau, taught in accordance with the Scriptures that Christ the God-man,body and soul, descended into hell as Victor over Satan and his host.With special reference to Ps. 16, 10 and Acts 2, 24. 27, Luther explained: After His burial the whole person of Christ, the God-man, descended into hell, conquered the devil, and destroyed the power of hell and Satan. The mode and manner, however, in which this was done can no more be comprehended by human reason than His sitting at the right hand of the Father, and must therefore not be investigated, but believed and accepted in simple faith." (The Book of Concord
Historical Introductions to the Lutheran Confessions, F. Bente).
_
The Summa covers this topic fairly extensively: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4052.htm


I am not defending the doctrine necessarily, only asserting that the Reformation-era creeds often do not honestly represent the original intent of the Creed, for they re-invent a meaning for it not held by the original audience that first would have recited it. Maybe the did not want to say outright that the creed was wrong and still wanted to respect it and so they tweaked the meaning a bit to make it preferable to their tastes.


_


_


----------



## Cymro (Oct 15, 2017)

Christ did not descend into hell but into the grave. Neither did he preach to the spirits in prison or hell, which seems Romish to me. It was by the Spirit (1Pet 3:19) that he preached through Noah, the preacher of righteousness, to those who were disobedient while the Ark was preparing. Those who were dead in trespasses and sins as (1Pet4:6) reveals.


----------



## chuckd (Oct 16, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The catechism notes it to be an expression describing the torment Our Lord underwent, not a literal statement that He actually went to Hell.


I was responding to Calvin: he explains the words as describing Christ's spiritual torments *on the cross*.

Catechism: *after his death* consisted in his being buried, and continuing in *the state of the dead*, and under the power of death till the third day.

Calvin and WLC Q50 disagree. For Calvin, it was apparently the torments of the cross. The catechism, it was the state of being dead: body and soul separated.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 17, 2017)

chuckd said:


> I was responding to Calvin: he explains the words as describing Christ's spiritual torments *on the cross*.
> 
> Catechism: *after his death* consisted in his being buried, and continuing in *the state of the dead*, and under the power of death till the third day.
> 
> Calvin and WLC Q50 disagree. For Calvin, it was apparently the torments of the cross. The catechism, it was the state of being dead: body and soul separated.


Calvin would seem to have the better understanding of this issue here.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 17, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The catechism notes it to be an expression describing the torment Our Lord underwent, not a literal statement that He actually went to Hell.


The description would be then as to how He experienced a sense of hell on the Cross by separation from the father and taking on the wrath of God as the Sin Bearer?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 17, 2017)

chuckd said:


> I was responding to Calvin: he explains the words as describing Christ's spiritual torments *on the cross*.
> 
> Catechism: *after his death* consisted in his being buried, and continuing in *the state of the dead*, and under the power of death till the third day.
> 
> Calvin and WLC Q50 disagree. For Calvin, it was apparently the torments of the cross. The catechism, it was the state of being dead: body and soul separated.



The WLC #50 is particularly focused upon Our Lord's humiliation after His death. Hence, the answer given is appropriate for the question asked. The descent into hell phrase speaks to the power of death that was vanquished by Christ's active and passive obedience. I am at a loss to find anything from Calvin on the matter that would suggest he would disagree with such an answer related to "after His death" made many years after Calvin's own death. 



Dachaser said:


> Calvin would seem to have the better understanding of this issue here.


Why? The question from the WLC is asking about His humiliation after Christ's death, not beforehand, which is the primary focus of what Calvin has written about in the Institutes.

Apples and oranges here.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 18, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The WLC #50 is particularly focused upon Our Lord's humiliation after His death. Hence, the answer given is appropriate for the question asked. The descent into hell phrase speaks to the power of death that was vanquished by Christ's active and passive obedience. I am at a loss to find anything from Calvin on the matter that would suggest he would disagree with such an answer related to "after His death" made many years after Calvin's own death.
> 
> 
> Why? The question from the WLC is asking about His humiliation after Christ's death, not beforehand, which is the primary focus of what Calvin has written about in the Institutes.
> ...


So Calvin was addressing the aspect of Jesus facing "hell" while on the Cross as the Sin Bearer, while the Confession is related to after that experience, when He went to hades and was raised again?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 18, 2017)

Many of the Fathers believed in the "Harrowing of Hell," where Jesus went to "Hades" and defeated demons and rescued the OT saints.


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 18, 2017)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Many of the Fathers believed in the "Harrowing of Hell," where Jesus went to "Hades" and defeated demons and rescued the OT saints.


Would that be the passage suggesting that when Jesus arose, He took out from there the saved with Him now back to heaven?


----------



## chuckd (Oct 18, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The WLC #50 is particularly focused upon Our Lord's humiliation after His death. Hence, the answer given is appropriate for the question asked. The descent into hell phrase speaks to the power of death that was vanquished by Christ's active and passive obedience. I am at a loss to find anything from Calvin on the matter that would suggest he would disagree with such an answer related to "after His death" made many years after Calvin's own death.


Good point!

Although the creed's chronology doesn't make sense:
_was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
On the third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven_

It seems to me "He descended into hell" is what happened after he was buried like "He ascended into heaven" is what happened after he rose again "from the dead."


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 19, 2017)

chuckd said:


> Good point!
> 
> Although the creed's chronology doesn't make sense:
> _was crucified, died and was buried.
> ...


The chronology makes sense once one takes "descended into hell" to mean here coming under "the power of death" (_death's dominion over Him_), which is how the descent clause is often taken to mean.

For example:
2. As Christ died, and was buried; so he continued under the power of death till the third day. This the apostle calls “_Death's having dominion over him_'' and it must be reckoned a part of his humiliation as truly as the act of dying.

For though his soul enjoyed the bliss and happiness of heaven immediately after his death, as he tells the penitent thief that “_that day he should be with him in paradise_” ; yet, as it was, when separate, in a state of imperfection, and had a natural desire and hope of reunion with the body, there were some degrees of perfect blessedness of which it was not then possessed.

Moreover, so long as he continued under the power of death, he was not fully discharged by the justice of God. The work of satisfaction was not completed till he was declared to be the Son of God with power, and to have fully conquered death and hell by his resurrection from the dead. *His continuing under the power of death till the third day, therefore, was a part of his humiliation*. Besides, his body, while remaining a prisoner in the grave, could not actively bring that glory to God which it did before, or would do after its resurrection; and it was at that time incapable of the heavenly blessedness, and, in particular, of its being so glorious a body as now it is.”​

Source: Thomas Ridgeley, _Commentary on the Larger Catechism_ (Previously titled: _A Body of Divinity_: Wherein the Doctrines of the Christian Religion are Explained and Defended, Being the Substance of Several Lectures on the Assembly's Larger Catechism), Volume I, pp. 602-606, for a more complete discussion. Available here: http://digitalpuritan.net/thomas-ridgley/


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 19, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So Calvin was addressing the aspect of Jesus facing "hell" while on the Cross as the Sin Bearer, while the Confession is related to after that experience, when He went to hades and was raised again?


Yes and no.

Calvin was treating the _Apostle's Creed_ and made the case that the "descent into Hell" the Creed speaks to relates primarily what Our Lord underwent upon the Cross.

The altar upon which His sacrifice was made, His divinity, made is such that Jesus was able to endure the full wrath of God against sin, upon the Cross and afterwards, propitiating that wrath for all those given to Our Lord (John 6:37; John 6:39; John 10:29; John 17:11-12; John 17:9; John 17:22; John 18:9), a great multitude no man can number.

The _Westminster Larger Catechism_ #50 is merely asking a direct question about the Lord's humiliation after his death. WLC #46-49 adequately cover Our Lord's humiliation prior to His death. So to be accurate, the WLC provides sufficient instruction on the whole matter of Our Lord's humiliation, and cannot be said to be only focused upon "after that experience...".


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 20, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Yes and no.
> 
> Calvin was treating the _Apostle's Creed_ and made the case that the "descent into Hell" the Creed speaks to relates primarily what Our Lord underwent upon the Cross.
> 
> ...


The WLC would then be covering the entire range of what Jesus was enduring then.


----------

