Did Calvin Hold to Jesus Having a Spiritual Death?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
As he seemed to see the necessity of Jesus going into Hell as the means to completing the salvation work?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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. ;)
 
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......
 
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.

?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
@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.
 
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, 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".........
 
"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.
 
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?
 
"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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top