After expressing sorrow and suggesting that they get their ideas from an anabaptistic, anti-credal tradition (nothing like poisoning the old well!), Marshall states:
There are potentially a number of errors here. One is that Christ Himself did not have a human soul. Many Protestants, without knowing it, do not believe that Christ has a human soul. They instead believe that Christ has a human body but that His deity serves as the animating principle of His body. Hence, when Christ died, His deity was naturally in Heaven. The conclusion is that He would have skipped Hell entirely.Does Marshall really think that either Piper or Grudem falls into this category of people who deny Christ's true humanity? It's hard to see this comment as anything other than a straw man.
Marshall continues:
On the other end of the spectrum is the heretical doctrine of Calvin that states that Christ literally descended into the Gehenna of the damned in order to receive the full punishment of sin. This is contrary to Scripture, contrary to the Fathers, and contrary to orthodox Christology. {Read: Calvin’s Worst Heresy: That Christ Suffered in Hell}.The link is to a most ill-informed post (by the same inimitable - and who would want to - Taylor Marshall). The linked article is an exercise in demonstrating Mr. Marshall's inability to understand what he reads.
In any event, Calvin expounds at length on the article "he descended into hell," in his Institutes (link). In that section, Calvin evaluates a number of options, and ultimately concludes that Christ suffered the pains of hell on the cross, and consequently "descended into hell" in that way. In fact, Calvin makes it quite clear to someone with better reading skills than Mr. Marshall:
Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it.If the rest of the section was unclear, this one at least should have popped out to Mr. Marshall before he started writing his post back in 2009, much less before he repeated his false accusation now. It was not after death, but before it that Christ (per Calvin) endured hell. Thus, Calvin did not teach that Christ's soul went to the Gahenna of the damned, as Marshall alleges.
Indeed, Professor R.F. White gently corrected Marshall back in 2009 (link), but perhaps a sterner rebuke is in order, since he has not only failed to correct his original post, but has continued the false accusation.
Skipping to the end of Marshall's post, it was amusing to find his comment:
PS: It is Catholic tradition that the 12 Apostles wrote the Apostles Creed. There are 12 lines in the Apostles Creed and each Apostle contributed a line. It was Saint Philip, according to pious tradition who added “He descended into Hell.”Whether such tradition is "pious" or not, the line "he descended into Hell" is a later addition. Calvin mentions this fact in his Institutes, and Grudem spends a significant, some might say exorbitant, amount of space in his Systematic Theology demonstrating the same thing. It's one of a myriad of "pious" fables that are Rome's stock in trade.
-TurretinFan
9 comments:
I read some time ago that Jesus went to Sheol to free the righteous (e.g. Abraham, Old Testament prophets and other righteous people) from their holding place (for lack of better terminology) until Christ died on the Cross. This was not Gehenna or Hell or what Catholics would have called Limbo, although it was a type of limbo as we would refer to it in general parlance. (I don't have the source to hand at the moment.)
I think this link gives a good insight on the issue: http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-go-to-hell.html
I can see John Piper's point, that people get very confused when they said "Jesus descended into hell". Probably Sheol or Hades would be a better term. More biblically accurate.
As for Taylor Marshall, I'm not really surprised to see how he misinterpreted Mr Piper's words. I mean, catholic apologists misinterpret the Bible, let alone a mere believer's opinion.
From his old post:
Marshall: (interpreting Calvin) "So after suffering in the body on the cross, Christ's soul suffered tortures of the condemned in hell."
From his new post:
Marshall: "On the other end of the spectrum is the heretical doctrine of Calvin that states that Christ literally descended into the Gehenna of the damned in order to receive the full punishment of sin. This is contrary to Scripture, contrary to the Fathers, and contrary to orthodox Christology. {Read: Calvin’s Worst Heresy: That Christ Suffered in Hell}"
TurretinFan: In any event, Calvin expounds at length on the article "he descended into hell," in his Institutes (link). In that section, Calvin evaluates a number of options, and ultimately concludes that Christ suffered the pains of hell on the cross, and consequently "descended into hell" in that way. In fact, Calvin makes it quite clear to someone with better reading skills than Mr. Marshall: "Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it."... It was not after death, but before it that Christ (per Calvin) endured hell. Thus, Calvin did not teach that Christ's soul went to the Gahenna of the damned, as Marshall alleges."
None of this sort of detail appears to matter to Dr. Marshall. From his 2009 post he comments on what he wrote back then:
Marshall: "My post highlights Calvin’s gravely erroneous position that our Lord suffered the pains of hell in His soul. As we covered in the previous comments, it really makes no difference whether Calvin taught that Christ suffered the pains of Hell on Good Friday at 2pm, 3pm, at 5pm, at 6pm, on Holy Saturday, or even on the day of Pentecost."
I've interacted with Dr. Marshall only one time (over some details about Luther's Mariology). His inability to scrutinize detail explains a lot to me as to why he eventually "converted" (for lack of a better word) to Romanism.
I had the "pleasure" of knowing Taylor Marshall in college. He was not much of a scholar then either. It does not surprise me that he has misunderstood/misread Calvin.
That's the problem with the Apostles Creed. It's pointless to say it because most people don't even know what they mean by it, to say nothing of what the purported writers of it meant. John Frame talks about how creeds are not enjoined or used in the Bible, except for "Jesus is Lord." It may be of historical interest but to have churches, Reformed churches, repeating it week by week is not only pointless it's sad.
"I read some time ago that Jesus went to Sheol to free the righteous from their holding place (for lack of better terminology) where they rested until He died on the Cross. "
The Limbus Patrum, as some would call it, aka Limbo. The Roman Catholic church defined this based on the theory that unbaptized babies and others would go there having committed no personal sins, it is literally the "edge of hell". Likewise, they believed, the patriarchs were there owing to their death prior to Christ's crucifixion. Some connect this to the "Bosom of Abraham" Christ speaks of in Luke 16.
The problem with the concept is that it is wholly without Biblical support. Aside for a difficult passage in 1 Peter 3, there is no mention of Christ's post-Crucifixion work, and some (myself included) would argue that passage speaks to something different entirely. Other attempts at supporting the doctrine using Ephesians 4:9 (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into ithe lower regions, the earth?), ignore the fact that the passage is speaking of the grave, and that limbo wouldn't be found in "the lower regions of the earth" if it were so near to heaven (Luke 16.)
Some have argued that none, prior to Christ's resurrection, entered heaven itself, however Scripture tells us clearly that Elijah was taken to heaven on a fiery chariot, and we also know of Enoch who "was no more" because God took him. Why would God take Enoch only to leave him in limbo?
A better position would accept that Christ's sacrificial work on the cross saved in the same manner as today, that those who believed in God and His coming Messiah as promised and prophesied, would be saved and enter heaven on the basis of Christ's work temporally in AD 33, just as we are saved looking back at that same work.
The only difficulty then lies with 1 Peter 3, and I agree with those who view the passage as referring not to a post-crucifixion, pre-resurrection field trip by Christ to hell (notice who exactly the Spirit of Christ speaks to, it's not every saint, its disobedient people during Noah's day only), but rather the Spirit of Christ preaching warning to those disobedient people of Noah's day. (ie: 1 Pet 1:11-13)
As a minor point, the Limbus Patrem (for the OT Believers) and the Limbus Infantum (for certain infants) are two different limbos.
Indeed... both are creations not found in Scripture. ;)
Rachel,
That was quite an uncharitable comment about Taylor Marshall. He has a Master's degree in Systematic Theology from Westminster Theological Seminary. He also has an M.A. and Ph.D in Philosophy from the University of Dallas. These things, of course, do not prove the validity, or lack thereof, of his points in the article in question here. However, if a Master's in Systematic Theology from Westminster does not count for *something*, concerning scholarship, in the Reformed world, then what does count? Is not leaving the Reformed world what counts, concerning one's scholarship? It seems so, in the view(s) of some people.
Post a Comment