Calvin’s Worst Heresy (and Does it Relate to Von Balthasar?)


Over at the Called to Communion site I wrote a controversial post about “Calvin’s Worst Heresy: That Christ Suffered in Hell.” Most Catholic readers might assume that Calvin’s worst “heresy” boils down to his doctrine of “double predestination” (that God predestined the blessed to Heaven and the reprobate to Hell without any regard to future deeds, i.e. sins in the case of the latter).

I, however, put my finger on a passage from Calvin’s Institutes where Calvin indicates that the cross of Christ was supplemented by Christ’s further suffering in Hell (an idea unknown to Scripture, the Church Fathers, and the Catholic Church). Calvin writes:

But, apart from the Creed, we must seek for a surer exposition of Christ’s descent to hell: and the word of God furnishes us with one not only pious and holy, but replete with excellent consolation. Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God’s anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death.

Institutes of the Christian Religion Book II, Chapter 16, 10

Chris Donato has suggested that the crucifixion and descent into hell were one act in Calvin’s mind, but I’m not so sure. All the same, Calvin’s assumption that the at atonement involves an extrinsic account of penal substitution is the root error.

Please take a look at the original post:

As an aside, some have compared Calvin’s doctrine to Von Balthasar’s (d. 1988) doctrine of Christ’s descent into Hell (there was a long running debate on this question in First Things a couple years ago).

Let me first say that while I was once a big Balthasar fan, I’ve drawn away from him in recent years. I don’t feel comfortable with certain novelties in his thought. Yet in Balthatsar’s defense, it seems that he taught that Christ showed his solidarity with those in Hell as an act of love for them. While I’m unsure of what exactly this means (or entails), it does seem essentially different from Calvin’s explanation that Christ suffered eternal damnation.

To be honest, I think that Balthasar’s doctrine of Christ’s descent into Hell is novel in the Catholic tradition and he’s caught a lot of flack for it (there is a several month long debate Balthasar on this question two years ago in First Things). I think the difference is that Calvin taught an extrinsic doctrine of substitution: x in exchange for y. On the other hand, Balthasar’s language is different because he speaks of Christ’s solidarity with the lost, i.e. Baltharsar employs participatory language.

Balthasar (and the Catholic tradition at large) has tended to avoid the “replacement” formulation of substitutionary atonement. Instead, the Catholic Church sees Christ’s act of atonement as “participatory” – i.e. the Christian participates in Christ’s work. So it’s not a strict replacement. Rather, it’s like this: x participates in y. In this way, the Christian is in Christ and receives Christ’s benefits. It’s not Calvin’s “I don’t go Hell because Jesus traded places with me.” For the Catholic it’s “I don’t go to Hell because I am in Jesus and I have died in Him and will be raised in Him.” That may oversimplify Calvin, but I think it highlights the confusion in his thought about “substitution”.

Please take a look at the original post:

John Calvin’s Worst Heresy: That Christ Suffered in Hell

PS: I’m especially grateful to Bryan Cross and John Kincaid in helping me clarify my understanding of the relationship between substitution and participation.

Comments Policy: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic. If your comment contains a hyperlink to another site, your comment automatically goes into "Comments Purgatory" where it waits for release by way of moderation.