# Apostles Creed



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 13, 2005)

If this needs to be moved to another forum, please feel free to do so. 

A recent thread that touched on the statement found in the Apostles Creed wherein Christ is said to have "descended into hell" lead me to research that issue a bit. In doing so, I came across the following critique of the Apostles Creed.

What opinions do folks have on the Apostles Creed and this critique?

http://www.scionofzion.com/apostles_creed.htm


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 13, 2005)

Seeing that it was from the Trinity Foundation made me initially suspicious, and that initial reaction was only confirmed as I read the article. I think Loucks misunderstands the role that is given the Apostles' Creed in the Church today - it is not a full confession of faith such as Westminster or Heidelberg, and churches do not treat it as such, either, which he seems to think they do. Furthermore, it is usually referenced in accordance with other supplementing creeds as well, such as the Nicene and Athanasian, which all help each other in serving their purpose. The article reminded me of a discussion we had on this very issue awhile back, and I think the discussion sheds light on the error in Loucks' thinking on the Apostles' Creed's role in the Church, both by itself and in relation to similar documents. It can be found here.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 13, 2005)

Thanks, Chris. That other thread is helpful. I too share your mistrust of the source, but I also question the phrase "descended into hell" and wonder if there is a point there. However, I fully concur that the other early Church creeds all tend to supplement one another, and all tend to address the issues of orthodoxy that were on the front burner for that timeframe. Our WCF and other such Reformation creeds are indeed more fully expressive of the Reformed faith (and indeed use terms like "catholic" church, in the appropriate sense) and well address the theological crises faced by the Church since the days of the Apostles.


----------



## russelljohnson (Mar 3, 2005)

I wondered about this myself. A few things which I found to be helpful were:

#1. The Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 44. Why is there added, "œhe descended into hell"? A. That in my greatest temptations, I may be assured, and wholly comfort myself in this, that my Lord Jesus Christ, by His inexpressible anguish, pains, terrors, and hellish agonies, in which He was plunged during all His sufferings, but especially on the cross, hath delivered me from the anguish and torments of hell.[Isaiah 53:10; Matthew 27:46.]

#2. Rev. Charles Terpstra's sermon "Believing in the Jesus Who Descended into Hell", at http://www.prca.org/sermons/ld16.html.

#3. C. Matthew McMahon's own "A Long Overview of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 16" - Chapter 16: How Christ Has Fulfilled the Function of Redeemer at http://www.apuritansmind.com/Reformation/McMahonLongerOverviewCalvinsInstitutes.htm#2:16

#4. John Calvin himself in his "Institutes" - "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."

I believe that being forsaken by God [Mat 27:46, Mark 15:34] is certainly the essence of hell.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 3, 2005)

There are doubtless many great truths and doctrines stated in the Apostle's Creed. I don't want to come off as fragrantly against those. However I do have a couple of critiques regarding the creed itself, and most of all, how it is used.

First of all, the ambiguity of certain phrases "descended into hell" maybe explained away with clarity for those who are willing to invest the time to read a lengthy exposition from Calvin or Ursinus. However, such an exposition would take up more time and resources than most people are willing to take. Therefore, most seem to confess with ignorance of this phrase, or wrong beliefs regarding it's meaning altogether. With the biblical mandate to be _clear_, this does not hit the mark. "Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air." 1 Corinthians 14:9 Honestly, because of nothing more than unclarity (maybe?), how much controversy has this phrase stirred up in the church since it's institution?

Second of all, this creed has been used in an inappropriate manner to endorse extreme fundamentalism. "As long as you believe the Apostle's Creed your saved!" Again, doubtless this creed is/was preventative of many heretical views of Christianity, and for that it is to be commended. However, when taken in the fundamentalist light, Catholics (even though they believe in works righteousness) and many other modern heretics are saved. 

Again, I don't _hate_ the Apostle's Creed, but I do think that it is definately given more credit than it deserves. Was it great for its time? Sure. In a day that we live in, surely we can correct the mistakes of the past, be clear in our speech, and give more credit where credit is due, like the Westminster Confession.

Let me know what you guys think!


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 3, 2005)

I think the Apostle's Creed is ok. I grow to appreciate it the more I reflect on it. I dont mind the "descended into hell" part because Christ did do that on the cross, as the HC also states quoted above. What I don't like about it is the vagueness of "the forgiveness of sins" because even the liberals and Catholics can claim adherance to this Creed and just spin their own meaning off of this.


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> What I don't like about it is the vagueness of "the forgiveness of sins" because even the liberals and Catholics can claim adherance to this Creed and just spin their own meaning off of this.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> What I don't like about it is the vagueness of "the forgiveness of sins" because even the liberals and Catholics can claim adherance to this Creed and just spin their own meaning off of this.



I believe that any pretending church is going to mimic the true Church by holding to the fundamental principles of faith. They have to look like the real thing, and confess the Creed that unites all believers in a wider circle than the more definitive creeds. 

Remember, to be Reformed you don't have to be subscriptionist to the Reformed Standards. Many in our churches aren't, because they don't know them well enough to say that they are. They believe, and confess Christ, and work hard to earn a living for their families, and do the brunt of the work that pays the bills for our pastors to be pastors. They can have a lot of wisdom sometimes, and still not be able to quote an article from the Confessions. But what binds all believers together is the basic creed of faith, as expressed in what we call the Ecumenical Creeds. 

As brief statements of fundamental doctrines, what the Apostles' Creed states has been ratified by generations of Church fathers, and bequeathed to us, their posterity. They have to be taken for the witness of the truths they have witnessed to us throughout the generations. 

The problem with particular statements are not problems with the statements themselves, but with the people who take liberties with the fundamentals of the faith to inculcate doctrines which the fathers have not asked us to embrace. In this way they break with the Church of all ages, by disuniting themselves from the witness that the Church has handed down from the time of the Apostles to our very day. They are only united in outward appearances, but in their hearts they have embrace doctrines that they use to judge other true believers so as to elevate themselves to a status above these very Fathers' witness to us.

As a brief statement of universal faith, the Apostles's Creed cannot be as definitive as we would like it to be. But that is what the Confession of Faith is for. You will find the Apostles' Creed expounded in our church's Confessions. 

This last point ought to mean something, it seems to me. The Nicene, the Athanasian, the Chalcedonian, or any other creed is not expounded in our Standards of Faith. Why? Are these latter Creeds to be regarded, as Chris says, supplements to the Apostles' Creed? I agree. That's why you'll find that the Confession of Faith stands squarely on the witness of the Fathers to the next generations, namely the Apostles' Creed. And that is exactly what Church history tells us about the formation of these supplemental creeds; they defend rather than replace the Apostles' Creed.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 30, 2006)

From William Cunningham's Historical Theology; Chapter III, The Apostle's Creed:



> *These considerations are quite sufficient of themselves to prove that the Apostles´ Creed, as it is called, is not entitled to much respect, and is not fitted to be of much use, as a summary of the leading doctrines of Christianity. A document which maybe honestly assented to by Papists and Arians, by the adherents of the great apostasy and by the opposers of the divinity of our Saviour, can be of no real utility as a directory, or as an element or bond of union among the churches of Christ. And while it is so brief and general as to be no adequate protest or protection against error, it does not contain any statement of some important truths essential to a right comprehension of the scheme of ChrisÂ­tian doctrine and the way of salvation. *It is quite true that, under the different articles of the Creed, or even under any of the earlier creeds which contained merely a brief profession of faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, we might bring in, as many authors have done, an explanation of all the leading doctrines taught us in Scripture; but it is not the less true that they are not stated in the document itself, and that there is nothing in its words which is fitted to bring them to our notice.
> ....
> 
> I think it is much to be regretted that so very inadequate and defective a summary of the leading principles of Christianity as the Apostles´ Creed, "”possessed of no authority, and having no exÂ­trinsic claims to respect, "”should have been exalted to such a place of prominence and influence in the worship and services of the church of Christ; and I have no doubt that this has operated inÂ­juriously in leading to the disregard of some important articles of Christian doctrine, which are not embodied in it, but which are of fundamental importance. Even in the third century, we find the doctrines of grace, "”the true principles of the Gospel which unfold the scriptural method of salvation, were thrown into the backÂ­ground, were little attended to, and not very distinctly understood; while the attention of the church in the fourth century was almost entirely engrossed by controversial speculations about the Trinity and the person of Christ; and it is, I believe, in some measure from the same cause"”i.e., having the Apostles´ Creed pressed upon men´s attention in the ordinary public services of the church, as a summary of Christian doctrine, entitled to great deference and respect"”that we are to account for the ignorance and indifference respecting the great principles of evangelical truth by which so large a proportion of the ordinary attenders upon the services of the Church of England have been usually characterized, "”a result aided, no doubt, by the peculiar character and complexion of the other two creeds which are also sanctioned by her articles, and which are sometimes, though not so frequently, used in her public service"”the Nicene and the Athanasian.



He also has an interesting section on the phrase "He descended into Hell" that is worth reading.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 30, 2006)

I would encourage folks to read Witsius' exposition of The Apostle's Creed too. It's helpful. 2 Volumes at that


----------



## py3ak (May 1, 2006)

W.G.T. Shedd has argued that there were two versions; one used "buried" and one used "descended into hell". When they were conflated it was an odd way of adding a doctrine that had not been confessed before. In his view "buried" and "descended into hell" mean the same thing. If he is right, then of course, we should edit one out (nothing else is confessed twice).


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 1, 2006)

On "descended into hell" as most know, the Westminster Divines added this sided note: 
"descended into hell"*
"*i.e. continued in the state of the dead, and under the power of Death till the third day."
The Assembly also say regarding the Creed appended to the end of the shorter catechism:


> And albeit the substance of the doctrine comprised in that abridgement commonly called, _The Apostles Creed,_ be fully set forth in each of the Catechismes, so as there is no necessity of inserting the Creed it self, yet it is here annexed, not as though it were composed by the Apostles, or ought to be esteemed Canonicall Scripture, as the ten Commandments, and the Lords Prayer, (much lesse a Prayter, as ignorant people have been apt to make both it and the Decalouge,) but because it is a brief summe of the Christian faith, agreeable to the Word of God, and anciently received in the Churches of Christ.


----------

