# He Descended Into Hell



## Smeagol (Jul 29, 2018)

Looking for guidance from those who have no issue reciting the Apostles Creed. My congregation recites the Apostles Creed every other Lord's Day.Being new to this, I want to make sure I have a clear conscience in what I am confessing. 

I understand the statement "He descended into Hell" to mean his physical body went into the grave (while he still spiritually was with the Thief "today you will be with me") as well as to illustrate Christ experiencing the full pain an torment of the wrath of God.

My understanding appears to be in line with the Heidelberg Catechism. Being in the PCA, is my view still consistent with Westminster Large Catechism 50:

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

A. Christ's humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried,[200] and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of death till the third day;[201] which hath been otherwise expressed in these words, _He descended into hell_.

Please give me your own understanding of this and if I need correction based on a reformed understanding. I have read several articles. Looking for how you reconcile this phrase when you recite. I would like to be in line with WS as this is the most hummanly accurate biblical summary in my opinion. Help!


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 29, 2018)

Danny Hyde wrote a book on the topic; it was linked and discussed here:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/new-book-on-christs-descent-into-hell.59958/#post-775088


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 29, 2018)

kainos01 said:


> Danny Hyde wrote a book on the topic; it was linked and discussed here:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/new-book-on-christs-descent-into-hell.59958/#post-775088


Checking it out now.

I like this wording from the thread:
"_As to the body of Jesus Christ, he descended into the state of death,
As to the soul of Jesus Christ, he suffered the agonies of hell."_

What is your view? What is your answer for a visitor in your church who ask you after service?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jul 29, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> Please give me your own understanding of this and if I need correction based on a reformed understanding.



Here's Calvin's take. https://goo.gl/Zq2BG1
Personally, I don't say that phrase. Period.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 29, 2018)

I mainly just want to know if my understanding can be reconciled to both the Heidelberg and the Westminster, which both advocate for the phrase being included.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 29, 2018)

I am comfortable with Heppe's summary: 
"Christ's descent thus signifies on the one hand ('strictly') the reality of Christ's human death and of his burial, and on the other hand ('figuratively') the pang which Christ suffered in his soul, when he felt the punitive judgment of God."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 29, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> Here's Calvin's take. https://goo.gl/Zq2BG1
> Personally, I don't say that phrase. Period.


Ed,

Thanks for the link. I have read Calvin and I do agree with him.


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 29, 2018)

So often, it is only when I write (or type) the things down, that I they actually make since in my tiny brain.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 29, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> Here's Calvin's take. https://goo.gl/Zq2BG1
> Personally, I don't say that phrase. Period.


Yet, Calvin (in the very section you linked) said that "we must not omit it" and ""if it is left out, much of the benefit of Christ's death will be lost." [II.16.8]

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Jul 29, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> Looking for how you reconcile this phrase when you recite.



Where is the justification for reciting anything within the context of worship other than what our confessions allow? I ask because if one understand such you would have no worries at all.


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 29, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Where is the justification for reciting anything within the context of worship other than what our confessions allow? I ask because if one understand such you would have no worries at all.


So you are saying the very fact that we recite it, is evidence that I should have no worries?...if so I agree...but I still want to test anything I confess and make sure I can explain it. The better I understand it, the better teacher I can be to others (especially my wife and kids).

If I am misreading you, then I ask you to speak more clearly for me brother.


----------



## earl40 (Jul 29, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> So you are saying the very fact that we recite it, is evidence that I should have no worries?...if so I agree...but I still want to test anything I confess and make sure I can explain it. The better I understand it, the better teacher I can be to others (especially my wife and kids).
> 
> If I am misreading you, then I ask you to speak more clearly for me brother.



What I am saying you ought not to recite it during corporate worship according to the RPW.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 29, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Where is the justification for reciting anything within the context of worship other than what our confessions allow? I ask because if one understand such you would have no worries at all.



Let's not get too far afield from the OP, but some (such as Bruce Buchanan here) have argued for the confession of a creed to be akin to oaths and vows and, as such, is appropriate for congregational worship.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 29, 2018)

earl40 said:


> What I am saying you ought not to recite it during corporate worship according to the RPW.


You are saying that the saints should not recite historic confessions/catechisms during Lord's Day Worship services (Ex. Heidelberg, Westminster, Apostles Creed)?

Wow...I do not agree, and I think it is well within the RPW......but lets not change the thread topic.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jack K (Jul 29, 2018)

This is just one of those cases where Heidelberg is more helpful than Westminster, though I don't think they differ enough to be of concern. The Heidelberg basically says we include the confession that Christ suffered the torments of hell, especially on the cross, to assure ourselves that we are fully saved from hell.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 29, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> You are saying that the saints should not recite historic confessions/catechisms during Lord's Day Worship services (Ex. Heidelberg, Westminster, Apostles Creed)?
> 
> Wow...I do not agree, and I think it is well within the RPW......but lets not change the thread topic.



Given that the drafters of the Westminster Standards would almost have certainly disagreed with the recitation of the same in worship, I'm not sure why it should elicit a "wow." According to the Standards, the Bible ought not to be read publicly by all the congregation, so how much less should uninspired documents?

I don't have much problem with the _descendit _clause of the creed, but I refrain from any sort of unisonal recitations when they are included in a church liturgy.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 29, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> Given that the drafters of the Westminster Standards would almost have certainly disagreed with the recitation of the same in worship, I'm not sure why it should elicit a "wow." According to the Standards, the Bible ought not to be read publicly by all the congregation, so how much less should uninspired documents?
> 
> I don't have much problem with the _descendit _clause of the creed, but I refrain from any sort of unisonal recitations when they are included in a church liturgy.


What makes you say that? Are we not publicly reciting scripture when we sing Psalms. I think you are going beyond the intent of RPW.

I may be alone in the matter.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 29, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> What makes you say that? Are we not publicly reciting scripture when we sing Psalms. I think you are going beyond the intent of RPW.
> 
> I may be alone in the matter.



A distinction is made between singing and reciting/reading. The scriptures command the congregation to sing the Psalms unto the Lord. The reading of the scriptures is restricted to the ministerial office. Singing of Psalms and reading of Scripture are understood to be distinct elements of worship in the confessions as well as the scriptures



> WLC Question 156: Is the Word of God to be read by all?
> 
> Answer: Although all are not to be permitted to read the Word publicly to the congregation, yet all sorts of people are bound to read it apart by themselves, and with their families: to which end, the holy Scriptures are to be translated out of the original into vulgar languages.



While some have reinterpreted this question to allow for congregational readings, it's clear historically that it was originally understood to restrict public reading of Scripture to pastors and teachers (or specially authorized laypersons preparing for that office). The Directory for Publick Worship makes that clear, as does the testimony of many Puritan authors. It's clear that the Scriptures not only regulate the content of the elements of worship but also the performance of the elements. It is not proper for a soloist to sing the Psalms apart from the congregation. It is not proper for the congregation to preach to itself. It is not proper for laypersons to administer sacraments.

Many godly, learned, Reformed men have disagreed (including Calvin with respect to the creeds), but it is the historic and mainstream Presbyterian/Puritan understanding of how the RPW applies in this case. We're getting down a rabbit trail, however, so it might be best to just search older threads where these discussions have been had at length.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 29, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> A distinction is made between singing and reciting/reading. The scriptures command the congregation to sing the Psalms unto the Lord. The reading of the scriptures is restricted to the ministerial office.
> 
> 
> 
> While some have reinterpreted this question to allow for congregational readings, it's clear that it was originally understood to restrict public reading of Scripture to pastors and teachers (or specially authorized laypersons preparing for that office). The Directory for Publick Worship makes that clear, as does the testimony of many Puritan authors. It's clear that the Scriptures not only regulate the content of the elements of worship but also the performance of the elements. It is not proper for a soloist to sing the Psalms apart from the congregation. It is not proper for the congregation to preach to itself. It is not proper for laypersons to administer sacraments.


We don't read the word publicly in our corporate gathering (at least not in my congregation)... but I do (in SS as the teacher) I read the bible quite frequently during my lessons (I am assuming you would allow this, but just checking)

but we do have a public confession of our faith, which I believe to be in accord with the scriptures, the Standards, and RPW.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 29, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> We don't read the word publicly in our corporate gathering (at least not in my congregation)... but I do (in SS as the teacher) I read the bible quite frequently during my lessons (I am assuming you would allow this, but just checking)
> 
> but we do have a public confession of our faith, which I believe to be in accord with the scriptures, the Standards, and RPW.



It's fine for you to disagree after careful consideration. I would just hope you would recognize that opposing public recitation of creeds is the historic Westminster/Puritan position and as such it ought not to surprise you or cause you to accuse someone of going beyond the intent of the RPW (as understood confessionally) when faced with someone maintaining that position. Especially when that position is meant to guard against the very concerns of conscience that you raise in this thread about the descendit clause.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Jul 29, 2018)

The public profession of faith is when we partake in The Lord's Supper. "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 29, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> It's fine for you to disagree after careful consideration. I would just hope you would recognize that opposing public recitation of creeds is the historic Westminster/Puritan position and as such it ought not to surprise you or cause you to accuse someone of going beyond the intent of the RPW (as understood confessionally) when faced with someone maintaining that position.


Do you have any reference material for stating that the Westminster Postion is to oppose the corporate reciting of a historic creed/confession/catechism during Lord's Day Worship?


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 29, 2018)

earl40 said:


> The public profession of faith is when we partake in The Lord's Supper. "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."


I would agree that is one way to profess our faith, but definitely not the ONLY.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Jul 29, 2018)

I think the wording is unhelpful and leaves much to be explained. It should be changed to be clearer in what it is supposed to be conveying. Besides from what I understand the phrase was not originally in the Apostles Creed and was added later. Here is a short helpful articlehttp://www.placefortruth.org/blog/apostles-creed-he-descended-hell


----------



## earl40 (Jul 29, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> I would agree that is one way to profess our faith, but definitely not the ONLY.



Maybe if you can show me in scripture where it says we are allowed to recite?


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 29, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> Do you have any reference material for stating that the Westminster Postion is to oppose the corporate reciting of a historic creed/confession/catechism during Lord's Day Worship?



The Directory for Publick Worship would be the obvious one. Perkins wrote some strong words against it. The old threads would hold many references if you are keen to look, but I won't have time until after evening service.


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 29, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> The Directory for Publick Worship would be the obvious one. Perkins wrote some strong words against it. The old threads would hold many references if you are keen to look, but I won't have time until after evening service.


It would seem many conservative presbyterian congregations recite creeds and still believe them to be within the RPW....would you agree?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 29, 2018)

Travis does a good job here on the subject of responsive readings

https://reformedbooksonline.com/topics/topics-by-subject/worship/responsive-readings/#westminster


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 29, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Maybe if you can show me in scripture where it says we are allowed to recite?


I am not an expert...still new.

Maybe this will help....but lets not get off the OP topic.

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/creeds-confessions-biblical-beneficial/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 29, 2018)

earl40 said:


> What I am saying you ought not to recite it during corporate worship according to the RPW.





Scott Bushey said:


> Travis does a good job here on the subject of responsive readings
> 
> https://reformedbooksonline.com/topics/topics-by-subject/worship/responsive-readings/#westminster





TheOldCourse said:


> The Directory for Publick Worship would be the obvious one. Perkins wrote some strong words against it. The old threads would hold many references if you are keen to look, but I won't have time until after evening service.




Let's get back to the OP. As I stated I would rather hear back from those who have no issue reciting the Apostles Creed. I will further qualify that to mean in public worship. Please start another thread if you want to discuss the validity of public readings in corporate worship.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 29, 2018)

The rejection of the recitation of the creed by the Assembly is covered in many of the standard histories. The pro recitation writers who came later (liturgical renewal guys of the mid to late 19th century) also cover it. Scots Presbyterianism gradually dropped it after the assembly and introduction of the Wdfpw. Gillespie has a MS note about the things that some objected to out of conscience that were not to be imposed. See his notes in Hetherington's edition of the Works. https://books.google.com/books?id=oA1MAAAAYAAJ&dq=Gloria Patri george armoury gillespie&pg=RA2-PA108#v=onepage&q&f=false
*edit. Apologies; thread author wants to get back to the OP.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## earl40 (Jul 29, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> Let's get back to the OP. As I stated I would rather hear back from those who have no issue reciting the Apostles Creed. I will further qualify that to mean in public worship. Please start another thread if you want to discuss the validity of public readings in corporate worship.



Sorry I did not see your restriction in your OP at first.


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 29, 2018)

earl40 said:


> Sorry I did not see your restriction in your OP at first.


No worries. I could have worded better.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 29, 2018)

I think the Reformers equivocated on this phrase. They left it in, but didn't believe it in the same way as the ancient church did. The ancient church believed that Christ actually descended into hell; many of the reformers did not want to charge the creeds with error, so they changed its meaning a tad and kept it in (which was not really being honest, if we really admit it).

Google "the harrowing of hell."


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 29, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> I think the Reformers equivocated on this phrase. They left it in, but didn't believe it in the same way as the ancient church did. The ancient church believed that Christ actually descended into hell; many of the reformers did not want to charge the creeds with error, so they changed its meaning a tad and kept it in (which was not really being honest, if we really admit it).
> 
> Google "the harrowing of hell."



Depends what you mean by "ancient." Early versions of the creed had either just "he was buried" or the _descendit_ clause rather than both, suggesting that they were used interchangeably and may have been understood to mean the same thing. Rufinus in the 5th century remarked, in particular, that the _descendit_ clause did not occur in the received creed of the early Eastern and Western churches.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 29, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> It would seem many conservative presbyterian congregations recite creeds and still believe them to be within the RPW....would you agree?



As a quick response since you asked directly and then suggested we stay on topic: many "conservative" Presbyterian congregations, in my estimation, only pay lip service to the RPW and do many things without really subjecting their practice to its rigor. They see that other churches or ministers that they respect and who, perhaps, also acknowledge the validity of the RPW in theory, use a practice and so they adopt it without subjecting it to the full scrutiny that the RPW requires. This could be considered a form of implicit faith.

Others, such as our esteemed Bruce Buchanan here as cited earlier, indeed wrestle honestly with the RPW and come with positive Scriptural and confessional warrant for the use of creeds in worship. While I disagree as to his conclusions, I cannot fault his methods and indeed respect him greatly for them (among myriad other reasons).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 29, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> Depends what you mean by "ancient." Early versions of the creed had either just "he was buried" or the _descendit_ clause rather than both, suggesting that they were used interchangeably and may have been understood to mean the same thing. Rufinus in the 5th century remarked, in particular, that the _descendit_ clause did not occur in the received creed of the early Eastern and Western churches.


Origin, Ambrose, Irenaeus, and John of Damascus all wrote on the harrowing of hell, and those guys were pretty ancient. The early church largely believed that Christ literally went down into hell after his crucifixion. But the Reformers did not believe this. But they did not want to do away with the phrasing.


https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/churchman/102-03_240.pdf


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 29, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> As a quick response since you asked directly and then suggested we stay on topic: many "conservative" Presbyterian congregations, in my estimation, only pay lip service to the RPW and do many things without really subjecting their practice to its rigor. They see that other churches or ministers that they respect and who, perhaps, also acknowledge the validity of the RPW in theory, use a practice and so they adopt it without subjecting it to the full scrutiny that the RPW requires. This could be considered a form of implicit faith.
> 
> Others, such as our esteemed Bruce Buchanan here as cited earlier, indeed wrestle honestly with the RPW and come with positive Scriptural and confessional warrant for the use of creeds in worship. While I disagree as to his conclusions, I cannot fault his methods and indeed respect him greatly for them (among myriad other reasons).


Thanks for sharing your honest opinion. I will check out the Buchanan article as I think through this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 29, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> Origin, Ambrose, Irenaeus, and John of Damascus all wrote on the harrowing of hell, and those guys were pretty ancient. The early church largely believed that Christ literally went down into hell after his crucifixion. But the Reformers did not believe this. But they did not want to do away with the phrasing.
> 
> 
> https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/churchman/102-03_240.pdf



Yes there were church fathers that held to such an interpretation, and there were others who did not. Charles Hill argues that the belief in the harrowing was almost exclusively held by the chiliasts whereas the orthodox non-chiliasts denied it. Augustine thought it heretical. At the least it was not a universal position. When you consider this controversy along with the very poor early attestation of the _descendit_ clause, it doesn't seem accurate to simply suggest that the ancients believed one thing about the Creed and the Reformers choose to believe something else.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 29, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> Yes there were church fathers that held to such an interpretation, and there were others who did not. Charles Hill argues that the belief in the harrowing was almost exclusively held by the chiliasts whereas the orthodox non-chiliasts denied it. Augustine thought it heretical. At the least it was not a universal position. When you consider this controversy along with the very poor early attestation of the _descendit_ clause, it doesn't seem accurate to simply suggest that the ancients believed one thing about the Creed and the Reformers choose to believe something else.


Augustine wrote:

"It is established beyond question that the Lord, after He had been put to death in the flesh, descended into hell; for it is impossible to gainsay either that utterance of prophecy, You will not leave my soul in hell, — an utterance which Peter himself expounds in the Acts of the Apostles, lest any one should venture to put upon it another interpretation—or the words of the same apostle, in which he affirms that the Lord loosed the pains of hell, in which it was not possible for Him to be holden. Who, therefore, except an infidel, will deny that Christ was in hell? (Letter 164.2)"

But in later writings showed some doubts. 

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/the-harrowing-of-hell/

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1466&context=jbms

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.84c2ecb98405

I believe the Reformers broke from the previous 1,000 years of church history and attempted to change the meaning of the Apostle's Creed in an effort to retain the phrase.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jul 29, 2018)

Closed by author request.


----------

