He Descended Into Hell

[Grant]

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]

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

 

[Grant]

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]

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.

 

[Grant]

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]

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."

 

[Grant]

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.

 

[Grant]

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

 

[Steve Curtis]

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]

 

[earl40]

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.

 

[Grant]

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]

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.

 

[Steve Curtis]

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.

 

[Grant]

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.

 

[Jack K]

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.

 

[TheOldCourse]

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.

 

[Grant]

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]

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.

 

[Grant]

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]

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.

 

[earl40]

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."

 

[Grant]

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?

 

[Grant]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Grant]

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]

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

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

 

[Grant]

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/

 

[Grant]

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

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

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

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.