He Descended Into Hell

[NaphtaliPress]

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.

 

[earl40]

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.

 

[Grant]

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

No worries. I could have worded better.

 

[Pergamum]

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]

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.

 

[TheOldCourse]

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).

 

[Pergamum]

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

 

[Grant]

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.

 

[TheOldCourse]

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.

 

[Pergamum]

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.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Closed by author request.