Descended Into Hell

Awhile back I noted the early 20th century work of Arthur McGiffert, "The Apostles' Creed: Its Origin, Its Purpose, and Its Historical Interpretation" (1902), available from Google Books. That earlier post discussed whether or not current Protestant uses of the Apostles' Creed match the "original intent" of the church that created it. To repeat the words of a Creed, but not its substance, is to fail to subscribe to that Creed.

The Apostles' Creed tells us that Christ "descended into hell. The third day He rose again from the dead."

The Reformed circle teaches that Christ went to hell to suffer the torment of damnation on our behalf, in order to be a sufficient substitutionary atoning sacrifice. Calvin taught this, particularly noting that, "If Christ had died only a bodily death, it would have been ineffectual (Institutes, Book II, Ch. 16, Sect. 10)" and later, "surely, unless his soul shared in the punishment, he would have been the Redeemer of bodies alone. (ibid., Sect. 12)" These Reformed teachings are deeply woven together with the notion of Christ's substitutionary atonement, His standing "accused before God's judgment seat for our sake." At any rate, this has been my life-long understanding.

So I was none too surprised to learn from McGiffert that "The idea that Christ went down to suffer the torments of the damned in order to complete thereby his expiatory work arose first in the middle ages. (196, emphasis added)" I learned here that a 3rd Century Syrian Creed teaches that Jesus "departed in peace, in order to preach to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the saints concerning the end of the world and the resurrection of the dead." McGiffert notes several early theories of what Christ did upon His descent to Hades, none of which match Calvin's theory.

Theologians of my Reformed circle criticize many Orthodox and Catholic doctrines as inventions of the Middle Ages. But Calvin's view, that Christ descended into the Hell of the damned to be a substitutionary atonement because his physical death and resurrection were insufficient to redeem His people, came from the Middle Ages. Perhaps, on a more philosophical level, this stemmed from Calvin's separation of spirit and matter. One could say that if the earlier teaching were correct, Calvin's could be a big enough theological change to merit the title "heresy", no?

Credo Epilogue: Anticredalism

All churches have Creeds. Creed, of course, is of the Latin word "Credo", or "I believe". I've said before that the non-denominational utterance "no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible" is itself a creed. Some churches believe that no one set of beliefs can be right; that too is a belief. The PCA has its own little creed. All churches have a set of beliefs, so all churches have Creeds.

Protestants necessarily teach that all statements of belief are valid (i.e., Truthful) only insofar as they agree with the Scriptures. [I will set aside for now the antecedent problem that this belief follows a priori a belief subject to untruthfulness.] If formulations of belief are only valid where they agree with the Bible, then their worth is as a forum for discussion, an opportunity to strive toward the Truths within the Bible.

Consequently, creeds should always be open to debate, handling, picking apart, and modifying. And that means that no one should be bound ever to subscribe to a belief in one system of theology as Truth. No one should be bound ever to submit to a particular form of ecclesial governance. These things can only be right insofar as they agree with the Bible, and whether they agree with the Bible needs to remain open for debate (for the individual's determination). To lock one into a particular fallible articulation of Truth locks one out of considering that that articulation may be inaccurate, which locks one into a belief that it is accurate, which conflicts with the protestant view that nothing but Scripture is infallible. Phew.

So, to the Protestant mind, no vows for church membership or officership should be taken, other than a vow to the Prior of Priors, that the Bible is God's only Authoritative Revelation. And how the Prior of Priors obtained to infallible status is (as I humbly see it) the great logical flaw of the Reformation.

Credo III: The Man Jesus

Do protestants properly treat the Godhead? Trinitarian teachings are complex and nuanced, nearly impossible for me to discuss without saying something that is probably (unintentionally) heretical. Our prayers made to "God" almost always mean to "the Father", and we usually pray in "Jesus name" alone. (Note: Christ prayed with particularity to "Our Father").

I was struck when I read 1 Tim 2:5-6 the other night: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men. (NIV)" This is not language that the majority members of the Council of Nicea would have chosen. "God" and "the man" Jesus appear quite distinct.

In principle, protestants should accept and adhere to the ancient ecumenical formulations regarding the Trinity and the Nature of Christ only insofar as we find them to agree with Scripture. But these points do not seem to be truly open for debate. If salvation, baptism, continuing revelation, et cetera, are open for debate, why is not the nature of Christ or His relation to the Father?

I suspect that if I were put to the task of determining the nature of the Godhead using nothing but the Scriptures, without reference to later doctrinal development, I would have to argue for a position differing from the ancient creeds. Protestants must accept that we inherently subscribe to a model of doctrinal development, or else let the creeds be fair game for debate.

Credo II: Athanasian Creed

It is interesting that Auburn Avenue PCA, a controversial church to say the least, expressly embraces the Athanasian Creed, where its parent denomination is less enthusiastic.

I can guess at why the Athanasian Creed is disfavored within the PCA. To my recollection, I've never heard it spoken in any Reformed Church. It says in part, "From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; and shall give account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved."

At least on its face, this exposition on the Last Judgment is hard to reconcile with either a Lutheran or a Calvinistic-Reformed view. Certainly, the case is made more difficult in the context of Calvinists, who hold that God strictly predestined all of mankind to Salvation or Perdition, not based on some type of foreknowledge of one's deeds or heart, but by His Sovereign decree alone (what Calvin dubbed the 'Horrible Decree'). Such a view makes virtually senseless this line of the Athanasian Creed.

I imagine that the PCA would be hard-pressed to condemn the use of the Creed, but it's no surprise that it is not falling over to get the Creed recited in its churches. Those of the Auburn Ave Theology persuasion, on the other hand, are more comfortable admitting that works are in same antecedent way a necessary component of the calculus of salvation. It is fitting, then, that Auburn Ave PCA would choose to use the Athanasian Creed.

(to be continued...)

Credo I: Binding or Not?

On a recent visit to the website of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA), I saw that they "embrace the ancient catholic creeds (the Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostles' creeds) as defining the doctrinal boundaries of the Christian faith."

The PCA website admits to no formal position on these three ancient creeds, but its Book of Church Order tells us "[i]t is proper for the congregation of God’s people publicly to confess their faith, using creeds or confessions that are true to the Word, such as, the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Westminster Standards."

The "such as" leaves much to be desired. It reminds me of the Congregationalist tendencies (where each particular church decides for itself what to believe) of the PCA. The Auburn Ave Controversy serves as a clear exemplar. Each church may make use of creeds that are "true to the Word", but who is to decide which are true?

Is the Athanasian Creed a proper interpretation of scripture or not? Are its expressions mandatorily binding on a Presbyterian, is this a matter of conscience, or are its expressions anathema to the Presbyterian interpretation of the Word of God?

The Presbyterian system binds no consciences, but merely attempts to filter what is taught. It narrows ecclesial discourse to be within its boundaries, but does not and cannot narrow belief to those same bounds. Its authority is strictly over the outward act of teaching, not over internal belief. Since I am saved strictly by right intellectual belief and not by overt acts, the role of the church in my salvation is thus made narrow. Unless its filter of teachings is set just right, it may not act to push me into the right intellectual camp.

(to be continued...)

Original Creed: Catholic Church and Saints' Communion

In the combox of my previous post, Jim and I discussed the original intent behind the terms "holy catholic church" and "communion of the saints" in the Apostles' Creed. In the course of researching this point, I came across a fabulous resource worth noting here.

GoogleBooks has Union Theological Seminary Prof. Arthur McGiffert's "The Apostles Creed: Its Origin, Its Purpose, and Its Historical Interpretation" (1902). In analyzing the "catholic" and "communion" terms of the Apostles' Creed, McGiffert notes the following:

1) At the time "Catholic" was added to the creed, the word had an exclusive meaning, a belief in the particular institution of Church, and not a "holy church universal". McGiffert says, "The common Protestant interpretation of the article in the creed, which makes it refer to the holy church universal, is therefore historically incorrect. (emphasis added)"

2) Prof. McGiffert notes the historical obscurity of the origin of the "communion" term. But he says, "It was used sometimes to denote participation in sacred things, that is the sacraments, sometimes to denote communion with departed saints. And one or the other of these meanings probably attaches to the article in the creed." Further, "There is no sign that the article was intended to express the communion or fellowship of believers with each other, or that it was meant as a closer definition of the word "church," as we so commonly interpret it to-day." Citing the first appearances of the term in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, McGiffert wraps up his thought:

"In which [of the above two senses "communion"] was understood when it was inserted in the creed we do not know; possibly in both [...], for the two meanings were closely associated and often appear together in the same writer. Whoever enjoys real participation in the sacraments enjoys also communion with the saints and vice versa.

"The interpretation which commonly attaches to the phrase to-day -- communion or fellowship of believers with each other -- cannot be regarded as correct, for if this were the meaning we should hardly expect sanctorum to the receive the emphasis which its position before communio gives it, and moreover this interpretation does not appear until much later, at any rate in that part of the world where the article was first added to the creed...

"And so the interpretation of the word communio as if it were a concrete noun and equivalent to congregatio [the Lutheran view] is also incorrect. (emphasis added; internal citations omitted)"

See the Wiki article on McGiffert for an interesting tale of his facing Presbyterian heresy charges for a book on church history he wrote five years earlier (I wrongly said in the previous combox that the charges were for the present book -- When McGiffert wrote this book, he had taken flight to the Congregational Church (though retaining his UTS professorship).

Assuming Prof. McGiffert is right, was the reformation right to commandeer the meaning of credal language to new uses? Why do it?

More Credal Interpretation From The Reformers

In my old post Creeds and Catholicity, I noted the need to consider the "original intent" of the Creeds' progenitors. In reading more of the McNeil Edition of Calvin's Institutes, I came across an interesting observation of Luther and Calvin's interpretation:

"[Calvin] follows Luther in the view that in the Creed, "catholic church" and "communion of the saints" are terms that refer to the same entity, in which all Christians are members. The invisible church of the elect, whose membership is known to God alone, is differentiated but not dissevered from the organized church visible on earth, whose members are known to each other. (Intro. XII)"

An old judicial canon of interpretation goes something like this: 'where a list is given, no two terms are to be read as identical (or an interpretation reading two terms as identical is to be disfavored)'. The underlying rationale of this judicial canon seems relevant in this instance. Can we fairly say that in our short and carefully wrought creeds, where (otherwise) each term is distinct and precisely written to address some heresy or other, these two terms actually just mean the same thing?

Ancient Christian Commentary: Acts 1:3

The Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, published by IVP, is "an ecumenical project, promoting a vital link of communication between the varied Christian traditions of today and their common ancient ancestors in the faith." These volumes give a sort of Church Fathers Gloss on scripture - excellent stuff!

I own a few volumes, and was perusing their New Testament Volume V on the Books of Acts online with Amazon's handy "Search Inside!" feature. I came across this marvelous passage of St. Chrysostom on Acts 1:3 (from his Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 1) (taken from the New Advent website):

"But why did He appear not to all, but to the Apostles only? Because to the many it would have seemed a mere apparition, inasmuch as they understood not the secret of the mystery. For if the disciples themselves were at first incredulous and were troubled, and needed the evidence of actual touch with the hand, and of His eating with them, how would it have fared in all likelihood with the multitude? For this reason therefore by the miracles [wrought by the Apostles] He renders the evidence of His Resurrection unequivocal, so that not only the men of those times—this is what would come of the ocular proof—but also all men thereafter, should be certain of the fact, that He was risen. Upon this ground also we argue with unbelievers. For if He did not rise again, but remains dead, how did the Apostles perform miracles in His name? But they did not, say you, perform miracles? How then was our religion (ἔ θνος ) instituted? For this certainly they will not controvert nor impugn what we see with our eyes: so that when they say that no miracles took place, they inflict a worse stab upon themselves. For this would be the greatest of miracles, that without any miracles, the whole world should have eagerly come to be taken in the nets of twelve poor and illiterate men. For not by wealth of money, not by wisdom of words, not by any thing else of this kind, did the fishermen prevail; so that objectors must even against their will acknowledge that there was in these men a Divine power, for no human strength could ever possibly effect such great results. For this He then remained forty days on earth, furnishing in this length of time the sure evidence of their seeing Him in His own proper Person, that they might not suppose that what they saw was a phantom. And not content with this, He added also the evidence of eating with them at their board: as to signify this, the writer adds, "And being at table with them, He commanded." (v. 4.) And this circumstance the Apostles themselves always put forth as an fallible token of the Resurrection; as where they say, "Who did eat and drink with Him." (Acts x. 41.)" (All emphases mine).

We have been given not only well-equipped witnesses to the Resurrection, in the form of the Apostles and those they taught, but irrefutable evidence from the nature of the spread of the early church (we would say res ipsa loquitur, or 'the thing speaks for itself' in the law).

Witness

James Swan at Beggars All shared a Google Books nugget, George Stanley Faber's The Difficulties of Romanism, published in 1829. It reminded me of the importance of witnesses in the context of the Orthodox/Catholic - Protestant discussion.

Faber's premise is simple: Rome claims to have immutable doctrines, so these doctrines must have been held by the Apostles. To be believable, there must be evidence (in the form of an unbroken chain of witnesses through time in strict mutual harmony with each other) that the apostles taught these doctrines.

We believe what reliable people have told us. Early Mormons believed Joseph Smith saw the Book of Mormon through the Seeing Stones. They believed this because people they trusted as witnesses transcibed the writing while Joseph was behind a curtain. Today's Mormons accept the early Mormons' testimony. (I disbelieve the Mormon faith because of other witnesses and testimony.)

Likewise, Christianity depends on eye witnesses to Christ's life and teachings. We do not believe the Gospel of John to contain Truth because it feels good, or because the pages glimmer a special way. We believe it because the Church has borne witness to its authenticity through our history. (And, unlike in my Mormon analogy, I find no convincing contrary testimony.)

Faber said that if any gap appears in the chain of testimony, what is claimed earlier is unbelievable. I do not agree. If I can only see down the chain, say, 500 feet, should I disbelieve that it is 2,000 feet long, or that the links on the end are painted red? Maybe. But what if someone I trust is standing 500 feet down the line, and they hollar to me that it goes as far as they can see, another 500 feet? At some point we have to trust our witnesses.

Our Ancient Creeds are witnesses to me. I can't question the 2nd Century Apostles' Creed based on my individualistic interpretation of Holy Scriptures. I also cannot redefine the Creeds' terms (see my post on original intent in credal language).

There are rich scriptures on witnessing. Remember that the Prophets were witnesses, and those who claimed to be prophets but whose prophecies did not come true were to be STONED.

To note just a few passages: John 1:15, John 5:39 (I believe referring to the then-extant Prophecies of the Messiah's coming), Acts 1:8, Acts 22:20, 1 Thess 2:9-11 (where a particular church is witness to the Apostles' behavior), 2 Tim 2:1-3 (Paul taught Timothy in the presence of witnesses, instructing him to pass that teaching on to others), Heb 12:1 (I have to admit, I now read "witnesses" in the great cloud in a totally differnt light in this context - I always thought they witnessed me, and cheered me on, but now I realize they witness TO ME, through the life they live(d), the True faith - as evidence by the words "let us also").

Creeds and Catholicity

Textualism or Evolving Standard?
In reciting the Apostles' Creed last night with my son, I stumbled over the old "holy catholic church" line. I learned at a young age what was meant in the Reformed circle by this line: the true invisible church in all places throughout time.

The Apostles' Creed's origin is variously dated, but certainly no later than the 4th Century. See Christian Reformed Church Beliefs: The Apostles' Creed. http://www.crcna.org/pages/apostles_creed.cfm; Catholic Encyclopedia: Apostles' Creed. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01629a.htm. The Orthodox "Symbol of Faith" is the Nicene(-Constantinopolitan) Creed, formally drawn up (though no doubt of earlier roots) at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicea in 325AD. The Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople added the second portion of the creed, including the "one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" phrase. The Orthodox Faith: Nicene Creed. http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=10.

Without delving too much into a history lesson, my inquiry is this: when ancient believers recited the "one church" line of either creed, what did they mean by it? Did they have some notion in the second or fourth century of an invisible church consisting of all 'true' believers throughout time? Or did the one 'Apostolic' church mean to them something more visible, something more concrete in which they had placed their faith (and under whose authority they were submitted)?

It is this interpretive trap that caught my attention. Christians state the creed together because it is unifying horizontally (with other Christians in spite of differences) and vertically (with the Church down through the ages). Is it proper to use its words in a way different from their "original intent"? If ancient Christians, our ancestors, meant VISIBLE Church, can we now claim the phrase for ourselves, but with an evolved (different) meaning?

The Reformers saw a church that had become so apostate as to be no church at all. Perhaps the Protestant circle should use a different phrase, or drop the phrase altogether. To claim that the phrase only came to its proper meaning (i.e., invisible vice visible church) since the Reformation would seem contrived. To ignore the meaning that ancient believers gave it seems unfair.

Credal language ought not to evolve, and should only be changed where competent authority has determined that the previous language was in error or needs to be clarified to address some heresy. Protestant authority rests solely in Scripture (sola scriptura). When Protestants become convinced that Scripture calls for a change to an ancient creed, it should be changed and not 'evolved', as happened with the 'one holy Church' lines in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.

I hope that the ancient creeds can be a source of ecumenicity for Christ's Church in the future.