The Apostles Creed: Fact or fiction?
How much heresy does it take before men should get aggressive enough and fed up enough to rebuke even the minutest amount of heresy and deal with it in a biblical manner? I begin this article with a kind rebuke to all who embrace the Creed primarily because the Scriptures are sufficient to instruct us doctrinally and morally. Yes, I am what they call a Biblicist and if the Scriptures were good enough for the Patriarchs and the Apostles and the Messiah himself, then by golly they are good enough for me!
What am I going to talk about? The following will be mentioned, but not in the order listed.
Return to the Bible alone as instructed by Paul; DO NOT GO BEYOND THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN.
Confessions have a minimal place in our day and have historic value. But they do not replace Scripture.
The Apostles Creed is a hoax and no evangelical has the right to conclude it is based upon the faith of the Apostles. Were you there? Do you have evidence to your claim or are you just borrowing from another mans ignorance?
NOTHING in the Creed can lead one to salvation!
There are two Apostles Creeds. Which one is more accurate?
Those within false religions entertain use of the Apostles Creed because it is vague.
Paul instructed Titus ‘you must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.’ Paul goes on to say in verse 11 ‘their mouths must be stopped/silenced.’
Titus 1:9; holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
Does it say ‘Holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with Creeds, Confession and Catechisms?’ Did you see that anywhere? Of course you didn’t see that. We are to defend the Scriptures, specifically ‘The Faiyh’ and NOT those things that come along later. The Scriptures stand alone!
My argument in general before I deal with the Creed is as follows; the Lord does not need extra help and he has not asked for men to assist him in making a case for him outside of the Scriptures. He has no need for clarification by way of a Creed or any other man made document. That includes books as well since the church seems to be is filled with newly converted ‘instant’ theologians especially appearing on TBN, aka, The Bozo Network, telling others God spoke to them and they need to pass the message on in order for you to have a closer walk with God. And then there are the old timers like William Lane Craig who have established themselves in the Church only because they write books and men go “oooh, awww, what knowledge this man has in helping God out by using Thomas Aquinas.”
In most cases, when people write books, they are not writing to be objective and academic to teach the Scriptures. They are writing the books in order to have you follow them like the pied piper. “I have knowledge of the most high and you need to follow me into my way of thinking and into my world.” Certain men, who use human philosophy to help add insights to the things God has already made clear in his word. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth says Genesis 1:1. The fool says in his heart there is no God says Psalm 14. So what justification do these men have in using additional arguments to make a case for the Living God who says his word does not return to him empty? There is no justification for godly men to go beyond that which is written!
That would be men like C.S. Lewis, William Lane Craig R.C. Sproul and all the other philosophical numbskulls who are quicker to quote Aquinas, Aristotle or Plato then they are the words of the Messiah or Paul. One could also argue in the light of what I am saying that even articles are used to sway opinion and you are right on. That is why, when I write, I build a case using the Scriptures and I purposely type them out instead of giving a citation because people are lazy and many never check the references to see if they are in context.
For the record, let it be known that I have no problem with a Confession being used as a means of study. That means, being studied in a Sunday school setting. To be more specific, there is no harm in studying the Confession when it is written against heresy and it is very specific in exposing the heresy of that day and age. That is an important point. The Apostles Creed does not expose heresy. It is more of an ecumenical statement of faith that even the false religions can embrace as I will point out in a bit. Church history should be encouraged, but this should be done in order to better understand what the Church stood against in its day. What I mean by that is we have new minds in our day that God has regenerated to oppose these false teachers. And we have the ability to pursue heresy with the tools of our day. Many would argue there is no reason to re-invent the wheel. We can still use the WCF or the 1689 Confession. That’s right we can. But, at the same time they are writing dozens of books on various topics including topics covered in the WCF and the 1689. Go figure! Whatever Confession you do study must lead us back to the Scriptures.
As I will repeat again and again, there is no justification for using a Creed that is so vague that the cults can use it and especially a Creed, (the Apostles Creed) which contains heresy and lacks any presentation of the gospel. More on that later.
I have argued this round and round with Calvinists who defend the WCF when they should be headed toward the Scriptures. What can the WCF say that a godly man cant? What can Calvin say that a godly man cant? The WCF is a wonderful document FOR ITS TIME. Calvin did great things by the grace of God IN HIS TIME. But we do not pitch our tent and make camp from the teachings that arose out of the Sixteenth Century. We must move beyond the Reformation all the way to the Scriptures.
Men seem to have made the WCF as their Bible in many pulpits and the WCF is not the Bible. It is ok to be educated on the WCF because of the history behind it. It was done to reveal and expose heresies. It was created in opposition to heretical doctrine. But, we do not use the WCF or men for that matter to make our case when we live in such a day that we have more than they had available to them. We are not living in the sixteenth century any longer. We deal with heretics in the twenty first century using the Scriptures. Confessions had their place in rebuking heretics, but as I will point out later, a godly man and the word of God is enough to expose and refute a heretic today. By the grace of God I do it all the time.
Titus 1:9; ἀντεχόμενον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου, ἵνα δυνατὸς ᾖ καὶ παρακαλεῖν ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ καὶ τοὺς ἀντιλέγοντας ἐλέγχειν
Very quickly let’s look begin with this Scripture. Paul instructs Titus to hold fast. What does it mean to hold fast and to hold fast to what? Thayer says the word ‘antechomai’ is translated as; to cleave to, hold to firmly. That is to say Titus is to cleave or hold firmly to what? To the faithful/ trustworthy word he has been taught. Has been taught; past tense. (In a second you will see a comparison when Paul speaks to Timothy.) Paul tells Titus to use what has been taught and being held onto firmly so that by Titus’ sound/healthy teaching, (which has already been established) he will be able to exhort and encourage, and also to refute those who speak against it.
The prophet’s and the apostles did not whip out a pocket sized Confession from their garments when they dealt with the heretics of their day. The words were generally placed into their heart or mouth. Thy word have I hid in my heart so I might not sin against you. Was that the only reason for retaining the word of God? Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. The Lord Messiah used the Scriptures when he was tempted by the Devil in Matthew 4. ‘It is written.’ He did not quote Section 17 of the JCF; Jewish Confession of Faith. Yes I made that up for a laugh.
No where do we read Titus was to hold to issues outside of the Scriptures or to things he has never been taught. Yes, it can be argued that there were traditions, but they were passed down from Paul and in line with the Scriptures.
2 Thessalonians 3:6; In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is living in idleness and not living according to the tradition that they received from us.
Thayer says; a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc. Objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching
But, that is a very rare case in the light of the negative examples where tradition was exposed as the words of men and not God. If you do a word study you will find the majority of times traditions was mentioned it was not in a positive light. They, traditions, were generally not a good thing and were to be dismissed. Traditions are historical and from the past and so we do not need ‘new’ traditions. One example that comes to mind is from Colossians;
Colossians 2:8; Watch that there not be one robbing you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to the Messiah.
Similarly, as I just mentioned, we see this same instruction with Timothy. Paul told Timothy to hold onto the things he learned as a child/babe. He was to go on with the teachings given to him that were called sacred writings/holy Scriptures.
2 Timothy 3:14-15; But you keep on in what you learned and were assured of, knowing from whom you learned, and that from a babe you know the Holy Scriptures, those being able to make you wise to salvation through belief in Christ Jesus.
I do not read where allowance is made or encouraged for outside material to be on par with the Scriptures. I do not read where secondary sources with confusing statements (he descended into hell) are to be used. I don’t care how ‘old’ it is. Most websites argue the historical values of it. I want to know who wrote it! Who titled it?
This issue involves the Apostles Creed, but more specifically, the statement, ‘he descended into hell. And, I might add, this was not in the original Creed. Can a Creed be trusted if it is changed or altered? If it is changed then which one contained the truth, the first or the second edition? Then I would ask which group was deceived, the readers of the first edition or the readers of the second edition? Did he descend into hell or not?
In fairness, changes have also been made to the WCF, but that is another matter for another time. This is why we do not look to them as solid source material. The Scripture alone contains the words of God!
How did I stumble across this? For the record I have been fighting this issue for a long time. And I am not alone. When you talk to people you can hear in their voice a discomfort when they say that it is repeated in their congregation so often. Every week it is recited like a mantra.
I was doing some research the other day for the Sunday school lesson and I do tend to check out what others are saying from the ‘Reformed’ camp so I don’t deviate and I can be accountable in this way. I eventually ended up in the Banner of Truth website. As I perused the articles I came across one called ‘He Went Where?’
I asked myself “Who went where?” So I had to check it out and sure enough, it was another Presbyterian defending the Apostles Creed. To be more precise, the article was an apologetic or a defense of the statement ‘he descended into hell.
As always, in fairness to the Pastor who wrote the article, Presbyterian churches all over the globe, even Reformed websites, endorse the Creed. One website I have enjoyed for research is the website called CRTA. But, I get upset to see them post the Apostles Creed and defend it. And, when they quote the Creed it is funny to me to see a justification for doing so. There is an immediate reference to Calvin to justify the Creed’s statement.
It reads; “He descended into hell. [See Calvin]” http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html
Calvin, Calvin Calvin. Oy! Calvin was only a man and we should not view his writings as infallible! Why does it seem like Calvin is the authority on all matters? It would have been interesting to see the CRTA website say “He descended into hell and then list the citation or [See Scripture] Aw, you cannot do that because there is no justification to promote these words using the Scriptures. it is unbiblical. There is no support from the Scriptures to make such an asinine statement.
And to always make Calvin the final say as many do. As if, Calvin didn’t have any theological problems of his own. I always find it funny when someone claims to be a Calvinist. I always ask them if they too believe that the Roman Catholic Baptism of a baby is valid (as many Presbyterians do, i.e. R. C. Sproul and Douglas Wilson for example.) What about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Do you Calvie’s also believe that the womb of Mary was forever closed and sealed? Or perhaps a sign is sewn to her garments ‘keep out.’ Maybe there was an electrified chastity belt or a lock with no key. Maybe the sign reads; (probably in Latin) ‘no trespassing, off limits.’ And, if Mary was from the South you may have read the words ‘violators will be shot.’ All of a sudden I have a defensive Calvinist on my hands. Oh the joys of being a converted Jew. At this time I feel like snoopy where he is dancing with joy. How grateful I am to the Lord for my rebellion toward man made systems!
Let it be known that I tried to send this Pastor/author a kind rebuke through his blog on Sermon Audio, but was not able to get it to go through. That being said, I will not gossip about this man and hurt his reputation. I will however scold his article publicly and the un-biblical position concerning his defense of a document. After all, his article is in a public domain so a response should be in a public domain. I too would expect criticism if it is warranted. And I remain open to rebuke if you can argue from the Scriptures. The www is not a ‘free for all’ or a ‘doctrine free zone’ for writers. They are equally accountable in the www as they are in their own congregations. I can’t get people to understand this point.
Having attended Presbyterian Churches for several years it is common to hear them recite the Apostles Creed. Why am I agitated about this Creed? I have already said why. The Messiah DID NOT go to hell! That is heresy in the light of Scripture.
Let me start out using a human argument. When a glass of water contains even a drop of poison, it is no longer safe for consumption and MUST be avoided at all costs. It must not be drunk, it must not be touched and it must not be given to another for consumption if you care for that person. Any false theology must be treated as the tree in the garden. Do not eat of it and do not touch it lest you die.
It is very obvious that many well meaning Pastors are unconcerned about a little bit of doctrinal poison because they have the attitude ‘we don’t want to throw out the baby with the bath water’ so they are willing to look past minimal deviations. Thus, the result is, they are no longer godly shepherds concerned about the flock they have been placed in authority over and liberalism is ok as long as it is weighed in the balance.
I experienced this first hand at an OPC in VA. They introduced a book for the women’s Bible study where the female author purposely changed the male nouns and male pronouns to female nouns and female pronouns. I did a review of the book and when all was said and done the elders seemed to have no problem with the book and went forward with it. The author also quoted from a Roman Catholic Priest. Not any old Priest. Oh what joy the Roman Catholics must have when Protestants quote from Roman Catholic sources! Oh what joy it must be when liberals, who also change the Scriptures, can point to this book and say ‘she did it, what cant I? I really need to put the book review on the blog so you can get an idea of the compromise in the Presbyterian churches. This same book was being used at another OPC in VA.
Why the Apostles Creed? Who knows, maybe it’s the fat wallet of a member who wants to hear the Apostles Creed each and every week because mommy used to tuck him in at night and recite it? Do not think for a moment that the influence of money is not used today in many Congregations! Either way, I see the pastor holding a scale with two plates. As long as the sound doctrine tilts more favorably/heavily to the one side on the scale and the false doctrine remains less weighty than its ok for the sheep to consume the liberalism in today’s Church.
Talk about compromise? Not to get sidetracked, but why is Douglas Wilson accepted and his Federal Vision? He is a false teacher and his books and articles are being eaten up by Presbyterians. Yes, it is primarily the Presbyterians who look to his theology, but the Baptists are exposing themselves as well to his theology. I eventually will do a blog on the compromise within several so-called Protestant Christian ministries who provide his books. One particular popular website has the nerve to give a warning about Doug Wilson and at the same time offer his book. We don’t endorse his heresy, but we make his book available? Is it me or do others see a problem with this?
As I have told many, in another thirty to forty years we will probably see that the lampstand has been removed from the Presbyterian Church because a little leaven was ignored. This is why I left the OPC. There is an on-going/progressive tolerance for liberal teachers and their books. I am waiting and watching to see paedo communion introduced inside the OPC in the near future. Just wait until the older liberals die off and the new generation of younger liberals runs things.
For more on the Presbyterians see my article on Richard Gaffin and how his false doctrine has influenced multitudes of Seminary students from Westminster Seminary East in his distortion of Romans 4:25. And, if you want to hear horror stories inside the OPC then read ‘Christianity and Neo Liberalism’ by Paul Elliot.
The words; ‘He descended into hell’ are not only unbiblical they also imply the work on the cross was not finished. For what purpose did he have to go to hell? He said ‘it is finished.’ When I cover the article from the Banner of Truth I will show you where the author, the Pastor of a Presbyterian church in Mississippi appeals primarily to Confessions and Catechisms to defend the Creed and does not go to the Scriptures.
Keep in mind one important fact; the Apostles Creed has NO textual support from the Scriptures. In fact the Scriptures teach the exact opposite. He went up and not down.
Secondly, no doubt the Jews had Creeds. I grew up reciting the sh’ma. The difference is that my Creed comes directly from the Scriptures and remains Biblical forever and into eternity. Hear O Israel, the LORD our God the LORD is one. Deuteronomy 6:4.
We do not; we must not allow the Scriptures to submit to Confessions, Catechisms and Creeds. ALL foreign works, even those by godly men such as the WCF or the 1689 Confession MUST bow the knee to Scripture!
To defend ‘he descended into hell’ the Pastor from Mississippi who wrote this article uses;
The Apostles Creed
Thirty Nine Articles of Religion (Anglican) (Don’t get me started on the Anglicans and the damage they are doing to the Church)
The Heidelberg Catechism (Continental Reformed)
Westminster Larger Catechism (British Presbyterianism)
Even the Biblical citations attached to the above references do not have one single Scripture teaching the Messiah descended into hell. In fact, before I forget, we do have two very clear passages telling us where the Messiah went. Question, did he go up or did he go down?
Luke 23:46 And crying with a loud voice, Jesus said, Father, “into your hands I commit My spirit.” And saying this, He breathed out the spirit. (Please note this was a direct citation to Psalm 31:5) He went up to the Father. Is the Father in hell?
The next passage tells us that he went to paradise. How can one confuse paradise with hell? Did the Messiah say; truly I tell you, TODAY you will be with me in hell. Is that was the text says? According to the Apostles Creed and the author who defends this statement, that is what it should read. But it specifically says he was headed to what we Biblical Jews would call ‘Gan-’Eden’ which is translated Garden of Eden. You can find this in Ezekiel 36:35 and also the book of the Apocalypse Chapter 2 verse 7.
Luke 23:42-43; Then he went on to say, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom!” Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.
I seem to kick many dead horses so here goes another one. The word for Paradise is paradeisos. It is translated by Thayer’s as;:
Among the Persians a grand enclosure or preserve, hunting ground, park, shady and well watered, in which wild animals, were kept for the hunt; it was enclosed by walls and furnished with towers for the hunters. A garden or pleasure ground. A grove or park.
The point I am making is that the Scriptures use the word in connection with the Garden of Eden.
When Paul describes a man who went to paradise he could not have meant ‘hell’. He used the same word as the Messiah did when he told the thief of their destination after they depart their bodies. Notice the parallel in the following passage between ‘to the third heaven and paradise. Neither the third heaven nor paradise can be hell. He ascended. He did not descend.
2 Corinthians 12:2-4 I know a man in Christ. Fourteen years ago-whether in his body or outside of his body, I do not know, but God knows-that man was snatched away to the third heaven. I know that this man-whether in his body or outside of his body, I do not know, but God knows- was snatched away to Paradise and heard things that cannot be expressed in words, things that no human being has a right even to mention.
If I sound sarcastic I mean to be when it comes to teachings that are directly opposed from the Scriptures. This does not fall under some argument from silence in view of these clear passages above.
Some recite the Apostles Creed every week like a mantra and some do it once a month, nevertheless I believe they have placed the Creed in a position of authority as if it were the Scriptures themselves. Of course, the Presby’s would say ‘no we do not’ but why then do I hear it more than, say, the writings of Paul or Peter or John? Sure they use these men in their sermons, but they are inspired men of God. Why would they not fill that time given to the Creed with the Scriptures so the sheep can be encouraged by doctrine and not some mysterious and vague Creed?
If many had their way they would re-write the words of Paul to Timothy. They would say something like until I come, attend to personal testimonies and local/national news. Give a happy story or two and be sure to give a joke. Exhort with Creeds and Confessions and if you have the time, throw about ten to fifteen minutes of Scripture reading/teaching in the mix so no one gets sleepy.
What did Paul say?
1 Timothy 4:13-16; Until I come, attend to reading, to exhortation to the doctrine. Do not be neglectful of the gift in you, which was given to you through prophecy, with laying on of the hands of the elderhood. Give care to these things; be in these things in order that your progress may be plain in all. Give attention to yourself and to the doctrine; continue in them, for doing this, you will both deliver yourself and those hearing you.
The ESV reads; Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.
That passage speaks for itself. Again, why would you permit a Creed that teaches he descended into hell? I follow the glass of water rule when I teach. I will not expose my listeners to ninety percent truth and ten percent error. Why would a sound shepherd expose the flock to the words ‘he descended into hell’? I know I am being redundant, but I must get it across to the many thick skulls who are steeped in their traditions.
Of course, I believe the habit of reciting this Creed was picked up from Rome and continued into the Protestant world. The Reformers picked up many bad habits from Rome and failed to get rid of them. I say this because the Roman Catholics and many, many Presbyterians know this Creed by heart more so than many Bible passages. Don’t get me wrong, I am not accusing Presbyterians of being negligent in retaining the Scriptures, but I am pointing out that when a Creed is said weekly and a Bible passage is neglected where has the Pastor gone? I expect this from an un regenerated Roman Catholic who has no understanding of the gospel whatsoever, but I do not expect this from genuine believers.
Dr. John Robbins said it well when he wrote;
“The Lord says has been replaced by ‘In my opinion’ or Psychology says, or Biblical scholars agree, or The church fathers say, or It has been scientifically proven. The Word of God has been displaced, and in its place we find all sorts of substitutes, both religious and secular. The truth of God has been replaced by the opinions of men. The good news of the Gospel is replaced by the pronouncements of science and religion. The problem, of course, did not begin in the pulpits, but in the colleges and seminaries that train the men who fill the pulpits. The seminaries have abandoned the faith, and they graduate men who do not know or do not believe the doctrines of the Bible.”
The emphasis being on the highlighted area; ‘the church fathers say.’ First off, they are not; let me repeat not, church fathers. They were more like church infants. If they were such giants then why the rapid decline? The decline of what was known as Christianity began rapidly when the last Apostle died. The Second Century was going rabid with the Galatian heresy. These were men and only men. Did they have some good things to say? Sure they did. There is no harm in hearing what they had to say in terms of historical input. But, we must hear what they have to say and reflect on it as mans words and not God’s words.
The Lord speaks to me in the same way he speaks to a person in the early church. He speaks through his word. There is only one Spirit of God and he is not in the business of causing confusion to the saints. I would argue that we have a clearer understanding of the gospel in our day and age then they did in the Second and third Centuries and a better understanding then from the days of the Reformation! We have archeology that proven and subsequently defended the faith. We have resources available that were not available during the time of the Protestant Reformation. We have Bible Works software and e-sword and even Logos Software. (Sadly, a couple of these softwares cater to the heretics and the heresy of freewill but what can I do about it? Not a thing. I am just a little fish in a big pond.)
After the Apostles were dead they killed all the Messianics or ran them off. Why, when they were well read in the matters of the Old Testament and they were of value to the church at that time? No more born from above ‘Messianic Jews’ guiding the gentiles along. Instead it was the gentiles attempting to guide gentiles along. It was the blind leading the blind all over again.
History tells us that the Galatian heresy was rampant not too soon after the last apostle died and instead of men and women believing they were saved by the work of the Messiah alone, they began to bring sanctification into the equation and believed both were necessary for salvation. So much for the just shall live by faith. It soon became, the just shall live by faith and works.
An everyday pagan gentile had no knowledge of the things of God. Paul even tells them to remember that at one time they were without God. He explained that the gospel was by grace alone through faith alone and that believers were the result of God’s workmanship, created to do the works of God. He then reminds them of their past. They were alienated from God. He says they had no hope. This is a slap in the face to the theology of a freewiller who embraces the false theology of Arminius. They would have us believe God loves everyone and gives men and women the option of salvation depending upon their personal decision. Paul says ‘no way Jose’ you better get it right and you better have the right perspective and attitude about those Gentiles who went before you, before the Messiah’s arrival. I am going to separate the passage in column form in order to have you see the seriousness of Paul’s words.
Remember that you Gentiles, the nations, that at that time you were
without Messiah,
alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and
strangers of the covenants of promise,
having no hope and
without God in the world.
It looks more serious when you see it in columns. Why do I bring this matter up? There is a reason why the Apostles were Jews. They were raised with the Scriptures and when their eyes were illuminated to understand the gospel as it was openly displayed to them by the Messiah, what better teachers could the Gentile have? It is by the hand of God that an educated Rabbi instructed to go to the Gentiles and used by the Lord to call them to repent of their worship of hoppytoads, treelimbs, little plastic dolls, baby sacrifice etc, and teach them Biblical Judaism.
Dr. Robbins says in that statement above that we have substituted the word of God with the opinions of men. Let me ask the reader again; do you know where the Apostles Creed came from? What Council drafted it up? Were they Christian’s?
It is automatically assumed they were, but where is the proof? One website that does Mormon apologetics starts out with a defensive position on the Creed. They say the Creed ‘is comprised of a brief summary of the Apostles teaching.’ Say WHAT?
“One of the oldest Christian creeds known today is the Apostles’ Creed. The Apostles of the early church didn’t formulate the creed; rather, the Apostles’ Creed, compiled later, is comprised of a brief summary of the Apostles’ teachings. This creed, as well as other Christian creeds, is sometimes recited as a formal statement of belief. The Apostles’ Creed reads…” (The Creed is then quoted.) http://blog.mrm.org/category/great-apostasy/
As I said earlier, should we trust the first Creed or the second Creed? You did know there were two, right? The first did not have “he descended into hell.” Those words were added to the second one Centuries later.
I smell a Roman Catholic influence. Nevertheless; what do we know about the authors? Were they men filled with the Spirit of God or were they simply religious people who could write up a ‘religious’ Creed? Why should anyone trust a document without knowing who wrote it?
The Mormon tabernacle Choir sings Christian songs. Is that pleasing the Lord? Does God accept the substance of the song when an antichrist is singing it? Note to the author of “He Went Where?” The Mormons can and have recited the Creed because it is so general. Are they “confessing their faith in worship” by reciting the creed? Just to make the point see what one Mormon run website says about the Apostles Creed. Note it is not necessarily the views of the Mormon Church, (they have put that clause on their site) but it does show how tolerant and accepting individual Mormons are. They even compare the Creed to their Mormon works.
1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and the life everlasting. Amen.
If you showed this to the average Mormon-on-the-street, I reckon they would say they believe in all but a couple of these claims. If you go on to point out that “descended into hell” means “descended into the grave, ie. the world of dead spirits”, that “catholic Church” means “universal church”, and that “the communion of saints” means “the fellowship of believers”, they would say they believe the entire thing. We Latter-day Saints believe every claim in the Apostles’ Creed, because they are both taught in the Bible, and reaffirmed in latter-day scripture. Indeed, they are almost contained in our scriptures, since the doctrinal summary in D&C 20:17-36 echoes most of the themes of the Apostles’s Creed, and vv. 22-24 are a close paraphrase of AC 4-6. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2007/07/guest-post-the-apostles-creed-and-the-book-of-mormon/
As I said, this so called Creed is so general that even the enemies of the gospel entertain it. On the other hand the Mormons cannot pull this off with the WCF or the 1689 Confessions. These Confessions are specific and contain the gospel.
Note the Apostles Creed says NOTHING about justification which I must add, is the heart of the gospel. Does it speak of man’s dead condition? Does it speak of the nature of God being multi-personal? It is so general that false religions posing as Protestants can use it in their dens of Satan. It is so general even an antichrist can use it. Any creed this general must be criticized and tossed out!
I also want to mention that this phrase, ‘he descended into hell’ destabilizes and chips away at the finished work on the cross. He descended into hell implies that he had to go to hell in order to finish the work of salvation. This is a departure from the model we are given in the Book of Leviticus. Did the animal also go into hell when he was slaughtered? The sacrificial system was a model of what was yet to come. The sacrificial system was a picture or a depiction of what the Messiah would accomplish. It is the shedding of blood that pays for our sins and not a descent into hell.
We are justified by his blood and not a descent into hell.
Romans 5:9; Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
We have made peace with God through by the blood of his cross.
Colossians 1:19-20; For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
You may say religious people cannot make such a Creed? Really? What planet do you live on? The bulk of evangelical churches today hinge upon the Creed of a man named Arminius. The Creed of freewill or we can call it the Creed of humanism. Call it what you would like, a Creed, a Confession a Manifesto. Church history tells us that the five points of Calvinism are not the five points of Calvinism. They are a response to the five points of Jacob Arminius and yet, even though the original five points were called heresy by godly men, the evangelicals have no interest in the Synod because Arminianism appeals to the human heart and so, they hang their hat on those original five points of Arminius which are ultimately a toned down version of Roman Catholic theology. I am getting off track.
One other problem I have with Creeds and even Confessions is in time many have changed. I mentioned earlier in the article that there are a first and a second Apostles Creed. According to the ISBE edited by James Orr the following is said;
I. Form of the Creed.
In the first place, what is the creed? Here, first of all, it is to be pointed out that the received form of the creed is not its oldest or original form. The creed exists in two forms–a shorter and a longer; the former, known as the Old Roman Form, going back certainly as early as the middle of the 2nd century (about 140 AD), the latter, the enlarged form, in its present shape, of much later date. Its final form was probably given to it in South Gaul not before the middle of the 5th century (in one or two clauses, as late as the 7th). It is desirable, at the outset, to put these two forms of the creed (in translation) clearly before the reader.
1. Old Roman Form:
First, the Old Roman Form is given from the Greek of Marcellus, of Ancyra, 341 AD. It runs thus:
“I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ His only (begotten) Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost; the holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; (the life everlasting).”
The last clause is omitted in the Latin form preserved by Rufinus, 390 AD.
2. The Received Form:
The Received Form of the creed reads thus: “I believe in God the Father Almighty; Maker of Heaven and Earth; and in Jesus Christ His only (begotten) Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven; and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.”
Eenine Meenie Miney Moe, this Creed stays but that one goes.
Now, let’s look at the article. He, the author/Pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Mississippi says in the beginning paragraph;
“most Christians all over the world confess their faith in worship using one of two ancient, historical creeds: The Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed.”
And your point is? So are you saying that the Popularity of a creed gives it weight? That validates the use of it? Just so you know, I am not included in the “most” category and the Congregation I attend uses neither of those creeds. We are quite comfortable with the Scriptures.
Secondly, to imply that reciting the creed (Apostles Creed) ‘we confess our faith in worship’ is not ‘worship’. To recite the Messiah descended into hell is a misrepresentation of the Lord and is heresy.
I notice in paragraph 5 you reference James Packer as an evangelical Protestant. You have opened a can of worms, but I will try to keep it brief. First off, evangelicals believe the just shall live by faith.
Secondly, a Protestant is one who opposes Rome. You are mistaken when you refer to him as an evangelical Protestant! He is no more an evangelical Protestant than Rick Warren or Joel Osteen. It appears you may need to be reminded of Packer’s betrayal? How soon we forget or maybe, just don’t care when so-called Christians try to speak on behalf of the Church and sell us out to Rome. Did you forget about his signing the ECT document? Did you forget he has tried to merge our gospel with Rome’s demonic gospel under the banner of “commonality?”
Did you know that he (Packer) and a Roman Catholic swooped in on Robert Godfrey years ago at a Christian event in Florida and the two continued to defend and justify the ECT document to Godfrey? Like Chuck Colson, the two who debated Godfrey have set their hearts toward mediation with Rome and seek to create an unholy unity.
In the end it will not be the Protestants who win. History details what happened when men rise up for the truth. Hus rose up and he was silenced. Luther rose up and he was tossed out of Rome. The multitudes who saw Rome as an evil gospel were soon to be headless. The same will happen today as time goes forward. It doesn’t matter if it is Rome or Islam. Men like me will be silenced for the cause of the truth. The Roman Catholics will prevail if this ECT document does not meet with more Protestant resistance. Why do I say the Protestants will not win? We already have ‘closet’ Roman Catholics in the Protestant camp. Men like R.C. Sproul who has the nerve to use Roman Catholic apologetics and then turn around and say Rome is wrong. What hypocrisy! Again, how it must thrill Roman Catholic ministries like Catholic Answers when Protestants use their ungodly resources! Sproul, a die hard Aquinas disciple and natural theologian, has the nerve to sit around a table and point the finger at Rome? Is he serious?
We also have the infamous John Piper who has stated in his book that we should read the work of G. K. Chesterson. Piper even tells the reader that he knows Chesterson is a Roman Catholic! Hypocrites!
This ECT document is not gone. It is resting or may I say napping and waiting for another opportunity to gain ground. The next generation of so-called evangelicals will allow this document to prevail if genuine ‘Protestant’ Pastors and men of God do not stand up.
May I encourage you to think on something I say often to others? We do not judge a man by how many solid books he has written in the past or what he believed thirty years ago. We judge a man by what he believes RIGHT NOW! More specifically-we judge a man by what he is believing doctrinally at this moment.
The two ‘P’s', Packer and Piper have produced bad fruit. They have attempted to seek common ground with Rome or its apologists through a back door conviction and by doing so they make the bride of the Messiah a whore by their ‘spiritual dating service.’ I will soon be writing on John Piper and I hope those who read the article will think Biblically about his unholy alliance with C.S. Lewis, Chesterson and even Douglas Wilson. We are NOT to be unequally yoked and Rome is clearly under the anathema of God so why the pact from Packer and Piper? There is no justification for joining the Messiah with Belial and this is what these men are doing.
Until they repent publicly they are to be discarded and treated as a tax collector. Christians who buy these men’s books or refer others to their books are harming the sheep. We are at war spiritually with Rome. They dishonor the finished work of the Messiah. If any person says they understand the gospel and yet, believe that Rome has the gospel, do they really know the gospel or are they playing religion?
Time has shown us how many onetime, fraudulent Protestants, who had graduated from Protestant Cemeteries, have come out of the closet to join the ranks of Rome and thus they have become apostates. They went out from us because they never really belonged to us. But, before they left they marked their territory in the Protestant world. Even though they are now Romes puppets, the evangelical church at large continues to support these apostates either in Seminaries or in book stores.
In paragraph 5 the author alludes to the idea that the Messiah did something following his death on the cross and he references Packer’s exposition on the Creed. He (the author) says;
“This view depends on understanding 1 Peter 3:18-20 as describing something Christ did, not through Noah’s preaching before the flood But what Christ did following his death on the cross.”
I got lost there. What did the Messiah do following the death on the cross? What does Scripture tell us? I already gave two clear passages teaching us that he ascended to the Father and into paradise. According to the author the Messiah is described as doing something following his death on the cross. It does not teach he went to hell.
I want to post the commentary from Kistemaker from the New Testament commentary Series by Hendriksen and Kistemaker. Since the author used the passage in 1 Peter let’s hear what this Commentator says. Please forgive the length, but I believe you will find it academic and educational. Especially the latter part where he responds to some of the proponents of this heresy.
“Does the statement he went and preached mean that Jesus descended into hell? No, it does not, because evidence for this assumption is lacking. Scripture nowhere teaches that Christ after his resurrection and prior to his ascension descended into hell. Moreover, we have difficulty in accepting the explanation that Christ in his spirit went to preach to Noah’s contemporaries. But before we continue this point, we must ask this question: What is meant by the word preached? The verb stands by itself, so that we are unable to determine the content of preaching. In brief, only the fact of preaching, not the message, is important. That is, we understand the verb preached to mean that Christ proclaimed victory over his adversaries. In his brevity, Peter refrains from telling us the context of Christ’s proclamation. We would be adding to the text if we should interpret the word preached to signify the preaching of the gospel. “Hence we may suppose with reason that it is the victory of Christ over His adversaries which is emphasized in 1Pe_3:19, not the conversion or evangelization of the disobedient spirits.”
c. “To the spirits in prison.” Do the spirits belong to human beings or to fallen angels or to both? In this passage Peter gives the word spirit two qualifications. First, the spirits are kept in prison. In Rev_20:7 John writes that Satan “will be released from his prison” (see also vv. 1Pe_3:1-3). And in his second epistle, Peter writes that God sent angels that sinned “into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment” (2Pe_2:4; compare Jud_1:6). Incidentally, Scripture nowhere states that the souls of men are kept in prison.
Next, Peter says that the spirits are those “who disobeyed long ago” (v. 1Pe_3:20). He writes, “the spirits … who disobeyed.” He does not say, “the spirits of those who disobeyed.” If this were the case, Peter could mean the souls of departed men who had been disobedient during their lifetime. However, the word spirits as Peter qualifies it refers to supernatural beings. Peter’s use of this word agrees with the connotation in the Gospels, where it refers to “evil spirits” (see, e.g., Mar_3:11). This usage also agrees with intertestamental literature, in which the term spirits designates angels or demons.
According to the writer of Hebrews, Christ does not help angels (1Pe_2:16). Rather, he redeems the spiritual descendants of Abraham. Furthermore, if we would interpret the word spirits to be those of men, we should realize that Peter’s qualification regarding disobedient spirits points to willful rejection of God’s authority. Scripture teaches that there is no forgiveness for the sin of deliberate disobedience (Heb_6:4-6; Heb_10:26). Last, no scriptural doctrine teaches that man has a second chance for repentance after death. When the curtain is drawn between time and eternity, man’s destiny is sealed, and the period of grace and repentance has ended (read the parable of the rich man and Lazarus [Luk_16:19-31]). Consequently, I interpret the phrase the spirits in prison to refer to supernatural beings and not to the souls of men.
d. “God waited patiently.” A literal translation of this part of the verse is, “when the patience of God kept waiting” (NASB). That is, God’s forebearance lasted 120 years before he destroyed humanity, eight persons excepted, with the flood. The construction, translated “God waited patiently,” stresses the leniency of God before he executed his sentence on the human race (compare Gen_6:3). From the time of Adam to the day when Noah entered the ark, God exercised patience. Noah’s contemporaries were notoriously wicked and served as agents of demonic spirits in their rebellion against God. There is no other time in history in which the contrast between faith and unbelief, obedience and disobedience, was as pronounced as in the days of Noah. The rebellious spirits seemed to control the human race with the exception of Noah and his family.
Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 3:19-20a
Verse 1Pe_3:19
ἐν ᾧ καί—in 1902 British New Testament scholar J. Rendel Harris popularized a conjecture that had been suggested by J. Bowyer in 1763. Harris conjectured that the reading of the first part of verse 1Pe_3:19 should be ἐν ᾧ καὶ ᾽Ενώχ (in which Enoch [went and preached]). Although the suggestion proved to be attractive, scholars applied the rule that for a conjecture to be acceptable, it must fulfill two conditions: the text must be incomprehensible without the conjecture and the conjecture must improve our understanding of that text. Examining the evidence, however, they concluded that the conjecture was unable to satisfy these two conditions and therefore had to be dismissed.
ἐν θυλακῇ—although the noun prison is not explained in the text, its position is emphatic. The prepositional phrase in prison is placed between the definite article the and the noun spirits.
Verse 1Pe_3:20
ἀπειθήσασιν—this aorist active participle in the neuter dative plural clarifies the noun πνεύμασιν (spirits). The participle derives from the verb ἀπειθειω (I disobey). In the aorist tense it points to sins committed in the past. The position of the participle is predicate. We translate noun and participle as “spirits who disobeyed.”
ἀπεξεδέχετο—this compound verb is in the imperfect tense and in the middle (deponent) voice. It expresses continued action in the past tense. Because of the compound, this verb is intensive or perfective. It means “to wait patiently for” or “to wait it out.”
κατασκευαζομέης—the present passive participle in the genitive case with κιβωτοῦ (ark) in the same case constitutes the genitive absolute constructon. Note that the use of the present tense denotes duration; from use of the passive voice we infer that a work force was needed to build the ark.
Additional comments on 3:19-20a
Interpretations of this particular text are many. Here are some of them listed in chronological sequence.
a. Clement of Alexandria, about A.D. 200, taught that Christ went to hell in his spirit to proclaim the message of salvation to the souls of sinners who were imprisoned there since the flood (Stromateis 6.6).
b. Augustine, about A.D. 400, said that the preexistent Christ proclaimed salvation through Noah to the people who lived before the flood (Epistolae 164).
c. In the last half of the sixteenth century, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine introduced a view that has been held by many Roman Catholics: in his spirit Christ went to release the souls of the righteous who repented before the flood and had been kept in Limbo, that is, the place between heaven and hell where, Bellarmine said, the souls of the Old Testament saints were kept (De Controversiis 2.4, 13).
d. An interpretation promulgated by Friedrich Spitta in the last decade of the nineteenth century is this: After his death and before his resurrection, Christ preached to fallen angels, also known as “sons of God,” who during Noah’s time had married “daughters of men” (Gen_6:2; 2Pe_2:4; Jud_1:6).
e. Contemporary commentators teach that the resurrected Christ, when he ascended into heaven, proclaimed to imprisoned spirits his victory over deaths.
Although space prevents me from commenting on all the strengths and weaknesses of these views, I select a few of the major objections. And although it is virtually impossible to achieve unanimity in understanding the text, I call attention to the view that many theologians favor.
The first view is the one of Clement of Alexandria. He taught that Christ went to hell in his spirit to proclaim the message of salvation to the souls of sinners who were imprisoned there since the flood. Two basic objections can be voiced against Clement’s interpretation: one, Scripture is silent on imprisonment of souls condemned by God, and two, Augustine’s doctrine that there is no conversion after death repudiates Clement’s view.
Next, Augustine said that the preexistent Christ proclaimed salvation through Noah to the people who lived before the flood. No one disputes the fact that the Spirit of Christ was active in the time between Adam’s fall into sin and the birth of Jesus (see Peter’s comment in 1Pe_1:11). The objection to Augustine’s view is that he departs from the wording of 1Pe_3:19. Augustine speaks of the pre-incarnate Christ and not of the Christ who “was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit.” Augustine’s interpretation dominated the theological scene for centuries until the doctrinal view of Bellarmine displaced it in the Roman Catholic Church.
Third, Bellarmine taught that even though Christ’s body died on the cross, his soul remained alive. Thus in his spirit Christ went to release the souls of the righteous who repented before the flood and were in Limbo. Bellarmine’s interpretation has been rejected by Protestants, because they point out that Scripture teaches that the Old Testament saints are in heaven (see, e.g., Heb_11:5, Heb_11:16, Heb_11:40; Heb_12:23).
Then there is the interpretation of Spitta. He said that Christ after his death and before his resurrection preached to fallen angels who during Noah’s time had married “daughters of men.” But this view faces a serious objection. Answering the Sadducees who asked him about the resurrection, Jesus asserted that angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (Mat_22:30). We have difficulty understanding how fallen angels, who are spirits, can have sexual relations with women.
Last, recent commentators teach that the resurrected Christ, during his ascension to heaven, proclaimed to imprisoned spirits his victory over death. The exalted Christ passed through the realm where the fallen angels are kept and proclaimed his triumph over them (Eph_6:12; Col_2:15). This interpretation has met favorable response in Protestant and Roman Catholic circles and is in harmony with the teaching of the Petrine passage and the rest of Scripture.”
In paragraph 6 the author says that he does not believe the Heidelberg Catechism is necessarily the best grounded in Scripture. Ok, so you are using it why if it does not make your point?
In paragraph 7 it appears that he has favored the Westminster Shorter Catechism from the British American Presbyterian System. He says he takes this to be the right understanding. He says it makes best sense of the Scriptural evidence. WHAT SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE?
I am not seeing how Psalm 16:9-11 and Acts 2:25-31 provide evidence that he went to hell.
Acts 2:26-31 is answered by the resurrection and Peter is appealing to Psalm 16 to make his case. David is speaking in Psalm 16 and he first references himself and he then says in verse 10; The Lord will not allow his holy/innocent one to see corruption or decay. So Peter quotes from it to prove the resurrection. Acts 31 gives us the answer to Psalm 16. It does not speak of his deity, but it speaks of his fleshly body that died on a cross.
Acts 2:26-31; That is why my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices, yes, even my body still rests securely in hope. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades or allow your Holy One to experience decay. You have made the ways of life known to me, and you will fill me with gladness in your presence.’ “Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and that his tomb is among us to this day. Therefore, since he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him with an oath to put one of his descendants on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ: ‘He was not abandoned to Hades, and his flesh did not experience decay.
The body, ‘soma’ would not see decay. He said this in John 2. You destroy this body and in three days I will raise it up. While his body was in the ground the Lord God Messiah was taking care of business and tying up a few loose ends. He was not in hell; he was holding the Universe together.
Colossians 1:17; He himself existed before all things, and by him all things hold together.
It is done in the spirit of kindness that I write this article. It is not to attack the man personally, but as I often say, Christianity must begin with the faith of the patriarchs and prophets. Christianity is a nick name and did not start out as Christianity. Salvation is from the Jews. The same gospel today is the same gospel given to Abraham.
Romans 1:17; for in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; even as it has been written, “But the just shall live by faith.“
The gospel reveals the saving power of God. The just shall live by faith. We do not start our knowledge from the New Testament. We have solid foundations from the Old that are just as applicable today and apply personally to any genuine believer.
The author says something strange in his article. He says; “The Faith we confess is a received faith, a faith handed down to us from age to age by the church.”
I do not want to read into that, but what church? Age to age? Does that include the dark ages where the gospel was distorted and oppressed by wicked men? ‘Received from whom? When you say ‘age to age’ are you saying we received our faith in time through Rome? Note to the author, the faith we received goes beyond the formation of the Church. The same gospel that saves the Gentiles was the same gospel given to the elect in the Old Testament.
The author states;
“What is the significance of confessing that Jesus died, was buried, and remained under the power of death from his death on the cross till his resurrection? First, when we confess these things we confess the Apostolic Gospel, that is, the Gospel preached by the Apostles.
Did you catch that? He says when we confess these things we confess the Apostolic gospel, that is, the gospel preached by the Apostles. This is speculation, this is guess work, and this is unbiblical. No Apostle taught that the Messiah descended into hell. I have already argued that the Apostles Creed has NO GOSPEL contained within it! That is, unless of course we can present the Apostles Creed in lieu of the gospel? Is that what the author is suggesting? If that is the case let’s just hand out the Apostles Creed in tract form.
I would again ask for proof that the Apostles Creed was either written or signed off as one of their documents. This is just silliness to suggest the Apostles Creed is attached to an actual Apostle. As I have already said, because it is so vague the false religions can also embrace it because it DOES NOT define terms nor does it define the gospel. The Mormons can (at face value) say that they agree with every word in that Creed. I have heard Mormon apologists reference both the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed.
The final complaint is that you never appeal to Scripture alone. What kind of Protestant does not use the Scriptures to make? You depend upon secondary sources and their citations to make your case. This is just wrong. Not one Scripture teaches us that the Messiah went to hell. His body (soma) went to the grave. It could not have been his spirit because his spirit is eternal. So we are simply left with a cadaver that remained in the tomb for three days until it was reunited with the deity. There is no mention of hell.
Finally, what article should be without other examples of those who have taken the phrase ‘he descended into hell’? We also have the Looney tune TV and radio personalities that make up the word faith movement who teach that the cross wasn’t sufficient and that the Messiah had to go to hell. Hmm, any guesses where they developed this doctrine? Can you say Apostles Creed?
They have the nerve to not only say he went to hell, they also say he was there to suffer and finish the work that he started. While working at CRI I was able to obtain loads of information on these whacky people.
A couple of examples are as follows;
Kenneth Hagin said;
Jesus tasted spiritual death for every man. And his spirit and inner man went to hell in my place. Can’t you see that? Physical death would not remove your sins. He tasted death for every man. He’s talking about spiritual death.
Kenneth Copeland said;
Because his physical death was not enough for the payment of sins there was another way for sins payment. Jesus put Himself into the hands of Satan when He went to that cross, and took that same nature that Adam did when Adam sinned.
I will conclude with saying this type of stuff irks me to no end. Where are the men of God who have only a Bible between them and the sheep? I know the Lord has his elect and I will not question where they are, but I see the Church leadership betraying the sheep. Like a frog who is placed into the pot of water, the so-called Church leaders turn up the heat very slowly and the frog (sheep) do not notice death is coming. The Apostles Creed is a hoax and has no place with Biblical/spiritual Jews.
Thy word have I hidden in my heart that I might not sin against you O LORD. It does not read the Apostles Creed and those works outside of the Scriptures have I hidden in my heart.