Evanescent is not a common term in our language today, but it is being used as a means of attacking Reformed theology, and today we dove into Matthew 13 to address the issue, live from outside Conway, Arkansas. We are hoping to do another program tomorrow from Grace Bible Theological Seminary, but we haven’t tested things yet, so, we will see!
[embedded content]

After many months of making reference to my statements (normally as found on the Dividing Line) only by ostensibly humorous sub-tweeting, Dr. Barcellos recently directly addressed me via Twitter. Given the length of the thread, and my desire to have facial expression and tone of voice available (one of the worst problems with Twitter in general), I responded on the Dividing Line of 7/21/22. Dr. Barcellos has again responded with a lengthy Twitter thread, to which I respond here.I confess it is hard to know whether Dr. Barcellos actually listened to my comments, or is going off of someone else’s notes. This only adds to the confusion, unfortunately.I noticed you mentioned me on your DL yesterday. Before I address that, I noticed you also mentioned Drs. Carl Trueman and Scott Swain.You noticed as in you listened? I ask because the substance of my reply to you is not even addressed in this thread. In fact, I see no evidence you are even aware of that content, which touches on the key issues that should be front and center in this discussion since, of course, it is a public discussion extending outside the borders of our nation.Since you apparently have Carl’s phone number (and I assume his email address) and are friends, why didn’t you contact him and ask him if he was referring to you? Seems the courteous thing to do.I have two numbers, both of which are over ten years old I would assume. But I do not call people to make inquiries about their public statements. If someone is going to make blanket statements without identifying the object of said statements, that is where the lack of courtesy lies, as I mentioned in my response.Concerning Scott Swain, are you certain his tweet was contextualized by the Trueman podcast? How do you know if he even listened to it?Seems pretty obvious. No one was throwing around the “Socinianism” canard until the MoS episode, and Steve Meister was pretty quick to post the transcription of that particular statement. It is possible, of course, that two people could come up with an equally bad allegation separately within 12 hours, but it is highly unlikely.Back to me. If you feel the need to read my tweets on your show (which I don’t recommend), I ask that you read them in full and word-for-word. Yesterday you misread a portion of one of my tweets.You said “our” (more than once?), while I said “their.” This was in reference to my statement about me critiquing Drs. Frame and Oliphint.When you ask “more than once?” I am again left wondering what your source of information is? Be that as it may, are you saying I was attempting to change your point? If I misread the tweet I apologize, but what was the relevance? And I simply have to point out that once again I read these comments, quote from articles, books, etc., and yet your timeline is simply overflowing with snarky comments about what others have said without naming them, quoting them, using proper sources, etc. In fact, I took the time to look up that portion of the Dividing Line and in so doing I had to work through your timeline on Twitter to find the original thread. I will be honest, I almost did not bother with this article just on the basis of the past 24 hours worth of tweets.I don’t understand why u feel the need to read & comment on my tweets.You comment on my statements on the Dividing Line regularly, just without doing me the honor of doing so openly and accurately.But in this situation, you addressed me directly, and I responded on the Dividing Line so as to be able to do so fully and with less chance of misunderstanding. Further, we seem to have a very, very different concern about these topics. I believe the issue of scriptural sufficiency and supremacy to be foundational to the entire church. I do not think you or I are particularly important, but the issue is vital. So I replied to your thread because it is relevant to all of those who are struggling with the change in emphasis that has become clearly visible over the past half a decade or so.I have never, as far as I can remember, mentioned your name during my weekly preaching ministry. I don’t agree with u on several fronts, but have never felt the need to expose my people to the differences.I refrained from mentioning your name initially simply because I hoped (naively) that this was a passing phase or fad and that cooler heads would prevail. But how could I respond to your thread without using your name? Your thread was posted publicly. Would you prefer I respond to some “anonymous” person on the Internet?As u have your concerns about me, so I have my concerns about u.I think someone, I do not remember who, only a matter of weeks ago was harping on how this should all be about “doctrines, not dudes.” Ah, the good ol’ days! My concern is about the faith once for all delivered to the saints. A new emphasis has appeared amongst us, and you represent one aspect of it. Many people would be benefitted to see how the historical/grammatical method, practiced by believing men who hold to the highest view of Scripture, its harmony and consistency, etc., differs from the new emphasis that includes the “great tradition.” In fact, just today I had a student point out that another IRBS prof had defined biblical hermeneutics like this:Grammatical historical exegesisNT Priority (Christ is the lens through which we read the OT)The creeds and confessional tradition of the churchThe student asked a good question: when did we start talking about the creeds and this “confessional tradition of the church”? You know this is the “new” emphasis and it raises a lot of questions, especially since someone like myself has always believed that the sole authority of any creed, or any confession, is its fidelity to the content of divine revelation found in Scripture alone. How any Baptist could functionally use a phrase like “confessional tradition” I do not know, at least historically. But these are the issues. Remember how about two months ago you went on that “personal pope” binge on Twitter? That is directly relevant.I am concerned about the purpose of the DL & the direction it has taken. I am concerned about your changing doctrinal convictions on eschatology and the function of the law of God, especially so late in life.Well, that’s all very interesting, but also utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. I took the time yesterday to fairly read your thread and ask important questions about sola scriptura, tradition, how we do theology beyond the language of Scripture, etc., and instead of engaging that, which everyone knows has been the substance of my concern for over six months now, you bring up eschatology? I am sorry, but I have no interest in wandering off into such topics. You cannot even have a meaningful discussion of eschatology without sharing a common view of Scriptural sufficiency, so I think any discussion elsewhere is just a distraction.I am concerned about your view on divine simplicity.And I, you. God is not made up of parts. He is not complex. But only by importing Thomistic metaphysics can you then demand that we believe, as dogma, that we can know God’s view of Himself ad intra, so as to know He does not make the same distinctions that glorify Him when they are made by His creatures. Recognizing that omniscience and omnipresence are two true, but different, statements about God’s being does not create “parts” so as to divide God’s being. Only a medievalist operating with a metaphysical construct that is nowhere present in Scripture nor taught by the Apostles could dogmatize the point. You are welcome to believe it, if it is of benefit to you in some fashion, but to demand it as a mark of orthodoxy is to go far beyond any biblical categories.I am concerned about some things you have said in relation to Christology. I am concerned about your hermeneutical and theological method. You have your concerns about me and I you.The difference between us is I lay these issues out and discuss them for the benefit of others. We are not just two private guys having a chat. We have been put in positions of leadership. I have made my position clear on hermeneutics, and you believe you have as well.But here’s the difference: I don’t broadcast my concerns to my primary audience, my church. You, on the other hand, broadcast your concerns about me on Twitter and your show. Why? Who has appointed you to be the theological watchdog for the church catholic?You are positing an obvious category error. The Dividing Line is not a church, and has never pretended to be so. I have never mentioned you in a sermon in my church, either. But I find it astonishing that you would speak like this. Your twitter feed is filled with statements that would fit into the “theological watchdog for the church catholic” category you just artificially created. The double standard here is amazing. Are you seriously suggesting that it is inappropriate to point out the shift that you yourself have admitted is plain in your own position?Tell me, when Owen, or Turretin, critiqued other positions in their day, were they setting themselves up as theological watchdogs for the church catholic? Isn’t every pastor bound to warn of false teachers, or even trends in the church that history tells us never end up well? I can think of so many statements by the early Fathers that would likewise fall under your condemnation here.If your show were a ministry of your church, I might see the relevance but, as far as I know, it isn’t. I don’t think your current modus operandi is helping your audience.Let me see if I follow you here: so if I made the same criticisms of encroaching traditionalism as a part of, say, Apologia Radio, which is specifically a ministry of my church, that would make those criticisms valid?I will leave it to those in the audience as to whether they have been helped. I can tell you that MANY have reached out to thank me for taking a stand and for examining these topics, especially students in seminaries and Bible colleges where they are all of a sudden being hit with perspectives they know were not a part of the curriculum only a few years ago.You often paint your fellow brother interlocutors in a bad light (eg, …… assigning labels to them they do not and probably will never use, accusing at least one of them of lying).God knows what has been written and said over the past six months; He knows the intentions of the hearts, and He knows who has engaged in unfair and untrue accusation. My files are filled with the insults and mockery of the other side, the vast majority of which has gone unanswered. The past 72 hours have seen the rise of the insane accusation of Socinianism, for example.Someone commented recently something like this: “While you are exegeting tweets, those with whom you disagree are writing books.” The books that tweeter was referring to interact with Scripture, the best primary historical sources, and the best secondary historical sources.Yes, I saw it. Only a person who has ignored the hours of careful teaching I have provided could make such an inane assertion.I’ve read many of them and have profited much from them. These books exemplify an ad fontes mindset—back to Scripture, as well as the best sources of historical theology.Since you do not provide specifics, there is, of course, no way to respond meaningfully. Do you consider Craig Carter’s Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition to be one of these books?I ask that you reconsider the path you’ve taken. I don’t think it’s helpful. If you think you need to continue as is, I recommend you do the work necessary to critique others.The path I have taken is the same path that brought me to teach for you over ten years ago. I have not changed, Richard. You have. You know this. And given you have yet to interact meaningfully with ANY of the lengthy presentations I have made on hermeneutics, tradition, etc., and seem to only rely upon others reports, I have to reject your insinuation that I have not been doing serious work in my critique of others. What is more, the audience of the Dividing Line knows your assertion is erroneous.When you prepare for a debate, I’m sure you read everything your debate partner has in print. If so, good for you. Why not do the same for the many fine men you have critiqued of late?Be specific, Richard. When I place their very words on the screen, circle phrases, make notes on the text—do you seriously think someone else did the reading and research?Why the drive-by comments on your show and Twitter, many based on tweets, then calling that substantial interaction and discussion?I reject the characterization of my response as “drive by,” of course, and again, anyone who has actually taken the time to follow the discussions knows you clearly have not. You, Richard, are the king of drive-by snark on Twitter, so I really wonder how you could write these words without breaking out in gales of laughter! I will put my timeline, and its seriousness, up against yours any day! But again, this is hardly relevant: when the authors of the books tweet summaries of their positions, are you saying they should not do this, or are you just objecting to my responding to them?Speaking of discussion, several months ago, a good friend of mine offered to pay your way to CA to sit down with some brothers to discuss divine simplicity. You turned down his offer. You said you don’t travel to blue states.I do not recall any monetary issues, but the fact is I was invited by Chad to walk into a private meeting heavily weighted on only one side. Why would I do this? I do not travel to California, and I will not waste time going over the lawlessness of that state, the corruption of its governmental officials, etc., in this context. I get to choose where I travel, and I reject the claims of anyone over my time and ministry priorities who would claim otherwise. My counter proposal has, itself, gone unheeded and uncommented upon. I have said that we should have a conference, far enough in the future to allow all the key individuals to be involved. Papers would be written and presented, publicly, not in back rooms. The proceedings should be live streamed for the benefit of the many who could not travel to attend. If helpful, I could see a formal debate as part of the proceedings. In any case, the issues are not personal, they are theological and relevant to the entire Reformed Baptist movement. My proposal has not even been commented on, as far as I know.On top of that, your tech assistant claimed my friend was not acting in good faith. He even said my friend intended to create a Reformed Baptist tribunal in order to kick you out. I pushed back on his uncharitable claims but he would not recant.I have no idea what a tech assistant is, or who you are referring to, nor who your “friend” is, so once again, this kind of vague commentary is unhelpful, and cannot be responded to meaningfully.He’s the same brother who claimed Steve Meister and I were swimming around in the Tiber. I pushed back on that too but he would not budge.I recall some discussion between Rich Pierce and yourself regarding tradition and your (for a while) incessant use of “sola scriptura” as a punchline for a joke. That was simply beneath you, Richard, and I pointed that out to you. I see no reason to say otherwise. No responsible minister should respond mockingly, “But sola scriptura!” You did it for weeks on end. You know it.Please rethink the purpose for your show. It could be very helpful to many. I fear it has become a dividing line for the wrong reasons.I am truly thankful that anyone interested could, if they had the desire, go back in the huge archives of the program (I think they go as far back as 1998, I am not sure), and find program after program where I was presenting the sufficiency of Scripture, discussing tradition, going over how we derive our doctrinal positions, defending our views from Roman Catholics, Orthodox, etc. I haven’t changed, and the purpose of the Dividing Line has not changed, either. I have moved through different periods of emphasis, mainly due to debate opportunities, my global travel between 2005 and 2019, the writing of various books, etc. But one thing is unquestionable: what I am saying today, what I am warning about even in the above definition of biblical hermeneutics as involving “confessional tradition,” I have consistently spoken against, and about, for multiple decades. While the Dividing Line has not changed, I have had to begin addressing topics that I never, ever expected to have to address, for these imbalances are appearing in my own back yard. I have listened to the arguments of those pressing for this “resourcement” and the like and have found them wanting.If I am doing nothing but exegeting tweets, Richard, it is time for your side to stop wasting your time with snark-tweeting and produce accurate rebuttals. The “Neo-Socinian” absurdity of the past few days is only one example of how the pile of smoldering straw-men seems to know no limits.

In 2022, Dr. Sam Renihan wrote “Crux, Mors, Inferi: A Primer and Reader on the Descent of Christ”. This is a helpful guide through the Biblical Data regarding Christ’s Descent as well as a look at the history of the doctrine as taught in the early church by the Apostle’s Creed (as well as the Athanasian Creed, although it was not mentioned in the work) and on through the period of the Reformed Confessions of the 17th Century. The intent of this blog article is not to interact with the doctrine itself, but with some assertions being made regarding methods of Confessional Subscription in the Reformed Baptist community at large.As a bit of background, I would like to offer a definition from Chapter 9 of the book “The Confessing Baptist”. This chapter is one of Dr. Bob Gonzales’s essays in the volume, and it is specifically on the topic of Confessional Subscription models. In this chapter he gives some terminology and then defines several subscription models. Regarding the “Historical Subscription” model, we see its distinctive focus on the necessity to assent to the original intent of the framers of the confession. Dr. Gonzales wrote that this model was introduced in 2014 by Dr. James Renihan in a paper titled “Confessional Subscription”. Dr. James Renihan provided an example where John Gerstner suggested that a Presuppositional apologist (such as Van Til) could not hold to the strict historical view because Puritans affirmed the classical view of apologetics. As Dr. Gonzales stated, this would require agreement “with all the metaphysical and epistemological viewpoints of the confession’s authors or signatories”, which is something that would cause a problem with a Presuppositionalist.One example of how the Historical Subscriptionist model is affecting us today is with the understanding of the Confessional statement that God is “without body, parts, or passions”. It is often argued that if one does not assent to “all the metaphysical and epistemological viewpoints of the confession’s authors or signatories”, then one cannot honestly claim that he is “Confessionally Reformed”. In a nutshell, the argument is that all of the authors and signatories, without exception, understood “without body, parts, or passions” using the metaphysical system of Thomas Aquinas. And anyone who may actually agree with the statement using another Biblical understanding is still someone who is dishonest in saying they subscribe to the Confession.(As an aside, there are several other models of Confessional Subscription. As a brief summary of Dr. Gonzales’s essay on this, they are as follows. Absolute subscription is taken in good faith without exceptions to wording, phrases, or doctrines. Full (or Strict) subscription has allowances for exceptions to some of the wording. System subscription provides for “non-essential doctrinal exceptions.” Finally, substance subscription is one in which there is an affirmation of all of the core doctrines and usually doesn’t require identifying exceptions. A more thorough treatment of this can be found here.)With this in mind, I would first like to offer two quotes where Dr. Renihan summarizes his beliefs (the remainder of this post will deal only with Sam Renihan’s book – mentions of Dr. Renihan will be to him rather than his father, James). As you can see, he believes that Jesus’s soul descended to hell with a purpose. (The page numbers referred to below correspond with the Kindle edition.)Why, then, do we say that Jesus Christ descended to Hades, to the compartment of the wicked, if not to suffer? As previously stated, Jesus descended to bind the strong man. Jesus Christ descended to the lair of the serpent to crush his skull in the sight of every wicked angel and unbelieving soul. Thus victorious, Jesus Christ is possessor of the keys that belonged to death and Hades.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 70The realms of creation consist of heaven, earth, and Sheol beneath the earth. The souls of the dead descended to Sheol, separated into the righteous at rest in Abraham’s Bosom, and the wicked in torment in Hades. Jesus Christ was crucified and died. His body was buried, and his soul descended to Sheol, not to languish but to liberate his resting saints, not to suffer but to subdue Satan, not to preach but to proclaim just victory over the spirits in prison. In his resurrection and ascension Jesus Christ carried his bride home to heaven, presenting himself as a sacrifice in the holy of holies not made with hands. Henceforth, Hades is a ruin of darkness and misery; heaven is a city of light and beatitude.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 207This belief is bolstered, not only by Dr. Renihan’s exegesis of the scriptural texts, but from the examples of the Early Church Fathers’ discussions on this matter. Chapters 7 and 8 were a lengthy reproduction of the views of Thomas Bilson (an Anglican Bishop who died in 1616) on the Descent (chapter 7) and his discussion of the “modern sources” (chapter 8). Dr. Renihan introduces chapter 7 by stating this on page 131:The previous chapter discussed the redefinition of the descent in Reformed theology, and its subsequent decline and neglect. Despite the prominence and influence of Calvin and Beza, Ursinus and Olevianus, and Perkins and Ussher, and despite the permanence of their views in confessional documents, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were not without proponents of the ancient doctrine of the local descent of Christ. This chapter is dedicated to Bishop Thomas Bilson’s defense of the descent. The length of the source produced below necessitated its own chapter. Notwithstanding, Bilson’s work is very useful for at least four reasons.And in Chapter 7, Bilson was cited as stating the following.Howbeit of the time When he triumphed, we shall afterward speak; we now observe What he did in his triumph over Hell and Satan; and by the Scriptures we find that Christ Entered Satan’s house, Tied him, and Spoiled his goods; or as the Apostle expresses it, he spoiled powers and principalities, made an open show of them, and triumphed over them in his own person. (He would then go on to state that this was the belief of Origen, Epiphanius, Chrystostom, Theodoret, Tertullian, Augustine, Hilary, Fulgentius, Hieronymus, Ambrose, Ruffinus, “and so throughout the Latin Church without any dissenting.”)
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Thomas Bilson on the Descent, Pages 136-137Relevant Historical Background on The DescentWithout letting the main body of this post get too lengthy, I will offer some brief quotes in the following section. Following the conclusion, I will include the context of the quotes. The Apostles’ Creed is one of the oldest statements of collective Christian beliefs, which many churches continue to confess today. The phrase “He descended to hell” or “He descended to the dead” has made some reluctant to embrace this creed. Others, as will be presented in the second part of this book, redefine this article into something entirely contrary to its intended meaning. This book has attempted to teach the Bible’s doctrine of the descent, so that we can unite our voices with Christians of all ages in the Apostles’ Creed and confess confidently that “He descended to the dead.”
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 95On Page 105, Dr. Renihan introduces Chapter 6 as focusing “on the reception of the article of Christ’s descent in various branches of the Reformed churches during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The truth is that the major authors and influences of the Reformed wing of Protestantism redefined this article of the Creed into something quite different from the way the church had understood it in prior generations.” He then mentions, on page 106, that beyond the exegetical and systematic challenges there was “the Creed itself” and “the consent of the fathers” “in affirming a local descent of Christ’s soul to the realm of the dead.” And on page 107, he stated that “It is understandable that the Reformed retained the descent clause, despite redefining it. An outright rejection of an article of the Apostles’ Creed would have been considered a bold embrace of heresy.” Further, “It was primarily a rejection of a local descent of Christ’s soul, that is, the descent of Christ’s soul to a lower place, the place of the dead. So, the Reformed churches of that time, as today, continued to confess the Apostles’ Creed with this clause intact. Confusion has attended the clause in Reformed churches ever since because Reformed theologians ‘crossed the current of antiquity’ by redefining and thus rejecting the clause, though retaining its words. The primary source of this redefinition, rejection, and retention was John Calvin.” Continuing to page 109, he cited Calvin and Beza’s influence on the Westminster Divines “in the Westminster Assembly’s Annotations on the whole Bible.” He then mentions the influence of William Perkins and two specific Westminster Divines, James Ussher and Daniel Featley, on pages 112-115. We read that “Perkins proposed a fourth view, his own. He stated that Christ ‘was held captive in the grave, and lay in bondage under death for the space of three days.’ For Perkins, then, Christ’s permanence in death for three days was the final part of his humiliation.” Ussher stated “he went to the dead, and continued in the state of death until the time of his resurrection.” And, finally, Featley wrote that “no man need to make scruple of subscribing to the Article, as it stands in the creed, seeing it is capable of so many orthodoxical explications”And to sum it all up, on Page 115 we read the following.The Assembly published a brief report of their “clearing” and “vindicating” of the first fifteen articles, in which they made the following comment about Article 3, of Christ’s descent, As Christ died for us, and was buried; so it is to be believed, that he continued in the state of the dead, and under the power and dominion of death, from the time of his death and burial, until his resurrection: which hath been otherwise expressed thus, He went down into Hell. 
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 115This Reformed view of The Descent was dogmatically inserted in the 17th Century Confessions. For example, the Westminster Confession in 8.4 asserts that Christ “was crucified, and died; was buried, and remained under the power of death”. And the Second London Baptist Confession, The 1689, stated similarly that Christ “was crucified, and died, and remained in the state of the dead”. On Page 129, Dr. Renihan stated that “The complicating factor, however, is that the clause itself has continued in Reformed churches despite being substantially redefined from its understanding in the church until the Reformation. No wonder Bilson remarked, Retaining the words, many doubt or deny the sense thereof.”In his “Conclusion of Part 2”, Dr. Renihan stated the following:While a local descent of Christ’s soul was held as a longstanding truth, confessed in the Apostles’ Creed, certain wings of the Protestant Reformation redefined and thus rejected the Creed’s theology while retaining its words. For Christians in those traditions who desire to rethink this point, part two of this book has provided resources for considering how our doctrine of the descent, or lack thereof, relates to the church’s theology reaching back before our documents were drafted and adopted.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 205ConclusionWithout belaboring the point, something becomes quite clear when one poses the question “Do you believe in the Descent of Christ into Hell?” within the framework of a Strict Historical Subscription model. As Dr. Renihan has clearly demonstrated, the Early Church believed that “Christ descended into hell” meant a descent of Christ’s soul to the realm of the dead.To subscribe to the Apostles’ and Athanasian Creeds using the strict historical model would mean that you are bound to accept the Early Church’s understanding of that doctrine. (That is, unless one would try to argue that the authors of those Creeds understood the doctrine in a vacuum and differently than the rest of those who were writing in the early church).However, to subscribe to either the Westminster or 1689 Confessions using the strict historical model would mean that you are bound to accept the Confessional Divines’ understanding of the doctrine of Christ’s Descent to Hell. Their understanding is an explicit rejection of the belief that the early church would have had when the Creeds were written. To be clear, it is impossible to subscribe to the historical intent of the authors of both the Creeds and Reformed Confessions on the doctrine of Christ’s Descent to Hell.And let’s not forget the assertion by Dr. Renihan on page 107 (and repeated on page 205) that “Reformed theologians ‘crossed the current of antiquity’ by redefining and thus rejecting the clause.” As it seems we are to understand him, he is stating that the redefinition of the descent clause in the Reformed Confessions is tantamount to their actual rejection of the descent clause.Of course, this leaves one in a conundrum. Surely those today who are advocating for Strict Historical Subscription to the Reformed Confessions must themselves also advocate for the same level of Subscription to the earlier and more widely accepted Creeds of the Early Church. But it has been clearly demonstrated that our Reformed forebears believed they could honestly and sincerely confess the terminology of the Creeds while coming to an understanding which did not require them to affirm every notion of those in the early church who may have been responsible for writing “descended into hell” with the meaning of a local descent of Christ’s soul.The following citations from Crux, Mors, Inferi were mentioned in the above article. Here they are in their direct context.This chapter will focus on the reception of the article of Christ’s descent in various branches of the Reformed churches during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The truth is that the major authors and influences of the Reformed wing of Protestantism redefined this article of the Creed into something quite different from the way the church had understood it in prior generations. Because many Reformed churches have continued to recite and teach the Apostles’ Creed, two things are true simultaneously in Reformed churches—the descent clause has continued into modernity, but the doctrine of the descent has not. In particular, I refer to churches whose heritage is found in the Three Forms of Unity (the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt) and the Westminster Standards (The Westminster Confession and its catechisms).
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 105In addition to exegetical and systematic challenges, writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries faced two historical hurdles. The first was the Creed itself, which affirmed the descent of Christ after his death and burial. The second was the “consent of the fathers” in affirming a local descent of Christ’s soul to the realm of the dead.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 106It is understandable that the Reformed retained the descent clause, despite redefining it. An outright rejection of an article of the Apostles’ Creed would have been considered a bold embrace of heresy. Protestants claimed to be the continuation of the true church, forced out of Rome, so their attempts to retain the article, while truly rejecting it, make sense. They wanted to remain connected to the ancient church. And if it was possible to affirm that article of the Creed in a way that fit their theological system, they were going to do it. Their own writings say this. Furthermore, the Reformed did embrace much of what was commonly affirmed in expositions of the descent (atonement, victory over death and Satan, etc.). So, their rejection of the descent was not a complete rejection of everything related to the doctrine. It was primarily a rejection of a local descent of Christ’s soul, that is, the descent of Christ’s soul to a lower place, the place of the dead. So, the Reformed churches of that time, as today, continued to confess the Apostles’ Creed with this clause intact. Confusion has attended the clause in Reformed churches ever since because Reformed theologians “crossed the current of antiquity” by redefining and thus rejecting the clause, though retaining its words. The primary source of this redefinition, rejection, and retention was John Calvin (1509-1564).
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 107Calvin and Beza’s influence can be seen in the Westminster Assembly’s Annotations on the whole Bible. On Psalm 16:10, the annotation reads, “my soul in hell” Or, me in the grave. Psalm 3:2 and 11:1 as Leviticus 22:4 or rather my body in the grave. So it suits best with that which follows, and with Peter’s proof of Christ’s resurrection, Acts 2:27, 31. Soul, for dead body, Leviticus 21:1, Numbers 6:6, the other word is put for the grave, Genesis 37:35.10
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 109But the redefinition and rejection of the descent was advanced by English theologians themselves. Two of the most significant figures were William Perkins (1558-1602) and James Ussher (1581-1656).Perkins taught through the articles of the Apostles’ Creed, in which he enumerated four views on the descent of Christ. The first was a local descent to hell, which he rejected. The second was that the descent was “into the grave,” meaning burial. Perkins rejected this also because it did not fit the progression of the articles of the Creed, which mention burial immediately before the descent. The third view was that the descent of Christ referred to his suffering the pains of hell on the cross. Perkins opined that “This exposition is good and true, and whosoever will may receive it. Yet nevertheless it seems not so fitly to agree with the order of the former articles.” So, Perkins agreed with Calvin’s doctrine, but insisted that it did not match the meaning of the Creed. Perkins proposed a fourth view, his own. He stated that Christ “was held captive in the grave, and lay in bondage under death for the space of three days.” For Perkins, then, Christ’s permanence in death for three days was the final part of his humiliation. And this, he averred, was “most agreeable to the order and words of the Creed.”
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 112James Ussher dedicated a lengthy chapter to the descent in a book entitled, An Answer to a Challenge Made by a Jesuite in Ireland. Ussher quotes extensively from Patristic sources and Greek and Latin poets to make his arguments, which sum up to this, The words of the article of Christ’s going to Hades or Hell, may well bear such a general meaning as this: that he went to the dead, and continued in the state of death until the time of his resurrection.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 113Daniel Featley offers a more expanded view into the debates, in a speech he gave to the Assembly. Concerning [the] descent into Hell, all the Christians in the world acknowledge, that Christ some way descended into hell, either locally, as many of the ancient fathers, Latimer, the Martyr, Bilson and Andrews, and Noel in his catechism (commanded to be taught in all schools, soon after the publishing the 39 Articles to expound it) or virtually as Durand, or metaphorically as Calvin, or metonymically as Tilenus, Perkins, and this Assembly; and therefore no man need to make scruple of subscribing to the Article, as it stands in the creed, seeing it is capable of so many orthodoxical explications, and therein I desire that this Assembly in their aspersions would (after the example of the harmony of confessions27) content themselves with branding only the Popish exposition of this Article, which takes hell for limbus patrum, or purgatory (Netherland regions, extra anni solisque vias [beyond the paths of the year and the sun]) for any of the other four interpretations, they are so far from being heretical, that it has not been proved that any of them is erroneous.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Pages 114-115The Assembly published a brief report of their “clearing” and “vindicating” of the first fifteen articles, in which they made the following comment about Article 3, of Christ’s descent, As Christ died for us, and was buried; so it is to be believed, that he continued in the state of the dead, and under the power and dominion of death, from the time of his death and burial, until his resurrection: which hath been otherwise expressed thus, He went down into Hell. 
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Page 115This chapter has surveyed influential theologians of the Reformed tradition to examine the doctrine of the descent in their theology and in the literature they left behind. When popular theologians, Bible translations, annotators, Confessions, and catechisms of the Reformed tradition redefine or reject the descent its decline is no surprise. The complicating factor, however, is that the clause itself has continued in Reformed churches despite being substantially redefined from its understanding in the church until the Reformation. No wonder Bilson remarked, Retaining the words, many doubt or deny the sense thereof.
Crux, Mors, Inferi, Pages 128-129