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 70
The 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 207
This 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 136-137
Relevant Historical Background on The Descent
Without 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 95
On 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 115
This 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 205
Conclusion
Without 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 105
In 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 106
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. 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 107
Calvin 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 109
But 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 112
James 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 113
Daniel 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 114-115
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 115
This 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
