The Apostles’ Creed: Theologically Acute
Councils and creeds are an undeniably critical part of Christian history. For centuries they have shaped the church and the faith, to the point that they even pronounced the terms of what could rightly be considered within the realm of orthodoxy, though never so as to replace scripture.
The Apostles’ Creed, as I will show herein, is one of the most acute and theologically dense creeds left for the church from antiquity. It also happens to be the oldest. Through an exploration of its history and theology I will show why this creed is the foundation for so many others that came later. I also hope to show why other creeds founded on this one earliest creed, though meaningful in their own right and context, are superfluous at best.
History
The legend goes something like this: on the day of Pentecost, the Apostles sat around the table, and after being endowed by the Spirit with the knowledge of all tongues, Peter said, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth;” then Andrew said, “and in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord;” James said, “who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of Mary the Virgin;” John said, “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried;” Thomas said, “descended into Hades, on the third day rose from the dead;” James said, “ascended into Heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;” Phillip said, “thence He is about to come to judge the quick and the dead;” Bartholomew said, “I believe in the Holy Spirit;” Matthew said, “the Holy Church, communion of the saints;” Simon said, “remission of sins;” Thaddaeus said, “resurrection of the flesh;” and finally Matthias said, “life everlasting.”
As endearing as this legend might be, it is just that. There is no evidence to support this story of the creed’s origin. One must go to historical writings and documents of the early church (first, second, and third century) only to find mere morsels indicating the origins of the Apostles’ Creed.
Amongst tales of its use by the Roman church for baptismal candidates (a use that repeatedly appears) we find the earliest indication of the creed’s origin. Most likely, the Apostles’ Creed developed from this tradition where many early church presbyters record the ceremony of baptism, including creeds of similar form used in a question and answer format. It is accurate then to perceive from the evidence not a single writer nor date of writing, but a gradual development from a simple “do you believe in Jesus Christ…?” progressing gradually to add other statements of doctrine as the desire and/or need arose. This is as plausible a scenario as any since the facts of the matter do not lead us to an author. Neither does the creed lead us to any specific time period, though there are indications of the Apostles’ Creed as early as c. 215 A.D. in the Interragotory Creed of Hyppolitus, which is basically a transcript of a typical baptism ceremony. The baptismal candidate would answer, “I believe” to each set of questions and be submerged three times. Use at this date would necessitate an earlier date for composition (though as we’ve seen, speaking of a single date of composition is not very accurate), prior to 200 A.D. at least, if reasonable time were allowed for distribution.[1] 15 years would prove rather speedy for distribution and so an even earlier date could be asserted.
Arnold Ehrhardt analyzes the need for this creed in his 1962 article Christianity Before the Apostles’ Creed.[2] Ehrhardt deals with the ideas that this and other creeds were used to combat heresy, as a “test” of orthodoxy, and as a confession immediately prior to baptism. He shows logical evidence for the first two reasons (combating heresy, testing orthodoxy) to be rejected. It’s not that fighting heresy and testing orthodoxy didn’t happen and/or were not important, they certainly were as evidenced by the many ecumenical councils gathered to do just that, but that there is no evidence supporting the idea that the creed was ever used in this way. In support of this premise Ehrhardt enters into an exploration of scholarly research investigating how churches in other regions outside of Rome dealt with heresy, if at all. Surely, these churches confronted heresy according to the “rule of faith” embodied by the Apostles’ Creed, but this could hardly be said to be the creed itself. The Apostles’ Creed later proved to be useful in such things but was not used in this capacity right away.
What is certain is that the Apostles’ Creed was used for baptismal candidates in question and answer form prior to immersion. This use does not preclude the creed’s use in other forms, as nearly all of its statements can be attributed to early apostolic teachings from scripture itself.
At no time in the life of the Apostles’ Creed was it ever denounced as heretical, or rejected outright. It has, since its creation (however it was created), been a valuable tool first used as a means to interrogate baptismal candidates. Later it most certainly was used to guide the theological understanding of catechumens under such early church fathers as Augustine and others.[3] There are also reasons to believe that the Apostles’ Creed was not necessarily the mother of the large number of creeds we see today but was instead a sibling and influenced other creeds as such.
Theological Analysis
Since it is my assertion that the Apostles’ Creed represents all aspects of saving faith and, if interpreted in light of scripture which the authors most certainly had in mind, the defensive value of this creed regarding heresy does not require further refining nor revision, it would only be proper to enter into an exegetical analysis of not only the creed, but the source scriptures as well. I will not spend equal time with all points, as I am sure there are a great many points with which all Christians who reside within orthodoxy would agree. Instead I will deal at length only with those articles of the creed that have caused the most conflict over its life.
The Apostles’ Creed has taken a few forms over the centuries. There have never been large variations in its content either. For this reason I will be referring to the form cited below:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth,
And in Jesus Christ, His only 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 arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on 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.
In this form, the creed has every piece of agreeable and controversial doctrine that has ever appeared in it. Similar creeds surely have parts in common or perhaps missing, but this is inconsequential for the purpose of our study.
Among the more agreeable portions, we begin with the first line: I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth. Referent to such passages as Isaiah 44:6 and 45:5 where God defines himself as entirely one, and verses such as Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-3, and Acts 14:15 (this last verse is in a divergent context, though the implication is still the same: God created everything) dealing with the creation account, here it is presented that there is only one who is over the entire universe, who created all things and appropriately reigns over His creation with implied authority and power. Though Christians through the ages have disagreed with the nature of this claim, finding division over the question of “how,” there is still unity in the idea that as Christians we worship the one God who is. That is, Christians have always asserted with no confusion or deviation that they worship the one true God who actually exists and who calls all things into existence. He is the self-existent one called “I AM” who has no beginning or end. Surely this first article of the creed would have called the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) to recollection for the classically educated Christian of the first and second century.
To say that this first simple line of the Apostles’ Creed would remind the faithful believer of so many passages of scripture is not to presume too much. Students at all levels, upon exposure to this creed, were most likely in one of the most intensive learning programs of their life. Whether the student was a layperson or catechumen, certain supporting scriptures would have been immediately called to memory as the words flowed from his/her mouth. In fact this was entirely the point of this creed. New converts as well as ecclesiastical trainees would memorize such things, not to simply recall the creed, but to be reminded of the words of sacred scripture from which the creedal profession flowed.
Later, the fight against heresy would bring this article of the creed to bear surely on Hellenism just as we may use it against postmodernism today, as well as any other belief system that fundamentally denied God’s sovereign authority and consuming creative power over the entire universe. In a modern context this first article could be effectively brought against Mormonism, specific to the claim that we may all attain to Godhood someday, if the proper criteria is met.
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord. Jesus Christ (Luke 1:31, 2:11); His only Son (John 3:16, Proverbs 30:4); our Lord (John 20:28, Matthew 7:21, Revelation 17:14). Not only does this line of the creed remind us of the name that is the focus of our adoration, but also the role He plays in the heavenly trinity, and the office He holds on earth. He is Jesus Christ, as that name given him by the angels, according to the Heavenly Father’s decree. He is the Son, only begotten of the Father. He is Lord of all, legally, by lawful purchase according to the now settled debt of all mankind. Lordship more expressly stated ensures that the Son owns those ones for whom He has paid in full.
This line is connected to the previous, realizing that the God of the universe, who is the cause of all things, has determined the just price, not according to justice as if it stood as something separate from himself, but according to the council of His own will as the one who defines Justice. He has determined the price, provided the wage, and determined its efficacy, in order that he might be just and the justifier or those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:26).
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary. Conceived by the Holy Ghost (or Spirit) (Luke 1:35); born of the virgin Mary (Luke 1:26-27). Preserving the mystery of the incarnation, the Spirit of God overshadowed Mary, and she was pregnant having never experiencing intercourse. Specificity is tantamount to the theological implications of this article. Jesus Christ was conceived specifically by the power of the Holy Spirit, not the Son or the Father. Understanding this line of the creed in the context of Luke 1:35 asserts the Trinitarian activity in the incarnation. If this verse were to be understood any other way than in a Trinitarian framework, any number of heresies could be dreamt up. Arianism is one example.
Mormons once again serve as a target of opportunity. Mormon doctrine says that God actually had physical sex with Mary. Specificity in the creed in this point corrects a multitude of errors. Mary was a virgin even at the birth of Jesus. Even if God had laid with her, she would not have remained a virgin, as the scripture is clear to repeatedly point out that she had not yet laid with a man and Joseph did not lay with her until after the pregnancy. Could God have had sex with Mary and miraculously preserved her virginity? Certainly, but since the text deals with both the miraculous mystery of the incarnation and the physical act of sex as two distinctly different things, there is no reason to assume one is the other or vice verse.
Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. Suffered under Pontius Pilate (Matthew 27:24-26, Mark 15:15, Luke 23:23-25, John 19:15-16); was crucified (Matthew 27:33-37, Mark 15:22-26, Luke 23:33-34, John 19:17-27); dead (Matthew 27:45-54, Mark 15:33-39, Luke 23:44-48, John 19:28-30); and buried (Matthew 27:57-61, Mark 15:42-47, Luke 23:50-56, John 19:38-42). The fact that Pontius Pilate was governor at the time of Christ’s crucifixion seems to be some what of a minor point, but it does provide key dating information and so testifies to the historical accuracy of the gospel accounts. That is to say the gospel stories actually happened within the context of the reality of first century Judaism and the Roman occupation of Jerusalem.
The essence of the gospel message revolves around these passages in scripture having to do with Jesus’ crucifixion, seen in scripture as the payment exacted against the innocent, for the sake of the guilty, presided over by the just judge of the universe. Understanding the former lines of the creed is indispensable to understanding this one line, and its strength when used against heresy. To progress from this into probably the most controversial line of the creed, one must understand that it was the punishment dealt by God that Christ agonized over in the garden, not the torture the Romans could dish out. God was the one doing the punishing, not the Romans. If this point is fully grasped, the cross is understood to be far more disastrous toward Christ than mere whips, nails, and spears could ever be. How could Jesus, the God-man, agonize over the same punishment later martyrs would endure while singing hymns? The answer is that Christ was subject to the wrath of the father, not the wrath of the Romans, on behalf of those whom He intended to purchase with His blood.[4] I realize I have repeated myself several times, but understanding this is ever so important if the discussion we are about to enter into is to make any sense at all. Once again, the Father damned Christ, the only one worthy of salvation, on the cross, turning His back upon Jesus as he cried out “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Surely the words of Hebrews 10:31 (which hadn’t been written yet, but surely the Lord knew these words) were never more alive to Jesus than on that day.
He descended into hell. From this we may take up the space of several books, so for brevity’s sake I will represent the arguments of old and new, respectively pro and con.
Wayne Grudem takes up issue with this phrase and does not repeat it when reciting this creed in church.[5] First on his list of objections is the sketchy lineage of this one phrase. It is true, as Grudem points out, that this phrase was not part of the oldest form of this creed “The Roman Symbol.” [6] He accurately asserts that this phrase was added later. There are inherent problems with this view though. There is a logical flaw imbedded within his argument. Just because something is old does not necessarily mean it is right, and vice verse. Something must be tested according to truth, not age, if righteousness and doctrinal correctness are to be determined. The argument is entirely invalid in regards to determining doctrinal correctness. Bringing this point up seems to be merely an attempt to cast doubt in the minds of those who have not caught Grudem’s blunder. At the end of his article addressing this statement of the Apostles’ Creed he even admits that age does not determine correctness, not realizing the irony of his own argumentation.[7] This is not the totality of his argument, but it is an unhealthy beginning.
Grudem continues in his denunciation of this doctrinal phrase, adding analysis of scriptures such as Acts 2:27, Romans 10:6-7, Ephesians 4:8-9, 1 Peter 3:18-20, and 1 Peter 4:6. In dealing with the first of these verses (Acts 2:27) he acknowledges the fact that the term “hell” (hades in the Greek) is often used to describe the grave or death in general.[8] He seems to be convinced by the implications of this to the verse at hand. This to meets with problems when one considers the preceding verses of the creed already pronounced Christ’s decent into the grave. To say this again would be a useless repetition. Grudem certainly assesses Acts 2:27 correctly, but fails to apply such scrutiny to his assessment of the creed. Acts 2:27, at the completion of his analysis, is rightly seen to have to baring on Christ’s supposed decent into hell.
The same accuracy is displayed by Grudem in his analysis of Romans 10:6-7, Ephesians 4:8-9, 1 Peter 3:18-20, and 1 Peter 4:6. [9] So convincing is Grudem’s treatment of these verses, one is left wondering if perhaps there is any blatant statement in favor of this doctrine in the whole of scripture. After consideration of these verses, Grudem cites verses he perceives to oppose the idea that Jesus descended into hell. Luke 23:43 seems to suggest that Christ’s spirit when immediately to the Father, the very same day as His death. This is perhaps a presumptuous statement, as understanding this verse in that way largely depends on the placement of the comma by the translator; the comma is not in the Greek text. Changing the placement of the comma would change the meaning from Christ promising paradise that very day(e.g. I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise) , to Christ uttering these words to the thief crucified with him within the confines of that day (e.g. I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise).
Grudem’s interaction with John 19:30 also leaves much to be desired as well. He relates Christ’s cry “It is finished,” to mean that Christ’s suffering and alienation from the father was finished. Likewise, Luke 23:46 where Christ commits His spirit into the hands of the Father is said by Grudem to show that Christ immediately went to heaven. In these few points it would be helpful to first point out that Grudem assumes to know what “it” means in the context of John 19:30. What is finished, and why should we accept the idea that it was the bearing of our sin that was finished? Likewise, though it is agreeable and most likely given the context that Jesus’ suffering was finished as He uttered those words, “it is finished,” why can John 19:30 only mean that Jesus went at once into the Father’s presence? I am inclined to agree with a few of these statements, but it still remains that Grudem’s arguments are not convincing enough to alleviate difficulty. Does the opposite view, where Christ descends into hell, relieve such difficulty? Grudem’s assertion is not and it is clear that he would have this statement stricken from the creed; Calvin came to a decidedly different conclusion in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, 16.8-12.
Most all of the arguments I have shared thus far, I have repeated from Calvin’s own assessment of this evidence many years before Grudem.[10] Besides the logical and evidential arguments we have just been through, Calvin brings yet others of more profound relevance to the table. As I am surely not able to do justice to Calvin’s ability to expound upon scripture and doctrine in such an ageless fashion as he was, I will here summarize what is worthy of careful scrutiny within Calvin’s work. Namely, the gravity of the act of which we speak must be discussed if we are to find any meaning in this statement of the Apostles’ Creed. I described this premise just prior to dealing with the views on this article of our creed. Calvin presents the cross in terms of the punishment that was justly ours, that we have earned, and grace from which we have in no way merited.
One striking feature of Calvin’s scriptural interaction with this idea is that one does not see a single one of the verses outlined by Grudem. No, Calvin does not look for a verse that says, “He descended to hell,” as Grudem seems to want to find. Calvin’s method here is to understand the meaning of verses, use the meaning to develop understanding of function, and progressively build understanding upon understanding to form doctrine. From this Calvin considers questions, though not expressly asked, like, “what was the cause of Jesus’ trembling in Matthew 26:37?” “Was it human death that troubled Jesus’ spirit in John 13:21?” What does it mean to be forsaken by God, as Jesus questioned of the Father in Matthew 27:46?” There are many more questions like this that could be extrapolated from Calvin’s work. I would encourage my readers to examine for themselves both Calvin’s and Grudem’s treatment of this topic to see for themselves which one comes up lacking in potency according to understanding of scripture and logical consideration.
Once again for the sake of brevity, and to pay honor to the lakes of ink that have been spilled on this topic, I will leave this article of the creed with one last statement for consideration that will show where my thoughts fall in this debate. If we as Christians understand that “…upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,” (Isaiah 53:5), if we understand that his punishment should have been ours, yet through his grace and mercy our debt was satisfied by the payment of another on our behalf, we must maintain that He descended into hell. If we don’t, then we are saying that hell is not the punishment for wickedness.
From this point in the creed, there is not much in the way of doctrinal disagreement. I will cover the rest of the creed rather quickly, showing my thesis to be intact in the totality of the creed.
The third day He arose again from the dead. (1 Corinthians 15:4). There is not much disagreement on this point. Even dissenting groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons still agree with those within orthodoxy on this point. This in fact is a pivotal point for all belief systems related to Christ that affirm His deity. Verses such as Acts 2:24 assert for us the fact of Christ’s deity and great power over even death, to the extent that physical death could not keep Him from accomplishing the Father’s will. This point is so important, that had it not happened, Christians would have forever been left with nothing to preach. Truly, there would be no Christianity, nor Christians of which to speak.
He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. He ascended into heaven (Mark 16:19, Luke 24:51, Acts 1:11); and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty (Mark 16:19, Hebrews 1:3). Christ’s ascension into heaven marks the acceptance of the sacrifice, confirmed by Christ’s placement at the right hand of God in the position of honor. Scripture says that he engages in prayer, interceding for believers before the Father. How this happens and what it means is handled differently by some of the groups I have mentioned previously, like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. The ways these groups interpreter these verses does not correspond to the rest of the creed, nor scripture, and though one view may seem plausible at one point, the ways in which they treat this verse usually seem to betray a proper understanding of the Trinitarian relationship between the Father, Son, and Spirit.
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. (1 Peter 4:5, John 5:22). At this point, once again we see that few disagree, but many differ as to the function of this scriptural truth. Indeed Jesus will return. It seems that none who assert the heavenly worth of Christ disagree on this. Within orthodoxy there are wildly differing ideas of when, how, where, etc. Pre, post, and mid-tribulation views have strengths within scripture, as well as weaknesses. Though disagreement abounds regarding the specifics, orthodoxy maintains, according to scripture, that Christ will return to judge all people, to include peoples of every nation, language, region; indeed not one person will be left out of His judgment, not even the dead. This article stresses the scriptural reality that Jesus’ righteous judgment transcends even death. The only exception I can think of is once again the Mormon view. They insist that the judgment is not for people, but is that time when God will finally cast Satan and his fallen angels into the pit; judgment is not and never was for humans according to Mormonism.
I believe in the Holy Ghost. (John 15:26, John 16:7-8).
The holy Catholic Church. (Galatians 3:26-29).
The communion of saints. (Hebrews 10:25).
The forgiveness of sins. (Luke 5:23, Matthew 9:5).
The resurrection of the body. (John 11:43-44, Matthew 28:6).
And the life everlasting. (John 10:28, John 17:2-3).
These articles I have gathered together because of their close proximity to each other in the context of our creed and also because they represent the things Christians must do or experience. Not to do or experience any of these is to be decisively not Christian. Some are more obvious than others (e.g. forgiveness of sins, resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting). Without these, there is no claimed benefit to Christ’s sacrifice. These three have to do with the merit of Christ’s work, not our own. This is why, as expressed in Romans 3:27, boasting is excluded from the reality of the Christian. For if we boast then we do so on behalf of another’s work and our boasting is therefore not prideful, but proper worship of God. Because of Christ’s righteousness and sacrificial forgiveness, we are compelled to forgive. For as much righteous condemnation as we hold against another, Christ holds more towards us yet He forgave. Because of the authority inherent in Christ’s identity, we will be resurrected, according to the faith he caused in us. It is Christ’s work alone, finding no cause what so ever in us for honor, which guarantees these things. Ultimately, the believer would be considered a saint, cleansed by the blood of Christ, in which case this title ceases to be earned, and becomes a gift awarded to the faithful, who God chooses. This is no the consenting view of the Roman Catholic Church, but that is thankfully the exception.[11]
The Christian, irresistibly compelled by the Spirit, will always be gathered with other believers (communion of the saints). This was called the “Catholic” church. In the context of our creed, Catholic simply means universal. The idea of a universal church is truly the embodiment of the formation of this creed. The universal church would gather under these doctrines as outlined in the creed and expounded in scripture, as reassurance that all those within the “walls” of the church were brothers and sisters under the one provision of Christ. This universal church was not a call to open the floodgates to all creeds, but to sift the waters so to speak. Belief in the universal (Catholic) church assumes a gathering of people who find no disagreement in these fundamental doctrines.
Conclusion
It is clear that all parts of this creed work together to support each other. No article stands alone on its own merit, but is evident in scripture, in light of the implications of other doctrines emphasized throughout the creed. I have shown how many areas of this creed have been used to combat heresies of every sort, though this does not seem to be its original intent. Used in baptism, historically the creed functionally gathers under the eighth and ninth articles in its use to preserve the purity of the church as it is understood though scripture.
I believe that the reason this particular creed has survived the test of time with so few revisions is due to its doctrinal purity. The beginning of the creed gathers steam and energetically drives the reader’s focus to the central portion where Christ is discussed. Christ is presented in truth and represented as powerful to save those who had not the capacity to save themselves. Ramping down into the last six articles, the result of Christ’s work is briefly, yet meaningfully stated if these last statements are understood in context of what the creed previously dealt with.
In light of the enigmatic history surrounding the Apostles’ Creed, it is ironic that not a single Apostle probably ever had a hand in authoring any part of the creed. In light of this, and understanding that the legend of its origin is merely anecdotal, I think it would be more appropriate to maintain that this creed accurately represents apostolic teaching. This would make it acceptable for the name to remain while also giving due honor to the timeless theology found within its lines. My conclusion then is this: all elements of Biblical orthodoxy were adequately and sufficiently stated in the Apostle's Creed and therefore subsequent creeds, though useful to observe historic creedal development, are not theologically viable over and above this earliest of creeds. This is not to say that other creeds are useless or wrong, as much as it is to say that they owe much, if not all, to the Apostles’ Creed.
Bibliography
1. Augustine, Aurelius. “The Creed: A Sermen to the Catchumens,” trans. Rev. C.L. Cornish, M.A.
2. Berthoud, Alex L. "The Apostles' Creed: the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints." International Review of Missions 45 (1956): 429-435.
3. Calvin, John. “Institutes of the Christian Religion.” vol. 2; (16.8-12)
4. Ehrhardt, Arnold. "Christianity before the Apostles' Creed." Harvard Theological Review 55 (1962): 74-119.
5. Grudem, Wayne A. "He did not descend into hell: a plea for following Scripture instead of the Apostles' Creed." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34 (1991): 103-113.
6. Holland, David Larrimore. "The earliest text of the Old Roman Symbol : a debate with Hans Lietzmann and J N D Kelly." Church History 34, no. 3 (September 1, 1965): 262-281.
7. Lake, Kirsopp. "The Apostles' Creed." Harvard Theological Review 17 (1924) 173-183.
8. Miller, Patrick D. "Rethinking the first Article of the creed." Theology Today 61 (2005): 499-508.
9. Scaer, David P. "He did descend to hell: in defense of the Apostles' Creed." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35 (1991): 91-99.
[1] David Larrimore Holland, "The earliest text of the Old Roman Symbol : a debate with Hans Lietzmann and J N D Kelly," Church History 34, no. 3 (September 1, 1965): 262-281.
[2] Arnold Ehrhardt, “Christianity Before the Apostles’ Creed,” Harvard Theological Review 55 (1962): 74-119.
[4] David P. Scaer, “He did descend to hell: in defense of the Apostles’ Creed,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35 (1991): 92-93.
[5] Wayne A. Grudem , “He did not descend into hell: a plea for following Scripture instead of the Apostles’ Creed,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35 (1991): 103.
[6] Ibid, 103.
[7] Ibid, 113
[8] Ibid, 107
[9] Ibid, 107-112
[10] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2; (16.8-12)
[11] David P. Scaer, “He did descend to hell: in defense of the Apostles’ Creed,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35 (1991): 91.
