Riffing on the Creed

The creed is structured by the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and by the three acts of God (Creation, justification and sanctification). Luther summarises it:

in all three articles God himself has revealed and opened to us the most profound depths of his fatherly heart and his pure, unutterable love.

For this very purpose he

1. created us,
2. so that he might redeem us
3. and make us holy,

and, moreover,

1. having granted and bestowed upon us everything in heaven and on earth,
2. he has also given us his Son
3. and his Holy Spirit

      through whom he brings us to himself.

            For, as explained above, we could never come to recognize the Father's favor and grace were it not for the LORD Christ, who is a mirror of the Father's heart. Apart from him we see nothing but an angry and terrible judge. But neither could we know anything of Christ, had it not been revealed by the Holy Spirit.

(my formatting, pp.439-440, Martin Luther, "The Large Catechism" in The Book of Concord)

The Creed says Luther, tells us what God does in us as creator, redeemer and sanctifier. He creates us, justifies us and sanctifies us. He also gives to us the rest of creation, and himself in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit (all of which are distinct from us - but joined to us).

see this post

Christ's descent into hell

Listening to: Sibelius: Symphony No.5

"He descended into hell" (or "He descended to the dead") is an article of the creed that most people I know don't know what to do with. As a result some people just brush it off as nonsense and further proof that we shouldn't pay too much attention to the ecumenical creeds.

I think we ought to give our forerunners the benefit of the doubt whenever we can, but I'm not sure what to do with it myself.

The writers of the Lutheran Formula of Concord, saw two broad categories of interpretation, and because argument between the two were getting quite heated they judged that "there should be no dispute over this issue but it should be believed and taught on the simplest level". They explained that people disputed "whether this article of faith belongs to the suffering of Christ or to his glorious victory and triumph." I must confess that I was only aware of it belonging in some form to Christ's suffering.

1. Belonging to the suffering of Christ

John Calvin argues that the phrase refers to the depths of the suffering that Jesus suffered on the cross for us:

"subjected to condemnation, he undertook and paid all the penalties which must have been exacted from them, the only exception being, that the pains of death could not hold him. Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God." (Institutes 2.16.10)

2. Belonging to the victory of Christ

Luther read the article more in connection with Christ's resurrection than his death:

"The customary way of depicting how Christ descended into hell on church walls represents him with a cape and with banners in his hand as he makes his descent and stalks and assaults the devil, as he storms hell and rescues his own people from it. The children's play presented at Easter depicts it in a similar way. It seems better to me that you depict, act out, sing, and recite the story in a very simple way and let it remain at that and not concern yourself with sublime and precise ideas about how it actually took place. for it did not happen in a physical manner, since he remained three days in the grave." (p. 159, cited in Timothy J. Wengert, A Formula For Parish Practice)

Foundations of faith

The author to the Hebrews lists as foundational the following (Heb 6:1f):

• repentance from dead works
• faith toward God
• instruction about washings [or baptisms]
• the laying on of hands
• the resurrection of the dead
• and eternal judgment

When I read this I wondered to myself how many of us 21st century Christians would list the same things as foundational to our faith. Having said that, I think a fair number of Catholics and Charismatics might (with different understandings of what the words mean of course). Sadly you would not hear anything like that coming out of my mouth (reformation needed).

It is interesting though that understood in context the author's list is really an expression of faith in the story of a Christian's life, when we are so often told today that redemptive-historical is the New Testament way of describing faith. An interesting comparison is Tertullian (AD 155-220) who wrote the following summary of the teaching of Christ, or rule of faith:

Now, with regard to this rule of faith—that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend—it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. (source)

Again, sadly, not like something you would come out of my mouth (except thanks to CofE liturgy when reading the creed). Like the earlier list of the author of Hebrews it is a story. However it is a different story. Nevertheless it is in perfect harmony with the biblical letter's whole argument, and a few verses later the link between the two stories is made (v.6).

The gospel is a many faceted jewel which can be described in a multitude of different ways. We should not try and make other Christian's sound the same but listen to all the different stories in wonderful harmony. But this embrace of diversity within the church does not remove all boundaries, or embrace 'multiple' gospels. As Tertullian saw his summary could raise 'no other questions than those which heresies introduce', and in extension we should reject all discordant notes in the different 'core stories' Christians tell, and recognise their danger.

Just wandering in thought...