Prayer is the vital energy of a quickened soul, the spiritual breath of one, “born from above.”  It is the first symptom of sensibility–the first and strongest evidence that “the Spirit that quickens” has entered the soul, breathing over the whole man “breath of life.”  The pulse may at first beat but faintly, even as the first gentle heaving of an infant’s bosom; still it is not less the product of the Spirit, the breath of God.  ”Behold he prayeth” is the announcement that sends gladness through the church of Christ on earth, and kindles joy among the angels of God in heaven.  God the Father hastens to welcome the returning and resuscitated soul, and exclaims, “This my son was dead, and is alive again.”  Luke 15:24.

It will follow then that the absence of prayers marks the soul yet “dead in sins.”  What evidence can be more convincing?  It is a symptom that cannot mislead.  The praying soul is a quickened soul.  The prayerless soul is a lifeless soul.  The individual that has never truly prayed has never known what one throb of spiritual life is.  He may content himself with the external form–he may kneel in the outer court of the tabernacle, and, as the holy Leighton expresses it, “breathe his tune and air of words,” and yet continue an utter stranger to true prayer.  Are you such a one?  Let the voice of tender affection now lead  you to a serious consideration of your real state.  Do no mistake the outward form for the inward spirit of prayer.  The soul may be dead, with all the appearance of life.

But where there is true prayer, there is real life; for prayer is the ascending of the Divine life to God from whom it came.  It came from God, and returns to Him again.  As the river flows towards the ocean, or as the infant turns to its mother, the author of its existence and the source of its nourishment, as the “well of water” in a renewed soul “springing up” rises heavenwards–so a soul born of God turns to God, its Author, its Sustainer,  its Keeper.  (The Work of the Holy Spirit, London: Banner of Truth, 1972 [1841], pp. 46-47)

Here goes Piper on 1st Peter 3:18-19:

The Apostles’ Creed says, “[He] was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead.” There are many meanings given to this phrase. I simply want to ponder the traditional interpretation that Christ went to the place of the dead to preach the gospel to Old Testament saints that he might set them free for the full experience of heaven. This is the view of the Catholic Catechism and many Protestants as well. I don’t think this is what the New Testament teaches.

The view is based mainly on two passages in 1 Peter.

Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, (19) in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, (20) because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. (1 Peter 3:18-20)

They are surprised when you do not join them in the same flood of debauchery, and they malign you; (5) but they will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. (6) For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.” (1 Peter 4:4-6)

With regard to 1 Peter 3:19, I take these words to mean that Christ, through the voice of Noah, went and preached to that generation, whose spirits are now “in prison,” that is, in hell. In other words, Peter does not say that Christ preached to them while they were in prison. He says he preached to them once, during the days of Noah, and now they are in prison.

I think this is suggested as the more natural understanding of the passage in view of what Peter said earlier about the spirit of Christ speaking through the prophets of old.

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time theSpirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. (1 Peter 1:10-11)

With regard to 1 Peter 4:6, I take “preached to the dead” to refer to those who, after being preached to, have since died. He is not referring to preaching to them after they have died. The context suggests this kind of understanding, as J. N. D. Kelly explains:

They [the Christians] may well have been exposed to scoffing questions from pagan neighbors, and anxious ones from one another, “What is the gain of your having become Christians, since you apparently die like other men?” The writer’s answer is that, so far from being useless, the preaching of Christ and his gospel to those who have since died had precisely this end in view, that although according to human calculation they might seem to be condemned, they might in fact enjoy life eternal.” (A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, 175)

I would say, therefore, that there is no textual basis in the New Testament for claiming that between Good Friday and Easter Christ was preaching to souls imprisoned in hell or Hades. There is textual basis for saying that he would be with the repentant thief in Paradise “today” (Luke 23:43), and one does not get the impression that he means a defective place from which the thief must then be delivered by more preaching.

For these and other reasons, it seems best to me to omit from the Apostles Creed the clause, “he descended into hell,” rather than giving it other meanings that are more defensible, the way Calvin does.

The tradition version of the Apostles’ Creed has the line, “he was crucified, died and was buried.  He descended into hell.”  This is the version that we say together at our church.  However, the traditional version of the Creed is actually not the oldest version of the Creed.  The line, “He descended into hell,” does not appear until the late fourth century (A.D. 390) in the history of the church.  It appears in a rendition of the Creed by Rufinus.   And, the phrase only appears in Rufinus’ Greek version of the Creed.  He does not preserve it in the Roman version.  Why?  It is clear from the context of Rufinus writing that he does not intend the phrase to mean more than “he descended into the grave.”  In Greek, Hades could refer to the grave, or to hell as a place of punishment.  It would seem that Rufinus left the phrase out of his Roman version to avoid the confusion.  So, Wayne Grudem summarizes:

This means, therefore, that until A.D. 650 no version of the Creed included this phrase with the intention of saying that Christ “descended into hell”–the only version to include the phrase before A.D. 650 gives it a different meaning.  At this point one wonders if the term apostolic can in any sense be applied to this phrase, or if it really has a rightful place in a creed whose title claims for itself descent from the earliest apostles of Christ” (Systematic Theology, 1994, p. 587).

For this reason, you may have been to a church that, though using the traditional form of the Creed, felt compelled to place an asterisk by this phrase to clarify that Jesus did not go to hell after he died.  First Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Jackson, MS does this.  Following John Calvin, these churches want to retain the phrase while making it clear that Christ did not descend into hell physically or spiritually after his death.  Rather, Christ bore the full wrath of hell on the cross for all those who were saved by faith in the promises prior to his death and all those who would be saved after his death.  Christ bore hell on the cross.  As Calvin puts it:

We must seek a sure explanation, apart from the Creed, of Christ’s descent into hell.  The explanation given to us in God’s Word is not only holy and pious, but also full of wonderful consolation.  If Christ had died only a bodily death, it would have been ineffectual.  No–it was expedient at the same time for him to undergo the severity of God’s vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgment.  For this reason, he must also grapple hand to hand with the armies of hell and the dread of everlasting death.  A little while ago we referred to the prophets’s statement that “the chastisement of our peace was laid upon him,” “he was wounded for our transgressions,” by the Father, “he was bruised for our infirmities”[(Is. 53:5ff.].  By these words he means that Christ was put in place of evildoers as surety and pledge–submitting himself even as the accused–to bear and suffer all the punishments that they ought to have sustained.  All–with this one exception: “He could not be held by the pangs of death” [Acts 2:24ff].  No wonder, then, if he is said to have descended into hell, for he suffered the death that God in his wrath had inflicted upon the wicked!  Those who–on the ground that it is absurd to put after his burial what preceded it–say that the order is reversed in this way are making a trifling and ridiculous objection.  The point is that the Creed sets forth what Christ suffered in the sight of men, and then appositely speaks of that invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he underwent in the sight of God in order that we might know not only that Christ’s body was given as the price of our redemption, but that he paid a greater and more excellent price in suffering in his soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man (Institutes, 2.16.10; Vol. 1, pp. 515-16 Battles’ edition.)

Four things to note from Calvin here:

1. Calvin had been ridiculed for taking this position by Sebastian Castellio.  16h century rhetoric enters into this discussion when he says it is a “trifling and ridiculous objection” to challenge the place where this phrase occurs in the creed.
2. Calvin’s main point is excellent: Christ did not simply die an ordinary death on the cross.  He underwent “the severity of God’s vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgement.”  He bore the wrath of hell as our substitute.
3. Calvin suggests that the Creed does not intend to given a chronological order of events when it comes to phrase “he descended into hell.”  Instead, Calvin says that this is to give us the spiritual dimension of the death of Christ: “that invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he underwent in the sight of God.”
4. Calvin emphasizes that the greater price that Christ paid on the cross was the price that we cannot see with the naked eye, “suffering in his soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man.”  A good word for those who reduce the cross down to a horrible death at the hands of men, while failing to see that it was the stroke that Justice gave which was most horrible and terrifying to Christ, and should be most horrible and terrifying to us if we don’t know Christ as our substitute.

Calvin was no iconoclast when it came to the history of the church.  He sought to preserve that which was redeemable theologically from the catholic tradition whenever possible.  Calvin finds in this phrase a helpful unpacking of the death of Christ on the cross.  I agree with Calvin, so long as people understand the creed in the manner in which he explains it. I have not seen, however, historical evidence that the 7th century church understood the phrase in manner that Calvin advocates.   (If someone else has that evidence please send it along.)  

I have sympathies with those who have removed the phrase “he descended into hell” from their recitation of the Creed.  Jesus did not go to hell after he died on the Christ.  And, this phrase is a late addition to the Creed.  Much of the Creed reads naturally in the order of redemptive history.   So, the person confessing faith with the Creed is not to be faulted for assuming that “he descended into hell” is the next redemptive historical event in the ministry of Christ.   Indeed, in order for matters to be clear they will have had to have been taught this truth, either right before confessing their faith (which can be cumbersome week after week) or in some other setting (communicants class, new members seminar, etc.).  Parents need to be clear on this for themselves and instruct their children.  Pastors and elders need to consider where they are making this clear for the flock in the teaching ministry of the church.  If we are using the Creed regularly in worship, Sessions (elder boards) should consider whether the statement needs to be clarified, both as a reminder to the faithful and to avoid confusion for those who are visiting the congregation for worship.

Tomorrow I will look at 1st Peter 3:19, the main passage of Scripture marshaled to support Christ’s literal descent into hell after he died.  For now, let’s be thankful that Christ bore hell on the cross as our substitute.  If we take a few moments to let His cross work sink in and to thank Him for it, other matters troubling our minds today may well recede into the background while we sing in our hearts, “What wondrous love is this, O my soul, O my soul.  What wondrous love is the, O my soul.”

Let us not then be ashamed to confess the Crucified.  Be the Cross our seal made with boldness by our fingers on our brow, and on everything; over the bread we eat, and the cups we drink; in our comings in, and goings out; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we rise up; when we are in the way, and when we are still.  Great is that preservative; it is without price, for the sake of the poor; without toil, for the sick; since also its grace is from God.  It is the Sign of the faithful, and the dread of devils:  for He triumphed over them in it, having made a shew of them openly (Col. ii. 15); for when they see the Cross they are reminded of the Crucified; they are afraid of Him, who bruised the heads of the dragon. Ps. lxxiv. 13..  Despise not the Seal, because of the freeness of the gift; out for this the rather honour thy Benefactor (from section 36 Lecture XII, “On the Words  Crucified and Buried”).

Cyril makes a good point regarding the centrality of the cross for the Christian.  Sins are forgiven and Satan is defeated because of Christ’s work on the cross.  He makes a mistake, however, when he says that that power can be invoked by making the sign of the cross.  My point yesterday was that the power of the cross belongs to us by faith in Jesus Christ, not by making the sign of the cross or by doing any other religious rituals (for Protestants such acts of ritualistic devotion may take other forms, as I also noted yesterday).

In John 12:36 Jesus says, “While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.”  To believe is to have faith–the root is the same Greek.  So, Jesus emphasizes faith in Himself as the light of the world (John 8:12).  Paul emphasizes faith in Christ as well.  In Romans he writes, ”For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (Romans 3:22-25).  When Paul says that God put Christ forward as a “propitiation by his blood” he is speaking about the crucifixion.  A propitiation was a sacrifice offered to avert wrath.  God’s wrath on sinners is placed on Jesus on the cross.  All who receive Christ by faith receive this this benefit from his crucifixion.  This cross work of Christ received by faith, is the basis for our salvation.  So Paul writes in Ephesians, ”For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The forgiveness of sins and freedom from spiritual darkness purchased by Christ on the cross is ours by faith in Him.  Sadly, for many people the sign of the cross has become a ritual, rather than something that bolsters real faith in Christ.  For those who think that they are accessing Christ’s power through making this sign, it has actually become a deadly substitute for faith that saves and sanctifies.  Certainly, if one thinks that by making this sign one can be forgiven, scare demons, receive some special blessing, or bring about a substantial change in the elements used in the Lord’s Supper then one has departed from the teaching of Jesus and Paul.

We should learn from the early fathers and from the traditions of the church, but we must always to Scripture to regulate our faith and our practice.  Not one time does the New Testament tell believers to make the sign of the cross.  Christ and his benefits are ours by faith alone.

The full text to the blog post at the White Horse Inn is below.

I was intrigued by a recent conversation between Doug Wilson and Mark Driscoll (interview video above).

I’d prefer to keep my thoughts to myself, but I think there’s a crucial piece missing from the “debate.”

As I said in an earlier post ( Reformed and Charismatic?), I’m not willing to die on the hill of cessationism. In fact, I’d fit into the category that Doug Wilson describes as “a cessaionist who believes strange things happen.” A sovereign God is free to fulfill his purposes as he pleases. As God, the Holy Spirit is not on a leash.

However, this misses the point. No Calvinist would believe that the Spirit is not free or that he cannot speak directly to people today as he did in the days of the prophets and apostles. Nor are Reformed Christians deists for believing that, as a rule, he doesn’t. In fact, the church was not guided by anti-supernaturalism when it rejected the claims of the Montanists in the late second century. Nor were Luther and Calvin under the spell of the Enlightenment when they challenged the “enthusiasts” for pitting the Word against the Spirit.

The Spirit is not bound by anything, but he freely binds himself to his Word. The question is not where the Spirit may work, but where he has promised to work. If strange things happen—similar to events in the era of the prophets and apostles, praise the Lord! However, one doesn’t have a right to expect the Spirit to work except where he has promised to work and through the means that the Triune God has ordained.

Like older charismatic-cessationist debates in evangelicalism, this newer discussion therefore has the wrong categories. The real issue isn’t whether the sign-gifts have ceased; it’s whether the Spirit works through ordinary means that Christ ordained explicitly or whether he works through extraordinary means that were identified with the extraordinary ministry of the apostles. Even deeper than that, it’s a question of whether we embrace a paradigm in which the Spirit’s work is identified with direct and immediate activity within us apart from ordinary means or through the external Word and sacraments. The history of “enthusiasm” (Protestant or otherwise) trends toward an almost Gnostic dualism between spirit and matter, indirect and inner experience versus mediated and external ministry, the individual heart and the covenant community. This is where the seismic fault is revealed. It’s at this point where the real differences—paradigmatic differences—become evident. And there are plenty of cessationists as well as charismatics who presuppose the “enthusiastic” paradigm.

In this interview, my friend Mark Driscoll expresses his worry that cessationists believe in the “Father, Son, and Holy Bible.” That may well be. In fact, one of the things that I’ve emphasized especially in recent years is the richness of the Spirit’s person and work that is actually far more evident in classic Reformed as well as patristic faith and practice than today. The temptation to celebrate the Spirit over the Word in our day is in part a reaction against a conservative tendency to separate the Word from the Spirit. He has also said elsewhere that where Reformed people attribute God’s work to the gospel, charismatics attribute it to the Spirit. We talk past each other, he says. I’m not so sure. Rather, I think we’re operating with quite different paradigms. When we attribute God’s work to the gospel, it’s actually attributing it to the Spirit who works through the gospel.

The choice between Spirit and Word is a false one that has typically been forced by Protestant enthusiasm. We do speak past each other, but because we have different paradigms—not just because of different views of whether the sign-gifts have ceased. For example, the Heidelberg Catechism asks, “Where does this true faith come from?” Answer: “The Holy Spirit creates it in our hearts by the preaching of the holy gospel and confirms it by the holy sacraments.” Who creates it? The Holy Spirit. How? Through preaching the gospel and by ratifying it through the baptism and the Supper.

When Reformed people (and others) speak of preaching, baptism, Communion, covenantal nurture in the home, church discipline, diaconal ministry and so forth, our charismatic brothers and sisters wonder, “Where is the Holy Spirit?” Why? Because they have come to see the Spirit’s work as separate from—even antithetical to—the external ministry of the church and ordinary means of grace.

Of course, this point doesn’t address the issues, much less pretend to solve them. However, my hope at least is that we could have a better conversation than the usual debate question: “The Sign-Gifts Have Ceased: Pro or Con?”