Great article! I thoroughly enjoyed it. Just a few comments/questions...

1. I don't see how the argument offered in refutation of Kenneth Copeland on pp. 106-107 responds to Copeland's quote. Copeland says that Jesus cried "It is finished!" but was not speaking of the plan of redemption. Rev. Hyde responds by saying that this contradicts "our Lord's own words when he said, 'It is finished'." He quotes the same verse to refute the use of the verse, which seems (to me) to be just as much an assertion as Copeland's. Rev. Hyde says "Contrary to Copeland's assertion, Jesus' words do refer to the accomplishment of redemption," but as proof he notes only that the Greek verb is in the perfect tense (τετέλεσται), saying that this somehow "denotes that Jesus accomplished the work of redemption that was prophesied in Scripture; he accomplished all that the Old Testament required as our sacrifice, and there was no need for him to suffer further in hell." Obviously I agree with Rev. Hyde's conclusion, but the tense of the verb says nothing about what it is that Christ accomplished; the grammar tells us merely that "[something] is in the state which results from having been finished." It does not show that the subject of the verb is [the accomplishment of our redemption] instead of [whatever Copeland thinks Jesus actually meant].

2. I really appreciated the refutation of the idea that "sheol" and "hades" refer to a netherworld. Where do we get the idea that hell is somewhere underground and that God lives in the sky? Is there biblical support for this (metaphorical?) language or is this something that medieval Catholics borrowed from pagan religion?

3. It is shown at the beginning of the article that the first orthodox Christians who maintained the descensus believed that it held the same meaning as sepultus. Later in the paper it is shown how "the Westminster Larger Catechism gives an ancient historical and literary interpretation to this phrase in the Creed [and] the Heidelberg Catechism and other expressions give us a theological and practical interpretation. My question is this: if the phrase, when it was first used, did not have a metaphorical meaning, but was considered to be the same as sepultus, why should we not just stick with that (i.e. what is covered under "Descent of Christ's Body" on p. 113) and leave out the meaning which was added later (i.e. what is covered under "Descent of Christ's soul on p. 115)? It may be helpful and it may be true, but is it fair to add meaning to a historical creed? It doesn't seem to me like this would be allowed today with the WCF or 3 Forms.

Thanks for your time in looking over these. Again, I really enjoyed the article, as this issue has interested me for some time.

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emily
Member of All Saints Anglican Church - Chapel Hill (AMiA / Anglican Church of North America)
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German and Classics