Danny Hyde's "In Defense of the Descendit: A Confessional Response to Contemporary Critics of Christ’s Descent into Hell," from The Confessional Presbyterian 3 (2007) 104-117, has been posted in full in original format as a PDF at the link below. Enjoy!
The Confessional Presbyterian » In Defense of the Descendit by Daniel R. Hyde

__________________
Chris Coldwell, Lakewood Presbyterian Church (PCA), Dallas, Texas.
• Naphtali Press: Presbyterian & Reformed Books
• Westminster Letter Press
• The Confessional Presbyterian Journal
• The Blue Banner Archive

The Regulative Principle: The Scriptures are the “only infallible rule of faith and practice, no rite or ceremony ought to have a place in the public worship of God, which is not warranted in Scripture, either by direct precept or example, or by good and sufficient inference” (Samuel Miller).

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

FYI. I have some complaints of not being able to read all the text in some PDFs I've made of late; if anyone has a problem with Danny's article let me know and I have a fix for it.

FYI. I have updated the PDF in case of potential problems that I've been experience with PDF created the conventional way, and also removed the low res printing restriction that was on the first version.
The Confessional Presbyterian » In Defense of the Descendit by Daniel R. Hyde

A fine and thought-provoking challenge to the differing views. Recommended to all!

PS - the font is rather annoying. I find the flourishes on the 'p's and 't's to make reading harder.

__________________
Jonathan Hunt

Elder-Who-Preaches-A lot
Cheltenham Evangelical Free Church (Confessionally Based)
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
-- Thomas Elsworth

Agreed; I was very pleased to run it last year (thanks again Danny).
It does seem folks love or hate it; the editor likes it. The PC killed good typography and products are just now getting back to allowing for it.

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