An adventist approach to the "harrowing of hell"

Before I started to look into church history, I must admit I had a pretty negative view of church fathers and councils, as being "the fathers of romanism" (some things must be viewed negatively, such as what many of them taught concerning the sabbath or the immortality of the soul), but I discovered that most accretions and corruptions were introduced after the first five hundred years of Christianity, things like purgatory, icon veneration, a high mariology, infant baptism and similar things were introduced in the church and compromised; however I discovered a lot of common ground with a lot of a lot of the early church and I am happy our theologians and historians are engaging with works of the early Christian period. 

The Apostle's Creed was originally a summary of the most important christian articles of faith (containing things like Christ's death and ressurection, second coming, and biblical doctrines) and served as a pre-baptismal teaching. As an adventist, only one issue from this creed initially stood out to me: the clause "and He (Christ) descended to hell"; 

It is important to note that the clause "and He descended to hell" was not found in the "Apostle's creed" until the late fourth century. Rufinus is the first church father who mentions the clause, and even he believed that "descended to hell" meant the same thing as "Christ was buried", the word for hell that was used in the greek version of the creed was "Hades". 

Theologian Wayne Grudem wrote:

“it is surprising to find that the phrase “he descended into hell” was not found in any of the early versions of the Creed (in the versions used in Rome, and the rest of Italy, and in Africa) until it appeared in one of two versions from Rufinus  in A.D. 390. Then it was not included again in any version of the Creed until A.D. 650. moreover, Rufinus, the only person who included it before A.D. 650, did not think that it meant that Christ descended into hell, but understood the phrase simply to mean that Christ was “buried.” [Thus] it was not in the Roman form of the creed that he preserved.” (Systematic Theology, P.586).

The Heidelberg Catechism (a Reformed one) gave a different interpretation to this phrase. 

"Question: Why does the creed add, “He descended to hell”?

Answer: To assure me during attacks of deepest dread and temptation that Christ my Lord, by suffering unspeakable anguish, pain, and terror of soul, on the cross but also earlier, has delivered me from hellish anguish and torment." 

This Reformed Catechism does not understand the phrase to refer to the popular idea that Jesus went to a place where conscious immaterial souls were being tormented, but rather "hell" is a synonym for the anguish that Christ suffered for us on the cross. Here's a fragment from Zacharias Ursinus (the author of this Catechism who explains the meaning of the descent into hell): 

"Again, when it is said that Christ descended into hell, it cannot mean the place of the damned, which is the second signification of the term "hell" as above considered; as is proven from this division: The Divinity did not descend, because this is and was everywhere: neither did his body, because it rested in the grave three days, according to the type of Jonah; nor did it arise from any other place than the grave. NEITHER DID THE SOUL OF CHRIST DESCEND: 1. BECAUSE THE SCRIPTURES IN NO PLACE AFFIRM THIS; 2. Because Christ said in relation to this when dying on the cross "Father into thy hands I commend my spirit;" and to the malefactor, he said, "To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." (Luke 23:46, 43.) The soul of Christ, after his death, was, therefore, in the hands of his Father in Paradise, and not in hell."- Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism

I disagree with Ursinus's application of Luke 23, but I think his commentary on this issue is extremely significant: Let's just pause and reflect a few things from this very esteemed Reformed theologian: 

1. Contrary to Myles and Sam Shamoun and SDA critics, he does not believe that the soul of Christ descended into hell; 

2. He affirms the Apostle's Creed, but gives a different interpretation to the words "descended to hell" (I recommend his commentary on this point where he argues against the popular view of the harrowing of hell)

3. He takes the phrase to refer to Christ's suffering on the cross, "hell" being more a psychological metaphor for substitutionary suffering on the cross; 

An adventist can agree both with Rufinus’s interpretation that the descent into hell is equivalent to the burial, or with Ursinus's interpretation that it refers to Christ's intense suffering on the cross in our behalf. I am not arguing for ways to reinterpret the creeds to sound orthodox (we should have no interest in looking good to others and meet other standards except the Word of God), but rather it is important not to ignore historic interpretations of the creeds that we can agree with (interpretations which contradict the critics of adventism) and that might just stimulate our thinking about early Christianity too.