|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 6, 2011 12:54:42 GMT -5
It seems a better creed would have been to actually say what the apostles said we are to believe - that God raises the dead. Then you could restate it as I believe in the resurrection of the dead - that encompasses our belief that God raised up Jesus as well as our understanding that the dead have in fact been raised according to His promsie.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 6, 2011 13:33:03 GMT -5
Ted said: Ted, It is wrong to equivocate. The expression "I believe in the resurrection of the body means that the flesh will be resurrected from the grave. If this is not what you mean then it is wrong to cite it. Equivocation is dishonest. Roo But Roo, I do believe in the resurrection of the body. I really don't care how others have misused the term. It would be like I am feeling gay today. It doesn't matter a rip to me if others want to say I am using "gay" in a homosexual sense. It would be dishonest of me to disagree with the resurrection of the body. I explained what I meant by it. It wasn't hidden. Now, that would be dishonest. I think you also need to understand that I said, "I have no problem in saying it." For me to say that I believe in the apostles creed in the way that they believe it is not at all what I was saying. My saying it was and always will be attached with what I meant by it - like I did in my previous post. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 6, 2011 14:10:41 GMT -5
Ted said: Ted, It is wrong to equivocate. The expression "I believe in the resurrection of the body means that the flesh will be resurrected from the grave. If this is not what you mean then it is wrong to cite it. Equivocation is dishonest. Roo I think he means the "covenant body," the body of all believers (not the bodies of all believers). |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 6, 2011 14:53:59 GMT -5
Ted said: Ted, It is wrong to equivocate. The expression "I believe in the resurrection of the body means that the flesh will be resurrected from the grave. If this is not what you mean then it is wrong to cite it. Equivocation is dishonest. Roo I think he means the "covenant body," the body of all believers (not the bodies of all believers). That may be. But the creed means the body of flesh and that's what those who cite it mean by it. So the one who does not believe in the resurrection of the flesh from the grave should not cite it at all. To cite it in equivocation is dishonest. I am not saying that Ted is dishonest. I am informing him that it is dishonest. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 6, 2011 15:54:55 GMT -5
Roo, That may be. But the creed means the body of flesh and that's what those who cite it mean by it. So the one who does not believe in the resurrection of the flesh from the grave should not cite it at all. To cite it in equivocation is dishonest. I am not saying that Ted is dishonest. I am informing him that it is dishonest. If you are going to argue by the creed, you are going to die by the creed. The creed says: Do you practice baptism for the forgiveness of sins? The creed was introduced to the church in John Chrysostom's Liturgy around AD 400. After reading the Creed, the Liturgy says: The traditional response to the reading of the creed is to thank God for having raised us, not for promising to raise us in the future, but for having already raised us, and for brought us into the kingdom (age?) to come. The Liturgy claims that the resurrection is past and was a corporate body resurrection and that we are already living in the age to come. The creed is fulfilled. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 6, 2011 16:17:08 GMT -5
Roo, That may be. But the creed means the body of flesh and that's what those who cite it mean by it. So the one who does not believe in the resurrection of the flesh from the grave should not cite it at all. To cite it in equivocation is dishonest. I am not saying that Ted is dishonest. I am informing him that it is dishonest. If you are going to argue by the creed, you are going to die by the creed. The creed says: Do you practice baptism for the forgiveness of sins? The creed was introduced to the church in John Chrysostom's Liturgy around AD 400. After reading the Creed, the Liturgy says: The traditional response to the reading of the creed is to thank God for having raised us, not for promising to raise us in the future, but for having already raised us, and for brought us into the kingdom (age?) to come. The Liturgy claims that the resurrection is past and was a corporate body resurrection and that we are already living in the age to come. The creed is fulfilled. Vaughn, We are talking about the Apostle's Creed. I don't cite the part about the resurrection of the body because I know that the Reformed Churches are speaking about the resurrection of the flesh from the grave. Ted seems to be saying that it is okay to cite it if you mean something else by it. This is equivocation IMO. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 6, 2011 16:50:27 GMT -5
Vaughn, We are talking about the Apostle's Creed. I don't cite the part about the resurrection of the body because I know that the Reformed Churches are speaking about the resurrection of the flesh from the grave. Ted seems to be saying that it is okay to cite it if you mean something else by it. This is equivocation IMO. The Reformed did not write The Apostles Creed. They do not get to define the terms. If they do, then that is equivocation on their part. The 4th and 5th century church had the same understanding of the similar parts of The Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. This historic understanding is corporate body, not physical bodies. You seem to be saying that it is okay for the Reformed to cite it if you mean something else by it. The Reformed have been guilty of the same equivocation you accuse Ted of for 400 years. Ted's view is the one with historical precedence. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 6, 2011 17:24:22 GMT -5
Vaughn, We are talking about the Apostle's Creed. I don't cite the part about the resurrection of the body because I know that the Reformed Churches are speaking about the resurrection of the flesh from the grave. Ted seems to be saying that it is okay to cite it if you mean something else by it. This is equivocation IMO. The Reformed did not write The Apostles Creed. They do not get to define the terms. If they do, then that is equivocation on their part. The 4th and 5th century church had the same understanding of the similar parts of The Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. This historic understanding is corporate body, not physical bodies. You seem to be saying that it is okay for the Reformed to cite it if you mean something else by it. The Reformed have been guilty of the same equivocation you accuse Ted of for 400 years. Ted's view is the one with historical precedence. The usus loquendi of the expression "the resurrection of the body" means the resurrection of the flesh from the grave. So if I am standing next to someone reciting that part I give the impression that I mean what he means by it. I convey that I say the same thing with him in unison when I am not. This is equivocation. Do you think that honesty is a mere technical matter of being historically correct? I know a man who was examined for the office of pastor and he was asked if he believed in the inspiration of the Bible and he answered in the affirmative. But He did not mean the same thing by the word "inspiration" that his interrogators meant. He thought that his view of inspiration was correct. Needless to say that this caused problems later on when his views were found out. God desires truth from the "inwards parts of the belly." Honesty goes much deeper than being historically accurate. Roo |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 6, 2011 17:54:38 GMT -5
The Reformed did not write The Apostles Creed. They do not get to define the terms. If they do, then that is equivocation on their part. The 4th and 5th century church had the same understanding of the similar parts of The Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. This historic understanding is corporate body, not physical bodies. You seem to be saying that it is okay for the Reformed to cite it if you mean something else by it. The Reformed have been guilty of the same equivocation you accuse Ted of for 400 years. Ted's view is the one with historical precedence. The usus loquendi of the expression "the resurrection of the body" means the resurrection of the flesh from the grave. So if I am standing next to someone reciting that part I give the impression that I mean what he means by it. I convey that I say the same thing with him in unison when I am not. This is equivocation. Do you think that honesty is a mere technical matter of being historically correct? I know a man who was examined for the office of pastor and he was asked if he believed in the inspiration of the Bible and he answered in the affirmative. But He did not mean the same thing by the word "inspiration" that his interrogators meant. He thought that his view of inspiration was correct. Needless to say that this caused problems later on when his views were found out. God desires truth from the "inwards parts of the belly." Honesty goes much deeper than being historically accurate. Roo Now, you have got me curious. May I inquire as to where you determined the meaning for " usus loquendi"? I am pretty sure that you weren't born with an understanding of Latin... Is there a specific site (link) you used for that determination? |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 6, 2011 17:55:41 GMT -5
Roo, The usus loquendi of the expression "the resurrection of the body" means the resurrection of the flesh from the grave. So if I am standing next to someone reciting that part I give the impression that I mean what he means by it. I convey that I say the same thing with him in unison when I am not. This is equivocation. Do you think that honesty is a mere technical matter of being historically correct? I know a man who was examined for the office of pastor and he was asked if he believed in the inspiration of the Bible and he answered in the affirmative. But He did not mean the same thing by the word "inspiration" that his interrogators meant. He thought that his view of inspiration was correct. Needless to say that this caused problems later on when his views were found out. God desires truth from the "inwards parts of the belly." Honesty goes much deeper than being historically accurate. Your definition of truth plays games with the word of God. When Paul spoke of the "resurrection of the body," he meant what he meant. He did not mean what the modern Reformed Church meant. If we can not call Bible things, by Bible terms, then we are lost. The usus loquendi of the writer is what is important. The usus loquendi of the modern listener needs to match Scripture. www.worldwithoutend.info/bbc/books/bh/first/chpt0103.htmPaul's "resurrection of the body" refers to the undoing of Adam's Fall. "We will not be found naked." We will stand again with/before God. From Paul's perspective, those were still future. From our perspective, they are fulfilled. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 6, 2011 18:56:09 GMT -5
Vaughn wrote:
We're not talking about what Paul meant. We are talking about what the framers of the so called "Apostle's Creed" meant and the Reformed would disagree with your interpretation of what they meant. I am not challenging your interpretation of what they meant. I am saying only that the Reformed disagree with your interpretation. The usus loquendi in this instance is based in interpretation.
We are not talking about scripture. We are talking about the corporate citation of a creed when everyone says the same thing in unison.
I take quite a different take on this. Do you want to debate this too? BTW, I am waiting for you to say that you have your resolve so we can move to the next stage of choosing a format.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 6, 2011 19:17:27 GMT -5
BTW, I am waiting for you to say that you have your resolve so we can move to the next stage of choosing a format. I posted a possible resolve along with a question. You missed it. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 6, 2011 19:20:18 GMT -5
We are not talking about scripture. We are talking about the corporate citation of a creed when everyone says the same thing in unison. And how would Ted and I, both non-Reformed, know what you Reformed people meant and why we would conform to it? |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 6, 2011 19:31:49 GMT -5
BTW, I am waiting for you to say that you have your resolve so we can move to the next stage of choosing a format. I posted a possible resolve along with a question. You missed it. Cool! Roo |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Jan 6, 2011 19:34:51 GMT -5
We are not talking about scripture. We are talking about the corporate citation of a creed when everyone says the same thing in unison. And how would Ted and I, both non-Reformed, know what you Reformed people meant and why we would conform to it? You and Ted should know that I was speaking about a general principle. I think we have commented on this enough. Goodnight  Roo |
|
