« Evangelistic vs. Covenantal Worship, update | Main | He Descended Into Hell, Part 2 »

08/31/2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Solomon Li

Very fascinating discussion Lee. I can't wait till part 2 as I'm wondering if it's OK to ask you the question, "So would you strike it out?" as I feel you will address that soon enough.

Also, the other side of it would be to ask whether it is the case that tradition has taken precedence in priority over what seems to be exegetical sense as in the case of some areas of translation in Scripture.

As both students of Scripture and products of our own historical background these are important questions to ask and an interesting case study on seeing the tension of such things in the church. Thanks for sharing.

Rick Ehlinger

Calvin is good company. I go with him on this. Saying the Apostle's creed corporately is an act of faith and worship, and to change that is just not advisable. As long as we understand it with Calvin's interpretation, what would it gain by removing it? So if you want to cause a stir, by all means remove it in whatever church you are in, and let's see how far you get. ;) Seems like a good way to disrupt the life of any church and cause dissension. Not a good goal, eh?

Lee

Solomon and Rick - don't worry, I'm not advocating the removal of the descent clause from the Creed! Understood properly, it is a biblical phrase.

The comments to this entry are closed.