# Visscher—Why Catechism Preaching



## dannyhyde

I've posted a great little essay by Gerhard Visscher of the Canadian Reformed Churches on my blog here.

Happy reading and commenting...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Thanks for sharing that article, Pastor Hyde!


----------



## kvanlaan

Is it possible to paste it in a post? China does not like your blog (which is something to be proud of!) and I can't get there.


----------



## bookslover

All preaching should be from Scripture only, not from the secondary standards.


----------



## dannyhyde

bookslover said:


> All preaching should be from Scripture only, not from the secondary standards.



Hello Richard,

This is one of the major differences between historic, continental Reformed subscription and practice and modern, American Presbyterianism. We believe and confess our confessions because (quia) they are biblical, not only in so far as (quatenus) they are biblical.

Take for example Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 45. If I preach the significance of the resurrection of Jesus as benefitting us in the areas of our justification (Rom. 4), sanctification (Rom. 6), and glorification (Rom. 8), how have I preached something not from Scripture?


----------



## JohnOwen007

Dear Danny,



dannyhyde said:


> Take for example Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 45. If I preach the significance of the resurrection of Jesus as benefitting us in the areas of our justification (Rom. 4), sanctification (Rom. 6), and glorification (Rom. 8), how have I preached something not from Scripture?



Let me begin by saying that I'm a believer in creeds and confessions. We need them, and we need to value (good) tradition. We also need to teach creeds and catechisms to the flock. But I'm hesitant to bring them into the pulpit of public church.

This is because there is something critical at stake here: It's not just the content of Scripture but the *form *that is also inspired. That is, it's not just what Scripture says, but the *way* it says it.

I could sum up the book of Job in a proposition. But it's altogether another thing to read it for itself (and have it's nuances expounded) with it's soaring poetry and agonizing rhetoric.

Moreover, in Scripture God has seen it fit to give us an inspired book that *combines* theology in real life experimental situations (very much unlike many creeds that state the truth without implications and applications).

Due to the inspiration of Scripture, public preaching in church should (predominantly) focus on on preaching through books in Scripture so that:

[1] We get *God's* hobby horses, and not the fallible hobby horses of humans.

[2] We preserve not simply what is said, but the *way* it is said.

[3] Doctrine is never taught *apart *from real life contexts and praxis.

I love the three forms of unity. But I love the Bible more. In my humble opinion too often confessional Christians are quicker to quote from a confession than Scripture itself.

The Bible is not just a repository of doctrines its *the *great ministry *tool*.

God bless you.


----------



## JohnV

JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear Danny,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the inspiration of Scripture, public preaching in church should (predominantly) focus on on preaching through books in Scripture so that:
> 
> [1] We get *God's* hobby horses, and not the fallible hobby horses of humans.
> 
> [2] We preserve not simply what is said, but the *way* it is said.
> 
> [3] Doctrine is never taught *apart *from real life contexts and praxis.
> 
> I love the three forms of unity. But I love the Bible more. In my humble opinion too often confessional Christians are quicker to quote from a confession than Scripture itself.
> 
> The Bible is not just a repository of doctrines its *the *great ministry *tool*.
> 
> God bless you.



That, as I understand it, is the point of catechism preaching. It holds men to the doctrines of the Word, not to the catechism or men's opinions. The catechism structure is used to ensure that ministers cover the whole spectrum of doctrine, and do not include what is not warranted. 

That's what catechism preaching is meant to ensure. It is not meant to elevate any writing of men to the level of Scripture. In fact, that is one of the teachings of that catechism, that the Bible is the only authority for doctrine and life, including that which is preached from pulpits.


----------



## MW

JohnOwen007 said:


> I could sum up the book of Job in a proposition. But it's altogether another thing to read it for itself (and have it's nuances expounded) with it's soaring poetry and agonizing rhetoric.



Well noted!


----------



## bookslover

dannyhyde said:


> Hello Richard,
> 
> This is one of the major differences between historic, continental Reformed subscription and practice and modern, American Presbyterianism. We believe and confess our confessions because (quia) they are biblical, not only in so far as (quatenus) they are biblical.
> 
> Take for example Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 45. If I preach the significance of the resurrection of Jesus as benefitting us in the areas of our justification (Rom. 4), sanctification (Rom. 6), and glorification (Rom. 8), how have I preached something not from Scripture?



Danny:

It would be easier (and, of course, thoroughly biblical) to preach justification from Romans 4, sanctification from Romans 6, and glorification from Romans 8. That's why God has given us His Word.

The Bible is inspired, inerrant and infallible. Creeds and confessions are not (and it's no good trying to bring those three items in through the back door to the creeds and confessions by saying that they only reflect what the Bible teaches.)

To preach from creeds and confession, in my opinion, is to de facto lift them up to the same position as Scripture. Only Scripture should be preached from the pulpit - and the WCF implies as much when it states that the final judgment as to doctrine rests with the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures (I'm paraphrasing).

And, as I've said elsewhere, Isaiah 8:20 does NOT say: "To the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Catechisms...".

Nope. Preaching is to be done only from the Bible. Creeds and confessions make excellent reference works, but are not to be considered as being the same thing as Scripture.


----------



## JohnV

Let me rephrase what I said above. I've seen bad catechism preaching too. But for all the abuses that creep in, it was not because the intent of catechism preaching was followed, but because it was ignored and neglected. I too would object to these things. If you see catechism preaching where men's writings, even the Church's own statements of faith, are elevated unduly, then stand against it, by all means. But that does not change the fact that right catechism preaching is nothing other than ensuring sytematic Bible preaching. Going through book by book is another system, not necessarily opposed to the doctrinal system.

It does not mean that ministers don't preach through the Bible books, or that they don't preach topical sermons, or that they don't preach to the needs of the congregations. It should be especially noted that properly supervised catechism preaching takes place in churches where there are two services per Lord's Day, not less. And it is usually the second service, the one more dedicated to teaching, that ministers preach the Word according to the order of the catechism's systematic instruction of the doctrines of grace, so that the whole of it is covered, and not just the things the minister wishes to preach on. It ensures that ministers are bound to preaching the whole counsel of God, not subject to their own inclinations or emphases. In this sense, the catechism does not represent the writings of men, but the declaration and witness of the Church by the Spirit and the Word.

It is not less than preaching from the Word, for it is meant to ensure that the preaching is from the Word, all of the Word, and nothing else but the Word. It is meant to ensure a whole Biblical context in every sermon, but especially in the teachings on the doctrines the Church believes.


----------



## RamistThomist

Are we talking about taking the theme of such and such part of the catechism and picking a text that matches it, or are we talking about exegeting the catechism itself?


----------



## JohnV

Spear Dane said:


> Are we talking about taking the theme of such and such part of the catechism and picking a text that matches it, or are we talking about exegeting the catechism itself?



I've never heard of exegeting the catechism. Each catechism has reference numbers all through it, connecting each with a specific list of Bible texts. It is those teachings that are being taught: brought together and summarized by the catechism; telling of the direct teachings of the Bible. The catechism on its own doesn't teach a thing if it doesn't teach the Bible's teachings. 

Maybe there are some misperceptions about catachism preaching. The minister doesn't set his Bible aside, open to the back of the Psalter to the Heidelberg Catachism, and say, "The text for today is taken from the Heidelberg Catachism instead of the Bible." The proper formulary spoken by the minister, after reading the appropriate Scriptures, is, "The text for this afternoon is God's Word as summarized for us in the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 2, questions and answers 3, 4, and 5." That is, it is not one particular text, but many texts including: Romans 3 and 7; Deut. 6; Lev. 19; I John 1; Gen. 6 and 8; Jer. 17; Eph. 2; and Tit. 3. The text is not the catechism, but the teaching coming out of all these texts, as summarized for us in the catechism. 

It is not a random picking of a theme, but a systematic approach to all the themes of Bible doctrine. 

The catechism has been scrutinized for many centuries for their wholeness and completeness in its summarization of the Bible doctrine. It is balanced, and consistent. You often find ministers using different words than the catechism in their sermon, but usually going back to the catechism's terms, and especially as these terms to back to the Bible's own terms. 

In actual fact, the catechism ought to seem to disappear in the process of catechism preaching. It's not about the catechism; it's about the Word. And it's about deliberately tying the minister of the Word to preaching the whole counsel of God. This does not include the minister's own opinions on this or that, unless and only unless those opinions are those written in the summary of doctrines of the Church. He has no licence to teach anything other than the Word of God. This is, in other words, one method of ensuring the first mark of the Church, the purity of the preaching of the Word.


----------



## fredtgreco

dannyhyde said:


> Hello Richard,
> 
> This is one of the major differences between historic, continental Reformed subscription and practice and modern, American Presbyterianism.



Rev. Hyde,

This is an over-generalization, and simply is not factually correct. Dabney (among others in a non-"modern" context) in his _Sacred Rhetoric_ (also published now under the title _Evangelical Eloquence_) makes the point that preaching should be from Scripture and not from any other text. That does not rule out "topical" preaching, so long as it is Scripture that is being exegeted and expounded, not some other text.

I find this to be a weakness, not a strength in the Dutch tradition (which I respect very much).


----------



## kvanlaan

> In actual fact, the catechism ought to seem to disappear in the process of catechism preaching.



 We do not seek to elevate the Heidelburg Catechism itself, Zacharias Ursinus & Caspar Olevianus were just men, we know that. But as a systematic statement of faith and organization of Biblical themes and topics, it is an indispensible aid.


----------



## bookslover

JohnV said:


> The minister doesn't set his Bible aside, open to the back of the Psalter to the Heidelberg Catachism, and say, "The text for today is taken from the Heidelberg Catachism instead of the Bible." The proper formulary spoken by the minister, after reading the appropriate Scriptures, is, "The text for this afternoon is God's Word as summarized for us in the Heidelberg Catechism, Lord's Day 2, questions and answers 3, 4, and 5."



The latter formulation pretty much amounts to the former formulation. And the effect is the same; it substitutes a man-made document for the Word of God.

For preaching purposes, one doesn't need to have the inspired text summarized by a creed or confession. One should always preach exclusively from the Word of God, with all creeds and confessions banned from the pulpit.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> For preaching purposes, one doesn't need to have the inspired text summarized by a creed or confession. One should always preach exclusively from the Word of God, with all creeds and confessions banned from the pulpit.



This does not seem to me to be a reasonable inference from the valid premise that we ought only to preach from the Bible. If the Shorter Catechism provides an excellent definition of justification why would we ban it from the pulpit and opt for a second rate definition?


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> This does not seem to me to be a reasonable inference from the valid premise that we ought only to preach from the Bible. If the Shorter Catechism provides an excellent definition of justification why would we ban it from the pulpit and opt for a second rate definition?



A second-rate definition from the Bible, as opposed to the catechism? Surely you jest...


----------



## Calvibaptist

How about taking the doctrinal topic of a particular catechism, say, justification by faith alone, and expounding the biblical data on it. Then bringing in the catechism question and answer as a summary of the biblical data. Isn't that what is meant by "Catechism Preaching?"


----------



## JohnV

bookslover said:


> The latter formulation pretty much amounts to the former formulation. And the effect is the same; it substitutes a man-made document for the Word of God.
> 
> For preaching purposes, one doesn't need to have the inspired text summarized by a creed or confession. One should always preach exclusively from the Word of God, with all creeds and confessions banned from the pulpit.



I think its the same idea, Richard: preaching exclusively from the Word of God. That's the point of catechism teaching. 

I've pondered the formulary for quite a while. At first blush, after going back to the Continental church, I too raised my eyebrows. I had switched to Presbyterian but came back. I'd heard the formulation many times, but took especial note of it when I came back. You see, preaching the Word had been a big issue with me, and one of the reasons I left the Presbyterian church. I went over it and over it, because it didn't sit right. But as I worked at it phrase by phrase, I began to see it for what it was, in simple terms. All the encumberances fell off eventually, and it began to make sense. Our ministers who preach from the catechism are careful how they say it. 

But there's the rub, "preaching from the catechism". I understand what you're driving at. I fully agree. I still maintain all that I said about using the catechism to ensure the first mark of the Church, but I agree with your main point.

I suppose one can compare this discussion to the example of a minor league team coming in wearing the colours of the major league team, pretending to be them. Let's say they call themselves the Yankees. Critics from all over the place are throwing all kinds of bad reviews at the "Yankees" for their poor play, their minor league mistakes, their constant losses. But, you see, it's not the Yankees. They're not criticising the Yankees. They're criticising some other team. 

It's that way with a lot of criticisms of our churches. You can throw criticisms at something, but you have to ask if you're throwing criticisms at the real thing or at the misuse and abuse of it. For example, catechism sermons are meant to ensure that the sermons remain strictly Biblical. It does not introduce men's writings, or the Church's own declared statements of faith, as if the Bible somehow depended upon them. In fact, that goes directly contrary to these statements themselves. Criticising it for raising men's writings to the level of the Word of God is criticising something else, namely the misuse and abuse of it. That's not what it's supposed to be. Not at all. That's the opposite of what it's supposed to be. 

Ministers use examples, they quote the forefathers, they bring in lessons, all from outside the Word, and doing this during the sermon. Catechism sermons do not even do that. All that is ensured is that the doctrines from the Word of God are preached. Everything else disappears from view. The Word, and only the Word: strictly the Word and nothing else. And especially not unwarranted opinions of even the godliest men.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> A second-rate definition from the Bible, as opposed to the catechism? Surely you jest...



Richard, the reference to "definition" was in relation to explaining what the Bible itself teaches. You have the Catechism's definition or you could formulate your own. E.g., "justification is an act." Now the Bible nowhere uses this phrase, but it is a correct definition of what is justification as taught by the Bible. Of course, you could omit the definition, but you would only succeed in leaving your hearers in a state of confusion as to whether justification is an act or a process.


----------



## JohnV

Calvibaptist said:


> How about taking the doctrinal topic of a particular catechism, say, justification by faith alone, and expounding the biblical data on it. Then bringing in the catechism question and answer as a summary of the biblical data. Isn't that what is meant by "Catechism Preaching?"



That's usually the way it is done. It's instructional, though, so it helps to read the catechism at the beginning of the sermon so that everyone can follow the Biblical connections and inter-relationships better. It is meant to build up the congregation in the faith, to strengthen them in the knowledge of the Word.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Well said John in Post #19.

I don't know how many times the same idea has to be repeated. Richard, I know why you don't like trust in the Confessions and I don't appreciate you trashing them constantly. You claim to be Confessional and then take every opportunity to pretend like the Word of God says one thing but the Confessions themselves don't accurately summarize their teaching.

Let me take a pick between two choices:
1. The exegesis of a man who comes to a passage about Justification by Faith who has a Seminary education and some average Greek and Hebrew skills.
2. The exegesis of hundreds of men who have agreed on the topic of Justification, as the Scriptures see it, for hundreds of years.

Now, there are some that are always going to be suspicious of number 2. We call it NIH in the military to stand for "Not Invented Here." That is, the only good ideas are those that originate in me.

You continually misrepresent the case that somehow the Scriptures are un-interpreted. Perhaps your opinion is that the infallible meaning is simply channeled through the Preacher to the congregation when he preaches directly from the Word. Somehow when he exegetes Romans on Justification by Faith, his explanation is more profound or more holy because the Church's interpretation was written before he was born. The interpretation of the one far outstrips the interpretation of the many (contrary to the Proverb).

Interestingly, Rev. Winzer isn't coming to the defense to the idea of Catechetical Preaching as a practice. I do know, though, that if a passage he was teaching on touched on a doctrine of the Church, he wouldn't hesitate to read the Confession and "have a conversation" with his Godly forbears on the meaning of a particular doctrine by reading what they had to say in the Confession. He also would be true to his vows to be faithful to the Church's Confession of those truths and wouldn't simply jettison the idea because, lo, Rev. Winzer is cleverer than the Church that has come before him.

I'm quite weary of this discussion and I know the reason it keeps being brought up. I will not long tolerate the latent attitude that "...my interpretation of the Scripture is better than the Church's..." that leads to an impious charge that everybody who places more trust in the counsel of many are blindly attributing infallibility to the Confessions.


----------



## fredtgreco

Rich,

I don't agree with the attitude that Richard is espousing, but it is perfectly Confessional to insist that preaching be from the Bible alone. I _use_ the Standards in _my study_ to assist me in preaching on certain texts. But I want my people to see the beauty and truthfulness of the Standards from the Scriptures. When we start with the catechism and "come back around" to the Bible, we give (1) the wrong impression of authority, and (2) we hinder seeing a doctrine _in context_. Much better to preach about justification by faith alone in the context of Paul's epistle to the Galatians (with all the attendant pastoral thoughts of Paul) than as a summary of a summary.

It is indeed a grave error that men do not know or give respect to the Confessions. But it is a graver error of our time that men do not know or give deference to the Scriptures.

Again, I refer us all to Dabney, no slouch at defending the Standards, who firmly was against "catechism preaching."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Fred,

I am more irked by his response to Rev. Winzer than any. If you read Rev. Winzer's above (and my post en toto) I am not advocating catechetical preaching. I'm advocating respect for the Confessions. This is a pattern.


----------



## JohnV

And I agree with Fred all the way. I do not see how this is a criticism of using the catechism properly. Maybe I have been remiss in not stating it clear enough. Well, let me do so now: What Fred said, that too!


----------



## bookslover

SemperFideles said:


> Richard, I know why you don't like trust in the Confessions and I don't appreciate you trashing them constantly.



I'm not trashing them. I'm just interested in keeping them in their place - and that place is not the pulpit. Personally, I'm glad Matthew Winzer and I are in the same place on this issue.

Use the secondary standards in Sunday School classes. Use them in personal study. But keep them out of the pulpit.

The standards are good summaries of Bible doctrine. But that makes them neither inspired, infallible, or inerrant. Those terms must be reserved ONLY for the Scriptures. Even the WCF recognizes its own fallibility, as I've noted several times before.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Well let me say, in case I wasn't clear, I agree with Rev. Winzer, who agrees with Fred. Oh, and I agree with John too.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

bookslover said:


> I'm not trashing them. I'm just interested in keeping them in their place - and that place is not the pulpit. Personally, I'm glad Matthew Winzer and I are in the same place on this issue.
> 
> Use the secondary standards in Sunday School classes. Use them in personal study. But keep them out of the pulpit.
> 
> The standards are good summaries of Bible doctrine. But that makes them neither inspired, infallible, or inerrant. Those terms must be reserved ONLY for the Scriptures. Even the WCF recognizes its own fallibility, as I've noted several times before.



What you do, though, is impiously charge Godly men with bringing Creeds and Confessions to the level of infallible Scripture. That is simply inexcusable given a fair representation of what their goal is. I may not agree with the practice but to state that the men are simply exegeting the Catechisms is fallacious and serves other ends rather than the truth of the matter.


----------



## JohnV

Maybe there's another mispreception too: that the catechism is read *instead of* the Scriptures. I think you'd hear from the elders pretty quickly if you tried that one. An entire passage is read, context and all, and in the sermon cross-references are brought up. The sermon is on the whole passage, including the cross-references. That's just another way of saying it is a catechism sermon.


----------



## bookslover

fredtgreco said:


> ...but it is perfectly Confessional to insist that preaching be from the Bible alone.



Actually, it is perfectly _biblical_ to insist that preaching be from the Bible alone. One doesn't need the confession's permission to preach from the Scriptures!


----------



## JohnV

bookslover said:


> The standards are good summaries of Bible doctrine. But that makes them neither inspired, infallible, or inerrant. Those terms must be reserved ONLY for the Scriptures. Even the WCF recognizes its own fallibility, as I've noted several times before.



I agree. No quibble with that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

bookslover said:


> Actually, it is perfectly _biblical_ to insist that preaching be from the Bible alone. One doesn't need the confession's permission to preach from the Scriptures!



Case in point Richard.

Strike two.


----------



## raderag

bookslover said:


> Actually, it is perfectly _biblical_ to insist that preaching be from the Bible alone. One doesn't need the confession's permission to preach from the Scriptures!



So, are they only allowed to read from the text or are they allowed to exposit scripture?


----------



## bookslover

raderag said:


> So, are they only allowed to read from the text or are they allowed to exposit scripture?



Of course, pastors must exposit the Scriptures. In doing so, they must do their own work from the Hebrew and Greek, as best they can, which is their responsibility before God. If one of the standards can provide some help with Scripture references, or with the wording of a definition, that's all fine. However, the preaching itself must be only from the Word of God. When it comes to actual preaching, the secondary standards must be maintained in a secondary position.


----------



## raderag

bookslover said:


> Of course, pastors must exposit the Scriptures. In doing so, they must do their own work from the Hebrew and Greek, as best they can, which is their responsibility before God. If one of the standards can provide some help with Scripture references, or with the wording of a definition, that's all fine. However, the preaching itself must be only from the Word of God. When it comes to actual preaching, the secondary standards must be maintained in a secondary position.



It seems to me that the catechism is superior than a single preachers understanding. Saying that preaching must be "from the word of God" would not exclude preaching from catechism, yet you exclude them. It seems to me that you are elevating the opinions of men over the teachings of the Church. I think that is where Rich is coming from, but I could be misunderstanding it.


----------



## bookslover

raderag said:


> It seems to me that the catechism is superior than a single preachers understanding. Saying that preaching must be "from the word of God" would not exclude preaching from catechism, yet you exclude them. It seems to me that you are elevating the opinions of men over the teachings of the Church. I think that is where Rich is coming from, but I could be misunderstanding it.



God's ordained means for spreading the gospel and expounding the Scriptures is to use men called by Him, properly trained in the languages and theology, who study the Scriptures and expound and exposit them from the pulpit before the assembly of believers. As a previous poster mentioned, in preaching the Bible, you get not only the doctrine, but the language the doctrine is encased in (narratives, psalms, etc.). This means that the congregation gets the full-orbed language and meaning of the Scriptures, when preaching is properly done. And, as I said, it is God's desire to use Spirit-filled men to do this holy work.

Even the WCF speaks of the Holy Spirit "speaking through the Scriptures." It is the Scriptures _themselves_ that must be preached.


----------



## raderag

bookslover said:


> God's ordained means for spreading the gospel and expounding the Scriptures is to use men called by Him, properly trained in the languages and theology, who study the Scriptures and expound and exposit them from the pulpit before the assembly of believers. As a previous poster mentioned, in preaching the Bible, you get not only the doctrine, but the language the doctrine is encased in (narratives, psalms, etc.). This means that the congregation gets the full-orbed language and meaning of the Scriptures, when preaching is properly done. And, as I said, it is God's desire to use Spirit-filled men to do this holy work.
> 
> Even the WCF speaks of the Holy Spirit "speaking through the Scriptures." It is the Scriptures _themselves_ that must be preached.



Fair enough, but how does using the standards take away from the language, narratives, etc? Would you allow for a preacher to use an extra-biblical analogy in demonstrating a point of scripture? See what I'm driving at?


----------



## MW

Has anyone compared Rev. Hyde's avatar with Prof. Murray's portrait on his Collected Writings? What a difference colourful book covers can make!


----------



## dannyhyde

armourbearer said:


> Has anyone compared Rev. Hyde's avatar with Prof. Murray's portrait on his Collected Writings? What a difference colourful book covers can make!



Rev. Winzer...hilarious! The only diff may be that I am smiling!

As for Avatar's, I've always thought John V looked like John Lennon.


----------



## JohnV

dannyhyde said:


> As for Avatar's, I've always thought John V looked like John Lennon.



hmm, imagine, if you will.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I need a groan smiley.


----------



## Calvibaptist

SemperFideles said:


> Well said John in Post #19.
> 
> We call it NIH in the military to stand for "Not Invented Here." That is, the only good ideas are those that originate in me.



And here I thought NIH standed for the "National Institutes of Health."


----------



## MW

dannyhyde said:


> As for Avatar's, I've always thought John V looked like John Lennon.



 I thought he looked familiar.


----------



## Archlute

SemperFideles said:


> Case in point Richard.
> 
> Strike two.



I'm uncertain why that statement was a strike. Paul exhorts Timothy to preach the Word, which we know to be the Holy Scriptures. There were no confessions or catechisms as we know them in that period of the church, yet Paul also indicates to Timothy that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for life and godliness, which includes doctrine. I would agree with Richard that ministers do not need the approval of confessional documents to preach only the Word, when there is apostolic directive to do so.

Likewise, as these terms were mentioned somewhere above in the discussion, the main difference between a healthy view and an overly dependent view of the confessions in the life of the church is the distinction between seeing them as quatenus or quia in their relationship with the Scriptures. Taking them as the latter tends to give them an infallability in practice. This understanding is in fact the basis for catechetical preaching in the Dutch tradition. We had read one essay in our preaching courses that was authored by a Dutch Reformed minister (whose name eludes me at the moment) who actually stated that we are to preach from the catechisms of the church _because_ they have an authority _equal_ to the Scriptures! Now, subsequently this author tried to stress that they are secondary standards, but it was obvious that he was doing so in an attempt to deflect the rightful charge that he we unduly elevating them to a level of authority reserved only for the Scriptures. This is a real danger, and one that I believe is the motive behind Richard's statements.


----------



## Archlute

raderag said:


> It seems to me that the catechism is superior than a single preachers understanding. *Saying that preaching must be "from the word of God" would not exclude preaching from catechism*, yet you exclude them. It seems to me that you are elevating the opinions of men over the teachings of the Church. I think that is where Rich is coming from, but I could be misunderstanding it.



The bolded portion of this text is my case in point regarding the problem of viewing the confessions from a "quia" perspective.

Btw, it really is not felicitous to combine the phrases of "opinions of men" with that of "over the teachings of the Church" The former was, of course, used by Christ in reference to the burdensome extra-revelatory requirements of the Scribes and Pharisees of his day, as well as by the Reformers in thier struggle against the claims of the RCC (see WCF 1.6). To combine this phraseology really goes against the intent of those Reformers, for it was exactly the teaching of the Church that was setting forth the opinions of men as the Word of God.

I recently was reading an excellent sermon by Martin Luther (the 23rd Sunday after Trinity Sunday?) where he was decrying the binding effect that the opinions of the church fathers and church councils had upon men's minds, and he had no problem whatsoever in stating that it was the Word of God alone that was to be proclaimed. There was no mention of the necessity of "the Church", nor interpretation through confessions, nor what have you. I will post the passage when I have the book on hand. 

Confessions are a useful tool and guide for study, debate, and maintaining some standard of doctrine within ecclesiastical bodies. They will not solve all doctrinal ills, nor provide the church with infallible interpretations of Scripture, nor were they ever written with that intent.


----------



## dannyhyde

Archlute said:


> We had read one essay in our preaching courses that was authored by a Dutch Reformed minister (whose name eludes me at the moment) who actually stated that we are to preach from the catechisms of the church _because_ they have an authority _equal_ to the Scriptures! Now, subsequently this author tried to stress that they are secondary standards, but it was obvious that he was doing so in an attempt to deflect the rightful charge that he we unduly elevating them to a level of authority reserved only for the Scriptures. This is a real danger, and one that I believe is the motive behind Richard's statements.



Adam,

FYI, the practice of preaching the Heidelberg Catechism itself was the practice of the churches in Heidelberg itself as well as the divines of the Synod of Dort. In fact, it was the Remonstrants (Arminians) who decried this. I would encourage you to do some further reading in the history of Reformed practice in such places as:

Donald Sinnema, "The Second Sunday Service in the early Dutch Reformed Tradition." _Calvin Theological Journal_, vol. 32, 1997, pp.298-333.

Idzerd Van Dellen and Martin Monsma, _The Church Order Commentary _(Credo Books: Wyoming, MI: reprinted 2003), 276–80.


----------



## dannyhyde

Archlute said:


> I recently was reading an excellent sermon by Martin Luther (the 23rd Sunday after Trinity Sunday?) where he was decrying the binding effect that the opinions of the church fathers and church councils had upon men's minds, and he had no problem whatsoever in stating that it was the Word of God alone that was to be proclaimed. There was no mention of the necessity of "the Church", nor interpretation through confessions, nor what have you.



Adam,

You need to read Luther, as all words, in their total context. After all, the words you quote come from the lips of the same Martin Luther who was thrust into duty as chief catechist in Wittenberg in the absence of its pastor, Johannes Bugenhagan. His catechetical sermons in 1529 became the source of his Large Catechism.


----------



## JohnV

Archlute said:


> Paul exhorts Timothy to preach the Word, which we know to be the Holy Scriptures. There were no confessions or catechisms as we know them in that period of the church, yet Paul also indicates to Timothy that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for life and godliness, which includes doctrine. I would agree with Richard that ministers do not need the approval of confessional documents to preach only the Word, when there is apostolic directive to do so.
> 
> Likewise, as these terms were mentioned somewhere above in the discussion, the main difference between a healthy view and an overly dependent view of the confessions in the life of the church is the distinction between seeing them as quatenus or quia in their relationship with the Scriptures. Taking them as the latter tends to give them an infallability in practice. This understanding is in fact the basis for catechetical preaching in the Dutch tradition. We had read one essay in our preaching courses that was authored by a Dutch Reformed minister (whose name eludes me at the moment) who actually stated that we are to preach from the catechisms of the church _because_ they have an authority _equal_ to the Scriptures! Now, subsequently this author tried to stress that they are secondary standards, but it was obvious that he was doing so in an attempt to deflect the rightful charge that he we unduly elevating them to a level of authority reserved only for the Scriptures. This is a real danger, and one that I believe is the motive behind Richard's statements.



Adam:

I think it right for you to continue to insist upon the sole authority of the Word of God. As I said before, if you find a minister preaching from the catechism who violates this, then by all means oppose him. 

But first be sure that he is in fact doing that. Your example of a Dutch Reformed minister is a case in point. I would immediately understand him as saying that the doctrines which the catechism is teaching are the Bible's, not the catechism's itself. It is only the catechism's teachings inasmuch as the catechism is faithful to the Word of God in relating in the form of a teaching aid the very doctrines of the Word of God, and nothing else. For me it goes without saying. Reference to the catechism in this context is reference to the doctrines of the Word of God, and therefore to the Word itself and alone. 

As I said, this goes with saying for me. I don't expect, though, that this goes without saying for everyone here. I think it would be wrong of me to expect this of others without due care as to what is being said. 

So I think you point out the crux of the problem here: how do we view the confessional standards of our churches? I believe it is a given between us that God's Word is the only and final authority in matters of doctrine and government of the Church. That IS the intent of catechism preaching; and it is a violation of that same standard, the catechism, to have any other intent. That is the exact same reason for your objection. So we're not at cross purposes here; rather we're at cross understandings of what is being said.


----------



## Archlute

dannyhyde said:


> Adam,
> 
> FYI, the practice of preaching the Heidelberg Catechism itself was the practice of the churches in Heidelberg itself as well as the divines of the Synod of Dort. In fact, it was the Remonstrants (Arminians) who decried this. I would encourage you to do some further reading in the history of Reformed practice in such places as:
> 
> Donald Sinnema, "The Second Sunday Service in the early Dutch Reformed Tradition." _Calvin Theological Journal_, vol. 32, 1997, pp.298-333.
> 
> Idzerd Van Dellen and Martin Monsma, _The Church Order Commentary _(Credo Books: Wyoming, MI: reprinted 2003), 276–80.





That's great Danny, but once again you are presenting a mere historical argument rather than a scriptural argument. The fact that the continental Reformed churches held to a certain practice before the said minister wrote his article really means very little, for if the basis of their argument is no better grounded than his it still presents a weak case for catachetical preaching. Of course, the genetic fallacy that you employed of "an aversion to catechetical preaching equals Arminianism" is one that we should have learned to avoid in our first year of coursework at WSC. 

The history of Reformed practice is not defined by the churches of the continent. Dutch Reformed churchmen may tend to appeal to them, since the practice of those churches will lend to support their case, but if you study Reformed practice elswhere (the churches of the Westminster divines, for example) your case will not be well supported.

The writings referenced above have both been written from within the Continental tradition. It is very easy to overlook one's weaknesses, and to dismiss evidence against your case when you are writing in that manner. I would prefer to read something written by "outsiders" in support of the case, for then it would more likely rest upon a scriptural argument, rather than an argument from within the tradition. I have written a paper on the subject, and I am familiar with many of the resources and articles out there regarding this issue. I was at one time in favor of the practice, but have since changed my mind on the issue, and do not see the support for it that I had seen at one time. 

I would not be nearly as opposed to ministers preaching catechetical sermons on occasion by their own volition, where they see a need for it in a specific setting. The problem with the Dutch tradition, however, is that they require it by their BCO's, thus binding the consciences of their ministers to it whether they believe it to be proper or not. I have known several good men who were interested in the URCNA who were ultimately unable to consider ministering within that body due to this stricture.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Archlute said:


> I'm uncertain why that statement was a strike. Paul exhorts Timothy to preach the Word, which we know to be the Holy Scriptures. There were no confessions or catechisms as we know them in that period of the church, yet Paul also indicates to Timothy that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for life and godliness, which includes doctrine. I would agree with Richard that ministers do not need the approval of confessional documents to preach only the Word, when there is apostolic directive to do so.
> 
> Likewise, as these terms were mentioned somewhere above in the discussion, the main difference between a healthy view and an overly dependent view of the confessions in the life of the church is the distinction between seeing them as quatenus or quia in their relationship with the Scriptures. Taking them as the latter tends to give them an infallability in practice. This understanding is in fact the basis for catechetical preaching in the Dutch tradition. We had read one essay in our preaching courses that was authored by a Dutch Reformed minister (whose name eludes me at the moment) who actually stated that we are to preach from the catechisms of the church _because_ they have an authority _equal_ to the Scriptures! Now, subsequently this author tried to stress that they are secondary standards, but it was obvious that he was doing so in an attempt to deflect the rightful charge that he we unduly elevating them to a level of authority reserved only for the Scriptures. This is a real danger, and one that I believe is the motive behind Richard's statements.



1. Look at the comment in the thread in context.
2. Look who he was correcting on the point and what the intended understanding of the man was when he said "...it is confessional...."
3. Look at my warning to stop accusing Godly men of treating the Confessions as infallible documents.
4. There is a history that extends prior to this discussion. This pattern is not as innocuous as it may appear at first blush.


----------



## RamistThomist

> I would not be nearly as opposed to ministers preaching catechetical sermons on occasion by their own volition, where they see a need for it in a specific setting.



And the following would be a good example. A few years back--before I joined said church-- a woman and her tribe of kids came in in the middle of the church service, sat on the front row (and made a scene in doing it). At the end of the service she stood up and said that "the end times are here and everyone in the church needs to give her money." The pastor later asked her if she would sit under the teaching of the church. She said she wouldn't.

The next sunday the pastor preached a sermon dealing with sensational eschatology (if one wanted to, one could take such and such confession's section on the second advent, etc).


----------



## Archlute

dannyhyde said:


> Adam,
> 
> You need to read Luther, as all words, in their total context. After all, the words you quote come from the lips of the same Martin Luther who was thrust into duty as chief catechist in Wittenberg in the absence of its pastor, Johannes Bugenhagan. His catechetical sermons in 1529 became the source of his Large Catechism.



Of course, Luther was not bound to a fixed BCO/catechism practice as the URCNA binds their ministers. As you note, he even wrote his own catechism(s). Writing one's own catechism, and then using it in teaching in the church would probably be decried by a some as "teaching the commandments of men", and would most likely be frowned upon as a practice, since it would have been produced by an individual interpreter of the Scriptures. Catachetical sermons have been found throughout the history of the church, from the fathers through the Reformation, but most of them were written and taught of the minister's own volition, not as an enforceable practice.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Archlute said:


> Confessions are a useful tool and guide for study, debate, and maintaining some standard of doctrine within ecclesiastical bodies.


I think this understates the case a bit. Confessions are the Church's confession and summary of the doctrines contained in the Scripture. Depending upon what you mean by the terms above, it's the reason why many men in the FV can see the decisions of Church Councils and yawn at the decision that their views are un-Confessional. After all, they're just "useful guides for study and debate" and to maintain "some" standard of doctrine.

They're just not as useful as their own guides nor are they as useful a standard as they have.

And so they blow them off.



> They will not solve all doctrinal ills, nor provide the church with infallible interpretations of Scripture, nor were they ever written with that intent.


Are we supposed to say: "Oh, really?" Is this somehow added information to the context of this discussion.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

This OPC article on Catechetical Preaching and this previous thread on Presbyterians and Catechism Preaching may be of interest.


----------



## Archlute

SemperFideles said:


> Are we supposed to say: "Oh, really?" Is this somehow added information to the context of this discussion.



What was the purpose of that statement? I did not find it very helpful.


----------



## Archlute

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> This OPC article on Catechetical Preaching and this previous thread on Presbyterians and Catechism Preaching may be of interest.



Thanks, Andrew. I've read the one by Knodel before, and I think that there were one or two others in the Ordained Servant/New Horizons publications beside that one. I believe that G.I. Williamson also wrote an editorial(?) stating his dissaproval of the practice in the Ordained Servant after Knodel's article came out.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Archlute said:


> Thanks, Andrew. I've read the one by Knodel before, and I think that there were one or two others in the Ordained Servant/New Horizons publications beside that one. I believe that G.I. Williamson also wrote an editorial(?) stating his dissaproval of the practice in the Ordained Servant after Knodel's article came out.



I haven't seen what Williamson may have written after Knodel's article, but he gave qualified approval to catechetical preaching in this 1994 article.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Archlute said:


> I'm uncertain why that statement was a strike. Paul exhorts Timothy to preach the Word, which we know to be the Holy Scriptures. There were no confessions or catechisms as we know them in that period of the church, yet Paul also indicates to Timothy that the Scriptures alone are sufficient for life and godliness, which includes doctrine. I would agree with Richard that ministers do not need the approval of confessional documents to preach only the Word, when there is apostolic directive to do so.



A couple other points on this.

1. I know we're talking about catechetical preaching, which I'm not defending but I am defending that we take seriously the authority of the Confessions such as it is.

2. Apostolic authority, Christ's authority in fact, is the reason why Confessions have authority. That is, he gave us Pastors and Teachers for the unity of the faith among other things.

3. Notice what you pointed out above about a letter written from Paul to Timothy. Paul's admonition was both personal to Timothy but universal to all Preachers of the Word. When the Word is rightly interpreted, there is a responsibility in the reading or hearing of it to submit to its authority.

4. If you treat all fallible interpretations as merely "useful guides" then this includes your own interpretation when you're preaching the Word to your congregation. This means that, as high a view as they have on the Church's role of interpreting the Word they should have as high a view of your interpretation.

5. I honestly believe that those that would believe that an individual's interpratation of the Word is preferable to the Church's confession has a distorted view of the authority Christ and his Apostles vested in and taught about the Church. It's certainly the Calvary Chapel way but not the way of the Scriptures.

6. Inasmuch as your authority as a father or pastor need not be infallible to be authoratative (and sinful to ignore) within the specific sphere of authority in which you execute that authority, so is it sinful to ignore the fallible authority of the Church's confession.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Archlute said:


> What was the purpose of that statement? I did not find it very helpful.



I find it very unhelpful for you to repeat this charge and, by inference, attributing the idea to those who are arguing for a fallible yet authoratative view of the confessions.

If your intent was to narrowly ascribe that to the generic man out there that does that then so be it but, especially within this discussion where the point has been affirmed strongly by all, your point only seemed to indicate that you believed that men on this board held to an infallible view of the Confessions. I found the statement to be uncharitable if aimed this way or at least partially careless if said with no specific attribution.


----------



## Archlute

JohnV said:


> Adam:
> 
> I think it right for you to continue to insist upon the sole authority of the Word of God. As I said before, if you find a minister preaching from the catechism who violates this, then by all means oppose him.
> 
> But first be sure that he is in fact doing that. *Your example of a Dutch Reformed minister is a case in point. I would immediately understand him as saying that the doctrines which the catechism is teaching are the Bible's, not the catechism's itself. It is only the catechism's teachings inasmuch as the catechism is faithful to the Word of God in relating in the form of a teaching aid the very doctrines of the Word of God, and nothing else.* For me it goes without saying. Reference to the catechism in this context is reference to the doctrines of the Word of God, and therefore to the Word itself and alone.
> 
> As I said, this goes with saying for me. I don't expect, though, that this goes without saying for everyone here. I think it would be wrong of me to expect this of others without due care as to what is being said.
> 
> So I think you point out the crux of the problem here: how do we view the confessional standards of our churches? I believe it is a given between us that God's Word is the only and final authority in matters of doctrine and government of the Church. That IS the intent of catechism preaching; and it is a violation of that same standard, the catechism, to have any other intent. That is the exact same reason for your objection. So we're not at cross purposes here; rather we're at cross understandings of what is being said.



Thanks, John, I agree with what you've said. The author in question didn't put it quite as carefully as you have. What he actually said was that the catechism had the authority of Scripture, _because_ (quia) it was faithful to the Scriptures. He did not leave room for "in as much as" (quatenus), but asserted that since the catechism was in fact entirely faithful to Scripture, we need to see it as having the _same_ (and he used that exact term) authority as Scripture. That is where the danger comes in, for now there is no room left for self criticism when it comes to the church's documents, no possibility left for error or difference of opinion, but any dissent with any part of a confessional document becomes a dissent against divine authority, an authority which should only be recognized of the Scriptures.


----------



## dannyhyde

Archlute said:


> Of course, Luther was not bound to a fixed BCO/catechism practice as the URCNA binds their ministers. As you note, he even wrote his own catechism(s). Writing one's own catechism, and then using it in teaching in the church would probably be decried by a some as "teaching the commandments of men", and would most likely be frowned upon as a practice, since it would have been produced by an individual interpreter of the Scriptures. Catachetical sermons have been found throughout the history of the church, from the fathers through the Reformation, but most of them were written and taught of the minister's own volition, not as an enforceable practice.



Hi Adam,

I hope I am not missing the force of your words, but are you saying it is permitted to preach "catechetical" (i.e., sermons dealing with the fundamentals of the Christian faith) sermons so long as they are organized by the local pastor and as long as he is not required to do so?


----------



## dannyhyde

Archlute said:


> Of course, the genetic fallacy that you employed of "an aversion to catechetical preaching equals Arminianism" is one that we should have learned to avoid in our first year of coursework at WSC.



It was not my intent to paint you or anyone else as an Arminian. I wasn't seeeking to use this fallacy, but to point out the practice of history. My apologies.



Archlute said:


> The history of Reformed practice is not defined by the churches of the continent. Dutch Reformed churchmen may tend to appeal to them, since the practice of those churches will lend to support their case, but if you study Reformed practice elswhere (the churches of the Westminster divines, for example) your case will not be well supported.



First off, catechism preaching is not a "Dutch" thing. Zwingli did it, Calvin did it (although there are no mss left of these sermons), Bullinger...

Second, is not Thomas Watson's "A Body of Divinity" his sermons on the Shorter Catechism? And does not Matthew Henry have a series of the same? I was under the impression that catechetical preaching was a standard practice in the Brittish Isles (granted, it was not a requirement).


----------



## JohnV

Adam:

I can only go by your testimony, so I can't really refute what you're saying. I'll just believe you, as I've seen this done before too. But you still have to be careful not to judge too harshly. 

I've seen some ministers become apparently careless in their terminology. But in fact they were assuming that we all presumed the same thing concerning the catechism's authority. It is an ecclesiastical authority, and therefore has precedence over a single minister's authority and personal interpretation. It is the collective interpretation of the Church, met especially to determing the exact and precise interpretation, and to form an agreement purposely for each minister to adhere to. Every minister swears fidelity to that. All this the minister is assuming, presuming that we the hearers, are assuming the same thing. When he says, "because it is faithful to the Scriptures" he's assuming all this, that the Spirit is witnessing these doctrines to the Church through His ministers, conveying them to all the church in the form of a Church document. There is no hint of "man-made" in it, and the Bible still remains the sole authority for doctrine and government in the Church. It's about the teachings themselves, not the shape and size and contents of a book other than the Bible.


----------



## JohnV

But then, hey, it's only me.



armourbearer said:


> Originally Posted by dannyhyde
> As for Avatar's, I've always thought John V looked like John Lennon.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought he looked familiar.
Click to expand...


----------



## Archlute

dannyhyde said:


> Hi Adam,
> 
> I hope I am not missing the force of your words, but are you saying it is permitted to preach "catechetical" (i.e., sermons dealing with the fundamentals of the Christian faith) sermons so long as they are organized by the local pastor and as long as he is not required to do so?



Hello Danny,

I do prefer the preaching of exegetical/expository sermons in the "lectio continua" style, but I do see usefulness for catechetical/doctrinal-topical sermons at times. I think that I do have a problem with it being required of a minister, especially if that requirement is based upon the quia presupposition. Apart from that, I could accept a minister doing such where there might be a particular need for it in grounding a congregation with a weak foundation.


----------



## Archlute

dannyhyde said:


> It was not my intent to paint you or anyone else as an Arminian. I wasn't seeeking to use this fallacy, but to point out the practice of history. My apologies.
> 
> 
> 
> First off, catechism preaching is not a "Dutch" thing. Zwingli did it, Calvin did it (although there are no mss left of these sermons), Bullinger...
> 
> Second, is not Thomas Watson's "A Body of Divinity" his sermons on the Shorter Catechism? And does not Matthew Henry have a series of the same? I was under the impression that catechetical preaching was a standard practice in the Brittish Isles (granted, it was not a requirement).



Thanks, Danny. Apologies accepted.

Yes, Watson's "A Body of Divinity" originated as sermons based upon the Shorter Catechism. I am uncertain about any works along those lines by Matthew Henry, but someone here could probably dig something up on it. I am not certain that it was standard practice, but I know that it was practiced. Hughes Oliphant Old mentions a number of catechetical sermon series preached by Reformed ministers from the continent, the British Isles, and those who migrated to New England. It does seem to have been a practice, but I am uncertain how regular and widespread it was among all of the ministers taken as a whole.


----------



## Archlute

JohnV said:


> Adam:
> 
> I can only go by your testimony, so I can't really refute what you're saying. I'll just believe you, as I've seen this done before too. But you still have to be careful not to judge too harshly.
> 
> I've seen some ministers become apparently careless in their terminology. But in fact they were assuming that we all presumed the same thing concerning the catechism's authority. It is an ecclesiastical authority, and therefore has precedence over a single minister's authority and personal interpretation. It is the collective interpretation of the Church, met especially to determing the exact and precise interpretation, and to form an agreement purposely for each minister to adhere to. Every minister swears fidelity to that. All this the minister is assuming, presuming that we the hearers, are assuming the same thing. When he says, "because it is faithful to the Scriptures" he's assuming all this, that the Spirit is witnessing these doctrines to the Church through His ministers, conveying them to all the church in the form of a Church document. There is no hint of "man-made" in it, and the Bible still remains the sole authority for doctrine and government in the Church. It's about the teachings themselves, not the shape and size and contents of a book other than the Bible.



Again, I appreciate your thoughts, John. I understand that you'll have to take my word for it without a citation, and I apologize for that. The essay is among my handouts from class that are locked up in storage somewhere right now. If it was easily accesible, I would get it out and post the quote and the name of the author for discussion.


----------



## Archlute

Alright you all, I have to get off of this discussion and I won't be able to access the computer again until next Monday (d.v.). Just wanted to let you all know that I'm not hiding (Hyding? j/k). Take care brothers, and keep me in prayer as I travel eight hours down the coast to preach the Gospel of grace to this barren part of the Pacific NW. I've already killed one buck w/o doing damage to this little Corolla, and we can pray that God's hand continues to keep them out of my windshield. God Bless.


----------



## py3ak

Adam, I certainly don't mean to challenge you on this one. I agree that we don't need the authority of the confessions to preach Scripture --we have Scripture's authority to do that. What you said, though, raised a question in my mind about subscription.

Would you agree that we subscribe to a Confession because it is biblical? Not only that it is Biblical to have a Confession, a statement of faith, but also because the statement we have chosen to subscribe to is in accord with the Scriptures? I understand that the allowance for exceptions certainly seems like a tacit admission that either the Confessions need some work or that they embody some views which ought not to have been given confessional status. But in a general way, you wouldn't subscribe to something that was unbiblical: and therefore when you subscribe it is because you believe it to be biblical. Or am I missing something?

(And let me say that I for one see no difficulty in taking a catechism as a guide for preaching, or using it in the pulpit, while we don't fall into a: "Thus saith the Westminster Assembly of Divines" method of proclamation.


----------



## JohnV

py3ak said:


> Adam, I certainly don't mean to challenge you on this one. I agree that we don't need the authority of the confessions to preach Scripture --we have Scripture's authority to do that. What you said, though, raised a question in my mind about subscription.
> 
> Would you agree that we subscribe to a Confession because it is biblical? Not only that it is Biblical to have a Confession, a statement of faith, but also because the statement we have chosen to subscribe to is in accord with the Scriptures? I understand that the allowance for exceptions certainly seems like a tacit admission that either the Confessions need some work or that they embody some views which ought not to have been given confessional status. But in a general way, you wouldn't subscribe to something that was unbiblical: and therefore when you subscribe it is because you believe it to be biblical. Or am I missing something?
> 
> (And let me say that I for one see no difficulty in taking a catechism as a guide for preaching, or using it in the pulpit, while we don't fall into a: "Thus saith the Westminster Assembly of Divines" method of proclamation.



I think you've got the right idea, Ruben. Especially the last paragraph (in brackets) is right on the money. 

Now, let me take that as an example. Is it right what Ruben said because Ruben said it? No, of course not. We agree with him because he is saying something that strikes a truth chord in all of us. He's pointing to something that is not himself, but a truth that he himself is also willingly subject to. He's not now "the boss" in this area. He's an underling just like all the rest of us. Yet it is indubitable that what he said is true. I don't think I could say it better than Ruben can, but maybe someone else can. But that doesn't mean that this someone else disagrees with Ruben. No, he's perfecting what Ruben said because he agrees with it so much, and is one with it. He's not Ruben's subject, but his fellow. 

That's how we view the Catechisms and Confessions too. It strikes a chord with all of us not because the Confessions is "the boss", but because it so elegantly and precisely summarizes that truth to which it too is a servant just like all of us. Someone might find better words, as fits the occasion. But that doesn't mean that he's trumping the Confessions. No, he's agreeing with, and willingly subjects himself to the common witness. Not the Confessions as a piece of paper printed by a Church, but because the truths live in the people of God from generation to generation through the subservient use of this piece of paper. 

I hope this helps.


----------



## fredtgreco

Archlute said:


> Of course, Luther was not bound to a fixed BCO/catechism practice as the URCNA binds their ministers. As you note, he even wrote his own catechism(s). Writing one's own catechism, and then using it in teaching in the church would probably be decried by a some as "teaching the commandments of men", and would most likely be frowned upon as a practice, since it would have been produced by an individual interpreter of the Scriptures. Catachetical sermons have been found throughout the history of the church, from the fathers through the Reformation, but most of them were written and taught of the minister's own volition, not as an enforceable practice.





dannyhyde said:


> Hi Adam,
> 
> I hope I am not missing the force of your words, but are you saying it is permitted to preach "catechetical" (i.e., sermons dealing with the fundamentals of the Christian faith) sermons so long as they are organized by the local pastor and as long as he is not required to do so?



Is not any form of "required" preaching a violation of the office of minister? I was unaware that the URCNA compelled its ministers to preach on the catechism (I may be wrong here - please correct me). I could not minister in that context, regardless of the merits (or not) of catechical preaching; any more than I could be compelled by a BCO to preach only from the NT, or Genesis, or any specific text.


----------



## bookslover

Adam:

Very good posts. I providentially ran across this quote from John Newton (1725-1807) in the August/September, 2007 issue of _The Banner of Truth_ magazine:

_Christ alone is Lord of the conscience; and no ipse dixit is to be regarded but His. Men are to be followed so far as we can see they speak by His authority; the best are defective; the wisest may be mistaken...Study the text of the good Word of God. Beware of leaning too hard on human authority, even the best; you may get useful hints from sound divines, but call no man master. There are mixtures of infirmity, and the prejudices of education or party, in the best writers. What is good in them they obtained from the fountain of truth, the Scriptures; and you have as good a right to go to the fountain head yourself._

Use catechisms and confessions for personal study and teaching, _but ministers must preach only from the Word of God._


----------



## JohnV

Once again:

What catechism preaching requires is a systematic teaching of all the Bible's doctrines. It's not a requirement to preach something else, a booklet or work of men's hands. It's the doctrines that are required, not some book of the church's documents. 

Second, this does not mean that the minister doesn't preach in the morning service. Of course he still does that. And here he can preach either in series on a book, or topically, or according to a specific need, or whatever else method is used.

Third, catechism sermons are sometimes suspended for one Sunday, and maybe more, for specific reasons. There's fifty-two Lord's Days, but it rarely is managed in fifty-two weeks. Most often it takes longer. That's not a problem.

Fourth, men who use the catechism to systematically preach the doctrines of the Word of God are following the same basic idea as those who go through books of the Bible systematically. They're being systematic about the Bible's teaching. 

Confining someone to the catechism in no way compares to confining someone to one or two particular books of the Bible, or confining someone to a subjective interpretation of the Bible. Catechism preaching is meant as an opposite to that, a preventative, a guarantee agaist it. It is also supposed to guarantee that the minister doesn't slip in giving an inadvertant slight against a Christian who is possibly in that church's congregation at that time, who holds a particular view which is different, and perhaps mutually exclusive to his, but is not disqualifying view. For example, a minister may not preach as if Postmillennialism is what the Bible teaches, possibly putting Premillennialists and Amillennialists ill at ease while worshipping God. He may not hinder true worship by anyone in any way. Being of the other views is not disqualifying. So this would be strictly out of bounds for him. Catechism preaching has the effect of not only regulating the second service, but also the first. A minister can't sysematically preach the doctrines of grace and then go off on his own tangents in the other service. 

It's a regulation which keeps a minister to the Word and to his task. But it also keeps a congregation in the Word and on their course of godliness.


----------



## JohnV

And the emphasis is on keeping the congregation in the Word and on her course to godliness and thankful living.


----------



## py3ak

JohnV said:


> I think you've got the right idea, Ruben. Especially the last paragraph (in brackets) is right on the money.
> 
> Now, let me take that as an example. Is it right what Ruben said because Ruben said it? No, of course not. We agree with him because he is saying something that strikes a truth chord in all of us. He's pointing to something that is not himself, but a truth that he himself is also willingly subject to. He's not now "the boss" in this area. He's an underling just like all the rest of us.
> 
> I hope this helps.



Oh, thanks, John, for pointing that out. I was hoping no one would notice that me being right didn't mean I was the boss: you have now cut the nerve of my bid to take over the Puritanboard, and eventually the entire Internet!


----------



## py3ak

Oh, and Richard here's a quote I found the other day that you might like.



> T.E. Watson, "Andrew Fuller's Conflict with Hypercalvinism" in Puritan Papers, v.1 (quoting from Fuller's journal).
> "O Lord God, I find myself in a world where thousands profess thy name. All profess to be searching after the truth; to have Christ and the inspired writers on their side. I am afraid lest I should be turned aside from the simplicity of the gospel. I feel my understanding full of darkness, my reason exceedingly imperfect, my will ready to start aside, and my passions strangely volatile. O illumine my understanding, teach my reason reason, my will rectitude, and let every faculty of which I am possessed be kept within the bounds of thy service.
> O let not the sleight of wicked men, who lie in wait to deceive, nor even the pious character of great men (who may yet be under great mistakes) draw me aside. Nor do thou suffer my own fancy to misguide me. Lord, thou hast given me a determination to take no principle at secondhand; but to search for everything at the pure fountain of thy word. Yet, Lord, I am afraid, seeing I am as liable to err as other men, lest I should be led aside from the truth by mine own imagination.
> I pray that I may not only be kept from erroneous principles, but may so love the truth, as never to keep it back. O Lord, if thou wilt open mine eyes to behold the wonders of thy Word, and give me to feel their comforting tendency, then shall the Lord be my god; then let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I shun to declare, to the best of my knowledge, the whole counsel of God."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnV said:


> That's how we view the Catechisms and Confessions too. It strikes a chord with all of us not because the Confessions is "the boss", but because it so elegantly and precisely summarizes that truth to which it too is a servant just like all of us. Someone might find better words, as fits the occasion. But that doesn't mean that he's trumping the Confessions. No, he's agreeing with, and willingly subjects himself to the common witness. Not the Confessions as a piece of paper printed by a Church, but because the truths live in the people of God from generation to generation through the subservient use of this piece of paper.
> 
> I hope this helps.



I think this is well put. I completely agree that a doctrine is not binding merely because the Confession says so nor that the Church's Confession of a doctrine adds to the authority of the Scriptures.

This does, however, touch on the fact of who has the ministry within the Church of teaching and nurturing the flock.


> 1 Cor 12
> 4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all....
> 
> 12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into[c] one Spirit. 14 For in fact the body is not one member but many.....
> 
> 25 that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another. 26 And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
> 
> 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually. 28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.





> Ephesians 4
> 7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8This is why it[a] says:
> "When he ascended on high,
> he led captives in his train
> and gave gifts to men."* 9(What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions[c]? 10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.*


*
Thus teachers and pastors are given to the Church to prepare God's people, build them up in knowledge, help them to strive for the unity of the faith, avoid schism, and bring them to maturity.

Insofar as they are faithful to the Word in that task they are to be regarded as authoritative - not because they are infallible in themselves but because God Himself vests them with the authority and charge to do these things in His Word.

Are men supposed to test what they receive by the Word? Certainly but it would be naive to assume that their testing is always accurate. Heretics could never be put out of the Church if it came down to us and our Bible individually. This is why the witnesses and why, eventually, the Church has to put some men out. The man has no foot to stand on with regard to individual interpretation in such instances.

Whenever these discussions come up, it's almost as if the fact that the WCF does not comport to the Scriptures is assumed. I don't even begin by assuming that so maybe that's where some get the idea that I'm ascribing authority to the Confession in itself. It's authority is derivative but, remember, teachers of the Word have come together and accurately interpreted the Word of God. This is why I submit to it because they have accurately interpreted it and not on some fide implicitum.

I, thus, can't simply turn to a teacher and say: "That's your interpretation..." when I've come to the conclusion that the teacher repsonsibly interpreted the text. I also can't be a party to the idea that "...that was just the WCF Divines' interpretation..." when I'm of the conviction that their interpretation was true and I receive the interpretation from the Church as an accurate Confession of the truths of key doctrines found in the Scriptures.

At that point, it's become more than just a "guide" or a "help" but it's what I believe the Scriptures accurately say about a doctrine. It would be like interpreting Romans 4 about Abraham's faith accurately, taking it on board, and then merely saying "that's a helpful guide to understanding justification." If it's a right interpretation then it has an oughtness to it that I can't simply say: "Well, any interpretation or summary is secondary."

In fact, such summary statements are enough to put men out of the Church and always have been. It's the favorite ploy of heretics to call the Trinity merely an interpretation of the Scriptures. The Nicene, Chalcedon, and Athanasian creeds may not be Scripture but the Church has always recognized them as containing the accurate creedal formulations of the doctrine and enough to call men heretics and put them outside the Church.*


----------



## py3ak

The only "mere" interpretation is a wrong one.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> The only "mere" interpretation is a wrong one.



Exactly.


----------



## JohnV

SemperFideles said:


> I think this is well put. I completely agree that a doctrine is not binding merely because the Confession says so nor that the Church's Confession of a doctrine adds to the authority of the Scriptures.
> 
> This does, however, touch on the fact of who has the ministry within the Church of teaching and nurturing the flock.
> 
> 
> Thus teachers and pastors are given to the Church to prepare God's people, build them up in knowledge, help them to strive for the unity of the faith, avoid schism, and bring them to maturity.
> 
> Insofar as they are faithful to the Word in that task they are to be regarded as authoritative - not because they are infallible in themselves but because God Himself vests them with the authority and charge to do these things in His Word.
> 
> Are men supposed to test what they receive by the Word? Certainly but it would be naive to assume that their testing is always accurate. Heretics could never be put out of the Church if it came down to us and our Bible individually. This is why the witnesses and why, eventually, the Church has to put some men out. The man has no foot to stand on with regard to individual interpretation in such instances.
> 
> Whenever these discussions come up, it's almost as if the fact that the WCF does _not_ comport to the Scriptures is assumed. I don't even begin by assuming that so maybe that's where some get the idea that I'm ascribing authority to the Confession in itself. It's authority is derivative but, remember, teachers of the Word have come together and accurately interpreted the Word of God. This is why I submit to it because they have accurately interpreted it and not on some fide implicitum.
> 
> I, thus, can't simply turn to a teacher and say: "That's your interpretation..." when I've come to the conclusion that the teacher repsonsibly interpreted the text. I also can't be a party to the idea that "...that was just the WCF Divines' interpretation..." when I'm of the conviction that their interpretation was true and I receive the interpretation from the Church as an accurate Confession of the truths of key doctrines found in the Scriptures.
> 
> At that point, it's become more than just a "guide" or a "help" but it's what I believe the Scriptures accurately say about a doctrine. It would be like interpreting Romans 4 about Abraham's faith accurately, taking it on board, and then merely saying "that's a helpful guide to understanding justification." If it's a right interpretation then it has an oughtness to it that I can't simply say: "Well, any interpretation or summary is secondary."
> 
> In fact, such summary statements are enough to put men out of the Church and always have been. It's the favorite ploy of heretics to call the Trinity merely an interpretation of the Scriptures. The Nicene, Chalcedon, and Athanasian creeds may not be Scripture but the Church has always recognized them as containing the accurate creedal formulations of the doctrine and enough to call men heretics and put them outside the Church.



I had to read this twice, Rich. It's so well thought out and written.


----------



## VictorBravo

Well, I finally got around to reading the article referenced in the opening post. It seems one thing got lost in the whole discussion. The catechism preaching is done in a second service. 

I just don't see the problem. Our church has an early service that is devoted to teaching. We spent years on the London Confession, comparing it to the Westminster and Savoy, reviewing the history, working through the whole thing as a systematic theology. It falls under the rubric of teaching. The elders have cleverly called this service a "class", but we open with prayer, sing a psalm or two, and remain in good order.

Our main service contains exegetical preaching from scripture.

So, we have "preaching" that is teaching on a man-written document that points to scripture and requires analysis. Isn't this part of what an elder should do? We also have regularly appointed corporate worship that presents the Word of God.

I'd like an answer to Fred's question too, perhaps with clarification. Does the Dutch tradition require preaching the catechism, or, instead, does it require teaching the catechism as a separate function from regular preaching?


----------



## fredtgreco

victorbravo said:


> Well, I finally got around to reading the article referenced in the opening post. It seems one thing got lost in the whole discussion. The catechism preaching is done in a second service.
> 
> I just don't see the problem. Our church has an early service that is devoted to teaching. We spent years on the London Confession, comparing it to the Westminster and Savoy, reviewing the history, working through the whole thing as a systematic theology. It falls under the rubric of teaching. The elders have cleverly called this service a "class", but we open with prayer, sing a psalm or two, and remain in good order.
> 
> Our main service contains exegetical preaching from scripture.
> 
> So, we have "preaching" that is teaching on a man-written document that points to scripture and requires analysis. Isn't this part of what an elder should do? We also have regularly appointed corporate worship that presents the Word of God.
> 
> I'd like an answer to Fred's question too, perhaps with clarification. Does the Dutch tradition require preaching the catechism, or, instead, does it require teaching the catechism as a separate function from regular preaching?



Vic,

No one has still answered my questions, but the thread has become sidetracked on the issue of whether creeds and confessions have authority (which neither I nor Dabney would dispute).

Two other issues:

1. Preaching, Biblically speaking, is distinct from teaching. Preaching the Word of God is a means of grace that is different from teaching Biblical truths.

2. There is a significant difference between a corporate worship service and a "class." A few hymns and a prayer do not make a worship service. The most fundamental difference is that a corporate worship service is mandatory for members of a congregation. A class is not.


----------



## VictorBravo

fredtgreco said:


> Vic,
> 
> No one has still answered my questions, but the thread has become sidetracked on the issue of whether creeds and confessions have authority (which neither I nor Dabney would dispute).
> 
> Two other issues:
> 
> 1. Preaching, Biblically speaking, is distinct from teaching. Preaching the Word of God is a means of grace that is different from teaching Biblical truths.
> 
> 2. There is a significant difference between a corporate worship service and a "class." A few hymns and a prayer do not make a worship service. The most fundamental difference is that a corporate worship service is mandatory for members of a congregation. A class is not.



That's my understanding too. Thanks.

(Edited to add):

To clarify, my understanding about the difference between a class and corporate worship is the same as Fred's. I'm wondering if the Dutch tradition is in fact doing the same thing, having a class and also having separate corporate worship, but using the word "preaching" for both. If that is the case, it is really more a matter of the definition of preaching vs. teaching rather than the use of the catechisms.


----------



## dannyhyde

fredtgreco said:


> Is not any form of "required" preaching a violation of the office of minister? I was unaware that the URCNA compelled its ministers to preach on the catechism (I may be wrong here - please correct me). I could not minister in that context, regardless of the merits (or not) of catechical preaching; any more than I could be compelled by a BCO to preach only from the NT, or Genesis, or any specific text.



Sorry for missing your question, Fred. The original church order of the Synod of Dort says:

_The Ministers everywhere shall briefly explain on Sunday, ordinarily?in the afternoon sermon, the sum of Christian doctrine comprehended in?the Catechism which at present is accepted in the Netherland Churches,?so that it may be completed every year in accordance with the devision?of the Catechism itself made for that purpose. (Art. 68)_

Among the many sources of this article in our historic Church Order is the Ecclesiastical Ordinances of Geneva (1541), which required three services per Lord's Day, morning, noon catechism, and afternoon. Typically Calvin preached the Gospels in the morning and Old Testament books in the afternoon.

The Church Order of the URCNA follows this in saying:

_At one of the services each Lord's Day, the minister shall ordinarily preach the Word as summarized in the Three Forms of Unity, with special attention given to the Heidelberg Catechism by treating its Lord's Days in sequence. (Art. 40)_

The differences are the inclusion of "ordinarily," of the language of "the Three Forms of Unity," and not just the Catechism, as well as the language that this preaching is "preach[ing] the Word" as it is summarized in the confessions.

Also, it is not accurate to say that "the URCNA compels" ministers to do this. Our understanding of church polity as it relates to the Church Order is found in the introduction to our CO, which says in part:

_The churches of the federation, although distinct, *voluntarily display their unity by means of a common confession and church order*. This is expressed as they cooperate and exercise mutual concern for one another. Since we desire to honor the apostolic command that in the churches all things are to be done decently and in good order (1 Cor. 14:40), we order our ecclesiastical relations and activities in the following articles covered under the following divisions:_

As one writer has said, we are "bound, yet free" as churches in covenant together.


----------



## Calvibaptist

dannyhyde said:


> Among the many sources of this article in our historic Church Order is the Ecclesiastical Ordinances of Geneva (1541), which required three services per Lord's Day, morning, noon catechism, and afternoon. Typically Calvin preached the Gospels in the morning and Old Testament books in the afternoon.



So, would this be similar to what Baptist churches (particularly in the South) have done for years by having a morning worship service, afternoon training class and then an evening service?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

JohnV said:


> I had to read this twice, Rich. It's so well thought out and written.


Thank you John. I've appreciated this interaction.



dannyhyde said:


> Among the many sources of this article in our historic Church Order is the Ecclesiastical Ordinances of Geneva (1541), which required three services per Lord's Day, morning, noon catechism, and afternoon. Typically Calvin preached the Gospels in the morning and Old Testament books in the afternoon.
> 
> The Church Order of the URCNA follows this in saying:
> 
> _At one of the services each Lord's Day, the minister shall ordinarily preach the Word as summarized in the Three Forms of Unity, with special attention given to the Heidelberg Catechism by treating its Lord's Days in sequence. (Art. 40)_
> 
> ...Also, it is not accurate to say that "the URCNA compels" ministers to do this...
> 
> As one writer has said, we are "bound, yet free" as churches in covenant together.


Rev. Hyde,

Thank you for elaborating on this. I want to personally apologize if it feels like I sidetracked your thread. I normally like to help keep the discussions pretty tight here but, even on a Reformed discussion board, it bears repeating why Confessions are important. I do hope that the fact that they are secondary does not dimiish their great importance to the Church.

Your latest post caused something to dawn on me.

The interesting thing that is lost on most of the Presbyterians who are condemning the practice is a great neglect that I've seen in nearly every PCA and OPC I have ever attended: adult catechism.

It seems that, as long as you're not calling this a stated worship event and calling it preaching, the discussion would then have to be focused back on the issue of why the Dutch Reformed in the URC seem to take adult catechism much more seriously than Presbyterians do - at least in the way they organize their Sundays.

Richard Baxter, in _The Reformed Pastor_, makes a solid observation about how many assume that, just because a man hears sermons week in and week out that he is being instructed (or understands) the basics of the Christian faith. It's not until he started meeting with them and taking them aside that he realized this was not the case.

I remember when I first joined the OPC in 1999 that there was a couple that kept struggling over the Pastor's sermons. They thought they weren't useful (too Redemptive Historical) while others thought his sermons gave too much Law (too many imperatives - they loved Lee Iron's ways).

I remember interacting with them and noting their basic theological ignorance of some doctrines. The Pastor was addressing their needs but they couldn't understand how he was because they needed to be catechized so they could understand the language better and get a broader context for what he was preaching.

Even though we had regular adult catechism, it was pretty scattered - a series on parenting here or Church government there. In fact, the Church had started out going over the WCF but then quit on it because the congregation were complaining that it wasn't practical enough.

When I moved to VA and joined a PCA Church, the situation was much worse. There were men and women giving testimony and would say things that were rank Arminian in their understanding. The elder's class I took was so cursory and quick that there was only enough time to practically read what the Confession said with little interaction. The Sunday School was interesting and sometimes very scholarly but about 5% of the Church attended and it was very topical and quick.

I then started teaching the Junior High boys. I've taught children of all ages for several years and I always jettison the GCP curricula because I don't think it's very good and, frankly, nobody ever knows the catechism which is ready-made curriculum. To my dismay, only one in 12 boys were even remotely familiar with the Westminster Shorter Catechism. The adult I had helping me was not even able to help me teach as he was learning alongside the kids. Teaching through that is a commitment and I had to PCS before I could even get to question 40. I always leave such teaching experiences a bit depressed because theres little tenacity as a Church to train in the Catechisms.

The Church had "home groups" but the leaders of those groups, including (sadly) a few of the Elders, were only scarcely familiar with the Confessions or Reformed theology more broadly. Except for the sign on the Church that said it was a PCA Church, the instruction might resemble any other broadly evangelical Church.

I lamented to the Elders on this fact and mentioned that they really ought to try and create more classes where adults are catechized so they can, in turn, be training their own children but such ideas are increasingly foreign in many Reformed Churches.

And so we come to what you wrote above and, for my part, I'm very happy to see a Church that takes the catechizing of its members seriously. Many Presbyterians on this board attend two worship services a day. Others do not. I think the reason that Calvin and other Reformed insisted on catechizing regularly was wise beyond what many here are recognizing. Even if some may disagree with the actual catechizing while the element of preaching is occuring in a stated worship service, they ought to at least be shamed into thinking more seriously as large denominations as to why our Churches continue to ignore their responsibility to catechize their members.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Matthew Henry, _A Sermon Concerning the Catechising of Youth_:



> Catechizing does to the preaching of the word the same good office that John the Baptist did to our Saviour; it prepares the way, and makes its paths straight, and yet like him does but say the same things.


----------



## bookslover

SemperFideles said:


> Richard Baxter, in _The Reformed Pastor_, makes a solid observation about how many assume that, just because a man hears sermons week in and week out that he is being instructed (or understands) the basics of the Christian faith. It's not until he started meeting with them and taking them aside that he realized this was not the case.



In another place in his writings, Baxter put it another way: he said that he started catechizing because he realized that his sermons ("...and now, 17thly...") were over most of his people's heads. Apparently, it never occurred to him to simplify and shorten his sermons.


----------



## Calvibaptist

raderag said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even the WCF speaks of the Holy Spirit "speaking through the Scriptures." It is the Scriptures _themselves_ that must be preached.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough, but how does using the standards take away from the language, narratives, etc? Would you allow for a preacher to use an extra-biblical analogy in demonstrating a point of scripture? See what I'm driving at?
Click to expand...


You two are speaking past each other rather than to each other. Neither one of you is suggesting that you step to the pulpit, close the Bible and open up the WCF or the Catechism so you can exegete the catechism.

One of you is suggesting that you preach through a book of the Bible and, when the WCF or Catechism speaks to what is in that text, you use it to illustrate. The other is suggesting that you preach a theological sermon using the Scriptures as the authority and the WCF or Catechism as the summation of what those Scriptures teach. Basically it is the same thing.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

bookslover said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Baxter, in _The Reformed Pastor_, makes a solid observation about how many assume that, just because a man hears sermons week in and week out that he is being instructed (or understands) the basics of the Christian faith. It's not until he started meeting with them and taking them aside that he realized this was not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In another place in his writings, Baxter put it another way: he said that he started catechizing because he realized that his sermons ("...and now, 17thly...") were over most of his people's heads. Apparently, it never occurred to him to simplify and shorten his sermons.
Click to expand...


That too is important but it doesn't solve the problem. There is a place for the Preaching of the Word that is distinct from catechesis. Doing the former well once a week does not suffice to also fulfill the latter requirement.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> In another place in his writings, Baxter put it another way: he said that he started catechizing because he realized that his sermons ("...and now, 17thly...") were over most of his people's heads. Apparently, it never occurred to him to simplify and shorten his sermons.



That would be one way of alleviating oneself of the duty to carry on the ministry from house to house as well as in public -- just perform the public ministry like you were in someone's house. But I doubt Mr. Baxter's conscience could have managed to excuse it.


----------



## bookslover

py3ak said:


> Oh, and Richard here's a quote I found the other day that you might like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.E. Watson, "Andrew Fuller's Conflict with Hypercalvinism" in Puritan Papers, v.1 (quoting from Fuller's journal).
> "O Lord God, I find myself in a world where thousands profess thy name. All profess to be searching after the truth; to have Christ and the inspired writers on their side. I am afraid lest I should be turned aside from the simplicity of the gospel. I feel my understanding full of darkness, my reason exceedingly imperfect, my will ready to start aside, and my passions strangely volatile. O illumine my understanding, teach my reason reason, my will rectitude, and let every faculty of which I am possessed be kept within the bounds of thy service.
> O let not the sleight of wicked men, who lie in wait to deceive, nor even the pious character of great men (who may yet be under great mistakes) draw me aside. Nor do thou suffer my own fancy to misguide me. Lord, thou hast given me a determination to take no principle at secondhand; but to search for everything at the pure fountain of thy word. Yet, Lord, I am afraid, seeing I am as liable to err as other men, lest I should be led aside from the truth by mine own imagination.
> I pray that I may not only be kept from erroneous principles, but may so love the truth, as never to keep it back. O Lord, if thou wilt open mine eyes to behold the wonders of thy Word, and give me to feel their comforting tendency, then shall the Lord be my god; then let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I shun to declare, to the best of my knowledge, the whole counsel of God."
Click to expand...


Yes, an excellent quotation. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## py3ak

Well, Adam said he would be back on line today, so maybe we can pick this back up.


----------

